Active vs Passive Recruiting Strategies Explained

After 23 years in recruiting, I have learned one truth: there is no perfect way to find the right talent. Each method has its place, like different tools in a toolbox. Today, I want to share my thoughts on active and passive recruiting, drawing from my experience across pharmaceutical, chemical manufacturing, and logistics industries.

When I started recruiting in 2002, just after moving from Pfizer to a boutique search firm, LinkedIn was not yet born. We relied heavily on personal networks and cold calls. I remember spending entire days calling switchboards of chemical companies, trying to reach potential candidates. The most successful approach back then was building relationships with professional associations - I spent countless hours at American Chemical Society meetings, getting to know the key players in specialized fields. Today, the landscape has changed dramatically, but the fundamental challenge remains the same: finding the right person for the right role at the right time.

Understanding the Dynamics

Let me share a story from 2019. I was working to fill a Plant Manager position for a mid-sized chemical manufacturer in Tennessee. The role had been posted on every major job board for three months, attracting over 450 applications. Despite this large pool of candidates, none had the specific experience with continuous flow processing that the position required. The passive approach wasn't working.

I switched to active sourcing, directly reaching out to professionals in similar roles at companies using comparable processes. Within three weeks, I connected with Maria Rodriguez, who wasn't looking to move but was intrigued by the opportunity to build a team from the ground up. She's now been in the role for five years and has transformed the plant's efficiency metrics.

This experience illustrates a key finding from LinkedIn's 2019 Global Talent Trends report: while 70% of the global workforce is passive talent, these individuals often prove to be the most valuable hires when properly engaged. They're typically high performers in their current roles, not actively searching because they're successful where they are.

The dynamics have shifted significantly in recent years. A 2023 study by Deloitte found that organizations using a balanced approach of both active and passive recruiting reported 31% higher hiring success rates compared to those relying predominantly on one method. This matches my experience at a major pharmaceutical company in 2022, where we implemented a hybrid approach for R&D roles and saw our time-to-fill decrease by 40%.

The Power and Pitfalls of Each Approach

Passive Recruiting

Passive recruiting - posting jobs and waiting for applications - can be highly effective for certain roles. When I was leading talent acquisition at a major logistics company in 2018, we successfully filled 80% of our entry to mid-level positions through job postings. The volume was manageable because we had implemented a screening system where 6 recruiters shared the load of manually screening resumes based on key criteria.

However, CareerBuilder's 2018 study revealed that while job boards accounted for 30% of applications, they only resulted in 15% of actual hires. In my experience, this disparity often stems from the challenge of matching specific technical requirements. Last year, I posted a role for a Pharmaceutical Quality Control Manager. Within a week, we had 275 applications, but only three candidates had the required experience with both USP methods and FDA audits.

Let me share another illustrative example from my work in logistics. In 2024, we needed to staff a new distribution center in Portland with 25 positions ranging from warehouse associates to shift supervisors. The passive approach yielded over 1,400 applications. While this might sound impressive, it created significant screening challenges. However, by using filtering tools and structured video interviews, we successfully filled all positions within eight weeks. The key was having the right manual process and technology stack to manage the volume effectively.

Active Recruiting

Active recruiting shines when specificity matters. In 2023, I worked on a search for a Chemical Process Safety Expert with experience in hydrogenation reactions. The role remained unfilled for months through passive channels. Through targeted LinkedIn outreach and my network in the American Chemical Society, I identified 12 qualified candidates, ultimately placing someone who wasn't even considering a move.

The success of active recruiting often lies in the details. For instance, in early 2024, I was tasked with finding a Supply Chain Director with experience in cold chain logistics for biologics. Instead of casting a wide net, I mapped out the top 20 pharmaceutical companies with similar operations, identified 45 potential candidates, and personally reached out to each one. This targeted approach led to five highly qualified candidates, three of whom we interviewed, ultimately hiring someone who brought innovative solutions from a competitor.

However, active recruiting has its challenges. It's extremely time-intensive and can be expensive. A 2022 SHRM report indicated that the average cost-per-hire for executive positions using direct sourcing was $22,000, compared to $8,000 for positions filled through job postings. The key is knowing when the investment will pay off.

Volume Management and Technology

The challenge of volume in passive recruiting cannot be overstated. In 2021, while supporting a logistics company's expansion, we received over 3,000 applications for 50 warehouse positions. Even with sophisticated ATS systems, reviewing these applications consumed significant resources.

This experience led me to develop what I call the "30-3-1 rule": for every 30 applications received through passive channels, typically 3 meet all critical requirements, and 1 becomes a serious contender. This ratio varies by role and industry, but it's a useful benchmark for resource planning.

Active recruiting can also generate unexpected volume. Last summer, over the course of 8 weeks, I reached out to 300 potential candidates for a Senior Supply Chain Director role. The response rate was 25% - much higher than typical - creating a good but challenging pipeline to manage.

The technology landscape has evolved significantly to help manage these volumes. Modern ATS systems now incorporate keyword and semantic screening tools that can analyze resumes. In my current role, we are expereimenting with natural language processing to screen candidates based on not just keywords, but contextual understanding of experience and skills. We expect this will reduce screening times by 60% while improving the quality of our shortlists.

Looking to the Future

The recruitment landscape is evolving rapidly. When I started, we used paper resumes and fax machines. Today, AI tools can match candidates to roles with increasing accuracy. However, I believe both active and passive methods will remain essential.

A recent McKinsey report suggests that by 2026, 75% of companies will use AI-powered recruitment tools. But technology alone isn't the answer. In my experience, the most successful organizations blend technology with human insight. For example, at my current firm, we are starting to use AI for initial screening but rely heavily on personal outreach to assess cultural fit and likelihood of success.

The future will likely see increased integration between active and passive approaches. Social media analytics and AI are already making it easier to identify and engage passive candidates at scale. Meanwhile, improvements in job matching algorithms are making passive recruiting more efficient.

Conclusion

After more than two decades in recruiting, I've learned that success lies not in choosing between active and passive recruiting, but in knowing how to leverage both effectively. As we move forward, the integration of cutting edge technologies will continue to enhance both approaches, but the fundamental principles remain: understanding the role, knowing your market, and choosing the right approach for each situation.

In my home country of Nigeria, we have a Yoruba saying: "Bi ọ̀pọ̀lọ́ bá ń sáré bí ẹṣin, ilẹ̀ ni yóò máa tẹ̀" - "Even if a frog runs like a horse, it's still touching the ground." It reminds me that sometimes what appears to be a significant difference - like choosing between active and passive recruiting - matters less than how well you execute your chosen strategy.

The most successful recruiters I've known are those who remain adaptable, using data to inform their decisions while maintaining the human touch that makes our profession unique. Whether working with a high-volume hiring program or conducting a targeted executive search, the key is to choose the right approach for each situation and execute it with precision and care.

The future of recruiting will belong to those who can skillfully blend both approaches, supported by technology but guided by human insight. Whether you're posting a job or directly sourcing candidates, success comes from understanding your market, knowing your needs, and executing with precision.

Musa Sarki is a veteran Executive Recruiter with 23 years of experience spanning pharmaceutical, chemical manufacturing, and logistics industries. Originally from Nigeria, he moved to the United States for college and went on to hold senior recruiting roles at Pfizer and several boutique search firms before establishing his independent practice. He specializes in executive and technical leadership placements, with particular expertise in complex manufacturing operations and supply chain roles. Based in Eugene, Oregon, where he lives with his wife and their Macaw parrot Kara.