I.
Statement Statement of the Problem
As overseas expansion continues, making the international assignment increasingly important for advancement at Colgate-Palmolive (C-P), management is faced with some tough issues. Increasingly young, talented talented managers are not accepting overseas assignments because their spouses can’t move. Should Colgate-Palmolive adjust their International Assignment Policy (IAP) in light of dual career families and if so, how? II.
Analysis
C-P is considering three approaches to changing the IAP: 1. Increase the benefits offered under the Spouse Assistance Assistance Program. a. One time reimbursement reimbursement payment of $10,000 (vs. (vs. $7,500) and pay for child care expenses while the spouse is conducting a job search. 2. Income replacement, offset offset a spouse’s lost income for up to three months or up to a limit of $50,000. 3. Emphasize the non-financial benefits. Rather than trying to to make the ex-pat ex-pat assignment more financially attractive, try to get the spouse to see it in a positive light rather than a sacrifice. For example emphasize, the cultural experience, the opportunity to learn a foreign language or expand one’s education. Or, option number four which is, do nothing; 4. Some managers believe that the problem is exaggerated and that a company as strong as C-P should be able to find 170 managers who would be glad to pursue an international career. Just because some managers were turning the assignments down did not mean that the company needed to make a major change to its traditional approach. Under approach number one the increase payment of $2,500 to help with the job search or set up an independent business, plus child care expenses doesn’t mean much in a country where it is illegal for the spouse spouse to work. In over one half of the countries where C-P has subsidiaries, it is illegal for the spouse to work. Overall this policy change doesn’t doesn’t address the issue of helping a highly paid professional replace lost wages and or the stimulus of the work environment. Per company records, records, only one third of the ex-pat spouses are using this option currently. Approach number two offers a substantial substantial payment, but what about the the stimulation the spouse gets from work interaction, not to mention the loss of experience and wages (and retirement benefits) while living overseas? overseas? This monetary compensation would not make up for the long term earnings potential that is sacrificed. Not to mention that this this would make
the ex-pat program even more expensive than it is now (could be $40,000 more per ex-pat x 170/year = $6.8 million). Approach number three is unique in the fact that that it recognizes that it would would be incredible difficult to measure the lost wages and experience of a spouse and try to compensate for that. Instead it emphasizes the positive positive benefits of living abroad and that this could be a positive tradeoff. Approach number four is a bit arrogant and not very very progressive in thought. C-P certainly could find 170 people a year to go overseas, but would they really be the the “best”? An HR representative brought up the fact that the dual career problem is a reflection of their high quality: “We tend to attract people who have been to graduate school and who often met their spouses at graduate school. Both spouses are educated professional and both tend to want to pursue their careers.” Most of the human resource managers recognize that dual career families are becoming the rule not the exception. It would be foolish not to to prepare for this issue, and this will help C-P maintain their industry leading IAP. III.
Recommendations
The first decision that one needs to to make is whether to change change the IAP or not. I believe that C-P needs to re-examine the policy, policy, in light of dual career families. I do not believe that simply throwing more and more money at the issue will solve the root problem, which is the sacrifice that a spouse has to make in terms of his/her own career path which has other benefits beyond the monetary (for example, promotion opportunities, interaction with colleagues, intellectual stimulation, stimulation, etc.). To be successful, I think the policy needs to emphasize the non-financial gains (new language skills, chance to see a new cultural or continue one’s education) that can be made, perhaps have some testimonials from spouses that have already gone through the experience. It would also help if it became more customizable (more home country flybacks versus the $7,500 payment, etc.), within reason.
C-P needs to show their employees that they know and care about individual situations and are willing to work with them to find a mutually agreeable solution. solution. This is also an ideal way to build loyalty. loyalty. C-P also needs to emphasize emphasize the re-entry plan for ex-pats. ex-pats. This helps the spouse “see the light at the end of the tunnel” and make plans for re-entering the job market. C-P can also set up programs for for spouses to prepare them for re-entering the job market. All of these non-financial additions to the policy should help the dual career issue.
