Wed, Apr 20, 2011
Stop Name Calling: How Job Candidate Labeling Could Cost You A Great Hire
Posted by Nathan Gildow
In nearly every conversation I have with Recruiters the topic of the perfect job candidate will always arise. It’s natural. We’re constantly pining for that perfect hire, sitting out there somewhere among the masses, waiting to be plucked from the ranks to lift the mantle of our corporate brand. This is the Holy Grail of candidates and they have a name. We call them the “passive seeker.”
Hardly a day goes by without a newly published blog post, mainstream media article or hardback on how to find them. But who are they, and why are they the cream of the proverbial crop? The most common definition for a “passive candidate” is employed but not looking for another opportunity. The key pre-condition, of course, is gainful employment. And therein lies the rub: you must be employed.
The idea that to be employable you must already be employed is an artificial and inaccurate assumption that just needs to go away. To me, it’s like saying only married people are worth dating. After all, if they aren’t married then something must be wrong with them, right?
Of course most of us would agree this logic is unreasonable if not altogether wrong. Ridiculous you might say, given that nearly half of first time marriages end in divorce. It’s time to acknowledge the same flawed logic in the Recruiting business. During the height of the recession in October of 2009, more than 15.5 million people found themselves out of work.
Many were the victims of corporate downsizing, job elimination as a byproduct of outsourcing, bankruptcy restructuring, or firms that went completely out of business. Others felt insecure about their employer’s stability, the sting of fewer resources, or overall lack of opportunity in a post recession world, and began testing the employment waters.
Passive Vs. Active: 3 Recruitment Realities
Whatever their motivation, they found themselves fighting a clear bias as recruiters brought out the label maker and dubbed them the undesirable “active seekers.” That is, easy prey that are unemployed for a reason and not worthy of the hunt. Even today as unemployment begins to ease and the labor p0ol begins to tighten, there is a clear preference for those in the ranks of the “employed and not looking.”
As an industry we need to embrace the following job candidate realities:
1. “Active” Does Not Necessarily Mean “Unemployed”
Even if it did we shouldn’t care. There are millions of potential candidates and varying degrees of activity that could change at the drop of a hat. That a candidate is somehow not worthy of our attention because they dared to express direct interest in our opportunity is a huge miss (did you know, for example, that 73% of Monster users are currently employed?)
This mentality is the result of a temporary (now waning) overall increase in talent supply that will likely continue to diminish.
2. “Unemployed” Does Not Mean “Unemployable”
We can’t pretend to know everyone’s story, and must remember there are people behind the piece of paper in our hands. As recruiters, it is our job to discover the story through the entire body of work, including: skills, experience, education, personality and cultural fit within our organization. None of these can be ascertained or fully vetted by arbitrary labels.
3. “Employed” Does Not Mean This Is Your Next Superstar
I’m sure we have all met individuals who made us question their current employer’s interviewing process. If the leading indicator for a top performer is zero gaps in employment history, then we would never make a bad hiring decision. I think we all know this isn’t the case. The same complete body of work outlined above has to be taken into consideration.
So how do we combat this? We can start by checking our assumptions and re-embracing best practices. Career decisions are deeply personal, but our practices and language in an understaffed overworked corporate recruiting world often become deeply impersonal. The result could mean overlooking a tremendous contribution to our organizational talent pool.
Remember, a missed opportunity today could be a very expensive acquisition from someone else tomorrow. So keep pursuing the Holy Grail of candidates, but constantly challenge assumptions, reject arbitrary labels, and most importantly, encourage your peers in our industry to do the same.
Related Posts
About the Author
Nathan Gildow is a Human Resources professional with over 10 years of experience. He serves as recruitment Strategy Consultant at Monster.com and develops online recruiting strategies for Fortune 500 and Fortune 100 clients. Nathan also represents Monster at major HR conferences like Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM), where he provides Monster product demos to current and future customers. Prior to working for Monster, Nathan held several roles at Great American Insurance, including HR Project Manager, HR Relationship Manager, and Business Operations Specialist. Nathan holds a BA in Communication from University of Cincinnati and resides in Cincinnati, OH.7 Responses to “Stop Name Calling: How Job Candidate Labeling Could Cost You A Great Hire”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- - 22. Apr, 2011
[...] Passive vs. Active Job Candidates: How Labeling can Cost Great Hires? by Nathan Gildow (@ncgmonster) [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 - - 04. May, 2011
[...] bedrijven uit de Fortune 500 en Fortune 100. Dit artikel verscheen eerder op het Amerikaanse blog Monster Thinking. Deel: Recommend on Facebook Share on FriendFeed Buzz it up Tip on Hyves Share on Linkedin Share on [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 0
April 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM
Bravo Nathan! For years my recruiter clients have given me the task of producing passive job seeker through the advertising I placed for them and then at my career fairs. Your article correctly points out that recession always has highly qualified casualties. I know a lot of very qualified people that are “consulting” to stay busy, but long to go back to full time work and would be highly motivated and productive additions to any team. The recession gave them undeserved gaps in their resumes.
Thanks for a refreshing reminder that quality comes in many forms.
Jim Stoch
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
May 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM
I agree but maybe it’s the definition Passive and Active that needs to be revisited – it’s very black and white.
To be unemployed and not looking the candidate would have to be pretty wealthy! I definitely agree that someone who is unemployed is not unemployable however I also know that of all the media we use for our clients job postings have the lowest conversion to hire.
I think it’s more that the channels the really active candidates use generates a much larger portion of unsuitable applications. Making the job of the recruiter harder as there are many more applications to reject.
The problem is not just with the recruiters but also with the way that the jobs are advertised and then how the response is handled when the candidates get to the client site
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 2, 2011 at 5:55 PM
I want to say from the job seekers side of the story.
I find that many managers like to assume that they know the answer to the questions they ask before the candidate even has a chance to respond. Or if the candidate responds the Manager assumes or fills in the blanks for themselves. (manipulates and twists the conversation to how ever they see fit)
I good manager should have enough decency to allow the candidate to answer before jumping to conclusion.
Why does a manager believe everything he hears from a candidates ex employer? Issues are not always caused by an employee and maybe there are untold circumstances that he / she should be aware of.
For example: I was a victim of office bullying and the company let it happen. They had a handbook which clearly stated that harassment and bullying would not be tolerated and anyone found doing so would be let go. (it did not happen) as she was a manager.
I was yelled at, told to get the #$%^ out of the room ( even thought I did nothing to warrant that with a room full of witnesses) this was from a controller who was constantly drunk They finally let go, pretending that she had heath problems and used that as an excuse.
I was harassed and told i should get surgery on my face (implying that my eye bags were ugly) What does that have to do with how I did my work??
I was constantly micromanaged and harassed by a fellow co worker, I spoke to my boss 10 times asking for help to resolve this issue and he did nothing. I was the only one in the company who was treated this way ( so yes after 4 years of harassment I finally had enough and said I was going to the labour standards board or Human tribunal on discrimination.
All of a sudden they manager decided to listen to me, and talked me out of making a complaint. They said they would fix it and offered to pay me to go to a office organizational skills class which I attended.
The a year later they laid me off and now I cant find work because they have bad mouthed me
It has been a year. I have had several interviews I think is going well, then all of a sudden the hiring manager does a 360 degree turn, and says things in a round about way brings what happened at my last job or makes me out to seem like i am lying about things when I clearly did not say such things, then they ignore me when i try to defend myself.
Now i am classified as a bad hire?? because I was bullied??
what a great world we live in ,,, and how arrogant managers have become is pathetic. I guess they get ahead because they are so good passing the buck.
I will now be going to legal aid and the human rights tribunal to find out if I can sue these companies and managers for their part in lying to me and treating me with disrespect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 6, 2011 at 4:48 PM
I know plenty of people who were bullied at work and went to HR about it. You know what happens to workplace bullying victims? They will find themselves out of a job. The message is clear. Speak up about harassment and you will be the one marched out the door. One is better off keeping quiet and stealthily looking for another job so they can escape that kind of toxic environment.
On the topic of passive versus active candidates, I wonder how many millions of long-term unemployed workers who were laid-off through no fault of their own will now find themselves completely shut out of the job market for good due to unfair hiring practices that are supported by corporations? Have we created a permanent underclass of skilled workers? What has this country become?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM
I once worked for a boss in the Army who said he’d rather hire someone who was a middle of the road performer who wanted to work with him than the best in the Army who didn’t take the time to express any interest. He has long since retired from the Army after wearing a few stars and is now a senior executive at a company in DC.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0