A passive opportunity
This article looks at two commonly used terms in recruitment, what they mean, and what you can take from this to improve your odds of finding your next job:
Passive.
Active.
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 are open to a conversation.
The argument goes further stating that something like 80% of the candidate marketplace is passive, while only 20% actively apply to adverts.
Therefore if you recruit only through advertising, you miss out on a huge chunk of viable candidates.
This isn’t a terminology I like, for many reasons. I’ve written an article about it here: Passive Aggressive.
It doesn’t help that, in the market we are currently in, adverts can receive 100s of applications, few of which are viable candidates. Click on this link to learn what this fact means for you.
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.
So if all you do is rely on active channels such as adverts, you limit your opportunity.
There are two elements to the active/passive consideration 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
In any marketing activity there are typically two types of approach - inbound and outbound.
Inbound means that customer enquiries come to you.
Outbound means that you go to market to find potential customers.
In recruitment, an advert is an example of an inbound marketing activity, while headhunting is an example of an outbound.
Using the argument above, only Active candidates are inbound, whereas Passive candidates are found though outbound work.
Indeed, outbound work is more controllable, because you only contact candidates who meet your specific criteria, typically through LinkedIn, CV databases (job boards and agency), networking, referrals and headhunting.
So to be found like a Passive candidate you have to take advantage of these channels above used by recruiters.
A quick diversion.
I take a whole of market approach across all inbound and outbound channels where possible.
Early in the year I had a Talent Acquisition vacancy that went live, but 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.
So I took the same approach I would to target passive candidates with outbound work, but only for active candidates.
We had a shortlist of 6 great candidates, and another 6 on the backburner. No one else would know this vacancy existed due to its lack of visibility.
But this isn’t a hidden job, it’s just one I recruited by ordinary means, without advertising.
Of course, that vacancy was cancelled, such has been the way of 2024.
How to get found like a passive candidate
This is actually pretty simple, it comes down to understanding how we look for candidates, then optimising your visibility in kind.
I’ve written articles on each. Check out the archive for information on:
-
Better use of Job Boards (for CV database optimisation)
-
How to network for a job (and become a referred candidate)
-
LinkedIn profiles that convert (and also get you found)
-
Principles of a good CV (including SEO principles)
-
Personal branding
Each of these articles reflect how I might look for candidates without advertising.
Why passive candidates can be more appealing at interview
There are some elements we can’t control and some we can.
We can’t control the fact that passive candidates are in a suitable job they probably enjoy enough. To move would have to be for very good reason.
Which means they are only interviewing for roles they are closely aligned too, 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?
These are 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?
There is a more sordid side to the passive argument, which is that “only headhunters can access them”. These uniquely skilled professionals sometimes rely on an obfuscated process so that employers don’t understand how they actually work, so it can be advantageous not to represent active candidates at all.
I had formal training in headhunting early in my career - I choose to lay my process bare and it’s only one means in which I look for candidates.
The passive candidate features you can emulate to improve your odds
It’s not worth fretting over sordid behaviour and assumptions that are out of our control.
Better to take action where we can.
1. 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 the 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 Jobsearch.
2. Alignment.
It's completely understandable that you'll go for jobs that aren't strong fits if you need to get back into employment.
But 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. And like for like, a less suitable candidate than those above.
Yes employers could have the imagination to see how out of box candidates with transferrable skills can be brilliant, but that's out of your control.
If a role is strong interest to you, establish how your skills and aspirations apply to make you a core fit. If you can't, your odds will be lower.
This is a principle that will inform how you communicate throughout the process.
3. Accountability
Similar, with a nuance. 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 in to a role, invariably your odds drop the further away you move from ideal fit roles.
Stick to your guns, so you aren't expending time and energy on unhelpful activity.
4. 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.
5. The interview
How you execute your interviews is key. Read here for my advice -
I plan to start writing weekly for the next little while. One article will be on how to work with job descriptions to improve your odds. Another on ‘employer resentment’ and how you might use that to your advantage.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. Active candidates have many advantages, particularly those who are between jobs. Why wouldn’t you want someone who can start straight away, and who might not otherwise have been available?
