Recruiting is far more complicated than filtering through eager candidates' résumés and submitting the top five to the hiring manager. It's all about building relationships, figuring out transferrable skills, and acting as a bridge between the hiring manager and the candidate.

The problem is the mindset between candidates and recruiters can be very different. Take this LinkedIn post by a recruiter explaining why she doesn't just send job descriptions to candidates.

This is how many recruiters work. Winstanley has good reasons for working this way. She knows that a job description might turn off a candidate, but she's in the business of selling--selling the position to prospective candidates and then selling the candidates to the hiring manager.

However, candidates are not cartons of milk waiting to be plucked off the shelf. And passive candidates--the type that Winstanley is attempting to target here--need solid reasons to take the risk of changing jobs. And candidates hate this type of thing.

Every candidate has deal breakers

Winstanley insists that candidates will find the 15 minutes she wants to talk to them worth their time, as she can explain the job better than the job description.

While Winstanley is undoubtedly correct that the job description lacks details she can provide, job descriptions have most deal breakers in them--or at least they should.

No matter how often people talk about culture, the person is not interested if the job described is something the target candidate doesn't want to do. If you have to explain away what the company sees as the core functions, what you're doing is setting up a candidate for future misery.

Like with salary, everyone has jobs they don't want. And candidates are smart enough that if the official job description says "Junior Analyst," no amount of promises about "you'll be promoted in six months!" from the recruiter is going to get someone who is currently in a senior position to look at that job.

As a commenter, Gregor Mackenzie said, "Job description and salary first, so I can quickly pick out the things I think are a good fit for my skill set (i.e., do I think I can do the job) and also so that the salary meets my needs. After that, a conversation is worthwhile for both of us."

To think like the candidate: Have a job description that clearly defines the important parts of the role, contains the salary, and doesn't leave out critical information. If you have to speak to someone before they can understand the job description, your job description is poorly written.

Candidates don't care about the recruiter's success

In-house recruiters get paid regardless of whether they place a candidate. (Although if they don't do their jobs well enough, the company will eventually terminate them.) But external recruiters generally only get paid if the candidate takes the job.

This means recruiters are highly vested in filling the position as quickly as possible. Recruiters also want more candidates in their back pockets for future positions. So while a person may not be interested in this role, a recruiter may want to know more about what this person is looking for in future roles.

This is great and necessary for the recruiter's success. But for a passive candidate? They simply don't care. They are interested in their career and are only interested in taking the time to talk about jobs that have high potential. While it may be in their best interest to be on the recruiter's radar for future posts, they don't care about this recruiter's success.

To think like the candidate: Before approaching a prospective candidate, ask yourself if this position will be a truly good fit. Be honest if you just want to learn a bit more to boost your network! Don't pretend there is a job for the person if there's not one. People want good relationships with recruiters because they will eventually need a new job.

Read the full report here