A passive opportunity

Greg Wyatt • August 20, 2024

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?

Jump the shark. A Recruitment AiDE, pt 13

By Greg Wyatt • January 29, 2026
May 2023 You’ve heard the phrase, I take it – “jump the shark”? It’s the moment when one surprising or absurd experience can indicate a rapid descent into rubbishness and obscurity. When it’s time to get off the bus. Typically in media. Jumping the Shark comes from an episode of Happy Days in which the Fonz does a water ski jump over a shark. 👈 Aaaaay. 👉 A sign creators have run out of ideas, or can’t be bothered to come up with fresh ones. In movies, sequelitis is a good example of this – an unnecessary sequel done to make some cash, in the hope the audience doesn’t care about its quality. Sometimes they become dead horses to flog, such as the missteps that are any Terminator film after 2. It’s an issue that can lead to consumers abandoning what they were doing, with such a precipitous drop in engagement that the thing itself is then cancelled. Partly because of breaking trust in what was expected to happen next. And because it’s a sign that the disbelief that was temporarily suspended has come crashing down. If you don’t believe that your current poor experience will lead to further, better experiences, why would you bother? Once you’ve had your fingers burnt, how hard is it to find that trust in similar experiences? It doesn’t have to be a single vein of experience for all to be affected. Watch one dodgy superhero movie and how does it whet your appetite for the next? You didn’t see The Eternals? Lucky you. Or how about that time we had really bad service at Café Rouge, a sign of new management that didn’t care, and we never went again? Just me? Did they sauter par-dessus le requin? Here’s the rub – it matters less that these experiences have jumped the shark. It matters more what the experience means for expectation. So it is in candidate experience. It’s not just the experience you provide that tempers expectations – it’s the cumulated experience of other processes that creates an assumption of what might be expected of yours. If you’re starting from a low trust point, what will it take for your process to ‘jump the shark’ and lose, not just an engaged audience, but those brilliant candidates that might only have considered talking to you if their experience hadn’t been off-putting? Not fair, is it, that the experience provided by other poor recruitment processes might affect what people expect of yours? Their experiences aren’t in your control, the experience you provide is. Of my 700 or so calls with exec job seekers, since The Pandemic: Lockdown Pt 1, many described the candidate experience touchpoints that led to them deciding not to proceed with an application. These were calls that were purely about job search strategy, and not people I could place. However, one benefit for me is that they are the Gemba , and I get to hear their direct experiences outside of my recruitment processes. Experiences such as - ‘£Competitive salary’ in an advert or DM, which they know full well means a lowball offer every time, because it happened to them once or twice, or perhaps it was just a LinkedIn post they read. Maybe it isn’t your problem at all, maybe your £competitive is upper 1% - how does their experience inform their assumptions? Or when adverts lend ambiguity to generic words, what meaning do they find, no matter how far from the truth? How the arrogance of a one-sided interview process affects their interest. The apparent narcissism in many outreaches in recruitment (unamazing, isn’t it, that bad outreach can close doors, rather than open them). Those ATS ‘duplicate your CV’ data entry beasts? Fool me once… Instances that are the catalysts for them withdrawing. I’d find myself telling them to look past these experiences, because a poor process can hide a good job. It’s a common theme in my jobseeker posts, such as a recent one offering a counterpoint to the virality that is “COVER LETTERS DON’T M4TT£R agree?” Experiences that may not be meant by the employer, or even thought of as necessarily bad, yet are drivers for decisions and behaviour. I can only appeal to these job seekers through my posts and calls. What about those other jobseekers who I’m not aware of, who’ve only experienced nonsense advice? What about those people who aren’t jobseekers? What about those people who think they love their roles? What about all those great candidates who won’t put up with bad experiences? The more sceptical they are, and the further they are from the need for a new role, the less bullshit they’ll put up with. What happens when an otherwise acceptable process presents something unpalatable? Might this jumping the shark mean they go no further? Every time the experience you provide doesn’t put their needs front and centre or if it’s correlated to their bad experiences…. these can prevent otherwise willing candidates from progressing with your process, whether that’s an advert they don’t apply to, a job they don’t start, or everything in between. Decisions that may stem from false assumptions of what a bad experience will mean. Instead, look to these ‘bad experience’ touchpoints as opportunities to do better: instead of £competitive, either state a salary or a legitimate reason why you can’t disclose salary (e.g. “see below” if limited by a job board field and “we negotiate a fair salary based on the contribution of the successful candidate, and don’t want to limit compensation by a band”) instead of a 1-way interrogation… an interview instead of radio silence when there’s no news - an update to say there’s no update, and ‘How are things with you by the way?’ instead of Apply Now via our Applicant Torture Sadistificator, ‘drop me a line if you have any questions’ or ‘don’t worry if you don’t have an updated CV - we’ll sort that later’. Opportunity from adversity. And why you can look at bad experiences other processes provide as a chance to do better. With the benefit that, if you eliminate poor experience, you'll lose fewer candidates unnecessarily, including those ideal ones you never knew about. Bad experiences are the yin to good experience’s yang and both are key parts of the E that is Experience in the AIDE framework. The good is for next time. Thanks for reading.  Regards, Greg

How To Network For A Job - Jobseeker Basics XIV

By Greg Wyatt • January 26, 2026
The following is Chapter 42 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . In a sense it's a microcosm of how any commercial activity can see a better return - which is to put the needs of the person you are appealing to above your own. It feels counterintuitive, especially when you have a burning need, but you can see the problem of NOT doing this simply by looking at 99% of job adverts: We are. We need. We want. What you'll do for us. What you might get in return. Capped off by the classic "don't call us, we'll call you." If you didn't need a job, how would you respond to that kind of advert? In the same vein, if you want networking to pay off, how will your contact's life improve by your contact? What's in it for them? 42 - How to network for a job Who are the two types of people you remember at networking events? For me two types stand out. One will be the instant pitch networker. This might work if you happen to be in need right now of what they have to offer or if mutual selling is your goal. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this but it’s a selling activity pretending to be networking. If you want to sell, go and overtly sell rather than disguise it with subterfuge. Lest we mark your face and avoid you where possible in future. The second is the one who gets to know you, shows interest and tries to add to your experience. You share ideas, and there’s no push to buy something. They believe that through building the relationship when you have a problem they can solve, you’ll think to go to them. It’s a relationship built on reciprocity. One where if you always build something together there is reason to keep in touch. And where the outcome is what you need if the right elements come together: right person, right time, right message, right place, right offering, right price. Job search networking is no different. The purpose of networking in a job search is to build a network where you are seen as a go-to solution should a suitable problem come up. In this case the problem you solve is a vacancy. Either because your active network is recruiting, or because they advocate for you when someone they know is recruiting. It is always a two-way conversation you both benefit from. Knowledge sharing, sounding board, see how you’re doing - because of what the relationship brings to you both. It is not contacting someone only to ask for a job or a recommendation. A one-way conversation that relies on lucky timing. That second approach can be effective as a type of direct sales rather than networking. If you get it wrong it may even work against you. How would you feel if someone asked to network with you, when it became clear they want you to do something for them? You might get lucky and network with someone who is recruiting now - more likely is that you nurture that relationship over time. If your goal is only to ask for help each networking opportunity will have a low chance of success. While if your goal is to nurture a relationship that may produce a lead, you’ll only have constructive outcomes. This makes it sensible to start by building a network with people that already know you: Former direct colleagues and company colleagues Industry leaders and peers Recruiters you have employed or applied through Don’t forget the friends you aren’t in regular touch with - there is no shame in being out of work and it would be a shame if they didn’t think of you when aware of a suitable opening. These people are a priority because they know you, your capability and your approach and trust has already been built. Whereas networking with people you don't know requires helping them come to know and trust you. Networking with people you know is the most overlooked tactic by the exec job seekers I talk to (followed by personal branding). These are the same people who see the hidden jobs market as where their next role is, yet overlook what’s in front of them. If you are looking for a new role on the quiet - networking is a go-to approach that invites proactive contact to you. Networking with people who know people you know, then people in a similar domain, then people outside of this domain - these are in decreasing order of priority. Let's not forget the other type of networking. Talking to fellow job seekers is a great way to share your pain, take a load off your shoulders, bounce ideas off each other, and hold each other accountable. LinkedIn is the perfect platform to find the right people if you haven't kept in touch directly. Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a conduit to conversation. It isn’t the conversation itself. Speaking in real life is where networking shines because while you might build a facsimile of a relationship in text, it's no replacement for a fluid conversation. Whether by phone and video calls, real life meetups, business events, seminars, conferences, expos, or in my case - on dog walks and waiting outside of the school gates. Both these last two have led to friends and business for me though the latter hasn’t been available since 2021. Networking isn’t 'What can I get out of it?' Instead, ‘What’s in it for them?’ The difference is the same as those ransom list job adverts compared to the rare one that speaks to you personally. How can you build on this relationship by keeping in touch? Networking is systematic, periodic and iterative: Map out your real life career network. Revisit anyone you’ve ever worked with and where Find them on LinkedIn Get in touch ‘I was thinking about our time at xxx. Perhaps we could reconnect - would be great to catch up’ If they don’t reply, because life can be busy, diarise a follow up What could be of interest to them? A LinkedIn post might be a reason to catch up When you look up your contact’s profile look at the companies they’ve worked at. They worked there for a reason, which may be because of a common capability to you Research these companies. Are there people in relevant roles worth introducing yourself to? Maybe the company looks a fit with your aspirations - worth getting in touch with someone who may be a hiring manager or relevant recruiter? Maybe they aren’t recruiting now. Someone to keep in touch with because of mutual interests. Click on Job on their company page, then "I'm interested" - this helps for many reasons, including flagging your interest as a potential employee Keep iterating your network and find new companies as you look at new contacts. This is one way we map the market in recruitment to headhunt candidates - you can mirror this with your networking The more proactive networking you build into your job search, the luckier you might get. While you might need to nurture a sizeable network and there are no guarantees, think about the other virtues of networking - how does that compare to endless unreplied applications? I often hear from job seekers who found their next role through networking. This includes those who got the job because of their network even though hundreds of applicants were vying for it. While this may be unfair on the applicants sometimes you can make unfair work for you. It can be effective at any level.