September 14, 2015

Lelia Lim-Loges Managing Partner Kincannon & Reed

Gregory Duerksen President Kincannon & Reed

In the English language knockout has two meanings. The first is used to describe something sensationally striking or appealing. The second is directly opposite — something that eliminates you from further competition. Increasingly in executive search we at Kincannon & Reed are seeing that position location is a knockout factor for many candidates.

As businesses adopt global, mobile operating platforms, it is ironic that top talent has become less willing to relocate. In general, mobility (defined as moving across state, province, or country borders) in developed countries has declined dramatically. In America, for example, a full 6% of population moved across borders in 1990. In 2012, only 2.4% moved across borders. The numbers are even worse in other parts of the world, according to the OECD, and the downward trend in mobility applies across all parts of the workforce, regardless of education, marital status, age, or number of earners in the household.

The reasons for global workforce immobility stem both from long-term trends as well as recent history. The mix of jobs offered around the world and within nations has become more uniform, making it is less necessary to move to find work. The plummeting cost of information is a factor, too. Deregulated airlines and online-travel services have slashed travel costs, allowing people to visit and assess different markets without relocating there. The evolution of the internet has played a dual role; making it possible to study many aspects of a potential new location without leaving home, and expanding the ability for talent to work remotely. So many question why they have to move at all.

Following the 2008 financial market crash, there is a greater aversion to risk present in the working population. Real or perceived losses in home values raise monetary barriers. More robust safety nets in advanced economies decrease the sense of urgency to make a move. Children—especially those in upper school—frequently are given veto rights over their parents’ careers if it means changing schools or leaving friends.

When top talent is willing to relocate, we see a marked and accelerating preference for top-tier cities, followed by university towns. Defining tiers is an amorphous mix of quality of life standards. In the minds of candidates, first-tier cities have a true international airport, an abundance of major sports and cultural institutions, and a rich and broad social network that can be tapped. Examples around the world include London, Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Frankfurt, Rome, Amsterdam, Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo, São Paulo, and Dubai, to name just a few. Second-tier cities meet similar criteria but may have more limited options. Third-tier locations will still have a good size population, excellent schools, and broad shopping options, but only a regional airport.

So what’s an employer to do? First and most important, accept the new reality. Yes, it may be possible to find a qualified candidate who is willing to move to a location considered “difficult”, but recognize you are often dramatically limiting the size of the pool from which you can select.

The far better opportunity lies in being flexibility in your approach. Ask yourself if it is really necessary for the candidate to live exactly where the job is, or could they choose somewhere within a reasonable commuting distance? Can they work remotely with an agreed-upon schedule of on-site time? What incentives (monetary or otherwise) would you be willing to offer to the right person to entice them to move to your preferred location?

Some companies who insist that their key people live in close proximity to the office and each other are relocating their offices to a top-tier city. Their openly declared reason for this action is to attract and keep talent for their organizations.

To candidates we often pose the question: Which is more important – the nature of the job and opportunity, or where the opportunity is located? In today’s marketplace, a candidate and family who are truly open to relocation differentiate herself/himself from other candidates. On the other hand, a candidate who raises obstacles to relocation dramatically limits his or her career development opportunities.

To both sides we point out one common truth: you can indeed have it all, but not always at the same time.
Lelia Lim-Loges is a member of the speaking faculty at GAI Asia in Singapore, September 22-24, 2015.

The opinions expressed in this editorial are the author’s own and do not reflect the views of GAI News.