Why calling them “passive candidates” or “passive job seekers” is misleading
Using the term “passive candidate” is just wrong for so many reasons. First, these recruiting targets haven’t applied for anything, so they can’t be classified as candidates (the correct name for those who have not applied is prospects). Calling them “passive job seekers” is equally inaccurate because they are not in fact currently seeking a job. And finally, they can’t accurately be called “passive” because they are definitely not passive individuals. In fact they are frequently bold and aggressive individuals while on the job.
The only thing that these prospects are passive about is looking for a new job. First, they are disinterested because they already have a job. In addition, because they are also top performers, they are likely to have a good manager and to be treated well, which means they have no business reason to look for a new job outside their current firm.
Once you understand the proper name to call them, you still have a major problem because “not-looking top prospects” can simply never be reached through normal recruiting channels (because almost all of these approaches are designed for prospects who are “actively” looking for a job). There are four key realizations that recruiting leaders must accept if they expect to have any real chance to land these highly desirable “not-looking top prospects.” The realizations include:
Realization #1 — “Not-looking top prospects” are the most valuable hires by far
Top prospects by definition are also top performers. These top prospects fall in the top 10 percent of all employees at a firm on their performance scale. In addition, they are classified as “top prospects” because they are also innovators, leaders, rapid learners, or they also possess “future skills” (which are skills that will be desperately needed within 12 to 18 months). But they have another added value, which is because they work at a competitor, when you hire them, your firm will get significantly better while simultaneously your competitor will become weaker. They are also likely to bring with them current best practices and ideas from your product competitors. And finally, these top prospects will add more value because they are so well-known that they will act as “a talent magnet.” Their hiring which will cause three to five other valuable employees to follow them to your firm.
Realization #2 — The very best professionals are already employed
It’s not politically correct to say this but that doesn’t make it less true: the very best performers in any industry or function are almost always currently employed at another company. If you need an example, consider professional football. What are the odds of a coach finding a single top-performing exceptional player who isn’t already signed up with some NFL team during mid-season? Can you even imagine a top performer like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Aaron Rogers not being on a team during mid-season, if they weren’t hurt or retired? Of course there are always some good players and employees who are unemployed, but the percentage of top performers in that unemployed group is low and it is even smaller during low unemployment times.
Remember that a focus on recruiting not-looking prospects will not in any way limit your ability to get unemployed people. This is because most unemployed people, including top performers, are extremely active jobseekers who will find you anyway through your job postings and other active recruiting approaches.
Realization #3 — Be careful, 20 percent of the employed are “not-looking” for the wrong reasons
We’ve established that the best recruiting targets are likely to be currently employed. However, by definition, only around 10 percent of all employed people can be classified as top performers (i.e. the top 10 percent). That means that the remaining 90 percent of employees are not top performers. Be careful, because among that remaining group of employees are the 20 percent of a firm’s employees at the bottom of the performance scale. These “bottom 20 percent” are also likely to be not-looking for another job. They also fall under the “not-looking” category because they either don’t have the drive or initiative to look for another job outside the firm, or their performance is so low, that after trying numerous times, they have simply given up and stopped searching for a job.
Don’t fall into the trap of trying to recruit any prospect who is not looking, because some may actually be passive for the wrong reasons. But instead limit your recruiting to the top-performing employed prospects who are not-looking because their high-value results in them being treated well. I called these prime recruiting targets “not-looking top prospects.”
Realization #4 — Don’t worry about recruiting above average to average employed people; they will find you
Don’t worry if you want to recruit the employees who fall between the 90 percent and the 20 percent performance level. This above average to average group is probably not treated exceptionally well (because of their okay performance) and they are not targeted by the best recruiters. So when they decide to look for another job, they fall into the category of active jobseekers who will find you if you simply post an open job.
If you are unsure whether someone who you have in your target prospect list is not looking, don’t fret. Not-looking top prospects have several job-search-related factors in common:
By using the wrong terminology, you can cause hiring managers and recruiters to misunderstand what must be done in order to successfully identify and recruit what should be referred to as “not-looking top prospects.” But once the terminology is corrected, everyone should realize the value of these top prospects, and how to determine the best approach to source them. Next week on 2/16/15, I will publish a second related article on ERE.net covering those sources entitled: “The Best Sources For Identifying ‘Passives’ … or How to Find ‘Not-Looking Top Prospects.’”
