Passive candidates are often contrasted with active candidates.

The former would be much more desirable than the latter.

Are we right to view them differently?

Where does this difference in treatment  come from?

We always want what we can't have.

Psychologically, a person who actively shows a desire to work with us will seem less attractive than someone who has no interest in our company.

Human nature (which can be found in romantic relationships), in a way!

We believe that most active candidates are hiding a flaw.

Try to place an active candidate in front of a recruiter and the recruiter will inevitably try to find out why therefore this person is looking for a job. Very often, the recruiter will have a negative opinion right off the bat, nonexistent with a "working" candidate.

The best are bound to be taken.

We tend to think that a person in a job is, by definition, competent and easy to work with. If that weren't the case, she wouldn't be employed, would she? Think for a minute about this seemingly common-sense assertion, but it's totally false.

Have you ever come across complete incompetents in important positions according to the Peter's (or Dilbert's)   principle? Don't you meet high quality people who have made the choice to leave a work environment they could no longer stand? 

But these are bad habits. Because even in France, where the unemployment rate is very high, treating ALL candidates with respect can significantly improve the quality of hires. 

Not differentiating is a pragmatic imperative

First, providing a positive candidate experience, even to an unsuccessful candidate, will give them the opportunity to talk about it to those around them and perhaps on Glassdoor. It seems so obvious, and yet it's not that common.

A recruiting process that is pleasant for the candidate will also build trust, to the point where the recruiter can feel free to ask the candidate if he or she has references from others who might be interested in the position !

It should also be remembered that by treating each candidate the same and putting aside the " unemployed " label that sticks to a resume, the recruiter will be able to discover gems. If the recruiter is determined to treat every resume with the same objectivity, he or she will be able to give a chance to an ultra-motivated and quickly available candidate.

Finally, investing and working on your employer brand on social networks and on your careers page on one side and not treating every application received with the utmost care on the other side is nonsense. It seriously undermines the efforts undertaken !

The difference between an active and passive candidate? Timing! 

In Inbound Recruiting, we are mainly looking to reach passive candidates, as they are less sensitive to traditional employer brand communication. 

we are mainly looking to reach passive candidates, as they are less sensitive to traditional employer brand communication. 

"Un candidat passif est un candidat actif qui s'ignore" (Charlene Long, Ere Media)

But once that passive candidate is attracted to the career site, and converted into a lead candidate, he or she becomes de facto an active candidate. They will be sent interesting content on a regular basis, just as they will be sent interesting content with candidates who were not selected for an interview.

At any time, a professional in a company may arrive to reconsider his or her place in his or her company, and become more "market aware." The goal is therefore to be present in his mind at the time this event will arrive!

By changing your approche, and focusing on showing equal respect for all "types" of candidates, you increase your chances of recruiting talent, while not risking damage to your employer brand. 

All benefits, right?