Week 1- The Case for Recruitment and Selection

After reviewing this material, it can be hard to see why a company would allocate more to marketing than being able to hire the right people for the job.
When thinking through this question, I was initially stumped. Without a good hiring process, companies will fall short in all the other aspects of a business. Allocating more money to marketing is only helpful if the marketing team is talented at using it to benefit the company. It seems as though the drawbacks of having a weak recruiting and selecting department can have high costs and an overall detrimental ripple effect throughout the whole company.
A potential benefit of prioritising recruitment and selection is the ability to bring new talent into the company. In addition, bringing in talent creates a ripple effect pushing other longer-term employees to be better. So there is a constant push upward to make the company better. But a drawback of this prioritisation is that even with this increased funding, there is no guarantee that every hiring cycle will be successful, which can cost a lot of money.
But there are also pros and cons when it comes to organisations choosing not to prioritise recruitment and selection. One of these benefits is spending more on other departments, allowing these other departments to be more successful. But this can only be a benefit if the people within this department are “good hires”. One major drawback of prioritising the other departments is that the original selection and recruiting processes are not made well.
Overall, I think there is room for organisations to prioritise other departments over recruitment and selection if there is already a solid foundation in the recruitment process, with possibly the best solution being a cycle where prioritisation is moved throughout the company.