Career Change Considerations: Active - Passive Search, Loyalty, and Needed Research

This article is also included in CEM LinkedIn Articles Section as well as on LinkedIn on my newsletter site

Why do passive job seekers have an advantage over companies looking to hire? Fear of making a hiring mistake is the driving force behind this practice. It leads to some employers judging job applicants by their employment status, although it has nothing to do with their talent or ability. It seems clear that part of what drives this fear is that the hiring manager do not trust their own instincts

Good jobs are often filled by the HR department or a recruiter asking someone employed if they would consider a change or finding a candidate that looks like a great match on LinkedIn and even though they are employed reaching out to them to consider the job. (Strong hint here, keep your profile current)

The employer assumes in these cases that don’t need to worry about why the candidate really left their last job and that the person must have value since they have a job. The employer puts themselves in a postion of a buyer. They may overpay and find that they didn’t have all the facts they needed. A potential employee is in the position of a seller where they hae to present their case. They still make the decision on whether to take the job but they also have to present the reasons why they should get the job and in the case of a company approaching a currently employed person they have already taken the first step in the “buying” process.

These folks are called "passive candidates." They aren't even candidates for a job until someone from the employer reaches them out of the blue.

Why would any employer prefer someone a recruiter finds on LinkedIn -- someone who may never have heard of your company -- to someone who has invested time and energy in reaching out to you to inquire about employment?

These issues bring the subject of loyalty into some focus. Will the employee a company steals or entices to leave their current employer be loyal to them? Would a potential employee who research the market and determined that his best fit might be with a particular company be more loyal to that company because of the work it took in finding that job?

Does hiring ethics belong in this discussion? I am reminded of a friend who told me how he was hired away from another company around 1950. He was working for a company that sold to stores in San Francisco. He was well known and the bigger competitor had been impressed by his work. Things changed for him at his company and he approached the main competitor and was taken to the President of the company in his interview. My friend had taken a lot of their business and it was obivos that he would be a valuable new hire. The President saw it that way and hired my friend but under a special condition. The new hire was not allowed to call on any accounts, not just his own but any accounts in the area for one year, and was required to work in the warehouse. The reason was that the hiring company did not want to take advantage of their competitor. Non-compete clauses were not used at that time in this area and field but company ethics, when practiced, were all that was needed. My friend stayed loyal to this company and their President throughout his career from that point forward.

Are we like the old or the new wineskin and why does that matter →

- RSS

A wineskin is an ancient container made of animal skin. Usually, a goat is used to transport liquids such as water, olive oil, and wine. Is trying to bring motivation, or even change, to an organization like putting new wine in an old wineskin?

The old wineskin has become brittle and set in place. It had done its job for years with no problem, but the new wine hasn’t fermented yet, and as it expands, it will split the old container.

The Bible, Mark 2:22, used this example to teach about dealing with change. “And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.” ……. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one, after drinking old wine, wishes for new, for he says, ‘The old is good enough.

Good news for the Old Wineskins: A fresh wineskin can be a new wineskin, but it can also refer to an old wineskin that has been reconditioned. A reconditioned wineskin is as supple as new and can hold new wine. An old wineskin must be cleaned and soaked in oil to recondition it. The wineskin is soaked until it is rejuvenated to its supple and soft state to be ready for the new wine. So old wineskins are not thrown away or only being used to hold old wine. It can be made fresh again to have new wine!

Of course, we’re talking about people, not wineskins.

People, in their way, can also seem brittle and set in place. The problem is often the perception of what is happening around them. The roadblock is often just the attitude that “this is the way we have always done this.”

A person who has done something the same way for years can seem brittle or inflexible. Several years ago, I knew some managers at a small distribution warehouse with limited space. Jim, the warehouse manager, had a new boss who was expecting things to be done that he was not used to.

Changing things that had always been done one way for years became an obstacle for Jim. The last straw was when an item bought weekly for years, 50 cases at a time, was changed to 100 cases, and the order frequency was changed to once every two weeks. Jim knew about the reasons for the change and the plan, but he did not feel right about all the changes. This resulted in him quitting his job, where he had spent 35 years working, and advancing to warehouse manager. 

Change itself was not foreign to the environment for this company, which had grown a great deal over the years. I was more than that “they had always done that way.” It was about the fact that he had always been the sole decision-maker.

Over the years Jim worked for this company, it had expanded its warehouse size many times. He faced increased reserve levels on many inventory items and changes to accommodate buying brackets. If he hadn’t been flexible, he would not have made it far as he did.

Why did Jim become brittle and set in place?  He was upset by what he was afraid the future would bring. After Jim left, he enrolled in some classes at the local community college and took some computer classes. Perhaps for Jim, it was more than just turning brittle and unchangeable. Maybe he was just smart enough to see that he needed more skill, but he still was not flexible enough to come and talk about that side of the issue before leaving.

The poet Maya Angelou said, “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” Jim didn’t feel good about his new manager, and that reality was far more critical than the challenges of warehouse changes. The new manager didn’t know Jim and hadn’t had the chance to build a relationship of trust with him.