MOBILITY
Programme management compliance
and
The backbone of a successful global mobility function?
Drawing on analysis of research carried out among multinational companies across a range of sectors, Michael Dickmann, professor of International HRM at Cranfield University School of Management and strategic adviser to the RES Forum, and Andrea Piacentini, co-founder of the RES Forum and head of reward, UK and Europe, at Standard Life, identify the latest trends in global mobility programme and compliance management.
“I
t is not enough to take good decisions and make good choices. It is necessary to take heed and comply with whatever you plan.” Israelmore Ayivor’s quote perfectly
captures the challenges of global mobility (GM) programme management, especially if one factors in the frequently changing legal regulations of governments around the world, which, by their nature, increase the complexity that GM departments have to handle. This article investigates the trends in GM programme and
compliance management and is based on research amongst members of international HR and global mobility networking and information- sharing group the RES Forum in 65 large multinationals across a wide cross-section of industries. As seen in the Forum’s annual reports for 2015 and 2016, our
survey amongst the 1,400 companies that constitute the RES Forum membership shows that the diversity of global assignment types is high. Business-critical and personal development assignments are more popular than cross-border commuting, career expats/global nomads or international business travel.
For each of the following assignment types, what is your organisation’s total global assignee population?
Because of these many forms of international working
arrangement, the compliance and programme management challenges are diverse and pressing. The assignment populations of the responding organisations can be seen in the chart.
Centres of expertise Three-quarters of all respondents had a GM centre of expertise (CoE). CoEs support globally standardised processes, enabling cross-border coordination and integration. In RES Forum annual reports from previous years (2014 and
2015), it was argued that GM departments were moving towards becoming more strategic. They were broadening their scope and moving towards a clearer delineation of roles as well as more value-add and consulting activities. A CoE structure may facilitate these developments, as it may be
seen as a move towards professionalisation and cost saving, while freeing up key GM staff for more strategic work. The remits of GM CoEs vary but cover a large number of
activities. Whilst 96 per cent undertake GM policy-writing and management, the management of compensation and salary reviews (43 per cent) is less frequently within the GM function’s remit. The definition of the GM function’s role will also have an inf luence on what activities may be outsourced and whether external vendors will cooperate on a local, regional or global level.
Outsourcing activities and challenges Sixty-nine per cent of responding companies predominantly insource their GM work. Of these, 49 per cent have a global structure in which one HR service centre manages GM activities, and 31 per cent work through several regional hubs or service centres. Only 18 per cent have a polycentric structure in which GM is managed and executed locally.
30 | Re:locate | Autumn 2017
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
