RELOCATION POLICY


greater emphasis on addressing dual careers. The


typical profile of the single


relocatee though is different. According to Impact Group, women comprise this internationally relocated employee profile to a larger extent, and there is greater ethnic diversity represented. In addition, it is primarily millennials (here defined as born between 1982 and 2004) who are on the move. Diversity is good for business, so the profile of this group is encouraging.


A segmentation trend The current trend is to segment


relocation policy to reflect particular assignment types, business outcomes (strategic, skills-based, developmental), and/or workforce characteristics (such as grade or level). The aim is to tailor policy provision more closely to the assignment type, the needs of the business, the employee demographic and, ultimately, to reduce costs. It is also evident that policy segmentation is increasing. AIRINC for example, reports an average number of policies per company as 4.4 in 2018, compared with 3.4 in 2011. Assignment types such as commuter,


business traveller, short-term, long-term, rotation, extended or permanent transfers are defined by length and pattern of mobility. As such, there can be seen a logic for different allowances and benefits, and thus policy segmentation devised and delivered by assignment type. Of course, certain items are common – those related to compliance for example (tax, visas). Others such as preparatory training could also be argued


as necessary for all to adjust – although fly-in, fly-out mobility has been proposed as necessitating less support in this regard due to shortened timescales of interaction with local people. Business outcomes including strategic


management and filling skills gaps have traditionally necessitated fairly generous packages to attract and retain assignees who meet exacting competency and skills profiles. Senior management moves at the strategic level have typically been very well provisioned. Trimming back on the elements of the package requires great care as while this may fulfil cost control requirements, if this is at the expense of addressing talent demands,


it simply undermines


organisational objectives. Career development policies, including


relocation, have often been leaner; the message being that employees undertaking such assignments stand to gain career advantage and thus a fully-funded package is not required. Volunteer assignees also have traditionally been given less – why pay more if someone will go without creating increased costs? Tailoring a suite of policies to pay what is needed (but not more) while supporting mobility adequately (but not necessarily excessively) has become an industry in policy segmentation design. But how will this move forward as the assignee demographic changes? The profile of the typical Generation


X international assignee appears to have changed little from the baby-boomers who preceded them, although greater policy


➲


The Impact Group’s ‘People Perspective


on Relocation’ survey (Relocate’sResearch Contribution Award winner this year) highlights the typical profile of relocating employees who move with their spouse/ partner today as continuing to be white, male, and in their early 40s; their spouses/ partners are typically white, female, in their early 40s but are also educated job seekers. So the partnered employees whom we see as the typical recipients of relocation policy now are from Generation X; but their profiles are similar to their baby-boomer predecessors, although with


relocateglobal.com | 41


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