Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire… BS.

/in , /by

Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire… BS.

This post is a reprint of the article by the same name by Rich Cruz.

Antiquated Hiring Philosophy May Hamper Growth

Recently, I applied and interviewed for an open executive position at a well-established company in the construction industry. Despite its success and expansion, my experience with their hiring process raised serious concerns. After nearly two months of waiting for my first interview and being told the hiring decision wouldn’t be made for at least two more months in the future, I underwent three interviews and was asked to produce a detailed 30, 60, and 90-day plan. Excited to move to the next level, I submitted a high-level outline of a plan via email, explaining that I cannot deliver a full plan without knowing more about the company through examining and analyzing data. The hiring manager insisted on a full PowerPoint presentation, and he coupled his request with the statement, “I am slow to hire and quick to fire.” This led me to withdraw from the process. This phrase, often touted in business owner coaching or peer-group circles, prompted me to delve into why it might have some fundamental flaws.

 

The Myth of “Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire”

 

The phrase “slow to hire, quick to fire” has its roots in the belief that thorough hiring processes ensure better employee fit and swift terminations minimize the impact of poor hires. Proponents argue that this approach leads to a more productive and harmonious workplace. Indeed, some literature supports this philosophy, such as articles from Harvard Business Review and Forbes. However, from an Industrial-Organizational Psychology perspective, this approach can pose a detrimental threat to both individual and organizational performance. While hiring for fit for a position with a company should involve rigor, too many assessments, interviews, work samples, or other forms of evaluation can reduce the pool of candidates and pose risks to the organization.

 

The Downside of “Slow to Hire”

 

An unbalanced approach that does not emphasize timely and efficient hiring processes can create detriments for both employees and organizations. Some drawbacks include:

 

  1. Talent Drain: Lengthy hiring processes can lead to the loss of top talent. High-caliber candidates often have multiple opportunities and may not wait months for a decision. As Peter Drucker famously noted, “The best way to predict the future is to create it.” Creating a future with top talent requires swift, decisive action.
  2. Increased Costs: Prolonged vacancies can result in significant costs in terms of lost productivity and the expenses associated with extended recruitment efforts. According to Kouzes and Posner, effective leadership creates a vision and rallies people around it. Delays in hiring disrupt this vision and impede progress.
  3. Negative Candidate Experience: A cumbersome hiring process can damage an organization’s reputation. Candidates talk, and word spreads quickly about companies with inefficient recruitment practices. This can lead to a tarnished employer brand, making it harder to attract top talent in the future.

 

The Pitfalls of “Quick to Fire”

 

Similarly, organizations that fail to invest in their employees and nurture organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) with on-the-job training, coaching, rewards, and other reinforcement can suffer consequences such as:

 

  1. Cultural Impact: Frequent terminations can create a culture of fear and uncertainty. Locke and Latham’s Goal Setting Theory emphasizes the importance of clear, attainable goals for employee motivation. A “quick to fire” approach undermines this by fostering instability and mistrust.
  2. Loss of Investment: Hiring and onboarding can cost as much as 1.5 times a worker’s salary. Quick terminations mean the organization loses its recruitment, training, and development investment. Additionally, the constant churn can disrupt team dynamics and hinder long-term projects.
  3. Erosion of Employee Morale: The psychological contract between employer and employee has its foundation in mutual trust and respect. When employees see their peers seemingly indiscriminately terminated, it can lead to decreased morale, engagement, and loyalty. Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) framework – which highlights the importance of hope, confidence, and resilience in fostering a productive workforce – supports the consequences of broken psychological contracts.

 

Evidence from Experts

 

The literature from scholarly resources and best-selling authors offers insight into better ways to attract and retain top talent.

 

  1. Peter Drucker: Drucker emphasized the importance of nurturing talent and creating a culture of continuous improvement. His writings suggest that a balanced approach to hiring and firing, focusing on development and fit, provides a more sustainable workplace than extreme practices.
  2. Kouzes and Posner: In their works on leadership, Kouzes and Posner highlight the significance of fostering an inclusive, supportive environment. Leaders should focus on building relationships and empowering employees rather than relying on punitive measures.
  3. Locke and Latham: Their Goal Setting Theory underscores the need for achievable goals for individuals and work groups tied to organizational objectives. A hasty firing approach disrupts goal alignment and diminishes the sense of purpose within the organization.
  4. Angela Duckworth and Carol Dweck: Their research on grit and growth mindset, respectively, points to the importance of perseverance and learning from mistakes. Quick terminations deprive both the employee and the organization of the opportunity to grow and improve.

 

While “slow to hire, quick to fire” might appear as a catchy mantra, it falls short when scrutinized through the lens of Industrial-Organizational Psychology and leadership theory. A more balanced approach, emphasizing timely yet thorough hiring processes and supportive, development-focused retention strategies, is key to fostering a thriving organizational culture. My recent experience underscores the importance of evaluating not just the processes but potential employers’ underlying values and culture. Ultimately, businesses that invest in their people by balancing rigor with empathy possess a better chance to succeed in the long run.

 

References

 

Did you enjoy this blog? Read more great blog posts here.
For our course lists, please click here.