Author: Nancy Wong

We know thethought of purchasing HR-related software makes your heart pound withexcitement, and anxiety. So to make it easier on you, we’ve spelled out (inplain English) a few general areas to think about before you start yourventure. This list is by no means complete, as the buying process depends onyou. But it’s a starting point. And if you’re not looking to buy, please keepthese in mind to evaluate your satisfaction with your current system.

Purpose

• First of all, do you really need a newsystem?

• What are your goals for this software?(i.e., What business objectives would it fulfill?)

• What functions are you interested inusing (such as payroll, time and attendance, or self-service)? Are you open tolearning about other functions that you may find useful in the future?

• Is the software intended for yourself,your department, several departments, or the entire organization?

• While this system may solve one oftoday’s problems, will it in turn create other problems? What are thoseproblems, and how can you eliminate them?

• Have any of the potential softwareusers made objections to the introduction of this system? And have youconsidered those objections?

Budget

• Have you outlined the expenses thissystem will require?

• Have you considered the cost ofmanpower and materials for integration, training and maintenance of the system?

• What are you allotting for thosedreaded upgrade costs?

• Are costs for all of the abovedifferent with each vendor? If so, can they explain why?

• Is your existing hardware and otherequipment compatible with your desired program? If not, what else do you need?

Service

• Do you already have several vendors inmind? Do you intend to consider products from smaller software companies?

• Ask colleagues about their experienceswith the vendors and products you’re considering.

• Is this system compatible with softwarethat you may add on in the future?

• There’s no better way to know you likea program than to try it yourself. And if the project is so big and customizedthat no demo is available, try to see it in action somehow. Sales associatesshould be happy to oblige.

• Have you tried calling vendors’customer-support hotlines to check the staff’s knowledge and overallhelpfulness?

Going global isn’t just a matter of deciding, “OK — we’re going to branch out.” Naturally, there are degrees of global business that you’ll fit into as you grow.

So where are you along the “globalization continuum”? Here are some definitions provided by the consultants at Arthur Andersen.

International
This is an organization that is predominately domestic and has some international business activity. The company’s business strategy is generally centralized at the headquarters, while its international businesses are often managed independently of the domestic organization, using separate resources and technology.

Multinational
This is an organization that has business activities in multiple countries. Each country’s operations are managed as separate entities by local employees, with a corporate headquarters coordinating the strategy, resources and technology among these entities.

Global
This is an organization that has operations around the world, and has strategies, resources, and technology that are shared and leveraged around the world, regardless of geographic boundaries.

SOURCE: “The Globalization of Human Resources,” a study by The Human Capital Services of Arthur Andersen, 1999.

Walk down the hallway of any U.S. high school today, and it won’t take long before you realize something has changed. And we’re not just talking about students wearing baggy pants.

“Many kids feel they need to give off the impression that they’re tough. They’re scared of [seeming] vulnerable,” says Michelle Robles, a senior at Bullard Havens vocational-technical school in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

In the past few years we’ve seen this “you-can’t-hurt-me” attitude evoke a number of shocking events on school grounds. Yet before most Americans knew a place called Littleton, Colorado, even existed, the Bureau of Human Resources at Connecticut’s Department of Education took a hard stand against violence in the state’s regional vocational-technical school (RVTS) system.

“Teachers were becoming afraid of some students,” says Vivian Kotler-Haas, the Bureau’s EAP consultant. “I was getting an increasing number of calls from teachers, especially from inner-city schools, who felt they weren’t able to do their jobs. They felt threatened by students, and they didn’t know how to rectify their fears to meet the needs of these kids.”

Late homework was the least of their worries. Complaints often included disrespect, intimidation, classroom disruptions and threats–issues that many teachers wouldn’t have expected, much less were trained to handle only several years ago.

Statistics supported teachers’ fears. During the 1995 to 1996 school year, students in the state’s vo-tech system lost 16,000 school days due to suspensions. During the same year, Connecticut vocational-tech students took part in a national survey which reported that more than half had threatened to harm another student or teacher.

Says Aaron Silvia, president of the teachers’ union for the state’s vocational-tech school system: “There was a permissiveness outside of the schools that we hadn’t seen in the classroom until a few years ago. Then there was a carryover of that permissive manner into the school as to what students thought was acceptable and what the schools thought was acceptable. The staff was having difficulty dealing with this new mindset that kids were bringing in.”

As director of staff development at the Department of Education’s Bureau of Human Resources, Marilyn Quinn knew this problem needed an answer, but it would require effort from all sides of the school system.

“Teachers were feeling like they didn’t have the skills they needed to deal with the level of problems they were having in their classrooms, and it was taking time away from their teaching,” says Quinn. “We agreed that this problem was important and that we could most effectively bring about changes by working with the school administration and the teachers’ union.” Therefore, the Bureau of human resources initiated a partnership with the state vocational-technical school superintendent’s office and with the teachers’ union, the State Vocational Federation of Teachers.

Together, the trio sought a conflict-resolution and mediation program that would create a safer learning environment for all RVTSS staff and students, thus improving productivity.

While conflict resolution isn’t new, the Bureau of HR’s delivery of their program is worthy of the Optimas Award for Partnership particularly because they worked with limited resources, and they reacted quickly in response to their teachers’ needs–which in turn enhanced the otherwise adversarial relationship between labor and management.

Overcoming the HR challenges of a public organization.
The HR team decided to target the vocational-tech schools because administration for that school system falls under the direction of the Connecticut Board of Education. Otherwise, they’d have to operate through several layers of other state agencies. “It’s a nice arrangement because we statutory control over the administration of the contract negotiations,” says Dick Wilber, chief of the bureau. “Otherwise we would have to work through other levels of bureaucracy, and we wouldn’t have the influence over the process that we do under the law.”

However, being a smaller subset of the state’s school system in no way means the group is small. Among the 17 high schools and three satellites in the Connecticut vocational-technical school community there are 10,000 full-time high school students, 7,000 mostly part-time adult students and 1,400 teachers, administrators and support staff.

“Because of the scope of the problem,” says Quinn, “it could only be addressed if everyone helped out–not just the assistant principal who traditionally dealt with discipline problems, but students, teachers, bus drivers, janitors, administrators, parents and community organizations.” Not only is the staff diverse in terms of position, but all 20 sites are spread out in urban, suburban and rural areas, each with unique problems that vary depending on the region.

Based on the number and variety of people the program needed to reach, it isn’t surprising that the conflict-resolution program needed financial support. Wilber explains the program wouldn’t have been possible without a $130,000 grant that was awarded to them in 1996. “I went to a Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services conference, where I learned of the availability of grant money for collaborations between labor and management. I came back from that conference and approached the teachers’ union, who also had heard about it. Using the direction of labor relations, which falls under the Bureau of HR’s area of responsibility, I was able to use this as a vehicle to approach the superintendent in the vo-tech schools, and that’s really when it began.”

For Quinn, the grant meant teachers as well as regular staff would receive the conflict-resolution skills that were now so imperative to their jobs. With dual motives in mind–school-environment safety and labor-management relations–this was HR’s chance to really prove to these teachers that its intentions were good, and that it was making a strong effort to support its employees.

However, their audience wasn’t as receptive to the idea as they had hoped.

Like many HR departments at private organizations, the Bureau of HR wasn’t taken seriously at first. While the conflict-resolution program sure sounded like a good idea, it was tough to earn teachers’ faith. “This is a statewide system with 20 different locations with varying degrees of problems, interests, populations and demographics,” Wilber explains. “Selling this program and getting buy-in from the faculty in the schools required a lot of effort for them to believe that we were serious–that this wasn’t going to be, ‘Here comes Hartford again with another half-baked idea and it’s going to go away.’”

Union president Aaron Silvia adds, “One of the difficulties on my end was the potential perception of having sold out–that you’re in bed with management. Even if the reasons were explained as to why it’s in our best interest to collaborate in this endeavor, there’s suspicion that there’ll be a carryover into other areas where there shouldn’t be collaboration–when we have to stand our ground and fight, us against them.”

Not only were teachers wary of HR’s intentions, but top management, whose support was crucial to the program, wasn’t exactly thrilled about the bureau’s proposal, either. “Until we were able to identify some data that this program was needed, some people were unsure of the value and merit of this program,” says Drew Soltys, educational consultant for the superintendent’s office.

Add to this the irritatingly constant changeover in union leadership and top management–for example, the role of RVTS superintendent had changed hands three times since 1995. It was like a perpetual cycle in which Quinn and Wilber had to persuade new leaders that the program would work. Meanwhile, the two have been in the Bureau of HR for more than 10 years. They remained–and still are–the stable force behind the project, ensuring that every newcomer to the table understands the benefits of collaboration.

It took some compromise to turn the tide. All sides had to consider what was most important: safety. “There were differences in opinion over certain issues,” explains Soltys, who with the assistant superintendent played a major role in convincing skeptics that the initiative was a win-win. “However, it is part of the mission of the school system to have a safe learning environment. No one could argue that this was an issue that both groups, union and management, had vested interest.”

What pushed HR over the buy-in hurdle was the serious nature of the topic and shared interest in improving the situation. By teaching conflict-resolution skills, HR was trying to change the unhealthy culture that was growing not only in the state’s vo-tech schools but also in schools nationwide. After that realization, it didn’t matter whether the Bureau had good intentions or not. Something had to be done, and HR was willing to stick its neck out by developing the conflict-resolution program. Soltys explains: “Student safety is a common interest that will always supercede differences of opinion between labor and management.” The school system, from union to management, strongly agreed.

Let the change begin!
To begin the culture change, the labor-management project team clarified the purpose of the conflict-resolution program: to raise awareness of ways to prevent conflicts that could damage the school environment, as well as ways to intervene when problems occur.

The Connecticut partners followed the lead of a conflict-resolution program that had been in place at the public school system in Brooklyn, New York, which was reaping great results. However, before they could teach students, they had to teach themselves. The bulk of the grant money went toward training the RVTS faculty and staff in basic conflict-resolution skills during the first two years of the project.

Bonnie Edmondson was one of six trainers who took the workshops to all the schools and conducted training workshops to the 1,400 RVTS staff members in 1996. “We went around to the schools and trained the staff, saying, ‘This is what your students will be learning, and we want you to learn, too, so that you can form a common language with them,’” she explains. “This was a true effort to change the culture of the school.”

Each school’s curriculum was customized to that school’s needs, depending on its most challenging problems. Topics that were raised most often included communication skills, negotiation, and anger management. The sessions were conducted over a period of six months. The project team then asked Edmondson to spearhead the integration of the program full time for one year, putting her teaching on hiatus. During this time, she developed resource libraries throughout the school system, and was available to provide additional training.

“The training raised awareness about how vital these skills are, and that it’s never too late to start adjusting your own behavior and modeling behavior for students,” says Edmondson. “Change doesn’t happen overnight. There’s a series of changes that must happen over time, but this is an awesome beginning.”

After the staff was trained, then came the students. Peer mediation was the primary intervention strategy. Whereas the staff training passed down conflict-resolution skills to students, peer mediation had a more direct impact. Each year, several students at each school are trained to be peer mediators, who in turn help teach other students through peer mediation and by example. Mediation offers case-by-case assistance in a non-intimidating, level playing ground for students who act out when confronted with a problem.

“A lot of the conflicts arise from gossip and he-said/she-said situations,” says Susan Cribari, school psychologist and peer mediation advisor at Bullard Havens in Bridgeport. “Most times these kids haven’t been hurt before, so they can’t articulate what they’re feeling. These meetings define the emotions that are underneath the anger, and show students that they’re being heard and understood–most importantly by the person with whom they have conflict.” Bullard Havens conducted 41 mediations during the 1998–1999 school year.

Michelle Robles, one of the peer mediators at Bullard Havens, adds: “Our job is to make them realize, ‘I could have handled that situation differently.’” Robles herself used peer mediation to resolve problems before she was trained to be a mediator two years ago. Though mediators volunteer to complete a number of training workshops, all RVTS students go through a 15-hour conflict-resolution component of a Life Skills class, which is a required health class that all 10,000 students take during each of their four years in the school system.

As a peer mediator, Robles offers an objective ear for other students, but she also informally applies the skills she learned to her personal life. “Last year a student picked a fight with me, and my first reaction was to get defensive,” Robles recounts. “I got angry. But I realized I needed to talk with this other student. Now, instead of having a third person to mediate conflict, I can handle it on my own. It just takes some patience.”

The conflict-resolution program has opened yet another door for Robles; though she has been studying machine drafting at the technical school, she’d like to pursue a degree in counseling.

School is the first work environment.
Together, the staff training, peer mediation and student life skills classes have been the basis of a very successful program. For example, peer mediation at E.C. Goodwin vocational-technical school in New Britain, Connecticut, settled 53 conflicts the year after the program began, potentially averting 36 suspensions, or 100 suspension days.

However, remember the original goal: raise awareness and teach skills. “Through the training, and then the follow up, the mission was accomplished,” says Silvia of the teachers’ union. “Since that’s finished, now there are other developments to be done. This was only round one. Now we’re ready for rounds two and three.”

Next, HR is bringing peer mediation for employees into the ring. “Because of the many inquiries we’ve received, we’ve had to turn some peer mediator applicants away. That tells me teachers see these skills as a benefit,” says Quinn.

And, of course, learning is never finished, so the program is ongoing. Every year brings in a new group of students that need to learn the same skills. Fortunately, the conflict-resolution program’s long-term effects extend beyond the school system into workplaces all over Connecticut. “With this program, we’re offering students non-violent ways to settle conflicts,” explains Joe LaVorgna, director of Bullard Havens in Bridgeport. “Kids shouldn’t fight not because it’s wrong but because it’s contrary to the workplace for which we’re preparing them–contrary to the very nature of a vo-tech school. It’s not about how we talk with each other but about how to work effectively.”

In teaching students this lesson, labor and management also have taught themselves a thing or two about working effectively. While there are still disagreements regarding some issues, the cooperation they found in the development of the conflict-resolution program has opened communication. Now union leaders and management meet monthly, and discussion isn’t limited to the conflict-resolution program.

“Once you start to get along and communicate as we have now, we meet about issues that go beyond school climate and school safety. We discuss many issues that we wouldn’t have before,” says Soltys of the superintendent’s office. “We now have a permanent way for communicating between union and management, and it’s because of this program; it was the catalyst.”

If their relationship needed a catalyst, then it’s the Bureau of HR that acted as the mad chemist. The potentially volatile mix of labor and management promptly responded to the need for cultural change thanks to HR’s efforts.

Quinn couldn’t have asked for a better reaction. “Everyone understood that no single group could do this alone,” she says. “We really had to all work together because this was a huge, ambitious undertaking. We really needed each other to make this work.”

Where was a time when employeerelocation was the only option available to employers who needed to move theirtalent from one geographic location to another. If employees were interested inkeeping their careers on track, they’d typically agree to the relocationassignment and accept the trade-offs of success.

    However, in today’s tight labormarket – when the job pickings are healthy – it’s difficult enough to recruitand retain top talent, let alone ask them to pack their bags and deal with thereadjustment. Maybe that’s why some HR managers are more open to the idea ofalternatives to relocation, such as telecommuting, remote offices and rotationalassignments.  

    And why not? Technology and flexiblework arrangements have provided new ways of working together over longdistances. And offering these types of alternatives may also allow you to keepyour first-choice candidates in the jobs you want them in, and may save you somemoney while you’re at it.

    The challenge is how to determinewhether an alternative is a more suitable solution. You may want to weigh theoptions before investing thousands of dollars to physically move an employee toa new location. HR has an opportunity to introduce alternative approaches torelocation, but it’s also important to know when relocation is moreappropriate. The key is to be flexible and knowledgeable about your decision. 

Hold on to those employees.
   Lately, there are more reasons whyemployers are shuffling people around the country and around the globe – mergersand acquisitions, office consolidations, onsite management requirements, newbusiness start-ups and others fall into the equation. Forty-eight percent ofcompanies cite promotions/resignations as the top internal condition thataffected the number of relocations in 1998, corporate reorganization (40%), acquisitions/mergers (31%) and expansion into new territories(29%) accounted for a hefty portion, too, according to the “1999 Surveyof Corporate Relocation Policies” conducted by Evansville, Indiana-based AtlasVan Lines. 

    And it’s with these types of situations that employers may be alittle more flexible as to whether the employee is physically present at the newlocation. Of course, not every relocation can be substituted by an alternativelike telecommuting. But depending on the industry and the organizational levelof the employee, relocation might not be a requirement, and there are other waysof going about it than “do or die.”

    “There are many, many more jobs todaythan ever before that are suited to telecommuting. It’s not as good as havingemployees make the move, but it’s better than losing them,” says Gil Gordon,president of Gil Gordon Associates, a consulting firm in Monmouth Junction, NewJersey, that specializes in telecommuting and virtual offices. 

    “In the 1970s,if somebody were asked to relocate and turned it down – and I’m talking aboutan internal corporate move – it was almost like resigning. Then in the ’80s,that slowly began to break down. Today, I think the expectation is still that ifyou’re asked to transfer, you will. But there’s more recognition [of otherfactors] because there are more dual-career couples and so on that the decisionisn’t quite as automatic as it had been. It isn’t tantamount to resigning ifyou choose not to relocate.”

    At this point, resistance to relocationisn’t a huge problem for most companies, nor does it pose a threat to therelocation industry. However, employees are declining offers to relocate moreoften – and for personal reasons. In fact, 44 percent of professionals predictthere will be more employee resistance to relocation in the next five years,according to a study conducted by Runzheimer International, a Rochester,Wisconsin-based management consulting firm specializing in transportation,travel, and living costs.

    With a growing spotlight on work/lifein the last decade, many won’t relocate because of personal, work/life balanceissues, including the impact on the employees’ children, disinterest in thenew location, spouse/partner employment concerns and quality-of-life concerns.So it’s not surprising that for the past four years, “employee/familyresistance to move” was cited as the top reason why employees are reluctant torelocate, according to the “1999 Transfer Volume & Cost Survey,”conducted by the Employee Relocation Council (ERC) in Washington D.C.

    “We look at the prospect of losingour talent because they can’t relocate,” says Donna Burke, managing directorof human resources at Randstad North America, a Dutch-owned internationalstaffing company with U.S. headquarters in Atlanta. “We opt to leverage thetalent somehow because intellectual capital is too scarce a commodity right now.You don’t want to lose them just because this job must reside in X location.So the way I look at it is that we’re kind of lucky we’re in this stage nowbecause technology is making it easier, and travel is so much easier.”

    At Randstad, employees are asked torelocate for various assignments, but the company will try to accommodate themif they prefer not to go. One relocation alternative the company offers – and atool for career development – is rotational assignments, in which employees areasked to go to a different location on a three- to six-month cycle. After theassignment, another employee will take over for three to six months and so on.

    “People have a different feelingabout that [kind of scenario] because employees can say, ‘I’m not expectedto put down roots here,’” explains Burke. “In some cases, if there’s afamily involved, it can be an interesting way of getting employees to work atthe other location, especially if it’s in a nice part of the country.” 

A little flexibility can go a long way.
   While shuffling an organization’sresources around makes sense on maps and charts, relocation alternatives arefriendlier to soft issues, such as spousal considerations. For example, at theclient resources division of CHA Relocation, the company didn’t want torelocate an employee who was moving for personal reasons, but they ended upaccommodating her move anyway. 

    “This employee was moving to SouthernCalifornia because of her husband’s job,” says Debbie Ellis, vice presidentof client resources at CHA. “Rather than lose this valuable employee,telecommuting actually worked because we let her work from her new location. Ifwe had said, ‘No, you have to work at our office in Northern California,’she would’ve left the company.”

    Ellis, who is a telecommuter herself,says she understands the flexibility that’s offered at her company is rare.When CHA found Ellis, she was in the process of moving to Tulsa, Oklahoma – alocation that was nowhere near a CHA office at the time. “[The company] said,‘As long as you’re willing to travel, we don’t care where you live.’”Therefore, Ellis was able to start with the company in Tulsa, even though itsheadquarters are in San Ramon, California, with offices in Atlanta and Houston.

    Actually, Ellis’ entire department isscattered across the country, and most of her reports telecommute. She explains,“When we want someone with a particular type of expertise, it’s a case whereas long as you have a fax, computer, e-mail and all that, it doesn’t reallymatter where you live. We can hire that person no matter where they live in theUnited States, as long as they can do the job.”

    Remember that the intent ofaccommodating an employee who doesn’t want to relocate is an effort to keepthat employee, particularly in a position that will make most sense for theorganization. Showing this kind of support and commitment gives the employee agood reason to stick around. “Telework is a work option that many people wantand not so many employers offer,” explains Gordon of Gil Gordon Associates.“If you make it available, even on a limited basis, it can reallydifferentiate your company from competitors in the labor market, so that initself is a plus. It’s one more reason for a potential employee to go to workthere, and one more reason for a current employee to stay there.”

    Yet Gordon advises that usingtelecommuting instead of relocation requires an initial orientation period, inwhich the employee stays at the new location for several weeks to get acquaintedwith the new people and culture he or she will be working with. “No matter howskilled somebody is, it’s always easier to be integrated into the organizationif he or she has some kind of initial contact like that,” he explains.

    Another creative twist on a relocationalternative was brought on by 25 information-technology workers at U.S. Bank inBoise, Idaho, who decided not to relocate when the bank merged with First BankSystems of Minneapolis and closed its Boise office. Employees were asked torelocate to either Minneapolis or Portland, Oregon; those who refused torelocate were laid off. “Most of us are long-term Boise residents,” saysLinda Weis, one of the employees who chose not to relocate, dubbed the Boise 25.“Many are Idaho natives and have roots here. We like the lifestyle here, somoving became a decision we didn’t make.”

    But U.S. Bank’s loss was Sears,Roebuck and Co.’s gain. Based in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, Sears sufferedfrom a shortage of IT workers. “We were faced with understanding that themarket in Chicago was pretty tough to recruit in. And while we were doubling ourefforts to do a better job with that, we decided we’d try to find someplaceelse where there were resources available,” explains Gael Hanauer, seniordirector of human resources, information technology at Sears. “We had to gosomeplace where there were enough technology professionals that we knew we couldget 150 to 200 people and not have to worry that we’d be beating the bushestrying to find people.”

    The sheer number of IT employees thatSears needed far outweighed its ability to relocate workers from outside theirlocal area. However, the company was able to hire the Boise 25 to work at aremote site – a building that the employees helped design themselves. “WhileSears IT operates in a somewhat distributed workplace, it’s not somethingentirely new to us. For example, a number of our staff telecommute – some quiteregularly. And if our associates can work effectively from their homes, theycertainly can work effectively from a remote center. These alternatives allcontribute to making Sears a more compelling place to work.” 

Why bother?
   Now, you might think that if you comeacross an employee who won’t relocate, you could just find another internalcandidate who’ll make the move. But you may want to reconsider. The mosttangible reason to introduce relocation alternatives is the cost differencebetween moving an employee and setting up a home office. “Not too many peoplesit down and say, ‘What’s the cost to relocate you versus what’s the costto let you stay where you are – or is it even possible to do the job where youare?’” says Ellis. “I don’t think it’s being analyzed as much as itcould be.”

    Think about all the time, effort andmoney it takes to find the candidate you really want at this other location:recruiting, interviewing with several people, using and paying a search firm, orperhaps researching and selecting from a pool of internal candidates. That’son top of the expense of the move, the home selling, the home finding, thepost-relocation consulting and a dip in productivity during the adjustmentperiod.

    According to the survey by ERC, theaverage cost to relocate a home-owning current employee was $53,696 in 1998.Relocating renters is costly, as well. To move a current employee renter costs$15,604 on average – the more astonishing fact is that the pricetag increasedabout 10 percent from the year before. 

    That’s not to say telecommuting orany other alternative is a bargain. The expense of supplying equipment for ahome office can add up, and so can the travel expenses. “If we go on theassumption that this person is going to the other location one week a month, forexample, it doesn’t take too long before a monthly plane ticket, four or fivenights in a hotel, a rental car and so on begins to get close to what therelocation costs are,” says Gordon. 

    “There are also technology costs andphone bills. These expenses aren’t major, though it’s certainly hard togeneralize which is cheaper in the long run. If companies look at telework as anoption instead of relocation, they shouldn’t assume that there’s a netsavings of the entire relocation costs. While you do save that, there are someoffsetting expenses to be considered.”

    Nevertheless, there’s something to besaid for the value of getting your first-choice candidate in the position youthink is best – whether that be through a full relocation or a flexiblecompromise you both can live with. “It costs so much to hire, to train, toorient and enculturate employees. Then you finally realize you have your highpotential, your winner. And then somebody else plucks them out because youwon’t [compromise on relocation]? I don’t think so!” explains Burke. “Sowhy to accommodate employees is a really selfish reason – because that talent isour asset; that’s our investment.”

    And convincing first-choice candidatesto relocate seems to be a top concern. A 1997 Runzheimer survey, “EmployeeRelocation Policies & Costs,” says a whopping 70 percent of companies hadtaken action to entice more “first-choice” employees to relocate, and 10percent of companies planned to do so in the near future, by way of increasingthe dollar value of relocation packages, conducting internal evaluations ofrelocation programs, and adding more soft-issue benefits.

    “To keep that key person, companiesare going to have to be more creative because many people may not move, nomatter how good the relocation benefits are,” says Ellis. “Companies arewilling to put in a lot of money to get people to move, but there are certainthings that outweigh anything you can offer them in salary or relocationbenefits.” 

How do you determine if it’s betterjust to relocate?
   So how do you determine whether arelocation situation calls for an alternative, or if you’re better off justmoving somebody else to the new location?

    The first, most obvious thing to ask iswhether it’s even possible to manage the job responsibilities at a distance.“A lot of it is common sense,” says Gordon. “If you’re talking about ajob that requires frequent access to some kind of physical resource in theoffice, or requires frequent, face-to-face collaboration, those are hard to doat a distance.” For example, someone who’s expected to supervise a staffthat requires lots of guidance should be physically present. However, the moreindependent and experienced the staff, the more possible it is to manage thegroup via telework.

    On the other hand, more and more taskscan be done at a distance. Examples of positions that are more “portable”are sales, consulting or writing roles that have less to do with interpersonalinteraction, and are more autonomous. Job responsibilities that involve frequenttravel, meetings that can be done via teleconferencing, or can be easily done ata home office are jobs that can easily be accommodated if an employee decides heor she would rather not relocate.

    Says Gordon: “Things likeengineering, that used to be done on blueprints and stored in cabinets, are nowavailable on computer and over a phone line (if you’ve got the right computerand the right phone line.) So this is a case where technological advances makethis situation much different than it was even five years ago.”

    But before you agree on a relocationalternative, first determine why the employee is opposed to the move. An issuethat comes up frequently when dealing with resistance to relocation is anemployee’s fear of change, or preconceived notions of what the destination islike. “A lot of times, employees may be reluctant to move because they’veheard something negative about the area,” says Ellis. 

    “If the company feelsthe employee must relocate, but he or she is putting up resistance, thenencourage the person to get as much information about the new area because theymay have the wrong information. Let them go on a professionally plannedhome-finding trip before they decide they don’t want to go. They don’t knowwhat the new area is really like if they’re negative before they’re actuallyout there.”

    After examination of the cause of theresistance, and if there are really strong personal reasons for not relocating,then you’ll have to weigh the value of the employee against the necessity ofthe move. So it inevitably comes back down to the issue of retaining yourfirst-choice talent in the place you want them in. Can you afford not to havethat key employee in that important position? As the unemployment rate holdssteadily at around 4.3 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,your top talent will continue to be among your most prized assets. Ifaccommodations are reasonable, you should give it some consideration. 

Bridging the distance between home andoffice.
   Relocation resistance can be a bigproblem if your most qualified employee won’t budge. And this is a growingconcern because employees now have more negotiating power over the terms ofrelocation; they realize they’re highly valued resources, and work/familyissues continue to gain more recognition in the workplace.

    “Employers who cling to that 1950skind of workforce model really limit themselves from being able to attract andretain some of the best workers today,” says Gordon. “It doesn’t mean thateveryone’s going to be at home working in their pajamas. It just means thatthese options will become part of the workplace menu, and not the very rare kindof exception. Employers who realize that tend to benefit from it in the longrun, even if it requires some short-term adjustments.”

    That they’ll agree to the move isstill the expectation, but there are exceptions – and surveys suggest moreresistance is on the way. If you really want to place a key employee at anotherlocation, be prepared to offer them alternatives should they request them. Withthe growing popularity of telework and flexible work arrangements, the distancebetween home and the office is becoming shorter all the time.

Workforce, September 1999,Vol 78, No 9, pp. 64-71  SubscribeNow!

We all know the really important thing people do at work to prepare for a relocation: find sturdy boxes. The copier room is a gold mine of cardboard. But how else can companies assist employees relocate besides helping them pack up their belongings?

Relocation, by nature, is a confusing, emotional and expensive procedure for the migrating employee. Although recent market trends show relocating homeowners may have an easier time selling their, that’s only one element of the move. Since there’s much attention being placed on relocation, perhaps now is a good time to reinforce the internal communications that bolster it.

Having supporting roles in relocation, recruiters need to convince people to make a move in the first place, and operations managers need to get the people up to productivity in their new jobs. HR is in a position at which it can facilitate both groups of professionals. By helping educate recruiters and operations managers about what the recruits or transferees really need with respect to relocation, HR has the opportunity to improve the process both in its early and later stages. These two particular areas are crucial to employees’ comfort with a move.

Each employee’s expectations are unique.
Market conditions may make it easier for employees to sell their houses, but it still doesn’t mean they won’t refuse to relocate, because there are more important matters at hand than housing. According to the January 1999 issue of Mobility magazine, Washington, D.C.-based Employee Relocation Council’s (ERC’s) monthly publication, family or spousal issues account for 72 percent of relocation and recruiting refusals. As the people who entice new hires and transferees to relocate, recruiters are the first people that employees come to trust in the move toward the new environment. HR should communicate with recruiters about ways they can better meet employees’ needs.

One way recruiters help employees overcome doubts about moving is to show them the company will go the extra mile to help them. “Providing a real estate broker who’s experienced in relocation will show how interested you are in them and how valued they are by the company,” says Sandy Christensen, vice president of relocation for Northern Trust Company, a financial service corporation in Chicago. But recruiters have to be flexible with the application of relo services—recognizing some employees need more help (or different kinds of help) than others.

Of course, flexibility doesn’t imply a free-for-all. There should be a consistent flow and policy of the basic relocation procedure. The point is to make sure the policy is flexible enough to include special needs. “We have a basic policy to address the issues that come up,” says Bill Agopian, HR consultant for Torrance, California-based Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. “But one thing you come to realize when you work with many relocations is that there’s a uniqueness to everybody who moves. It’s easy to sit and make a policy and say, ‘This should cover everything’—but there’s always a unique circumstance for each person.” Dual-income homes, elder care, special education, and no prior relocation experience all count.

By having the employee fill out a survey that reveals what he or she expects from the relocation—or simply by asking—recruiters can determine what benefits would be most valuable. From the very first meeting with the person, or even the first phone screen, recruiters should be feeling out what, if any, are his or her concerns about relocating. Determine what’s special about that particular employee’s lifestyle that may need support.

And as recruiters should know how to be flexible with relo services, they also should know when enough is enough. “Don’t go overboard,” warns Christensen. “Be cautious in offering all of the policy provisions during the initial offer. There’s a point at which a company has done all it can do, and there may be personal problems that the company can’t resolve.” If there’s someone who isn’t satisfied with the help that’s available, don’t push too hard because he or she is probably unhappy about moving in the first place.

Most importantly, recruiters must be honest about what life is like at the new location. Throughout the process, the relocatee must have a clear account of living conditions at the new location—not a smokescreen of all the things that won’t be affected by the move. Debunk the thought that relo benefits are a cure-all for the difficulties of moving, or that they will exactly duplicate current living situations.

Another good idea that will help employees prepare for the change is to be sure recruiters understand the potentially wide cost-of-living differences between an employee’s point of origin and the destination. Give specific examples of the price of things like groceries and gasoline. “I’ve had to go to various sources to get accurate information to educate the prospective employee on what reality is versus what he or she has read or heard ‘through the grapevine,’” says Christensen. “[Recruiters] should know what the expense and his or her involvement will be in the hiring and relocation process so that he or she can get the employee productive as soon as possible.”

Remind managers that relocation is very emotional.
Once an employee actually starts his or her relocation assignment, everyone breathes a big sigh of relief because the objective of the relocation is over and done—the employee is at the new location, starting the new job, not to mention the bulk of the expenses have already been paid. Unfortunately, this relief may cause disregard of other issues.

One post-move problem is the inadequate amount of time employees have between the move and starting work. As if packing and moving one’s belongings weren’t difficult enough, some employees have little time to situate themselves or even to unpack because of pressing work concerns. And those are just the effects at home. At work, there are people to meet, a new environment to become accustomed to and other tasks to take on. HR can break this stress by discussing these issues with the operations manager at the new location.

“Operations managers often expedite the process of getting the employee at the new location, on the job and productive in a relatively short turnaround time,” says Ann Cox, director of corporate relocation services for The Paxton Companies, an agent for Atlas Van Lines that services national corporate clients for relocating employees. “As [speed] often is the focus, details may be overlooked or last-minute relocation expenses need to be incurred.”

HR can help avoid these mistakes by reminding operations managers of the importance of understanding relocation procedures and the emotional impact they have on employees. “Understanding that transition time for each employee will be different would be a start,” says Cox, who also stresses that operations managers need to be sensitive to the process. “They often belittle the need to ‘coddle’ the employee during transition, assuming he or she will be resilient and adjust.” Again, allowing flexibility applies.

Though the decision to relocate is a change that’s based on one’s profession, the emotional adjustment may spill into work hours. Be sure managers are giving employees the assistance needed to make the adjustment. Availability to answer questions they may have is a good step, building trust between the employee and manager. “Though Toyota is a big company, we internally try to operate small and try to keep in touch with people,” says Agopian. “We try to have those avenues open so people can ask questions.”

Furthermore, managers can periodically follow up with the employee for the first three months after the move, or assign a mentor. Cox suggests the best candidate to mentor the new hire or transferee is a person who already has experienced relocation. Following along those lines at Toyota, Agopian says, “Most of our managers themselves have been through the [relocation] process, so they’ll understand if you need more than a day to go house-hunting or need time to close a deal. Whatever our people can do to support the transferee, we want to encourage that.”

So just because the market makes housing expenses easier to handle, don’t slip into being neglectful of other points during the transition. “Recruiters and managers often get bogged down with the details of timing or the money surrounding relo, and forget that people have set habits and a pattern of living,” says Cox. “The comfort of those habits are what dictate the reluctance or lack thereof to relocate.” Adds Northern Trust’s Christensen: “HR’s biggest role is to maintain the momentum of the move and settling-in process for the employee.” Both recruiters and operations managers can be reminded of how they can make relocation easier for employees. By improving communications between them, HR can show that your place of employment isn’t just a good place to find boxes.

Karen Rubin is the president of Future Work Partners Inc., a San Mateo, California-based human resources management firm. She has implemented various employee recognition and motivation programs among her clients. Rubin suggests doing the following to help develop and support an employee recognition program:

• Before you start building or rebuilding a system of employee recognition, ask whether your current recognition methods are sufficient enough. Determine the purpose of implementing an informal awards program. Is your goal to improve employee morale, reduce turnover, increase teamwork or all of the above? Make a written list of your expectations and hopes for employee recognition efforts.


• Design and redesign programs that capture what’s meaningful to employees. Ask them what they value in rewards and recognition, and then listen to their responses. Identify non-cash rewards that employees value and ones they don’t. Survey employees on a broad range of HR and organizational issues in addition to asking them about types of rewards and recognition. Listen to their comments and respond appropriately by providing meaningful and motivational rewards.


• If you don’t want to undertake a survey, form an employee focus group. The focus group is a representative sample of employee perspectives. During the meeting, plan to spend an hour learning why employees prefer particular types of rewards and why they resist others. How interested are they in merchandise, travel, tickets to athletic or cultural events, or fine dining certificates? Face-to-face meetings can help you gain a better understanding of their beliefs.


• Communication is important throughout the process—even before the implementation date—to let employees know how they will be involved. The rationale and results of the new program should be clearly reported. After implementation, communicate responsiveness. After asking employees to compare the previous and new recognition methods, it’s crucial to respond to employees so they know they’ve been listened to.


• Using information from employee feedback, plan ahead to stagger the different types of awards they select. Oftentimes, companies are enthusiastic about putting this kind of informal recognition program in place, but a couple of months down the road, people become busy with their day-to-day activities. To counteract this, use a recognition-team approach by having a group lay out a schedule for the next year’s informal rewards, with one for each month. Each team member can be responsible for a given month.