return to the
MASTERMINDS
https://globalbusinessnews.net/jan-18-23-global-business-talent-masterminds/
International Remote Working (IRW)
The first step is about clear definitions, eligibility and support, and a glossary of terms.
The second (trickier) step is to ensure that messages are consistent across all communication channels and to all stakeholders.
More than just basic communication, this requires ongoing learning and coaching for all mobility stakeholders.
Working remotely is a way for companies to attract and motivate talent and more generally to offer a new lifestyle contract to employees. The initial vague concept of working from anywhere is now giving way to more structured and consistent forms of International Remote Working (IRW).
New practices are emerging that are based on a compromise between the expectations of employees, business realities and compliance risks. Now, the challenges for organizations are finding efficient ways to manage IRW with limited resources, assessing the value of new measures and coming up with a consistent and compelling narrative for their talent.
Employee Vs. Employer-Driven
There are both employee-driven and company-driven reasons for choosing international remote work.
Employee-driven IRW is about allowing employees to work for a limited number of days abroad — a kind of lifestyle benefit. Sometimes called “workation,” it can be a way to extend the time spent in a holiday location. The name workation itself could be misleading or backfire because it blurs the line between work and holidays and suggests a superficial purpose. But the reality is more nuanced: Employees are trying to create a better lifestyle for themselves and their family, and companies that are open to remote work options contribute to enhancing their experience while retaining them.
Employee-driven remote working can also entail being transferred abroad permanently. These moves are sometimes supported by companies for talent retention purposes, but employees typically receive limited relocation packages and no expat allowance. Some employees may desire the flexibility to go back and forth between different locations and not fully localize in a single new country, but, for compliance reasons, this may be too complex for companies to manage.
Employer-initiated IRW can be designed to address specific business issues: It can take the form of virtual assignments to complement a traditional expatriate assignment if an employee cannot relocate immediately or needs to repatriate early (as it was the case during the pandemic.)
It can also be a real alternative to international assignments for employees who, for personal or objective reasons, cannot relocate abroad at all. It opens up new opportunities to get international exposure for some employees. For others, on the contrary, it could appear as a low-value alternative to a real expatriate experience.
Some organizations over-communicate or send conflicting messages. For example, the CEO might talk about ‘working from anywhere,’ but managers and HR then contradict them by flagging compliance barriers.
Companies are also leveraging remote working for global resourcing purposes. Some companies are hiring remote employees from the onset, which could trigger a wave of de-localizations. Now that more jobs can be done remotely, companies will be tempted to have tasks done by remote workers abroad rather than local employees, meaning the competition is increasing for local workers.
HR and the Resource Conundrum
While compliance issues are top-of-mind for HR teams managing IRW, time and resources might prove to be the main stumbling block. In many cases, IRW requests have to be managed on an ad-hoc basis. This is putting a significant burden on HR teams.
Specialized international mobility HR teams are normally focused on traditional expatriate management issues and now have to reallocate time and resources to IRW. While these teams are usually not managing every logistical detail, 64% report they are now responsible for setting IRW policies and 52% for the compliance with terms and conditions.
Furthermore, managing IRW requires the cooperation of different teams within HR and managers. The degree of agility and co-functional cooperation within companies influences the efficiency of the IRW management processes. Better use of technology is becoming essential to implement effective policies and processes: 61% of companies track where international remote workers are, 50% track how long they stay in a given location, but currently 81% can only track movements manually.
In the case of employee-driven IRW requests, the authorization process is also a delicate question. It needs to strike a balance between risk mitigation and workload.
A pure laissez-faire approach is risky for organizations that might face issues in case of compliance breach. The most common choice is between different forms of declaration and approval. A simple declaration approach may facilitate processes but a more formal authorization allow more control and limit compliance risks.
Is Offering International Remote Work Worth It?
Improving the employee value proposition and engagement is the top driver for offering IRW. The initial feedback from organizations is positive: 43% are satisfied or very satisfied (18%) with their IRW offering. However, a quarter do not have any opinion, and more worryingly 89% do not have any metrics to track the success of international remote working.
High-level answers to the IRW value question may be enough as a starting point, but the need for more robust business cases and clear justifications for mobility activities will grow. The presence (or lack) of value in the new offerings will be visible over time and will require new analytics and metrics.
This analytics process cannot be started overnight and needs to be about more than a large amount of data. These data are likely to be spread across geographies, business units and different systems — a lot of groundwork needs to be done now to prepare for questions that will inevitably come from management about the value of IRW for their organizations.
The Battle of the Narratives
IRW can be a differentiator in the war for talent but only if organizations can produce a consistent narrative.
The objective is to integrate traditional forms of talent mobility, as well as flexible and remote working, into a unified story, a coherent narrative that is compatible with the company’s objectives and employer branding strategy.
The increased number of flexibility options and new forms of mobility could obscure the message even more.
Some organizations over-communicate or send conflicting messages. For example, the CEO might talk about “working from anywhere,” but managers and HR then contradict them by flagging compliance barriers.
In other organizations, responses to requests for more flexible working may be reactive and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In such situations, no clear message emerges and, as a result, the value of the new measures is unclear and understood poorly by both management and employees.
The first step is about clear definitions, eligibility and support, and a glossary of terms.
The second (trickier) step is to ensure that messages are consistent across all communication channels and to all stakeholders.
More than just basic communication, this requires ongoing learning and coaching for all mobility stakeholders.
Hybrid working, home alone, or office life?
-
Post-pandemic, many employees want to retain a hybrid working model.
-
But most senior leaders want their staff to work collaboratively in an office environment, according to a new survey.
-
This gulf in expectations needs to be addressed, says Ipsos, as does the digital divide that prevents some people from accessing remote working.
It’s a workday.
You get up, wash, dress and travel to the office… or maybe not.
While most senior leaders want their staff to work collaboratively in an office environment, most employees don’t want to be there all the time, according to a new survey.
Researchers at Ipsos analyzed more than 540,000 survey responses revealing attitudes to hybrid working in 95 countries. The results showed a widening gap between leaders and employees.
Hybrid working, home alone, or office life?
Most survey respondents experience benefits from remote working, including more than half who enjoyed more flexible working hours.
Hybrid working can save time, money and improve your work-life balance. Image: Ipsos.
Two out of three people surveyed said hybrid working improved their work-life balance and the majority (85%) reported saving both time and money from escaping the daily commute.
Almost a quarter of those surveyed said remote working improved communication and collaboration and led to faster decision making.
Flexible working favoured by most
Having tried home working during the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees are reluctant to return to the rigours of office life full-time. Fewer than 1 in 10 of those surveyed in fact.
Globally, 68% of respondents favoured a hybrid work routine, while almost a quarter would choose fully remote working.
India had the highest number of employees who would prefer a fully remote work set up. Image: Ipsos.
But there were differences in attitudes between countries, with employees in Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany and the UK most likely to select hybrid working if given free choice.
A high proportion of employees working in countries like India, the USA and Poland would prefer a fully remote working arrangement.
Leaders still want staff back in the office
Survey responses from senior leaders tell a different story, however, with just 10% expressing a preference for full-time home working. Middle managers are almost twice as likely than senior managers to want to work remotely, with junior employees almost three times more likely.
Junior employees are almost three times more likely to want to work remotely than senior managers. Image: Ipsos.
A similar divide emerged when survey respondents reflected on the effectiveness of collaboration in different working environments.
Junior employees thought 100% homeworking was more conducive to effective collaboration than hybrid or office-based work, while for senior leaders collaboration peaked in an office setting.
Most middle managers surveyed (71%) thought effective collaboration was most associated with hybrid working.
The changing workplace
The survey results highlight a widening experience gap between leaders who want employees to return to the office and employees who have adapted to new patterns of work and want greater flexibility.
So, what happens next?
A changing labour market means leaders may not necessarily decide working arrangements, as the balance of power in many labour markets has shifted to favour employees.
Almost 60% of HR leaders say attracting talent is harder now than before the pandemic.
Companies offering remote or hybrid work options to their employees could be at an advantage when attempting to attract and retain talented employees.
Furthermore, companies that compel staff to return to the office could face resistance.
A survey by global recruitment firm Robert Half found that half of US workers would resign rather than be forced to return to office-based working full time, according to the BBC.
But what employees want is not the only consideration. Looking to the future, workers and leaders need to find a balancing act between employee needs and what works for a business in order to find a workable solution.
Digital access for all
An important distinction must be made between those with and those without access to the internet. Work must be done to close the digital divide that exists between wealthy and poorer parts of society, and between wealthy nations and developing countries that may lack the digital infrastructure and resources to access remote working.
In countries and companies where a hybrid model can be adopted, the Ipsos survey outlines the need for both managers and employees to embrace remote ways of working and devise a clear company strategy for hybrid success.
watch GlobalTVtalkshows globaltvtalkshow.com
you are invited to join us…
learn about MEDIA TIPS AND MEDIA PRESENCE
cost $1.88/day … you select your time/plan … here’s that you receive click here
