Part
01
of one
Part
01
I need to build a case on why recruiting passive, inactive or casual job seekers is better than recruiting active job seekers.
Hello! Thanks for your request for quantitative data that support recruiting and hiring of passive job seekers. The most useful sources I found to answer your question are Hudson's 2016 Candidate Engagement Study, a Workplacetrends.com article, and a HRMagazine.co.uk article. The short version is that I was able to find seven statistics that support recruiting passive job seekers. Below you will find a deep dive of my findings.
METHODOLOGY
To answer your request, I searched for the following: advantages of, reasons behind, or arguments for hiring passive job seekers; the quality, performance, turnover, tenure, or retention of passive job seekers; surveys or reports on recruitment and hiring; and the differences between passive and active job seekers. As requested, I looked for arguments backed up by quantitative data. After searching extensively, I was able to find seven statistics that support hiring of passive job seekers, which you may see below. I would like to note, though, that, during my research, I came across a number of arguments for hiring active job seekers as well. I mentioned them below for your information.
FINDINGS
Based on a survey conducted on 153 North American recruiters by talent solutions company Hudson, it was found that 57.5% of recruiters find passive candidates are better than active candidates in terms of quality. Hudson reported this in its 2016 Candidate Engagement Study. This percentage is the sum of 14% of recruiters who say quality is much better and 43.6% who say quality is slightly better.
Meanwhile, according to a survey of 129 HR professionals by research firm Future Workplace and career network Beyond: 44% of HR professionals say passive job seekers have an edge in terms of experience and skills and 42% believe passive job seekers "take their careers more seriously."
Another pair of statistics that support hiring of passive job seekers are those provided by the CEB Recruiting Leadership Council Global Labour Market Briefing. Though they are a bit dated (since it appears they were released in 2014), they indicate that the performance of passive job candidates is higher by 9% compared to active candidates and the odds of passive candidates being with the company for the long haul is higher by 25%.
Lastly, according to slide 20 of a presentation by recruitment and HR specialist The Curve Group, "active candidates are 60% more likely to leave your company in the first 6 months than passive candidates."
As I mentioned above, while I was able to find statistics supporting the recruitment of passive job seekers, I also came across data backing up hiring of active job seekers. Page 13 of Indeed's 2015 Talent Attraction Study shows that 90% recruiters favor hiring an active candidate. Recruiters cited the following reasons passive candidates fail in their new jobs: "lack of passion/commitment (51%), can't adapt to position (40%), are not a good fit (32%), can't adapt to culture (31%), doesn't get along with management (16%)." Fifty-one percent of recruiters also say active candidates have an edge in terms of motivational drive.
CONCLUSION
To wrap it up, there are seven statistics that indicate passive job seekers are better in terms of quality, performance, and retention. Thanks for using Wonder! Please let us know if we can help with anything else!