Previously, we divide our talent as…those [with] high potential. Let’s say, what we call in the 20th and 25th quartile, those are the high potential [talent] that we retain. However, we find that actually if we put a lot more resources and emphasis on that, what about the remaining 70 percent? So to answer your question, I think 80 percent of our people will be treated as talent. (HR Manager, Professional Services, China) By adopting HR analytics, the above-cited company also found that candidates from elite universities may not be the best option for the company as many of them eventually leave, given their significant market power. He explained further: Previously, our recruitment only focused on the top, top universities in the top, top urban area. We find that actually the best performer [does] not necessarily come from the top university. It’s not because they are not bright enough. It’s because they come from those universities, they have more opportunities. And therefore, the retention seems not the best part. We do a bit of recruitment analytics and find that [those from lower-tier universities], from a performance perspective, from a loyalty perspective, they stay longer, and they still perform well. So we strategise our recruitment. We still need those people from the top universities, but we put more investment in some other areas. And therefore it changed our recruitment process. I remember that ten years ago we only went to the top four. Now we are going to about twelve of them. Thus, as in Singapore and India, perceptions of higher marginal productivity of the sponsored elite is not supported by data analytics, with a handful of HR representatives in both countries highlighting that those from lower-tiered universities are just as good, given time. However, in contrast to India where the ‘War for Talent’ model is firmly entrenched, Western TNCs in China are struggling to sustain such a model, given that students from elite universities have other attractive options, which have weakened the hiring power of Western TNCs. This forces the Western TNCs to rethink their approaches to talent management. 4.4.
Singapore’s talent market In contrast to India and China, Singapore is seen as hosting global jobs in a plug-and-play environment where local knowledge does not carry a significant premium. The same level of intensity in campus recruitment in China and India is not seen in Singapore. In part, this is due to the small number of universities in the country. An alternative explanation is that despite their solid performance in global university rankings, Singapore’s universities are not positioned favourably in the local talent market.2 Within the local structure of competition, local universities are considered less favourably than prestigious overseas universities. Although there is a narrow and highly competitive system of secondary and junior college education, there is a relatively flat hierarchy among Singapore's universities, which in fact do not take in the brightest. For instance, top junior colleges prepare students for prestigious overseas education. The Public Service Commission, whose scholarships sit at the pinnacle of the talent market in Singapore, likewise sends its crème-de-la-crème to top universities abroad. As is demonstrated in China and India, corporate talent markets reflect how local graduates are positioned in national talent markets. This does not mean that TNCs do not hire from local universities, but that the hires are not favourably positioned within the internal labour markets of TNCs. A Singaporean HR manager of a professional services TNC in Singapore explained his hiring strategy:
For example, the National University of Singapore has been consistently ranked among the world’s top 30 universities. By contrast, the Indian Institutes of Technology are ranked >170th in major university rankings. A handful of top Chinese universities are in the global top 50–100 universities. 2
26
