An element of hiring that I like talking about with my clients is "where our candidates are coming from", in terms of whether they are currently employed or applying to every single job on every job board. I'm not sure if companies hiring without the assistance of a recruiter (internal or an agency) really consider this factor.
I hear from hiring managers and recruiters alike that the "best" candidate is a passive candidate that is currently with a competitor and that has demonstrable proof of success in the role. No doubt that you want to find people with experience in your industry, but is a passive candidate the best?
For perspective, let's look at it in terms of a spectrum of where a candidate might be coming from...
Serial Job Hoppers (applying to an ad)
Unemployed due to life circumstances, but do not have any real red flags (also applying to an ad)
People who are employed but looking for one reason or another (once again applying to an ad)
Employed, not looking, and currently working for a company in your industry (actively recruited)
So I would like to point out that this becomes very situational and even the "Job Hoppers" are good people and might be employable in the right situation, but for arguments, sake lets keep this in generalities. With that in mind, we can safely say that most hiring managers that I have met don't want to even interview people with bad tenure.
Hiring someone who isn't a job hopper, but isn't currently working takes some thought. Provided the reason behind their departure from their last position makes sense then you can measure them by their qualifications. Unfortunately for the candidate, hiring managers seem to hold on to some skepticism in these situations.
The same goes for the people who have jobs but are looking for a new opportunity. Despite the fact that it seems reasonable that people want to look for new challenges every so often, I still hear hesitation from companies. It is almost a given that employers will question their motivations for leaving and then follow it up by asking "why do they want to work for us"... That being said the fact that they are currently working speaks well for them and beyond that, if they are qualified companies will hire these people.
This leads us to the "passive candidate". This candidate was identified by a recruiter because they have the exact skill set required for the position they have open. They are then approached out of the blue and presented with the opportunity. The candidate then considers the risks and benefits of leaving the safety of their current position and makes a conscious decision to pursue the opportunity. These candidates are selected rather than randomly appearing and for that reason, I do believe that passive candidates have a better chance of turning out to be successful in the role and making an impact for their new employer.
This is just food for thought. There are no hard and fast rules and I have seen incredible hires made from the job boards. A company's approach to recruiting also depends on how specific the qualifications are and the talent pool available. The bottom line is this... would you rather select your candidates from a buffet of talent? Or would you rather get a mystery boxed lunch? If you want to learn more about Estrem & Co. and how to access a "Buffet of Talent" reach out to us... www.estremandco.com
