Every talent leader has been there.

A hiring manager says, “They’re not perfect, but they’ll do,” and suddenly the seat is filled, the requisition closed, and the pressure gone — for now.

It feels like progress. But underneath that short-term relief, something starts to unravel.

The Slow Burn of a Quick Fix

The trouble with “good enough” hires is that their impact isn’t immediate. It’s incremental. A missed deadline here. A teammate’s patience stretched there. Eventually, top performers are quietly doing two jobs — theirs and the one that never quite got done right.

According to Gallup , disengaged or poorly aligned employees cost businesses the equivalent of 18% of their annual salary in lost productivity. If that person stays for a year, the organization is effectively paying for a full-time role that’s only partially contributing.

Even worse, the hidden costs multiply: morale erosion, credibility loss, and brand damage. A “good enough” hire in a customer-facing role, for example, can sour relationships that took years to build.

Why It Keeps Happening

Most organizations don’t settle because they want to — they settle because they have to. The role’s been open too long. The workload is piling up. And the business starts feeling the strain.

LinkedIn’s 2025 Global Talent Trends report found that 72% of TA leaders say they’re under constant pressure to fill roles faster, even when it means sacrificing quality (LinkedIn Talent Blog ).

That tension — between speed and precision — defines modern recruiting. But the real issue isn’t hiring speed; it’s hiring reactivity. Teams wait until pain points boil over, then scramble for quick fixes instead of maintaining an active pipeline or clearly defined success criteria.

A Real-World Example

A client once told us about a mid-level operations hire who looked fine on paper — solid résumé, decent interview, no major red flags. Within six months, turnover doubled in their department. Why? Because “fine” wasn’t enough for a fast-paced environment that needed a collaborator and problem-solver, not just a checkbox skillset.

By the time the company replaced that hire, the team had lost months of productivity and trust.

This story plays out everywhere — across industries, functions, and company sizes. “Good enough” feels safe in the moment. But it’s rarely safe in the long run.

Breaking the Pattern

Hiring right doesn’t have to mean hiring slow — it means hiring smart. The difference is in the systems behind the decision.

1. Define success, not just skills.

Ask what success looks like six months in, and reverse-engineer the attributes that make it possible.

2. Protect the process.

Give your TA team the authority to pause, challenge assumptions, and push back when the pipeline isn’t ready.

3. Build pipelines before you need them.

Engage passive talent through consistent, authentic communication — not just when the seat opens.

As Harvard Business Review notes, companies that treat hiring as a strategic partnership outperform those that treat it as a transaction.

The Real Cost: Credibility

Every rushed hire chips away at TA’s influence.

When hiring becomes a series of compromises, business leaders start questioning TA’s ability to deliver real value — and recruiters lose the space to do strategic work.

Credibility is currency. It’s earned by hiring teams who know when to push back and when to wait for the right fit.

Final Thought

“Good enough” is the comfort zone of hiring — and comfort zones are where teams stagnate. The leaders who will thrive in 2025 are the ones who protect hiring quality like any other business-critical metric.

Because in talent, “good enough” is never good enough.