Comments on: What’s So Great About Passive Candidates?

By: pat omalley

pat omalley — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:56:04 +0000

Good article.

Another idea is to look for candidates that have just joined LinkedIn. They may have just joined because now they may be passively looking for a job.

This is something that you can do with Advanced Search, but very few people realize it.

I actually have a blog entry that describes it at

http://www.the-linkedin-speaker.com/blog/2009/03/09/linkedin-training-tip-for-hr-and-recruiters-%e2%80%93-a-clever-talent-management-technique/

Thanks,
Pat O’Malley

By: Recruiting Myths: Good People Don’t Look for Jobs in a Recession « The Staffing Advisor

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 07:01:19 +0000

[...] wisdom – but Ronald Katz already did a brilliant job of eviscerating it in his post “What’s So Great About Passive Candidates.” (For balance, be sure to read the comments - the people who disagreed with him also [...]

By: Steve Gilbert

Steve Gilbert — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:07:26 +0000

Good points and well written. I’ve often felt the same way.
We’ve all been active and passive candidates throughout different points in our careers, right? I think the strongest point in this article is “What difference does it make if they are unemployed if they’ve got what your organization needs!”

I strongly believe that a company, corporate recruiter, or hiring manager must engage both types of candidates. Pull Active Candidates in by job postings, etc while also pushing the opportunity out to passive candidates via direct recruiting.

After 9 years of recruiting passive candidates I can say that there are a few advantages to engaging passive candidates.

1. They tell you what they want and what they feel are their true strengths (as opposed to what they think you want to hear) and you can therefore get an accurate initial motivational fit. Active candidates usually know what you’re looking for (by reading your job posting) and may architect their answers to fit the role.
2. Your opportunity is likely to be the only one they are considering if they are truly a passive candidate.

I’d like to propose a new way to frame our discussion of ACTIVE vs PASSIVE candidates. Perhaps we should define the two types as “Know you’re hiring” vs “Don’t know you’re hiring.” There could be a wonderful candidate out there who is perfect for your opportunity but if they don’t know you’re hiring then IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THEY’RE ACTIVE OR PASSIVE does it?

Thanks. Great article.
Steve
steve.gilbert@passivecast.com

By: Kelly Magowan

Kelly Magowan — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:01:56 +0000

Hi Ronald,
It is great to read a balanced and logical article around the topic of active versus passive talent. As you have illustrated it should not even be a point of contention. The focus should be purely on identifying and sourcing talent and leave it at that. There is enough boxing, matching, segmentation, discrimination and so on that occurs in the recruitment process without adding to it.
Regards,
Kelly Magowan
Six Figures, http://www.sixfigures.com.au, the Executive Job Site

By: Yasser Ismail

Yasser Ismail — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:27:01 +0000

Great article. Kudos!

Yasser
http://www.jobstaxi.com

By: Bob Gately

Bob Gately — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:00:10 +0000

The word talent is used frequently when discussing passive and active candidates yet few people define talent or how to measure talent. Hiring managers that measure talent know that an active candidate is just as likely to have the requisite talent as a passive candidate which means their pool of applicants is much larger than passive candidates only.

How do we define talent?

How do we measure talent?

How do we know a candidate’s talent?

How do we know what talent is required by each job?

How do we match a candidate’s talent to the talent demanded by the job to be filled?

Managers who hire for talent know the answers.

bobgately@verizon.net

By: Steve Jones

Steve Jones — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:03:48 +0000

Ron, great article – one that my peers adamantly disagree with me on. Personally, having frequently been associated with volume hiring, I’ve always entertained the active candidate as well as the passive candidate. Yesterday was the day I was concerned with finding that right mix. Today, I can accomplish more in less time, without sacrificing quality, by spreading the word and letting the active candidates come to me.

There are now 10.3 million US workers unemployed (bls.gov) with many more to come.

The rules have changed. The business savvy and proactive candidates are looking and will find you if you know where to get the word out and to whom.

I could talk more on this, but we’ll save that for another day. Email recruiter.steve@gmail.com for continued discussion.

By: Jim Urbaniak

Jim Urbaniak — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:44:07 +0000

-Very well written, very well said! Dismissing active job seekers out of hand is limiting, short-sighted and just foolish. There are often very solid reasons for a job seeker to be active and especially during these difficult economic times, it may be truer than ever. I fall into this group at present, though I’ve never previously been unemployed in my adult career, recently moved for a job that fell through because of the economic decline, and have a stellar career reputation and experience. By the same token, making the sweeping assumption that passive candidates are always the best choice is by no means a guarantee of top talent. While a passive candidate may jump ship for the right fit and a wonderful match may be made, a passive candidate may just as easily reflect an individual who is not resilient to change, would not mesh well in another company’s culture or have other potentially negative motivations for being passive. In all my years as a third party and corporate recruiter, I have believed firmly in taking a 360 degree view of the candidate pool to assess where the best talent is and this has rewarded me in great placements time and time again.

By: Lindsay Thompson

Lindsay Thompson — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:24:36 +0000

Very interesting piece, Ron. Both active and passive candidates can be great or awful, and what is needed is a fast, cheap, safe and convenient way to find out which side of that equation they’re on. Remote interviewing, like what GreenJobInterview.com offers, allows passive candidates to stay home and not miss work while you find out if they’re good or just cautious. And the good active candidates can be differentiated from the ones that aren’t employed because they’re not employable. This kind of remote video interviewing enables real conversation (not those practiced answers to canned questions) and totally streamlines the interview process while you help cut costs and save time.

By: Jim Shaw

Jim Shaw — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:18:20 +0000

If a recruiter calls me today while I’m working, I’m a great candidate because I’m passive. If I put my resume on Monster tonight, I’m a poor active candidate. I’ve never understood this. Active or passive has nothing to do with whether a person is qualified.

By: Lina Henson

Lina Henson — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:08:04 +0000

I can only speak for myself, but I don’t necessarily think “employed is better”. As a past department manager, I had awful employees who I had a hard time shedding. What I do think is that our clients are smart enough to log on to monster or computerjobs or dice or the ladders and look at the talent for themselves. Why would they pay us a fee to bring them candidates that they can find on their own? I know there are a lot of Boomers unexpectedly in the job market and I know there are a lot of active job seekers as well due to current layoffs. Those two qualifications do not make them the most talented candidates either. Of course I don’t toss out the resumes of active job seekers who contact me. That would be irresponsible as well as stupid; however, I do conduct a search for passive candidates as well. Most people who responded seemed to be on one side or the other: active or passive. I am on the side of my client: BEST TALENT POSSIBLE. I will use whatever source I can to get that talent.

By: Ronald Katz

Ronald Katz — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:04:52 +0000

Thank you all for your comments, praise and insights on my article. Happy to have inspired such a rich dialogue.

I’d like to share a closing thought from a colleague who saw my article. Here’s his experience:
“After passing on several offers from a contract recruiter in early 2008 , she contacted me again in July. This time I really needed to do something else and so was interested. I’m virtually certain that if I had shown any interest in the earlier assignments, she would not have considered me for what has turned out to be a great assignment. I think I became a sales challenge and so the assignments became more interesting and financially rewarding. Whatever it was, the recruiter was persistent and did eventually make the sale.”

I know that many of us who subscribe and read ERE do not fall into the mold of the typical recruiter, but as you can see, evidenced by my friend’s story, there are still lots of others out there waiting/needing to be enlightened. Let’s keep advancing the profession! Ron

By: Henry Butler

Henry Butler — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:18:16 +0000

Great article. I’m a bit confused about whether I’m an active or passive candidate. I’m currently in a position that I enjoy very much and I’ve been in this position for almost 5 years. Well, my wife’s company will be transferring her to Houston, TX next year and I’ll one of those passive/active candidates out there looking for a job. It’s good to know that there are recruiters/employers out there are not just looking for the “employed but open to new opportunities” candidate.

By: HRM Today - Blog Archive » He’s just not that into you

HRM Today - Blog Archive » He’s just not that into you — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:57:53 +0000

[...] then you explain to me, how this disease, once the domain of teenagers and future Oprah guests, has spread to corporate America. You know what I’m talking about, the “passive candidate”. It’s the only kind of candidate [...]

By: Jean Evans

Jean Evans — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:02:13 +0000

Right on, Ron. It’s hard for me to understand why many so-called “professional recruiters” still hang on to the “passive is better” myth despite all the evidence to the contrary. During my 18 years as a recruiter, the best hires I have made have been “active” candidates. In my mind, one of the most valuable features of a great candidate is his or her sky-high degree of desire to do a great job. An active candidate ardently demonstrates this desire.

By: Stephen Shearman

Stephen Shearman — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:51:05 +0000

Ronald,
Thanks for your thought provoking article. It’s refreshing to hear/read different views from the normal mantra about “active vs. passive”.
As a corporate Recruiter/Sourcer I have heard it over and over from the experts: passive is quality, passive are the best, lower turnover with passive, etc, etc. I initially battled with the debate until I came to realize that not every employer needs “the best in the industry”. It is all relative. It boils down to what my employer, customer or client wants. For me, eliminating these external expectations, restrictions and definition of “passive” or “active” was liberating.
In the book by Edward Lawler titled “Talent; making people your competitive advantage”, Lawler succinctly wrote that not every company requires “the best” talent to create a competitive advantage in the marketplace. A company’s “competitive advantage” might be their unique product or service; not their people. Maybe, because of the industry, only 200 of their 1200 employees are real difference makers to the corporation. In that case, these 200 positions might be allocated the resources (above average salary, top in the industry benefits, etc) to find “the best talent” and the other 1200 positions -“qualified” will do fine. Having “the best talent” might not be an economic priority for all companies. It might not be part of their business model, industry or fit their margins. He gives an illustration to make the larger point; ‘does having ‘the best talent’ for a Wal-Mart greeter make sense for Wal-Mart?’ No.
Companies choose where to create their competitive advantage, and it might not be their employees or all their employees. Finding and hiring just “qualified” candidates might meet the company expectations just fine. It doesn’t make the company good or bad, better or the best.
I have learned that for me, knowing and meeting my customer’s quality expectations for each requisition is my standard. Not every client requires “the top talent” to succeed.
Thanks. Good article.
stephen.shearman@tyson.com

By: Joshua Letourneau

Joshua Letourneau — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:41:48 +0000

The sweeping generalization that Passive candidates are ‘always’ superior to Active candidates is a myth pushed forward by Executive Search firms to protect the money stream. I know because I’m an Executive Recruiter myself. I’ve been to the sales seminars; I know the worn out tag lines about “Great People”.

It’s not the actual Passive candidate that is superior – rather, it’s the Passive candidate search process that is superior. This is simply because it involves moving beyond active applicants. If there is a super candidate that submits to a job posting, then consider yourself fortunate and move on it quickly – as you know, it normally doesn’t work that way. Keep in mind that when it comes to active candidates, time is of the essence.

Every time I present to a Client (or prospective Client), I find myself explaining that our firm only wants to work roles that are critical or pivotal to the organization’s success. If the roles we’re asked to work are not, then not only is the fill probability low, but so is the value that we’re creating. Ultimately, not all roles are critical or pivotal – in other words, not all roles require the same search strategy. If it’s a non-critical role, first try a job board. If that doesn’t work, then call the Big-Box Publicly Traded Candidate-Grinders. They specialize in a volume environment where they’re shuffling candidates around to multiple employers in an effort to maximize the fee or make a quick deal. Since they work so many like-jobs, there is no client exclusivity and frankly, it’s an easy way to make a quick & cheap hire at 15% to 20%. Now, if the role is critical, work exclusively with 1 to 2 boutique firms that specialize in that given area. Don’t take your chances when it comes to those roles that most correlate to stock price, new product development, or creation of competitive advantage.

Organizations would be well-served to not consider all open opportunities through the same process lens. Marketing and Finance have taught Talent Acquisition that portfolio theory is superior to a “One size fits all” mantra.

Lay all your roles on a matrix and work to identify which are truly important – Do all you can to economically quantify this importance. When we view each job family or role in mutually exclusive fashion, we are thinking like true business people. This is how we begin to justify a meaningful “seat at the executive table”.

By: Desctructive Recruiter Myths - Passive Candidates - Job Search News

Desctructive Recruiter Myths - Passive Candidates - Job Search News — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:55:37 +0000

[...] Katz’s article is “What’s So Great About Passive Candidates?“ Read it and the responses and understand the marketplace you are facing. [...]

By: Amanda Blazo

Amanda Blazo — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:30:15 +0000

I would say that a passive candidate is simply someone who is not currently seeking a new position. An active candidate is one who is currently seeking a new position. They could post a resume on Monster or post a note on a profile of a social networking site or just email their “friends and associates network” to let them know they are looking.

Passive candidates are harder to find, take longer to develop a relationship with and longer to find that perfect opportunity. But when you do find it for them they are more likely to stay in the new opportunity.

I would also say that branding and marketing of your organization can be just as important as knowing how to search for candidates. How great would it be if the candidates could find you, learn about you and understand exactly what you are looking for, then apply for positions you have posted? Much lower cost and much more effective way to find candidates.

Anyway, passive candidates are what third party recruiters try to find because their client companies can easily find the active candidates themselves. No need to spend time duplicating efforts that your client won’t find valuable.

By: Keith Halperin

Keith Halperin — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:02:07 +0000

Though I find Ron’s tone unpleasant, I agree with the argument he makes: with a few exceptions, unless we are able to recruit the way he suggests and provide high value-add services, we will be replaced by people doing the other types of recruiting services (e.g., internet sourcing and “board scraping”) who cost no more than about $2-3k/month (and some of us will be providing the people who do those services).

Cheers,
Keith keithsrj@sbcglobal.net 415.586.8265

“In the 21st century, everything changes and you gotta be ready!”
- Captain Jack Harkness
…………………………………………………

Ron Tarver Dec 9, 2008 at 10:32 am
Sorry. This article is thoughtlessly shallow (or at least only partially right) and overlooks one of the main disadvantages of actively-looking candidates–the fact that the candidate can be easily found by the client and that the internet trainers will show them howe. At bottom, clients pay real recruiters to do what thet cannot do. That is, to find highly qualified people that can be secured in NO other way.

When I learned how to GENUINELY recruit(through Steven Finkel’s terrific DVDs on the subject, “The Art of Recruiting” and “Book More Business”,though Larry Nobles’ book is also good), I no longer heard “we’ve already got that candidate” and “you’re the third recruiters who’s called me on him”. I quit getting turndowns due to other opportunties the candidate was looking at.I increased my production enormously!

If you liked the old classified ad responses, you’ll love the internet boards.I’m sure the clients do. REAL recruiters..recruit! And make much more money doing so.