We all know that for some senior roles the hiring process can be challenging. Competition is tight in places, expectations are shifting, and salaries only stretch so far. But what about the cost of not filling them at all.
Vacancies are not harmless gaps on an organisational chart. They create pressure points everywhere. Stretched leadership teams step in to cover and suddenly people are juggling even more. Decisions get delayed. Projects stall. That big idea you were excited about gets pushed back a few more months. Sound familiar?
And then there is morale. People notice when senior posts sit empty for too long. It makes them wonder about direction, stability and whether anyone is really guiding things forward. Do you want your best people quietly thinking about whether they would be better off somewhere else.
For members and residents, the impact is subtler but no less real. A missing director of finance or chief planner does not just mean an empty office. It means slower choices, less confidence to take risks and a knock-on effect on delivery. Over time, those small hesitations add up.
And this is not just a local government problem. McKinsey spoke to more than 750 senior public sector leaders around the world earlier this year. Most of them said they were already struggling to attract and keep the talent they need. Three quarters expect the next five years to be even more disruptive than the last decade. If you think leadership gaps feel uncomfortable now, what happens if they get bigger.
Which is why being proactive about succession, and having the right support when you need to hire, matters more than ever. At a time when every pound and every decision counts, can you really afford to let those seats sit empty?
Greg Hayes is a director at Tile Hill Executive Recruitment
