BIGGEST RELOCATION CHALLENGES DOMESTIC U.S. RELOCATION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BIGGEST RELOCATION CHALLENGES DOMESTIC U.S. RELOCATION"

Cecilia Miller
6 years ago
Views:

1 BIGGEST RELOCATION CHALLENGES DOMESTIC U.S. RELOCATION What keeps relocation managers up at night? During a turbulent period that included, for example, a real estate recession, the European financial crisis, and the Arab Spring, people with corporate relocation and global mobility responsibilities had a lot to worry about. Our Biggest Relocation Challenges pulse survey pointed to a number of key concerns among managers of U.S. domestic relocation programs. Among them: a continued focus on costs that is rendered more critical by the continued challenges of the U.S. real estate market and, looking ahead, a growing awareness of the need for focus on talent management issues. The Biggest Challenges Survey for U.S. Domestic Relocation was brief in scope but broad in implications. The survey covered strategic topics in U.S. domestic relocation; a companion survey explores international assignment management. The response was particularly strong, with exactly 200 companies responding 163 individuals completing the domestic section and 116, the international. The survey was also highly representative; responding companies moved an average of between 51 and 100 people domestically and 26 to 50 internationally. Large programs were well represented: more than 12 percent of respondents moved more than 500 per year domestically, and a similar percentage moved more than 500 internationally. The survey generated responses from a broad range of industries, as well. Those most represented were manufacturing; technology; pharmaceutical and health care; banking, financial, and insurance; energy and utilities; and consumer products and retailing. Following is an analysis of the Domestic U.S. Relocation segment of the Pulse Survey. K e y F i n d i n g s The key findings in the U.S. Domestic Pulse Survey are: 1. The real estate market dominates the current concerns of U.S. domestic respondents, which, in turn, reflects serious concerns of their employees about the prospects of selling their homes. 2. Companies are concerned about controlling costs but also see the need to increase support in certain areas, such as loss on sale benefits, in order to enable needed moves. 3. Companies are emphasizing greater discipline for employees who are marketing their homes in weakened markets but are also entertaining innovative strategies, such as candidate assessment or temporary domestic assignments, to minimize the home sale problem. C u r re n t C h a l l e n g e s More than five out of six respondents (84.7 percent) said that the real estate market was one of their most significant current challenges more than double the next concern, which was cost (at 41.2 percent; see Chart 1). Softer employee issues ranked much lower: employee sense of entitlement and employee resistance to relocating ranked fourth and fifth (at 24.3 percent and 22.0 percent, respectively). And, typical of a period of business decline, only 14.1 percent felt that recruiting and talent development were among their most significant current challenges. Chart 1. Most significant current U.S. domestic relocation challenges. (multiple responses possible) Real estate market Cost U.S. economy Employee sense of entitlement Employee resistance to relocating Measuring ROI Recruiting and talent development Mobility program tracking Need for more flexibility (demographics, etc.) 7.9% 6.8% 3.4% 41.2% 30.5% 24.3% 22.0% 14.7% 84.7% P A G E 1 O F 5

2 Of companies that indicated resistance to relocating was a significant challenge, 89.7 percent gave employee difficulty selling their homes as a main reason. This represents an understandable shift in attitude in relocating employees, who have traditionally voiced lifestyle concerns as a significant deterrent to moving. In fact, personal concerns, like family issues and elder care and dual career issues, ranked much lower in importance (at 30.8 percent and 28.2 percent, respectively). The bottom line today is the practical realization that with depressed real estate values and pinched equity positions, moving can be a very difficult proposition for many employees one that requires innovative support from employers. Ta k i n g P o l i c y A c t i o n More than three in four companies (75.1 percent) have modified their policy or program in the past two years or are currently considering doing so, specifically in response to economic challenges (see Chart 2). Again, housing is the focus, but companies are employing both carrot and stick approaches. Of the top changes companies have implemented that focus on supporting the sale of the departure home or purchase of a destination home, loss on sale support is the number one area of change (39.9 percent), with homesale incentives placing third (at 38.0 percent). Applying list price parameters and marketing restrictions on the departure home are areas number two and four (at 39.3 percent and 32.5 percent, respectively), indicating a continuing awareness that, particularly in impacted markets, discipline in marketing homes is a must. This ranking of policy elements is largely mirrored in the changes companies are currently considering as they look forward. One key finding is that loss on sale support has not only been implemented more than any other measure, but it was also the top choice for measures currently being considered. In some cases, companies are using this benefit just to make some moves possible, while others are controlling their financial exposure by reducing reliance on loss on sale, for example, through policy tiering or caps. Interestingly, fee-based destination services tied for third place (at 6.7 percent) as the most common change under consideration. This points both to the difficulty employees experience in purchasing and to the fact that the company could ultimately have a financial stake in dealing with the employee s choice of home in a future relocation situation. Note also the Implemented/Considering Ratio at the bottom of the chart to see the extent to which these issues have been addressed or are currently being evaluated. In this case, companies feel strongly, for better or worse, that they have already done much of what they can and are not looking to future policy adjustments to create needed solutions. In a separate question related to policy changes not directly connected to sale of the home, spouse/partner assistance was the first choice (at 21.5 percent), followed closely by cost of living assistance (at 19.0 percent). These choices were less frequent than any of the four policy change areas centering on selling the departure home and are not a focus for future change (only 5.5 percent in each case). Chart 2. Home sale and purchase changes implemented or currently under consideration. (multiple responses possible) I m p l e m e n t e d / C o n s i d e r i n g R a t i o : % / % Loss on sale support 39.9% 11.7% 51.1% List price parameters 39.3% 46.0% Home sale incentives (buyer, seller, fix-up) 38.0% 8.6% 46.6% Marketing restrictions on the departure home 32.5% 5.5% 38.0% Loan origination fee for home purchase assistance 21.5% 3.1% 24.5% Discount points for home purchase assistance 11.0% 14.7% Fee-based destination services 7.9% 14.7% 2.5% 11.7% Have implemented Are considering Implemented+Considering P A G E 2 O F 5

3 T h i n k i n g D i ff e re n t l y Another option companies may entertain when traditional policy designs are ineffective is to introduce an altogether new structural approach (see Chart 3). The main alternative approaches companies have already implemented center on tiering and adding or expanding a lump sum program (at 24.5 percent and 22.7 percent, respectively). However, when it comes to alternatives currently being considered, lump sum is the main option (at 16.0 percent of respondents), compared with 9.8 percent for tiering and changing a home sale program type from buyout to BVO (at 9.2 percent). It is ironic that respondents were divided between changing from buyout to BVO (10.4 percent) and changing from BVO to buyout (6.7 percent) in terms of program changes previously implemented and were equal in terms of those currently being considered. Looking at program (rather than policy) alternatives, we can see a modest move toward strategies that avoid traditional relocation altogether (see Chart 4). The main approaches implemented were short-term assignments (25.2 percent) and commuter assignments (ranked third at 16.6 percent), with rotational/project-based assignments also being mentioned (11.0 percent). Delaying relocation activity actually ranked second (at 22.1 percent). Note: alternatives companies are considering fell roughly in line with those already implemented. Few companies are looking to support the employee in holding (and even renting) the home, waiting for conditions for a sale to improve. Managing the departure location home (rather than attempting to sell it) was the least frequently mentioned alternative (at 8.6 percent). M e a s u r i n g E ff e c t i v e n e s s As difficult as economic conditions in general and the real estate market in particular have been, more than 40 percent of respondents with an opinion felt that changes they have implemented or are considering making (41.8 percent) would increase the relocating employee s perception of the benefit level. Less than 10 percent (8.5 percent) felt it would reduce its perceived value. One fourth of those responding said they did not know. Chart 3. Alternate home sale/purchase support approaches implemented in the past two years or currently under consideration. (multiple responses possible) I m p l e m e n t e d / C o n s i d e r i n g R a t i o : % / % Align benefits more closely to the employee s level (tiering) 24.5% 34.4% Add or expand a lump sum program 22.7% 16.0% 38.7% Change home sale program type from buyout to BVO 10.4% Add or enhance candidate assessment 19.0% Change home sale program type from BVO to buyout 10.4% 0.6% 0.6% 1.2% Chart 4. Alternative U.S. domestic relocation approaches implemented in the past two years or currently under consideration. (multiple responses possible) I m p l e m e n t e d / C o n s i d e r i n g R a t i o : % / % Short-term assignments 25.2% 8.6% 3 Delaying relocation activity 22.1% 31.3% Commuter assignments 16.6% 7.4% 23.9% Rotational/project-based assignments 11.0% 6.1% 17.2% Local hires/training programs 4.3% Property management (departure location) 8.6% 4.3% 0.6% 4.9% 15.3% Have implemented Are considering Implemented+Considering P A G E 3 O F 5

4 In the continual battle to match their programs to challenging times, a significant number of respondents point to declining effectiveness in their relocation program. While one-third of respondents expressing an opinion (33.8 percent) consider their program more effective than prior to the economic downturn in meeting the company s organizational goals, 21.4 percent believe it is less effective, and the remaining 44.8 percent felt it is equally effective. A small additional group (11.0 percent) did not know. Asked which of the measures they have implemented were the most effective, respondents provided a wide range of answers. Following is a sampling of issues noted. Most Effective Measures Implemented Respondent Verbatims Candidate pre-screening for homesale program. Pre-decision appraisals - not mandatory but available so people can understand their financial picture before they accept a job. Marketing allowance to enhance property in competitive markets. Stricter marketing guidelines. Mandatory list price guidelines tied to home sale benefit eligibility. Additional temporary housing. Loss on Sale has been effective and our home sale incentive bonus has encouraged our employees to sell on their own, as opposed to the home coming into inventory. Increased the home sale bonus on a sliding scale of 4% down to 1%. This has created substantial cost savings. We have done a number of temporary assignments when it makes sense rather than using a permanent assignment approach, especially in areas where the housing market is severely depressed. F u t u re I m p a c t s Looking to the future, respondents, not surprisingly, saw cost as the relocation challenge having the greatest future impact on the organization (see Chart 5). More than one quarter (26.5 percent) saw cost as extremely impactful and an additional 51.0 percent rated it very impactful. Interestingly, recruiting and talent development and limiting future cost liability move up in priority ranking and were essentially equal in strength (at 65.3 percent and 65.1 percent, respectively, for extremely + very impactful), followed by designing equitable policy packages something of a challenge in tough economic times. Measuring ROI and mobility program tracking were deemed less important, while more than half (53.9 percent) felt that managing short sales would have little or no impact. When asked to list the aspects of their U.S. domestic program they are most interested in improving, respondents ranked Chart 5. Future organizational impact of U.S. domestic relocation challenges. Cost control 77.5% 18.4% 4.1% Recruiting and talent development 65.3% 25.7% 9.1% Limited future cost liability (from purchasing homes or loss on sale benefits) 65.1% 16.4% 18.5% Designing equitable policy packages 54.8% 27.1% 18.0% Measuring ROI 37.8% 35.0% 27.3% Mobility program tracking 37.6% 26.2% 28.4% Managing short sales % 53.9% 14.3% 0.0% 85.7% To t a l : % / % / % Extremely+Very Impactful Somewhat Impactful Little+No Impact M u l t i p l e r e s p o n s e s p o s s i b l e P A G E 4 O F 5

5 efficiency of relocation expenditure in meeting employee needs first (51.0 percent), underscoring the goal of managing an affordable program that is adequate to the challenges of the current economic downturn (see Chart 6). Policy competitiveness was a close second (47.0 percent), demonstrating a strong concern that tends to counter pure cost control efforts. Even so, recruiting and talent development scored low seventh place among current challenges a relative score that probably reflects a weakened business environment rather than a diminished focus on talent management, one of mobility s key strategic objectives. In summary, given the continued uncertain market and economic environment in which managers of U.S. domestic programs are operating, they will continue to face challenges as they seek to develop effective program and policy structure for their companies. Cartus will repeat this Biggest Challenges survey in 2012 to continue to share knowledge on trends and best practices with our client base and the broader market. In fourth place, more than one-third of respondents (36.4 percent) listed cost effectiveness of loss on sale benefits, showing the concern this line item, which is rising in cost and future financial liability for many companies, is causing. Chart 6. Program aspects respondents are most interested in improving. (Multiple responses possible) Expenditures ability to meet employee needs Policy competitiveness 47.0% 51.0% Effectiveness of home sale and BVO programs Cost effectiveness of loss on sale benefits Mobility as a recruitment tool Reporting of relocation data Candidate assessment and selection 39.1% 36.4% 26.5% 25.2% 19.9% 3.3% P A G E 5 O F 5

Reflections in the Mirror: Defined contribution plan participants

Reflections in the Mirror: Defined contribution plan participants offer their perspectives and perceptions around retirement savings 2014 FINDINGS OF NATIONAL PLAN PARTICIPANT SURVEY Non-FDIC Insured May