Active & Passive Candidates - What Are They?

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 Paul Alfred on June 24, 2011 at 6:59am: @John Comyn ... It seems John we have a contradiction of terms You can't say" There is no such thing as an active or passive candidate." then followup with "They could be passive today and active tomorrow" . As I said earlier the phrase "Passive Candidate" has a meaning perhaps we need to redefine it so we can be clear on what we really mean by that phrase ... A candidate is either not looking or looking on the market or not on the market ... Lets be clear folks. If a "potential" candidate is approached by 2 recruiters on great opportunities after the first pitch he says "Sounds like a great job but I am not looking and happy where I am thanks." On the second pitch the candidate says, "I am really not on the market -it sounds really interesting" - he calls back a few days later .."Ok lets talk more.... " In my definition this candidate came from the Passive Market and is still defined as a Passive candidate regardless of his final decision. That is the world I live in ....

Comment by bill josephson on June 24, 2011 at 7:52am: I agree with Paul. I've spoken with countless prospects who think the job I present is great and if they were looking they'd be very interested. What would it take for them to make a move? "Quadruple my salary."

When people are happy where they are, they aren't likely making a change no matter the opportunity. And many people are reactive, not proactive, meaning they'll start to look or be open to looking when they see their situation begin deteriorating. I know the rule of thumb thinking is "everyone has a price" and that may be true, but what are the chances the opportunity YOU are presenting to them meets those criteria when the person has zero reason to make a change thus isn't flexible in their demands?

All we're doing is setting ourselves up with a monumental time wasting tire kicking candidate pissing off your client and sucking your time away from other prospects who are interested in becoming candidates. And when I speak to a happy candidate whose only reason to leave is money--that's a counter offer situation waiting to happen

Comment by Jerry Albright on June 24, 2011 at 9:33am: Funny how we seem to think if someone is not on a job board they are this elusive "passive" candidate. It's just not the case. An active? "On the market"? What market would that be exactly? These labels really only suit those who use the labels to sell their particular style of recruiting or other sourcing.

If you somehow dig up the name of a guy in the back room working away at your client's competitor - you may very well want to give them the "passive" label. Good for you. But what if he gave his resume to his cousin a month previously as his cousin heard of a job on his team and thought he may get a referral bonus for connecting the two? What label do we use then? Where do we draw the line?

Well - for me it's all a bunch of recruiterspeak. Absolutely irrelevent.

Want to know how I sort them out? Qualfied and Unqualified. Then out of the qualified there are 2 main categories: Interested and Not Interested. Where/how/when/why/who else knows about them/where might their resume be found - all those categories really don't concern me.

Qualified/Interested

Qualified/Not Interested

Not Qualified/Interested

Not Qualified/Not Interested

I'm paid to sort out the above. (And paid very well for being able to do so on occasion......)

Comment by pam claughton on June 26, 2011 at 8:56am: I share Jerry's view on this.

Comment by bill josephson on June 26, 2011 at 9:41am: My mission from my clients is to find qualified interested candidates they're unable to access on their own.

Comment by Paul Alfred on June 27, 2011 at 9:41am: I thought this blog was about addressing what we mean by passive candidates - Its funny but like Jerry I have also come across candidates that were qualified and not on the market and not qualified an still not on the market ... Again ... we still don't have a definition for the term "Passive" Candidate...Ofcourse we can write a Blog about Qualified and Unqualified candidates - I think though - we already have clear definitions ...

Comment by bill josephson on June 27, 2011 at 9:47am: From what I'm paid to do by my clients contingently is literally interrupt qualified professionals at their desk with a phone call who weren't looking for a job and unable to be accessed by my client.

Those are the people my clients would deem as "passive." Inaccessible, and not looking for a job.

Comment by Jerry Albright on June 27, 2011 at 9:50am: @Bill - are you saying your clients don't want you to consider anyone who is actually motivated to make a change prior to connecting with you?

Comment by bill josephson on June 27, 2011 at 9:57am: Jerry, if they can access them, no. They really only want me to find their competitor's super star top performers and presume they aren't looking as they'll be treated better in better opportunities than their company peers.

The assignments I get are hard (or I find out impossible) positions to fill where my clients want someone else's top performers they can't access/find. And if they're visible, my clients find them as I'm in competition with their corporate HR departments.

This may not be the world everyone else recruiting is in, Jerry, but it sure is my daily existence and a far cry as to what I was looked upon to do back in 1980 when first beginning.

Comment by Jerry Albright on June 27, 2011 at 10:12am: @Bill - all I can say is I wish you the best! We all have our own approach out here - which is what makes this such an exciting field. As for me - I just wouldn't be able to make a living in that world.

I'm not a magician - just a guy who makes enough presentations to enough people (wherever they may be found) to keep the lights on......

Comment