Benchmark with the best - study by Arthur Andersen and Cendant Intercultural, The Bennett Group - Focus on International HR

HR Magazine, April, 1998 by Rita Bennet, Heidi O'Gorman

For top-performing companies, change is the only constant in

international assignment management.

Are there significant similarities in the International Assignment

Management (IAM) policies and practices of the top Fortune 500 companies

operating globally?

A study conducted jointly last year by Arthur Andersen and Cendant

Intercultural, The Bennett Group, interviewed human resource executives of

selected, best-in-class Fortune 500 companies to determine what constitutes

ideal policy and practices. This unique survey polled only the five top

performing U.S. companies in 10 key industries. Senior international HR

directors in $2 of the 50 companies were interviewed.

Change is the constant

An overwhelming 23 of the $2 companies interviewed have conducted a review

of their IAM policies and programs within the past 24 months. The remaining

nine have planned a review within the next 12 months.

By conducting operations reviews on international assignment policies, these

companies are not only asking, "Are we doing it right?" They are recognizing

that change is an overriding factor in the global marketplace.

More important, international assignment management programs must keep pace

with the global business drivers, and where IAM policy is concerned, keeping

pace demands innovation. None of the companies surveyed was content to rest

on its laurels.

While change is inherent in all corporate functions, the international human

resource area is especially vulnerable because of the global context in

which it operates. Fully 81 percent of study participants expect expansion

into new regions in the world. When companies embark on searches for new

markets and new resources, international human resources must keep pace by

analyzing the implications of expansion - from local HR practices to

security issues for assignees.

Sixty-six percent of respondents say they expect the number of international

assignments within their companies to increase. Given that, it is certainly

not surprising that fully two-thirds of respondents are anticipating new or

revised international assignment policies. In the words of one respondent,

"We are always revising our policies."

Support becomes vital

This question was put to select global Fortune 500 companies: "What is the

most innovative expatriate support project you have introduced?" The

best-performing firms find value in providing assignees and their families

with welldesigned support programs. HR executives frequently provided

comprehensive repatriation, cross-cultural training, formalized support to

dual career couples and mentor programs.

It is interesting that the support programs and services most frequently

provided are not necessarily those that [TABULAR DATA FOR CHART 2 OMITTED]

respondents rank as most successful. For example, while cross-cultural

training receives the highest rating of 84 percent for success, it is

provided by far fewer companies than language training, the most frequently

provided service.

Based on this survey, what conclusions can be drawn about international

assignment programs?

First, companies that perform well from a business standpoint are looking at

all aspects of policy. Leadingedge companies are placing an increasing

emphasis on support programs. They realize that "soft issues" are as

integral to the success of an assignment as planning and administering

employee payroll, pensions and other assignee benefits.

Second, companies are continuously upgrading and expanding programs to meet

current global business challenges. Outside sources of expertise can and

should assist companies executing the various support programs required to

create successful assignments.

Assignee expectations: mentoring

The primary responsibility of mentors, as specified by the respondents, is

to assist assignees with repatriation issues. The concept of providing

assignees with mentors throughout the assignment and upon repatriation is

readily accepted.

In fact, mentor programs score very high on success rates, with an 80

percent overall ranking. However, only 28 percent of respondents indicated

that a formal mentor program for international assignees exists within their

companies. Informal mentor relationships make up the largest part, bringing

the total percent of international assignees mentoted to 76 percent.

We might conclude that in-house, informal mentoring programs can prove

effective as long as they genuinely satisfy the needs of employees as well

as companies. However, problems can arise if mentoting relationships are

expected to resolve every issue associated with assignments or if mentors

are ill equipped for their positions. Individual mentors may not have the

skills, training, time or resources to smooth out comprehensive issues that

often fall into their laps. Another limitation of informal programs is that

there is usually no mechanism for holding mentors accountable for their

performance in the mentor role.