Why we took 30% longer to hire a DevOps engineer, and why it was worth it

During a product transition that depended entirely on Jenkins with no internal expert, the pressure said "hire whoever can keep it running". The decision was to wait for someone who could genuinely modernize the infrastructure practice, not just patch the immediate problem — which stretched the search at least 30% beyond what we'd planned. That person retired Jenkins entirely, migrated to Azure DevOps, and became the mentor of those who now lead infrastructure and deployment at the company.

The most urgent hire we had

It was the most urgent hire we had internally. R&D was blocked waiting on that capacity, and we depended entirely on Jenkins with not a single person who truly mastered it.

What do you lose by hiring fast under pressure?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, a bad hire can cost up to 30% of that person's first-year salary — and SHRM studies place the total cost, adding lost productivity and team disruption, between 50% and more than 200% of salary for senior roles. Hiring fast to calm immediate pressure doesn't eliminate the risk; it postpones it, often at a higher cost than waiting.

What did we do differently?

Given the pressure, it would have been easy to hire the first person capable of keeping Jenkins running. Instead, I held the bar for someone who could genuinely modernize the infrastructure practice, not just plug the immediate gap — which meant the search took at least 30% longer than we'd have liked, at a moment when every week of delay had a real cost.

Was that wait worth it?

The person we hired didn't just stabilize what we had — they retired Jenkins entirely, migrated the platform to Azure DevOps connected directly to Azure, and established real DevOps practices from scratch. Beyond the technical migration, they became the mentor of the people who now lead our infrastructure and deployment functions. Holding the bar on that hire didn't just solve the immediate problem — it keeps paying dividends through the people they trained.

The lesson I take

When pressure pushes you to hire fast, that's exactly the signal to ask yourself whether you're solving the problem or just buying time. The difference shows up months later, in who mentored whom.

Data sources: U.S. Department of Labor (cost of a bad hire: up to 30% of first-year salary); SHRM (total cost of a bad hire: between 50% and more than 200% of annual salary for senior roles, including lost productivity and team disruption).

Frequently asked questions

Is it worth taking longer to hire when there's real business pressure? It depends on whether the problem is one-off or structural. If the gap is a capability the company will need permanently, waiting for the right profile usually costs less than hiring fast and hiring again.

How much does a bad hire cost? Up to 30% of first-year salary according to the U.S. Department of Labor; between 50% and more than 200% of annual salary for senior roles according to SHRM, adding lost productivity and team disruption.