Relocation on personal initiative versus relocation on behalf of the workplace – the differences between them and the preferred countries

Written by Dr. Hanna Ornoy and published with her courtesy.

Relocation is usually on behalf of the workplace (Assigned Expatriates), but more and more people are seeking relocation for themselves and are leaving on their own initiative (Self Initiated Expatriate).

What is the difference between those on relocation who chose to take a position abroad on their own initiative, compared to those on relocation on behalf of their workplace?

Stations that relocated on their own initiative were found to be:

• Are more motivated to live abroad.
• May remain for a longer period.
• They do not receive proper guidance about the host country and are forced to discover and learn on their own about the cultural and social characteristics of the country. In most cases, they are even required to handle contractual issues and employment conditions in the host country themselves.
• However, they are more likely to assimilate into the culture of the host country – learn the language and interact socially with the locals – and therefore they also adapt more quickly.
• Their level of job satisfaction is lower because they usually work under local supervision and in most cases have little, if any, support from the organization’s main management offices. 
• They usually work in a more junior position and under employment conditions that are not in line with employment conditions in multinational companies. 
• Those who choose the position on their own initiative are given greater freedom to choose the host country and therefore also give more weight to the characteristics of the country and the place of residence. The importance and consideration for the comfort of the family is higher, compared to those who are assigned the position. 
• In addition, there are also employment laws that dictate labor market access policies, labor laws and enforcement, as well as the length of stay that can be granted in the host country.

All of these may influence the stationed people in their choice of the company they will work for, and where they will live, and fewer employ those who are sent for relocation on behalf of the workplace.

In which countries/cities do those stationed on personal initiative tend to choose to reside?

• In safe countries where the level of corruption is low and the institutions are trustworthy.
• Countries that offer an adequate standard of living and welcome foreign workers.  
• Working in English-speaking countries is more attractive than working anywhere else. 
• Countries that have a positive multicultural climate – that is, a tendency toward equality in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or cultural differences.
• According to Mercer’s Quality of Living Ranking (2018) among relocation locations worldwide, Vienna received the highest ranking for the ninth consecutive year, followed by Zurich, Auckland, Munich, Vancouver, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Geneva, Copenhagen, and Basel. 
• FutureBrand (2019) published an index ranking host countries and how they are perceived according to six dimensions: value system, quality of life, business potential, heritage and culture, image of consumer products and services provided in the country, and tourism. Japan, Switzerland, and Germany received the highest scores.
• Immigroup (2019) released a list of the 10 most immigration-friendly countries, based on criteria of progressive immigration policies, support services, and economic prosperity. These 10 countries in 2019 included the USA, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Russia, the UK, the UAE, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Italy, and India – this information is also relevant for those relocating on their own initiative.
• The Persian Gulf countries, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia are considered attractive countries – the salary level there is a major incentive and the quality of life is high: security, family assistance, world-class schools, excellent healthcare.
• Relocation workers with professional backgrounds and training from developed countries that are not part of the European Union may find that the placement is relatively easy, compared to those coming from developing countries. Even if they are highly qualified and skilled for the job, those from developing countries may encounter many barriers in the form of policy or licensing processes as a result of prejudices that still exist. In any case, in France the policy is complicated when it comes to non-EU workers – they must provide permanent employment contracts or at least for a year.