I believe that staffing is an organization’s most important function. That said, organizations that compete under specific marketplace conditions could make an argument that other functions in their organization, or a process if it is unique and provides a competitive advantage, could be their most important strategic resource.
The marketplace conditions for an organization to make this argument could be:
- Manufacture/sell commodity products or services.
- Compete on a low-cost strategy.
- Functional processes- whether in marketing, design, manufacturing, etc.- do not require a highly trained workforce and are repeatable and consistent over time.
- Access to an available and large labor pool.
Under these conditions an organization could argue that their strategic competitive advantage is based on their business model and processes. They might also argue that outside of key executive and management positions, individuals in the organization can be quickly trained to perform their jobs and replaced if they do not perform or leave the organization.
Even if an organization competed under the marketplace conditions described above, there could be potential negative consequences of not prioritizing staffing. Two potential areas of risk are:
- Employee dissatisfaction and disengagement. By not prioritizing staffing and treating employees as part of the process versus a strategic asset, employee performance could suffer. Employees could perform at a level that meets the minimum standards- or just good enough to not to get let go. This could negatively impact the organization’s revenue and profits. It could also take time before the organization realizes the lost revenue/profit due to this type of behavior.
- Competitive threats resulting in lost business. In today’s knowledge-based economy the potential is high for a competitor to design a superior product or service, develop a better process, or produce at a lower-cost. Not investing in staffing to recruit and retain talented employees to meet or stay ahead of competitive threats could place the organization at risk.
2 responses to “Staffing & the Case for Recruitment & Selection”
Hey Eric,
I really agree with the point that you mentioned about how a risk of this approach could be that it causes a major decrease in morale and effectiveness in the workplace. I think that for most organizations this would be a major downside, however; this could be less of an issue for some business depending on how profitable the product they are selling is.
Hi Eric –
I had a similar thought with regard to decreased morale, as I cannot think of any situation where decreased morale and increased workplace stress due to poor hiring decisions (I’ve experienced several lately) does not turn out in a negative way for the company. People calling out sick. Internal conflicts that must be mediated. Decreased focus on the job. People going to lunch and calling to say they won’t be returning. I think that there are clearly only a few scenarios where it would be wise to allocate less funding to employee recruitment and selection, but a company should be willing and able to adjust this as needed to ensure the company’s success.