When a company chooses between two senior candidates, the cost difference is easy to see. One asks for more. The number sits on a page, it recurs every year, and it is the first thing a finance team will question. The cost of the other candidate being wrong is much harder to see, because it is spread across decisions, people and time.
An illustration
Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that the stronger candidate would cost Rp100 million a year more than the cheaper one. That sounds substantial and it is a real commitment. Now consider what a senior leader influences. They shape hiring decisions, set priorities, decide where money goes and how problems are escalated. A single poor decision at that level, such as an acquisition that does not fit, a delayed restructuring, a capable manager who leaves because of how they were treated, or an investment in the wrong system, can cost many multiples of the salary difference.
This is an illustration, not a forecast. The point is the shape of the comparison, not the numbers. Salary is a fixed, visible cost. The consequences of a senior hire are variable, delayed and hard to attribute, so they rarely appear in the decision.
The salary difference is the price of the decision. The consequences are its cost.
Why the comparison is hard
Three things make it difficult. First, consequences arrive later, and by then nobody connects them to the hiring choice. Second, good leadership often shows up as problems that did not happen, and absent problems do not get counted. Third, the cheaper option usually looks adequate on paper, and the gap in judgement or experience becomes visible only under pressure.
When paying more is the wrong answer
None of this means the more expensive candidate is always right. Price is not quality. Some candidates ask for more because they are better, and some because they have negotiated well or are moving for reasons that do not match the role. The principle is narrower: do not let the visible number decide a choice that has invisible consequences.
A better question
Instead of asking which candidate is cheaper, ask what each candidate would change in the first two years, and what the business would look like if they succeeded or failed. This pushes the discussion towards the actual job. It also makes it easier to see when the role has been defined too narrowly for the level of person being sought, or too broadly for the budget on offer.
Practical steps
Define what the role must achieve, in terms the business would recognise. Agree how success will be judged after the first year. Include the full cost of each option, including incentives, support and any transition. And make the comparison in writing, so that the discussion is about the same facts for both candidates.
The part that stays uncertain
No method removes the risk in a senior appointment. The aim is more modest: to make the decision on the basis of the whole picture instead of the line on the salary sheet.
Thinking about this in your own business?
Talk to Catalyx about Executive Search