Allocating resources to areas of a business such as marketing and or product designs over staffing can result in more direct advancements in a business that you can see right away. Businesses sometimes associate marketing and product design with advancements where staffing can be put on the back burner as the cost of investment doesn’t necessarily result in an immediate return on investment. Depending on the organization, meeting milestones set by upper levels management comes from driving a brand forward which is achieved through logical application of resources through things like marketing and product design. I can admit that i wouldn’t necessarily think of allocating more resources to staffing to get ahead even though it makes perfect sense when you think of the positive outcomes that can result from it.
Pros: By not prioritizing recruitment and selection companies can allocate resources into areas that can help them find their way into consumers lives. For example, the can allocate resources to advertisement that can increase their likely hood of selling product. Companies can become more widely known through there advancements in technology and or brand awareness.
Cons: Neglecting recruitment and selection can result in higher costs in training programs as employee turn over rates can be higher. With less efforts being made in the recruiting department, less desirable employees can be onboarded which can result in more time and money being sunk into training. with the prospect of higher turn over rates, can come the consequence of higher training costs and less efficient employees as experience can lack among employees. These negative consequences can trickle down to the customer which can cause a business to lose out even more.
2 responses to “The Case for Recruitment & Selection”
Addison, I think you are totally right that staffing and recruitment is not the most visible thing to invest in. Marketing and product development will often result in more publicity for a company. I would argue that good staffing practices result in a different form of publicity though. Good company culture and good employees will serve to raise a company’s reputation as a nice place to work and will in turn attract better employees to the company. I also would argue that good employees cover for fewer resources in other areas. Good marketing managers will still do well despite a lack of resources. I’d go as far to say that bad managers with large budgets will do worse than good managers with smaller budget. Your post got my wheels turning.
Nice post,
Mark
Hi Addison!
I really like the layout of your blog! I agree with you that advertising is a very strong pro to not dumping all resources into employee recruitment and selection. The cons you brought up were really interesting to me as they were things that I did not consider. The turnover rate is a huge factor and could create a bad reputation for a company, resulting in less applicants and potentially, a loss of customers. Training costs was another great point and could end up costing the company a lot of money. You covered some great topics here! Nice job!
-Callie Hall