There are no such things as active or passive candidates in the recruitment market, there are only good candidates and the rest. OK, I know that at any one time there are people out there who are actively scouring the market for a new job, and many more who are not. But the point is that this is a candidate perspective, not a recruiter one. Where recruiters can go wrong is in looking for sources of new candidates who are not looking for a new role or may be unavailable to their competitors, i.e 'passive candidates', but can still be delivered to them as if they were 'active'.
I can understand the problem. I worked for an exec-level job board where much of our early growth came from companies looking to us as a different candidate pool. They and all their competitors used the same job boards and came up with the same candidates for the same jobs, for which of course they were all in competition. If we were successful for one agency, it was not long before the competition turned up in force. Good for us, but the same problem for the recruiter.
But looking for active or passive candidates is missing the point. And it's lazy recruiting practice. Recruiters get paid to find the right candidate. Sometimes it will be possible to find the right candidates from a job posting, as at any one time some, but by no means all of the most eligible candidates will be looking to change jobs. But to be consistently identifying the best available candidates means getting of your butt and approaching the people your client would want you to be talking to. You cannot expect a 'passive' candidate to come to you. To find the right candidate you need more than one string to your sourcing bow, and with the wealth of information online there has never been an easier time to do this. Recruiters - get out there and engage!
Comment by Slouch on June 23, 2011 at 1:41pm
Comment by bill josephson on June 23, 2011 at 1:48pm
Comment by Paul Alfred on June 23, 2011 at 4:26pm Whether a candidate is passive or active is irrelevant. It's simply a matter of timing. Just because someone is passive, doesn't mean they are are better than someone who is active...I've often found the opposite to be true. When you recruit, you have to hit it from all cylinders, cast a wide net, sometimes the best candidate is also an active candidate who responds to a posting, but something in your very well written ad struck a cord with them and converted them from passive to active.
Frankly, to dismiss any source of candidates, job boards, postings, referrals, whatever, is to potentially miss out on the best person for your job. Just because your client has access to job boards for instance, doesn't mean they have the time or inclination to use them. To automatically cross that resource off your list is to potentially miss out on placements.
If you do it all, cold call recruit, post, search paid databases, generate referrals, etc, you'll likely land a great candidate for the search and it could come from anywhere.
Comment by bill josephson on June 23, 2011 at 7:28pm If your clients don't mind you finding candidates on job boards not being a duplication of their efforts--go for it.
My clients work with me knowing I'll find candidates they wouldn't have had access to, confident they won't have them in their database, plus justifies my asking for and getting a higher fee than their fee schedule terms
Comment by Paul Alfred on June 23, 2011 at 10:38pm Referals work! I never let a candidate walk away from an interview without refering me to at least one person. I always ask "I'm going to help you and in return I want you to help me. Give me the name of one person you admire and look up to". I agree with the author. There is no such thing as an active or passive candidate. They could be passive today and active tomorrow or in a years time. There are also no short cuts to finding them.
Comment by Ben on June 24, 2011 at 4:03am I’ve got to agree with you Sandra, which leads to a new title not mentioned on this thread yet. If going with the premise that everyone has a price - whether it is financial, promotional, lifestyle change etc. Then it could be argued there is no such thing as a truly "passive" candidate. A "semi-passive" candidate yes but a truly "passive" one? I’ve never met one yet. Who out there wouldn’t change roles if it meant increased remuneration, improved career prospects and matching / improved work-life balance etc. If a role came along that offered even the most loyal and stable employee an opportunity that would significantly improve the lifestyles of themselves and their family then I’m sure they’d entertain it.
So there you go folks. Another title to mull over. As if there weren't enough labels out there already!
Added by Lisa Zee on June 13, 2013
Added by Rebecca B. Sargeant on June 18, 2013
© 2013 Created by RecruitingBlogs.
Powered by
RecruitingBlogs.com was founded in 2007 and is the social network for recruiters and HR professionals with over 35,000 members and over 21,000 blog posts and forum discussions. Its global online network provides recruiters with a forum to share, interact and collaborate with one another.



You need to be a member of RecruitingBlogs to add comments!
Join RecruitingBlogs