The case study:
Internal growth is a positive process for existing employees. However, the candidate pool is more limited and does not always posses the necessary skills. Is it possible to spend money trying to recruit internally - only to be forced to then go outside at a higher cost? Should internal growth always be the first step to the hiring process? Why or why not?
Internal growth should be applied, where appropriate, for a hiring process. Through succession planning, the organization can ensure employees are trained and ready to take on new roles, with increased responsibilities. There are several benefits to having succession plans: providing employees with training opportunities, increasing the level of employee skills, decreasing or perhaps even eliminating external recruitment/hiring costs and improving employee morale (see weblink below). Training opportunities, offered to employees with the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) foundation to ascend through the ranks of a career ladder, will benefit the organization. Training employees for new roles and/or responsibilities will ensure they are ready when an internal opening occurs (via retirements, resignations or through growth). One advantage in offering such training is that employees gain KSA specific to the organization. For example, an organization with a unionized workforce may train a Human Resource Manager to become a Director by mentoring with the current Director on regulations, employment laws and labor/management ...
This solution is about 700 words and provides a thorough analysis on whether an organization should always pursue internal growth versus recruitment of "outside" candidates; along with potential costs involved in using either staffing model - along with impacts to employee morale.