Paid employment ads are helpful when you need to hire 100 call center workers or 50 temps but they aren't very useful when you need to hire a one-of-a-kind professional with very specific SKEs (skills, knowledge, experience).
For example, Charleston area DME (durable medical equipment) companies recently paid Charleston newspapers for ads they hoped would attract sales reps, customer service reps and managers. Whether the ads said so or not, these DME companies were hoping to attract applicants with DME experience. In fact, they hoped to attract applicants who were currently doing these jobs for a competitor but they probably didn't because people who already have a job aren't usually looking at employment ads. These people are called "passive candidates" because you can't attract them by running an ad, you have to go out and find them. You could hire a headhunter to do the job or you could learn how to use Linkedin and do it yourself. Over the years I've found respiratory therapists, pharmacists, physical therapists, sales reps and all levels of managers and executives for DME companies and collected some ridiculous fees for doing so but I never, ever paid for ads since, as I said, ads only bring in people who are looking at ads, so why didn't these three Charleston area DME companies use Linkedin?
With my free Linkedin account and a few minutes of my time I found dozens of "passive candidates" within 25 miles of Charleston who currently work in the DME industry. Do you suppose some of these people might know somebody with DME experience who would be interested in a DME management, sales or customer service job? I also found hundreds of health industry people within 25 miles of Charlelston who work in places where they come into contact with DME people. Social workers. Physical therapists. Case managers. Respiratory therapists. Nurses. Pharmacists. Do you suppose some of these people may know people with DME experience who might want to talk to these paid advertisers about their management, sales and customer service openings? Of course they do.
There are also dozens of DME-specific and health industry groups in Linkedin where these paid advertisers could meet thousands of DME professionals who might know somebody who wants those management, sales and customer service openings.
During my decades of headhunting I never found a DME sales rep or manager that the client couldn't have found on their own had they simply networked a little. In fact, on several occasions I was paid 5 figures for "finding" candidates the employer already knew.
To find such passive candidates all they need is a free Linkedin account and the willingness to learn how to use it.
--
Have a comment? Here's how to get your comment published:
Comments submitted by anonymous or pseudonymous submitters will not be approved for publication by Higginbotham At Large. For example, a comment submitted by JosephHigginbotham@gmail .com would be published but a comment submitted by "Anonymous" or by OneWildAndCrazyGuy@idiots.com would not be published.
Showing posts with label passive candidate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label passive candidate. Show all posts
04 July, 2012
27 June, 2012
Top Ten Reasons Blind Employment Ads Are Fishing Expeditions And You Shouldn't Bite
10. Blind ads are only seen by a small segment of the workforce, e.g., "active" job seekers.
9. Blind ads are not seen by "passive" job candidates, e.g., people who are currently working, are relatively happy in their current jobs, and aren't actively seeking new employment.
8. Smart job seekers won't answer blind ads since they can't know who is behind the ad and what that person may do with the information received from respondents.
7. This leaves stupid job seekers, therefore, the employer ends up with resumes from verifiably stupid people.
6. Top employers wouldn't knowingly hire stupid people.
5. Employers stupid enough to hire demonstrably stupid people are probably employers you wouldn't want to work for.
4. The smart employers who don't hire people stupid enough to answer blind ads know there are better ways to find great employees.
3. Smart employers know that using headhunters brings candidates who would never see an employment ad.
2. Smart employers who are proud of their brands know that running branded employment ads helps overall recruitment while running blind, unbranded ads does nothing to build the brand.
1. Smart employers have Linkedin accounts and know how to use Linkedin advanced search to generate lists of passive candidates by geography, by experience, by skills and by education.
For more on blind employment ads read my archived 17 Feb 2010 post.
--
Higginbotham At Large does not publish the comments of pseudonymous or anonymous submitters. Your comment does not publish anless I approve it and I only approve comments from submitters who use their real names.
9. Blind ads are not seen by "passive" job candidates, e.g., people who are currently working, are relatively happy in their current jobs, and aren't actively seeking new employment.
8. Smart job seekers won't answer blind ads since they can't know who is behind the ad and what that person may do with the information received from respondents.
7. This leaves stupid job seekers, therefore, the employer ends up with resumes from verifiably stupid people.
6. Top employers wouldn't knowingly hire stupid people.
5. Employers stupid enough to hire demonstrably stupid people are probably employers you wouldn't want to work for.
4. The smart employers who don't hire people stupid enough to answer blind ads know there are better ways to find great employees.
3. Smart employers know that using headhunters brings candidates who would never see an employment ad.
2. Smart employers who are proud of their brands know that running branded employment ads helps overall recruitment while running blind, unbranded ads does nothing to build the brand.
1. Smart employers have Linkedin accounts and know how to use Linkedin advanced search to generate lists of passive candidates by geography, by experience, by skills and by education.
For more on blind employment ads read my archived 17 Feb 2010 post.
--
Higginbotham At Large does not publish the comments of pseudonymous or anonymous submitters. Your comment does not publish anless I approve it and I only approve comments from submitters who use their real names.
04 March, 2011
Why Headhunters Prefer "Passive" Candidates
The job search discussion we're having in my Linked Liberals group on Linkedin reveals some misconceptions about headhunters and how to work with them.
Many job seekers think they increase their odds of getting the attention of a headhunter if they send out their resume -unsolicited - to as many headhunters as they can. Wrong. Don't send resumes to headhunters. When you send an unsolicited resume to a headhunter he knows you've also sent it to every other headhunter and employer and that you have wallpapered Corporate America with resumes. The headhunter who receives your unsolicited resume sees you as a lightweight. The headhunter who receives your unsolicited resume would rather work with a "passive" candidate, not an active candidate.
What is a passive candidate? Instead of just giving you a lifeless definition, let me draw you a picture of an actual passive candidate I recruited for a client way back in the early 90s.
My largest client needed a GM for one of their offices in the South. I knew that qualified managers in that market would likely be under non-compete contracts so I focused my attention on markets that were a commute away in hopes of finding someone who would either relocate or commute the adjacent market. Back in those days we didn't have Linkedin and Google so we had to identify good candidates the old-fashioned way. I started with my Rolodex - remember those? - and started calling everybody I knew in the markets surrounding the market in which my client needed the GM. One name kept coming up: Bob Maynard.
"The guy you need for this job is Bob Maynard", they'd say. "I don't know if Bob is looking, but he's great."
Not only was Bob not looking, Bob wouldn't talk to me at first. Bob had a steady job with a company that didn't appreciate him. Bob was underpaid and he probably knew it but, emotionally, he was at a place in his career where he was willing to swap job security for the chance to make more money and get on a track to career advancement. My client offered all that and I knew that if I could just get Bob to talk to me I could get him to meet my client and that when he met them he'd leave his old employer and come to work for my client. I was right. Bob started as a GM and worked his way up to a VP job. He stayed with my client for 15 years and had what we call "a good run".
Incidentally, while it was a headhunter who got Bob to come in and talk, he was not unknown to my client. People in the organization knew who he was. His reputation had preceded him. All I did was get him to the table but Bob really earned the job by being a great center manager for a competitor.
Bob is the perfect example of a passive candidate. He was a great manager who didn't have a current resume and wasn't looking for a job but deserved a better job than he had. That's a passive candidate. Headhunters love passive candidates.
Had Bob been sending his resume to everybody I could have invested a lot of time in him and lost him to another employer.
I was once an "expert panelist" at a career night event. Someone in the audience asked me how to find headhunters. I said, "You don't find the headhunter, the headhunter finds you - if you're good."
As I've said in previous posts, headhunters network until they find what they need.
But it's still better to be introduced to an employer by your professional co-signer than it is to be introduced by a headhunter. I'll tell you why in tomorrow's post.
Higginbotham At Large no longer accepts or publishes reader comments. You may send questions, comments and hate mail to JosephHigginbotham@gmail.com.
Many job seekers think they increase their odds of getting the attention of a headhunter if they send out their resume -unsolicited - to as many headhunters as they can. Wrong. Don't send resumes to headhunters. When you send an unsolicited resume to a headhunter he knows you've also sent it to every other headhunter and employer and that you have wallpapered Corporate America with resumes. The headhunter who receives your unsolicited resume sees you as a lightweight. The headhunter who receives your unsolicited resume would rather work with a "passive" candidate, not an active candidate.
What is a passive candidate? Instead of just giving you a lifeless definition, let me draw you a picture of an actual passive candidate I recruited for a client way back in the early 90s.
My largest client needed a GM for one of their offices in the South. I knew that qualified managers in that market would likely be under non-compete contracts so I focused my attention on markets that were a commute away in hopes of finding someone who would either relocate or commute the adjacent market. Back in those days we didn't have Linkedin and Google so we had to identify good candidates the old-fashioned way. I started with my Rolodex - remember those? - and started calling everybody I knew in the markets surrounding the market in which my client needed the GM. One name kept coming up: Bob Maynard.
"The guy you need for this job is Bob Maynard", they'd say. "I don't know if Bob is looking, but he's great."
Not only was Bob not looking, Bob wouldn't talk to me at first. Bob had a steady job with a company that didn't appreciate him. Bob was underpaid and he probably knew it but, emotionally, he was at a place in his career where he was willing to swap job security for the chance to make more money and get on a track to career advancement. My client offered all that and I knew that if I could just get Bob to talk to me I could get him to meet my client and that when he met them he'd leave his old employer and come to work for my client. I was right. Bob started as a GM and worked his way up to a VP job. He stayed with my client for 15 years and had what we call "a good run".
Incidentally, while it was a headhunter who got Bob to come in and talk, he was not unknown to my client. People in the organization knew who he was. His reputation had preceded him. All I did was get him to the table but Bob really earned the job by being a great center manager for a competitor.
Bob is the perfect example of a passive candidate. He was a great manager who didn't have a current resume and wasn't looking for a job but deserved a better job than he had. That's a passive candidate. Headhunters love passive candidates.
Had Bob been sending his resume to everybody I could have invested a lot of time in him and lost him to another employer.
I was once an "expert panelist" at a career night event. Someone in the audience asked me how to find headhunters. I said, "You don't find the headhunter, the headhunter finds you - if you're good."
As I've said in previous posts, headhunters network until they find what they need.
But it's still better to be introduced to an employer by your professional co-signer than it is to be introduced by a headhunter. I'll tell you why in tomorrow's post.
Higginbotham At Large no longer accepts or publishes reader comments. You may send questions, comments and hate mail to JosephHigginbotham@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)