We’re Not Hiring People. We’re Hiring Future Problems or Future Peace.

The First Resignation in Five Years

A few months ago, a senior developer from my team resigned. For the sake of anonymity let’s call him Bond...James Bond. Not because he had a license to kill, but because, like the original Bond, he was calm under pressure, sharp when it mattered, and quietly handled situations most people didn’t even realize were risky. What made this resignation notable wasn’t just who left, but the fact that it was the first resignation from my team in five years. In an industry where attrition is treated like weather—unfortunate, expected, and largely unavoidable—that alone should tell you something.

When Bond joined us years ago, the world was different. We hired back-end developers, front-end developers, designers clearly defined roles with clearly defined responsibilities. Requirements came in, code went out, features shipped. The system worked. Over time, though, something fundamental changed. AI entered the picture, and it didn’t just automate tasks, it quietly rewired expectations. Gradually, we trained our teams to stop thinking in terms of execution alone and start thinking in terms of systems, intent, trade-offs, and consequences. AI became a tool, not a solution. Thinking became the real job.

When a Role Becomes a Way of Thinking

So when Bond resigned, I assumed we’d replace him the same way we always had. That assumption lasted about two weeks. What I quickly realized was that we weren’t trying to refill a position anymore. We were trying to replace a way of thinking. We didn’t need someone who could convert operational requirements into Python code. AI does that now; often faster and cleaner than humans ever did. What we needed was someone who could step back, see the entire picture, and then decide whether the picture even made sense. Someone who could assess a path, reassess it halfway through, and change direction without needing permission or applause. In other words, we needed a first-principles thinker.

Seven months later, we’re still looking.

The Comforting but Dangerous Advice to “Just Hire Someone”

During these seven months, we did what most SaaS companies do. We spoke to consultants who assured us the market was “talent rich.” We tried AI-driven hiring tools that promised to surface the best candidates using increasingly sophisticated filters. We refined job descriptions, relaxed requirements, expanded the funnel. Almost everyone, humans and machines alike; arrived at the same conclusion: Hire someone who’s “good enough” for now and keep looking for the ideal candidate in parallel. On paper, this advice sounds reasonable. In practice, it’s how future problems quietly enter an organization.

Why AI Has Made Hiring Harder, Not Easier

There’s a common misconception right now that AI has made work easier. I don’t think that’s true. AI has made average output easier. What it has not done is make good judgment, independent thinking, or long-term decision-making any simpler. In fact, it has done the opposite. By pooling the collective knowledge of the internet, structuring it neatly, and presenting it confidently, AI has effectively lifted below-average and average talent to appear above average. The signal-to-noise ratio has worsened, not improved.

Earlier, I used to think of talent as existing across four broad categories: below average, average, above average, and intellectuals. AI has compressed the bottom half so efficiently that today, in reality, only two categories meaningfully remain. On one side are people who treat AI as an answer machine. They copy, paste, ship, and move on, often with great confidence. Their resumes are immaculate, their applications plentiful, and their inbox activity relentless. On the other side are people who already know where they want to go and use AI merely to get there faster. They challenge outputs, iterate relentlessly, and discard responses that sound right but fail basic reasoning.

The irony is that the first group is highly visible and constantly available, while the second group is almost invisible.

The False Promise of AI-Driven Recruitment Tools

This is also where many AI-driven recruitment tools quietly do a disservice to the hiring ecosystem. Most of the tools popping up today are, in reality, wrappers around large language models, GPT, Claude, Gemini, re-branded with dashboards and workflows that promise faster hiring. Speed is the headline. Depth is quietly missing.

These tools overwhelmingly evaluate candidates using three things: academic qualifications, domain expertise, and years of experience. All three are primarily derived from resumes, which are, at best, claimed data. Polished. Curated. Often optimized by the same AI tools being used to screen them. What they fail to assess is what actually matters now.

They don’t measure how someone reasons from first principles.They don’t reveal whether a person can design systems, not just components. They don’t test whether someone can navigate ambiguity, reassess assumptions, or think through second-and third-order effects. In other words, they optimize for the skills people acquired in a very different era; when execution mattered more than judgment.

There are only a handful of approaches in the market that even attempt to connect these dots by combining research, contextual evaluation, and behavioural insight to surface true capability. Most tools don’t. They can’t. Because thinking is not easily inferred from a resume, no matter how well written it is.

Why the Best Talent Is Almost Never Looking

This brings us to a reality most recruiters learn the hard way. The thinkers; the ones who reason deeply, operate independently, and create leverage, are rarely hunting for jobs. They’re usually well taken care of, quietly retained, and frequently approached rather than applying. Reid Hoffman once remarked that the best people are already taken, and you don’t find them by posting jobs. In today’s market, that feels less like advice and more like a law.

The Real Cost of Hiring the Wrong Thinker

There’s enough data to support what most founders feel intuitively. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that a bad hire costs at least 30% of the employee’s annual salary, and many operators will tell you the real number is much higher once you account for lost momentum and management overhead. Harvard Business Review has shown that most hires take six to nine months to reach full productivity, assuming they ever do. Gallup’s research consistently highlights that poorly matched or disengaged employees don’t just under-perform, they reduce the effectiveness of the people around them.

But numbers only tell part of the story. The real cost shows up in calendars filled with unnecessary meetings, in decisions delayed because someone needs hand-holding, and in teams slowing down to accommodate mediocrity. Andy Grove once said that the output of a manager is the output of the organization under them. What he didn’t need to spell out was that one wrong hire can distort that output for years.

The Empty Seat vs. the Wrong Person

This is why the idea of “just hire someone” has never sat well with me. Yes, an empty seat creates a gap. But the wrong person creates friction, confusion, and a steady drain on attention. An empty seat slows you down. A mediocre thinker quietly changes your trajectory. One leads to temporary inconvenience; the other compounds into long-term damage.

It would be easier, frankly, to hire someone average and move on. It would look like progress. Dashboards would improve. Timelines would look healthier. But I know; without needing further evidence, that the damage caused by the wrong hire is far greater than the damage caused by waiting. Jeff Bezos once said that the best hires are people who don’t need to be managed. In an AI-first world, that isn’t a luxury; it’s the baseline.

Why We’re Still Waiting

So we’re still waiting.

It’s been seven months since Bond left, and we’ve chosen patience over relief. Because hiring today isn’t about filling roles quickly. It’s about deciding whether you want to spend your future solving problems that shouldn’t exist or building something that actually moves forward. Hiring fast might earn applause. Hiring right earns something far more valuable, calm, trust, and the rare privilege of silence.

We’re not hiring people.

We’re hiring future problems or future peace.