Is It Worth Saving on Recruitment?

Is It Worth Saving on Recruitment?

I have a neighbor who built his house for five years. Everybody told him that maybe he should hire a contractor to build the house right away? But he said that he prefers to save the money and will build it himself. Nowadays, he tries to sell the house even though it is still not finished. He invested a lot of money in it over the years. His selling price only covers half of the investments. But still there are no buyers. If you calculate the total cost of work, gasoline, materials, and time lost, you can see that the neighbor could just borrow the money needed for proper construction, hire a team of builders and live in the constructed mansion for 5 years, having the opportunity to pay off all loans long ago. Looking at this story, the question arises: is it worth saving and trying to do everything yourself, if as a result, the overall spending prove to be much more significant?

You still have to pay in the end

No matter how much a company wishes to hire employees without spending it still has to pay in the end. To begin with, you will have to pay for sites about work, spend time on interviews, and hire a recruiter (HR manager) or a recruitment agency. The plan of recruitment, training, and adaptation of employees is the cornerstone of any company and unreasonable economy on it can pose serious problems for such frugal companies in the future. It's bad when the company does not have a “time to hire” standard. It is even worse if there are two stages of hiring: when an employee is needed "yesterday", and when "an employee is no longer needed".

While the top managers might know perfectly well what losses the company will suffer in the absence of sales managers, experienced warehouse manager or a service manager, they can be completely unaware of the losses due to the lack of a secretary, a purchasing manager, or an accountant. "Well, why should I hire another accountant? I will just distribute the work among other employees!"

Many people overlook the fact that over time, the lack of an employee will become evident. Other employees may not have enough time to complete all tasks, and the new responsibilities can result in irregular working hours, mistakes, and even resignations. And then the organization will suffer much more losses than one accountant's salary.

What kind of savings is reasonable?

Trying to save on essentials almost always has an adverse affect on a company: for example, if the company is trying to find personnel using a website with vacancies without having a recruiter in the state or resorts to employing a recruitment agency then such an organization risks to miss all deadlines for hiring which in turn can affect business processes. Reasonable economy implies the choice: in general, companies (who want to save money) have an HR manager on staff and additionally they employ a recruitment agency. The benefits of such savings are obvious: a reduction time to hire, as well as the ability to keep track of the process of hiring. The HR managers, as a rule, have some "workload", other tasks, in addition to the hiring process, which does not prevent them from meeting deadlines and conduct interviews.

In conclusion, it should be noted that recruitment is a key element of any organization, and if the organization is large enough then it becomes a separate business process. Saving on essentials can "go sideways" and lead to serious losses for the company in the future. Savings can only be reasonable.

Taking Advantage of NetVizor PC Monitoring Program

Here are some other interesting articles: