Historically, there’s been an unspoken belief in talent acquisition that the best talent is the passive candidate: someone who is not actively looking for a new job and is satisfied in their current position but might consider a new opportunity if approached by the right employer with the right offer.

Although active job seekers may be readily available and generally easier to find, the passive candidate is often believed to be the hidden gem, the top performer, the ideal fit for your role. Attracting these candidates can be seen as tapping into a hidden reservoir of high-caliber talent that you just can’t get from your existing pipeline.

This belief has only been reinforced by the phenomenon known as the “Big Stay,” where many professionals are choosing to remain in their current roles rather than seek new opportunities, in part due to economic uncertainty and a desire for job security and stability. According to an iCIMS survey of 1,000 U.S. job seekers in the January Workforce Report, a majority plan to stay in their current roles this year—a sharp contrast to the record-breaking 4 million workers who quit each month in 2021 during the “Great Resignation.”

This “sheltering in job” trend, combined with recent economic ebbs and flows, has led many talent acquisition leaders to place a stronger emphasis on targeting passive candidates for their open roles. After all, according to LinkedIn, a large majority (70%) of the global workforce is made up of passive candidates. As opposed to active job seekers, the opportunities presented to recruiters by the passive applicant pool are seemingly endless.

However, is the preference for passive candidates really justified? Or is it a myth perpetuated by outdated recruiting practices and a scarcity mindset?

The power of the engaged job seeker

The reality is, passive candidates are not necessarily better than job seekers on the move. In fact, they might be harder to reach and convince, more likely to drop out or reject your offer and they are not necessarily more qualified or better performers.

They also often require more time and resources to engage, often have higher expectations and may even face counteroffers from their current employer, which can lead to a drawn-out recruitment process and longer time-to-hire. Additionally, the costs associated with attracting passive candidates through paid ads or agencies can be significantly higher, ultimately driving up the cost per hire. Most importantly, they may not be as well-suited to the role or company culture as active job seekers who are eager and motivated to join your organization.

Alternatively, the applicants and talent you already have in the hiring process might still fall short of the qualifications needed for a top hire—leaving recruiters caught between a rock and a hard place. Who are recruiters to pursue?

‍

Read full article here