Lost in Slow Motion

"Sorry, Jerry. I really wanted this role, but I had to accept another offer. I couldn't keep waiting."

That's the text message I received from Imani Green last September. I still have it on my phone. Sometimes I look at it during my late-night walks with Max, my German Shepherd, wondering how different our holiday season would be if our hiring process didn't take its standard 60 days to complete. According to Glassdoor's latest research, that's 23 days longer than the national average for operations management roles. The real gut punch? Her resume had been in our system for six weeks before anyone with operations experience even saw it.

The One That Got Away

Let me paint you a picture. It's just before dawn, and I'm standing in our largest distribution center in north Houston, watching the morning shift change. The energy is different now – heavier, more stressed. My team is tired. They've been covering for a missing leader for months, and it shows. Even the Houston summer heat feels more oppressive when you're understaffed and overwhelmed.

All because we couldn't move fast enough to hire the right person – and because our initial screening process nearly buried our best candidate.

"But Jerry," you might say, "surely you started early enough?"

I thought so too. When Sarah, my Regional Operations Manager, told me in May she was leaving, I wasn't too worried. Our standard 60-day hiring cycle seemed reasonable for finding the right person. I can almost laugh at my optimism now, usually while my cats, Hadoop and Query (yes, I'm a data nerd), watch me pace around my home office at midnight, reviewing yet another batch of mismatched candidates.

Finding the Perfect Fit (Too Late)

Here's where it gets infuriating. Imani's resume had been sitting in our system since May 20th. Just sitting there, gathering digital dust. Why? Because our initial screening process, run by recruiters who are fantastic but understandbly aren't operations experts, had filtered her out. Her resume didn't have the exact keywords they were looking for – she used "inventory flow optimization" instead of "inventory management," and "multi-site retail operations" instead of "regional management."

The harsh truth? Our screening tools are optimized for efficiency, not effectiveness. A 2023 Harvard Business School study found that over 90% of major employers use automated screening systems, and these systems regularly screen out qualified middle-skill candidates who could successfully perform the job but don't exactly match the criteria.

I only found her because I was so frustrated with the candidates I was seeing that I decided to dig through the rejected pile of 400 and something candidates myself. And there she was – experience managing holiday operations across 15 sites, a track record of inventory optimization that had saved her previous company millions, and a reputation for building strong teams.

Death by Calendar

Have you ever tried to schedule meetings with seven busy executives across three time zones? That's what we had to do. Required stakeholder interviews, they said. Standard process, they said. Understandable and necessary, but time consuming. Each night, I'd come home from the DC, take Max for his walk around Memorial Park, and check my email hoping to see the interview schedule finalized.

Meanwhile, Imani waited. And waited.

"I'm still very interested in the role," she'd say in her weekly check-ins, "but I need to keep my options open."

I knew what that meant, we were on a clock. According to a recent LinkedIn study, 89% of candidates accept offers within the first four weeks of their job search. We were already well past that window.

The Real Cost of Waiting

The numbers tell a stark story. According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM):

• Each vacant position costs an organization approximately $4,129 in hiring costs alone

• The total cost of replacement, including training and lost productivity, can range from 50% to 250% of the position's annual salary

For our operation specifically:

• Overtime costs increased by 15% due to leadership gaps

• Team turnover rose by 22% in departments without stable leadership

• According to our latest employee survey, morale dropped 31% in understaffed teams

The Human Cost

The reality is even more sobering. Recent research from Gartner shows that:

• The average time-to-fill for management positions has increased by 30% since 2020

• 76% of hiring managers report that lengthy hiring processes have resulted in losing qualified candidates

• 82% of companies admit that their hiring processes regularly screen out qualified candidates who could have been successful in the role

But numbers don't show you the exhaustion in my team's eyes. They don't capture the stress in their voices during our morning huddles. They don't measure the opportunity cost of all the improvements and innovations we're missing out on – or the potential talent we're missing because our screening tools don't understand the real requirements of our roles.

A Personal Plea

To my fellow managers and HR/Recruiting colleagues: This has to change. The data from McKinsey shows that companies with top talent outperform their peers by 200% - yet our processes are actively preventing us from securing that talent. Every time I walk our operations floor, I see the cost of our slow hiring in real-time.

To HR technology providers: We need better solutions. According to the Josh Bersin Company, companies using AI-enabled hiring tools reduce time-to-hire by 35% while improving quality of hire by 20%. My team can process 50,000 items through our Houston distribution center in a day, but it takes us two months to hire one person? We need screening tools that understand context, not just keywords.

To candidates like Imani: I'm sorry. We're trying to do better, and god willing we will.

Moving Forward

Last night, as I sat on my patio with Max and watched Hadoop and Query chase lizards in the warm Houston evening, I thought about efficiency. Recent research from PwC shows that organizations with optimized hiring processes see a 70% improvement in quality of hire and a 50% reduction in time-to-fill.

In a world where everything moves at digital speed, our hiring processes are still running on analog time. The Boston Consulting Group found that companies with rapid, efficient hiring processes generate 3.5 times more revenue growth than their slower-moving peers.

We have to do better. According to Gartner, by 2027, 75% of enterprise employers will be using AI-powered talent acquisition systems that can understand context and potential, not just match keywords. That future can't come soon enough.

Because next time, I don't want to have to save another "Sorry, Jerry" text message.

Jerry Wong is Senior Director of Operations at a major retail chain, overseeing operations across 200+ locations from his base in Houston, Texas. With 18 years of operations experience, he's seen every challenge the retail world can throw at a team. When he's not trying to revolutionize retail operations, he can be found walking his German Shepherd Max around Memorial Park, or trying to keep his cats Hadoop and Query from disrupting his endless video interviews. He's also an adjunct professor teaching supply chain management.