Speed vs Substance: The Hiring Paradox of 2025
- Michelle Denny
- Oct 27
- 2 min read
We filled the role in four days – and regretted it for four months - hiring at speed wasn't clever!
Speed feels good. It looks efficient. But when it comes to hiring, it can quietly cost you more than you save.
The pressure to move quickly
Right now, every business feels the squeeze.Deadlines, targets, resignations, workload – all of it pushes hiring managers to move quickly.
Add in AI-driven shortlists, alerts that tell you your top candidate “won’t stay available for long,” and the result is predictable: rush decisions that feel productive in the moment but unravel later.
Speed isn’t the problem – panic is.

Where hiring fast becomes fragile
Quick hires often look great at first. The job’s filled, the inbox quietens down, and everyone breathes out.
But when that decision was made without enough clarity, conversation or alignment, the cracks appear fast. Onboarding feels off. Expectations don’t match. The chemistry’s not quite there.
And before long, you’re recruiting again – which costs more time, more money, and often a bit of team morale too.
Finding the balance
Hiring well doesn’t mean dragging things out. It means knowing what matters before you start.
Define your non-negotiables early.
Keep your process structured but human – quick decisions are fine, as long as they’re informed ones.
Move fast on the right candidates, not just the first ones.
It’s the difference between filling a role and actually solving a problem.
The real measure of success
A fast hire that doesn’t last isn’t efficiency – it’s a false economy.
Hiring speed should never come at the cost of substance.Because filling a role quickly means nothing if you’re re-filling it three months later.





Comments