The real cost of bad hires in tech and how Progressive Vetting prevents them
Less intuition, more evidence. Progressive Vetting is transforming how companies hire tech talent.
Are you confident that your next hire will actually move your project forward? Does their profile really fit the way your team works? And how can you be sure that the talent who seems perfect truly has the skills and fit your team needs?
The cost of a bad hire goes beyond the budget: it can impact productivity, delay projects, and erode team trust. Often, this happens because companies lack complete and reliable information about candidates—their technical skills, work style, and cultural fit.
Making hiring decisions based on real data and complete profiles not only reduces risk but also ensures that every new hire can drive your projects forward from day one.
Are you strengthening your team or just adding people?
According to a study by HumCap, the total cost of a bad technical hire can reach 100–150% of the employee’s annual salary, including replacement, onboarding, and project delays. This means that it’s not just the employee’s salary that is lost, but also the resources invested in onboarding, the cost of finding a replacement, and the expenses associated with delays or issues in projects. For example, if a developer has an annual salary of $50,000, a bad hire could cost an additional $50,000–$75,000.
But why does this happen? Often, teams lack complete and reliable information about candidates—their technical skills, work style, and cultural fit. This leads to decisions based on assumptions and increases the risk of hiring the wrong person.
Hiring in tech isn’t just about filling a role: it’s about making every new hire drive your projects forward from day one.
Knowing what you need, doesn’t guarantee a good hire
Even when you clearly define the skills, experience, and project requirements you’re looking for, hiring in tech is rarely straightforward. The real challenge lies in confirming that a candidate can deliver in your specific context, not just on paper.
Some of the most common hurdles include:
- Skills that are hard to measure: A resume or a standard interview rarely captures problem-solving ability, critical thinking, or adaptability under real project conditions.
- Team and cultural fit: Being technically competent doesn’t guarantee effective collaboration or alignment with your team’s way of working.
- Rapidly evolving roles and technologies: A candidate who’s strong today might lack critical skills tomorrow as technology stacks and project needs evolve.
- Fragmented information: Each interview, test, or reference is an isolated data point. Without a reliable, cumulative record, it’s almost impossible to objectively compare candidates or track their validated skills over time.
In short, the difficulty lies in certainty: knowing what you need is only the first step. The real question is whether each candidate can truly contribute from day one in your team and project context.
Make hiring decisions based on evidence.