” GLOBAL MOBILITY PROFESSIONALS MUST CONSIDER HOW THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENT REWARD POLICIES INFLUENCE ASSIGNEES’ EQUITY PERCEPTIONS AND TRY TO AVOID NEGATIVE EFFECTS.”
volunteers. When there is no expectation of return and personnel are on a globally mobile career path, the global cadre approach might be used. Going beyond the overall
choice of reward approach, as multinational companies increasingly add flexibility into their policy design and implementation to reduce exception management and personalise policy content to improve the employee experience, unintended consequences can result. These include potentially detrimental assignee perceptions of inequity, leading to unwelcome return on investment outcomes such as assignment refusal, poor performance or early return. Different reward approaches
with adjustments made to achieve the desired mobility outcome can seem logical to employers, but to assignees, the rationale for different groups and individuals receiving different packages with additions or deductions to pay made when they are working in similar environments with common challenges can seem inequitable. Perceived inequity can arise when different approaches are used to managing different assignment lengths/patterns and assignee groups as well as when a
18
single reward approach is taken for all assignment types, for example when flexibility and personalisation is applied to the compensation and benefits received.
THE ROLE OF EQUITY THEORY Equity theory predicts that assignee reward will only result in satisfaction if it is considered to be fair. However, perceptions of equity are related to a variety of factors that are difficult for employers to predict. For example, assignees bring their competencies to the position and these may be valued differently by the employer and the assignee. If assignees feel their competencies are under-valued as reflected in their pay and benefits, this can be a source of perceived inequity. Individuals
also make
comparisons between themselves and their colleagues. They consider what they bring to the position and what they receive in return and compare this with a range of referents. However, employers cannot know whom assignees choose as referents (other assignees in the same or different locations, locals, peers at home) so it is difficult to establish where assignees see inequity arising. With so many
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86
