Choice and consequence - Innovation from Iteration pt 7
Have you looked at a catastrophe and wondered what the sliding doors moment was, when it all went wrong?
Would it surprise you if that pivotal moment was actually something everyday, like catching or missing a train?
Coined by Ward Cunningham in 1992 to describe the ‘failure to consolidate’, technical debt is the long-term cost shortcuts and poor design decisions in software and technical architecture.
Compromise now, pay the piper later.
A good example of the potentially catastrophic consequence of technical debt is Enron, which alongside MCI Worldcom’s collapse precipitated Sarbannes-Oxley.
Enron’s sprawling systems and opaque reporting structures contributed to an environment where liabilities were obscured and oversight failed.
Resulting in a $67 billion fraud.
Ouch.
Yet, in the moment, using those systems, keeping to those habits, failing to challenge process - these all must have felt like business as usual.
How does technical debt apply in recruitment?
I define recruitment debt as the long-term consequence of a short-term decision at any step in recruitment.
“What technical debt will this decision create?”
Here are some examples to set the scene:
1/ “I can’t believe Chris quit! We need to find a replacement asap – let’s advertise using his old job description and see if we can get someone just like him…”
Why did Chris quit? Could it be he’d outgrown his old job description? Doesn’t hiring someone at his current level imply they’re already bigger than his old job?
What about the job description itself? If it’s old, how does it reflect the current context?
With all the achievements Chris made, is the role the same now as it was then?
What about the business climate – is the 2026 situation the same as 2022?
Yet this is a common scenario.
What if, instead, you updated the job description against the current context and the future outcomes you want to achieve?
What kind of candidate would that appeal to? Probably not Chris Mk 2, anyway.
What’s the recruitment debt of haste?
2/ “I can’t believe Chris quit! What was his salary? Let’s get another Chris in at the same salary!”
Why did Chris quit? Might it have been for a higher salary?
And if that’s the case, wouldn’t Chris Mk 2 already want that higher salary now?
And if you need to offer the salary level old-Chris accepted to take his new job… why didn’t you just pay Chris a salary that meant he didn’t have to leave to achieve it?
What else have you lost by not paying Chris his value?
3/ “We can’t afford agencies, so we’ll advertise and go to our network”
"Well, Greg, you would say that."
There’s no reason not to recruit directly, if you know what you need, have defined it clearly and make an appealing message to potential candidates.
Sometimes you can even get away with it by doing none of those.
But what kind of access does that give you to the candidate marketplace?
Not the applicant marketplace - we all know the problem with volume of automated, AI optimised, non-viable applicants.
But applicants are not necessarily viable candidates. And candidates often aren't applicants.
If you’re facing a role you consider skill short, one with impact, or one where you aren’t clear on your needs – what are the risks involved?
A direct hire, may appear cheaper, but what’s the cost of a vacancy that’s been unfilled for three months financially, culturally, and for opportunity?
And if you buy cheap, will you buy twice?
What’s the technical debt of:
- Poor documentation
- Making assumptions
- Not having a clear plan
- Not managing expectations
- Not focusing on strategic candidate experience
- Not focusing on post-offer, preboarding and onboarding
The cost can be unfilled vacancies, lost income, reduced spending leading to higher cost, missed deadlines, and the wrong hires with all the damage that entails – culture, opportunity, lost market share, you name it.
It’s no small thing recruitment debt.
And it’s something we should all establish at every step in our process.
Regards,
Greg
P.s. if you prefer opportunity over debt, outcomes over instances, and you're a UK employer that thinks your recruitment should be better - maybe we can talk

