Why Hiring Feels Riskier Than It Used To
- Alex Mcdonald
- Mar 19
- 2 min read
Alex McDonald - Founder, Execura International.
March 2026.
In the last few months, I’ve seen decisions that would normally get a quick yes drag into second and third conversations.
When I looked at the latest Global CEO Confidence Index, it showed confidence dipping going into 2026. That didn’t surprise me, and tracks with what I'm seeing. Most companies are moving ahead with their plans, investment is still happening, growth targets are still there, and hiring hasn’t stopped.
What has changed is the margin for error.
Over the last few months I’ve spoken with more than 40 CEOs, and I keep hearing that competition is tighter, costs are sticking, and the outlook is less predictable than it was a year ago.
Getting a senior hire wrong now shows up fast in missed targets, slower execution, and pressure at Exco level. Most businesses still can’t point to where the decision actually breaks down.
I ran a poll on LinkedIn asking why senior hires fail in their first year. Not one answer pointed to competence. It came back to what goes wrong before day one - misalignment, unclear expectations, vague performance measures, and weak onboarding.
Most hiring mistakes start with assumptions before the search even begins.
What Changes When Good Candidates Are Scarce
When there are plenty of candidates on the market, hiring is about filtering people out. But that logic breaks down when strong candidates are scarce.
When the shortlist is small and good people have options, every interview starts to feel like a semi-final. It’s a different kind of pressure because the actual challenge becomes making the right call.
When the pressure is on and you don't have many options, small gaps become expensive mistakes.
Where The Real Hiring Risk Sits
In a couple of searches over the last nine months, where I was asked to step in, the interview process itself hadn’t really broken down.
The problem had happened much earlier.
Usually the business has already met a handful of credible candidates, but the decision doesn't land. The CVs look strong, the interviews sound positive, yet the decision keeps drifting.
The role descriptions are broad.
No one had dug deeper into where the hire will struggle.
And interviews focus on experience rather than how the person actually makes decisions.
Under pressure, hiring decisions get pushed through without being properly tested. This year is already uncertain. So here’s the question:
Where is this person most likely to fail, and have we actually tested that before making the decision?
Because if that risk isn’t clear before the search starts, the interview process probably won’t reveal it either.
If you want someone to test that before starting the search, get in touch.
