THE FUTURE OF EXPAT PAY: MOVING PAST EQUALIZATION TOWARD FLEXIBILITY AND FAIRNESS
As the global workforce evolves, organizational strategies for managing expatriate compensation must also evolve. Consider the scenario of hiring for an essential role in Singapore and finding the perfect candidate who is eager for the international opportunity. Everyone is excited until compensation becomes a barrier. The candidate declines, citing financial infeasibility, or senior leadership balks at the high cost. This real-life scenario underscores the critical need for effective expatriate compensation strategies. For global talent leaders, these scenarios are not mere imagination, but a reality they face all too frequently. The challenges of compensating international assignments and transfers are a cornerstone issue in assuring a globally mobile workforce. Today, following trends primarily from Europe, multinationals, including those headquartered in the U.S., are increasingly using alternate compensation strategies for their globally mobile talent to overcome these types of issues. This article aims to delve into why they are doing so, what those approaches are, and the important considerations for using these alternates, all of which are crucial for your role as a global talent leader The Balance Sheet Approach, Why It Worked (and Why It’s Fading) For more than half a century, the balance sheet was the gold standard for expat pay. It was elegant in concept: keep employees financially “whole” when they move abroad, no better off and no worse off than if they’d stayed home. On paper, it made perfect sense. Developed in the postwar era by compensation pioneers like AIRINC and ORC (now Mercer), the balance sheet relied on meticulous financial modeling to compare home and host locations. Housing, goods and services, transportation, taxes, everything was accounted for. The goal was fairness and predictability. And for a long time, it worked. It helped build trust between employees and employers at a time when global assignments felt like uncharted territory. The balance sheet reassured families that a move overseas wouldn’t mean an uncertain financial future. But here’s the problem: what worked in 1970 doesn’t always work in 2025. The balance sheet has become one of the most complex, expensive, and administratively heavy processes in global mobility. It requires endless data subscriptions, tax assistance, split payrolls, and constant currency updates. Even when it’s done perfectly, it’s rarely perceived as fair, which defeats the entire purpose I remember visiting a company years ago where a group of Australian engineers were convinced their allowances were far too low. We reviewed their reports, line by line, only to discover they’d been paid double by mistake. And still, they weren’t happy. It’s a perfect example of how even the most precise models can’t always align with human perception. At its best, the balance sheet is structured, logical, and protective. At its worst, it’s a bureaucratic migraine that sometimes creates as many inequities as it solves. It’s no wonder companies, especially in Europe, began asking the question that would reshape global mobility for decades: What if there’s a better way?
EU Pay Transparency: Your Expat Packages Just Became a Ticking Compliance Bomb
The European Union’s Pay Transparency Directive is about to upend how companies structure international assignments, and most Global Mobility teams are walking straight into a buzzsaw. Here’s what’s keeping me up at night: Under this Directive, every benefit and allowance you provide to expatriate employees now counts as compensation when evaluating pay equity. That generous housing allowance, the COLA you carefully calculated, the international school fees, that tax equalization package you thought was just good practice? They’re all part of the pay gap calculation now. And when your expat in Frankfurt’s total comp dwarfs their local colleague’s—even if it’s entirely justified by mobility costs—you’ve got a compliance problem that could trigger regulatory action. The clock is ticking. National transpositions are due by June 7, 2026, with enforcement starting on 2026 data in 2027. That’s not some distant future—that’s your next assignment cycle. Everyone’s In Scope (Yes, Even That Person) The Directive casts a wide net: all workers performing duties within the EU, regardless of nationality, where they’re contracted, or who cuts their paycheck. Your American executive on a three-year stint in Paris? Covered. Your Singapore-based engineer doing a six-month project in Amsterdam? Covered. That consultant you’re paying through a third-country entity but who’s physically working in Dublin? You guessed it—covered. And when the EU says “pay,” they mean everything that hits an employee’s pocket: base salary, bonuses, every benefit-in-kind, relocation support, education subsidies, housing, hardship allowances, and yes, tax equalization. Suddenly, compensation packages that made perfect sense yesterday look wildly imbalanced today. Here’s the number that should make you nervous: 5% Any pay difference exceeding 5% within comparable employee groups triggers mandatory joint assessment with employee representatives. You’ll need objective, gender-neutral justifications ready, or you’re facing regulatory scrutiny. Let me paint you a picture: Two senior managers, both earning €120,000 base. Your local hire gets standard benefits worth €15,000. Your expatriate? Same base, but add €40,000 for housing, €20,000 for cost-of-living, €15,000 for the kids’ school. Total package: €195,000. That’s a 53% differential staring back at you from a compliance report. Now imagine explaining that gap to a regulator who’s looking for gender discrimination patterns. Still comfortable with those ad-hoc assignment packages? Why Your “Flexible” Approach Is Now Your Biggest Risk I get it. For years, we’ve prided ourselves on crafting bespoke assignment packages. Each one carefully negotiated, perfectly tailored to the individual’s needs and the business’s urgency. It’s been the hallmark of sophisticated Global Mobility programs. It’s also about to become your Achilles’ heel. When every assignment is a special snowflake, you create a pattern of inexplicable variations. Why does your male executive in Munich get 30% housing support while your female director in Milan gets 20%? Why did you gross up one package for taxes but not another? When regulators come knocking, not if, when, “we negotiated each one individually” sounds less like flexibility and more like potential discrimination. Early analysis is revealing an uncomfortable truth: women often receive less robust family support or hardship allowances in their packages. Whether intentional or not, these patterns will surface under Pay Transparency scrutiny. The question is whether you’ll discover them first or let a regulator point them out. Your Three-Step Survival Guide The good news? You don’t have to blow up your entire mobility program. You just need to get strategic about structure where it counts. Step 1: Treat Expats Like the Different Animals They Are Stop trying to force square pegs into round holes. International assignees should be categorized as a distinct worker group, separate from local employees. Base this on objective, gender-neutral criteria: This isn’t gaming the system—it’s acknowledging reality. An expatriate Finance Manager in Amsterdam navigates complexities a local Finance Manager never faces. Comparing their total compensation without acknowledging these differences is like comparing apples to international, tax-equalized, housing-supported oranges. Step 2: Replace “Let’s Make a Deal” with “Here’s Our Policy” I know, I know. Policies feel restrictive. But a well-designed global mobility policy is your best defense against discrimination claims. It transforms subjective negotiations into objective applications of documented criteria. Your new policy bible needs: You can still maintain flexibility—just within defined parameters. Think of it as moving from improv theater to jazz: there’s still room for creativity, but everyone’s working from the same sheet music. Step 3: Show Your Math (Before Someone Makes You) Start treating every assignment package like it’s going to be audited, because under Pay Transparency, it essentially will be. Document everything: Run simulations now using your full compensation data. Find your 5% breaches before regulators do. Build standardized matrices that transform “because I said so” into “according to our established framework based on Willis Towers Watson data.” And please, for the love of all that’s holy, get your host HR, tax, and mobility teams talking to each other. Nothing screams “we don’t have our act together” like three different departments giving three different answers about the same employee’s compensation. The Multi-Speed Train Wreck Here’s a fun complication: EU member states are implementing this Directive at different speeds with different interpretations. What flies in France might fail in Finland. Smart companies are appointing someone (hint: this could be you) to track each country’s specific requirements and timeline. Because “we didn’t know Belgium interpreted it that way” isn’t a defense. Turn Compliance Into Competitive Advantage Look, you can approach this two ways. You can wait until 2026, scramble to comply, and hope regulators are too busy to notice your hastily assembled justifications. Or you can use this as the catalyst to build the world-class mobility program you’ve always wanted. Companies that get ahead of this will discover something powerful: a well-documented, policy-driven mobility program doesn’t just avoid regulatory penalties. It actually works better. Employees understand what they’re getting and why. Finance can predict costs. HR can ensure equity. And you? You get to stop playing defense and start playing offense. The companies that transform their programs now won’t just be compliant, they’ll have a decisive advantage in deploying global talent. While competitors
Six Mistakes To Avoid When Executing A Group Move
Every group move I’ve been part of has had one thing in common – emotion. Excitement, anxiety, curiosity, fear. Sometimes all of them at once. It’s easy to think of a group move as a business project. A checklist. A set of timelines, budgets, and benefit plans. But underneath every spreadsheet is a set of people whose lives are about to change. Families deciding whether to uproot. Managers trying to hold teams together. Leaders quietly wondering if they made the right call. I’ve seen great companies stumble here – not because they lacked planning or resources, but because they forgot how deeply human these moments are. You can get every policy detail right and still lose the trust of your people if the process feels careless or rushed. That’s why I tell clients there’s no such thing as a “neutral” group move. It either strengthens your culture or it shakes it. The difference usually comes down to the same thing: how well you anticipate and avoid the mistakes that others repeat again and again. These are the six I see most often, and the ones that separate a move that succeeds from one that leaves a lasting scar. Mistake #1: Not Knowing Your “Why” Every successful group move I’ve seen starts with a clear reason for happening – and a clear reason for who’s coming along. It sounds simple, but it’s the first thing that gets lost once the logistics take over. Someone decides the company needs to relocate a division or consolidate offices, andsuddenly everyone is knee-deep in timelines and vendor calls before anyone has stopped to ask why. That “why” drives everything else – your benefits design, communication plan, relocation3 packages, even how you talk about the move to your employees and the community.When the reason is vague, the strategy usually follows suit. I’ve seen companies spend millions on a move only to realize they were chasing convenience, not progress. Be honest with yourself about the motivation. Are you moving because of a tax advantage or because the founder wants to live somewhere warmer? Is it about accessing a new labor market or cutting costs? There’s nothing wrong with any of those answers – but you can’t build an honest program without naming the truth first. Group moves are expensive in every sense. Beyond the dollars, there’s lost productivity, disengagement, and the quiet cost of losing good people who don’t feel included in the vision. Understanding why you’re doing it doesn’t just clarify the numbers – it gives everyone involved a sense of purpose. When employees can connect their own story to the company’s reason for moving, you’ve already won half the battle. Without that connection, no amount of relocation benefits will make it feel right. Mistake #2: Talking Too Soon Once the word’s out, you can’t take it back. I’ve watched more group moves unravel from early communication than from any other single mistake. The moment people hear the words “relocation” or “move,” everythingchanges. Productivity drops. Rumors take off. Fear starts filling in the blanks that leadership hasn’t filled yet. When a group move is announced too soon, employees naturally start imagining worstcase scenarios – job loss, uprooting families, pay cuts, or being left behind. Even thosewho might benefit begin to feel uneasy because uncertainty spreads faster than information. It’s not just internal either. Communities, investors, and media circles react quickly. Once the story leaks, it takes on a life of its own. I’ve seen companies caught flat-footed, trying to calm speculation that never should have started in the first place. Planning should begin quietly, with a small and trusted core team. Every meeting, every draft email, every whispered conversation carries weight. Keep it contained until you can communicate everything at once – the reasons, the timing, the impact, and most importantly, what it means for the people involved. Announcing a move isn’t about transparency for transparency’s sake. It’s about responsibility. Tell the story when it’s complete, not when it’s convenient. Because once you open that door, you don’t get to close it again. Mistake #3: Leaving People in the Dark People can handle bad news. What they can’t handle is uncertainty. I still remember a time when a single afternoon turned calm teams into chaos because a move was announced before the details were ready. When employees are told “arelocation is coming” but nothing more, they fill in the blanks themselves – and what they imagine is almost always worse than the reality. Silence breeds stories. Within hours, people start speculating about layoffs, cost cuts, and who’s safe versus who’s not. Productivity stalls because no one knows where they stand. Managers can’t answer questions, and trust starts to erode in every direction. The fix isn’t complicated – it’s preparation. Before any public announcement, have every critical detail locked in. Know your dates. Have severance and stay bonuses finalized. Be clear about relocation benefits and what support will be offered. Decide what happens to those who can’t or won’t move. It’s not about having perfect answers to every possible question. It’s about showing employees that you’ve thought through the impact on their lives. When people can see that there’s a plan – even if it’s a tough one – they can start making decisions for themselves and stay focused on the work in front of them. I’ve learned that transparency doesn’t weaken leadership. It strengthens it. The moment employees realize you’re being open and specific, the tension starts to ease. They may not like the news, but they’ll trust that you’re handling it honestly – andthat trust is what keeps the company moving forward when everything else feels uncertain. Mistake #4: Treating Everyone the Same Fair doesn’t always mean equal. That’s something I’ve had to remind even the most experienced HR and mobility teams of over the years. Group moves trigger a natural instinct to create one clean, uniformpolicy that applies to everyone. It feels efficient, it feels fair, and it feels safe. But in reality,
When Simple Questions Reveal Complex Problems: The Hidden Risks in Global Mobility
How a straightforward benefits inquiry exposed serious immigration risks—and why expert counsel matters The Deceptively Simple Question The email seemed routine enough: “We have a team member in South Africa who will be pursuing their PhD in the US. They will be working part-time on a few projects while also focusing on their degree. Since this team member will be part-time, we need to determine the appropriate benefits for their situation. Could you please suggest some questions we should be asking?” On the surface, this appears to be a standard HR benefits question. A company wants to do right by an employee pursuing higher education. They’re being thoughtful, asking what benefits make sense for part-time status, seeking guidance on the right questions to ask. But embedded within this innocent inquiry lies a potential immigration violation that could result in visa revocation, deportation, and serious consequences for both the employee and the employer. This is the reality of Global Mobility work: what appears simple rarely is. The Problem Hiding in Plain Sight The client’s question focused entirely on benefits administration. They wanted to know: These are reasonable HR considerations. But they completely missed the fundamental issue: Can this person legally work for the company at all while studying in the United States? The assumption baked into the question, that the employee would simply continue working part-time during their PhD program, ignored the complex web of U.S. immigration law governing international student employment. The client was preparing to design a benefits package for an arrangement that might not be legally permissible. This isn’t a criticism of the client. They did exactly what responsible employers should do: they reached out for guidance when facing an unfamiliar situation. The problem is they didn’t know what they didn’t know. Why This Matters: The Immigration Landmine Here’s the piece everyone missed: could this person even legally work in the U.S. at all? The student in question was planning to pursue a PhD in the United States under an F-1 visa. And that single detail changes everything. F-1 status comes with very specific, and very restrictive, employment rules. Unless a student has explicit authorization, the safe assumption should always be they can’t work for you. During the first academic year, F-1 students are limited to on-campus jobs, up to 20 hours a week when classes are in session. Off-campus work isn’t allowed unless and until they get proper authorization. After that first year, there are only a few narrow paths: Curricular Practical Training (CPT) and Optional Practical Training (OPT). CPT is approved by the university’s international office. It has to be tied directly to the student’s curriculum, think an internship that’s required for a degree or integral to a specific course. OPT, on the other hand, requires both school recommendation and an application to USCIS for an Employment Authorization Document. Neither happens automatically, and both take time. While an F-1 student is physically in the United States, any compensated work, on-site or remote, part-time or full-time, requires that authorization. There’s no gray area just because the work is done over Zoom or for a familiar employer back home. Immigration rules hinge on where the student is, not where the company’s servers or offices are. Working without authorization isn’t a technicality; it’s a status violation. That can lead to the student’s SEVIS record being terminated, loss of F-1 status, and potential visa cancellation. Once that happens, unlawful-presence clocks start ticking, cross the 180-day mark, and you’re looking at multi-year re-entry bars. Employers who knowingly or negligently keep someone on payroll without valid authorization can face civil fines and reputational risk that outlasts the incident. In plain English: one “helpful” decision to let a student keep working remotely could derail a PhD, damage a career, and invite government attention your company doesn’t want. That’s why, in Global Mobility, the right first question isn’t “what benefits apply?” It’s “can we legally pay this person at all?” All because a benefits question seemed straightforward. The Expertise Gap in Global Mobility This scenario illustrates why Global Mobility requires specialized expertise that goes far beyond traditional HR or benefits administration. Traditional HR professionals excel at domestic employment law, benefits design, compensation strategy, and employee relations. They understand ERISA, FMLA, ADA, and the full alphabet soup of U.S. employment regulations. But international student work authorization? That’s not in their wheelhouse, and there’s no reason it should be. Immigration attorneys understand visa categories, work authorization, and compliance requirements. But they may not think holistically about the employment relationship, tax implications, benefits coordination, or business operational needs. Global Mobility specialists sit at the intersection. They recognize when an HR question triggers immigration concerns, when a visa issue creates tax complications, when a relocation plan requires coordination across multiple jurisdictions, and when seemingly simple arrangements hide complex compliance requirements. The value isn’t just knowing the rules, t’s recognizing which rules apply to a given situation. The Diagnostic Process: What Expert Review Reveals When a Global Mobility expert reviews the client’s seemingly simple question, a different set of issues immediately emerges: Immigration Status Analysis Work Authorization Mechanics Structural Considerations Benefits and Tax Complexity Only after addressing these foundational questions does the original benefits inquiry become relevant. And the answer might be: “We need to solve the work authorization problem first, because we may not be able to employ this person at all in the way you’re envisioning.” The Cost of Getting It Wrong The consequences of proceeding without proper guidance extend far beyond the immediate situation. For the Employee: For the Employer: For the Industry: The financial cost of expert consultation, typically a few hundred to a few thousand dollars depending on complexity, pales in comparison to these potential consequences. Red Flags That Should Trigger Expert Review Global Mobility issues don’t always announce themselves clearly. Certain situations should automatically prompt consultation with specialists: International Student Employment Cross-Border Work Arrangements Immigration Status Changes Compensation and Benefits Across Borders Vendor and Contractor Relationships The common thread: whenever employment and
Tax Gross up on Newly Taxable Relocation Expenses?
Most surveys show that the vast majority of US companies currently do tax assist on taxable relocation expenses (70-80% depending on the survey). And, of those that tax protect these expenses, the majority (65-75%) base this gross-up on the Federal and State supplemental rates. The IRS yesterday came out with the new tax rates and guidance for the supplemental rate of 22%. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/updated-2018-withholding-tables-now-available-taxpayers-could-see-paycheck-changes-by-february. The good news for the mobility industry is that the supplemental rate has fallen and is lower than some predicted, the bad news, of course, is that previously deductible moving expenses are now taxable. One of many big questions is, how will the changes in the new tax law eliminating moving expense deductions mean that companies will change their policies? In particular will policies attempt to keep costs in line with prior years by reducing benefits, or perhaps shifting the tax burden of benefits to employees? Or will companies tax protect (gross-up) those previously tax-free items with no change in benefit? Over time there will be some shift in policies. For many years the mobility industry has been fighting the trend toward lump-sum policies and now the easiest argument against them, the tax advantages in the direct benefit program is gone. It’s basic economics, the Law of Demand, organizations are unlikely to purchase the same quantities of moving services now that it will be dramatically more costly to provide them. I’d love to hear comments, companies are clearly looking for guidance!
Five Tips for Effective Mobility Supplier Selection
At this month’s Bay Area Mobility Management (BAMM) conference, I spoke with several of my friends in the industry who’ve shared with me (usually with a very pained expressions on their faces) that they “have to rebid” parts of their mobility program. I’m not sure that anything elicits the kind of dread from the people I know in HR and Mobility that having to do an RFP or to select/reselect suppliers seems to. I understand their pain. For starters, putting together and managing an effective RFP is a lot of work. But really, none of the people I spoke to are afraid of work or are lazy. I don’t think it’s the work that bothers them, so much as having to manage through all the process steps within their own companies, the meetings etc., and then having to wade through the endless (frankly no other word for it, BS) from the dozens of suppliers who will beg to, or are asked to participate regardless of capability or fit. Let’s face it, selecting a service provider can be a painful process, sorting through all the material, the presentations and sales pitches, some of it irrelevant or immaterial, some stretching, dissembling and prevarication that might make politicians blush, and figuring out how to objectively determine what the best choice is for their organization and program. It’s also painful because much rides on the decision. The mobility people I was speaking with last week are anxious about this at least in part because they, and their companies will have to live and work with their decision for years. Think match.com not Tinder. In my career in mobility I’ve had the experience of being on both sides of the procurement or supplier process. I’ve sold and managed the RFP process on the sales side, and also as leader of the global supply chain for a major mobility company, I managed supplier selection, including producing and evaluating RFPs across numerous product lines. Because of this experience and my passion for this area of our business I’ve also been asked to consult and help companies both supplier and client better manage this process. So what are some ways that we make this process better, assure improved choice and make the process easier? I’ve put together some tips that I think apply to anyone looking to select a mobility supplier, or really any service for that matter. Please be mindful, these are tips, not a comprehensive instruction manual. Of these five, the first is probably the most critical. 1. Know your End Goal: Before beginning any supplier selection process, it’s very important to do your homework and think through all of the requirement and the goals and objectives you have for this service. Some of the important lenses to review these requirements are spelled out in the categories below: GOVERNANCE: These are the “rules” your organization has that any supplier must conform to. It includes the basic technical, contractual, and legal requirements for service providers. These usually involve managing supply chain risk for your company and includes key elements such as data privacy, conformance to legal standards, insurance standards, and more. It’s important to know these and build them into your selection process up front. VALUE: You should know what budget you have, and what cost criteria you are looking for your defined scope of work. No one should ever start an RFP process without understanding these basic criteria. Yes, you can learn a lot during the process, and sometimes be exposed to alternate cost models, better value propositions, but if you do not have a basic understanding of what value you are looking for, you aren’t ready to begin selecting a supplier/partner. Before starting the selection process, do your research in this area, even utilize suppliers to tell you what they are seeing! PERFORMANCE: What are the standards of performance for the scope of work you need and would like to see from any supplier or service in this space? These can be revised (hopefully upward) in the process, but how do you define performance and what are the baseline standards of success. What are suppliers in this space telling you they use as performance criteria and is there anything new or valuable there? FIT: These are the factors you consider important when determining the right fit for you and your company. For most mobility services there are literally dozens of good suppliers, but some would be better than others. For example, are you a data driven organization, looking for analytics for most decisions? Or, perhaps you are an organization less interested in policy, so you need suppliers capable of discernment and fluid decision-making. Define this clearly upfront and make sure you have built in ways to identify this in your selection process. These are sometimes the most important and yet overlooked parts of the selection process. 2. Partner with procurement: Most companies require periodic bids on services, or a defined procurement approach for service spend of a certain size or service area. Mobility professionals who leverage the relationships with their procurement colleagues by partnering find the collaboration useful. Informal feedback I’ve received from several mobility leaders has been that the most important factor in this partnership is upfront education of the assigned procurement person. This is easiest in organizations that assign procurement “leads” to the HR or Mobility organization, rather than an-hoc assignment of staff, but in either case, the upfront investment is worth it. Use the landscape discussed above as a format for the discussion and planning. 3. Learn through an RFI process: Before producing an RFP (Request for Proposal), utilize an RFI (Request for Information) to learn and shape your next steps. An effective RFI can help you discover what may have changed in the field, it can help you better define your scope of work, your expectations of suppliers, and can help you eliminate or add to the list of suppliers to participate in actual bids. A good RFI is very
Three Tips to Avoid Mobility Program Start-up Messes
One of the most common types of consulting I am involved in is in global mobility program start-up. Sometimes it’s companies moving their first international transfer. More often though, the company realizes they’ve done a couple of assignments or transfers on an ad-hoc basis and as a result they have kind of a mess to figure out. Some of the messes I’ve seen include excessive cost and overpayments, inequities between similar employees, costly mistakes and assumptions, unnecessary employee hardships, employee resignations and failed assignments. In one weird case, I was asked to recommend solutions to a situation where all local hires had been given full expat benefits to keep things fair with the sole expat employee, but that’s a whole other story! The leadership in companies involved in these messes are usually smart and want to do what’s right, so how does the mess happen? I believe the key is found in the two phrases above, “ad-hoc” and “assumptions”. Under the pressure of getting a single assignment underway quickly, HR leaders are forced to make compromises, to guess and to assume. Also, because these are typically company firsts, there is also little in the way of policy, guidelines or precedent to follow. This forces decision-making without careful or analytical eyes toward the future. What are the ways companies can avoid these mistakes and assure their mobility program gets started on the right footing? Here are my top 3 things to remember when making these initial steps: The first is not the last. Recognize that the work you are doing in getting this first employee to wherever they are going is going to set precedence for the future, whether you like it or not. This mentality allows you to think through and plan how you want to manage not just the situation but the overall program. For HR leaders it also allows you to be the strategic voice in the room with the business. It also allows the company to invest in the time and expertise to make good decisions. This isn’t about getting Fritz to New Jersey or Susan to Paris, it’s about all future employees. Be careful with the decisions you make for the individual case in front of you because it’s inevitable that patterns will be replicated from these decisions. There is no “one size” fits all. I wish I had the proverbial nickel for every time someone has asked me for a template mobility policy they could borrow. And by that, I know they didn’t mean just a policy format, they really wanted a mobility policy they could just replicate and start using. Your company wouldn’t just borrow it’s compensation or benefits policies, or it’s talent or business plans (at least I hope not), nor should it just copy a mobility policy. The decisions that drive these policies depend on numerous factors, including your industry, business goals, talent strategy, corporate culture and other factors. Approaches to mobility are incredibly diverse. I have clients successfully move 100% of their staff using almost a pure localization approach, and others that offer rich, traditional expat policies. Neither is wrong and neither would work for the other. It’s important to do the work early in devising an approach that is effective for your company. Not knowing is OK. I had a friend call me recently to ask me what I knew about assignment letters in Vietnam. This is someone with 25+ years in Mobility and a true expert in expat tax, compensation and mobility policies, someone I would and have called for advice. But in this case, he recognized this was something he didn’t know and was seeking council. HR leaders need to be unembarrassed that they must seek expertise, whether we’re talking about a US domestic transfer, or a global assignment. Recognize that mobility crosses multiple specialties, tax, employment law, immigration, compensation, benefits, relocation and components of each of these that no one should be ashamed to seek expertise and council. Fortunately, the Mobility industry is filled with resources to provide this expertise for virtually any situation imaginable. While sometimes companies are reluctant to pay for this expertise, recognizing that by doing so you are avoiding huge potential issues, not just for this single employee, but potentially all future employees. This expertise is risk mitigation, the benefits of which last far into the future. The reality is that in today’s business environment there is always extreme pressure to move things forward quickly, cheaply, and easily. Certainly, being the person to slow things down and encourage a more strategic, longer term view can range from uncomfortable to impossible. But we should at least recognize that, as in many things, when dealing with mobility decisions not addressing fundamentals early means we’re just pushing more pain into the future. We’re putting that pain on a virtual credit account payable with interest, due at some future date. Thanks for reading. I’d love to hear your comments on the topic and how HR leaders have helped their organizations adapt these three tips.
Managing Remotely
Navigating Supply Chain Success with Clear Objectives
In my consulting practice, I consistently engage in projects centered around optimizing the Mobility Supply Chain. From governance and implementation to contracting and supplier management, my expertise lies in driving efficiency and effectiveness throughout the supply chain. A significant aspect of my work involves leading projects that navigate the intricate landscape of supplier selection within various mobility specialties, including immigration, technology, and comprehensive mobility management. I have an extensive list of best practices that are useful for these kinds of projects to ensure fairness and transparency, get the best understanding of what suppliers will deliver, get the best cost or pricing, and other essential criteria. The number one recommendation, however, is to be clear on the objectives of the project. In most projects, establishing clear objectives is the first task. Why are we doing this? What are we trying to do? It’s basic. In my experience, these objectives tend to get lost in supply chain projects. This is particularly true when the project involves a long or complex RFP. The complexity of RFPs, selection criteria, and moving parts seem to lead to muddiness around objectives. RFPs within the mobility space leads groups into all the selection elements quality, services, scope of work, pricing, metrics, compliance, technology, culture, and other areas of evaluation. All this is good stuff, but often it separates groups in this process from their primary business goals. In some ways, the sales and marketing people have done their job well in these circumstances. They’ve shown us so much shiny pretty stuff that we’ve forgotten what we are there to buy in the first place! Objectives Setting: Clear, Concise, Measurable Like the much-quoted late Yankee catcher opined” “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll end up someplace else.” Having a well-defined roadmap is indispensable for any expedition, and in a supply chain project, clear, concise, and measurable objectives are that map. I recommend building three to five objectives derived in collaboration with all stakeholders. A quick acronym to use is Doran’s SMART framework, Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Understand, I am not just thinking about objectives for the success of a project or process, though those are important. But rather, these are about the ultimate business objectives that indicate the goals for engaging in the project. These might be obvious such as “Save 20% on service fees on immigration within the first twelve months of implementation” or “Reduce service failures to five per-quarters and improve employee satisfaction by 10 points.” Objectives can also be more strategic, complex, and subtle such as “reducing the demand of internal staff engagement in transactional work,” “providing better-administered benefits,” “creating an avenue for strategic talent guidance,” and “assuring supplier governance” are all common and worthy objectives. But remember to take the time to define these as closely as possible in the SMART framework. The investment pays off in the end. The Process: Driven by the Objectives Having these objectives clarified makes all the following steps much clearer. They will drive the process you follow, the questions you ask, the evaluations you perform, and the people you involve. It also clearly dictates what suppliers to invite to participate. In any vendor selection process, there are two kinds of criteria to look at. The first are the baseline requirements. Any supplier must have these capabilities or commit to these requirements. Without possessing the baseline requirements, the supplier cannot be considered. The second are the variables or extras. These are the wows, the nice to haves, the “specials,” or differentiators of one vendor to another. Going back to our objectives, if these are well defined, we can easily separate all of the shiny objects that help us reach our goals from those that may be super cool or exciting but do not really help achieve goals. Understand, I am not saying we don’t learn in this process. I have found the process of running RFPs to be one of the best and most exciting ways to learn about our industry, the trends, what’s happening, and all about the absolutely wonderful, creative, and inspiring people that populate it. At some point, we do have to make decisions, occasionally very hard ones, and having the objectives in front of us makes that process much easier. Clear Sites and Clear Queries The temptation in any RFP is to ask every question that can be asked. You want to know everything, right? I’ve been involved in RFPs, some recently where indeed that has happened. But that strategy comes at a cost. At the end of the day, your team, whether that is a team of stakeholders or an outsourced consultant like me, must read and evaluate all these responses. Then, these need to be compared to one another. This is time-consuming, true, but more importantly, this risks the integrity of the process and may lead to results you do not want. Instead, our objective lead approach takes us to a place where we separate the content and style of our queries in an RFI, RFP, or in interviews, into the two buckets we described above. Baseline requirement questions are best asked as Yes/No, True/False, and “prove-it” queries. For these questions, we are not really interested in the quality of the response. We want to know if the vendor candidate meets the criteria and if they can prove it. That’s it! These are really qualifying questions, and in most circumstances, the vendor qualifies and is in or is out. That frees our time and efforts for the qualitative analysis needed to determine how this supplier candidate will help us reach our goals. Sometimes these questions become an iterative process. As suppliers learn more about what we need and the circumstances for providing it, they can provide further information and even creativity to help us get there. A Crew United: Stakeholder Buy-In In my career, I’ve been involved in hundreds of RFPs and other vendor selection efforts. I’ve been involved in hundreds more on the other side of
The Power of Grit – Setbacks to Success
It is humbling and gratifying that sometimes I have an opportunity to coach and mentor others at an earlier stage in their career. It’s a humbling experience because I sometimes help people who are, candidly speaking, far brighter and more capable than I am. It is gratifying because it is wonderful to know that sometimes the hard-earned lessons, occasional battle scars, and the small glimmer of wisdom I have acquired may help someone else. One lesson about an often-underrated quality called ‘Grit’—or resilience, tenacity, perseverance—is incomparably difficult to share.” Whatever you call it, Grit is something you can speak to others about and, hopefully, challenge someone to achieve. But, like the proverbial “horse to water,” you cannot instill this in others; they must choose it for themselves. What is Grit? If you’ve not seen the Ted talk from Angela Duckworth, I recommend it: https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_grit_the_power_of_passion_and_perseverance?language=en In short, Grit is a characteristic often used to describe those who exemplify resilience and a relentless dedication to their goals. But what does it mean to have Grit, and why is it so important? According to Duckworth, Grit is the marriage of passion and perseverance. It’s about having an enduring interest in your pursuits and persistently working towards them, even when faced with setbacks and failures. This blend of resilience, ambition, focus, and self-control helps individuals keep their eyes on the prize and stay the course. The value of Grit lies in its power to help us push through challenges and overcome obstacles. Whether acing a critical meeting, thriving in your career, or reaching a long-term goal, Grit is often the driving force behind your success. Grit keeps you focused amongst distractions, persistent when encountering obstacles, and committed over the long haul. Do you have Grit, and why does it matter? Professor Duckworth and her team have developed the “Grit scale.” This tool measures the two components of Grit: consistency of interest and perseverance of effort. Take the quiz here to evaluate your Grit: https://angeladuckworth.com/grit-scale/. It’s interesting, though I find myself irritated taking it. I think of myself as tough, resilient, and stubbornly persistent, but I also sometimes suffer from the attention span of a Golden Retriever in a yard full of squirrels. That is not Grit! In business, entrepreneurship, and leadership, we admire Grit and talk about it. Often our examples, though, come from sports. Stories like Michael Jordan overcoming getting cut from his High School team or Tom Brady being drafted 199th in the NFL draft in 2,000 are Grit legends. Indeed, no one doubts that either athlete personifies Grit. But people from all walks of life, and all levels of society, can show Grit, and the evidence is that this can determine their ultimate success. Anyone who demonstrates a willingness to keep going, despite obstacles and failures can be a testament to the importance of Grit. Grit Heroes We all love the great human dramas, the true stories of people who overcome tremendous challenges to succeed. One of my favorites is the true story of Ernest Shackleton’s Antarctic Expedition in 1914. Aiming to cross the Antarctic via the South Pole, before they even reached the continent, their ship, the Endurance, became trapped in pack ice in the Weddell Sea and was slowly crushed. Under Shackleton’s leadership, he managed to keep the 28 men of the expedition alive on the ice for months and then led them on a dangerous and long journey to an uninhabited island where they could survive. He and five of his crew embarked on a 16-day, 800-mile journey across the ice-filled Southern Ocean in a tiny boat. Ultimately he reached a remote whaling station, where he had to cross mountainous terrain to reach help finally. Twenty months after the Endurance was first trapped in the ice, all 28 of his crew were rescued and survived. Unbelievable Grit! It’s not just sports or adventure that give us examples of Grit. Misty Copeland, the acclaimed ballet dancer, overcame a late start at Ballet in a family so poor there were periods of homelessness for her and her mom. Never entirely fitting the typical ballet dancer’s mold, she was seen as too muscular. She rose through the ranks, through tenacity, perseverance, and a work ethic that stood out to ultimately make history by becoming the first African American woman to be named principal dancer in the American Ballet Theatre’s 75-year history. We all have our Grit heroes, and while we may aspire on some level to be Shackleton, Jordan or Copeland, I am realistic enough to recognize that neither the NBA nor the Ballet is in my future. But that’s not the point, is it? Remember, one definition of Grit is the marriage of passion and perseverance, and just as we all have different passions, we all follow different paths. My Dad is easily the Gritiest person I know. He started loading trucks as a casual laborer just after I was born. He overcame injuries, terrible bosses, and economic turmoil and ultimately retired as a successful terminal manager for a large trucking company. By the way, his passion was never trucking, it was building a good life for his family, and he persevered through everything to make that happen. That is Grit. How do you build Grit? Angela Duckworth’s book “Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance,” is a great place to start to understand Grit and how to develop it. Carol Dweck’s research on “growth mindset” – the belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed through hard work, good strategies, and input from others – ties in closely with Grit and is very much worth reading. Martin Seligman has much to say about optimism, resilience, and learned helplessness, and his book “Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance” explores these themes in detail. There are more of course, Paul Tough and Cal Newport, as well as many other areas of thought and culture, from the “growth mindset” of education to the entrepreneurial spirit of startups. Assuming you want