Organizations may choose to allocate more resources to internal functions, rather than staffing because of the immediate returns they may see with the implementation of new processes and procedures to current employees. For example, if a sales manager decides to bring in new enablement tools to assist in the outreach process to prospects, this could increase efficiencies for current sales reps and make their jobs easier, which would save the company time and labor. While on the other hand, they could hire people with previous skills and success with the tools previously provided. The trade off would be the financial impact in the long run of these two decisions, the enablement tool would be costly to implement, but provide a wider impact than hiring higher quality talent – which is also costly to bring on. Overall, a company should evaluate its competitive strategy, and align those goals with the best resource allocation strategy. Which for some, would be hiring more top talent, and focusing on staffing. For others, implementing and investing into current processes to streamline internal workflows.
Some potential strengths of not prioritizing recruitment would be allowing more focus on resources to core business processes. If you are a publicly traded company with earnings coming up, maximizing topline revenue is best achieved by building a strong client base that increases that revenue. A weakness of this, is falling behind the curve of industry innovations, while potentially missing out on trends or talent that could have an even stronger positive impact of future revenues. I strongly believe a good mix of the two processes is the key to sustaining long term growth in a business. All companies want to grow revenue, and the hardest part is finding a way to do that responsibly while scaling the workforce at a sustainable level.
3 replies on “Week 1 – Blog Post: The Case for Recruitment & Selection”
You raise some really valid points about the trade-offs companies face when allocating limited resources. I appreciated how you explained the decision to invest in internal processes as a way to improve immediate performance, especially when there’s pressure to deliver results quickly—like during earnings season. That’s a real-world constraint leaders often overlook when idealizing staffing strategies.
Your example about enablement tools versus hiring high-talent staff reminded me of a point in the lecture on Strategic HRM: organizations that align HR decisions with broader business strategies see stronger long-term outcomes (Lecture 2). But like you said, it’s not always practical to prioritize recruitment when the ROI feels uncertain or long-term. I’ve experienced this firsthand in mental health—our startup had to make quick hires in a tight labor market, and while it helped in the short run, it eventually limited our ability to innovate and scale sustainably.
Great insights—and I agree with your conclusion. A balanced approach that aligns with strategy is key.
—Sam
Hi Grant,
Your post is quite informative. I appreciate your perspective, especially as your experience working in a team that started a mental health startup lends a significant amount of credibility to your opinion. With that said, I have to respectfully dispute your belief that recruitment and selection would be a company’s least important function after the early stages.
Although product development and marketing are essential in achieving traction, they will only take you so far if you don’t have the people who will make them happen and support the growth. A talented product but a dysfunctional or misaligned team will have a hard time, much less achieving success, either in quality, scalability, or customer support. If a bad decision is made when choosing people in startups, progress will be halted.
You said that underinvesting in recruiting causes ripple effects. In my opinion, that’s the very reason why recruiting as a building block makes sense. With limited time and capital, creating a strong recruiting system upfront prevents costly missteps later on. I agree with your statement that streamlined, evidence-based methods like structured interviews work well, but rather than being last among the earliest systems in line, they should be among the first.
In a word, as much as product and branding initiatives are surface growth drivers, it’s the people who make them who will determine whether a company goes down the pipes or not. Thank you for spurring such a great conversation again.
I really appreciate how you laid out the trade-offs between investing in recruitment and selection versus streamlining internal processes. It’s a tough choice for many organizations, especially when you weigh the immediate efficiencies of new tools against the long-term investment of bringing in top talent. Your point about the financial impact of each decision is spot on—while new tools might be costly at first, they can have a broad-reaching impact across the organization. On the other hand, hiring skilled talent also comes with its own costs but can bring in expertise and innovation that tools alone can’t replicate.
I also liked how you highlighted the balance between these two strategies. It’s easy for companies to get caught up in the short-term push for revenue, particularly if they’re publicly traded or in a competitive industry. However, focusing too much on immediate revenue without considering the long-term benefits of hiring top talent or evolving the workforce could put them at a disadvantage as industry trends evolve.
The idea of finding a mix of both—optimizing internal processes while investing in staffing—is crucial. It’s about making sure the company is not only growing but doing so sustainably. The right mix will vary depending on the company’s goals, industry, and stage of growth, but as you said, finding that balance is key to long-term success.
What do you think is the most challenging aspect of finding that balance, especially for small or growing companies with limited resources?