The Value of Passive Candidates
Every day I speak with recruiters who tell me they want ‘passive’ candidates. When I tell them what we do at SourceSimple, they say “Interesting… but how will that get me passive candidates?”
The first question I always ask is “Why do you want passive candidates?”
There is the widespread (mis)belief that passive candidates are inherently better. This is based on the presumption that a candidate not actively looking for work is a person who is hardworking and loyal to their current employer.
What happens, then, when that candidate decides to accept your recruiting offer? Didn’t they just become disloyal to their current employer? So, the ‘loyalty’ argument is flawed.
How about hardworking? Do passive candidates work harder? Again, this is a flawed argument. What the industry calls a ‘candidate’ is a person… a person with talents, traits, priorities, and ambitions. In today’s world employee loyalty is rarely rewarded, and employees know it. They realize that the usual fastest path to personal career success is to stay just long enough to avoid the label of ‘job hopper’ (about 1.5 - 2 years), and then move to another employer who values their previous experience. A hardworking ambitious person in today’s market SHOULD have their feelers out, should have an active resume on boards, should be open to the next move. It’s just as likely that the person who can NOT be found is not hardworking, is not ambitious, is not driven… their lack of presence in the market is likely due to either a recent job change (in which case they won’t make a good candidate for your search) or not having enough time outside of working hours to look out for their career (in other words, people who prioritize ‘quality of life’ over ‘quality of employment’ — not bad people, but not career aggressive.)
The argument that passive candidates are inherently more loyal and hardworking is flawed. Is there another reason that recruiters want them?
As it turns out, there is: passive candidates are not being actively marketed to by other recruiters. They are people outside of the flow, fresh faces. Maybe not better, but available. It’s not a bad reason to go after them, but ‘available’ is not the same as ‘better.’