"Passive" vs. "Active" Candidates Revisited

I was reading an Adler article this morning and saw a reader comment post in response. The article talked about the recovery and predicted candidate behavior in the coming few months, cautioning companies to focus their efforts on "passive candidate" recruiting rather than chasing active candidates. One of the readers objected to the idea that there weren't many good candidates in the "active" pool.

The whole binary of active vs. passive is sort of a misnomer; there are varying degrees of job search or new opportunity receptiveness out there, and it can vary by day, week, month or whatever. People aren't either "on" or "off". And yes there are some good people who are unemployed, or very active, for whatever reason.

However, to varying degrees, highly active candidates are by definition less desirable than passive candidates. It doesn't mean that the active person hasn't been a good employee or performer in the past, it simply means that when a person is active, their behavior is more problematic for recruiters and hiring organizations.

Active candidates tend to be less selective about pursuing opportunities, they look at everything. They tend to give positive responses about their interest in relocation, travel, lower salaries, lower titles, etc, when their objectives are really more selective than they are saying. They want to keep doors open, they want to get in front of hiring managers to try and talk their way into better roles, etc. Which is frustrating for recruiters and hiring managers who are looking for someone for a particular role.

Passive candidates tend to be very selective and more specific about what they want. If you are active, and want to be viewed as a premium candidate, try and resist the temptation to cast a broad net and be specific and somewhat selective about the opportunities you pursue. Your behavior will be noticeable to the hiring people with whom you are dealing, and may get you more serious consideration for the kind of role you really want.

Wallowing in Self Pity

Evidently the economy is slowing down. I've been slow to see it in ROI's business, but am starting to see the signs of frustration in some groups of candidates.

There's always going to be those who do well more or less regardless of the current economy, and those that struggle regardless. I suppose the difference between a good and bad economy is how it affects the majority.

I posted a new position for a fairly junior level opportunity this week, (2-3 years experience) and was amazed at some of the negative emails regarding the salary (right at market level base on Payscale data.

The position was posted to a regional job forum, where a lot of folks hang out looking for work.

One of the dangers I've seen of a job support type group, is that you have a group of people facing some challenges, and who need above all else to maintain a positive frame of mind, some enthusiasm, etc. Yet, there is a strong tendency, that must be fought vigorously, to wallow in self-pity, complain about this, that or the other thing (in this case companies, the economy, outsourcing, government, recruiters, advertising, H1B visas, NAFTA, politicians, executives, or [add endlesslessly to list here ____].

I've had a number of occasions where I've had an opportunity in an arena where perhaps there aren't many jobs, but with an employer who wants to find a certain someone, etc. And I run across someone. But their cover letter conveys a certain frustration or resentment, or it doesn't, but it comes across when we speak on the phone. So I move on. And they've completed the vicious circle once again, not recognizing that they are the ones once again responsible for their situation.

The last thing I'll do is present someone to a client, that comes across as bitter, or unenthusiastic, or resigned, or whatever. These people need to stay positive and focused, and they need to cull anyone from their circle that doesn't help them do that. Having others telling them they're being 'preyed upon' or 'undervalued' or whatever, is NOT helpful.

No one on this earth is guarenteed a long life, or prosperity, or career satisfaction. You have to work for it. And no other person or company or government is responsible for giving it to you. You have to either find it or create it yourself.

If your situation isn't to your liking, either change it, or shut up and live with it. It's no one else's responsibility to do it for you.

"Poker Tells", Recruiting & Life

It's funny how a topic can seem to surface repeatedly in a fairly short period of time.

The subject of 'tells', like a poker tell, or behavior that serves as an indicator to others, has popped up several times recently.

Several movies and shows recently touched on the subject:

"Lucky", with Drew Barrymore, Eric Bana, and Robert Duvall, revolves around poker playing, including "tells", both at the poker table, and in life.

"Next", with Nicolas Cage and Jessica Biel, stars Cage as a Las Vegas magician of sorts, who makes some side money playing poker using some special abilities.

"2 1/2 Men", with Charlie Sheen, recently had an episode that referred specifically to poker tells, when Charlie was playing cards with his nephew.

About the same time I saw the above, one of ROI's recruiters and I got into a discussion about 'tells' on the part of candidates.

One of the most critical dynamics in recruiting is the give-and-take of information sharing between recruiters and their network. Trying to recruit without trying to sincerely help candidates, doesn't work very well. Likewise, candidates that want you to find them a new job, without helping you, don't provide a lot of motivation to the recruiter.

However, the sharing of information takes at least a little time to develop. I give a little, you give a little, I give a little more, you give a little more.

We've discovered that as long as we, as recruiters, are being reasonably generous with our time, and sharing, that we frequently get a pretty accurate and consistent 'tell' on the quality of the candidate based on how they respond.

Candidates who are a bit insecure, have had sort of average, or bounce around type of careers, or are more junior level, frequently don't want to share information on their contacts and friends. They give the perception of either mistrust, or fear that one of their contacts might win out over them for either a position we are discussing, or some future position, so they don't want to increase their competition.

High caliber candidates, on the other hand, typically have the attitude that there are plenty of jobs out there, the right one will come to me, and I want to help my friends and contacts so they'll help me. If someone I know is a better fit for a position than I am, then they should get it. They are more discerning about positions they go after, are quicker to disqualify themselves when it doesn't seem to be a fit, and frequently volunteer other contacts without even being asked.

Due Diligence or Buyer's Remorse

I spoke to a high end tech sales pro the other day. In the market again after joining a firm less than a year ago. Nice raise, rapidly growing young firm, great opportunity, etc, except, that it wasn't. Turns out the firm's website, marketing, PR etc were all baloney and they had practically no sales, no staff, and no future. (firm isn't an ROI client).

In a lot of cases today, there seems to be an ever-widening gap between firms' PR and marketing vs. reality. The whole field of advertising claims seems to have evolved mostly into an art in phraseology. While there are many legitimate quality companies around, it can be difficult to distinguish those from the pretenders.

Ford has advertised for years that the F-150 is the number one pickup in America. Turns out that Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra actually has outsold the F-150 the whole time, but since it's under 2 different nameplates, they are considered separate trucks.

Mutual funds are notorius for touting fund value growth percentages based on some specific period of outstanding performance. Closer scrutiny often reveals that many had a short period of stellar growth which they extrapolate, but that they actually performed poorly overall.

Another interesting arena is the explosion in awards competitions. Anyone tried to keep track of the number of movie industry awards competitions these days? If you want a little positive PR, sponsor a new award competition and name yourself the winner. I'm thinking of nominating ROI Recruiting for the best IT recruiting firm in Pawleys Island with a staff of less than 10. Since the population here is only a few hundred people, I hope we win, or at least come in the top 3.

As a recruiter, I look primarily to the employees for the inside scoop on companies. Regardless of the claims of revenue growth, employee quality and experience, you can usually get the best intel by talking to the present and former employees. When the employees start voting with their feet, it's time to take a serious look at what's going on. A serious drain on talent not only impacts a company's revenue and performance directly, but also usually means the PR and Marketing effort and expense needs to accelerate to mitigate the growing negative buzz in the community. Recruiting expenses will often rise dramatically as the company loses great people faster than they can find them. You can fool the people for a while....

As a candidate, make sure you tap into the community at large when scoping out a new opportunity. Don't just read the website; talk to people who have worked for the company, or clients or vendors who have worked with them, to find out the real scoop. And make sure you find your own contacts to speak with, not just those the company refers to you. These are like candidate references; you have got to figure the candidate is going to provide references from those that he/she feels will put them in the most positive light. Companies are no different, so dig a little deeper. The time spent will be well worth it.