managers, mobility, and morale

Managers, Mobility, and Morale

Management has long accepted relocation as a part of career

development planning and for meeting manpower needs at

specific company sites. But how do the transferred executives feel?

WILLIAM F. GLUECK

William F. Glueck is a faculty member in the management field at the Universiry of M&our&Columbia.

Each year, about 40 million Americans change their home address. About 12 million of these move across state and county lines. Although most of these moves are made voluntarily, it is estimated that about 800,000 American men, women, and children change their address because employers have transferred them. America is a mobile society and, allegedly, Americans like it this way. This article summarizes some research designed to determine whether American businessmen view this mobility as beneficial to them, their families, and their employer.

In his book A Nation of Strangers, Vance Packard raises some disturbing questions about restless Americans. Of course, Packard is talking about more forms of mobility than executive transfers; he also considers, for example, the movement of migrant workers to new jobs; of the middle-aged to retirement communities; and of students to college. He remarks that mobility “is especially upsetting when there is an element of compulsion in it, as is so frequently the case when transfers of business and government personnel are involved.“’

1. Vance Packard, A Nation of Strangers (New York: David McKay, 1972), p. 2.

Packard cites the statistic that the typical American moves fourteen times in his life- time, compared to eight for the Briton, seven for the Frenchman, and five for the Japanese. Can all this mobility be justified? Packard deplores the loss of community that he knew as a child and attributes some of the dissolu- tion of family and society as seen today to excessive mobility. Higher divorce rates, tran- sitory friendships, lack of interest in local problems, and aggression or indifferences to

strangers all are partly the result of excessive mobility, he believes.

65

Approximately one-quarter of a million executive transfers take place yearly. The most frequent cause is a manpower need at a particular location; for example, a manager is required at a branch where qualified personnel are not already available. A second reason for managerial transfer is to fulfill plans for the career development of executives. Some firms, usually large national companies with diversity in the product/service offering, have devised plans that involve cross-functional and geographic transfers as part of managerial development. In these instances, transfers are probably essential. A third cause of managerial transfer is the physical relocation of facili- ties. An earlier study by the author, however, reveals that relocation is not a primary cause

DECEMBER 1974

WILLIAM F. CLUECK

of transfers; large numbers of managers are $10,000 to over $100,000. The “average” often involved, however, in case of new plant respondent was a 41-year-old male college openings or establishment of new regional graduate earning approximately $19,000 per sales offices. year.

How often are managers moved, and when in their career does the move take place? John F. Veiga, in his study of managerial mobility in three companies, found that the typical manager first moves among jobs with differ- ent companies (ages 29 to 32). The manager may also change jobs and move to another company between ages 41 and 48. Veiga found that a company is most likely to transfer a manager geographically between the ages 41 and 54.’

The pretested questionnaire mailed to the executives included twenty-eight items designed to measure their evaluation of fourteen aspects of transfers. Each of the twenty-eight items included a pair of items (one positive, one negative) representing the fourteen aspects of transfers analyzed. The items were scattered to reduce the possibility of “halo” effects. The topics included the impact of transfer on the financial situation of the family, the wives and children of the transferees, the transferees’ careers, and executive development, and the cost to the company.

THE STUDY

66

Although geographic mobility is increasingly a part of the American managerial experience, relatively few studies have asked large numbers of managers to evaluate the costs and benefits of company initiated transfers to themselves and their employer. This article reports some of the results of a 1972 survey of 1,000 Midwestern business executives em- ployed in more than 400 companies. More than 50 percent returned usable responses. Telephone calls to determine whether the nonrespondents’ opinions differed significantly from those of the respondents led the author to conclude that there is no significant nonrespondent bias.

The participants were selected randomly from lists of members of professional associations in marketing, general management, finance, accounting, data processing, operations and manufacturing management, purchasing, personnel, and R&D management. Typical of these associations is the National Association of Accountants and Sales and Marketing Executives. Respondents were male, ranging in age from 24 to 69 and in salary from

2. John F. Veiga. “The Mobile Manager at Mid-career,” Harvard Business ,Review, (January-February 1973), pp. 115-19.

The executives indicated their responses to the item on a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” These items were analyzed individually and combined into a Positive Evaluation of Trans- fer (PET) index; the most positive response was scored +4, the least positive -4. (See accompanying “Sample Items.“) To classify items as “Favorable,” “Unfavorable,” or “Neutral,” the paired item and responses were compared. (See accompanying “Method of Comparison.“) This article discusses some of the causes and dimensions of this mobility, then examines how managers evaluate their mobility experiences. Finally, implications and suggestions for improved transfer practice are described.

THE FINDINGS

Table 1 provides information concerning the executives studied in this research. Section la indicates that these managers did some job- hopping early in their careers and, in fact, changed locations to do so. Table lb suggests that the transfer of a manager is likely to occur in his late twenties or early thirties- earlier than Veiga’s sample indicated. Perhaps the three companies studied by Veiga had

BUSINESS HORIZONS

Managers, Mobility. and Morale

devised for their executives career plans that were lengthier in the first stage of development than the plans designed by the average firm in this study.

Attitudes on Mobility

If the critics of company initiated mobility are correct, managers should report their negative feelings about it, anonymously, to an outside researcher. No doubt those most opposed to mobility are not represented in this sample of managers. One reason is because managers who had not been transferred did not respond to the items; they could not express their feelings about an action they had not experienced. And some managers firmly opposed to transfers choose to work for firms without branches to avoid the experience.

TABLE 1

Geographical Relocations of Managers

la. Number of locations before joining present firm

First location Second location Third location Total sample

Average Age N

27.6 243 30.6 145 34.0 675 29.6 463*

lb. Number of transfers by present firm

Average Age N

One transfer 29.1 68 Two transfers 32.3 85 Three or more transfers 35.1 74 Total sample 32.3 277*

*Number of responses does not equal the sample size in all cases because some respondents did not complete every item on the questionnaire.

67

Sample Items from the Survey Questionnaire

The following is an excerpt from the questionnaire used for the survey. The excerpt illustrates the kinds of items used to arrive at the Positive Evaluation of Transfer (PET) index.

The following are a series of statements we’d like you to respond to. There are no “‘right” answers to these statements. Simply check the response that comes closest to your feelings about the statement.

My wife is pleased about the transfers because it means we’re moving up in the world

If you turn down a transfer, it hurts your career with this company

You become a better executive by moving than if you were given job rotations at one location

More good men than the company realizes leave the company rather than move again

Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

l-

Strongly Disagree

DECEMBER 1974

WILLIAM F. GLUFCK

An examination of the PET index data in the aggregate reveals that the majority of mangers who were transferred are neutral about transfers. Responses of all managers (431) were: 8 percent (33 managers), unfavorable; 64 percent (277), neutral; and 28 percent (121), favorable.3 The managers’ positive evaluation of certain factors balance their negative feelings.

Examination of Table 2 provides a clue about these findings. About 6b percent of those transferred were moved only once by their current employer; of these, 99 percent are neutral about it. After one move, however, the neutral category almost ceases to exist. About 80 percent regard transfers as a useful experience for the company and themselves, and 20 percent regard the experience as unfavorable, especially in a personal way, and to some extent also undesirable for the company.

68

Further analysis of the data reveals significant differences in responses. The higher the managers in the corporation’s ranks, the more positively they evaluate transfers after three or more moves. In addition, the more they aspire to hold top managerial positions, the more favorably they evaluate transfers. To summarize (holding age constant), transfers are more favorably accepted the greater the number of moves, the higher the manager’s rank in the corporation, and the greater his desire to reach the top.

In addition, the executives are only moderately negative about some of the personal cost items on the questionnaire. The overall index of transfers, therefore, appears positive.

There are several explanations for these positive evaluations. One is that these men feel transfers are an essential requirement for achievement, and, therefore, accept mobility

3. The statistics used to analyze the data were the Kendall Rank Order Coefficient of Correlation “Tar? and Kendall Partial Correlation Coefficient. The latter was used to hold variables such as age constant. “Statistically” significant differences indicate an .05 level; “very significant” differences indicate .Ol or stronger as the level of signifi- cance.

as necessary. The second explanation is that their acceptance is unquestioning; they have been so aware of the fact that transfers are necessary that they do not think about not transferring. The third explanation is method- ological. These managers feel strongly that the company offers many advantages.

Company Gains and Personal Questions

Some important findings appear when individ- ual items are analyzed. The managers feel strongly that transfers are worth the cost to the company. This expense includes the direct cost of moving the manager, as well as indirect cost. For example, the transferred executives estimate that each company lost about $600 in time away from company work as a result of each move. The managers feel,

Method of Comparison

To classify items, the paired item and responses were compared. For example, the results of the items on living costs were :

Item 1 -With the raises I get at transfer time, our standard of living is always better after our move: strongly agree, 2 percent; agree, 27 percent; neutral 26 percent; disagree, 42 percent; strongly disagree, 3 percent.

Item 2-After a move, we’re never ahead; higher costs seem to eat up the raises: strongly agree, 16 percent; agree, 46 percent; neutral, 8 percent; disagree, 24 percent; and strongly disagree, 3 percent.

On both items, 45 percent of the transferred executives felt that their standard of living was not better after the move; 25 percent had a neutral opinion; and 29 percent felt they were always better off. As far as dollars and cents go (Item 2), 62 percent felt they were not better off after a move, and 27 percent felt they were. It appears that only about one in four of the executives regards the transfer as an economic benefit to his family, and perhaps transfers are assessed as an economic cost to the families.

When two-thirds or more of the respondents’ net responses (combining positive and negative items) were favorable (that is, strongly agree-agree on positive statements and strongly disagree-disagree on the negative items), the response was coded as “favorable.” The reverse was used for unfavorable items. In those items where there was no clear trend (where positive and negative items tended to cancel each other out), the item was categorized as neutral.

BUSINESS HORIZONS

Managers, Mobility. and Morale

TABLE 2

Responses of Managers to Transfers

Unfavorable Favorable Neutral Number

One geographic transfer 0.4% 0.4% 99.2% 238 Two geographic transfers 21.6 66.4 12.0 73 Three geographic transfers 16.3 76.7 7.0 43 Four or more transfers 18.0 80.0 2.0 45

*Number of responses does not equal the same size in all cases because some respondents did not complete every item on the questionnaire.

however, that geographic transfers develop better executives than an alternative, such as job rotation at one location. They do not feel they are being transferred too often or that too much time is used up learning the new job. Finally, the transferees do not feel the company has lost good executives because of transfers, nor would they leave the company themselves if they were transferred again.

At the personal level, they are not satis- fied. The strongest negative reaction to transfers comes in response to this item: “After a move, we’re never ahead; higher costs seem to eat up the raises.” The positive item for the pair of questions related to costs also supports the feeling that companies do not realize the added costs at transfer time. Managers find they must “trade up” in housing and other needs to symbolize the promotion and to fit into the new social setting.

The transferees have mixed feelings about making new friends at the new locations. The husbands state that their wives are only moderately upset by the changes, a report that corresponds to David R. Chittick’s findings.’ The author, however, has heard person- ally from some of the wives after moves and rarely is their evaluation as positive. The managers also feel that it does not appreciably affect their children. In Packard’s view, however, transfers damage a child’s development,

4. David R. Chittick, “The Effects of Corporate Moves on Corporate Wives” (SM. thesis, Sloan School of Manage- ment,‘Massachusctts Institute of Technology, 1969).

especially if they occur during crucial junior high years. I suspect that fathers take it as a point of pride that their children can adjust but that they do not really know the price of lost friendships. These findings about manage,rs’ reactions also are confirmed in general by a study done by Humble Oil Company of its own managers.’

69

Better Management of Mobility

About two-thirds of the managers feel that the company did not plan the transfer well, and they also feel that they were not ade- quately consulted prior to the transfer. Al- though almost all the managers felt that the transfer was good for the company in generali two-thirds questioned the efficiency of the planning involved. For example, these executives think that their company moves them too often, more often than most other companies in their industry. They also indicate a lack of career planning in many transfers. Nearly one-half of those surveyed agree with this statement: “I wish I could have more to say about my transfers.” Between one-half and two-thirds feel that, whatever their wishes on transfers, rejection of the transfer would have significantly hurt their career.

5. E. T. DiCorcia, “Relocation Information and Opinion Survey,” Personnel Research N070-15, Humble Oil and Refining Company, 1970.

DECEMBER 1974

WILLIAM F. GLUECK

These responses should lead to some serious thinking on the part of top managers and those involved in planning the use of human resources. Some questions to be con- sidered might include:

How many managers did we transfer last year? What were the economic and social costs of our

transfers? Were there transfers really necessary?

As a result of my 1972 study, several firms examined the costs of transfers. They were unpleasantly surprised at the amount expended, and were more shocked to see how many of the transfers occurred because of minor personality differences between managers.

Of those necessary transfers, another set of questions apply:

Did we consider all the locally available candi- dates before transferring a manager?

Did we really discuss the manager’s preferences about transfer at this time before implementing the

70 transfer?

With regard to the first question, many companies profess to have good management development programs. - Yet when there is a need for a new manager, somehow they must always transfer someone to fill the job. If their development program was working, there should have been someone ready to step into the job at that location. Of course, this is not the case in some industries where there is only one manager at a location (examples of these industries might include smaller shoe factories, personal finance offices, and small retail branches). In this situation, transfers might be mandatory; some companies feel some transfers are essential for effective management development. But if an industry or

company does not fit these characteristics and there never seems to be the right manager at the right location, there is something wrong with the management development program.

The second question is directed at the issue of authentic communication between superior and subordinate at transfer time. A fruitful discussnon involves more than a state-

ment of the transfer decision for ratification by the transferee. All the personal and professional implications for the manager and his family and also the company benefits must be thoroughly explored with him. Then, if both the superior and subordinates see the useful- ness of transfer for the company and the manager, both the company and the manager will benefit. This is not likely to occur if the manager feels (as this survey indicates) that refusal of a transfer can affect his career seriously. A new semivoluntary transfer poli- cy is necessary for this communication to take place.

No doubt the days are gone when a person can grow up in one commu-

nity surrounded by those who know and care about him. As Lyndon Johnson said of such a community, Johnson City, “The people there really care when someone dies.”

The data in this study indicate that American managers have adjusted to a more mobile life. But to justify the costs and to keep managerial morale high, managers must feel that their moves are necessary, are in their own and the company’s best interest, and are well-managed. At least one-third of the managers surveyed were unconvinced that these three conditions existed in their case, even though they approved of mobility.

Throughout the world, American management is known to be advanced, progressive, and cognizant of its social responsibilities. Excessive mobility exists now, and companies need to take a close look at the economic costs of their present transfer policies. Much more important are the social and psychologi- cal costs-wives and children without close friends and communities lacking local leader- ship because of frequently transferred managers. Top managers should examine their mobility practices to assure that company transfers are necessary, in the manager’s and company’s best interests, and a real contribu- tion to company effectiveness and managerial morale.

BUSINESS HORIZONS

managers, mobility, and morale

Documents