"You need to be super creative to reach out to the best candidates -- who by and large all are passive."

Lou Adler, a recruitment expert, made that comment in 2005. One might assume that seeking out passive candidates was just a passing fad, but in 2008, Mr. Adler is still focusing on this approach.

Going for passive candidates might have been a workable approach 20 years ago, but it certainly isn't today. If you insist on focusing on passive candidates, you will miss two specific groups of active candidates:

* Candidates who are recent victims of restructuring

Many companies downsize, and it is not only underperformers that end up on the street. It may have been an issue of salary or management change. Are you going to tell me that out of some 1,000 Yahoo employees recently laid off -- 7% of the workforce -- there isn't a single worthy candidate now actively looking for a job?

* Candidates who are unhappy in their current positions and are looking

This group includes high performers who aren't happy in their current positions and are actively looking for new employment.

Yes, there will be more active candidates, and you will have to sift through a number of resumes looking for the needle in a haystack. To simplify the task, consider using resume extraction software, which allows you to eliminate those who do not meet the desired criteria.

You can spend a lot of time and effort trying to attract a candidate who isn't motivated to move. You can assume that all active candidates are useless -- after all, goes the reasoning, if their last company let them go, they must have something wrong with them. Or you can spend a little time to spot the active candidate who brings talent and drive, and might be an incredible hire for the company.

I've been a victim in a restructuring situation, where the company killed off a product division, leaving several active candidates. Do you really think that we were all incompetent? Do you think 7,500 Motorola employees or 2,000 Sprint employees who lost, or about to lose their jobs, are incompetent?

Of course not. Yet it amazes me that anyone could make such a rash judgment about entire classes of people based on active or passive status. I sincerely hope that you never find yourself unemployed. If it does happen, any automatic presumption that it was clearly your own fault is unreasonable, especially in a slowing economy.

Fortunately there are other viewpoints in the marketplace. Former HR professional Deborah S. Hildebrand understands that active candidates are more flexible, interested, and motivated. Don't you want to hire motivated people?

Yes, you may potentially end up hiring an active candidate who ends up constantly questioning policies, bending rules, or pushing the limits of your patience. But consider whether or not the person is otherwise a good fit for the job. While such an employee may be unsuitable for a Fortune 500 firm, in a startup it's a different story -- someone who constantly pushes the boundaries is the type of person who can bring success to the organization.

Writing off the active candidates before looking at what they can bring to the position may mean losing the best candidate. The cost of a bad hire may be twice their starting salary, but the cost of losing the exceptional person may be far higher.