It amazes me how little capital is spent on recruiting Human Capital, the most important capital of all!

Viagra: Created by an employee of Pfizer, not Pfizer.
Super Glue: Invented by an employee of Eastman Kodak, not Eastman Kodak
Penicillin: Created by an employee of St. Mary's Hospital, not St. Mary's Hospital.

I can go on but I hope by now you get the idea. The successes of any company usually has little to do with the company and everything to do with it's employees. Sure, employees are given resources by the company, but those resources are usually duplicated by their competition. The scientist who invented Viagra and made Pfizer billions could have been working for Bristol Myers Squibb.

This is not rocket science. Anyone in the employment space should recognize this fact, right? But I'm continually fascinated how often the selection of a company's coffee vendor passes through more decision lines with a greater sense of urgency and commitment and gets faster budget approval than most strategic employees. Of course this puts additional stress on those who are looking to make those hires as well...but, why is this?

Comment by Slouch on May 19, 2011 at 5:36pm: we all need coffee and sometimes we need it fast.

Comment by Christopher Poreda on May 19, 2011 at 5:42pm: touche'

Comment by Sandra McCartt on May 20, 2011 at 12:15am: If you think it takes a long time now to get some hiring manager to pull the trigger, can you imagine how long it would take if there were no coffee. They would all be at the closest Starbucks working on their iphones.

I have always thought the way to put a need for speed into the hiring process would be to lock all the bathroom doors and put a sign on them that says: Doors will be unlocked as soon as all open positions have been filled.

Comment by Tom Dimmick on May 20, 2011 at 10:04am: Christopher - I think your point is well taken. How many firms repeat the mantra . . . "People are our most important asset!" yet layoffs abound while corporate junkets continue? I think the question is far more basic and I believe it has everything to do with perceived costs. People costs; the salaries and benefits can be altered far more easily and quickly than a contract to purchase 'X' tons of steel or resin. People are seen as a variable cost. Until organizations change the way we view people and the associated costs of those people, we will not change the slowness of recruiting or the rapidity to which organizations resort to headcount cuts.