I have heard it all now.

I just ran across a blog entry by Ethan Bloomfield titled http://www.ere.net/blogs/Recruiting_ROI/5B1ED5CC22824C5094376A933A0... "Are we passively missing the best active candidates?”</a> He was doing a comparison between the qualities of active vs. passive candidates. He was singing the praises of the best active candidate. The only thought that was resonating with me was; this is as off-key as my singing in the shower.

But what was most interesting is the discussion that followed, the discussion went to defining the candidates stages to the sales process. I was left with the impression that almost everyone thinks as candidates as commodities to be sold or traded. Is it just a "butts" in seats kinda thing. Is this really the case? Is this really the current philosophy? Maybe I am just misreading the whole discussion?

Comment by Shally Steckerl on May 24, 2007 at 1:10pm: I think the industry is trying to define a common langugage becasue quite a few people dont' like the definition of "passive" candididates. Whether we borrow from the terms used in the sales lifecycle, or we invent our own, there's definitely a continum that starts with a person who takes little to no initiative in their job search (what is commonly referred to as a passive candidate) and ends with someone who takes the maximum ammount of initiative in their job search to the point where they apply three times for the same job on your career's page (the active candidate). We have all been at different points in that spectrum at one time or another, and people move along that spectrum during their job search, which is why its difficult to agree that there's such a thing as a"passive" candidate who remains "passive" throughout.

What are your suggestions for a common language we can use that improves on the misleading "passive" vs. "active" terminology that is overused and misused today?

Comment by Moises Lopez on May 24, 2007 at 2:00pm: I guess my problem wasn't so much with the distinction between passive and active but given the preference I would say prospective candidate and candidate. Only because you are seeking to turn your prospect into a candidate. But the whole tone of the conversation was more towards things we can say or can't say to the candidate because they would either get offended or withdraw or whatever. My thought is that when there are dupplicitous interaction of I can't say this to you but can say it when you are not around. That is an attitude that is based on erroneous notions. If my process is transparent I would feel confortable with my candidate overhearing any conversation i hold about the process and he/she would feel like being part of such a process.