Presenteeism: Misery loves company

In April of this year, Speechly Bircham and King's College London published its annual "State of HR" survey.  It reports that the problem of employee 'Presenteeism' has taken the lead over employee engagement as an area of key focus for the human resources function at top organizations.

The Schoolmaster, Rene Magritte, 1954

Presenteeism is just what it sounds like, people working too many hours due to job insecurity - or coming to work ill.  The motivation to work longer hours for the same pay seems to be a result of staffing issues and/or people feeling pressure to show their value to corporations that are looking to trim staff.  Just because an employee shows up early and stays late doesn't automatically mean that they are more productive.  Laura Kirkhaar, MBPsS, BSc, MSc in an article she published on occupational-psychology.com claims:

"This does not mean that productivity could be enhanced if people were advised not to show up for work when they are ill, but rather indicates that while productivity loss from absenteeism may be high, productivity loss from presenteeism is probably even higher, because it is more prevalent then absenteeism, but much less accounted for."(1)

Six years ago, people who weren't happy were more likely to find a job somewhere else.  Now these same people are showing up and could be bringing everyone down with them.  Statistics reporting the number of employee relations have been on the rise since the downturn with HR directors polled expecting these to continue to increase.

In an extreme case of workplace violence, a man shot his former supervisor in the shadow of the Empire State Building last month.  It's a cold reminder of how desperate people will risk all to take out their revenge.  One longtime former co-worker of both men was quoted by the New York Times as stating the cause of their animosity was, “...chalk it up to two guys being around each other too much.”(2) Sounds like 'presenteeism' to me...

Another dynamic of this case was that the shooter was 17 years older than his supervisor.  I'm not suggesting that this is toxic in all cases, however, an older person reporting to a younger boss is an exercise in humility which could be a difficult obstacle to overcome.  SHRM reported in 2011 in an on-line survey of its members that 26% of workers are now older than their boss.(3)

This will only happen more and more as people are less and less able to retire.  Surely the desire to do leave service is still there, but the savings is just not.  According to USA Today, people are expecting to work until they are 70 or older.(4)  While less than 20% of employers provide developmental training for older workers according to the same State of HR survey mentioned earlier.  The challenge is how to engage workers who may not feel that they are as valued as they used to be.

The stress associated with job insecurity combined with working longer hours and perhaps feeling less valued creates a strained environment for everyone.  There is no one size fits all solution to this (or any other problem really). This part of what demands HR practitioners to be creative, innovative and what also makes HR so challenging.

Fact is, many times people achieve manager status by working their way up from lower positions.  This doesn't always mean that they have obtained the special skills required for managing others along the way.  It's not easy to change a PTO policy, as it is to invest in helping managers to be more effective.  

If I could pinpoint one area that, no matter what's going on in the world, could always benefit from attention is the relationship between manager and boss.  I believe that managers, for better or worse, set the tone for the whole organization.  Time spent in ensuring effective relationships between manager and employee is a great investment.  It's not a popularity contest, rather good managers keep the right people happy, effective and secure and quickly and defensibly remove those that aren't a fit.

Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.   

- Winston Churchill

The Global Mobility Identity Crisis

Often, the international assignment function seems to suffer from an identity crisis.  I began to notice that colleagues managing this function seemed to vary in terms of the departments to which they were aligned.  Though each alignment presents it's own challenges, I would recommend each organization to look inward and examine if the international assignment program is located to best achieve internal goals.

"Self-portrait" 1861 Henri Fantin-Latour

Resourcing Alignment

I have observed cases where the global mobility program may belong, from a reporting standpoint, to the recruiting function as some of the tasks (e.g., relocation, immigration, on-boarding) seem to relate to bringing in talent to various areas within the company.  However some issues may be present with this alignment, for example:

• Separation from talent management and succession planning function:  resourcing is more concerned with filling gaps than planning next steps for successful candidates.  
• The tendency for recruiting to 'bend the rules' to attract a candidate could lead to more policy exceptions which in turn can make running a consistent program a real challenge.

Tax Concerns

This group is concerned with tax compliance.  Though this is an aspect of assignment management that is growing in importance, it is not the end all and be all.  Allowing audit-fear to run an international assignment program may be a 'safe' approach, this alignment may not enable a corporation to get the most out of its assignment program.  Instead of reporting to tax, or assigning a tax professional to the function - there should be a strong partnership to leverage the support-strength of the corporate tax function.

Reporting to Compensation and Benefits

Compensation professionals have an affinity for creating global alignment between job descriptions, and they may view the expatriate program as a series of perquisites or benefits enjoyed by an elite population.  Though this alignment will enable better connection to things like bonus, multi-year incentive programs, stock options and deferred compensation program - this alignment may lead to the expatriate function moving from strategy to more of an analytic support function.  

Connection to Talent

Though not often seen, I feel that the best alignment may be to the talent management function.  I feel that an expatriate program, at it's best, is a development program for the high-potential employees within an organization.  The talent group has a strong investment in retaining key talent and planning for key leadership positions within the organization through succession planning.  Often persons feel lost at the end of the assignment in terms finding a good fit for their next role (or worse, no role at all). 

Who owns the international assignment function communicates where the values of the company are focused in terms of the benefits expected from the global mobility program.  Consider the benefits of aligning to talent management and succession planning if developing and retaining key talent is your ultimate program goal.

“You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.”
― C.S. Lewis

For more on the topic of global mobility alignment, check out this white paper written as a result of my collaboration with Mobility Services International. In the article behind this link there is a further exploration of the link to global mobility alignment and program goal achievement (see pages 5 and 6).

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