The Procurement Talent Shortage Is a Myth. The Real Problem Is Worse.

Companies keep labeling a design failure as a hiring problem while the gap between job and reality widens.

The complaint is familiar in every executive suite. “We can’t find enough capable procurement people.” It sounds like a labor market problem. It is not. The talent exists in volume. What companies are actually struggling with is a structural mismatch between job descriptions written for a world that no longer exists and a business reality that now demands far more. Procurement roles have expanded faster than the operating models, tooling, and competency frameworks meant to support them. The result is a function set up to fail, then blamed for failing to hire its way out.

The debate gained traction recently online when a procurement trainer argued that the shortage is a misdiagnosis. Today’s teams are expected to deliver the core flawlessly, supplier negotiations, supply continuity, cost savings, quality, while also becoming experts in ESG, AI, geopolitics, and complex risk. Yet many remain overloaded operationally, barely trained in the basics, and working with fragmented systems. The post drew procurement directors, CPOs, transformation advisors, and recruiters. The agreement that this is a design problem rather than a supply problem was near unanimous. The disagreement was about what to fix first.

Identity Crisis, Not Talent Shortage

The most cited reframing came from Marcel Van Wonderen, a procurement and supply chain transformation advisor. “There isn’t a procurement talent shortage. There is a procurement identity crisis. Too many functions still optimise categories, savings reports and internal processes while the business is moving toward growth enablement, resilience, speed, ecosystem orchestration and AI-driven decisions. The real question is, is procurement willing to let go of its past?”

That question reframes the entire debate. The problem is not finding people who can run sourcing events. It is whether the function will redefine itself around what the business now needs.

Mario González, a procurement director at Tier-1 automotive, sharpened the language. “We aren’t facing a talent shortage, but a relevance gap. Expecting a single professional to master everything from geopolitics to AI while buried in operational noise is a structural failure. Procurement isn’t a job anymore. It’s a high-stakes commercial orchestrator.”

Sajith Raghavan, a VP of Procurement with experience at ICL, Reliance, and DuPont, named the precise mismatch. “The talent shortage is actually a gap between yesterday’s job descriptions and today’s business reality. Companies aren’t struggling to find buyers. They’re struggling to hire the hybrid commercial architects needed to navigate a volatile world with outdated tools and narrow criteria.”

The Structural Mismatch

The deepest diagnostic came from Asif Manzoor, a supply chain and operations leader. “The issue is structural mismatch. Procurement roles have expanded faster than their operating models, tooling, and competency frameworks. Without redesigning jobs, systems, and expectations in parallel, organizations keep labeling a design problem as a hiring problem, while complexity continues to accumulate internally.”

That phrase, “labeling a design problem as a hiring problem,” is the entire argument in seven words. The hiring process filters out capable people because the criteria were written for the old role. Manzoor extended the point. “Capability exists, but linear hiring models and legacy competency frameworks filter it out. Until organisations redesign jobs, decision rights, and evaluation criteria for AI-native and non-linear expertise, they will keep optimizing recruitment for the past while struggling to execute in the present.”

Raghavan offered the operating model alternative. “Organizations must pivot toward building multi-disciplinary teams supported by robust digital architecture, rather than searching for the mythical procurement professional who can do it all.”

That distinction matters. The unicorn who masters negotiation, ESG, AI, and geopolitics simultaneously does not exist at scale. The solution is team design, not an impossible individual hire.

Hire From Outside the Function

A second thread argued the talent fix requires breaking the procurement-only hiring habit. Mathew Schulz, founder of Pennywurth, held firm to a contrarian thesis. “Next-gen procurement talent will come from outside the function.”

Felipe Solano, a procurement manager in fragrance manufacturing, exposed the flaw in hiring the finished article. “Companies want to hire the guru that ticks all the role boxes of today’s description. The finished article of today is obsolete tomorrow. Who wants to be hired to do what you have already done? Hire someone who has some strong skills and can grow on the role. The job role published today is too old tomorrow, and hungry professionals are the ones who will adapt, evolve and deliver. Not the perfect full box ticking one.”

That observation cuts at the recruitment logic directly. Hiring for a perfect match to today’s spec guarantees obsolescence tomorrow. Hiring for adaptability and growth potential is the only durable strategy in a role that keeps changing.

The Salary and Career Problem

James Meads, a procuretech advisor, named the elephant in the room. “It’s risk aversion and lack of vision from the hiring companies most of the time. Also, UK procurement salaries are part of the problem. Consulting pays better. Working for a startup is more fun and gives you real responsibility and a fast track to leadership roles. So inevitably, people leave because the stress isn’t worth it for the salary and very limited career progression.”

That observation reframes the shortage as a retention and attraction failure. If procurement cannot compete with consulting on pay or with startups on responsibility and progression, the talent does not vanish. It goes elsewhere. The function loses people it trained because the value proposition no longer holds.

Luke Tomlinson, a procurement leader, added the pipeline dimension. “Build a framework where young and new talent can genuinely thrive. This is anything from entry level training, to progression routes, and core competencies.” The shortage narrative obscures a self-inflicted wound. Functions that fail to train and progress junior talent manufacture their own future scarcity.

The Investment Catch-22

The most uncomfortable structural truth came from Jehanzeb Alam, a procurement and supply chain leader. “The solutions all assume leadership is convinced already. In reality, procurement generally has to fight the internal case for its own investment while in parallel being held accountable for underperforming without those investments.”

That catch-22 is the trap most procurement leaders live in. They are denied the tools, headcount, and training needed to perform, then judged for underperforming. The investment that would close the gap requires a business case that the function lacks the resources to make compelling.

Maria C., a global procurement leader, located the root cause in the C-suite. “C-Suite executives do not take the time to understand procurement. Many see it as simply a cost reduction and procure-to-pay role without considering the intricate legal, commercial and operational details. A good CEO or President understands this.”

Rewrite Your Own Job Description

The most empowering response came from Michael Shields, VP of Procurement at Tropic. “We need to re-write our own job description to some degree. If we start operating differently and show the business the results, the job and expectations can evolve too.”

His adventure metaphor captured the strategic choice. “You can either be taken with the current, which is risky, or you can try to fight the current, which is exhausting and maybe impossible, or you can use the current for momentum but still steer.”

That framing matters. The function is not powerless against the mismatch. Procurement leaders who demonstrate strategic value reshape the expectations and the role itself, rather than waiting for leadership to redesign it for them.

Clarice Camacho, a global energy procurement and risk leader, drew the final distinction. “The gap is no longer operational capability. It is strategic leadership capability. We trained procurement teams to buy better. We now need leaders who can lead differently.”

Takeaways for Procurement Leaders

Three lessons run through the discussion. First, the shortage is a design problem wearing a hiring problem’s clothes. Capable people get filtered out by competency frameworks and job descriptions written for the old role. Redesign the criteria before blaming the market.

Second, the solution is team architecture, not the unicorn hire. No single professional masters negotiation, ESG, AI, and geopolitics at once. Build multi-disciplinary teams on strong digital infrastructure instead.

Third, procurement must make its own case. The investment catch-22 is real, but waiting for the C-suite to understand the function is a losing strategy. Demonstrate strategic value, rewrite the role through results, and steer the current rather than fighting it.

Is your organization hiring for the procurement role of five years ago, or the one the business actually needs now?

Continue the discussion on Chain.NET, the global supply chain community, at www.chain.net. Ask questions, join events, and access exclusive resources.