Productivity damaged by lengthier hiring processes

Employers take an average of five weeks to hire permanent staff, putting pressure on existing staff and overall performance, new research has found.

Based on new findings by recruitment firm Robert Half, only 11 per cent of staff were hired in two weeks or less, while 22 per cent were hired in four weeks or less, and nearly one in three (31 per cent) were hired in six weeks or more.

In the firm’s research, it collected survey responses from 500 hiring managers in finance and accounting, IT and technology, and human resources from SMEs, large private, publicly listed, and public sector organisations across Australia in July 2025 to explore trends surrounding the workplace and talent management.

Director at Robert Half, Nicole Gorton (pictured), said that hiring bottlenecks are more than just administrative, highlighting the growing complexity of the market. Gorton said that AI tools can streamline parts of the process with high candidate availability; however, this will increase the need for thorough screening to distinguish genuine capability from surface-level signals.

“Companies are not only competing for talent but also working harder to identify the right mix of skills and cultural fit in a hiring landscape shaped by shifting priorities and growing pressure to get decisions right,” she said.

Longer lead times

Based on its findings, Aussie employers took an average of five weeks to complete the recruitment process for new permanent staff in 2025. This is in comparison to a survey of 1,000 workers in 2017, which showed that more than two in three (70 per cent) employees said that it took four weeks or less to be offered a job, which shows that hiring managers took longer to hire permanent staff.

Gorton said: “The length of today’s hiring process reflects how cautious and considered businesses are before committing to a permanent hire.” She added that employers balancing recruitment speed and making the right long-term hire, “creating a tension between speed and precision.”

Difficulties in attracting candidates

In addition, the research revealed that 60 per cent of respondents reported experiencing difficulties attracting candidates, while 56 per cent said that screening resumes and shortlisting candidates was challenging.

These respondents also experienced difficulties in scheduling and conducting interviews (40 per cent), decision making (40 per cent), defining the role or writing the job description (37 per cent), and checking references or conducting background checks (28 per cent).

Top talent remains in short supply; despite a candidate-rich market, Gorton said companies are seeking candidates who meet the “need-to-have” and “nice-to-have” skillsets.

“The strongest candidates attract multiple offers quickly, so employers who hesitate risk losing them to the competition.”

Negative impacts

Further, it found 92 per cent experienced negative impacts from a delay in hiring, including an increased workload for existing staff (44 per cent) and delayed product timelines (32 per cent).

According to its data, the negative impacts of hiring delays also led to increased turnover of existing staff (30 per cent), reduced team morale (29 per cent), a decline in service quality (26 per cent), and lost revenue or business opportunities (22 per cent).

Gorton said that while the costs of slow hiring are “not always visible” on the balance sheet, they have ripple effects across the organisation, “whether it is overworked teams, missed deadlines, or in some cases lost revenue…it can be deeply felt in morale and productivity”. For her, the findings highlight a structural shift in how businesses approach talent acquisition.

Success is no longer measured by simply filling a vacancy, “but by how effectively an organisation can balance fit, speed, rigour, and employee wellbeing in the recruitment process,” Gorton concluded.