Am I confused or maybe I'm just not that bright.

From all the articles, recruitment advertisements, blogs, etc. I read you would assume there are two types of candidates:

ACTIVE: Someone looking for a job. Someone that is unemployed and/or unhappy with their current situation. Someone that has their resume plastered on every career site and/or ready to shoot it over to you at a moments notice.

PASSIVE: Someone that is passively looking for a new opportunity.

From my understanding, recruiters are sick and tired of vetting through unqualified active candidates that do not fill their open positions.

These same recruiters are searching for new ways to identify and recruit the PASSIVE candidate. That elusive, high quality candidate that they believe will fill their positions.

What about the third type of candidate; A NOT-LOOKING candidate?

A person that is completely happy, that has not been to CareerBuilder, Monster, or other job board. A person gainfully employed, happy and . . . NOT-LOOKING.

Is this the same thing as a passive candidate?

Here is where I get confused.

When I hear the term PASSIVE, I assume that means the candidate is passively looking.

But having recruited for close to 20 years, I think there is a BIG difference between what I define as a PASSSIVE candidate and a NOT-LOOKING candidate.

Or are they one in the same?

I like how Staffing.org defines candidates (don't quote me on this, go get their staffing report!):

• Serious/active seekers
• Casual seekers (those that spend a few hours now and then looking for new opportunities
• Passive candidates
• Not-looking candidates

I understand these definitions! This is how I've always categorized candidates. The only difference was that I called PASSIVE candidates . . . LISTENERS. That is, if you contacted them with your opportunity (since they were passive), they would listen.

So are there four candidate types or just two or maybe three?

When someone (or some recruitment tool) claims they can help you find "passive candidates," find out which group they're referring to.

Do we need to update our definitions so we are all on the same page?

Or am I the only one confused?

Any advice would be appreciated!