Emotional Decision Making Is the Top Cause of Bad Hires

You’re the manager of a major nonprofit organization, and you’re about to launch a series of high profile fundraising sporting events. You need someone who knows the world of sports leadership inside and out.

After an exhaustive search, you think you have the right person for the job. On paper, he is perfect: the right skill set, plenty of experience in the sports management field and his references are impeccable. Yet when you meet him in person, something seems off. His enthusiasm for the cause is lacking, and he doesn’t seem interested in the human side of your organization. His qualifications win out though, and you offer him the job — a decision you immediately regret, especially when a few months later you’re delivering the news that you have to let him go.

The High Cost of a Bad Hire​

On average, hiring a new employee costs the equivalent to 1.5 to 2 times that person’s salary. That includes the costs for recruiting and training the employee, plus taxes, benefits and equipment. If you have to fire an employee, the costs only increase, when you take into account the costs for severance packages or contract buy-outs and, in some cases, legal costs should the employee decide to take action against you. Given these costs, one would think that companies would do everything they can to hire the right person the first time, but unfortunately, many hiring managers make decisions based on their emotions rather than facts — and it doesn’t always work out.

In fact, emotional decision-making is the top cause for “bad hires,” or hires that are simply not the right fit for the organization. It’s not that these hires are bad people, per se, it’s that the hiring manager ignores warning signs or offers the job based on who they want that person to be, and not who they actually are. The results can be devastating both financially and in terms of the effect on morale and productivity in the organization.

“But He’s an Ivy League Grad!”​

Many hiring managers bristle at the notion that they make hiring decisions based on emotions. However, it’s more common than you might think. For example, many managers a guilty of:

Hiring friends and family. This is most common among small business owners. Whether it’s a cousin or a college roommate, or an acquaintance of another employee, the personal connection trumps everything else — even whether or not the person can actually do the work. Further, interpersonal relationships and their issues outside of work can spill over into the office, causing problems.

Ignoring negative gut feelings. Something just doesn’t seem right with the candidate, or maybe it’s something obvious, such as being rude to wait staff during a lunch meeting. Either way, you brush your negative gut feelings aside because the candidate’s skills and experience align with the job description. Ignoring those red flags is often a surefire path to a bad hire.

You need someone — yesterday. When you’re short-staffed and overworked, it can be tempting to get someone, anyone, into the office to pitch in. However, your desperation for help can cause you to overlook a candidate’s flaws, or to hire someone who is almost a good fit. Sometimes it works out, but more often than not, a desperation hire is a bad hire.

The wrong things dazzle you. With a tight job market, candidates are doing everything they can to stand out. Learning that someone speaks five languages, has more than a million Twitter followers or climbed Mount Everest is fascinating, but unless those facts directly relate to the job, they are nothing more than fascinating facts. Unless they have relevant skills and experience and a positive attitude, they won’t be a good hire.

Avoiding Emotional Decisions​

Understanding why you make emotional hiring decisions is the first step to avoid making the same mistakes repeatedly. Look for patterns in your decision making, and when it’s time to hire someone new, consider whether you are falling into the same trap. Be patient, methodical and process-oriented when hiring; for example, asking the same set of objective questions of every candidate allows you to compare them more effectively and make decisions based on facts.

Finally, get help when necessary. Use an executive search firm to vet candidates, seek input from team members or experts in the field and seek additional training in interviewing and evaluation to improve your hiring skills. There’s no guarantee that you’ll always hire the right person for the job every time, but you will have a much higher chance of doing so.

 

[LekshmiGPilllai]

Hi Kayla,
This is a very insightful post highlighting a critical challenge in hiring. Emotional decision-making can definitely cloud judgment, especially when managers feel pressured or excited about a candidate’s background. Your examples about ignoring red flags and hiring out of desperation really resonate.

I agree that sticking to objective criteria and standardized interviews is key to minimizing bias. Also, involving multiple stakeholders and using expert help can bring fresh perspectives that counteract emotional impulses. Thanks for the practical advice—this is an important reminder for all of us involved in recruitment.

 

[Priyani Gupta]

The article highlights a crucial challenge faced by organizations, especially nonprofits, in the hiring process: the costly consequences of a bad hire, and the role emotional decision-making plays in it. As a manager about to launch major fundraising sporting events, the story of hiring a candidate with impressive credentials but lacking passion and cultural fit resonates deeply. It underscores a vital lesson for all leaders—skills and experience alone are not sufficient indicators of success or alignment with organizational values.


One of the most valuable takeaways is the financial and operational toll a bad hire inflicts. The article states that hiring costs often amount to 1.5 to 2 times the employee’s salary, considering recruitment, training, benefits, and even severance in case of termination. This quantification should alert any organization to prioritize careful hiring over rushed decisions, especially when budgets are tight and reputations are on the line. Beyond dollars, the ripple effect on team morale and productivity is just as damaging and sometimes harder to measure.


The article insightfully exposes how emotional biases can cloud judgment during hiring. Whether it’s hiring friends or family due to familiarity, ignoring gut instincts about a candidate’s behavior, or succumbing to desperation when understaffed, these pitfalls are common and easily overlooked. Many managers might not consciously realize they’re influenced by these factors, but acknowledging their presence is the first step toward improvement.


Another important point is the allure of “dazzling” but irrelevant qualifications—such as language skills, social media followings, or adventurous personal achievements—that don’t necessarily translate into job performance or cultural fit. This reminds us that hiring decisions should always revolve around relevant competencies, alignment with organizational mission, and interpersonal skills, rather than surface-level impressiveness.


The suggested remedies emphasize a more deliberate, objective, and process-driven approach to hiring. Standardized interviews, consistent questioning, input from diverse stakeholders, and even professional search firms are practical tools that can greatly reduce bias and improve decision quality. Continuous improvement through training in interviewing techniques also plays a key role in developing a hiring mindset that values data and observation over emotion.


In sum, this article serves as a valuable guide for managers in all sectors. It is a pragmatic reminder that while qualifications matter, true success comes from selecting candidates who share the organization’s values and demonstrate genuine enthusiasm. Investing time and resources upfront to build a rigorous hiring process can prevent costly mistakes and foster a healthier, more productive workplace culture. The challenge is real, but so is the solution—with awareness, patience, and methodical effort, hiring can transform from a risky gamble into a strategic strength.

 

[dororo]

Hi Priyani,

Thank you for sharing such a well-articulated and thoughtful take on this crucial topic. Your reflections really struck a chord, especially your point about how emotional decision-making in hiring often stems from a well-meaning place—but can lead to long-term consequences that organizations simply cannot afford to ignore.

The nonprofit example in the article highlights something many of us have seen in real life: a candidate with glowing references and a stellar resume might seem perfect on paper, but if there's a gut feeling of misalignment during the interview—especially concerning attitude or cultural fit—it’s essential not to dismiss it. Hiring based purely on logic or urgency while suppressing emotional intuition, or conversely, relying only on positive emotional cues like charisma or shared background, can both lead to detrimental outcomes. The article, and your commentary, really bring out the fine line between trusting instincts and letting emotions override better judgment.

I particularly appreciated your emphasis on how nonprofits are uniquely vulnerable. Often, these organizations are working with limited resources and immense pressure to deliver impact. In such cases, a wrong hire not only costs the organization financially (as you rightly cited—1.5 to 2 times the person’s salary), but also drains valuable energy, disrupts team cohesion, and risks damaging relationships with beneficiaries or stakeholders. For mission-driven work, alignment with organizational values is just as important—if not more so—than qualifications on paper.

Another point you brought out effectively is how urgency can cloud judgment. The desire to "just fill the role" can lead to shortcutting the process, ignoring red flags, and hiring someone who might be available or eager—but not necessarily the best fit. It’s a reminder that intentional hiring takes time, patience, and a structured approach rooted in both data and emotional intelligence.

To mitigate emotional biases, I agree that standardized interviews, scorecards, and collaborative hiring processes are incredibly useful. They allow for multiple perspectives and reduce the chances of one person’s emotions skewing the final decision. Equally important is cultivating self-awareness among hiring managers—being trained to recognize emotional triggers, personal biases, and the difference between intuition and impulse.

Your insights on the need to prioritize long-term fit over short-term convenience couldn’t be more relevant. A candidate’s ability to evolve with the team, live the values of the organization, and adapt to its unique challenges should always outweigh flashy credentials or charisma.

Thanks again for contributing such a meaningful perspective to this conversation. It’s clear that you approach leadership with a thoughtful and values-based lens, and this discussion is a timely reminder for all of us in positions of hiring responsibility.

Looking forward to more of your reflections on topics like these!