While I personally support the case for recruitment and selection as a very important function because I believe deeply in the power and impact of people in any organization, a counterpoint argument to this case is that staffing may not be the competitive advantage the company needs at that time.

For example, if a company is going to stake its brand (and resources) on providing the highest quality product in that industry, then their competitive advantage is going to be on the quality and grade of raw materials. Whether it’s diamonds or dairy, the higher purity, the higher cost. The emphasis on delivering a top-of-the-line product is going to use the same resources for excellent raw materials that could otherwise be spent on excelling in employee recruitment and selection. This counterargument will carry even more weight if the product or company is more automated and based on machine production than artisanal or hand crafted.

The potential strengths of this decision to not prioritize recruitment and selection are that the resources of the company will be used to achieve their competitive advantage and create a powerful brand. If the company develops a strong market share, then they may benefit from becoming a sought-after company by top candidates rather than having to seek the top candidates as much as companies who are not industry leaders.

The weaknesses of this counterpoint argument are that the people in the organization can make or break the experience internally and externally, hiring good people can drive or derail the customer service, and top candidates may not flock to an organization that isn’t known for prioritizing its employees.

While there are counterpoints to always focusing on staffing and recruitment as the most important function, it is a balancing act for organizations to do their best while aiming to hire the best.