'Additional work just gets into a position where it will erode the morale and ultimately drive negative engagement,' says Robert Half's Mike Shekhtman
Hiring isn’t what it used to be. What once took a couple of weeks now drags on for months, according to new research from Robert Half.
In an interview with Benefits and Pensions Monitor, Mike Shekhtman noted the findings suggest that employers are feeling the impact not just in lost productivity, but in real hiring mistakes that cost workplaces’ time, money, and morale.
“A quarter of managers admitted that they're making a hiring mistake over the last couple of years. As a result, organizations have been quite hesitant to making decisions, and we’re seeing prolonged and elongated times in them actually pulling the trigger,” said Shekhtman, senior regional director at Robert Half, noting that employers are increasingly cautious, especially in an uncertain economic climate where the risk of a bad hire feels higher than ever.
That hesitation is translating into longer hiring cycles across the board. In fact, Robert Half’s latest findings show that 94 per cent say that the hiring process itself is taking much longer than it did two years ago. As a result, the consequences of that delay are stacking up.
According to Robert Half, managers surveyed cited it took four weeks on average to recognize the mistake, with more than 15 wasted hours of productivity per week across teams due to performance issues caused by the bad hire not meeting expectations. Additionally, 56 per cent said the bad hire led to turnover on their team.
One reason for the longer hiring process is the volume and poor fit of candidates applying, noted Shekhtman. As unemployment ticks up, application numbers rise, but that doesn’t mean employers are seeing better options.
“You're seeing candidates’ applications increase, but it's not necessarily the right applicants for the roles and skills that managers are looking for,” Shekhtman said, noting that overwhelmed HR departments are often ill-equipped to sift through large numbers of irrelevant applications.
“Employers really need to align as an organization in terms of what the [hiring] process really looks like,” he said. “They may not have the resources to actually go through all those profiles, and that can be an overwhelming task in itself.”
The problem isn't just organizational. Delayed hiring is also taking a toll on current staff. When open roles stay vacant for too long, the work doesn’t disappear, it just shifts to existing employees.
“Over time it takes a toll. Additional work just gets into a position where it will erode the morale and ultimately drive negative engagement,” said Shekhtman.
While some are turning to AI to help streamline the search, Shekhtman is cautious about how it’s implemented.
“It becomes a slippery slope where you want to ensure that you're not screening out candidates using AI for any specific reason or somehow are missing out on opportunities to land some strong candidates,” he said, emphasizing AI should assist - not replace - the hiring process.
He agrees that one major solution is to tighten up the hiring structure. Too many firms rely on loose, ad hoc methods that allow delays and mistakes to creep in. That means ensuring a clear interview schedule and making it possible to move through candidates efficiently, without losing top talent to faster competitors.
But Shekhtman isn’t entirely against complexity if it’s warranted. He noted that some delays stem from a good place: trying to get it right.
“Because companies are really thoughtful and maybe are nervous about the hire themselves, they're also leveraging other stakeholders and maybe even other leaders to be part of the decision process,” he said. Still, adding more voices often means more time.
Hiring managers are also struggling to prioritize as many are managing lean teams while trying to fill positions and hiring ultimately becomes just one more task competing for attention. Consequently, when employers add onboarding and training to the mix, hiring gets kicked down the priority list.
All of this creates a ripe environment for missteps. According to Shekhtman, one of the most common errors among those surveyed is neglecting soft skills and cultural fit.
“We've seen that where companies are spending too much time in the technical aptitude and not enough trying to understand whether that individual is going to have the right behaviors, the right culture fit, the right attitude,” he said, emphasizing that virtual interviews can make this even harder.
To ensure these pain points are being addressed, he highlighted assessments, technical reference checks, and structured questions as tools employers should be using to reduce these risks.
This all starts with getting a proper plan in place, said Shekhtman, suggesting that employers should create an actual interview process audit. He recommends working backwards: figure out when managers want the new hire in the seat and build from there, factoring in notice periods, scheduling interviews, and determining who will participate in each round.
“Once that’s really flushed out, you can be in a strong position to really put together a strong plan and consistent plan that allows you to successfully hire versus just going off the cuff,” he said.
Ultimately, Shekhtman believes that while employers are right to be cautious, perfection shouldn’t be the goal.
“Always go for progress,” he said, encouraging firms to show flexibility and invest in upskilling where possible.
“That will allow you to throw a wider net in terms of finding the right individual for your team.”
