A passive opportunity

Greg Wyatt • August 20, 2024

This article looks at two commonly used terms in recruitment, what they mean, and what you can take from this to improve your odds of finding your next job:

Passive.

Active.

Speak to headhunters and many will say that “passive” candidates are inherently better than “active” candidates.

Active means you are actively looking for another job.

Passive means you aren't yet are open to a conversation.

The argument goes further stating that something like 80% of the candidate marketplace is passive, while only 20% actively apply to adverts.

Therefore if you recruit only through advertising, you miss out on a huge chunk of viable candidates.

This isn’t a terminology I like, for many reasons. I’ve written an article about it here: Passive Aggressive.

It doesn’t help that, in the market we are currently in, adverts can receive 100s of applications, few of which are viable candidates. Click on this link to learn what this fact means for you.

If an employer doesn’t think adverts are effective, and that candidates are likely to be passive, they may not even advertise, instead relying on activities like headhunting.

So if all you do is rely on active channels such as adverts, you limit your opportunity.

There are two elements to the active/passive consideration that are worth talking about.

The first is how you come across the vacancy.

The second is how you are assessed for the vacancy.

How recruiters look for passive candidates

In any marketing activity there are typically two types of approach - inbound and outbound.

Inbound means that customer enquiries come to you.

Outbound means that you go to market to find potential customers.

In recruitment, an advert is an example of an inbound marketing activity, while headhunting is an example of an outbound.

Using the argument above, only Active candidates are inbound, whereas Passive candidates are found though outbound work.

Indeed, outbound work is more controllable, because you only contact candidates who meet your specific criteria, typically through LinkedIn, CV databases (job boards and agency), networking, referrals and headhunting.

So to be found like a Passive candidate you have to take advantage of these channels above used by recruiters.

A quick diversion.

I take a whole of market approach across all inbound and outbound channels where possible.

Early in the year I had a Talent Acquisition vacancy that went live, but we hadn’t finalised the job description.

We agreed that I would only speak to out of work TA folk in London (of which there are many), because the ambiguity of the brief would be less problematic.

I didn’t advertise for the same reason.

So I took the same approach I would to target passive candidates with outbound work, but only for active candidates.

We had a shortlist of 6 great candidates, and another 6 on the backburner. No one else would know this vacancy existed due to its lack of visibility.

But this isn’t a hidden job, it’s just one I recruited by ordinary means, without advertising.

Of course, that vacancy was cancelled, such has been the way of 2024.

How to get found like a passive candidate

This is actually pretty simple, it comes down to understanding how we look for candidates, then optimising your visibility in kind.

I’ve written articles on each. Check out the archive for information on:

  • Better use of Job Boards (for CV database optimisation)

  • How to network for a job (and become a referred candidate)

  • LinkedIn profiles that convert (and also get you found)

  • Principles of a good CV (including SEO principles)

  • Personal branding

Each of these articles reflect how I might look for candidates without advertising.

Why passive candidates can be more appealing at interview

There are some elements we can’t control and some we can.

We can’t control the fact that passive candidates are in a suitable job they probably enjoy enough. To move would have to be for very good reason.

Which means they are only interviewing for roles they are closely aligned too, and have the freedom to walk away from.

This combination of detachment and alignment makes a compelling proposition.

Passive candidates are typically in fewer recruitment processes than active candidates, often only one, which allows employers better odds of them accepting an offer.

How many recruitment processes are you in? If you had the nice problem of having two or more offers to choose between, how many could you accept?

These are a real and quantifiable risk for employers - is there an argument to reduce this risk by only offering candidates who are only in one process?

There is a more sordid side to the passive argument, which is that “only headhunters can access them”. These uniquely skilled professionals sometimes rely on an obfuscated process so that employers don’t understand how they actually work, so it can be advantageous not to represent active candidates at all.

I had formal training in headhunting early in my career - I choose to lay my process bare and it’s only one means in which I look for candidates.

The passive candidate features you can emulate to improve your odds

It’s not worth fretting over sordid behaviour and assumptions that are out of our control.

Better to take action where we can.

1. Detachment.

If you are out of work, typically you need a job, which can involve a number of compromises, rather than solely being interested in the job for what it is.

Detaching yourself from the outcome of an application makes you a better candidate, because that freedom to walk is a strong negotiating position, and informs the rest of your approach.

This same detachment can make knockback less damaging. Read up on detachment and stoicism for more - some of which is covered in A Resilient Jobsearch.

2. Alignment.

It's completely understandable that you'll go for jobs that aren't strong fits if you need to get back into employment.

But for every compromise you make, there will be candidates for whom that compromise is an attraction point.

Compromises which typically move you away from a core fit, to being a candidate with transferable skills. And like for like, a less suitable candidate than those above.

Yes employers could have the imagination to see how out of box candidates with transferrable skills can be brilliant, but that's out of your control.

If a role is strong interest to you, establish how your skills and aspirations apply to make you a core fit. If you can't, your odds will be lower.

This is a principle that will inform how you communicate throughout the process.

3. Accountability

Similar, with a nuance. It's easy to compromise on your requirements and expectations in a job search. Such as widening your salary band, and the jobs you'll apply for.

Unless you are in a skill short industry, or have a connection that can refer you in to a role, invariably your odds drop the further away you move from ideal fit roles.

Stick to your guns, so you aren't expending time and energy on unhelpful activity.

4. Intermediary representation

That's what we are as recruiters.

An effective recruiter does work behind the scenes to manage expectations, concerns and objections. Something that can improve your odds as a job seeker.

If you are in the fortunate position to be working with a recruiter that has your back, trust in the process.

5. The interview

How you execute your interviews is key. Read here for my advice -

I plan to start writing weekly for the next little while. One article will be on how to work with job descriptions to improve your odds. Another on ‘employer resentment’ and how you might use that to your advantage.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg
p.s. Active candidates have many advantages, particularly those who are between jobs. Why wouldn’t you want someone who can start straight away, and who might not otherwise have been available?

How to doorknock

By Greg Wyatt • June 11, 2026
What follows is Chapter 43 from A Career Breakdown Kit. Is it a magic salve guaranteed for success? No of course not. But much like anything in a job search, nothing is guaranteed. What we do is identify which avenues can be effective for your context, and form an appropriate strategy. LinkedIn optimisation is great if people search for you on LinkedIn. Except speaking to my recruitment peers, fewer and fewer rely on it. Would it surprise you if I told you I rarely invested in at all before 2019? I've been working in recruitment since 1996 including at CEO level. Applications, networking, referrals, content, CV databases. All have a place and a purpose. Doorknocking on the other hand - some would tell you it has no place in the modern job search. If my daughter*, her friends and other 18 year olds can get a job from an old school technique, while those employers say "only through Indeed" then that might be a hint it still works. Some of whom are socially anxious, but then it's a replicable process, not a cult of personality. Or the periodic messages I get from CxOs who made their own jobs from direct outreach. Not forgetting Granovetter's seminal research and recent LinkedIn-specific studies in Science journal showing weak ties drive more job mobility than strong ties. And why wouldn't doorknocking work on LinkedIn, when you have a weak tie that suggests a viable employer? But no, it's not a guarantee. It's just an arrow in the quiver of a multichannel job search. 43 - How to doorknock Doorknocking is an old-school sales approach you may well have experienced, such as when a salesperson with a clipboard rings your doorbell and asks you to change electricity provider. My wife even once bought from exactly this scenario. While it’s not uncommon in a business-to-consumer situation it can also work business-to-business… if you can get past security. Although technology has moved on, the principle is the same whether in person, by phone, email, letter or LinkedIn: You approach someone cold and create your own opportunity. This isn’t an approach for everyone and requires chutzpah. If you are used to a high failure rate in applications - what do you have to lose by being proactive? More than that - look at all the advice on LinkedIn on how to improve your odds in a job search. It’s all transactional and applicable, available to everyone - if you all follow it, everyone takes the same step forward. While taking steps others are less prepared to do means the approach alone may stand out. If you encounter the equivalent of a sign which says, ‘Trespassers will be shot!’, pay attention. My own career of looking for work includes many non-transactional approaches: Walked into the local Cinema and asked for a job Walked into Office World and asked for a job Worked for Dad Talked to one of my ex-colleagues and gained some by-the-call phone research work Temped through an agency Walked into an Inn and asked for a job Referred to a publishing, training & consulting company In managing their small-scale recruitment alongside my day job I got to know the MD of a recruitment firm as a supplier. I went to work there Tapped up to return to a more senior role Started my business upon being given the boot - thanks Dave! It’s true I did apply through job boards and agencies. It’s mainly through my own means that I have secured my employment. *My daughter even tried doorknocking for her first job in our local town last summer. It didn’t work for her - she found a nice retail job through an application on Indeed. Her experience was positive enough that she helped a friend do the same - who got a job at the first shop they tried. Doorknocking is about approaching companies by category not because they are recruiting. These categories can be: All the employers in your local business park (often they have websites, with directories and job adverts) Companies listed in local newspapers, directories or platforms (local to me this could be Cambridge Evening News, Bury Free Press, Cambridge Network or Business Weekly) Top 100 employers in your domain Companies that have recently had funding and are about to scale Doorknocking companies you’ve come across through networking and its resulting market map Make contact and make a case for yourself on the principle of the right person, right time, right place, right message, right offer, and right price. There’s an element of luck involved for these elements to all come together. A disadvantage is that they may not be recruiting or ever have a need to employ you and even if they do have a vacancy, you still have to establish the right fit. That means a logically low hit rate. Your threshold for an acceptable failure rate will inform whether this is the right approach for you. The difference is the anonymous rejection of a volume-based application versus the ‘personal rejection’ from your direct outbound approach. Right person, right time, right place, right message, right offer, and right price. Let’s reorder and examine this marketing principle: Right Place Those Categories above. The place is the Company, and how you contact them. You can go in blind if you are a bold prospector or research them in advance. ‘site:’ is a useful command in Google. You can search on specific websites: ‘site: linkedin.com ACME jobs’ Right Person Typically this will be the ‘next one up’ - Head of department, Director, CxO or Owner. Who would be the budget holder at work? Those are prospects. Look them up on LinkedIn, PR, news, video platforms. What can you find out? Right Time While time can be happenstance, can timed factors create opportunity? What might be a hiring trigger? Perhaps you could contact a list of companies that have recently announced funding or a big win - news that may lead to hiring additional people. Or maybe you hear through the grapevine that Janine is about to go off on maternity leave. If their process isn’t time-bound, can you make it time-bound? ‘We aren’t hiring right now’ might mean they’ve run out of headcount in the January to June period and may have a new budget in July. What can you learn that helps you both? If you have radio silence, why not try again in a month or three months? Think about how you buy. If you don’t need something how likely are you to respond to a message no matter how well crafted? If you do need something you might think first of someone who keeps in regular touch. Right Offer You have more opportunity for career creativity in being unemployed than someone entrenched in a 9 to 5 permanent job. What problems can you fix for a company in a non-traditional employment capacity? Let’s say an employer has a problem that needs fixing. They don’t have capacity to do it right now. It isn’t burning enough to seek professional help and there isn’t sufficient work in view to make it a job. What if you caught them at the right time? An out-of-work TA Manager who offered to revamp an onboarding process. A web designer who notes lots of issues with their website. A strategic operational issue that is their unknown unknown identified by your expertise. A swamped team that could benefit from their admin burden being reduced. An orchard that needs pickers at harvest time. What starts out as a short-term, project, or part-time piece of work can become proof of concept. While rare, I know a few people whose permanent full-time jobs have come about this way, including at a senior level. Right message This is both specific and crude. It’s specific because nailing the message CAN create an opportunity a poorly written message may miss. It’s crude because sometimes you can catch people at the right time, no matter how cruddy your message is. This is the case in recruitment - I’ve picked up several senior appointments by calling at the right time. ‘I’m glad you called Greg, I’m starting to think about my maternity cover in June.’ Had I not called, that HR Director may well have gone to the specialist HR recruiters she is also in touch with. If you have a strong hook in your message - such as a key area of rare expertise or a clear issue you’ve identified which companies may have - go in with that. If you don’t - done is better than procrastinating: ‘Hi Greg, I live locally to Bircham Wyatt Recruitment. Love what you do. I wondered if you might be recruiting for an apple picker at any point. If you can’t help, could you point me in the right direction?’ Right price I’ve left this until the end because much of this is variable and subjective. What are your needs? What can they afford? What does the market say? How flexible can you be? Research will help if you can get a sense of what they generally pay through Indeed, Glassdoor or others. Or maybe what comparable companies that are advertising will pay. One approach might be to pro-rate your salary over the period you’ll work there. Doorknocking can sometimes give you access to jobs that are being actively recruited. It’s a happy byproduct of your work, if you find yourself in this situation. It’s worth persevering. Otherwise, it’s too easy to think after 10, 20, or 100 unsuccessful efforts that the approach itself is at fault. There is always an element of luck in any activity. This may be out of your comfort zone, in which case it’s an opportunity to grow. The only certain thing is that if you don’t try you definitely won’t benefit.

Root Canal - No problem, pt 2

By Greg Wyatt • June 4, 2026
Listening to the consequences of your recruitment process is an opportunity. I do find it interesting go through my older articles. How has my thinking changed? Has it improved? How was I so cringy? Looking at this article in its August 2023 form, I hadn't yet focused on Candidate Resentment as an opportunity to improve how we recruit. Not because it's decent to treat people better, but because that is a happy byproduct of strategically assessing our work as it supports our goals. Whether that's filling vacancies or finding people that meet our goals long-term and flourish doing so. Root canal If you recognise that speaking to the potential problems of the people you want to engage is a good idea, you may also recognise why you shouldn't create any problems that push them away. Engagement is an ongoing process that carries through every stage of recruitment, even into employment. Yes, bring your candidates forward, in part by showing how you solve their career problems. But, don’t throw up unnecessary issues that undo your good work. Listening to the consequences of your recruitment process is an opportunity. Why did that candidate proceed? Why did another withdraw? What raised concern? What about the potential candidates we don’t even know about? What influenced their decisions? I’ve spoken to tens of thousands of candidates, prospects, applicants, and everything else, during my career. Out of curiosity, I’m always interested in what influences their decisions in their pursuit of a new career. What fascinates me is that these are the Gemba , the unknown unknowns that we can extrapolate into our own recruitment processes. What problems do they encounter elsewhere, that discourage them from applying, that encourage them to withdraw, and why? And how might we be guilty of the same? While if we are guilty, how can we fix these problems, so that the objection never comes up? Imagine that - the reader that might have walked away, who instead chooses to engage. This may seem an unknowable unknown, but one of the benefits of my job seeker work is hearing about the issues they encounter on their side of recruitment and how that may influence their decisions. Considering these are people that are very problem aware, their appetite for bullshit is in some ways higher than the problem unaware (passive in old speak). While in others, what you may consider normal behaviour, they consider red flags. While we can’t control the behaviour of candidates, we can learn what influences their behaviour and form a process that nudges, draws forward or mitigates when needed. What are we accountable for that might present a problem for a candidate we want to employ? Especially when, in normal life, moving jobs is one of the biggest stresses? How might we unnecessarily cause scepticism or anxiety? Auditing your own recruitment process as a mystery candidate is one opportunity. As is surveying your staff for their experience - with the caveat they are happy to be working for you, skewing their perception. Or perhaps they're terrified of losing their jobs. Do they really want to rock the boat with criticism? But it’s the candidates who withdraw, who hesitate, who object that can be the source of the biggest improvements. What would you say their common complaints are? You can look to LinkedIn for the answer, in their high-engagement posts. Salary on the job description (they mean the advert) ATS data duplication Responsiveness and transparency Tardy, bloated and unnecessary recruitment stages A robotic process that forgot they are human Which becomes your choice. Do you look within and challenge yourself with 5 Whys to see how you can improve? Do you take away problems before they can occur? Saving your candidates unnecessary toothache? Or do you lay blame on the areas you can’t control? Those are the questions. Regards, Greg p.s. I’m available for interesting work - UK key hires, fractional talent acquisition and recruitment writing. Maybe we can talk. p.p.s. A Recruitment AiDE is out now - the discipline for UK key hire recruitment