Hiring is not equal to Finding Talent - Recruiters’ Edition

Aug 12, 2025

Hiring Fast, Hiring Well: Why Filling a Role Is Not the Same as Finding Talent

Hiring often happens under a clock. Targets loom, inboxes fill, clients call. A seat must be filled, yet the right fit is still out there. The tension is simple to state and hard to solve. Filling a role is not the same as finding talent.

This piece looks at why that gap appears so often in small and mid-sized businesses, especially in lower-level roles. It explores how incentives shape behaviour, how market realities raise the stakes, and what selection methods actually predict success. It ends with practical reframes that respect the pressure recruiters face, while protecting quality. The intent is not to scold. The intent is to name what is true, so better choices become possible.

The Quiet Tension: Speed versus Fit

Speed matters. Vacant roles carry costs. Teams absorb extra tasks, service slips, and managers lose hours to cover. For SMEs, that pain is immediate and visible. Fit also matters. A person who aligns with the work, the pace, and the manager will learn faster, contribute more, and stay longer. When speed and fit collide, speed usually wins.

Why? Because the system pays for speed. Many agency and staffing models reward closed placements and volume. Tiered commissions and bonuses often increase with the number of placements or with quick completion windows. The structure is clear: more and faster placements mean more income. Recruiters do not design these schemes. They work inside them. Incentives nudge decisions toward swift closure, sometimes before evidence of fit is strong enough.

In-house teams are not immune. Even when commission is not the primary lever, the organisation tracks time to fill. Leaders press for shorter cycles. Shortlists are built early. Interviews are squeezed into crowded calendars. The scoreboard rewards speed. Quality suffers when the method of selection cannot carry the weight of the decision.

What Speed Buys, and What It Costs

Speed reduces vacancy days. It calms anxious teams and delighted clients. Yet rushed hiring brings known risks. Industry analyses and executive commentary point to higher turnover, lower productivity, and morale dips when hiring shortcuts become normal. These sources vary in rigour, yet the pattern is consistent across sectors. The faster the process with weak selection tools, the higher the probability of misfit and churn.

Education research offers a useful parallel. Late or hurried teacher hiring is linked to poorer outcomes and higher turnover. The context differs from commercial roles, yet the mechanism is similar. Compressed timelines reduce candidate pools and weaken evaluation, which in turn harms performance and retention. The lesson is not that all fast hiring is bad. The lesson is that speed without strong method carries a cost.

What Actually Predicts Success

The good news is clear. A century of personnel psychology points to selection methods that predict job performance with much higher accuracy than unstructured interviews or gut feel. Structured interviews, work sample tests, and cognitive measures, when used with discipline and scoring rubrics, are reliable predictors of future performance. The research is deep, meta-analytic, and repeatedly replicated.

Recent commentary in industrial-organisational psychology highlights an important nuance. Structured interviews have emerged as the single strongest standalone predictor in many contexts. Combine them with work samples or task-based exercises, and the signal improves again. The method is simple in concept: ask the same job-relevant questions, use clear scoring guides, and compare candidates on the same frame. Consistency beats improvisation.

Even outside academia, leading practitioners have said the same thing for years. Unstructured chats create early impressions that anchor the rest of the process. Structured interviews, cognitive tasks, and work samples reduce bias and improve prediction. The principle holds across sizes and sectors.

Why SMEs Feel the Pressure More

SMEs face typical constraints. Budgets are tight. Hiring is infrequent and often handled by generalists. The market is competitive and skills gaps magnify the challenge. Employers report difficulty finding qualified candidates, with multiple factors at play, from migration of skilled workers to limited graduate pipelines and gaps in foundational training. Smaller firms bear the brunt, since they have fewer brand pulls and fewer training buffers. Time-to-hire targets collide with scarce supply. Shortlists shrink. Compromise grows.

These constraints do not disappear. The task is to work inside them with better method. That begins with an honest look at incentives.

The Incentive Loop: How the Game Shapes the Play

Picture a simple loop. A client demands speed. An agency pays for placements. A recruiter, paid on volume and time, pushes candidates forward. A manager, pressed by workload, chooses the first acceptable fit. The person lands, then struggles, then leaves. The loop resets, and the vacancy returns.

Commission schemes vary, yet many include elements that reward volume, speed, or seniority level. Some add clawbacks if a placement leaves within a set period. In theory, clawbacks protect quality. In practice, they reduce, but do not remove, the bias toward fast closure. The financial curve still rises with more placements. The scoreboard still displays time-to-fill as a core metric.

Plainly said, the system gets what it pays for. If the pay curve bends toward speed, speed will dominate. If the pay curve and scorecard reward quality, quality will climb. The answer is not to shame recruiters. It is to adjust the loop.

Two Composite Vignettes

The Retail Assistant in a Busy Quarter
A national SME retailer needs five store assistants before month end. The brief is light. The commission plan rewards quick placements. Shortlists appear within days. Interviews are informal. Offers go out. Three of the five leave within six weeks, citing mismatch on hours and pace. The store covers with overtime. The cycle repeats. The fix was not magic. A short, structured interview and a simple work sample, like a timed till simulation and a role-play with a difficult customer, would have served as a better filter. The timeline could have stayed tight. The method would have improved fit.

The Support Agent for a SaaS SME
A SaaS firm hires a support agent during a surge of new customers. The hiring manager wants a fast start. Recruiting lines up candidates within a week. The interview is a friendly chat. Training begins on Monday. By Friday, the new hire is overwhelmed by context switching. They resign in month two. The gap reopens. A 30-minute task, such as a sample ticket triage with a simple rubric, plus a structured interview on problem solving and writing quality, would have increased predictive power without adding weeks.

These vignettes are common. They are not a judgement on effort. They show how light process changes, not long delays, separate filling a seat from finding talent.

Selection, Not Length, Is the Lever

A key theme in the research is selection method. Structured interviews and work samples are not slow. They are clear. They fit inside short timelines if designed once and reused. They let recruiters move fast with integrity. They also make agency submissions stronger. Submitting candidates with scores and work artefacts builds trust. Managers can compare like with like. The shortlist improves. Offer acceptance improves. The loop starts to shift.

South Africa’s Context: Scarcity with Urgency

In South Africa, the supply side matters. Employers report persistent skills shortages, driven by migration, limited graduate throughput, weak foundational training, and rapid tech change. Many firms feel a moderate to high impact from these gaps. Smaller businesses carry more of the load, since they lack large training budgets and brand pull. Scarcity plus urgency creates the perfect setting for compromise on method.

Add the wider MSME landscape, where many businesses operate with fragile cash flow and thin margins, and the pressure to minimise vacancy days becomes acute. The temptation to accept “good enough” grows as month end approaches.

What the Scoreboard Teaches

Most organisations track time to fill. The global average often quoted is around six weeks, though it varies by role and sector. Time to hire is measured and managed. Quality of hire is often discussed, yet rarely defined with rigour. When quality is vague and time is exact, time wins. The scoreboard shapes behaviour. If leaders want fit to improve, the scoreboard must change. That begins with defining quality in a way that is simple to collect and hard to game.

A short list of lagging indicators can help, such as retention at six months, time to productivity, and manager satisfaction. Pair that with a leading indicator that sits inside the hiring process, such as the presence of a scored work sample and a scored structured interview for every hire. Make both visible. Reward both. The loop shifts.

A Simple Frame: The Speed–Fit Grid

Visualise a 2x2 grid. The horizontal axis is speed, from slow to fast. The vertical axis is method strength, from weak to strong.

  • Fast + Weak: quick relief, higher risk of churn.

  • Fast + Strong: the sweet spot for SMEs, quick decisions with clear evidence.

  • Slow + Weak: the worst of both worlds.

  • Slow + Strong: safer decisions, higher opportunity cost.

The goal is not to slide from fast to slow. The goal is to move from weak to strong, while staying fast. That is selection design, not calendar padding.

The Three-Question Filter

Before any shortlist goes out, ask three questions.

  1. Did every candidate complete a job-relevant task that mirrors the role, scored on a simple rubric.

  2. Did every interviewer use the same structured questions, with defined criteria for what good looks like.

  3. Are the scores recorded and visible, not just shared in a chat or on a call.

If the answer is yes, the method is strong enough to support a fast decision. If any answer is no, the risk of misfit is higher.

The Pay Curve Reframed

If the commission or bonus plan rewards only speed and volume, the result will be speed and volume. Introduce one more lever. Tie a portion of reward to a short retention window, for example 90 days, and to process quality, for example the presence of structured scores in the submission pack. Keep it simple, keep it visible. The aim is alignment, not bureaucracy.

For in-house teams, pair time-to-hire with a quality metric and give both equal air time. If the dashboard shows both in green, the behaviour will follow.

Common Objections, Answered Briefly

“We do not have time for tests.”
Work samples can be short. Ten to twenty minutes is enough for many entry roles. A simple email triage, a short data clean, a customer role-play, or a basic stock count scenario. The point is not to simulate the whole job. The point is to sample the core of the work with a clear scoring guide.

“Managers prefer a chat.”
Humans like stories. A structured interview does not remove stories. It anchors them to the same questions and the same standards. It turns preference into evidence.

“Candidates will not do extra steps.”
Candidates value fair, clear processes. A short, job-relevant task feels more respectful than vague hoops. It shows what the job is like. It lets them self-select out if the work is not a fit.

A Note on Fairness

Better method is not only about performance. It is about fairness. Structured approaches reduce confirmation bias and thin-slice judgements that form in the first seconds of a chat. They help candidates who may not shine in informal conversation but excel at the work. Fairness has moral value. It also has practical value. It widens the pool of solid hires.

South Africa’s Path: Scarcity Needs Clarity

When skills are scarce, clarity wins. Clear briefs. Clear tasks. Clear scoring. Clear offers. SMEs can compete on clarity even when they cannot compete on brand. In markets with shortages, clarity lowers false starts. It respects the candidate’s time. It respects the recruiter’s time. It protects the client relationship.

What to Keep, What to Change

Keep speed. Teams need relief. Clients value momentum. Keep relationships. Recruiters are guides in a crowded field. Change method strength. Build a one-page structured interview for the top three roles. Build one work sample for each. Test them once, then reuse them. Measure time to hire and a small set of quality indicators. Reflect on the pattern every quarter. Adjust. That is enough to shift outcomes.

A Brief Checklist for Leaders

  • Define the job, not as a list of traits, but as tasks to be done in the first 90 days.

  • Create one short work sample for each role that mirrors those tasks.

  • Write five structured interview questions with a simple scoring guide.

  • Track both time and quality on the same dashboard.

  • Align rewards with both speed and retention.

None of this requires long delays. It requires consistency.

Closing Thought

Recruiters are not the problem. The loop is the problem. If rewards pull in one direction, decisions follow. Change the loop, and the choices change. The prize is simple. A fast hire who is a true fit. A person who stays, learns, and lifts the team.

Better Matches - Forward Momentum

© 2025 MJB Strategic. All rights reserved.

Logo

thys@mjbstrategic.com

Corlett Drive

Sandton

Gauteng

2196