Prior forging out on my own several years ago, I was a sales executive with the company that is now the largest job board on the Internet. At the time, part of the marketing strategy was to have the salespeople promote their supposed abundant supply of "passive candidates" to hiring managers. "Hey, we're the best because we have the most passive candidates! Those other boards (particularly that big monster of a board) are just filled with perpetual job seekers." Those statements rarely elicited a raised eyebrow from prospects. I'm not sure they knew what we meant. I'm not sure we knew what we meant.



What made us think that passive job seekers were more desirable than their active counterparts, and that this was somehow common knowledge among those in the hiring know? The story/theory/sales pitch goes like this: the most capable people are not unemployed, they're out there working and producing. They're too buy kicking ass and taking names to be thinking about finding a new job and besides, why would they? They're so incredibly successful and appreciated at their current job that they wouldn't dream of going anywhere else. That's the guy (or girl) you want on your team! We all want employees that are loyal, focused and most of all, productive, so who's going to argue with that reasoning? "So if that's the profile of the person I'm looking for," Mr. and Mrs. Prospect would often ask, "Then why would they be on a job board in the first place?" Our comeback was supposed to be this long, drawn-out answer having to do with how the candidates actually found our site; that our partner sites drove most of our traffic, therefore our job seekers were of a higher caliber than those who visited the site directly (they're passively looking for a job, get it?). It was total BS.

There is very little consistency in how individual companies, departments and hiring managers evaluate candidates. I have one client that wants to see people with a track record of success in multiple industries because they feel it demonstrates flexibility while another client wants candidates who have years of experience in the same industry because it shows consistency. One hiring manager spends 80% of the interview chit-chatting with the candidate, and ultimately bases their hiring decision on perceived chemistry, while another comes right out the gate firing questions about market share, gross margins and compensation strategies; the candidate's personality has little bearing on their decision. Two completely different approaches for similar sales management positions in parallel industries. Which one is right? As an independent recruiter, it doesn't really matter. We are only making the recommendations, not the hiring decisions. It's our job to deliver candidates that are qualified and capable (based on the employer's definition of those characteristics) and possess one other intangible characteristic that is absolutely essential to every successful placement. It is the one common denominator that should be weighed into every single hiring decision: motivation. Is the candidate motivated to get out there and do the work? More specifically, for our company (or our client's company), under our direction, using our means and methods. If the answer to that question is not a resounding "YES!" then you are setting yourself up for failure. Every other candidate qualifier is a distant second. I am not suggesting that motivation can overcome a blatant lack of experience and education (actually sometimes it can), but I would much rather have an individual with an incredible sense of enthusiasm that is a little lean on industry experience than someone with an extensive background who has to be convinced to do the job.

Start paying attention to the people you come in contact with in a professional capacity and you'll see that its not hard to gauge their level of motivation. The Starbucks employee that greets you by name when you walk inside, knows your drink by heart and tells you to come back verses the one that acts as though they've just pulled a double shift in a coal mine and all but ignores you (I love it when they shout "Next person in line!" when I'm standing 3 feet in front of them). Most people make it blatantly obviously how they feel about their jobs and their performance reflects their overall level of motivation. As a recruiter, the easy trap to fall into is the one where you have a highly qualified candidate that has to be "sold" on a particular position. Many recruiters are sales people at heart so being persuasive comes second nature, but take extra caution when you feel yourself having to spend most of your time getting the candidate to focus on the positives of the job, as opposed to presenting a realistic, straight-forward perspective.