Why passive candidates are really better

sunny

I’m don’t claim to be an expert, but I’ve always thought that the topic is overblown – I just don’t understand why being an active candidate is relevant to their eventual performance as an employee. Everyone has actively searched for a new job at some point in their lives, even “A” players, and it doesn’t make them any less effective at what they do.

1 H% Y5 O: Q2 yI still believe this is true (can anyone show me differently?), but the upcoming issue of the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership makes a different argument for recruiting passive candidates, and one that makes more sense to me.

Candidates who are happy (or at least not unhappy) at their current job are more likely to stay at their next one.
4 ?/ _# ~/ f& e# h5 P
From David Williams’ article in the Journal, which he wrote based on a study conducted by the Corporate Executive Board’s Recruiting Roundtable:
: d; q% z+ c" Q0 c; N
* P4 k* S* z. PIn addition, we analyzed organization-supplied performance data to test whether individuals who were passive in their job search tended to outperform those who were more active—a critical question that has been a bone of much contention in the trade press. Our findings revealed that passive candidates slightly outperform active ones, but only by a few percentage points. The real difference between active and passive candidates was related to intent to stay (i.e., a predictor of retention). Figure 2 shows that individuals who were passive in their job search are much more likely to stay at the organization than those who were very active. In other words, job-seeking behavior carries over into the current job: if I was active in seeking a job, I’m much more likely to leave that job. And if I was passive in the labor market when I was contacted for my current job, I’m much more likely to be passive when I’m an incumbent in that job.