When it comes to candidates, passive is good, active is bad.

 

Or did I get that backwards? Active is the good one?

 

Let’s take a step back: isn’t this whole distinction silly? Aren’t all people open to better opportunities than what they currently have?

 

What does this accomplish besides baking in more bias? And taking the onus off companies to sell themselves better?

 

Jeff Smith and James Hornick break down the false dichotomy and explain how companies should look at the talent pool in episode 45 of The 10 Minute Talent Rant, "The Active Vs Passive Candidate Debate Is Nonsense"