China’s efforts to lure professionals home
New York, NY, United States, — The global financial turmoil that has led to tens of thousands of job losses in financial services has provided China with a golden opportunity to attract its overseas professionals, especially those at the high end, to return. However, the media coverage of China’s global talent hunt has left me feeling sick.
Here is a summary of what I have read:
A Ms. Yu, 43, who flew all the way from Charlotte, North Carolina, to New York City for a recruiting event, pitched hard to the recruiter sitting in front of her. “I’ve got experience in risk management,” she explained, naming the bank where she had worked and watching anxiously as the recruiter scribbled on her résumé. She breathed a sigh of relief when her résumé was placed in the review pile, implying that she might be called back for another round of interviews.
Close to 1,000 jobseekers traveled quite a distance by either flying or driving up to 10 hours to the New York event. Their wait in line for more than an hour ended up with a three-minute interview.
Some of the jobseekers who had worked in financial services for more than a decade said that their annual salary was somewhere between US$500,000 and $1 million dollars. But potential employers hinted that the highest pay available to them in China would be 1.5 million yuan (US$219,000).
Jobseekers traveled to the recruiting event on their own, waited in line for more than one hour for the opportunity of a three-minute interview, a recruiter scribbled on their résumés, and jobseekers were forced to reduce their salary expectations dramatically. This supposedly serious recruiting exercise seemed to me more like a bazaar where recruiters hoped to pick up cheap Made-in-China stuff, while jobseekers put straw on their heads to indicate they were willing to sell themselves cheap.
This happened because of the information asymmetry between jobseekers and recruiters. The former, who probably had either lost their jobs or feared for their future though still employed, were eager to find a way out. They learned that China needs talent, but did not know exactly what kind of talent is in demand, what positions are open, what credentials and experience are valued, and what compensation packages would be offered. In a word, they came to these events without knowing what to expect.
Indeed, most of those jobseekers left the events empty-handed. After attending a couple such fruitless recruiting events, even those who were seriously thinking of returning to China would have to reconsider their options.
Of course, some jobseekers might be fortunate enough to land a job. But I am not convinced that those with rich overseas experience would be willing to work for significantly lower pay. Those who do not complain about the low pay are most likely not the most talented; the truly talented would surely move to higher paying jobs if they became available. The “you-get-what-you-pay-for” principle applies to global talent as well.
In the meantime, I doubt that the recruiters know what talent they should be recruiting or have the ability to hire proper people. Most likely, those on these overseas missions are not professionals. Even if they are, given that the gap between the Chinese and international financial business is at least 20 years, they would not necessarily understand the expertise of the jobseekers and would have to wait for decisions to be made by their bosses back in China when they interview applicants. Even if they find a suitable person, the recruiters may not be able to hire him or her on the spot.
Therefore, such recruiting events are a kind of “zheteng” – a popular term of 2009, roughly translatable as “wasting time” or “flip-flopping” – for both jobseekers and recruiters.
Since the global recruiting tour is not attractive to true talent, especially experienced and senior-level personnel, and since it could produce nothing more than several kilograms of résumés at best, why are the Chinese so immersed in the practice?
The recruiters would claim that their search shows a respect for talent. In fact, the reality is just the opposite. Talent was valued when Liu Bei, a hero from the famous Chinese classic the “Three Kingdoms,” paid three visits to the cottage of Zhuge Liang, whom he wished to recruit as his adviser. It is not valued in a three-minute interview; sincerity is not shown by doing things carelessly.
Therefore, rather than embarking on an overseas talent hunt, China would be better off following the international norm.
First, Chinese institutions should place advertisements in media or on the Internet with such information as positions available, job responsibilities, working conditions, compensation and number of recruits required. If there are appropriate applicants, recruiters could chat with them over the phone first, shortlist them and invite them to China for face-to-face interviews. Finally, the employers should offer them jobs and sign contracts. In this way, both jobseekers and recruiters could avoid blind expectations and make the process more efficient.
As far as I know, few Chinese organizations would fly jobseekers to China for interviews. The return of overseas professionals, in addition to compensation, also is constrained by such equally important factors as the education of children and the arrangement of family life. Therefore, if China really wants to take advantage of the downturn and the widespread job losses to poach back much needed talent, it has to be innovative and concrete in these aspects.