Recently I've seen a deluge of comments in social media forums, Q&A sections, and even advertisements suggesting that to hire successfully you must find those who are not looking for a new job - also known as "passive candidates." The prevailing thought among many seems to be that the best folks in the talent pool are passive candidates.
Sounds theoretically possible, right? Heck, it's good enough for an argument among those who follow broken traditional recruiting processes. But that's not even the most disturbing part of the logic.
One of the commentators revealed more than he may have realized when, as he asked for tips and tricks to find passive candidates, he stated that he's got to find more because they are the top talent he needs.
Stop the presses!
In mathematical terms, that particular logic trail looks like this:
Top Talent = Passive Candidates
therefore
Passive Candidates = Top Talent
therefore
Passive Candidates = Top Talent
In other words, if top talent generally comes from passive candidates, then I must focus my searches on passive candidates because they are top talent. What is created by this faulty logic is an assumption that passive candidates have a high probability of being top talent. This assumption often results in less stringent qualification processes, and no surprise, underwhelming performance.
By their own definition, passive candidates are not looking for a job. But let's qualify that for a minute.
What if:
- She just hasn't applied for the specific job you represent, but she has resumes out in a few discreet locations
- He's an imposter in the very center of his con, and riding out this economic downturn is a perfect cover
- She's earning an advanced degree and can do her present job on autopilot
None of these people are looking for jobs, so they are passive candidates by definition. Does that make any one of them top talent? Let's not be foolish.
When I read of someone putting so much emphasis on passive candidates, I see someone who is trying to find the easy route to hiring. There is no substitute for applying consistent, stringent processes that follow a path begun in the correct spot with the right performance measurements. It's what we call, "Hire hard to manage easy."
Here's a helpful visual just in case you should run across the topic of passive candidates in the future:
Passive candidates ≠ Top Talent
Posts
I have to agree with you about Top Talent not equaling Passive Candidates. There is a myth that many believe that all "A" Players are working too. This is not the case and this is one example why:
ReplyDeleteThere are some "A" Players out there that are in a job that morphs into something else that they didn't sign up for. In the case of one "A" Player who loved their job and their boss loved their work who in turn, asked them to drive 50 miles one way to a customer's site twice per week.
After a few months of this new commute, the "A" Player decided that they didn't want to do the drive any more and resigned...before they had accepted another position.
The long commute was such an extreme dis-satisfier for the "A" Player they resigned immediately and were now available to consider other opportunities even though they were not currently employed.
This example is one of many that confirms that not all "A" Players are employed at the time they might apply to a job. Consider keeping your mind open and Happy Hunting for those high quality, talented "A" Players! (BTW- Do "A" Players really know how to be passive?)