A passive opportunity

Greg Wyatt • June 18, 2026

What follows is an updated Chapter 32 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026). It examines the nonsense argument that passive candidates are better than active candidates.


It also examines why that perception happens, and what you can learn from it to present yourself as a more compelling candidate.


Because, after all, recruitment is psychology. And the hardest psychology to master is your own.


32 - A passive opportunity

 

Speak to headhunters and many will say that passive candidates are inherently better than active candidates.


Active means you are actively looking for another job.


Passive means you aren’t yet may be open to conversation.


The argument goes further stating that something like 80% of the candidate marketplace is passive, while only 20% actively apply for adverts.


Therefore, if you recruit only through advertising, you will miss out on a huge chunk of viable candidates.


This isn’t a terminology I like - I use ‘problem awareness’ as a differentiator instead.


It doesn’t help that, in the market we are currently in, adverts can receive 100s of applications, few of which are viable candidates.


If an employer doesn’t think adverts are effective, and that candidates are likely to be passive, they may not even advertise, instead relying on activities like headhunting.


If all you do is rely on active channels such as adverts, you limit your opportunity.


There are two elements to the active / passive argument that are worth talking about.


The first is how you come across the vacancy.


The second is how you are assessed for the vacancy.


How recruiters look for passive candidates


Recruiters take an inbound and outbound approach to filling vacancies.


Using the argument above, only Active candidates are inbound, whereas Passive candidates are found through outbound work such as headhunting.


Outbound work is more controllable because the recruiter only contacts candidates who meet their specific criteria, typically through


LinkedIn, CV databases (job boards and agency), networking, referrals and headhunting. I differentiate headhunting from LinkedIn, because anyone can headhunt on LinkedIn using recruiter licence, but proper headhunting should work across multiple channels and involve more rigour throughout.


I know because I trained in a headhunting firm that enjoyed a strong reputation well before LinkedIn was invented. And those additional channels are just as effective today - if not more so because of how democratised LinkedIn has become.


To be found like a Passive candidate you have to take advantage of the channels used by recruiters.


I take a whole of market approach across all inbound and outbound channels where appropriate.


Early last year, I had a Talent Acquisition vacancy that went live, although we hadn’t finalised the job description.


We agreed that I would only speak to out of work TA folk in London (of which there are many), because the ambiguity of the brief would be less problematic.


I didn’t advertise for the same reason.


I took the same approach I would to target passive candidates, only concentrating on out-of-work active candidates instead.


We had a shortlist of 6 qualified candidates, and another 6 on the backburner. No one else would know this vacancy existed due to its lack of visibility.


I recruited it by ordinary means, without advertising.


Of course, that vacancy was cancelled, such had been the way of 2025.


How to get found like a passive candidate


This is simpler than you might think and comes down to understanding how we look for candidates, then optimising your visibility in kind. I call this principle inversion.


I’ve written advice on each in part three (edit for this newsletter: you'll see many of these chapters published for free in previous editions).

Each of these reflects how I might look for candidates without advertising: optimising for LinkedIn Recruiter licence, CV databases and other data repositories; asking for referrals in thin markets; networking; direct research into incubator companies; industry events and so on.


Not all of these are replicable, and the balance of what is effective relies on your specific market conditions.


Why passive candidates can be more appealing at interview


Passive candidates are already in a suitable job that is at least adequate. To move would have to be for good reason.


Which means they may only interview for roles they are closely aligned to and have the freedom to walk away from.


This combination of detachment and alignment makes a compelling proposition.


Passive candidates are typically in fewer recruitment processes than active candidates, often only one, which allows employers better odds of them accepting an offer.


How many recruitment processes are you in? If you had the nice problem of having two or more offers to choose between, how many could you accept?


This is a real and quantifiable risk for employers - is there an argument to reduce this risk by only offering candidates who are only in one process?


This risk links to the emerging situation of automated AI optimised applications. When employers have a high volume of homogenous applications designed to 'beat the ATS', the entire application base loses credibility. A candidate found through headhunting immediately has the semblance of being more real, even if all they did was optimise their LinkedIn profile.


Yet another reason why the myth of 'ATS compliance' will work against you, given passive candidates haven't even read those articles and get hired with CVs that look similar to the ones you used to use.


There is a more cynical side to the passive argument, which is that ‘only headhunters can access them.’ These uniquely skilled professionals sometimes rely on an obfuscated process. It’s a boon that employers don’t understand how they work. It can be advantageous not to represent active candidates at all.


I choose to lay my process bare and it’s only one way in which I look for candidates.


The passive candidate features that improve your odds


Detachment.


If you are out of work, typically you need a job, which can involve a number of compromises, rather than solely being interested in that one job for what it is.


Detaching yourself from the outcome of an application makes you a better candidate, because that freedom to walk is a strong negotiating position and informs the rest of your approach.


This same detachment can make knockback less damaging. Read up on detachment and Stoicism for more - some of which is covered in A resilient job search.


It's a classic quality of a successful salesperson.


Alignment.


It's completely understandable that you'll go for jobs that aren't strong fits if you need to get back into employment.


For every compromise you make, there will be candidates for whom that compromise is an attraction point.


Compromises which typically move you away from a core fit to being a candidate with transferable skills. Like for like, a less suitable candidate than those above.


Yes, employers could have the imagination to see how out of box candidates with transferable skills can be brilliant. Something that's out of your control.


If a role is of strong interest to you, articulate how your skills and aspirations apply to make you a core fit. If you can't, your odds will be lower.


This informs how you communicate throughout the process.


Accountability


It's easy to compromise on your requirements and expectations in a job search. Such as widening your salary band, and the jobs you'll apply for.


Unless you are in a skill short industry or have a connection that can refer you to a role, your odds drop the further away you move from ideal fit roles.


Stick to your guns. Don’t use up time and energy on unhelpful activity.


Intermediary representation


That's what we are as recruiters.


An effective recruiter does work behind the scenes to manage expectations, concerns and objections. Something that can improve your odds as a job seeker.


If you are in the fortunate position to be working with a recruiter that has your back, trust in the process.


The interview


How you execute your interviews is key. Read the interview chapters in Part Three.


Note: I've made a rare inclusion for the newsletter in this chapter, given others published are verbatim from the Summer update coming out soon. But I'm conscious some of these chapters rely on, lead into and are interconnected with other chapters in the book. It's why if you find these chapters helpful, you'll find the book more-so, as a reference kit for your career.



An inverted job search

By Greg Wyatt • October 7, 2026
I realise I've shared this chapter fairly recently, but there's good reason to revisit it. On Friday, I launched a new AI tool - Your Job Search Plan. You can find it here: https://your-jobsearch-plan.netlify.app/ It's based on the inversion principle below: the optimal job search is an inversion of how that job is optimally recruited. In other words, the first step in a job search should be to understand how recruiters and hiring processes seek to fill your ideal vacancy. Then to access all those channels while putting your best foot forward. It connects your applications, your networking, your CV, your LinkedIn profile, and so on, all of which should stem from your professional identity, the context of your career, the market conditions for that career, and therefore the work you'll need to do to boost your odds. One thing I'm pleased about with this tool is how it relates to the other tools and resources on www.bwrecruitment.co.uk/resources . So what seemed abstract, or painful activities without guaranteed outcome, become a practical arrow in the quiver of your search. I hope you find these tools helpful. They are a starting point, rather than a resolution. 20 - An inverted job search So, your broad approach to looking for a job is based on a product marketing strategy. How does this link to your job search and how companies hire? The next step is to recognise a job search is an inverted recruitment process. Whatever you can learn about the actual workings of recruitment, the better armed you are to navigate them. The first way in which this is true is around the routes to market employers take to fill a job. Employers want to fill vacancies in the most economical and efficient means possible. Sometimes they’ll rely on external advice, sometimes they’ll figure out their own way, and sometimes they’ll employ people to do it for them (such as a Talent Acquisition Manager or internal recruiter). When they rely on external advice, it may not surprise you it’s as varied and contradictory as job seeker advice. Take this nugget of wisdom: 80% of suitable candidates are not actively looking for work. By advertising, you’ll only have access to the 20% that applies to adverts. Hang on a minute! Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like the hidden jobs market? Of course, candidates aren’t hidden - much like hidden jobs, the priority is to understand the channels through which candidates are found. These channels directly mirror the channels through which you look for that job: Job boards; LinkedIn; Recruitment agencies; Confidential headhunting; Internal promotions; Secondments; Temp-to-perm hires; Consulting-to-perm hires; Referrals; Networking; Speculative approaches; Careers pages; Talent pools; Candidate databases Every job is different, dictated by principles like supply and demand, confidentiality, reputational risk, wherewithal, budget and capacity. The hiring process of a Software Developer is different from that of a Sales Director. If an employer only hires through an advert - this means if you don’t apply for adverts, there’s no way in which you can be considered for that vacancy. A second way it’s accurate is the notion that what’s true for one may not be true for others. This relates to candidate resentment . You may read online that some recruitment behaviours are signs of a bad employer. Yet, you should always follow the instructions given when applying for an advert or through an agency. They may instruct you to: 1/ Write a CV, cover letter and duplicate it on their ATS 2/ Tell them your salary when they don’t list theirs 3/ Do 17 interviews before reaching a decision 4/ Deliver a 6-month strategy plan by presentation 5/ Or any other request deemed unreasonable by Career Coaches, Job seekers, or people otherwise uninvolved in that process What some consider red flags, others will deem acceptable practice. It becomes your choice to play the game or not. Either follow their instructions or step away. You don’t have to apply if you don’t want to. In a similar vein, if you hear a hiring process has a preference, or if there are gaps in their employment armoury - these might be biases you can lean into. The hiring manager loves Arsenal Football Club and is biased towards people who love the same? Now might be the time to switch allegiance, if you can fake it or make it. They love a one page CV? Apply with a one page CV. You know the hiring manager of an advert with 400 applications? Give them a call - they might give you an unfair advantage. Poor practice from the employer, yet these are problems you can turn into opportunity. A third way in which this is true is by comparing inbound and outbound activity Outbound activity is where you go to your prospect (phone calls, messaging). Inbound activity is where the prospect comes to you (job adverts, content). Yet an outbound activity for a recruiter is an inbound activity for you (you receive phone calls and messages). While an inbound activity has you getting in touch because of their advert or content. When we talk about optimising your work, whether your CV, profile or interviews, it has to give the process what it needs. How can you be more discoverable, so you receive more relevant calls and messages? How can you improve your return on applications and your outbound messages? What about inverse non-recruitment? A brilliant, if strange question, with the same answer. When networking, going direct, seeking to become a referral, doorknocking, or other, what is the inverse of that activity? How does that person find or recommend people, if they become aware of a vacancy? How might they see you as a person to solve their problems, even if it isn’t a vacancy? You do these activities because of how they might help you and because of the benefit the other party experiences. What’s in it for them? If there isn’t anything in it for them, why should they help you? For each and every stage in recruitment, there is an opposed force, as candidates and the hiring process meet each other. It’s rarely an equal force, because every vacancy has supply and demand, resource, skill level, biases and intent at play. This is why each type of role has a different method of looking for work. Executive vacancies typically prioritise headhunted candidates, with fewer public adverts. Here the priority shifts towards building relationships with, and being discoverable by, Executive Search recruiters. If executives rely mainly on job boards, they may never think to focus on more suited channels. If you can learn what the other needs for that process to be successful, you can deliver the same. Speak to peers, speak to hiring managers you know, speak to recruiters, speak to former job seekers. How have they found work, and how would they recruit for your roles? Research your market to find viable employers, to identify recruiters and to build your network.  Then execute an appropriate strategy to access these channels.

Hierarchy of Pain

By Greg Wyatt • September 23, 2026
I had an aborted conversation at a networking event on Tuesday. It was about a problem vacancy a fractional people lead was looking at. Her client had instructed various executive search firms and none had produced a viable candidate. It seems the consistent approach was to match CVs to job description - pureplay transactional - and none were candidates that met the goal of the vacancy. You see that organisational pain that the vacancy heals wasn't defined by documentation, and therefore if you rely on that documentation to find candidates, it's happenstance that you come across someone viable. It's such a common problem, and when I 'fix' problem vacancies, it's invariably something that isn't described which was holding back a successful hire. The irony is this shouldn't be a hidden pain - presuming it's appropriate to share, it should be front and centre. What complicates modern recruitment is that, instead of better specifying vacancies, both sides of the hiring fence increasingly rely on LLMs to produce documentation that shaves the edges off. And as a result a candidate that has extensively healed the hidden pain a vacancy might even remove the evidence from their application in a bit to better match an advert or job description. The more transactional recruitment comes, particularly through reliance on technology, the worse this problem becomes. Probably not an issue for business as usual vacancy, but when a vacancy has impact, standard process of "5 CVs by Friday" will invariably hold you back. The chapter below is from A Career Breakdown Kit , my guide for navigating a skewiff employment market. It may be for job seekers, but the problem and solution are directly mirrored by the hiring side. It's taken word for word from the book, so some of the content is interconnected with other chapters. You can read most of them for free in the Jobseeker Basics newsletter. Hierarchy of pain This chapter reflects on how buyers make decisions, how this is reflected in hiring and why it matters in how you put forward your CV, application, interviews and other messages. If you’ve ever encountered sales in your career or life you are likely familiar with the concepts of Features and Benefits. The product is what is proposed. Features are what it does. Benefits are how it helps. However there are actually three other components in this hierarchy that make up commercial messaging. Value is what the benefits mean to you. “Sell the sizzle, not the sausage” - the sizzle isn’t a benefit, if you don’t like sausages. Outcomes are the tangible long-term results from using that product or service. “Sell the picture frame, not the screwdriver” - or rather what’s in the frame. Why does it matter? The idea being these peel back the layers of the onion to help a potential customer understand exactly What’s In It For Them. Yet, it may not matter whatsoever if your brilliantly put together message doesn’t achieve one element - show how you heal their hidden pain. In that frame example above, this might be a photo of a loved one, no longer with us. The photo is for our memories and feelings. The frame has to be right, to commemorate them properly. While it needs to be mounted well, using tools that make the job easier. Could you market that loss to sell a screwdriver? Hopefully not, though the message might be, “For memories that matter,” instead of "High Quality Screwdriver". It's a common pain many share, yet not one you might discuss down the DIY shop. Early in my career I had a lesson on hidden pain and its importance. I recruited an HR Manager for a high growth business whose requirement was for someone with broad experience in a similar environment. I presented an excellent candidate who was only available due to the shutdown of her employer - she had to stay to the final day to manage the process well, which limited her availability to start work. That was the only reason I explained her current situation to this new employer, because redundancy management wasn’t on the job description. She got the job! On day one of her new employment, her role was made redundant and she was offered a retention bonus to shut down the local site - everyone was to lose their jobs. The hidden pain here was redundancy, something not even mentioned to me during the vacancy briefing, and something I never broached with Julie. IIRC, there was no mention of it during the interview process either. Perhaps that’s an extreme example, but it does show what can happen behind the scenes. And if you happened to be out of work, a fixed term contract with a retention bonus might be quite appealing. Were you to apply to that vacancy, it would be important to highlight your redundancy experience - customising your CV might even have worked against you! So how does this hierarchy fit within your job search? You are the product, with your next employer on a buyer’s journey. Your features are what you offer. In a CV this is a combination of job titles, qualifications, skills and areas of experience. It’s also your salary requirement, where you are based and other elements like Visa status and working arrangements. Get these right and a little luck might mean they are all you need, considering that these same elements are what we source and filter on. I expect in this market you’re in competition with many people that offer the same Features, so the differentiator is what you bring to the table uniquely. The contexts of your career combined with how you helped, your impact, your achievements, and what the outcomes were. Related chapters: Principles of a Good CV Should I customise my CV? LinkedIn profiles that get found LinkedIn profiles that convert These are all resources that will help you communicate the benefits of your experience, the value you bring, the problems you solve, and the outcomes of these solutions. As for the hidden pain question, which in many vacancies isn’t articulated, how can you unpick hidden? Go back to why vacancies are recruited. How did they come about in the first place? They only fit into two piles - new and replacement. However these two piles have many subcategories relating to the problems they solve and the pain they heal. Researching the company can help. Inside knowledge definitely helps - it’s one reason good agency recruiters will be a valuable ally. But this knowledge isn’t always available, and sometimes the employer may not even know! I always come back to the principle, “You can’t be all things to all people.” And when you try to do this, you appeal to no one. It’s one reason why using LLM style AI to customise CVs is so problematic. The output is necessarily same-same because it’s a probabilistic determination of what you want based on an aggregate of data. It’s why, when recruiters receive a volume of AI augmented CVs, they all look the same. Your ‘good enough’ core CV ( Should I customise my CV ) leans into your strengths. While you might tweak it to meet the essential requirements, in the language of the employer, this should naturally support your greatest strength - the unique fingerprint that is your career. The downside of relying on customisation against vague, and often misrepresentative, adverts is that you can deemphasise and even remove your biggest achievements. The same achievements that would have helped you stand out. If your application doesn’t heal the hidden pain of a vacancy, it’s either because you have not defined your strengths correctly or you aren’t that close of a fit with the actual needs of the vacancy. An example to show this pitfall in practice. I caught up with a friend yesterday who has resigned from a post that was missold to him. His career is based on commercial acumen and enablement in a field that is heavily focused on risk management and compliance. So he’s already unusual in a good way (though his CV didn’t show this). On day one of his new job, he encountered a literal unexpected disaster. While these things happen, and he managed the situation effectively, this proved a consequence of the business culture and strategy. These problems kept coming up and his functional area in the business needed a complete overhaul at executive level. Rather than the commercial enablement picture they painted, they needed someone who relished chaos - a master of disaster. Completely the opposite of the career Simon wants. This isn’t something they could publicise in their recruitment process, for reputational reasons, yet it was a fundamental baked-in aspect of the role. I’ve no doubt Simon’s CV is a match for their job description. Yet he is not a match for their job. What if they’d seen CVs of people who’d leant into strengths of healing dysfunction? What if he’d leant into his strength of enablement? He may not have left his previous job for something he went on to regret. If you’re sceptical about how crucial hidden pain is in recruitment, think about your own hidden pain when applying for jobs. What’s going on in your life that impacts which roles are ideal for you. The same points you might not divulge when you’re just trying to get back into employment. Perhaps you've even experienced the pain I did when considering a hardware purchase. How did that pain inform your buying decisions? It’s no different for employers when they consider the pain and problems inherent in their vacancy.