Have you ever read something that doesn't really spark your interest until you think about it later? Sometimes, then you can't stop thinking about it. I read a great critique of the popular concept of "passive job seekers" recently. It was very thought provoking (in a delayed sort of way) and I wish I could remember where I read it.
Following is a summary of that author's thoughts, as I remember them, with extra commentary by yours truly.
Ever since I first heard about "passive candidates," everything about the concept has bothered me. The idea itself and the label. Let's start with the label. At best it is misleading (or, at least, an oxymoron) to apply the word "passive" to an allegedly superior class of job seeker.
Moreover, the concept is misleading -- it's like dismissing people who don't want to date you as "antisocial." And it's just lazy thinking. The artificial distinction between "active" and "passive" candidates obscures a variety of reasons why a job seeker may be "passive" with respect to any given job opportunity. Many of which, contrary to the myth, do not make "passive" candidates better.
Here's a short list of issues with some commentary. Again, credit belongs to the mystery author who started me down this path.
1. A job seeker who is called "passive" because they are happily employed elsewhere is a dangerous employee to recruit. It will likely take a great deal to get them on board, and you may well be setting yourself up to have an unhappy employee, sorry they left a job/company they loved.
2. If the job seeker isn't happy where they are, but is "passive" because they are too complacent or unmotivated to actively seek alternate employment, why would this be the sort of person you'd want to recruit? Apathy/laziness isn't the same thing as loyalty, and is hardly a virtue.
3. Any job seeker is open and receptive ("active") to alternative employment opportunities when approached the right way -- it's just a question of what the right way is. Case in point: I don't know of anyone who loves their job so much that if a good friend started telling them about a great opportunity, they'd stick their fingers in their ears and start humming. It's not like job seekers are binary circuits, either open (active) or closed (passive).
4. If you haven't figured out how to reach a specific candidate, or type of candidate, referring to them as "passive" completely obscures the recruiting issues you face and need to overcome to widen the recruiting net you're casting.
As the popular myth stands, it ignores or obscures whether a job seeker is "passive" because he or she is unreachable, unavailable, unrecruitable, disinterested, etc. Pretty significant differences, so I'm not just splitting hairs (or philosophical cats, Herr Schrödinger).
As a member of the founding team at Hire.com and early user of the term passive candidate. I agree with much of your assessment and take issue with a couple of your thoughts.
Recruiting since '79 during a time when the fax was a huge technology breakthrough, sourcing and compelling a candidate to consider a new position was done through research and the phone. Yes, some candidates would react to the classified ad in Sunday's paper - but just as most today...there was/is concern about making yourself public and the concern of placing data into the blackhole of HR. (yep - it was called a black hole back then too). As a result Managers and recruiters took the focused approach of targeting passive talent.
Once frustrated with too much resume flow and/or lack of quality - Managers determined it was best to find prospective candidates from those who were happy and not looking.
Happy, not looking and very busy...but when given the opportunity to consider a position of value - would take the time to listen and many times move.
These were 'passive' and we all understood the phrase to be an oxymoron. Finding the term to describe such a 'fluid' and valuable process was difficult then and to a degree still is today. One more point...I think your concept of recruiting a candidate - not currently looking is flawed - these are easier candidates to recruit successfully, if you get their interest becasue you have less opportunity competition from the market. The 'openly - seeking' candidate (if they are quality) brings much competition and in today's market is that much harder to close. Ask any recruiter if they have seen an increase in offer rejects over the past year...they have and if they look closely will dertermine that most of those came from public boards.
That said, it is time to put passive to rest. The term no longer works in a transparent marketplace. People can and do know more about opportunities and competition because of the Internet. We must ask ourselves then, why all people don't find jobs through public sources such as job boards? Could it be privacy concerns, Internet scams, HR's 'black hole'? A very small per centage of candidates find jobs through job boards. Maybe it's because talent has become quiet - they want to view and react with control and certainty. They want privacy and protection. Quiet is the new passive and no solution I see on the market today solves the problem. Until then - companies will rely on 3rd party recruiters to source Quiet Talent and will quickly and quietly hire them away from competitors with little if any market compeition.
www.itzbig.com
www.talentforce.com
Posted by: Hank | August 18, 2006 at 10:47 AM