Where The Truth Lies: The Need For Balance Between Active and Passive Recruiting

Note:  Jeremy is a friend of mine and is one of the brightest HR folks I've ever encountered. - Dan.

From ERE Exchange | by Jeremy Eskenazi Aug 20, 2009, 5:53 am ET

I
once heard a story that the CEO of a major executive search firm told a
group of newly minted partners to never present candidates who are
unemployed. When one of the new partners raised his hand and challenged
the CEO as to how the firm could adequately serve its clients without
evaluating all potential candidates, the CEO implied that, by
definition, anyone who is unemployed is inferior.

I understand this line of thinking. It's simple, concise, easy to
categorize. A "sexy" pitch. In fact, it's the same line of thinking
that leads to the idea that anyone who hangs out with a communist must
be a communist sympathizer, or that someone who fires a woman must be a
misogynist, or who is accused must be guilty in some way. In short,
it's dead wrong.

What's wrong about it is it's incendiary, irresponsible, and
extreme. One-sided. And it's not like I believe the opposite line of
thinking to be true either (that all recruiting should be focused on
those who are unemployed). Quite the contrary. I have a problem with
that version as well. I've read a number of articles (such as in Workforce Management Magazine lately, in this recession, that imply (or even overtly state) that passive recruiting
is a "shameful practice" and contributes to the distrust of corporate
America by the many millions of workers who are seeking employment.
Passive recruiting shameful? Again, this reasoning is as misguided as
the CEOs above.

"To suggest that passive recruiting in the face of a high
unemployment rate is unethical is a misnomer that fails to take into
account the bigger picture," says Dr. Cheryl-Marie Hansberger, vice
president of strategic development for Delcan, a global engineering
firm. "It is true that most industries are seeing an increase in the
number of applicants per position; however, for our company this
increase has not equated to larger pools of qualified candidates.
Instead this increase creates an additional burden for lean HR teams as
we spend more time processing unqualified applicants. The fact of the
matter is successful companies use the most cost-effective means to
recruit qualified candidates, whether it is a direct hire or a passive
candidate, period."

And this is what I'm not hearing much of in all the chatter out there - the middle ground - where the truth lies.

"Recruiters ... want to fill the job perhaps more than anyone," says
Ginny Eagle, director of talent acquisition for T-Mobile. "If the
requisition has attracted what appears to be top candidates, we look no
further. If not, we source. Sourcing
involves multiple activities to find the perfect candidate.
Professional networking tools are used, and we often can't really tell
if someone is still employed or not because people are not updating
their profiles when they first leave a job. They sometimes wait, so
they don't appear to be unemployed."

One of the themes that I've constantly referred back to is, when it
comes to recruiting, one size does not fit all. As mentioned above,
great recruiting requires both active and passive strategies and, in
short, good, hard work. As with most things, to say that something is
all or nothing simply isn't true. For instance, the idea that active
recruiting involves "damaged goods" is simply not always the case. It
takes a great HR person to know the difference.

"There is no denying that many share the opinion that the best
people don't get laid off. To me, this is a narrow point of view as
situations certainly exist, such as our current economic environment,
that put even the best people at risk," notes Jason Farr, vice
president, global talent acquisition, Coca-Cola Enterprises.
"I believe it's important to not limit ourselves and to be open to all candidates."

To be sure, there are candidates who have been laid off for
performance reasons, and companies do use an economic downturn to mask
laying off people for performance issues. In this instance, companies
know there are a lot more active candidates in the marketplace and
thus, they can replace the individual laid off quicker. As a result,
there are certainly individuals with professional red flags in the
marketplace, but the successful recruiter will have a balanced view of
this.

And there are undoubtedly specific roles whereby the chances are
that 90% or more of appropriate candidates will be developed through
passive recruiting. For certain roles, in certain professions, there
are simply not a lot of candidates, and the best people are employed
elsewhere. "While passive recruiting is very costly, it is essential in
industries that have large barriers to entry and, as a result, smaller
qualified applicant pools," says Hansberger.

"Those in the healthcare industry know this quite well," adds
Christine de la Paz, human resources director, Aurora Behavioral
HealthCare. "We are specific to what we are looking for, and not only
through our whim ... the requirements are dictated by government bodies
and accrediting organizations. After all, our RNs need to have a valid
license."

Thus if you're a company looking for these types of people, you have
to know where they are and be able to convince them to come elsewhere.
To not adopt this approach for these key roles would be corporately
irresponsible.

But a vital element in all of this is you don't have to pursue only
one strategy. The different approaches do require different skill sets.
Active candidate recruiters tend to have a "post and pray" mentality
and are very assessment-focused; passive candidate recruiters are
skilled at sourcing strategy and research, among other things.

The key is that as recruiters and HR professionals, we have to
develop skills and techniques to do both and should not necessarily be
single-strategy focused. Some (dare I say many) roles will require both
an assessment and sourcing strategy.

Notes Chelle Wingeleth, director-global recruitment services,
Research in Motion Ltd, the developer of the BlackBerry mobile device,
"It is incumbent upon recruiting professionals to design and pursue
strategies to find the best talent quickly. In today's market it is
true that there are more active candidates; however, this does not mean
that we can become complacent and rely upon one source. Posting a job
so that active candidates may apply is not a silver bullet. What if the
right candidate does not apply? A good recruiter will focus on
attracting active applicants and, in parallel, search for passive
candidates."

A question bigger than all of this lurks, however: As staffing and
recruiting teams have dwindled in companies and the recruiting
specialists have left, where do we go to identify candidates?

The answer, as you may have guessed, turns out to be not one place
but many places. They include everything from using outsourced
providers to developing appropriate sourcing methods in-house (as
mentioned above).

Ultimately, according to Wingeleth, "Companies and recruiters are
striving to do the right thing. Who among us does not want to see
unemployment go down? But, the reality of our situation is this: The
national jobless rate is 9.5%. This means that 90.5% of Americans are
employed. No line manager or company playing to win in this economy
would say they want to ignore 90% of the potential talent. Put another
way, who would only want to consider 10% of the possible candidates?"

Thus, as I've mentioned previously, if your ultimate goal is to
increase your value to your organization, and be the best recruiter
possible, you have to stay away from only-one-way-or-another,
all-or-nothing mentality. In the end, in this economy, it may get you
nothing.