Mobility plans: Are they worth it?

The expectation to relocate — often from one country to another — is widespread among those working in international development. For employees, this emphasis on mobility can be as enriching as it can be a strain on their private lives and even their professional development. For employers, it’s a puzzle of logistics that often complicates other human resources goals like gender equity. At the same time, mobility programs — be it in the Foreign Service or organizations like the U.N Refugee Agency or World Food Program — help institutions share knowledge and create a versatile workforce. Many governments push mobility through structured programs like the Foreign Service, where diplomats can bid on posts and are expected to change positions every few years. This form of job hopping is encouraged in order to avoid the formation of political alliances that could cause conflicts with policy-making, and also to create a versatile workforce that understands policy issues across boundaries, seeing synergies where perhaps none existed before. While international development and diplomacy are different career fields with different strategic objectives, skill sets and organizational cultures, there are very similar mobility programs in the global aid sector. “Mobility is generally a good idea,” said a senior human resources manager for a U.N. agency who worked on mobility policies in prior U.N. jobs and moved several times himself across agencies and countries. “There are a number of reasons for that, including the fact that if you have a job for more than five years, you often get bored, and it is a natural thing to want to learn and contribute elsewhere.” But it might not be realistic to assume that a family unit can pick up and move every three to five years, and many human resources professionals agree that there are situations where a mandatory mobility program is not useful, especially when it becomes a “goal in itself,” as described by one HR professional, to rotate people around. Organizations continue to grapple with this dilemma. What they seem to agree on, though, is that a mobility program can be successful if it is carefully integrated in a well-directed talent management plan. Burden sharing and staff well-being One of the biggest reasons to consider a mobility program is staff well-being. Often, staff in hardship or emergency duty stations get a reputation for having the skills needed to function in emergency settings, and are either stuck in one location for a long period of time as a result, or moved to another hardship setting without broader consideration about stress, burnout and separation from family. This burden might especially fall on unmarried employees or those from program countries. That’s not to say that the work in hardship posts can’t also be very enriching. One development professional shared that “often, the more challenging your work environment, the more direct contribution you feel you can make and the more immediate impact you can see in your work.” But staff members who serve in hardship locations, often separated from families, also need a break. A mobility program can help relieve this burden by ensuring staff members that if they choose to accept such a post, they are committing to a finite period of time in that country and will have an opportunity to move to a less stressful location later — or one where they might be reunited with their family. At UNHCR, for example, after three consecutive tours — six years in total — in a hardship or non-family duty station, a clearance or a waiver from the medical service is needed before a person would be considered again for a similar assignment. Strategic talent management The benefits of a well-managed mobility program include the opportunity for strategic talent management, succession planning and leadership development. A mobility program can also help ensure that those at headquarters don’t lose sight of the often harsh reality of life and work in the field: The more time an employee spends on location around the world, the more knowledgeable they tend to be about sustainable solutions, and the easier they see linkages and develop cross-sectoral and cross-regional partnerships. You are often more effective once you have experienced life both at headquarters and in the field, noted one international staff member who works for a refugee organization. Each new assignment offers new perspectives. But a mobility program can also be at odds with talent development. Simply moving people every few years is expensive and time-consuming, and it doesn’t address the broader needs of an organization to groom leaders. If a staff member has spent his or her life, for example, developing expertise in one region, an arbitrary move to another region might not optimally leverage their networks, language abilities or overall skills. Mike Culligan, director of Last Mile Learning for LINGOS, a nonprofit capacity building organization, sees pros and cons in his own mobility. "On the one hand, the frequent moves exposed me to a variety of programs and allowed me to progress in my career more quickly by moving through a series of posts with expanding responsibilities,” he said. “On the other, project beneficiaries and implementing partner organizations seldom worked with the same staff for more than two to three years. As a result, institutional knowledge, cultural awareness, and relationship capital needed to be re-established as new staff replaced the old." Mobility should never be considered a chess game, moving pieces just for the sake of moving, noted one human resources professional for a large international organization. Organizational effectiveness Leaders at WFP and UNHCR are quick to point out that their mobility programs increase their organizations’ effectiveness. For example, staff members who are consistently mobile don’t form an alliance to one particular country and thus can remain objective. “It also allows for impartiality in sensitive dealings with government counterparts,” said a UNHCR employee. “It assists us in being independent and not succumbing to undue political influence.” But mobility programs also have the potential to get in the way of organizational effectiveness if they’re not integrated with other priorities within the organization’s talent strategy. Many international institutions are working to promote gender equity, for example, by recruiting women for leadership roles. But this mandate of gender equity can clash with the mandate of mobility. Women may self-select out of the organization if remaining mobile means too much time apart from children or partners who cannot find work abroad. Couples, too, can struggle with this type of lifestyle. Moving, as one development professional acknowledged, “takes a toll on your spouse, even if you move from New York to Geneva” and children’s schooling and friendships are disrupted as a result. Spouses or partners often shoulder a high burden when it comes to integrating into a new country. While some feel that, to some extent, this is what you sign on for with a career in development, it is not an excuse for HR or organizational leadership to disregard the issue, according to Judson Flanagan, former director of human resources at Catholic Relief Services. In fact, there are some ways to mitigate some of these stressors if an organization is committed to doing so. For example, Flanagan pointed to a psychosocial support program that he, along with CRS benefits managers, introduced. An external provider manages the program, which is available to staff at any time. Employees — either by phone or when on home leave — have the opportunity to speak with a counselor to help manage the stress of a difficult assignment. CRS hired a firm to conduct a series of regional or country-specific workshops on resilience and psychosocial support in high-risk countries, targeting both national and international staff, Flanagan said. The international NGO also expects its regional staff to be on the lookout for those needing respite. Careful integration Mobility programs can be successful when carefully integrated into a deliberate, strategic talent management system that looks critically at the skills of each individual in an organization — and maps out experiences that will groom the talent needed for the organization to fulfill its mandate. One HR professional for a multilateral development organization noted that her team has employed a range of mobility mechanisms for years, not necessarily in a mandatory way, but to help cultivate talent while moving individuals strategically to support business needs. This is time-intensive and involves significant human resources capacity and involvement at the highest level of management in an organization, she said, and it must be balanced with awareness of gender, diversity and impact on staff well-being. Organizations can also achieve more mobility by thinking of other ways to incentivize position moves and working in hardship duty stations. Often, employees will note that they are open to going to a hardship post or have a change in duty stations. Yet, as one development professional put it: “I need to know where I will end up afterwards, and [my employer] can’t tell me.” Mobility, while it may be challenging — or even controversial — at times, tends to work best when it comes naturally, when it’s part of the fabric of an organizational culture, and when it’s expected and encouraged. Has a mobility plan aided or hurt your career? Let us know in the comments section below. Check out more career advice stories online, and subscribe to Doing Good to receive top international development career and recruitment news.