In the mini-lecture, the argument was made that hiring the right people is the most important decision a company makes. I don’t fully disagree—having helped open a mental health startup, I saw firsthand how hiring the wrong people created stress, turnover, and even safety issues. But playing devil’s advocate, I can also see why some companies might prioritize other functions—like marketing or product design—especially early on.
For one, a brilliant product that solves a real problem or an unforgettable brand identity can create the momentum that later allows a company to attract top talent. In tech startups, it’s common to see limited HR infrastructure in the beginning, with energy focused almost entirely on engineering or design. Even in healthcare, securing contracts and building clinical workflows often come before hiring a full HR team. In these cases, it’s not that recruitment is unimportant—it’s just that other fires are burning hotter.
That said, underinvesting in recruitment and selection comes with real costs. Weak hires create ripple effects across teams, erode culture, and add to turnover. “Who you hire makes or breaks you”—I’ve lived that. The challenge, though, is that best practices in hiring are often hard to implement when you’re strapped for time, cash, or both.
One solution is to build lean, evidence-based staffing processes from the start—simple structured interviews and clear performance criteria go a long way. While recruitment might not always be the first focus, it should never fall too far behind. If you ignore it for too long, your company may end up designing great products no one’s around to support.
2 replies on “why recruitment and selection might not be a company’s most important function”
Hi Samuel,
Great post! I appreciate your balanced perspective—while hiring is crucial, other priorities like product development can take precedence early on. Your firsthand experience in a startup adds depth to the discussion. I agree that underinvesting in recruitment has long-term costs, and your point about implementing lean, evidence-based hiring processes early on is a smart solution. Thanks for sharing your insights!
Hi Samuel,
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.