I’ve never understood international companies entering the Philippines and only wanting to pay market or below-market rates. An extra 10–20% goes a long way in securing the best talent, keeping your team happy, and improving retention. It seems many companies enter the Philippines with one thing in mind: cost savings. Yes, cost savings are an obvious benefit, but they shouldn’t be everything. The savings can range anywhere from 40–80% compared to the West. Clients looking to save 80% will not get the long-term results they want, and often it’s the same people who later claim that offshoring doesn’t work. Invest in your team and target 40–50% savings. Pay the extra 10–20%, headhunt the top 10% of talent, maintain quality, and keep your staff happy, retained, and loyal for the long term. #PhilippinesTalent #Offshoring #GlobalTeams #HiringStrategy #TechTalent #RemoteWork #Recruitment #TalentAcquisition #BPO #SMEs #StartupHiring #PeopleFirstHiring
Dominic Ball
3mo
Matt. Companies come to the Philippines chasing 80% savings, then act shocked when they get 80% outcomes. The talent is here. World-class talent. But if you pay bottom dollar, you’re not building a team. you’re building churn. The smartest operators treat the PH as a capability hub, not a discount bin. Pay a bit more, get the top 10%, and you suddenly have stability, loyalty, and performance that actually scales. Cost efficiency doesn’t mean cutting to the bone. It means investing where it counts. This is the part most firms miss.
Gareth Cadle
3mo
Spot on Matt, good talent looks for efficiencies and smarter ways to work that improves productivity for less cost /head count. Arguably they the deliver the same value as two or even three mediocre people, thus TCO is actually improved.
Absolutely agree with this. In my experience, investing a little more in people always pays off in performance, engagement, and loyalty. Cost savings are important, but they shouldn’t come at the expense of attracting and keeping great talent. A balanced approach always leads to better long-term results.
Absolutely agree. When we first explored offshoring, we initially focused on lower-cost resources. Over time, we shifted to higher-skilled talent—while the cost difference compared to local rates wasn’t huge, the quality of work was outstanding. In some cases, the offshore team’s capability exceeded what we could source onshore. The key lesson for me is this: success isn’t just about hiring offshore talent; it’s about having a strategy to manage the dynamics of a hybrid offshore/onshore team. Without this, the initiative can fail and people will quickly conclude that “offshoring doesn’t work.” It works both ways—if you make your offshore team feel genuinely included and part of your culture, the results can far exceed expectations.