Photo by Samson on Unsplash

Last Tuesday, I watched a recruiter spend forty-five minutes explaining why they needed to hire a "social media strategist" for a manufacturing company that sold industrial equipment to construction firms. When I asked who would actually use this person's work, the room went quiet. Nobody knew.

This isn't an isolated incident. McKinsey estimates that companies waste approximately $47 billion annually on hiring for roles that either become redundant within eighteen months or duplicate work already being done elsewhere in the organization. That's not a typo. Forty-seven billion dollars spent on chairs that never get sat in.

The Phantom Job Phenomenon

Here's what typically happens: A department struggles with a specific problem. The VP sees hiring as the solution. A job description gets written based on what someone heard works at a "similar company." Months later, you've got a new employee doing something nobody actually needed, or doing something that three other departments are also doing.

Salesforce discovered this the hard way. In 2021, they hired extensively to support what executives believed was explosive growth in their customer base. The reality? Many of those positions sat underutilized because the actual work didn't match the job description. The company later admitted that post-pandemic, roughly 8,000 roles—about 10% of their workforce—didn't align with actual business needs.

The problem compounds because most hiring processes rely on guesswork dressed up as planning. A manager thinks they need someone, they describe that person based on vibes and LinkedIn searches, and HR posts the job. Nobody ever asks: "Is this solving a real, recurring problem, or are we just creating busywork?"

Why This Happens More Than You'd Think

Three things drive phantom hiring. First, there's the prestige factor. Hiring people feels like progress. It's visible, it's quantifiable, and it makes leaders look like they're taking action. Solving problems through process changes, automation, or reorganization? That's harder to brag about in a board meeting.

Second, most companies don't actually measure whether a hire was necessary. They promote people based on revenue growth, not on whether each hire contributed proportionally to that growth. You could have grown faster with fewer people, but nobody would ever know.

Third—and this is the one that keeps me up at night—companies hire based on titles instead of outcomes. They post for a "Content Manager" when what they actually need is someone to increase organic traffic by 15%. These are wildly different jobs. A content manager might write blog posts into the void forever. The traffic-focused hire would experiment, measure, iterate, and probably do it in 20 hours a week.

The Real Cost Goes Beyond the Salary

When you hire someone for a role that doesn't need to exist, you're not just paying their salary. You're also paying for:

Onboarding time from existing staff (typically 40-60 hours). Training and tools. Space and benefits. The opportunity cost of that hiring manager's time spent recruiting, interviewing, and managing, rather than doing actual strategic work. The productivity hit when mediocre work from an underutilized person requires fixing by someone else.

At a company with 500 employees, if just 10% of your hires miss the mark, you're bleeding roughly $2.1 million per year in direct costs, not counting the indirect damage. That's before we even discuss what it does to company culture when people realize they're basically collecting a paycheck.

How to Stop Hiring for Ghosts

The fix isn't complicated, but it requires discipline. Start by doing what most companies don't: track whether each hire actually solved the problem you were trying to solve.

Before you post a job, answer these three questions in writing. One: What specific outcome are you trying to achieve? (Not "hire a marketing person." Try "increase qualified leads by 30%.")

Two: Are you confident nobody inside the company can do this with better tools or training? Be honest. Most of the time, the answer is no.

Three: If you hire someone and they go completely rogue and disappear, will your business actually suffer? If the answer is "probably not," you don't need them.

Some forward-thinking companies now do "role audits" every eighteen months—they look at every position and ask whether it's still solving the problem it was created for. Turns out, a lot of the time, it isn't. When ConAgra Foods did this in 2018, they eliminated 8,000 positions while increasing operational efficiency. Not because those people were lazy. Because the work they were doing wasn't needed anymore.

Another tactic: hire for three-month projects before making permanent positions. Let the person actually do the work. If it turns out you needed them less than you thought, you've saved yourself years of a mistake. And if you did need them, you've got data to back it up.

The Bigger Picture

This connects to something larger that affects your entire organization. Why Your Best Employees Are Quitting During the 'Quiet Quitting' Recession explores how unclear roles and misaligned work destroy engagement. Phantom jobs accelerate that problem. Your best people can smell busywork from a mile away. They'll leave for companies where their work actually matters.

The conversation around hiring usually focuses on how to recruit better candidates. But the real problem is that companies are recruiting at all when they shouldn't be. Before you post that next job description, sit with the uncomfortable question: Are we really solving something, or are we just following a playbook that worked for someone else?

The companies winning right now aren't hiring more. They're hiring smarter, and often, they're hiring less.