Why Hiring Under the Gun Causes More Problems Than Solutions

They say good things come to those who wait. But, what if you have a hiring manager breathing down your neck in a desperate need for a position to be filled next week? Add to the pot that it’s for a niche position, you have a DEFCON 5 situation on your hands. While it may be tempting to find the quickest solution, hiring under a tight deadline rarely solves problems, and it will most likely start more fires than it will put out. Let’s take a look at the cause and effects of hiring too quickly.

Need to Hire?  Post Jobs for Free


  • Speedy vetting process

    When sifting through resumes of potential candidates, having a baseline of qualifications is important. Using software that communicates those needs for you is a great way to mitigate any unqualified candidates. That said, if recruiters are in a hurry, they could forgo the normal candidate requirements to get someone in the door. Missed steps can potentially cause problems down the line – it’s much more cost effective and ultimately better for your business to take your time vetting candidates at the beginning of the hiring process.

  • Overlooking warning signs

    An interview is great for many reasons as you can gauge a candidate’s personality and behavior, which can indicate how well suited they are for the position. This type of interview prowess takes a degree of emotional intelligence and aptitude on the interviewer’s part. When we’re in a rush to fill the role, recruiters can miss small indicators that in normal settings would have jumped out immediately. The rose-colored glasses effect can easily take place, making a candidate appear to be perfect when they’re not.


  • Loss in time

    Hiring the wrong fit hits the company in more ways than one, especially if they exit quickly. First, the time to onboard the employee should be taken into account. Second, managers will spend time trying to get them up to speed as quickly as possible. Meaning, they’re looking for their new employee to hit the ground running. If the new hire decides that it’s not what they were looking for or it becomes clear that they are not capable of handling the job duties, this puts both the department and the recruiter into a time deficit. Not only are you back to the drawing board, that’s more time for the role to be open, widening the slack in the company’s productivity.

  • Loss in money

    They say time is money, and in the workforce, it’s no different. From a financial standpoint, there is an impact when an organization hires and loses employees too quickly. And, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the price of a bad hire is at least 30 percent of the employee’s first-year earnings. That’s a significant ding in a company’s operating costs. You have to account for the money it takes to hire and onboard the new employee, as well as the money it takes to replace them as they exit. This may be in the form of a voluntary exit of having to shell out for severance—depending on the negotiated contract. Either way, it’s still a loss that the company has to account for.

What to do instead

  • Communicate

    It may sound obvious, but communication really does stave off a lot of business issues. Successful HR departments– recruiters included– can bridge the communication gap by speaking business language. Recruiters that can articulate the business and financial implication to hiring managers will have more success with showing the possible outcomes. Here’s how to explain:

  • Speak to the data & numbers

    In order to get leadership on your side about hiring too quickly, put it in financial sense. Show them the numbers, it takes to hire and train a new person. Alternatively, show them the numbers of how turnover can impact the numbers. By using the data to show managers your point, you’re able to show them the light, using a solid and logical argument. Further, productivity is also a financial matter as it is something that can be quantifiable. Spending time on a bad hire vs. spending the time to properly source a quality candidate may take longer time. However, it’s better to spend 5 weeks finding the right fit than having a bad hire for 4 weeks, having them quit, and then needing to start from the beginning of the recruiting process. Slow and steady wins the race in recruiting.

At the end of the day, practicing smart hiring decisions goes a long way. It helps organizations miss unfit employees. Companies can also save financially by reducing turnover costs, and time can be allocated to training employees that fit into the mission of the organization.

Written by

More Articles by Taryn Barnes