Blog:
From mismatch to the right fit.

From mismatch to the right fit: how to reduce the costs of mishires

Introduction

A successful organization depends on its ability to attract, engage, and retain the right people. Yet in practice, this is often easier said than done. Despite careful recruitment and selection, many companies see a significant share of new hires leave within the first year. This is not only costly but also a missed opportunity, for both employer and employee.

What are the true costs of mismatches? And how can they be prevented?

Part of the solution lies in better understanding candidates during the matching process and responding to the changing expectations of employees. What drives them? Whereas matching once focused mainly on qualifications, experience, and salary, today’s workforce is increasingly looking for purpose, growth, and balance.

The modern labor market therefore calls for a new perspective: one that looks beyond hard qualifications to the person behind the résumé. By gaining deeper insight into a candidate’s competencies, motivations, and personality, organizations can create sustainable matches, reducing turnover, costs, and frustration. This article first examines the costs of mismatches and then explores how organizations can build a more complete candidate profile; ensuring not only job fit, but also culture fit and value fit.

How common are mismatches?

Various studies show that a surprisingly high percentage of new employees leave within their first year. Internationally, roughly one in three new hires resigns within 12 months. This pattern is visible across both the U.S. and Europe. In the United States, research indicates that more than one-third of newly hired employees quit within a year.

The numbers are also high in the Netherlands. Recent labor market data show increasing mobility among workers. In 2025, about 19.9% of the working population changed employers within a year, higher than in neighboring countries. This suggests that the share of new hires leaving early is substantial. A Dutch survey revealed that one in three newcomers leaves within a year, with young starters and mid-career professionals being the most mobile.

In Belgium, overall turnover is somewhat lower (around 14–15% annually), but mismatches are still frequent. Only 3% of Belgian companies claim never to have made a wrong hire. A survey by Robert Half found that 76% of Belgian employers realized within a month that they had hired the wrong person. In other words, nearly every company experiences a miscast at some point, and often discovers it very quickly.

The direct costs of a wrong hire
The financial impact of a mismatch can be significant. Different analyses estimate that replacing an employee who leaves early costs between 50% and 200% of their annual salary, with some estimates reaching up to 2.5 times that amount. This includes various direct costs, such as:

• Recruitment and selection: The investment made to attract and select a candidate is lost. Costs for job postings, recruitment agency fees, and the many hours HR and managers spend reviewing résumés and conducting interviews must be repeated for the replacement, effectively doubling expenses.
• Onboarding and training: The time and resources spent on onboarding, training, and mentoring the new employee are wasted. On average, it takes months before a new hire reaches full productivity. If someone leaves within a year, that investment yields no return. All introductory courses, mentorship efforts, and external training go to waste.
• Salary and termination costs: Salary and termination costs: The salary paid during that period can be considered “money lost” if the employee contributed little value. In some cases, termination or transition payments must also be made. In Belgium, Securex calculated that a failed hire after two years costs companies an average of €35,250 in direct payouts for administrative or support roles, €51,850 for managers, and up to €151,700 for executive positions. A UK study by the Recruitment & Employment Confederation found that a wrong hire at mid-management level, earning around £42,000, can cost the company approximately £132,000 in total—covering recruitment, training, and lost productivity.

Indirect costs and organizational impact

Beyond the visible financial losses, a wrong hire can have serious indirect effects on the organization. Though harder to quantify, these can be equally damaging:

• Productivity loss and missed opportunities: A poor fit underperforms, lowering ROI on the role. Colleagues must step in, projects slow down, and deadlines are missed. One international survey of managers found that a bad hire led to lost productivity in 33% of cases and missed revenue or business opportunities in 24%.
• Increased workload and stress: Teammates often have to compensate for the misfit’s shortcomings. They work longer hours to maintain performance levels, leading to increased workload (reported by ~50% of companies) and stress (reported by 39% of managers). This can cause burnout and push good employees to leave.
• Lower morale and team spirit: An unmotivated or ill-suited employee negatively affects morale. Nearly all organizations (95%) report that a bad hire harms team morale. Frustration and disappointment can escalate into conflicts when someone doesn’t fit in or perform adequately. In the same survey, 24% of managers observed a decline in motivation and engagement as a result. Such tension can even prompt others to start job-hunting.
• Damage to customer relations and reputation: Poorly performing employees can harm client relationships. In one study, 51% of companies reported product or service errors caused by wrong hires, and 24% lost customers as a result. Besides direct revenue loss, this can lead to lasting reputational damage. Visible turnover or unsuitable employees can also harm employer branding.

In short, the impact of a mismatch goes far beyond the balance sheet. It affects operational efficiency, team cohesion, and the company’s competitiveness. A “wrong” hire costs not just money, but also energy, time, and trust.

Towards a better matching process: from résumé to human profile
The figures above illustrate how expensive bad hires can be—but behind the numbers lies a broader lesson: we must rethink how we recruit and select people. Traditional methods focus heavily on hard skills (education, experience, technical competencies), while successful matches also depend on soft factors.

The generational shift
Millennials, and especially Generation Z, bring new expectations. They are not simply looking for a job, but for a meaningful environment where they can learn, grow, and contribute. A lack of development opportunities, limited autonomy, or an impersonal company culture are their main reasons for leaving. Employers who fail to recognize or reflect these values in their HR policies are more likely to face high turnover, even when the match looks good on paper.

Soft skills and motivations
A sustainable match depends not only on competencies (job fit), but also on alignment with organizational culture (culture fit) and personal values (value fit). Only when these layers align does a mutually rewarding relationship emerge. Many mismatches are not due to a lack of capability but to misalignment in culture or values. The key question is not just “Can someone do the job?” but also “Do they want to do this job, in this way, within this culture?” Companies that clearly communicate their values, and assess candidates against them, can avoid disappointment on both sides.

To prevent mismatches, it’s crucial to understand who a person is, not just what they can do. This involves assessing:

• personality traits (does someone fit the culture?)
• social skills (how do they collaborate, learn, and communicate?)
• motivations (what energizes them?)
• work values (do they prioritize autonomy, security, growth, or purpose?)

By including these factors, organizations gain a richer, more accurate picture of each candidate, and significantly increase the likelihood of a lasting match.

New tools and approaches

Technology now offers many ways to deepen this understanding during the matching process, including:

• behavioral and motivation assessments
• personality analyses
• team- and culture assessments
• realistic job previews
• structured onboarding programs

These tools help organizations look beyond the résumé and truly understand what drives someone, and what they need to thrive.

Conclusion
HR is shifting from selection to connection. It’s no longer about “Does this person meet the requirements?” but rather “How can people and organizations grow together?” This requires leadership that values development, open communication, and the courage to truly listen.

The future of successful recruitment lies in understanding people. By considering not only hard skills but also personality, motivation, and values, organizations increase their chances of a good match, and build sustainable relationships in which employees continue to grow.

Preventing mismatches is not about avoiding mistakes, but about creating insight: into people, culture, and shared ambitions.

The Voice Your Future voice assessment is a quick, unbiased, scientifically validated method for creating a complete candidate profile using just a 100-second voice recording. The resulting insights, on personality, self-image, learning style, and nearly 30 competencies, complement the résumé and offer a fuller, fairer picture of the candidate. With this insight, the rate of successful matches increases, along with employee satisfaction and productivity.



*) Cited resources are available on request via info@voiceyourfuture.com