The Talent Acquisition Dilemma - First Available or Best Available?

First available or Best available?

Receiving inbound candidates is undoubtedly a positive sign - it shows our employment brand is thriving and our company reputation is strong. But what about passive candidates? Are we neglecting talented individuals who aren't actively applying but could be just as, if not more, qualified? Shouldn't our focus be on hiring the best person for the job, rather than simply the first person who applies?

Many companies preach about equality and hiring the best candidate, yet they often settle for those who merely submit applications. Is this truly fostering equality? And does it genuinely set our organizations up for success?

It seems we're turning a blind eye to the wider talent pool that isn't actively seeking job opportunities. Why settle for what comes to us when we could actively seek out and interview individuals who haven't applied but could be an ideal fit? We constantly hear companies boasting about the healthy volume of applicants they receive, which is indeed a positive indicator. However, the reluctance to pursue and interview those who haven't applied is baffling.

Why not cast a wider net and engage with every potential candidate before making a decision? Are we being too complacent, content with those who express interest in us, rather than actively seeking out the best fit? Perhaps our internal recruitment processes are falling short, preventing us from effectively identifying and engaging with these candidates. Or could it be that our egos are getting in the way - if they don't seek us out, do we deem them unworthy?

This raises the question of the other 75% of the talent pool - those who don't actively apply for jobs. By expanding our recruitment approach to include both active and passive candidates, we open ourselves up to a broader range of talent and increase our chances of finding the best person for the job.