There is one Client, however, who has set up operations in Canada to avoid our immigration policies. The reason for this is because they are bringing over Chinese ‘engineers’ (term used loosely) and putting them on a 6-mth training program to teach them how to move beyond theory and actually apply their knowledge. From what I’m told, there is also the issue of ‘initiative’. It is often seen as disrespectful to take initiative instead of waiting on ‘orders’ . . . so this is a shift in thinking that must be taught (to overcome a lifetime of being told what to do).

During a trip to China in 2006, I visited scores of Chinese companies that presented the educational profile of their workforce (apparently to impress visitors/guests). In fact, it was one of the first talking points presented . . . suggesting to me that perhaps their valuation on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange may (in part) tie back to the mean educational level. What I remember is visiting several organizations that were comprised of 50% PhDs’. Something was wrong.

I also remember several Execs speaking of their retention problems as well. Some companies spoke of 75% annual turnover . . . which rivals today’s Big-Box Publicly Traded Staffing Agencies.

So my question to you is this: Is the recruiting the problem? Or should capital and programs be dedicated to retention first, and then development second? It seems to me that the order of issues here is: 1. Retention, 2. Employee Development, 3. Recruitment. The reason I say that is because of the fact that if 75% of all employees are going to turn over in 12 months anyway (considering things remain unchecked), why not tackle the root cause instead of optimizing recruiting efforts?