Why Firms Spend More Time Buying Software Than Hiring People

Firms will spend months selecting a $100,000 piece of equipment.  Or agonising over a $3,000/month software subscription. 

There’ll be demos. Comparisons. Internal testing. Reference checks. ROI models. Implementation plans. 

As there should be. 

Yet the same firm will hire a $100,000/year employee with a total risk exposure of $100,000+ using a process that is: 

It’s a strange inconsistency, when the cost of hiring the wrong person is likely higher. 

The Real Cost of Getting It Wrong 

When a technology purchase fails: 

When a hire goes wrong: 

And yet, many firms still operate a “hire and hope” model. 

The Process Gap 

Here’s how the two processes typically compare: 

The Missed Opportunity in Hiring 

One of the biggest gaps in hiring is how firms handle claims versus evidence. 

In a procurement process, no firm would rely solely on what a vendor says. You’d expect polished demos, strong sales messaging, and confident assurances, but that’s just the starting point. From there, the process shifts to “trust but verify”: 

The goal is simple: validate that what’s promised actually holds up in reality. 

Hiring, however, often stops at the equivalent of the sales pitch. 

Candidates present well-crafted resumes, rehearse interview answers, and position their experience in the best possible light. And yet, instead of systematically verifying those claims, many firms rely on instinct: 

In other words, the process becomes “trust” without the “verify.” 

The irony is that the tools to verify are far more accessible in hiring than ever before.  Work-based assessments, structured testing, and objective benchmarks.  But they are still underused.