I personally agree that staffing is perhaps the most important function of a company. However, I do understand why several people do not view it this way. All organizations have a limited budget, meaning they have to prioritize which functions get more money allocated towards them than others. As mentioned in the lecture, hiring new employees costs a substantial amount of money. This takes away from the budget that can be allocated towards other important business functions such as marketing or product design. An argument for doing this could be that if the organization does not have a strong product/service or a strong ability to reach consumers, it does not matter who the company employees are, as their efforts would be pointless if no consumers want to purchase the product (or are even aware that the product and its benefits exist). This perspective focuses on the idea that the product itself is more important than those who work to make the product successful. If a product is not good, even the most perfect employees may not be able to make it successful.
I believe there are more weaknesses than strengths to not prioritizing recruitment and selection. One potential strength in an organization’s decision to not prioritize recruitment and selection is that it opens up a large amount of the budget that can be put towards other important business functions. However, as the lecture mentioned, strengthening other areas of the organization may be pointless if the right personnel are not there to maintain it. Another weakness is that due to the fact that a good workforce can be a strong competitive advantage, competitors who do focus on staffing may gain the competitive advantage and thus become more successful in the long run. By prioritizing staffing, an organization has a better chance of receiving the best applicants and snagging them before their competitors can. If they do not do this, they may not have the best pool of applicants to pull from when they do decide they need to hire new people.