Metric Myopia is becoming one of the most destructive habits in modern talent acquisition, yet most organizations don’t even realize it’s happening. When leaders obsess over shrinking the cost-per-hire metric, they often fail to see the long-term consequences hidden beneath the surface.
I was sitting in a Q3 board meeting last week when the CFO projected a spreadsheet onto the wall. It was a sea of green cells. He pointed a laser at one specific figure: Cost-Per-Hire (CPH).
“We’ve successfully driven recruitment costs down by 18% year-over-year,” he announced, beaming. The board nodded. There was a murmur of approval.
I didn’t nod.
I felt sick.
Because I knew what that 18% represented. It wasn’t efficiency. It wasn’t ‘doing more with less.’ It was a surrender. That number was the mathematical proof that we had stopped hunting for lions and started settling for stray cats because the cats were easier to catch.
If you are a CEO or a CHRO still prioritizing Cost-Per-Hire on your executive dashboard, you are suffering from a dangerous condition I call Metric Myopia. You are optimizing for the transaction, not the transformation.
Stop it.
The Procurement Trap
Here is the uncomfortable truth about CPH: It treats human capital like office supplies.
When you buy printer paper, you want the lowest price for a standardized commodity. A ream of paper is a ream of paper. But an engineer is not an engineer. A VP of Sales is not a VP of Sales.
In talent acquisition, the variance between an average performer and a top performer is not linear; it’s exponential. This is the Power Law of Performance. A top 1% engineer isn’t 10% faster than the average; they are often 10x more productive. They rewrite the codebase in a weekend. They see architectural flaws before they happen.
When you pressure your Talent Acquisition team to lower CPH, you force them into a Procurement Mindset.
They stop retaining expensive executive search firms that have the relationships with the A-players. They stop spending money on compelling employer branding. Instead, they post generic ads on free job boards and sift through thousands of mediocre resumes.
They hire the ‘active’ candidates—the ones desperate for a job—rather than the ‘passive’ candidates who are currently crushing it at your competitor.
Cheap hiring is expensive.
Goodhart’s Law and the Race to the Bottom
There’s a mental model from economics that explains exactly why your recruitment is failing: Goodhart’s Law.
> *”When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”*
If you tell your recruiters their bonus depends on keeping CPH under $5,000, they will find a way to do it. They are smart people. They will stop flying candidates in for final rounds. They will cut the assessment software budget. They will ghost the expensive candidate who requires a high-touch courtship and hire the ‘good enough’ candidate who said yes immediately.
Congratulations. You saved $4,000 on the hire.
But six months later, when that ‘cost-effective’ hire misses a critical product deadline or alienates a key client, that $4,000 saving evaporates. It turns into a $400,000 loss in opportunity cost.
We are confusing Efficiency (speed and cost) with Effectiveness (impact and outcome).
In a complex adaptive system like a company, efficiency is often the enemy of resilience. You need slack. You need depth. You need the person who cost $50,000 to find because they are the only person on the planet who can solve the specific problem threatening your existence.
The Entropy of Talent Density
Netflix got this right. Reed Hastings and Patty McCord obsessed over Talent Density.
The theory is simple: As a company grows, complexity increases. If talent density remains flat (or drops because you’re hiring cheaply), the percentage of high performers dilutes. Bureaucracy creeps in to manage the mediocrity.
Mediocrity is like rust. It doesn’t happen with a bang; it happens slowly, quietly, while you’re looking at your green spreadsheets.
When you prioritize CPH, you are essentially accelerating entropy. You are filling seats with warm bodies to satisfy a headcount plan, rather than leaving a seat empty until the right person arrives.
Ask yourself: Would you rather have a fully staffed team of B-players for a bargain price, or a team at 80% capacity composed entirely of A-players who cost a premium to acquire?
If you chose the former, stop reading. Go back to your spreadsheets. If you chose the latter, you need to change your scorecard.
The Investment Mindset: CAPEX vs. OPEX
Financially, we treat hiring expenses as OPEX (Operating Expense)—a cost to be minimized in the P&L.
This is a category error.
Talent acquisition is CAPEX (Capital Expenditure). You are acquiring an asset that will generate returns over multiple years.
When you build a factory, you don’t buy the cheapest steel possible just to say you came in under budget. You buy the steel that won’t collapse under pressure. Why do we treat the architects of our business with less scrutiny than the building they sit in?
Monday Morning: Burn the Dashboard
So, what do you do? How do you fix this before your talent density drops below the critical threshold?
Here is your tactical plan for Monday morning:
1. Kill CPH as a Primary KPI
Move it to the appendix. If your CFO complains, tell them you are shifting from “Cost Accounting” to “Value Accounting.” Make it clear: *We will pay whatever it takes to get the best person, because the cost of the wrong person is infinite.*
2. Implement ‘Net Hiring Score’ (NHS)
Replace efficiency metrics with quality metrics. 90 days after a new hire starts, send a survey to the hiring manager with one question:
> *”Knowing what you know now, would you hire this person again?”*
If the answer is no, the hire was a failure, regardless of how cheap it was. Aggregate these scores. Incentivize your recruiters on Quality of Hire, not cost.
3. The ‘Bar Raiser’ Veto
Adopt Amazon’s mechanism. Appoint a “Bar Raiser” for every interview loop—someone from a different department who has zero pressure to fill the role quickly. Give them veto power. Their only job is to answer one question: *Is this candidate better than the top 50% of the current team?*
If the answer is no, pass. Even if the seat stays empty for another month. Even if the search fees go up.
The market is ruthless. It does not care how much money you saved on recruiter fees in Q3. It only cares about the quality of the product you ship and the speed at which you innovate. Those outcomes are purely a function of the people in the building.
Stop bargain hunting for talent. You can’t shrink your way to greatness.
Post Comment