|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
'Extreme Commutes' On the Rise
Executive recruiters say it is tougher today than in the past to persuade candidates to relocate for a new job. Family and lifestyle are cited as the two biggest reasons.
Increasingly, executives would rather spend three hours a day getting to and from work in trains, planes and automobiles than uproot their families and move them closer to the office. And some employers are responding by instituting policies and practices that make "extreme commuting" a viable alternative to relocation. In its 12th annual Executive Recruiter Index, Korn/Ferry International, a Los Angeles-based executive search firm, reported that more than half (55 percent) of executive recruiters say it is tougher today than in the past to convince candidates to relocate for new job opportunities. Half of those surveyed said family ties are the leading reason for the resistance, while lifestyle factors are the No. 2 reason (25 percent). According to Jeff Hocking, office managing director of Korn/Ferry's San Francisco branch, candidate reluctance falls into three categories: more working spouses who can't relocate, children who are happy at their schools and more companies that are open to telecommuting. Some extreme commuters -- defined as those spending more than 90 minutes one way each day traveling to or from work -- say they wouldn't have it any other way. David Stich, a partner at the New York-based law firm of Solomon, Perl, Blum, Hayman, and Stich, spends three to four hours a day commuting between his office in Manhattan and his home in Greenwich, Conn., something he's been doing since 1995. "I love living in Greenwich," he says. "It has wonderful schools, a sense of community and I live 10 minutes from a beautiful beach." While he describes his daily commute -- driving to the train station, taking the train into the city and then hopping on the subway to his office -- as "hard and time consuming," he has no plans to change his routine or work from home more than one or two days a month. Others burn out on extreme commuting. A few years ago, Denise Rolfe, now a new business development executive for a broadcast tower company in Tampa, Fla., commuted from suburban Philadelphia to New York five days a week to run creative services for a network television show. At first, the idea of a long daily commute scared her, but she was a good fit and a recruiter persuaded her to accept the position. "I can't believe I'm going to be doing this," she thought to herself. "I thought it would be a six-month assignment. But it turned into four years." Her employer at the time offered no opportunity to work at home, no travel compensation and no flexibility. Eventually, says Rolfe, she'd had enough. "I decided to look for something closer to home." Hocking says he is "surprised at the number of companies that are still pretty adamant that people need to be at headquarters five days a week or must relocate even though they travel a lot. While there's nothing wrong with that, these companies compete with companies that are more flexible." Hocking recommends flexible schedules (to help avoid traffic jams), gasoline allowances and telecommuting policies to encourage desired candidates to accept positions without having to relocate. "Executive relocations cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars," says Hocking, "so compensation for travel could lead to savings." For companies that don't generally allow people to work from home, Hocking advises HR professionals that they should be "over-communicating" the message throughout their companies that -- for example -- some executives spend so much time on the road that it doesn't make sense for them to relocate, and therefore they are allowed to work at home one or two days a week. The Korn/Ferry survey found that four of five (82 percent) recruiters indicate that employers are "at least somewhat open to having their executives conduct frequent business travel instead of relocation" -- a trend especially prevalent in the technology industry. Jeff Schonberg, managing partner for Management Recruiters of Ambler, Pa., part of MRI, a national executive search firm chain, notes that many more people today can carry out the functions of their job from a remote location, so there is less need for executives to relocate. For those forced to come into the office every day, he recommends companies provide a car allowance, a stipend, a per diem or some other means of compensation for the extra travel as long as the candidate can be effective remotely. "Any time you can deal with a candidate who is local, it's much easier," he says. Taking a different approach, Sally Stetson, co-founder and principal with Salveson Stetson Group, an executive search firm in Radnor, Pa., advises employers to make a strong push to pre-sell the new location -- and try to persuade candidates to relocate. "Companies are finding they must become much more proactive in helping candidates understand the features and benefits of a new city or community," says Stetson. "It's important that a job candidate get a full picture of the quality of life in the new location early in the process," she says. "Employers don't want to find at the 11th hour that a candidate is never going to warm up to a new region of the country." The Korn/Ferry survey notes that higher compensation is the most common incentive used to persuade candidates to relocate, according to nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of recruiters surveyed, followed by flexible-work environments (40 percent) and arrangements for family visits (37 percent).
December 5, 2007 Copyright 2007© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||