“ MOBILITY TEAMS CAN NO LONGER STAND ON AN ISLAND. FOR A LONG TIME THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT HOW DO WE INTEGRATE MOBILITY INTO THE WIDER TALENT AND OR BUSINESS AGENDA OF ORGANISATIONS. THAT PIVOT IS HERE.”
GERARD OSEI-BONSU, EY GLOBAL PEOPLE ADVISORY SERVICE TAX LEADER
workforce,” he explains. “I feel that now because organisations have got more levers to pull in terms of how they deploy all that talent into growth markets or individual cases, mobility is getting far more prominence and visibility than it has done historically. All this is fantastic because it gives so much flexibility to how companies can deploy their talent around the organisation.” His experience chimes with the
GBTA data in that he is seeing a reduction in traditional fixed-term international secondments. “But we are seeing a rapid increase in other forms of mobility. The mobility function now needs to ensure they have a framework, operating model, policies and supporting technology to be able to manage that effectively. It also brings complexity in terms of how the different compliance requirements for those different types of mobility moves are managed and administered.”
MANAGING RISKY BUSINESS The scale of the challenge facing global businesses and mobility teams is obvious. Seven in ten
(71%) EY survey respondents say cross-border mobility risks have increased in the last two years. Two-thirds (66%) are also expecting mobility’s scope to increase. Nearly all respondents (97%) are looking to manage costs more effectively. As telling is 95% of employers believe there are benefits to more closely aligning mobility to business and talent goals, but 60% still see mobility as isolated or siloed from other functions. While the EY study evaluates the
financial benefits of aligning global people strategically through digital and external expertise-enhanced frameworks, a new study by International SOS in partnership with KPMG highlights the cost of getting it wrong. It adds significant financial weight to the business case for emphasising the global people agenda at board level. According to the report, the cost
of a failed international assignment can range from USD $850,000 to $1.25 million in higher tax jurisdictions, such as Canada, the UK, Denmark, France, Belgium, and Germany – also among the most common destinations. These costs include compensation, relocation costs, ongoing assignment support and taxes. However, they do not cover the lost opportunity costs and the potential cost of employee attrition, or the often-intense wellbeing impact on the employee and any family members. Managing mobility and cross-
border moves more purposefully can help mitigate these risks throughout the life cycle. It’s become a question now of not ‘if ’, but ‘how and when’, says Gerard Osei-Bonsu, highlighting the need for a much more integrated approach to cross-border moves. “Mobility teams can no longer stand on an island. For a long time
48
there has been a lot of talk about how do we integrate mobility into the wider talent and or business agenda of organisations. That pivot is here. Just being able to move someone from A to B and doing all the transactional activities linked to that is not enough. “Organisations don’t want that.
They are looking for someone who can business partner with them effectively, advise them on mobility strategies, identify who is the right person and what’s the right type of move and how to get proper ROI from this transfer. This is where mobility functions need to step up and be able to advise and engage with their businesses. That’s a big pivot from what they’ve done historically.”
EXPANDING THE MOBILITY FUNCTION FOR GLOBAL PEOPLE In the New Normal, global mobility is increasingly about the ability of the function and sector to change, develop and step into this strategic adviser role, or recruit people with different profiles who can deliver as a business partner. Over the past year, the number of employers regarding mobility as critical for business resilience
has increased
from 74% to 89%. “There’s definitely a learning
piece here about being far more strategic than transactional in
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
