Recruiter News  >  The Problem of Sorting Active and Passive Candidates in Recruiting - March 2006

In 1906, an economist named Pareto observed that 80 percent of Italy’s wealth was owned by 20 percent of its population. Behavioral scientists followed this line of reasoning over the years, and to their surprise found that in many areas of human endeavors, 20% of a group performed close to 80% of the work. The figures are not exactly 80/20 – but common enough that the 80/20 rule, or Pareto principle, thus came into existence as a law.

The 80/20 rule, as was later found, is a mathematical oddity that applies to all kinds of natural systems, not just human groups. Easily understood and accepted by those without a mathematics background, this rule has become the perfect justification for just about every occasion. Layoffs? Just following the 80/20 rule. Compensation plans weighted towards top producers? 80/20 rule. Bending the rules for certain clients? 80/20 rule! Managers have learned that the 80/20 rule can be used to justify and explain every occurrence in the corporate world – even if the basics of the mathematics are not understood, the idea of 80/20 is powerful enough to justify all kinds of decision making.

Business terms like the Pareto principle are dangerous because they are easily misunderstood and thus easily misapplied. Pervasive and all-explaining, they never quite explain why every method leads to the same 80/20 results. After all, if the Pareto were taken literally, you could fire 80% of your workforce and still maintain 80% of your most profitable revenue. No one has managed to do that yet.

In the recruiting world, we have our own dangerous business term. It’s called the Cult of the Passive Candidate, and it is as pervasive and dangerous to use as justification as the Pareto principle.

I’m not sure when the term first broke the surface, but passive candidates are cited as the salve for all employment wounds. Need technical help? We need those passive candidates. Current recruiters not bringing in enough good salespeople? Not bringing in enough passive candidates. Need a new Applicant Tracking System? You need one that tracks passive candidates.

Passive is the coin of the realm. Any salesperson knows the hot buttons for decision makers is talking about getting in front of those elusive passive candidates. By comparison, an active candidate is just another worker bee, not worth spending real time, real effort or real money to find. So what exactly is the passive or active candidate?

The definition of active and passive are ideally listed in the manner below.

Active Candidates

• Currently looking for positions.
• Interviewing at several companies.
• Subject to increased salary pressure because of the presence of several offers.
• Responsive to time-sensitive decisions, making it difficult to ensure the offer and the acceptance of the offer are a good fit.
• Poor managers of the career: Either layed off, left without a position, or possessing personal issues that affect availability to employ.
• Poor retention rates due to conditions that led them to be active candidates in the first place.
• "Highly motivated" to find employment.

Passive Candidates

• Currently employed.
• Happy at their jobs.
• Valuable to their current employer.
• More likely to move for the right fit instead of salary demands.
• Less competitive pressure for salary due to "right fit" mentality.
• Difficult to find as they have to be approached.

From the two lists, we can surmise that the passive candidate ideally is a top producer with no reason to leave a company. It makes sense that a top producer would be a highly desirable candidate – or at the very least, an employee who is satisified with their career progression and unlikely to switch jobs on a whim. Since one of the main goals of an employer is a stable workforce, passive candidates are the holy grail of recruiters.

These definitions in and of themselves are not bad. When comparing the downsides of the active candidates, and especially if the company is having a problem finding quality candidates, the Siren call of the passive candidate search starts to make a lot of sense. As a sales pitch, this is actually highly effective. The problem is the definitions. They are subjective and based on a large sampling of evidence that never seems to fit individual candidates. It is difficult to make the kind of judgement calls that define passive candidates as a better source because recruiters on a daily basis have so few passive candidates to interview, and thousands of resumes of active candidates to consider. Worse yet, while sorting through candidates to call, the recruiter has no way of determing who is active or passive based on their resume.

Given this state of affairs, recruiters often have to turn simpler definitions that allows them to quickly identify names and resumes into active or passive piles.

Definitions thus tend to fall to the least common denominator:

• Passive candidates must already have jobs.
• Passive candidates don’t have their resumes posted online, and they don’t have current resumes in front of recruiters.

On the other side:

• If you are unemployed, you are an active candidate
• If you are about to be unemployed, you are an active candidate.
• If you have voiced dissatisfaction about your job, you are an active candidate.
• If you posted your resume online or called a recruiter to ask about possibilities, you are an active candidate.
• If the circumstances of your job have changed (more travel, didn’t get the promotion or raise, you’re not learning new skills), you’re an active candidate.

Even these definitions are too complex without actual phone contact with an candidate. Active and Passive candidates are thus simplified even further into:

Passive: Employed
Active: Unemployed

The problem with active and passive labels is they are not definite terms. At best, active and passive describe levels of active searching or passive searching. An unemployed candidate could be the most active searcher out there, or financially supported by someone else with no intention of taking a job. Likewise, a passive candidate under the traditional definition may be employed and satisified, but searching for something new based on personal criteria that can only be discovered by a phone call. They also could truly be happy with their job and not want to leave no matter how much effort is expended on them.

This is the root problem with defining candidates as "active" or ""passive" in a search. The recruiter doesn’t know whether they or active or passive until they have spoken to them. Thus, the sorting function leaves recruiters to assume that "active" candidates are unemployed, and "passive’ candidates are employed.

Traditional passive candidates are treated with more respect and given more control than traditional active candidates because passive candidates are considered better employees. We know that it is a mistake to assume that in today’s climate of layoffs, restructuring, and personnel shifts that a person out of work is a worthless person. The demands to find good people don’t allow for this assumption. So what is a recruiting department to do?

I propose we change the terms from "active and passive" to "Selective" and "Indiscriminate" candidates. Selective candidates look for quality companies and positions that fit their skills. Indiscriminate applicants are just out looking for a job. In the next two sections, we’ll work through the definitions of these two new terms, and then address the strategies that can be applied to capture the attention of "Selective" Candidates and how recruiting departments can manage them throughout the employment process.

About the Author

Jim Durbin is an online media consultant for the Durbin Media Group in St. Louis, MO. He joined the recruiting world in 1999 at the peak of the internet bubble in Los Angeles, and has since made the transition from recruiting blogging to blogging consultant.

Mr. Durbin is interested in using the blogging format to provide the common man a chance to speak out in a world where personal publishing online makes every man or woman equal to the world's largest public relations company. He is the primary author for StlRecruiting.com, and a contributing author for the Recruiting.com group blog.