Why Passive Candidates Require Special Handling. A True Story.

He was what we refer to as a, "passive candidate."  Meaning, he wasn’t actively on the job market. He wasn’t in any hurry to make a job change. He was open to exploring opportunities and seriously evaluating them, but would only make a change if all aspects of the position were beneficial to him and his career. He had to have good chemistry with the CEO, understand the company’s vision, and his role in helping achieve the vision. Basically, he wasn’t going to just make a move.

In the same way, the stars have to align for the company to want him. They also had to align for him to want them. A new concept for many companies to really comprehend at a deep level.

Yes, the hiring process is a two way street.

Needless to say, I wanted to understand what happened. As the candidate explained it, “I have now been out to the company three times and spent approximately 4 to 5 hours interviewing. I first met for an hour and  a half with HR going over my background. I then met with the person leaving the position. Once again we spent roughly an hour plus going over my background. Both gave me an overview of the position and about 10 minutes to ask questions. Then comes the CEO. Both previous interviewers spent time explaining how the company was reinventing itself and how this role was critical to helping in that process. I expected when I met with the CEO that we would discuss some of those issues, his plan for the reinventing, how my background would add value, and that I would finally have time to ask some of my questions.”

Sounded right and reasonable so far. As he continued to explain the problem, “After taking the morning off work for the 9 AM interview, I waited in the lobby for 25 minutes for the CEO. I was ready to leave when the assistant came to get me. The CEO explained he has to leave for a plane by 10:30, so I’m thinking why are doing this? There isn’t enough time to discuss any of the issues in any depth. Instead of discussing any of the issues, he proceeded to go through my background now for the third time. Don’t these people communicate? By the time he finished it was about 10:20 and he asked if I had any questions. I indicated that I did, but there wasn’t enough time to discuss them, and would it be possible to schedule another meeting, which we did.”

My conversation ended with the candidate asking me to cancel the meeting they scheduled, as he wasn’t really that interested, so why waste the time.  Is it any wonder?

The company was surprised the candidate wasn’t interested. Even after I relayed the above story to them. This had never happened before.

• A candidate turning them down?
• A candidate canceling a meeting with the CEO?
• A candidate that doesn’t want our job?
• A candidate that doesn’t understand waiting 25 minutes in the lobby for an interview?
• A candidate that isn’t desperate for our position?

They didn’t respect the candidate, his time, his position, and didn’t take any time to build rapport. They didn’t give him any time to address what was on his mind.

Why would a passive candidate be interested?

So I recommended the following changes:

1. All candidates must be met in the lobby at the designated time, the same way a customer would be met.
2. Spend some time marketing the position.
3. Learn about the candidate’s motivations and interests.
4. The candidates meet the CEO on the first interview. This demonstrates the importance of the position to the candidate and starts the rapport building process which is critical to passive candidates.
5. It is an interview, not an interrogation. Make it a discussion.
6. Every candidate is given ample time to ask questions and interact. The interviewer will learn more from the candidate’s questions than from the answers they give.
7. More time to explain the position, the importance this role will play, the impact on the organization and time to build rapport with the candidate.

These simple changes would have made all the difference with the candidate. Instead, they lost a great candidate for not treating the person as an executive and a person.

Every interview is a PR event. It is doubtful this candidate will have much good to say about the company should he encounter another candidate considering employment at the company.

Which is a shame as it really is a good company with good people.

I welcome your comments and thoughts.