« Blogswap Week Three: Inside the Sausage Factory | Main | Getting it Right at Google »
August 05, 2006
The Myth of the Passive Candidate
I know the idea of passive candidates is (a) going out of vogue and (b) being further refined and segmented but I want to toss my two cents in before the fountain dries up completely.
Bottom line, I think there's something really, really wrong with the foundation upon which the whole intellectual architecture rests. Here are a couple of obvious problems:
1. Passive candidates are passive. They don't particularly want or need your job. So, to move them over, you'll have to pay them more and make more compromises (i.e., accept a negotiated lesser level of what matters to you). 2. Passive candidates are passive. When have you EVER seen "passive" among the descriptors being recruited for? 3. Active seekers are motivated to make a change. They're not happy where they are so they'll not only seek you/your job out, they'll work "extra hard" to do well. 4. Active seekers are more adaptable. Unlike many passive candidates who expect a red carpet treatment if they deign to join your firm, actives will do what they need to in order to adapt to your organizational culture.
Now, I'm not going to rehearse all the reasons passive candidates have been the focus of so much attention. Basically, they boil down to this: they're better because they're not looking (or looking hard), the implication being that they're more appreciated by their organizations, more effective at their work--and probably taller and better looking, too.
(Kidding.)
(Not.)
There are ever so many flaws in all permutations of this general line of reasoning. Let me offer just one example.
Imagine you're a top performer at your company. You're well rewarded, you're well liked, your work satisfies you. And, you're probably often recruited--and often say "thanks, but no."
Imagine your company changes. The people you like leave, you enjoy the work less--we've all been there. What do you do? If you're like most folks, you go from passive to active and jump ship, right away, leaving behind your less effective (former) colleagues to look around for floatation.
Simply put, if you're the kind of highly-effective person that the recruitment industry's baked in to the persona we call the passive candidate, you're either (a) not recruitable, or (b) an active candidate. And when you become active, you'll typically find your next job through personal contacts.
The unfortunate, ugly truth behind the myth of the passive candidate is this: job boards, e-recruitment, relational databases have unleashed such a flood of talent that the quest for passive candidates is just easier than helping clients deal with the mess the industry's created.
But that's unfair, both to our clientele and to the millions of sincere, talented seekers who, with faith and confidence in the organizations they apply to, continue to subimt well-crafted and sincere petitions for employment.
As the idea of the passive candidate becomes yesterday's mythology, let's do more than hope it's superceded by a better model: let's make it happen.
Posted by davidkippen at August 5, 2006 11:39 PM