As is my wont, I was perusing the LinkedIn answer forums over the weekend and answered a question that provoked an answer that has really hit home for various reasons.
The first thing that this response hits me with is that the person responding obviously doesn't understand *me* (more about that in a moment.) Before I share the response, I want to share some information regarding recruiting "philosophy". It has always been the "holy grail" of recruiters to engage the "passive candidate". That is someone that is happily employed elsewhere and not looking. The thought process behind it is that someone that isn't looking is most likely going to be a better employee, because obviously they are making an impact where they are, and they are more likely to be a top performer.
In times of plenty (like the mid-90's through 2005/6) that may be true. The reason I bring this up is because of part of the comment I received as a response:
"If your group maintains a bias for "passive candidates", it is more a part of the problem with our economic recovery than the solution".
I happen to agree with this person, but he obviously doesn't know *me*. I wrote a recruiting blog about this very mentality last summer.
Redefining the "passive" candidate's importance in recruiting
This is really giving me a lot of food for thought, and I'm trying to share it with my recruiting colleagues, but it's really an uphill battle.
The Disturbing Trend of Ageism in the Work Place
How *NOT* To "Network"
This article also appears on