The Case for Recruitment & Selection

The claim made in the mini-lecture that recruitment and selection is a company’s most important function is different from what I have heard in the past. Growing up, my grandfather owned a wholesale nursery that he started when he was young. He was largely responsible for its growth in the early stages as it was a small operation. As it got bigger I can remember him preaching about how important it is to have good salespeople. In the wholesale market, strong sales is a must. As a small business, he did most of the hiring so the thought to take money away from his sales teams was not an option. 

Large organizations decide to allocate more resources toward areas such as marketing and product design because this is what they see as building their brand. Marketing and design teams are largely responsible for a company image. So putting  more money into these places makes more sense to them if they want to see results. 

Companies that would see the most benefit from allocating more money towards marketing and product development would be one like Nike. They rely heavily on how their products look and perform for their athletes. In addition, they also rely on large marketing campaigns to sell their products. 

A big decision of each organization is thinking about how they are going to prioritize their spending. Some strengths to not prioritizing recruitment are that they would have more money to spend on areas such as marketing that also cost a lot of money. A large weakness to not prioritizing recruitment and selection is that it could lead to a bad hire. This is something that could cost organizations lots of money and could be avoided had they just selected the right candidate in the first place.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *