Even in the cut-throat world of multi-national and corporate business, there are some common sense rules about employee relocation and policies that pertain to the act of seeking, finding and convincing new employees to consider the sometimes very lucrative contacts and signing bonuses for new hires.

Head-hunting is the somewhat derogatory term that describes the practice of a corporation actively seeking talented executive and technical employees, no matter where they might currently be employed. Since this often means they are contacting people who are already employed, often by a competitor, it is a practice that many who already have a stable of quality employees fear.

Of course, it is perfectly legal and mostly ethical to make an offer to anyone.

And whether they’re located in the next city or across the world, part of any offer must comply with the company’s established employee relocation policies. This may give a headhunter some room to maneuver, but when it comes to employee relocation, policies designed to limit the commitment of a business to prospective employees are absolutely necessary given the massive potential for abuse that can arise from such arrangements.

The climate of headhunting perhaps reached its zenith in the mid- to late 1990s when business was booming worldwide, the US was still considered by most to be one of the most desirable places to live and work, globalization was becoming the norm (rather than the exception) and the first major wave of offshore talent was moving to California to work in the positively exploding tech scene. Other industries followed, and just about everywhere saw a major increase in employee relocation.

Policies that limited the liability of companies who were becoming engaged in real estate deals that were looking a bit shadier all the time were cropping up.

Since that time, things have calmed down a bit, visa restrictions have been implemented in the name of security and downsizing has become the order of the day. It has now become an employer’s market and there are fewer perks available for headhunters to offer potential employees. When it comes to employee relocation, policies that limit relocation benefits have become very highly scrutinized.

It is unlikely, for instance, than many companies will offer to buy a home that isn’t selling, though they may offer to make up the price if the prospective employee is about to take a loss on the transaction.

Generally, the lower profit expectations and higher employee efficiencies that are now expected of most employees have partially tied the hands of most headhunters, though most companies realize they still need to be competitive (or at least fair) with the employee relocation policies if they expect a solid workforce.
??

??

??

??

- 1 -

There are generally two types of employee relocation that managers are responsible for administering or outsourcing: importing talent from elsewhere or exporting the whole office to a new location. Either way, even if you’re not in the Human Resources (HR) department, as a manager, you’ll need to let your people know what’s going on and make sure that any transition is a smooth one.

In the case of incoming workers, when a new employee from another state or country is entering your department, you know you’ll get your best effort from them if there are no major stumbling blocks in the way.

Having to deal with goons from Homeland Security definitely counts as a roadblock and a major distraction for everyone even peripherally involved. Making sure the folks in HR (or the subcontractor they’ve hired) have all the information and support they need from your department is essential for smooth employee relocations.

A manager who makes a point of introducing themselves and the new job to a prospective employee as soon as possible, even before the move, will have the advantage of starting with someone who is ready to hit the ground running.

If some initial telecommunications work can be done beforehand, all the better. Nothing full time, of course – he or she still needs to move. Part time is plenty, especially for moving international employees.

Relocation of managers is fraught with its own dangers, though they don’t differ significantly from the hire of any new for a supervisory employee or relocation. Management has its work cut out for it in the case of moving an operation from one location to another.

For starters, no one is bound to tell you whether they’re staying or leaving and you are bound to loose some people to the move.

This is especially bitter when you’re not making the move either. It can be next to impossible to keep up morale, especially in situations where you’re not able to promise any sort of assistance package for employee relocation. Managers and executives are most typically the recipients of relocation services – you may be offered services your charges are not.

Check with HR to see if any within your group have been given differential relocation packages.

There is rarely a good way to make the transition to a new office, one that means the loss of several people’s jobs, and have employees who are leaving without prospects or severance packages help you put the move together. If it seems that very few people will make the move do what you can to speed up the process, so people aren’t left bitter and stewing.

When dealing with employee relocation, as a manager, you’re bound to consider the efficiency of your whole team. While others are taking care of the moving itself, you need to keep a business moving forward with the very best personnel, even if that means some changes.
??

??

??

??

- 1 -