T
here is nothing more
rewarding
than demystifying terminology to reveal
hidden blind spots especially those with the potential to derail an international assignment, lead to early repatriation or a failed assignment, and impact an employer’s talent retention. With a spotlight on data-driven insights, a cost-effective breakthrough to manage this risk is explored in a deep dive for global mobility (GM) professionals. What is the best-case scenario to increase return on investment (ROI) in the talent mobility function and where is your gamechanger?
BLIND SPOT: HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT Think of the psychological contract as a dynamic lens to illuminate what is hiding in plain sight in the workforce. There have been shifts in the workforce over many decades and the psychological contract is evolving with an emphasis now on the ‘human’ side to the employment exchange relationship. Rather than a purely transactional economic exchange with unwritten but expected financial rewards: ‘if I work extra hours, I will be rewarded with a higher bonus’ – a relational exchange is highlighting the implicit expectations to promote positive working relationships through loyalty, trust, fairness and duty of care: ‘my manager cares about me and will promote me once I repatriate’. Noteworthy here is that there is no formalised agreement in place, just an implicit expectation that a particular behaviour will be
noticed and then rewarded. This is the psychological contract hiding in plain sight. What are we really thinking
when we must make a difficult decision, do we mean what we say, or do we say what we think the other person wants to hear? It is not the role of the GM function to ascertain what an assignee really thinks about the challenges of an assignment. However, if the assignment fails due to expectations not being met, then the burden of accountability often lies with the GM function. Rarely do we see metrics in place to measure expatriate ROI and the relocation process is considered a purely transactional one. An employer typically expects the assignee to ‘hit the ground running’ from day one and assumes a generous benefits package/policy is the key to achieving this. The employee does not exist in a vacuum and will likely be in a relationship or have family commitments which will impact motivation, engagement and performance on assignment. A wider lens can focus on what is expected by both parties as part of the ‘relationship exchange’ during the global mobility cycle. This is where understanding blind spots at this early pre-departure stage can be key to managing expectations for the whole assignment. In the case of a dual career
family, a major blind spot includes career transition management for the accompanying spouse/ partner, i.e. work visa authorisation, eligibility of qualifications, income parity in new location. These factors will be key to the decision-
making process and if they are not made visible at the pre- authorisation stage, the potential risk for a psychological contract breach will increase. For instance, if the couple/family has not made a fact-based decision and prepared for the reality of opportunities on the new job market, there is a high risk that a psychological contract breach will occur. What does a breach look like? The spouse/ partner will be unhappy in the new location, regret the decision to relocate, and the human response in this situation is to blame a third party, usually the employer and/ or other stakeholders (i.e. the relocation management company (RMC), vendors/stakeholders) for not being transparent. Feelings of disengagement can lead to anxiety and depression which in turn will negatively impact the assignee. Research has shown for decades that when highly skilled employees relocate internationally, it is the experience of the whole family that can make or break an assignment.
“ HR POLICY – I have not been asked anything about my career goals. My career needs have been not a consideration to them at all.”
RESEARCH PARTICIPANT, USA TO NORWAY/OSLO
Source: Peace of Mind on the Move (REA, 2023)
” 69
GLOBAL MOBILITY
PS YCHOLOGIC AL CONTRACT
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 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
