Comments on: monster works for me http://www.cheezhead.com/2007/01/03/monster-works-for-me/ Insight and opinion from the world of employment. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:50:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Mike Greenwald http://www.cheezhead.com/2007/01/03/monster-works-for-me/#comment-6407 Mike Greenwald Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:18:33 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2007/01/03/monster-works-for-me/#comment-6407 How can you be passive and submit a resume to a job board? How can you be passive and submit a resume to a job board?

]]> By: adguide http://www.cheezhead.com/2007/01/03/monster-works-for-me/#comment-5994 adguide Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:01:19 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2007/01/03/monster-works-for-me/#comment-5994 So Monster went local, local, local until they found out that didn't work for them so they abandoned that effort. Now they're going passive, passive, passive. But is there really any difference between a passive and an active job seeker? Aren't we all active to some degree? It seems to me that all of the talk about passive candidates being higher quality than active candidates misses the point. The difference in quality isn't with the candidates. It is with the opportunities being presented to them. Low quality opportunities will not be sufficient to attract happily employed a/k/a passive candidates. High quality opportunities will attract both groups. So if your opportunity is of a high quality, you've got nothing to worry about. If your opportunity is not of a high quality, then you should spend your time and energy making it a high quality opportunity rather than trying to find ways of connecting with candidates who are never going to be interested in what you have to offer to them. Steven Rothberg CollegeRecruiter.com career site http://www.CollegeRecruiter.com So Monster went local, local, local until they found out that didn’t work for them so they abandoned that effort. Now they’re going passive, passive, passive. But is there really any difference between a passive and an active job seeker? Aren’t we all active to some degree?

It seems to me that all of the talk about passive candidates being higher quality than active candidates misses the point. The difference in quality isn’t with the candidates. It is with the opportunities being presented to them. Low quality opportunities will not be sufficient to attract happily employed a/k/a passive candidates. High quality opportunities will attract both groups. So if your opportunity is of a high quality, you’ve got nothing to worry about. If your opportunity is not of a high quality, then you should spend your time and energy making it a high quality opportunity rather than trying to find ways of connecting with candidates who are never going to be interested in what you have to offer to them.

Steven Rothberg
CollegeRecruiter.com career site
http://www.CollegeRecruiter.com

]]> By: Dave Opton http://www.cheezhead.com/2007/01/03/monster-works-for-me/#comment-5989 Dave Opton Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:59:03 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2007/01/03/monster-works-for-me/#comment-5989 Joel, When I read the announcement and got to the line “Passive job seekers may not be looking today, but may be looking for one a year from now” it reminded me of those little editorial quips they used to publish in the New Yorker which you are probably too young to remember, but the little footnote to this line might have read something like "maybe they weren't looking when they left for work this morning, but if the day was bad enough by the time they got home....." Joel,

When I read the announcement and got to the line “Passive job seekers may not be looking today, but may be looking for one a year from now” it reminded me of those little editorial quips they used to publish in the New Yorker which you are probably too young to remember, but the little footnote to this line might have read something like “maybe they weren’t looking when they left for work this morning, but if the day was bad enough by the time they got home…..”

]]>