I read a compelling post over on LinkedIn earlier this week. It was a well crafted argument, supported by valid facts and figures about the current economic crisis, and why in this economic climate sourcing for the passive candidate is *a mistake*. You heard me.

After reading the LI post I started mulling it over and based on the outlook in the posting, I happen to agree with Mr. Caro. I will say, however, that I am vastly disappointed to find that his well crafted argument was just a long drawn out sales pitch for his company. I understand that he is philosophically espousing a new recruiting paradigm, but in the end it boils down to a sales pitch.

That being said, I decided the *idea* was worth a blog. The basic premise is that the best way to stimulate the economy *and*  diminish the sheer numbers of unemployed is to put them back to work. Seems simple enough, right? But here is the catch: when the "holy grail" of most recruiters is *still* the passive candidate, we are hurting ourselves.

Just because someone is "still" employed in a sea of layoffs, this does *not* mean they are by default a rock star. If their company has been making cuts, it may mean that keeping them is the most economic measure; or, they may have some intrinsic skillset that is necessary for the health of the company. And, if we step outside our good natured competitive profession to serve the greater good, taking that employee away from the company for the good of our client is *ethically* a poor decision.