2:00 read | Chime in on LinkedIn here and Twitter here
Everyone wants their next job to be an upgrade.
Which is why the industry simplification of ‘active’ vs ‘passive’ candidates is both silly and counterproductive.
If they hate their job, they want it to be better. If they love their job, they want it to be better.
If they don’t have a job, they want it to be better than the last one they had.
Buying into this old recruiting lore obscures two truths:
Everyone needs to be evaluated the same way.
Everyone needs to be ‘sold’ the same way.
Once upon a time, active v passive started as a sales tactic. Not a malicious one (at least I don’t think.) Recruiting firms had databases that no one else had. “Passive candidates” was how they described people who weren’t posted on job boards. Or weren’t likely to apply.
It was a legitimate value. And the ability to generate interest among great candidates who weren’t actively looking sounded a lot better than “we’ve been saving resumes in a database for decades and we’re really good at convincing people to give us the names of their coworkers.”
(Side note: referral gathering is a lost art. People nowadays probably can’t believe that’s how recruiters put food on the table.)
Then the absurd happened: everyone started posting their resumes online. Even when they aren't looking. Not doing so was suddenly “weird.”
Quite the trick LinkedIn pulled off.
Getting to the point: literally everyone wants something better. Not understanding this - thinking that some people are somehow different and *don’t* want something better - causes problems:
👉Not “selling” all candidates on why they should join you.
I’m using “selling” in the most positive connotation. Conveying the value you bring as an employer. Answering all their questions. Giving insight into the future vision of the company. Pulling back the curtain and showing them the real work culture of the org.
I’ve seen this a lot in Prestige Hiring, i.e. ‘’we’re so good people will just want to come and join us.” They often favor ‘active’ candidates because ‘passive’ candidates should be more interested without being given a reason to.
👉Assuming anyone unemployed isn’t as good. Or anyone working and actively looking isn’t as good as someone you had to really headhunt.
The opposite of the first point. Maybe it’s the fatigue of job postings being flooded with applies that are off the mark. Or maybe it was a run of great hires that came from all outbound. Biases manifest in a variety of ways.
The real takeaways:
👉Evaluate everyone the same.
👉Sell everyone the same. Accurately, with maximum effort.
👉Forget about the channel. Regardless of how they came your way, they all want the same thing: something better.
You can follow me on LinkedIn here and Twitter here. Join the discussion on this LinkedIn post (or give it a 👍) here.