Back to the NY Times. An article in today's paper "Unsold Homes Tie Down Would-Be Transplants" by Louis Uchitelle tells an interesting story about the effect on our organizations ability to hire qualified staff. Specifically, to hire people who have to sell their homes to relocate. A common situation for many of us who have changed jobs in the past.Hiring often involves someone who must sell house a house and move to a job. What if that house can't be sold or can't be sold without a substantial financial loss? It's possible that your perspective hire might not take the job. Or he/she might take the job and take a financial hit that has a substantial negative impact. It's also possible that you might never interview him or her because of the requirement to sell a house.
It is also possible that you and your company might find a different solution. Commuting / telecommuting. I'm a fan of flexibility having worked for several companies where it was the norm to manage telecommuting staff along with employees housed in other locations including some that were far from home.
For me relocation pain hits close to home (no pun intended). I've had a senior I.T. position where I planned to relocate ultimately but could not. The decision was, in part, due to the real estate market and partially due to schools. No blame here - the culture in that company held that all senior staff live locally. I respect the decision because I respect that team. But the discussions on flexibility were particulary painful.
Change for the good? From my family standpoint no move, no new schools, no change - so maybe yes. From a corporate standpoint - we found my successor - who lived in that area - so little pain other than that imposed by the transition. Either way we've both moved on.
The issue posed in Mr. Uchitelle's article is that the ability of the workforce to relocate is reduced. Will this situation force changes in the way we acquire and retain talent? Will those changes be long lasting?
1 comment:
It can be shown that to limit one's thinking to that of the 1950s where nearly everyone punched a clock and lived less than a mile from the "plant" severely restricts the ability to find good talent and capitalize on it.
The truely innovative companies are not so tied to something half a decade old. The only ones that are are those who still have to count blocks on an Org chart and people in seats to feel important.
Post a Comment