I. 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 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 Program. a. One time reimbursement payment of $10,000 (vs. $7,500) and pay for child

care expenses while the spouse is conducting a job search. 2. Income replacement, 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 make the 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 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 address

the issue of helping a highly paid professional replace lost wages and or the stimulus of the

work environment. Per company records, only one third of the ex-pat spouses are using

this option currently.

Approach number two offers a substantial payment, but what about the stimulation the

spouse gets from work interaction, not to mention the loss of experience and wages (and

retirement benefits) while living overseas? This monetary compensation would not make up

for the long term earnings potential that is sacrificed. Not to mention that 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 it recognizes that it 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 benefits of living abroad and that this could be a

positive tradeoff.

Approach number four is a bit arrogant and not very progressive in thought. C-P certainly

could find 170 people a year to go overseas, but would they really be 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 prepare

for this issue, and this will help C-P maintain their industry leading IAP.

III. Recommendations The first decision that one needs to make is whether to change the IAP or not. I believe that

C-P needs to re-examine the 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, 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. This is also an ideal way

to build loyalty. C-P also needs to emphasize the re-entry plan for 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 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.