"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.

Growing

ROI is coming to a crossroads.

Oct 2007 was our best month in history.

We are currently working with at least 8 active clients, 7 of whom are former placement clients (which means good clients). We have a total of over 50 open positions with those firms. And I just picked up 4 more assignments with a new client today.

It's time to grow.

We've had some sub-contractors working with us part-time, but with this much business, we need to start thinking about some full-time help. The question is: what kind? An experienced full-cycle recruiter? If so, can I find someone I will be comfortable with handing off some of my near and dear clients? (not so sure about that). If I hire someone with their own niche, that's great, but it doesn't help me with my work load. How about a junior person? but then we'd be sort of developing into the split desk, account rep/recruiter setup that I've blogged about before. How do I do that and maintain the quality of the process and connections with the candidates (you get a lot of intel from them)?

I'll be more content to maintain the status quo, rather than hire mediocre people, or create a revolving door, that will diminish the service my clients have to come to expect. I can make a good living doing continuing to do what I'm doing. In most respects, it might be less of a headache to leave it be. But it's hard to say no to more business if the business is there.

It's really all about finding the right people, and keeping them!