MOBILITY REPORT
and half of companies do not distinguish/ track important HR data of repatriates. While the number of firms that know whether repatriates had left the organisation in the first year after return was comparatively high, a surprising 31% did not have this data. Of those who provided data, we collated the answers to ‘sometimes’, ‘mostly’ and ‘always’; 61% of organisations experienced repatriate churn (staff turnover of repatriates) in the first year, 80% of MNCs saw repatriates ‘sometimes’ or more frequently promoted, 86% had many repatriates who received higher performance ratings and 74% had frequent instances of faster compensation increases in comparison to non-expatriated peers. While many employees frequently change employer when seeking new challenges or other opportunities, the propensity of repatriates who leave their organisation is still higher compared with their non-expatriated peers in many firms. Overall, we can observe some positive trends in the last 10 years in this area. It seems that the ‘career wobble’ and problems during the first year after return do exist, but companies have learned how to better manage these over the last decade. Excellent HR data on performance,
careers and rewards endures over the long term. Only one in three repatriates (31%) ‘always’ or ‘mostly’ changed their employer in the first five years after return, which is an encouraging statistic. Adding in the ‘sometimes’ category, 85% of the responding organisations’ repatriates were promoted faster, in 78% of cases they had higher performance ratings, in 84% they experienced faster compensation increases, in 76% they went more often on another international assignment and in 82% of cases they had better opportunities to work on special projects. Women repatriates experience slightly
worse HR outcomes. The survey also explored the differences in short- and long- term outcomes experienced by repatriates between men and women. Again, the overall trend was highly positive for both genders. In comparison, two areas stood out where women’s outcomes were more positive for the organisations: repatriate churn (in the first year and within five years) and performance in the first year after return. For the other HR indicators, the respondents documented that more men gained higher rewards, performance ratings and promotions. However, the differences were statistically small, with the biggest not
being very pronounced (11% of respondents indicated that fewer women than their overall populations would have better opportunities to work on special projects and 9% fewer getting promoted faster in the first five years). Nevertheless, these are areas of possible concern in which a GM department could explore whether there is institutional bias or discrimination. It would certainly be interesting to evaluate whether organisations’ global EVPs can more positively take account of women’s differing interests, situations, global experiences and outcomes to make working abroad more attractive.
CONCLUSIONS Employers need people who are willing to work abroad and international experience is particularly important for the most senior positions of the organisations surveyed. Conversely, employees need international
experience, both to enhance their future career prospects and to meet their own personal goals. Yet the organisations surveyed have a large shortage of employees who are willing to be internationally mobile. More than half of the companies have at
least a 20% gap in their requirements (for entry-level professionals) and a shortage of more than two-thirds for professionals, managers and senior managers. MNCs encounter the biggest challenge at the executive manager level, where three- quarters have at least a 20% gap and more than half have a 40% gap. Urgent action to increase the attractiveness of global work is needed and a strong GTM approach that fulfils the many objectives and talent/ succession demands that organisations have. Once a GTM approach and an associated comprehensive EVP concept have been defined, it should be communicated and its outcomes assessed as a matter of course. Through this approach, GTM and the attractiveness of working abroad can be refined, strengthening the global competitive position of the organisation.
This article is based on content from the May 2019 RES Forum research paper, ‘Working towards Top-Class Global Mobility - Smart Global Talent Management and the Employee Value Proposition’, written by Professor Michael Dickmann, professor of International HRM at Cranfield University, School of Management. To read the full report, visit
https://theresforum.com/annual-report/
RELOCATEGLOBAL.COM | 43
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
