Look around the office. How many people are thinking about changing jobs? Who’s applying already? Who’s open to speaking to a recruiter?
In the world of talent acquisition, the “passive candidate” is often spoken of in revered tones. This is the individual who is not actively seeking a new job, is likely performing well in their current role, and represents a largely untapped pool of high-quality talent. Experts argue that 80% of working professionals could be described as “passive”. Recruiters invest significant time and resources in wooing these elusive professionals, operating on a set of widely accepted best practices. Yet, for all the confidence with which these strategies are deployed, there remains a surprising amount that we simply do not know about the passive candidate. Our understanding is often based on assumptions and anecdotes rather than on a deep, data-driven comprehension of their motivations and behaviors.
One of the most significant areas of ignorance lies in the true, nuanced motivations of passive candidates. While we can easily surmise that a higher salary, a better title, or a more prestigious company can turn a head, we know very little about the more subtle, often unstated, drivers of their decisions. What is the “tipping point” that moves a genuinely content employee from a polite “no, thanks” to an engaged conversation? Is it a single event, like a missed promotion, or a slow accumulation of minor frustrations? We lack a sophisticated understanding of the psychological calculus that these individuals perform when weighing the comfort and familiarity of their current role against the uncertainty and risk of a new one. The concept of risk aversion is often mentioned, but we have little insight into how it is practically applied by candidates in different industries, at different career stages, and with varying personal circumstances.
Furthermore, we are largely in the dark about the “black box” of their job search and information-gathering behavior. It is a given that they are not scouring job boards, but how do they discreetly gather information about potential employers? What are their trusted, informal channels for vetting a company’s culture, leadership, and long-term prospects? Do they rely more heavily on the word of a trusted former colleague than on any official company branding? Their evaluation criteria for a new role likely differ significantly from those of an active candidate. While an active job seeker might be focused on the specifics of a job description, a passive candidate might be more interested in the long-term vision of the company, the quality of their potential new boss, and the overall cultural fit. We have yet to truly map out this alternative, more covert, job-seeking journey.
Perhaps the most glaring gap in our knowledge is the unproven long-term value of passive candidates. The recruitment industry is built on the premise that a passive candidate is a superior hire. The logic seems sound: they are successful enough to be content in their current role, so they must be a top performer. However, there is a remarkable lack of concrete, longitudinal data to support this claim. We have very few studies that track the performance, engagement, and retention of passive hires versus their active counterparts over the long term. Without this data, the notion of their superiority remains an unproven, albeit compelling, hypothesis. It is also important to consider the role of confirmation bias in this narrative. Recruiters and hiring managers who have invested considerable effort in landing a passive candidate may be more inclined to perceive them as successful, regardless of their actual performance.
In conclusion, while the pursuit of passive candidates has become a cornerstone of modern recruiting, our understanding of them is far from complete. We operate on a set of assumptions about their motivations, their methods for gathering information, and their ultimate value to an organization. To move beyond this anecdotal understanding, the talent acquisition industry needs to invest in deeper, more data-driven research. A more nuanced comprehension of the passive candidate’s journey, from their initial moment of receptiveness to their long-term performance, would not only make recruitment efforts more effective but would also provide a much-needed empirical foundation to a field that is still too often guided by gut feeling and conventional wisdom.
Our friends at LinkedIn have taken a look at the breakdown of passive candidates, and the truth is that an overwhelming number of them are open to exploring new job opportunities.
- 44% of all working professionals are explorers – not looking for a job but willing to discuss opportunities with recruiters
- The number of ‘approachable‘ candidates outnumbers ‘super passive’ – in some places, such as Australia and the US by a factor of 2 to 1
- 47% of professionals with less than one year on the job are explorers
- Explorers outnumber ‘super passive‘ – by a factor of 2 to 1
- When attracting to passive talent – reach out to your candidate of choice and get to know the candidate
