Organizations that allot more money, time, and people to marketing and product design mistakenly think that just the product(s) and how it/they are marketed increase customer interaction, revenues, and profits. These organization taut that they are customer centric. In attempting to thwart competitors in the market, organizations become myopic and place the company’s products before its people. These companies build attempt to build their business through brand identityto drive conversion rates that will eventually deliver a high/improved ROI.
The “human side,” or what business owners and executives consider the “soft side” of business, is harder to quantify. They may believe that syphoning off resources to build less tangible outcomes is a waste. Managers who do not invest in their people tend to believe that putting more effort, money, and time into people for “improved morale” has little payoff. As explained in the lecture, organizations that do not invest in people, increase “. . . costs due to lost business, costly employee mistakes, and employee disengagement.”
The strengths in not prioritizing recruitment and selection allows an organization to spend more time and money on building the business through time spent on research, analytics and metrics, and technology. Increasing efforts to improve products by understanding the market and its constituents supplies the data to make more business improvements. Investing in new technologies with new CRMs can give more insight to client’s buying behaviors.
The potential weaknesses in companies not prioritizing recruitment and selection can result in a weak business and a loss of customers and revenue. Poor employees (those who were not adequately vetted or not appropriately educated or trained) can cause an organization to lose money and clients. If constant rework is needed to fix issues caused by “weak” hires, the organization is doubling expenses through time and effort.
2 replies on “The Case for Recruitment & Selection”
Hello Karen,
It is nice to read your blog, it is was a nice time. I agreed that the company put more resources on marketing and designing are aiming to earn more profits, also wish that they can bring better services to customers. It is quite natural for many companies that the HR department is not useful at all, and also yes, the biggest weakness for the company does not focus on recruitment will have a bigger chance hire a poor employee, which means extra work and time spent on that employee, which is not a good thing for any companies.
Hi Chen,
I agree with your statement: ‘. . . the biggest weakness for the company [is that it] does not focus on recruitment [which] will [increase the] chance[s] . . . [recruiting and hiring weak employees].” The processes were not efficient at all. One reason is that the HR department where I was hired was decentralized. The difference is with a centralized HR and recruitment, a cohesive approach can be used throughout the entire company. An HR department mostly likely would have standardized rules and aligned with the organization’s values. A centralized HR department adds consistency in how recruitment and staffing policies are rolled out. There are also increased economies of scale and increased efficiency.
The problem for my organization is that my home office is in London, UK, so a centralized HR department would lack regional understanding of culture, etc. Also,decentralized HR departments give authority to individual departments for decision making about hiring policies and practices. The idea that the decentralized HR method considers the local needs; however, I felt there was a real lack of consistency and understanding in HR best practices. . . sort of a “wild west show” where people just did what they thought would be best without research to back up what they did.
Advantages: Policies tailored to local needs and priorities, more effective management of issues, better flexibility.