We all strive to go after the "passive" candidate. That person, who is happily and productively employed already, isn't interested in leaving his/her current employer. The rationale is that the passive candidate is obviously a valuable asset where they are. The more effort it takes us to convince them to consider and pursue *our* opportunity, the better and more motivated they will be to work as hard and loyally for us as they did for the company we lured them from.

 I would put to you that in this troubled economy, the passive candidate may not be the most desirable candidate right now.

First off, many people are very cautious about making any changes right now. Security is a huge draw. I would say that the Herculean effort it may take to pry that candidate from his/her current position might far outweigh the eventual perceived success in securing an acceptance from him/her.  

Second, if you are working for a company that provides relocation, you may find that the cost of providing relocation is much higher than in previous eras. With the housing market the way it is, many established homeowners would take huge hits in equity by trying to sell their homes and move. It is also worth noting that most of the relatively healthy economies in the US right now are in areas with a much higher cost of living than the areas people may be willing to abandon.  

On a third note, I would posit that the reasons certain employees have retained their positions during layoffs may be less about what a stellar job they are doing than from necessity. They may not know that or see it that way, but from an HR standpoint, if a business is going to continue to move forward and hope to weather the economic crisis we are facing, there needs to be at least some sort of skeleton crew. Let's face it, HR folks are going to pick the people that cost the least or are vital to the success of the business. In my experience, the "rock stars" aren't necessarily the folks that are so essential to success that they are the only person with the skills or legacy knowledge to keep the project up and running AND they also tend to be the folks that are the most highly compensated, be it bonuses or salary.

 Finally, while "low hanging fruit" may be scorned in general for recruiting purposes, I've seen some darn good resumes on Monster lately. Some of them are unemployed, but a large portion of them are *worried* about job security. They are no longer passive candidates, but they are trying to put themselves in a better position. Maybe they are reading the writing on the wall, maybe they are taking advantage of the fact that only fairly successful businesses are hiring right now. A fair number of the resumes I have seen are from foreign nationals with H1-B's that would need to be ported. In my opinion, that makes them better investments in the long run. They have more to lose if they aren't dependable and steady performers, and they are obviously employable if they have been consulting or working for other US employers. The H1-B process itself can be said to (arguably) act as a skill screening process.  

So, I ask you, is the passive candidate now necessarily the *best* candidate to pursue?