The $14,700 Seat: What an Unfilled Role Really Costs Companies

The Connext Global 2026 Unfilled Role Report finds that a single open critical position can cost a company an estimated $14,700 a month.

Only 17% of U.S. adults say workplace AI is reliable without human oversight

The Connext Global 2026 Unfilled Role Report puts a real number on a cost most leadership teams never add up.

For most companies, an open role looks like restraint. There’s no rushed hire to walk back, no bad decision to explain in a performance review, no line item that says the company settled. Leadership can point to the empty seat and say they’re being careful, holding out for the right person instead of the next available one.

What that story leaves out is everything happening around the seat while it sits empty. It’s the manager who starts working two jobs instead of one behind the scenes. It’s the customer who waits an extra day for an answer and doesn’t complain, they just don’t come back next time. It’s the employee who finally hands in their notice and cites “personal reasons,” when the real reason has been sitting on their desk for months.

The Connext Global 2026 Unfilled Role Report set out to put a number on what actually happens in that gap. For companies weighing a slow domestic search against offshore or nearshore talent, the findings make the case that the real cost of waiting is higher, and far more measurable, than most leadership teams assume.

Purpose of this Study

The Connext Global 2026 Unfilled Role Report was conducted in August 2026 via Pollfish among 750 U.S. full-time employees who have direct involvement in hiring decisions or visibility into their cost and budget impact. The survey measured how long companies let critical roles sit open, what breaks first once the workload gets redistributed, how leaders weigh a rushed hire against a prolonged vacancy and how open they are to offshore or nearshore staffing as an alternative to a stalled domestic search. The research was conducted by Connext Global, a provider of offshore and nearshore staffing solutions.

What an unfilled role actually costs each month

$14,700 is a modeled figure, not a single survey answer. It comes from averaging the cost ranges leaders chose when asked what one month of an unfilled critical role costs their organization. 

Most land in the middle: 37% put the monthly cost between $5,000 and $15,000, and 21% put it between $15,001 and $30,000. Using the midpoint of each range, including a conservative estimate for the smaller share who say the cost tops $30,000, the average lands at roughly $14,700 a month among leaders willing to put a number on it at all.

Another 15% say they have no idea what an unfilled role is costing them, and that gap runs deeper than one question. One in five (20%) say their organization doesn’t track the true cost of a vacancy in any way, and another 29% only review it informally, without hard numbers. Just 33% calculate lost productivity or output directly, and only 35% track the overtime tied to it.

Even when leadership does talk about an open role, the framing rarely treats it as a live cost. 33% say it depends entirely on the role, 22% call it a temporary inconvenience that will sort itself out on its own and only 18% describe it as a cost that’s adding up daily. For a bill that reaches five figures a month, most of the conversation still happens without a number attached to it.

 

Vacancies last far longer than the damage takes to start

The damage of an unfilled role starts faster than most hiring timelines account for. 22% say an open role hurts team performance within the first two weeks, and another 39% say the damage sets in after about a month, a combined 61% inside that window. Another 24% say the slide starts after two to three months. Only 10% say an open role doesn’t really hurt performance at all.

Yet vacancies routinely run well past that point. Just 19% of companies kept their longest-open role of the past year under 30 days. 36% say their longest vacancy stretched one to two months, 23% say three to five months and 14% say six months or longer. That means most companies are letting critical roles sit open for two, three or more times as long as their own teams say it takes for the damage to start.

The strain compounds the longer it drags on. When a role stays open for months, 43% describe their team as stretched thin, 33% say exhausted and 26% say frustrated with leadership. Employees feel that deadline long before it shows up on a job posting.

 

Who ends up doing the work when a role sits open

The work from an open role lands on whoever is left. Nearly half of leaders (47%) say a manager or executive has personally stepped in to cover it, and 46% say response times to customers or clients have slowed down as a result. 37% report a drop in the quality of the team’s work, another 37% report lower morale, 35% cite missed deadlines and 22% say employees have taken on unpaid or uncompensated overtime.

Who actually absorbs that load varies less than companies might assume. 34% say the immediate team splits the extra work fairly evenly, but 29% say it falls to a manager or supervisor and 28% say it lands on just one or two employees. Combined, that’s 57% of cases where the burden concentrates on a small handful of people rather than spreading across the team. Contractors or temporary staff pick up the slack in only 7% of cases.

That concentration is how a vacancy compounds. The people stuck absorbing someone else’s job for months are the ones most likely to start looking for the exit themselves.

 

How one vacancy can lead to a second resignation

Covering someone else’s job long enough starts to look like its own reason to leave. 24% say a prolonged vacancy has led directly to another employee resigning once, and 17% say it has happened more than once, a combined 41%. Another 39% say it hasn’t happened on their team, but they’ve worried that it might. Only 20% say they don’t think it would happen at all.

The financial exposure follows the same pattern. 16% say their organization has lost a customer, client or piece of business more than once because a role sat open too long, and 17% say it happened once, a combined 33% confirmed. Another 33% believe they may have lost business over a vacancy but can’t confirm it. Add those two groups together and two-thirds of leaders (66%) either know or suspect a vacancy has already cost them revenue.

A single open role tends to hit turnover, customer relationships and team confidence all at once.

 

A rushed hire can cost as much as a long vacancy

Rushing a hire isn’t the obvious escape it may appear as. When asked which is more costly to a business over time, more than half of leaders (52%) say a rushed bad hire and a months-long vacancy cost about the same. 34% say the wrong hire is worse, and only 11% say leaving the role vacant is the bigger problem. Just 3% think neither one leaves lasting damage.

Plenty of leaders make that trade anyway. Nearly one in four (24%) say they’ve hired someone they knew wasn’t right for a role just to end the pressure of an extended vacancy, and they regretted it. Another 23% made the same call and say it worked out fine. 29% say they’ve been tempted to but haven’t. Only 24% say they’ve never made that compromise.

A rushed hire doesn’t reliably solve what a vacancy breaks. It just trades one cost for another.

 

Why offshore staffing rarely gets considered early

Given everything a vacancy costs, offshore and nearshore staffing still tends to enter the conversation late, if it enters at all. Only 13% of leaders would seriously consider it as soon as a role opens, and 23% would consider it after a month or two of searching. On the other end, 23% would only consider it as an absolute last resort and 25% say they’d never consider it, a combined 48%.

The biggest reason isn’t cost, quality or compliance. It’s familiarity. 25% say the biggest barrier is simply that their organization has never considered it, ahead of concerns about quality or communication (21%), data security or compliance (18%) and company culture or leadership resistance (18%). When a role runs long, companies default to widening the domestic search (37%), bringing in a staffing agency (36%) or raising the salary (34%) long before they consider offshoring or nearshoring the position, at just 13%.

That gap looks less like resistance to offshore staffing and more like a lack of information about it. 31% of leaders say they understand offshore or nearshore staffing well enough to explain it to someone else, but 36% say they only understand the basics and another 33% say they’ve either just heard the term or don’t know how it works at all. Most leaders simply haven’t had a reason to move it up the list.

What would make leaders consider offshore staffing sooner

Leaders aren’t rejecting offshore or nearshore staffing outright. When asked what would most convince them it’s a viable alternative to a prolonged domestic search, 31% point to a guarantee of comparable quality and communication, 28% want clear data on cost savings and 22% want assurance around data security and compliance. Another 21% say a successful case study from a similar company would help. That’s a checklist leaders want to work through before committing to offshore or nearshore staffing.

Part of the hesitation comes from an incomplete cost comparison. Asked what companies overlook most when comparing a U.S. hire to an offshore or nearshore one, 29% say it’s turnover and retraining costs, ahead of benefits and payroll taxes at 23%. When the comparison only looks at salary, offshore staffing looks like the more expensive option. When it accounts for the full cost of a vacancy, including the $14,700 a month this survey found, the comparison changes.

For leaders exploring the option, that checklist is a reasonable place to start: ask for documented case studies from similar companies, get specifics on data security and compliance and request a full breakdown of what a U.S. hire actually costs beyond salary before treating offshore or nearshore staffing as a last resort. Connext Global’s staffing solutions are built around answering exactly those questions upfront, before a vacancy has months to compound.

 

Why it pays to solve vacancies earlier

Add it up and the pattern is consistent. A single vacancy costs roughly $14,700 a month. The damage starts within about a month for most teams, but the average vacancy runs well past that. The workload lands on a small group of people who are more likely to quit because of it. A rushed replacement hire doesn’t reliably cost less than the vacancy it was meant to end.

Leaders aren’t opposed to changing that trade-off. Asked what they’d give up to eliminate the cost and stress of a prolonged vacancy entirely, 30% said they’d accept a slightly higher cost per hire, 24% said a longer initial search process and 17% said a different reporting structure or team setup. Only 20% said they wouldn’t trade anything at all. Most leaders are already willing to give something up to fix this. The piece that’s missing is bringing every option, including offshore and nearshore staffing, to the table earlier than month six.

“The data shows leaders already know a vacancy is expensive,” Mobley said. “They need better information to act on it. Once companies see the real cost of an open role and get clear answers on quality, security and communication, offshore and nearshore staffing becomes one of the faster ways to get the right person in the seat.”

Frequently Asked Questions About Unfilled Positions

How much does an unfilled job position actually cost a company?

An unfilled job position costs a company an estimated $14,700 a month, according to the Connext Global 2026 Unfilled Role Report. That figure is modeled from the cost ranges leaders selected: 37% put the monthly cost between $5,000 and $15,000, and 21% put it between $15,001 and $30,000. Another 15% say they have no idea what their own vacancies are costing them.

How long can a role stay open before it starts hurting performance?

A role can start hurting performance in about a month, according to most leaders. 22% say performance suffers within the first two weeks of a vacancy and 39% say it suffers after about a month, a combined 61%. Despite that, most vacancies last far longer: 36% of companies report their longest-open role in the past year stayed vacant for one to two months, and 37% report three months or longer.

What happens to a team when a role sits open for months?

When a role sits open for months, the extra work and strain concentrate on a small group of people. 47% say a manager or executive has had to personally step in and do the work, and 46% say response times to customers or clients have slowed down. 37% report a drop in work quality, 37% report lower morale and 35% report missed deadlines. 43% describe their team as stretched thin when a role stays open for months, and 33% describe the team as exhausted.

Can an unfilled position cause other employees to quit?

Yes, an unfilled position can cause other employees to quit. 41% of leaders say a prolonged open position has directly led to another employee resigning, either once (24%) or more than once (17%). Another 39% say it hasn’t happened yet but they’ve worried that it might.

Is it better to hire the wrong person quickly or leave a role vacant longer?

Neither hiring the wrong person quickly nor leaving a role vacant longer is a clean win, according to the Connext Global 2026 Unfilled Role Report. More than half of leaders (52%) say a rushed bad hire and a months-long vacancy are equally costly over time. Still, 24% have hired someone they knew wasn’t right for a role just to end the pressure of an extended vacancy, and they regretted it.

What keeps companies from considering offshore or nearshore staffing sooner?

Companies tend to not consider offshore or nearshore staffing mostly out of unfamiliarity, not cost or quality concerns. 25% say the biggest barrier is that their organization has simply never considered it, ahead of concerns about quality or communication (21%) and data security or compliance (18%). Nearly half of leaders (48%) say they’d only consider offshore or nearshore staffing as a last resort or wouldn’t consider it at all, even after a prolonged domestic search.

What would convince companies to consider offshore or nearshore talent sooner?

A guarantee of comparable quality and communication would most convince companies to consider offshore or nearshore talent sooner, cited by 31% of leaders. 28% point to clear data on cost savings, 22% want assurance around data security and compliance and 21% say a successful case study from a similar company would help.

Survey Methodology

The Connext Global 2026 Unfilled Role Report was conducted in August 2026 via Pollfish among 750 U.S. full-time employees who have direct involvement in hiring decisions or visibility into their cost and budget impact. The survey assessed how long companies let critical roles sit open, what breaks first when the workload gets redistributed and how leaders view offshore or nearshore staffing as an alternative to a prolonged domestic search.