I have always loved recruiting new members for the team. The process gives me good insights into the market. It provides different perspectives on solving issues. It allows me to meet new and interesting people, and the introduction of a new team member invariably brings a slightly different team dynamic. I find it a positive, creative and forward-looking exercise – and I think most good managers do.

Or used to.

In my last few roles the task of hiring has become formulaic and tiresome. I have a business case to prepare and justifications to write – about why a new role needs to be created, or if it’s a replacement, why we can’t find efficiency gains to cover the departing staff member. Even when these things are wholly self-evident.

When the roles are approved (once a month in a batch lot across the organisation) there is a threat that the approval may be revoked at any time if another round of cost-cutting arrives between approval and head in the door.

The advertising is prepared. It needs to be in a standard format and wait for the next round of media.

By the time there are candidates the process has taken months, the workload for the team has increased to cover for the role, and the need is desperate. It becomes of disproportionate importance that our candidates can hit the ground running. A familiarity with the current tool set and the organisation is a huge advantage. There is an obvious bias built into the system for internal candidates.

This is recruitment short termism.

The ability to craft a balanced team of diverse market views and new cultures is neutered. The quality of external candidates that present with depth of experience and a new perspective is devalued unless they happen to also have the ability to slip into the team and start tomorrow. The overall long term quality of the team is compromised.

Perhaps I am pining for a time that has passed. Or perhaps there are some simple steps that can address the short termism.

It is an enduring sadness for me that I have rejected candidates that have old experience. A gap in their CV. Their experience demonstrates capability and commitment, but it was a while ago. The candidates are full of ambition and commitment. Honest and personable. But – they can’t hit the ground running.

I want those candidates. I want the passion and determination that has brought them back to the workplace. I want their maturity and their emotional intelligence. Most of all I want a balanced workforce that reflects the world outside the four walls we work within.

If the organisation sent me a message that they would help me to recruit those candidates – I could do so knowing that the short-term gaps could be addressed over time without a disproportionate investment of time and effort by me and my short-staffed team. I could identify the talent easily – but the organisation needs to let me know they will risk-share and support us in providing updating and tool training for the new staff members.

These are people I would have recruited in the past when the delays in recruitment had not pushed up the significance of hitting the ground running.

I don’t have that support now. I have teams that are overworked because of recruitment delays. I am short-changing the team if I don’t hire someone that can slip straight in and help with the backload of work.

My message to the organisations that are reading this and thinking ‘this could be us….’: The pressure on headcount should not also be a pressure on quality. What I am advocating is good for the organisation – higher quality and more diverse workforce. What’s not to love about that?