My clients often ask me how to find “passive” candidates. I believe in their minds that they think “passive” means “better” and that all the good candidates work at their competitor. It’s the old saying . . . the grass is greener on the other side.
Yet, maybe “passive” candidates aren’t better? Maybe they are simply . . . passive. Passive is defined by Webster’s dictionary as inactive, non-resistant, and submissive. Are these the characteristics you want in your people?
In today’s world, people’s careers are more transient than in the past. Good talent moves around and sometimes good talent stays put.
With the easy access to online job postings, most workers (passive and active) view job opportunities online. Yet, one difference between passive and active candidates is that “passive” candidates only apply if an opportunity greatly exceeds their current situation.
Does this difference really make a passive candidate better than an active candidate?
A recent article by Stephen Balzac claims the difference may be as simple as “luck.”
No matter what you believe, I can assure you that hiring “passive” candidates will take 10 times more effort, money, and time than hiring “active” candidates. Are you willing to make the extra effort?