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.
2 replies on “Week 1: The Case for Recruitment and Selection”
Hey Sara,
I also think it’s important for companies to identify their current needs and prioritize their resources accordingly. It could be super important to get ahead of competitors or establish a presence in a market, and this varies throughout firms and industries. I really enjoy the thinking you did in regards to potential strengths and weaknesses. This analysis is important to bring up because it really does matter what the established processes are and how the company operates. It really does depend on the ways companies set themselves up with training and skilled positions, and I like how that difference is made apparent. Do you have a preference on what to prioritize if it was up to you?
Hi Donovan,
If it were up to me, I would focus on cross training the current staff to ensure that if someone left, the company would not suffer greatly from the loss and a replacement could be found and trained relatively quickly. In that sense, I would prioritize investing in the human capital of the company. While I think it is critical to have a great recruitment and selection process, if the right employees are already employed in the company, then I would want to continue investing in them and in their development. Depending on the other factors of the company, I would look at the business goals for the short and long term and assess where the resources will be needed to meet those goals, in an ideal setting.
Thanks,
Sara