The role of the accompanying partner in relocation has metamorphosed into a factor that can be ignored only at an organisation’s peril.

In the torrid world of corporate recruiting and hiring, gaining, and retaining talent, and moving human resources around the globe in the quest for a competitive edge, the question of how companies can assist the partners and families of these movable resources does not necessarily preoccupy corporate chieftains. And yet, companies concerned about what has been characterised as everything from a war to a tug for talent would be well-advised to consider the value of partner career assistance in the context of global human resource efforts.

Whether we are right now in the midst of a talent war is not the huge question of the moment that some find it to be, for the plain fact is that no company can have too much talent, ever. Even in our globetrotting economy, one in which, it should be noted, distributed work is still struggling to find purchase, the acquisition and global disbursement of talent means relocating people.

For a number of years, surveys and studies have demonstrated that the employee’s family, whether a spouse or a spouse and children, has a major effect on the success of a move and, therefore, on the employee’s performance in his new position. By way of illustration, note some data from the “2007 Emerging Trends in Global Mobility: Policy and Practices Survey,” by Cartus, Viejo, CA:

• family concerns most often derail assignments;
• among the top three reasons why employees turn down assignments, family or personal circumstances (e.g., spouse’s career) was cited almost twice as often (90 percent of respondents) as concern with employee’s career (48 percent) or compensation (46 percent);
• family adjustment is one of the key factors behind assignment acceptance and success;
• because companies report that talent management and developing global competencies are among their greatest challenges, corporate mobility policies must be flexible enough to address the specific needs of families in global transition so that companies can attract and retain the workforce they need to compete.

Other surveys have confirmed that the problem of spouse/partner adjustment both deters employees from accepting global relocations and, for those who go, leads to premature departures for home.

Not all of these situations are rooted in spouse/partner issues, but enough are that companies realise the need to improve services in this area.

While we have heard much beating on the recruiting-for-talent war drums during the last year, companies are realising that employee retention is as important as the recruiting function. Talent acquired is talent squandered if it is not retained. When we address the potential effect of Generation Y on global employment patterns, we will see that retention issues can grow only more pressing as we close out this decade.

The history of the so-called “trailing spouse” encompasses a brief period near the end of the 20th century. Thirty years ago, company executives took little notice of the fate of the spouse in relocation. For one thing, the relocation industry as we know it today did not exist—there were no relocation departments. On good days, the entirety of a company’s relocation plan might reach its pinnacle when a human resource (HR) representative would unceremoniously hand the departing transferee a few hundred dollars to help with “getting there and getting set up.” By the same token, not many spouses were clamouring for help.

The Face of the Partner/Spouse Since 1980

The early 1980s

Relocation practices began to acquire substance in the early 1980s as they emerged from the primitive days when the term “relocation industry” was more projective than descriptive. So, the history of the spouse, as she was called in these early days, begins here.

Here is the outline of the spouse portrait:

• The “trailing spouse” was always a woman.
• Most spouses were not working at this time. If they were then their jobs usually were part-time and not part of a career; their function was to give the family budget a little room to breathe or to supply “pin money” for the spouse.
• Most women accepted relocation as part of being married to an up-and-coming success.

This does not mean that women in relocation were idle observers. They were responsible for most relocation logistics including the packing, transportation, and unpacking of family belongings. The men had their marching orders—tackle the new job with fervour, and the women theirs—take care of the homefront, including any children, and create an oasis of nurturing calm to which the employee returned at the end of a gruelling day.

This orderly and idyllic scene was not so placid below the surface. Whether relocations should be taken was rarely debated and the husband’s professional interests were in the driver’s seat. This did not mean that all relocated spouses were eager to move when the necessity arose. Leaving friends and familiar locales before getting connected with new friends and supports could be emotionally wrenching, but these feelings were rarely given a public airing. The calm before the storm, one might say.

The mid- and late 1980s. The key engine for change in this decade was the women’s movement. By the mid-1980s, the ground-breaking book “The Feminine Mystique,” penned by one-time conventional housewife Betty Friedan, had been out for 20 years and helping to stoke what would later be characterised as the first wave of feminism. The first wave focused on the basic right of American women to be free of gender-based violence and mistreatment of all sorts.

The second wave of feminism emphasised the rights of women to enjoy the same access to opportunities that men have, especially in the areas of employment and compensation. As women entered the workforce and gained positions of authority, they became less amenable to trailing silently along in the wake of their husbands’ careers. This perspective had an effect on companies when they discovered that unhappy or maladjusted spouses could—even unintentionally—sandbag a husband’s transfer either before or after the relocation.

Some HR managers recognised that the rough edges of a spouse’s emotional adjustment to a new area could be exacerbated beyond recovery by vocational and work issues.

In response to this changing profile of the (still) trailing spouse, a number of companies greeted the turn of the decade by incorporating spousal career programming into their package of relocation benefits.

The 1990s

During the last decade of the 20th century the profile of the spouse continued to evolve out of changes rooted in the ’80s. By the dawn of the new millennium, most women worked at least part-time and many were in full-time positions. More companies inaugurated spousal relocation programmes as they realised that for a comparatively tiny sum, they could increase the success rate of their transferees substantially. In addition to this awakening, there were other factors contributing to the growth of spousal benefits.

In the 1980s, relocated employees were nearly always the beneficiaries of a promotion, which helped to soften the hardship suffered by family members. With the onset of company restructurings, promotions became less of a reason for moving. Instead, people had to move to retain their job and existing salary. This inclined the accompanying spouses to focus more on the potentially negative effects of relocation, on their own lives and the lives of their children.

The average length of job tenure dropped, partially as the result of an erosion, begun in the prior decade, of the employer-employee relationship. By the end of the decade, individuals could exercise options in the world of free agency or move to another company with relative ease.

•  “Spouses” no longer were just spouses and the term “trailing”—always inaccurate—became unfashionable, as well. As women rose in managerial and professional status, men entered the mix of spouses on the move, as did partners, both gay and straight. The pejorative term “trailing” slowly was replaced by the more dignified “accompanying,” and the designation of “partner” entered the vocabularies of relocation professionals who wanted their terminology to reflect their programmes’ inclusiveness.
• In the 1990s, the global economy began to take definite shape, causing a steady increase in overseas relocations. At the same time, it became evident that even overseas moves did not necessarily enhance the employee’s value to his or her own company, while often exacerbating both quality of life and financial concerns. This further accented the need for partner relocation services.
• More corporate and HR managers made the connection between the well-adjusted partner and the employee’s smooth transition to a new position.
• The rise of the dual-income family was accompanied by the evolution of the work-life balance movement. In this context, the partner became an advocate for healthy lifestyles. Once again, the corporate mission was enlarged beyond the mere provision of remunerative employment. Companies also needed to be attentive to the effect of work on the life of the employee and their families. Thus, the work-life movement subtlety reinforced the belief by partners that companies bore at least some responsibility for the quality of life enjoyed by the employee and his or her family.

The New Millennium’s First Decade and Beyond

During the first decade of the 21st century, the evolution of the partner’s profile continued along its 1990s trajectory. Today, partner relocation assistance is an established benefit in many companies. One question that those responsible for designing retention programs soon will confront is whether the need for partner career assistance is likely to grow or diminish and, if the former, how it will need to adapt to changing realities in the workplace. To answer this question we need to look at how the profile of the relocating partner will change in coming years.

The world of work in the 21st century will continue to feel the effects of two mega-trends—globalisation and Internet development. Because they will help shape our workplace in key ways, these trends also will affect the partner’s profile during the next couple of decades.

The first of these mega-trends is globalisation, about which little remains unsaid. Its relevance to our present topic is simply that the globe’s increasing need for economic interconnectedness guarantees a large number of global relocations, meaning the need for partner relocation benefits will be increasing.

The second mega-trend is generational. For a number of years, the generation following the Baby Boomers—Generation X—has received lavish attention from sociologists and the press. However, it now appears that this generation quickly will yield centre stage to the larger and more distinctive Generation Y, whose members also are called “Millennials.” Gen¬eration Y encompasses those born between 1977 and 1998, give or take a couple years at either end. This means that their leading edge has been filtering into the workforce for several years now and that well-trained and educated Gen Ys will be moving into positions of responsibility during the next 20 to 30 years.

Generation Y has several defining characteristics. We should preface this with a couple of caveats. First, broad-based characterisations of any group of 70 to 80 million souls will not apply equally to all members and, to some, not at all. Second, we have seen a recent and understandable backlash from indignant Gen Ys who protest smug descriptions of them as self-indulgent, cocky, finicky, and undisciplined. So, with care, let us examine four Gen Y trends that are both grounded in empirical studies and attested to by Gen Ys themselves, while noting their likely effect on partner relocation career programmes.

First, Gen Ys most distinctive trait is being the first generation to have grown up with the Iinternet and other high-tech paraphernalia. Gen Ys use technology as their primary means of communication. In their 2007 book, “Connecting to the Net.Generation: What Higher Education Professionals Need to Know about Today’s College Students,” Reynol Junco and Jeanna Mastrodicasa surveyed more than 7,000 college students and found:

• 97 percent own a computer;
• 94 percent own a cell phone;
• 76 percent use some form of instant messaging; and
• 69 percent have a Facebook account.

High-tech is fully integrated into the world of Gen Y, and the members of this cohort will be in the forefront of adopting, if not designing, new developments. To quote Dr. Larry Rosen, author of the “Mental Health Technology Bible,” “Technology just is for them. It’s part of every aspect of their lives, unlike a lot of the people they will be coming to work for.”

Gen Ys will have no patience for corporate-sponsored programs that are not technologically up-to-date. Career services change every year by new applications of technology and no supplier of such services can afford to lag behind in using them for client benefit.

In addition, Gen Ys have been conditioned by the internet to appreciate conciseness in written documents. Few of them will wade through 20 pages on interview preparation; they will look instead for a three-page summary, dipping into the longer version only as necessary.

Those who seek to label Gen Ys as self-obsessed are off the mark. It is more accurate to say they will not tolerate unsatisfactory situations for as long as the preceding generations. Gen Ys have grown up with choices and are not inclined to accept what they find at first blush. From the internet, and often from their parents, they have learned to look for options.

In designing programs for Gen Ys, it is important to offer an array of standard options while also being willing to draw outside the lines now and then. For some relocation providers, this will mean offering a menu of services from which Gen Ys can choose what is appropriate to them and to their liking. Without this variety and customisation, Gen Ys quickly will look elsewhere.

Also, in Generation Y, we are seeing the final reverberations of the layoffs of the 1980s, coupled with scepticism about the moral compass of large institutions and their claims on employee loyalty. Gen Ys will hesitate to make long-term commitments to any institutions, and they will outdo every previous generation in the brevity of their job tenures. At present, they are changing jobs every 18 months. HR departments already should be working on methods to retain these employees.

At this rate of job mobility, Gen Ys are not staying in place long enough to be relocated. Although average job tenures likely are to lengthen as Gen Yers mature, partner relocation programs may see a greater percentage of new hires in proportion to transfers.

Gen Ys also will match—and then outdo—previous generations in their need for flexible work arrangements that allow them to integrate work and the rest of life in the quest for that ever-elusive nirvana of balance. When this generation encounter a bothersome policy, they will question its purpose. Responses such as, “Because that’s the way we have always done it” and vague rationalisations such as “It just works out best that way” will carry no persuasive force for Gen Ys . When companies try to make their employees hew to traditional structures, such as the 9-to-5, five-day-week-work schedule, Gen Y employees will forcefully lobby for flexible scheduling. When their efforts are met with intransigence, they will depart for greener pastures of more agreeable companies.

This points again to the resistance of Gen Ys to what they find and are given. Sometimes they will look to customise simply on principle. Gen Y service providers not only need to offer options, but be prepared to explain their utility. Gen Ys with family will be expecting and looking for partner relocation services. If they find nothing to their liking, a good number will not merely decline the transfer but look for a job change.

Finally, despite having grown up “Interneted,” or perhaps because of it, Gen Ys will value both single and group relationships. They may embody more than any previous generation the well-known maxim—high-tech high-touch—coined by futurist John Naisbitt. Two decades ago, Naisbitt predicted that as human communication relied more on technology, we would need to stay grounded in personal, face-to-face relationships. Some service providers may be duped into thinking that offering high-tech solutions will satisfy Gen Ys , but this will not be enough—they also will be looking for real connections with real people in real time.

Judging from the trends of the last 15 years, and what we know about globalisation and about the style and mores of Generation Y, we can predict a continuing and even accelerating need for career and life/transition support for the relocating spouse and partner. The successful providers of such services will not wait long before developing programming customised by the coming flood of Gen Ys.

Lorraine Bello, GMS, is president of Ricklin-Echikson Associates, Inc. (REA), Millburn, NJ, and a member of the MOBILITY Editorial Advisory Committee. She can be reached at +1 973 376 2020 or e-mail lbello@eclipse.net.
Galen Tinder is senior consultant and manager for Ricklin-Echikson Associates, Inc. (REA), Millburn, NJ. He can be reached at +1 973 376 2020 or e-mail galentinder@gmail.com.

Reprinted with permission of MOBILITY Magazine, February 2008