We talk a lot about the war for talent. Across Europe, regions, nations and the Nordics compete for the same people. Talent attraction has become a strategic priority, a branding exercise, even a matter of national pride. But according to Sandra Slotte at Future Place Leadership, we rarely stop to ask a fundamental question: who are we talking about when we talk about “international talent”? Because at the same time as we speak about talent, but internationals are also immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers and newcomers. These are often seen as separate groups. Through our policies and our communication, we send double messages. Some people are clearly desired. Others are not.
Employability vs employerbility
Much of today’s conversation revolves around employability. International professionals are told they need the right skills, the right mindset, the right networks.
As if the responsibility lies entirely with the individual who arrives and looks for work”, says Sandra.
Yet the reality looks different. International talent, on average, has lower salaries, less qualified positions, and weaker employment conditions.
If that is the outcome, Sandra argues, perhaps we are trying to fix the wrong problem.
Instead of focusing only on employability, she introduces a new concept: employerability.
International recruitment, she reminds us, always has two sides.
There is the ability of employers to recruit internationally, and there is the willingness to do so.” That willingness, Sandra argues, is not a soft value. It is a form of competitiveness. The ability can be trained,” she says. “The willingness is much harder, because it touches norms, identity and emotions.”
In her research, Sandra examined how employers feel about international recruitment. What emerges is not hostility, but unease.
International hires are often perceived as a threat to what is considered normal. There is resistance to change, fear of reduced productivity, and a deep discomfort around potential conflict. “
Many employers express frustration when cultural misunderstandings disturb workflows. Others carry guilt when they realise, often too late, that international employees are excluded from informal networks, both socially and professionally.
As one common response goes: “It’s not a problem.” Or: “It’s not our problem.” Or: “There are bigger issues to deal with.”
In Sweden, Sandra notes, international recruitment is rarely driven by an actual lack of domestic competence.
Instead, employers struggle with structural barriers: long and resource-intensive permit processes, an expert tax system that is no longer competitive, a housing market that prevents long-term integration, limited access to international schools and weak support for accompanying partners.
It is not about language
In Finland, language is often cited as the main obstacle. But Sandra challenges this explanation.
I think language is often exaggerated as a barrier,” she says. “It is an easy thing to point to, and an easy way to avoid working on yourself as an organization.”
The consequences are visible across Scandinavia.
Many international professionals eventually leave. Not because they want to, but because they feel professionally stuck, bureaucratically burned and socially disconnected. Loneliness exists both at work and at home. To stay, people need to feel that life works in both places.”
We tend to hire ourselves,” Sandra concludes. “Nordic employers, and Nordic systems, are simply not designed for international recruitment. At least not yet.”
We are all responsible
Employerability, she stresses, is a shared responsibility. Employers cannot solve this alone. Neither can regions, universities or authorities. All parts of the ecosystem are involved.
Two things matter more than most organizations realize. The first is expectation management, being honest about what life and work will actually be like. The second is retention.
Be good at retention before you invest in attraction,” Sandra says.
Because the real question is not how many people we manage to attract, but how ready we are to receive them. How prepared is the workplace? The organization? The region? The neighbors, colleagues, friends?
And perhaps the most important question of all: what would make you stay?
It is not rocket science,” Sandra Slotte concludes.
But it does require a shift in perspective. If we want to remain competitive, we cannot only ask how employable international talent is.
We also have to ask ourselves: how employerable are we?
