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?

Tone deaf - No problem, pt 6

By Greg Wyatt • November 5, 2026
It's interesting revisiting this article from 3 years ago, especially now AI products are more embedded in market. If anything my view on AI is more polarised, bringing many new opportunites, brand new problems, as well as the existential angst many are talking about. For me, codifying my experience with AI tools means I can help more people, while freeing up my time to do more human work. It's certainly helped with job seeker support, and increasingly so in my recruitment work. Mainly it's giving me more time to talk to people, and when homogenous AI applications at scale are one new problem, as well as the increasing threat of deep fake interviews, in person conversations might be a necessary exnovation (just googled that - what a great word that I will now abuse at scale). While the article below has dated somewhat, I think the threat it assesses has never been more pertinent. I've said for some time that AI might be the death of knowledge and judgement, even so far as 'meaning', something that this recent research also indicates . Importantly the research doesn't say the recommendations were wrong, just how they were followed. Read that article and think about how AI recommendations on applications relate. I've certainly found them more problematic, so far, than the old school ATS style ranking and filtering - because of the false confidence they convey, especially when dealing with non-traditional applications. Things may improve, or so is promised. And while words might be the first facility of LLM, they are still the core facility, given all it does is determine the most probable answer in its outputs (I know I'm being reductive, some of the developments from AI are amazing). Whereas words should be the consequence of thoughts, lead to the development of thought, and distil ideas in a way you can act on. Much like job adverts should be the consequence of effective job analysis, rather than a polished word that lacks meaning. The greatest risk for me in recruitment isn't so much the answers AI offers, but that we become so reliant we forget to ask better questions. I've edited down the previous article, but if you're curious, you can see it here . September 2023 I’d commented about my hearing on a social media post on deafness. ‘Have you looked into these hearing aids - they’re designed to overcome head shadow’, came the impromptu reply from a hearing aid specialist. Head shadow? Not a phrase I’d heard before, despite having no hearing on one side, which effectively creates a sound-free shadow to my right. See, when I had mumps at 18 months it killed the vestibulocochlear nerve in my right ear and damaged the one on the left. But it was my balance that showed the nursery assistants that something was wrong - I kept falling over for no reason. I expect they thought my slow response was normal naughty-boyness. Balance, intermittently poor audio processing, energy required to maintain attention in noisy environments and that bloody tinnitus - all these issues are far more annoying than not being able to hear in one ear. That and not being able to tell where sounds come from. “Over here, Greg!” is the most useless call on a football pitch. And the head shadow thing? Well, it’s never been an issue - I just turn my head when in conversation. It might look like I’m turning to kiss you, but it’s just a conversation I want honest. Sure I miss out on certain audio cues, but it’s rarely an issue. Anyway, curious as I am I looked into the £4,000 hearing aid that solves head shadow by placing a microphone on the deaf ear and projecting it into the the good ear. Quite the brute force tech solution and one I’m sure some benefit from. But the key issue is one of reverb. While the product is good, it would impact the quality of sound in my good ear, which seems a pointless trade-off for me, when my process of life is more effective than shiny tech. It’s ironic that I consider myself highly excitable when it comes to technology developments, yet I’m never an early adopter. Because I always ask myself, other than giddiness, what problems does this solve and how will it enhance my life. And so it is for AI in recruitment, and the shininess of tech in general. They are positioned as solving problems, and indeed they do, but in many cases, it’s the wrong problem that detracts us from the real opportunities for better processes. Simpler administration, speed and scale are clear benefits. And some of these AI-branded automations are excellent. The Star Trek-style auto-translator makes me giddy. As does the sales bot conversation-as-a-human sales video that’s doing the rounds. But AI for writing? What problem does that solve? For me, it depends on what you consider sales to be. Is sales pitching a generic message and hoping someone will bite? Or is sales laying out the facts so that the right person can reach an objective decision? A decision which might mean getting in touch, or changing their view on what needs recruiting. For the former AI writing seems to solve a problem. The words are certainly better, but the message is even worse. Yes: prompting. But if you can prompt the right message, why aren’t you just writing it, so that you embed that knowledge for use across other mediums - conversations, meetings and so on? While AI writing does not meet the requirements for the second type of sales. You can only do this by establishing the right facts from a briefing, consultation or interview. Then interpret this with meaning to the right people so that it creates the right impact. Sales as data visualisation, if you will. And if AI doesn’t work for sales in this way, why would it work for content or marketing? I think the answer depends on whether you value contextual insight or not. Until AI is better at asking questions that create meaningful conversation, it’s a non-starter for me. I say until because this hesitation will be moot in the next year or so. Because it isn’t what AI is now that’s the opportunity - it’s what’s coming soon. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Until then, AI, for writing, is a question of in one ear and out of the other. Which, if you’re deaf in the one, is quite the problem. Go learn copywriting instead, and listen to how it transforms your approach to recruitment. Then layer tech on top, when it’s ready. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. If you like good recruitment and you need help with it in the UK, drop me a line. DM on LinkedIn, email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk , whichever you prefer.

On job offers

By Greg Wyatt • November 4, 2026
If you ever thought 'outcome-led' was a pretentious headline for a recruiter, it's also how you should think about your job search. Welcome to the 50th edition of Jobseeker Basics. As well as sharing advice that - hopefully - helps you navigate our mercurial jobs market more easily, there's always been a separate utility to these newsletters. I use them to update chapters in A Career Breakdown Kit , so that I can ensure it is always as current as possible. People who've bought the Kindle edition will get an automatic update when the 2027 edition is released in January/February. Paperback owners are invited to contact me for a free digital update. For this newsletter, I've tightened some of the language around accepting job offers - pretty boring update, but maybe necessary for fringe cases. I often talk about outcome-led recruitment. While it might sound pretentious there's a simple reason, which underpins everything I do. Begin with the ending, work back and find the right path. In recruitment this means flashing forward 12 months. What did a successful hire look like? What problems did they solve? What separated excellent from good from adequate from inadequate? What were the outcomes you needed for it to have been a successful hire? Nail these points down and you work backwards. What good actually looks like in viable candidate profiles. What needs to be communicated to them to encourage them to take a step forwards. How we find them - whether in a headhunt, an advert, networking or other. I also talk a lot about why a job search should be the inverse of how that vacancy might be filled. And so it is that the outcome you want in your job search should inform your strategy to find that job. Ironically, On Job Offers is Chapter 31 in A Career Breakdown Kit, slap bang in the middle of the book on page 162. With good reason, given you may find yourself needing to look for work again in future, sometimes by choice and sometimes by the other. All the more reason to have a strategy you can replicate and improve on, time and time again: 31 - On job offers At some point you’re going to get a job offer. It’s helpful to be clear on what this should look like at the start of your job search. Because, if you don’t know your destination, how can you be sure which path to take? Here are the main points to consider. Identity At the start of any job search, remind yourself of your career identity. This may be at the point of an unexpected redundancy, when you’ve decided your current job is no longer right, or if a recruiter contacts you out of the blue with a compelling proposition. Try this once a year, even when gainfully employed, because it’s easy for the path of employment to diverge from where you want your career to go. What is your current context, personally, with family, in life? What do you need and how does work reflect this? What are your core values? The ones that underpin who you are and who you want to see in the mirror. How does work reflect this? What are the things you enjoy, are neutral about, or dislike in your career? What does this look like in your current job? How has your employer changed in the past year? How has the world changed? How does this reflect you as a person? Who do you want to be as a person, family member, friend and peer? What impact do you want to make? How much do you need to earn and by when? These answers aren’t fixed and can change quickly with a change in circumstance, as you change over time, or for reasons out of your control. Clarify what you want and what you need, and therefore what this looks like in your next job. This identity informs your job search strategy, part of which is the roles you go for, part of which is the approach you take, and part of which is what an acceptable job offer is. Total compensation & opportunity cost It's common to see salary as the most important factor in a job offer negotiation. It's better to look at negotiating total compensation and opportunity cost. Total compensation is the overall financial value of a role. It includes: Salary Pension contribution Bonus Commission Car allowance RSUs Some benefits are salary sacrificed or tax efficient - their value goes beyond what they appear on paper. A great pension scheme will save you 20% or 40% on tax payments in the UK across the salary invested. It might even, at a higher salary level, improve access to child benefits. On the other hand, opportunity cost is the consequence of taking an offer, compared to what you might have if you stayed. For example: Moving to a three-day hybrid, compared to full remote. What's the cost of mileage or time commuting? What's the cost of heating your home when fully remote? Or - a role that offers more money now, with no progression in future. Compared to a role that pays less now, and will leapfrog in future, while giving you skills that support career growth. Are these contractual and likely to happen, or are they empty promises? Look for evidence such as a track record with other employees. It's entirely possible to accept an offer with a higher salary and find yourself worse off with take home pay. Establish all the financial implications of an offer. Impact Impact goes both ways. The impact you can have in your new role, and the impact your new role will have on you. A high paying job that takes you away from a young family might be a solution or a problem. A brilliant job that’s an unsustainable commute won’t work long term. Does that matter to you? A well paid job that gives you a good balance at home yet will only be a cog in a machine - a dream for some, unfulfilling for others. Impact also includes trajectory. Are you someone who wants to do the same job over time, in a structured way? Someone who wants regular advancement and career development? Both, and others are fine. Make sure you know what you are getting yourself into. Culture & People It’s at least partly true that people leave bosses, not jobs. While decent people can become bad bosses for various reasons, some of which relate to the environment they manage within. The problem is that people are on their best behaviour in interview processes, while culture as it’s pitched doesn’t always reflect the culture experienced. The interview process should be there for you to gather facts as much as possible. Do your research to get a sense of a company’s values, principles, how it treats its people, and all those other elements that will affect a career with them. This is research to be done at interview stage or before. Ikigai (with a little i) A wonderful Japanese concept. In its original form it means ‘what you get out of bed for’ or ‘those small moments we take pleasure in.’ Rather than the westernised Venn Purpose Diagram many are familiar with as Ikigai (with a big I). If you ask people in Japan what they think of Ikigai they may well say something along the lines of ‘huuunnhh?’ ikigai is a helpful principle when considering a job offer. It’s those qualities unique to you (often defined by your career identity) that you take pleasure in, while others around you may not get it. Sometimes this is gut instinct. Important to listen to, important to challenge. It’s at least part of your decision in a job offer. Even if everything else might be just alright, ikigai in your offered job might be good reason to take it. Or it might be the company’s purpose and what they are doing to improve the world. ikigai is unique to you and it makes everything better if you can find it. Those are the key points to look at if given a job offer. There’s no right or wrong, only right for you and the people you support. Negotiating salary There are a lot of moving parts in any salary negotiation, both at your end and with the employer. There are two main elements. The first is your place in the market - do what you can to find the range of fair pay available to you right now. The second is compensation philosophy - how do companies reach an offer? Both come down to asking questions and research. Assume nothing. I would err on the side of boldness in a salary negotiation. At final interview stage, I’d ask for the top end, based on what I’ve learnt - if they see me as the best candidate, why wouldn’t I? If they offer a little lower than I expect, I’d be positive about it and ask what else they can do to improve their offer. It’s unlikely you’ll lose out on an offer by being clear and respectful. If you want to drill deep into negotiations, I recommend reading Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss. His advice on deep listening, calibrated questions and price anchors are directly relevant to salary negotiation. Negotiating is highly contextual, so you should be careful if following opinion-led advice on what works for that individual. After the offer As with a salary negotiation, the post offer process and run up to employment is different from employer to employer. You can indicate that you're happy to proceed and ask the employer to issue the formal paperwork. Be aware that accepting an offer, even verbally, can create a legally binding contract. If you're not ready to commit, make that clear and reserve your formal acceptance until you've reviewed the written terms. In practice, the legal risk of withdrawing before starting is generally low. Most employers will have little commercial interest in pursuing someone who no longer wishes to join, particularly where they have suffered no demonstrable loss. However, contractual obligations and reputational consequences are worth considering. Treat the Offer Letter as a formal proof of your new employer’s offer of employment. If something isn’t right with the Letter, ask the employer for clarification. Once you've accepted the offer, signed and returned the letter, and any conditions have been satisfied, you can resign and agree a start date with your new employer. Aim to understand their onboarding process. Is there anything helpful you can do before your start date? Make sure you know when, where and any arrival instructions for your first day. As for your wider job search - you should withdraw from other applications when you formally accept an offer. It’s your choice whether you keep your cards close to your chest, accepting a suitable offer with the prospect of something better coming up. You can cross that bridge if you come to it. While this is not something I recommend, a tough job search is as good a time as any to look after number one.