Tags:
The job description went out on a Tuesday. By Friday, the founder had spoken to three candidates, the operations head had spoken to two others, and nobody had told each other. One candidate was rejected by the founder and shortlisted by operations. Another was called twice by different people asking the same questions. The role was filled six weeks later. Nobody is entirely sure it was the right person.
This is not a hiring failure. It is what hiring looks like when there is no process behind it.
The Problem Has a Name
Call it talent improvisation. It is what happens when a business treats every hire as a one-off event rather than a repeatable process. No defined stages. No shared view of who is in the pipeline. No record of why someone was rejected or what the decision criteria were. Just a collection of individual conversations that somehow results in someone joining, or not joining, the business.
Most SMBs do not have a hiring system. They have a hiring habit — post a job, collect CVs, call the ones that look right, make a decision. It works well enough when hiring is infrequent. When the business is growing and hiring becomes a regular activity, the habit creates friction at every step.
A mid-sized logistics company in Hyderabad was hiring across three functions simultaneously. Sales, operations, and finance each had open roles. Each function head was managing their own pipeline independently. There was no central view of who had applied, who had been interviewed, or where each candidate stood. Two candidates applied for roles in different functions and were being evaluated in parallel by different people, neither of whom knew. The duplication was discovered only when both sent offer letters on the same day.
Why It Happens
Hiring feels personal. Most founders and senior managers believe they have good instincts about people. And often they do. The problem is that instinct is not a process. It does not scale, it does not document itself, and it does not produce consistent outcomes when applied by different people across different roles at the same time.
The other reason is that HR systems have historically been associated with large companies. An HRMS feels like something a five-hundred-person company needs, not a fifty-person one. So the growing SMB defers. They will build a proper process when they are bigger. In the meantime, a shared WhatsApp group and a folder of CVs will do.
What they do not account for is that the cost of the improvised approach is already accumulating. Every week a role stays open because the pipeline is unclear. Every mis-hire that stays six months and leaves. Every candidate who had a poor experience because nobody followed up. These costs are real. They just do not appear anywhere that anyone is measuring.
What It Looks Like in Practice
A manufacturing business in Pune was growing its shop floor workforce from forty to ninety people over eighteen months. The HR function was one person, supported loosely by two operations managers who were also responsible for production targets. Hiring happened in bursts. When a vacancy appeared, the process started from scratch each time. The same job description was rewritten repeatedly. Interview questions varied by interviewer. Onboarding was different for every person who joined, depending on who had time that week. Twelve months in, attrition was running at thirty percent annually. Nobody had connected the attrition rate to the hiring and onboarding process. They were looking at the number, not the cause.
A technology services firm in Chennai with sixty employees had never formally documented what good looked like for any role. Hiring decisions were made on the basis of interview impressions and reference calls. When a senior hire did not work out after four months, the post-mortem conversation revealed that three of the five people involved in the hiring had had different ideas about what the role required. Nobody had written it down. Nobody had agreed on it. The hire had been made on consensus that turned out not to be consensus at all.
A retail chain expanding across Gujarat hired store managers for four new locations over eight months. Each store manager was hired by a different combination of people using a different approach. Six months later, the four stores had measurably different cultures, different levels of customer service quality, and different interpretations of what the job actually was. The inconsistency traced back directly to the inconsistency in how the hiring had been done.
Different businesses. Different sectors. The same pattern. When the process is improvised, the outcomes are unpredictable.
The Cost Nobody Calculates
A bad hire at the mid-management level costs between six months and one year of that person’s salary when you factor in recruiting time, onboarding, lost productivity during the settling-in period, and the cost of replacing them. Most SMBs have a rough sense of this. What they do not track is how much of that cost is attributable to a process that was never designed to produce consistent outcomes.
The open role cost is equally invisible. A sales role that stays vacant for eight weeks instead of four is not just a recruiting inconvenience. It is eight weeks of revenue that was not generated, pipeline that was not built, and customer relationships that were not developed. That number exists. It just never appears on any report.
There is also a compounding effect on the people already in the business. A poorly run hiring process signals something to existing employees about how the organisation operates. It signals that things are figured out as they go. That signal is picked up. It affects retention in ways that are difficult to measure and easy to underestimate.
The cost of not having a hiring system is not the cost of one bad hire. It is the cumulative cost of every hire that could have gone better.
The First Step
Before building anything, answer one question honestly.
If a key person resigned today and you had to replace them, could you describe the process you would follow, the criteria you would use, and who would be involved at each stage — without making it up as you went?
If the answer is no, that is the starting point. Not an HRMS. Not a recruitment agency retainer. Just the decision to treat the next hire as the first version of a repeatable process rather than another one-off event.
Industry Context
Talent improvisation shows up across every sector but the cost is highest in businesses where people are the primary delivery mechanism. Professional services, where the quality of the hire directly determines the quality of the work. Retail, where consistent customer experience depends on consistent hiring and onboarding. Manufacturing, where shop floor attrition creates direct production impact and replacement costs accumulate faster than most operations teams realise.
It is also acute in businesses going through a growth phase. A company moving from thirty to a hundred people in two years is making more hiring decisions than it has ever made before, at a moment when it has the least capacity to absorb the cost of getting them wrong. The process debt from that period does not disappear when the growth phase ends. It lives in the culture, the attrition rate, and the organisational inconsistencies that take years to untangle.
Talent is the one resource every business says is its most important. It is also the one most businesses have never built a system to manage.
A business that has a process for everything except the people it hires has not yet understood where its operational risk actually lives.
