Nine Global Assignment Success Factors

There are some factors that facilitate a successful expatriation experience that workers can directly influence.  But then there are factors over which one has limited control.  Rather than focus on the problems that people experienced while on assignment, I would like to hone in on nine common traits shared by persons on assignment who enjoyed a positive experience.

1. Career:  Strong home and host company sponsorship for the assignment.
2. Career:   Invested in personal development and active in managing their own succession planning.
3. Career:   Rationale, goals and next steps after the assignment were well planned and articulated at the start.
4. Personal:  Handles unexpected challenges with calm resourcefulness.
5. Personal:  Strong level of emotional intelligence and strong intuition in working with others.
6. Personal:  Highly adaptable and flexible individuals who are grounded realists rather than idealists.
7. Family:  Uncomplicated and/or stable family situation.
8. Family:   Preschool children or young (and adaptable) teens.
9. Family:   Relatively unencumbered lifestyle, e.g, no animal menagerie. 

Some of these points cannot be easily influenced by the employee alone.  For example, certain factors like having to work out something like shared-custody of children has nothing to do with one's suitability for an assignment from a career/capability standpoint.  Personal factors are something that makes candidate selection so challenging for corporations.  Management, supervisors and human resources professionals, are required to focus solely on work competencies in candidate selection.

Do you have the right stuff?

Another factor that is beyond the control of an employee is being selected for the assignment in the first place.  Truth is, from my standpoint, nothing is more off-putting than someone who is campaigning heavily for an expatriate assignment.  There was a situation where an individual at one place I'd worked arranged their own interview for an assignment in a foreign office when there was no open position nor business rationale for an international assignment.  What a colossal waste of time for all involved!

Sometimes the best decision may be to not go on an assignment.  This is why I recommend open access to tools to help employees to make an early and informed decision about their own foreign assignment suitability.  Without access to such resources, countless hours are wasted on inappropriate candidates or failed assignments.  There are platforms available through most firms that offer cross-cultural training to run self-assessments to determine one's own capacity for an international assignment.  Avoiding one failed assignment could justify access to such a platform.

Three mindful suggestions in being selected:

• Assess personal and family readiness;
• If the timing is right, then make openness to international assignment known;
• Be patient for the right opportunity.

Remember that (like many things) offers of a foreign assignment is not something that can be made to happen if it's not meant to be.  And, if an individual is successful in pushing for an assignment that's lead by personal desire over true business need, then the justification will be too weak to sustain overall career continuity - if you know what I mean!

Expatriation Commando-style

If someone has a strong desire to work internationally, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this.  If that person is impatient for an international opportunity to happen, then my recommendation would be to look for open and posted positions at foreign offices in target locations.  If there is a good fit, inform management, apply, interview and, if offered, then accept the role as a 'local' hire.  Expect that the standard (rich/costly) international assignment benefits will not be included.  Among the many factors to be considered, the following should be anticipated:

• Relocation benefits may not be included;
• Nationalized pension schemes (e.g., social security) contributions will not continue;
• Prepare for double-taxation - no tax equalization benefit;
• Foreign work authorizations will have a time limitation to them, and options for permanent residency are often limited by the nationality of the employee and the country being entered;
• International school fees, language training and settling-in services would likely not be included in the offer;
• If things don't work out, the position is eliminated or immigration options are exhausted, there is no corporate sponsor to ensure a return role or to cover repatriation expenses.

As technology brings the world together and companies require those in leadership roles to have demonstrated global working experience, the number of assignments are only expected to increase according to a recent study by Towers Watson.1  I would advise people starting out to include some type of overseas exchange, internship or assignment to their early on in their experiential history.   The later in the career, the higher the stakes for the company and employee.

"Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength, mastering yourself is true power."
- Lao-Tzu

An Inconvenient Truth: HR, you're only as good as your vendors!

All Human Resources professionals are either supported by (or at the mercy of) the providers that support their organizations.

For, among others, the following services:

Picasso, "Girl before a Mirror" - 1932  

• Employment Law & Immigration
• Medical Insurance
• Benefits Management
• Leave Administration
• Drug Testing
• Work Life Balance
• Training
• Recruiting
• Payroll
• Tax
• Relocation, etc.

It usually goes that we inherit providers selected by previous managers.  And, most of the time, the HR people dealing with the day-to-day issues with a vendor don't get to select those vendors, or learn to make up for what that provider may not do so well - as an act of preservation.  It's just what good HR people learn to do...

Much tips the scales towards one provider or another, usually its price and capabilities.  Because at most companies the RFP process is so arduous, it does save time to go with an all-in-one provider.  You may go with one provider for Relocation support and also look for the potential to add other services on an as-needed basis.

Smaller specialized firms deserve a closer look.  Some reasons include:

• VIP Client-Status: I've observed that some larger service providers you may be one of many clients and get lost in the crowd;
• Real Subject Matter Expertise: A law firm that only specializes in employment law or immigration just has a distinct advantage;
• Advocacy:  These firms may have their own lobbyists to influence positive change.

This means that some specialized providers may be at a disadvantage over larger firms.  Larger firms with sales departments just as large as their customer service group.  I'm not casting dispersion on this, it's just good business.

Time and time again, the same service providers have a habit of making the same mistakes.  Human Resources will call them in with a list of areas for improvement, see service improve for a time, and then slowly but surely things start slipping again.  

But, avoid some pitfalls, if possible:

1. Though you may be tempted, avoid asking specialized providers to do something they are not equipped to do.
2. Don't leave them hanging.  Ensure the provider is well-connected to point people in your organization and understands your culture.
3. Avoid being a 'guinea pig' for a new service they may be adding to their offerings.  Wait at least a full year or two until they work out the kinks.
4. Your provider may get bought-out by another larger organization.  

In my industry, international relocation, there has been a lot of consolidation of settling-in providers in particular.  Though it takes more time, finding the best provider with local offices in your key markets is the best approach, in my opinion.  

People in the Expatriate Management business will probably know who I'm talking about - because two major settling-in providers were 'swallowed' up by one.  What I've seen is the really good local consultants are putting out their own shingles.  I think there may be a reason.  

But even before the consolidation, I had some major misgivings about the service provided by some of the formerly independent agencies.  The usual breakdown is something like the following:

The Hourly Approach

• Half-day program for business travelers;
• Full-day program for short-term assignments;
• Three days for single assignments;
• Six-days for assignees with families.

Some providers offer a flat-fee approach.  Services such as Intrepid New Yorker offers a service that for a flat rate, they will do what ever it takes to acclimate your assignee to the area.  They often have consultants that have relocated internationally themselves and have a first-hand appreciation of its complexity.  They are able to offer a real-time cross-cultural training approach to their settling-in services.  

Other firms will hire current real estate agents; and while these agents have a lot of transferable skills and knowledge that will help your transferee - I worry that their real estate agent will rear it's head and before you know it they'll be showing houses to purchase not rent - which hurts assignee mobility and causes other downstream problems seen during the bubble when housing took a nose-dive.  

Recommendations:

1. Negotiate a flat rate, not an hourly rate with your settling-in provider;
2. Look for firms that only do settling-in support;
3. Identify firms who use former real-estate agents (not active ones) and transferees;
4. Find firms that have consultants that you can contact directly - not ones that you have to go through many layers;
5. Ensure that assignees only have to do one intake needs-assessment and that information is shared between the relocation consultant and the settling-in service.

“Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”  

― George Bernard Shaw