Statement: “The company A used to outsource its recruitment process for some years, but this year the company has decided to conduct the recruitment process within the organisation.” Read the following statements I and II and decide which of them strengthens or weakens this decision.

Introduction / Context:
This question concerns an organisational decision and how supporting statements affect its strength. Company A has stopped outsourcing its recruitment process and has decided to handle recruitment internally. Two additional statements are given, and you must decide whether they strengthen, weaken, or are neutral with respect to this decision. Such questions test your ability to see how extra facts affect the plausibility or wisdom of a decision.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Main statement: The company A used to outsource its recruitment process for some years, but this year it has decided to conduct the recruitment process within the organisation.
• Statement I: The employees who have been working in the organisation are aware that hard work is required to work in the company.
• Statement II: The company has decided to appoint three new persons in its senior level authority for the smooth recruitment process.
• Task: Decide whether I and II strengthen, weaken, or are neutral with respect to the decision to recruit internally.

Concept / Approach:
A statement strengthens the decision if it gives reasons why the decision is likely to work better or be more successful. It weakens the decision if it suggests the decision will create problems or is not well supported. Internal recruitment processes benefit when insiders understand company expectations and when there is enough experienced staff to manage the process. Therefore, statements that show internal staff know what is required or that extra resources are added to manage recruitment will generally strengthen the move away from outsourcing.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider Statement I. It tells us that existing employees know that hard work is required to work in the company.Step 2: If employees who conduct interviews or help with recruitment understand the high standard of effort needed, they can choose candidates who match the company culture and demands.Step 3: This makes an internal recruitment process more likely to select suitable candidates, which supports the decision to bring recruitment in house.Step 4: Now consider Statement II. The company will appoint three new persons at senior level authority for smooth recruitment.Step 5: This implies that the organisation is adding experienced resources to manage its internal recruitment. This reduces the risk that the process will become overloaded or unstructured.Step 6: By investing in senior staff to oversee recruitment, the company demonstrates commitment to making the internal process effective, which also strengthens the decision.Step 7: Neither statement raises drawbacks or problems with internal recruitment; rather, both provide positive support that employees understand expectations and that management capacity is being increased.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a scenario where the decision was made to handle recruitment internally but there were no experienced staff and no additional resources. In that case, one might doubt whether the decision is practical. By contrast, Statement I assures us that insiders know what it takes to succeed in the company, improving candidate matching. Statement II assures us that extra senior staff will be assigned to handle recruitment smoothly, addressing concerns about capacity and organisation. Together, they make the internal recruitment decision look better planned and more likely to succeed.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option b is wrong because Statement II does not weaken the decision; rather, it supports the decision by adding management resources.
• Option c is wrong because Statement I is clearly not neutral; it has a positive effect on the quality of internal recruitment.
• Option d is wrong because both statements are relevant and supportive, not neutral.
• Option e is wrong because neither statement weakens the decision; both point in a supportive direction.

Common Pitfalls:

• Assuming that any change in management structure (such as appointing new senior persons) signals a problem, when it can actually be part of a strengthening plan.
• Overlooking the importance of cultural fit and knowledge of company expectations in recruitment decisions.
• Classifying relevant supportive information as neutral just because it does not directly mention outsourcing.

Final Answer:
Both statements I and II strengthen the company's decision to conduct recruitment within the organisation.