Month: March 2020

Why might organizations decide to allocate more resources toward marketing or product design rather than using those same resources to do a really good job in employee recruitment and selection?

Organizations may choose to allocate more resources toward marketing or product design because that could be their competitive differentiation from competitors. If a company is not looking to grow their workforce and instead is focused on creating new products or selling more of their current product, they may choose to allocate resources in order of their current need.

What are the potential strengths and weaknesses of an organization’s decision to not prioritize recruitment and selection in favor of a focus on other aspects of the business?

Potential strengths: Organizations that do not prioritize recruitment and selection probably have positions that are easy to train for, have low barriers of entry, and may have little impact on the company’s bottom line. They may also hire in a trial period that would allow the employer to test the hire in the role on a temporary basis. This then allows the organization to invest financial resources on other areas of the company that have a greater impact to the bottom line. It also allows the employer to see if the employee is going to be successful in the company in the long term. Organizations could have the ability to invest heavily in product development and create a product that “sells itself” allowing for nearly anyone to be successful in the sales role. Alternatively, if the organization is hiring for a call center customer service rep, they may have very automated scripts to follow or steps to take to alleviate the customer’s issue allowing for many different people to effectively fill the role.

Potential Weaknesses: There are some great weaknesses that come with not properly investing in the recruitment and selection process. The employer may make the incorrect hire leading to high costs of training, time fixing mistakes, and giving the employee additional training as needed. If the employee is unable to be successful in the role, then the organization will also have to replace the hire. This means that the employee, team, and company suffer because of the one bad hire. Additionally, organizations that are very niche or require heavy training and on-boarding resources will be set back further if the employee is unsuccessful in the position. If the employee feels that they are wrongfully terminated, the company could face further costs to settle with the former employee.

Describe your experiences from the perspective of an applicant for the last job you for which you applied.

The last job that I applied to was for the position that I currently hold, HR Liaison at Oregon State University. When I was job searching, I was looking for a position that would allow me to work in a strategic role that had noticeable impact on the team. During the application stage, I submitted my resume, cover letter, and application materials. I was careful to clearly communicate how my experience has prepared me for the position and that I met the minimum and preferred qualifications. I was contacted to have an interview with the committee, which I accepted and had scheduled for the following week. On the day of the interview, I arrived at the office and checked in around 10 minutes before my scheduled interview time. Shortly after, I was called back and had the in-person interview. I answered questions regarding my experience, how I would react in specific situations, and how I deal with difficult customers or co-workers. To wrap up the interview, I was given the chance to ask the committee any questions. By the end of the week, I had heard back from the hiring manager and was offered the position.

Explain how your experiences during the job application process shaped your impression of the job you were applying for and your desire to work there (or in some cases to not work there).

Throughout the job application process, I knew that organizations similar to OSU were very critical in defining what their minimum qualifications were and I understood that they were not suggestions. Therefore, I was very clear, descriptive, and direct when stating what my qualifications were. During the interview process, I asked a variety of questions that addressed the impact of the position, the culture of the office and team, and what the future of this position would be. In hearing the responses, I could tell that this position would have the opportunity to have strategic impact in the office. I also was able to see the camaraderie among the interview committee. The hiring manager was very clear that this position would have a lot of change and growth with the organizational changes that were going to occur within the office and in the university. Throughout the process, I was shown that the team was very close and supportive of one another. I gained the sense that the hiring manager was trusting of her team and had no issues giving autonomy to her staff. Additionally, I felt that there was very clear information from the whole committee, even if it showed the challenges of the role. I felt like I knew what I was accepting when I accepted the position.