Rushed recruitment costing companies and damaging culture, experts say

The financial and cultural toll of rushed recruitment is far greater than many leaders care to admit, according to Nouman Ashraf, associate professor of organizational behaviour and human resources management at the University of Toronto. 

He points out that a bad hire doesn’t just drain time and energy but also comes with a direct financial hit – often several months’ salary – before organizations are forced to restart the process of rehiring, retraining, and reintegrating someone new.

A new survey from leadership development firm Talogy highlights that 51% of respondents reported higher costs associated with rehiring or training because of poor-quality hires from rushed recruiting. It also found that 73% of U.S. employers feel the pressure to fill roles quickly at the expense of quality.

The cost calculation alone should be enough to slow organizations down. But according to Ashraf, the real danger is subtler and far-reaching. 

“One of the downsides of rushing through recruitment is not being mindful of the distinction between hiring for cultural contribution versus cultural fit,” he says. 

The difference, he argues, is fundamental. Hiring for fit means reproducing what already exists, while hiring for contribution requires looking at how new perspectives might reshape an aspirational culture. 

When rushed hiring erodes culture and brand

These oversights often show up in toxic ways. Whether pushed out or choosing to resign, the outcome is the same: talent wasted and credibility diminished, Ashraf says.

And for employees who don’t see themselves represented at different levels of the organization, the result is even more corrosive. 

“You have lots of individuals who come into an organization who don't feel psychologically safe, who either remain silent, or they underperform and they leave,” he says. 

The reputational risks of this extend far beyond internal morale. In Ashraf’s view, a company’s employment practices are inseparable from its brand identity.

“More and more consumers are looking for evidence that employers are treating their employees with respect. They're looking at the sustainability record. They're looking at their claims around stewardship and around culture,” he explains. “There's lots of people who don't use certain brands because those brands don't have a great reputation.”

Shortcuts, bias and the missed value of feedback

The consequences of rushed decisions go deeper when leaders treat recruitment as a box-checking exercise. Shortcutting the reference check stage, he argues, undermines the chance of seeing the full person beyond the résumé.

“Reference checks should help us expand our view of the candidate,” Ashraf says. 

Part of the problem is the pressure leaders feel to act quickly. When stress levels are high, instinct takes over, and instinct is often just another word for bias, he says. 

This is why Ashraf pushes organizations to design hiring processes that lower the temperature in high-pressure situations, keeping decision-making deliberate rather than reactive.

Feedback is another tool he insists employers underuse. 

“It's not a crazy idea to ask someone at the end of the interview, can you give us some feedback on how you experience that,” he says. “Feedback is data, not destiny.”

Common mistakes in hiring process

There is also a greater overreliance on hiring technology, which is becoming one of the biggest errors for employers, says Joshua Bourdage, Professor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology at the University of Calgary.

The temptation, he argues, is to let AI do the heavy lifting, but organizations often push this too far. 

“It’s never been easier for applicants to apply for a job, and I really understand where recruiters are coming from. It’s just a sea of information to sift through,” he says. “I’ve seen an over reliance on a lot of those tools – people using automated scoring from resumes and interviews, but never actually vetting the candidate or looking at their materials themselves.”

That shortcut doesn’t just risk missing strong candidates, it also compounds bias in the system. The result is a hiring process stripped of real human judgment.

“We end up with a situation where candidates are using AI, and then AI is evaluating the candidate,” Bourdage says. 

Another mistake, he argues, comes from confusing speed with progress; putting the wrong person in place often does more damage than leaving the role unfilled. And for smaller organizations, a single poor fit can “really spoil the barrel” and drive away valuable staff, he warns. 

Recommendations for improved recruitment

Bourdage believes companies can still move quickly without sacrificing rigor, but it requires clarity and discipline. His advice is to focus first on the few skills that are hardest to find and most critical for the role, rather than overloading job ads with a laundry list of demands

From there, he suggests a multi-stage process that expands into other skills only once a smaller pool has been identified. 

“You can do that quick screening early so that you can at least whittle it down to a series of serious candidates that you can more seriously vet,” he says. “Maybe there’s three skills that you really need, and maybe two of those are really tough to find, so you focus on those.” 

He also warns against “skill inflation,” where job descriptions balloon with requirements that aren’t essential. That not only shrinks the talent pool but can also push diverse candidates to self-select out if they don’t meet every item.

“Sometimes we actually see people trying to get a very idiosyncratic type of person, and it’s leading to over qualification,” he says. 

Bourdage urges organizations to be strategic about where they source candidates instead of defaulting to mass job postings. Rather than chasing volume, employers should target the pipelines most relevant to their needs, even if that means a smaller applicant pool.

“It’s not about the number of applicants, it’s about getting the right number of applicants,” he says.