When Hiring Goes Wrong: A 16-Week Recruitment Case Study

Most hiring processes don’t start with urgency. They start with confidence.

The role is clearly defined. The employer brand is strong. There is an assumption that with the right approach, the position will be filled quickly and without too much difficulty. In many cases, that assumption holds.

But when it doesn’t, the impact is rarely immediate. It builds gradually through delays, candidate drop-off and increasing pressure on internal teams.

Our latest case study looks at how a seemingly straightforward hire evolved into a prolonged, resource-heavy process and what that reveals about the true cost of recruitment.

Case Study - When Recruitment Spirals

On paper, the hiring process looked straightforward.

There was a clearly defined role outline and a strong employer brand. From an outsider’s perspective, there was no obvious reason the advertised role shouldn’t be filled quickly. So, the company made a decision many organisations make. Manage the recruitment process internally to avoid paying a recruitment fee.

The Client

This case study is based on a real hiring process carried out by a growing Irish organisation operating in a commercially driven environment. The business was in a period of expansion and needed to hire a mid-level sales professional with direct responsibility for revenue generation. The role was important, but not unusual. It reflected the type of hire many organisations manage internally.

A Strong Start

At first, everything went smoothly.

The role attracted a high volume of CVs and applicants. Initially this seemed like success. There were quick responses, lots of interest and plenty of choice. However, volume doesn’t always equal quality. The applications piled up and the hiring team faced new challenges, readjusting criteria to reduce the number of unsuitable candidates.

Over the course of a week, the hiring team worked through hundreds of applications. After several discussions, a shortlist of 25 candidates became 10 initial screening calls.

Suddenly another problem emerged.

Candidate Fall Off

Out of those 10 candidates, the majority were no longer available. Some had accepted offers elsewhere and others had lost interest. The internal hiring team regrouped and eventually moved a small number of candidates through to interview stage. This meant more time, more planning and more senior management input.

Out of three final candidates, an offer was made to the first-choice candidate, and the hiring team was confident they had found the right person.

The Price of Delays

Then more delays crept into the process.

From inconsistent references, to withdrawals, to candidates accepting other opportunities and others demanding improved compensation. The hiring team faced a difficult choice: compromise on quality or restart the process.

Ultimately, they chose neither and the role remained unfilled.

Back to Square One

After 16 weeks, what began as a straightforward hire had evolved into a prolonged, resource-heavy process. Revenue growth had begun to feel the impact of the missing hire.

The company hadn’t avoided the cost of hiring.

They had absorbed it in a different way.

Harper Finley

At this point, a decision was made to bring in external support from Harper Finley With this external help, within three weeks, four candidates were introduced and interviews were coordinated efficiently.

Within six weeks of restarting the search, a preferred candidate accepted the offer.

Conclusion

This case highlights a simple but often overlooked reality. The cost of hiring is not just the fee you pay. It is the time, delay and risk built into the process itself.

When those factors are not properly accounted for, what appears to be the “cheaper” option can quickly become the more expensive one.In recruitment, the most expensive outcome isn’t always the fee you pay.

It’s the process that doesn’t deliver.

Read the full case study in our latest Harper Finley insights paper here.