The constant struggle to protect planning time in multinational roles

The working life of a multinational HR Director is shaped by an uneven distribution of time between the necessity to undertake planning and the immediate operational demands that arise during the week. The post is formally described as a strategic role centred on workforce planning and coordination across jurisdictions, policy development, and an informed anticipation of regulatory shifts. The written job description usually speaks of long-range thinking, structured frameworks, and the systematic improvement of organisational capability. Yet the reality is more fractured. Planned tasks are often pushed aside by issues that require immediate attention, and these issues rarely follow a predictable pattern. The constant movement between often conflicting demands leaves many Directors with a sense of unfinished work at the end of most weeks.

A week may begin with a clear intention to revise a global remote-working framework or to complete an overdue assessment of succession risks. Within a short period this may be diverted by an allegation of harassment from a South Asian subsidiary, the discovery of widescale pilfering in a particular plant, or a dispute about rostering practices in the United States. Each requires prompt handling, even when the underlying facts are partial or contested. The result is a working rhythm in which structured tasks are repeatedly suspended. Many HR Directors report that only a portion of their scheduled planning time survives each week, and that this portion varies widely.

An illustration drawn from a global consumer-goods company shows how this imbalance takes shape. The organisation attempted to reserve a fixed period every Thursday afternoon for policy development. The aim was to insulate planning work from interruptions. The arrangement collapsed almost at once. A sudden resignation by a senior regional manager required rapid coordination across several countries. An equal-pay claim in Scandinavia advanced more quickly than expected. A safety incident in France raised questions that could not be postponed, drawing several functions into prolonged discussion.

The Chief Executive of a multinational enterprise faces the same underlying tension, although the nature and degree of exposure differs. The Chief Executive is expected to hold a coherent view of the organisation’s long-term direction, to judge investments, to decide on market priorities, and to maintain clarity in communication with the Board and major shareholders. These responsibilities require extended periods of uninterrupted work. In practice, such periods are difficult to secure. A review of capital expenditure may be displaced by an urgent message about declining liquidity in a key region. A morning intended for preparation ahead of a Board meeting may instead be taken up by concerns from investors about emerging regulatory developments that threaten the bottom line.

Although a Chief Executive usually delegates the detailed management of each function, the responsibility to set a position, to reassure colleagues, and to confirm priorities occupies far more time than written schedules suggest. The result is a working pattern in which the long view is repeatedly broken by events that demand a direct response from the top.

In truth both roles operate under this steady pressure. The HR Director is pulled closer to daily operational matters, whilst the Chief Executive retains a wider horizon, yet both must defend their planning time against a constant flow of urgent day-to-day demands.

What FedEE can do for you

FedEE’s loyal membership speaks for itself. For the last four decades we have been offering timely, practical advice – not only about the law, but a wide range of HR-related matters.

We have also been active in representing the views of members on proposed changes in the law – such as the European Commission’s insistence that it has powers in the field of pay determination, even though its powers are formally denied by the EU Treaty. In the end, our pressure to have a key Directive declared as invalid by the European Court of Justice was successful.

A fairly recent development has been the development of ‘FedEE Law’, our one-to-one customised research and advisory service for FedEE corporate members. This has been supporting numerous multinationals with HR policy reviews, investigations into complex legal questions in difficult jurisdictions, the drawing up of employment contracts for one-off jobs, job pricing, benefit reviews and research in advance of collective negotiations.

You could probably secure a near alternative to FedEE by hiring a team of talented HR professionals, lawyers and economists with years of working in many jurisdictions and industry sectors, then by arming them with numerous costly database subscriptions – or you could simply sign up to FedEE at fraction of the cost. That is perhaps why many HR departments around the World have relied on FedEE over the years since our foundation in 1988.

Examples of issues we have reviewed through our common, rather than individual,  support service:

❖ The facility now available, thanks to the Federal Labour Court in Germany, to charge departing employees for the cost of investigating their malpractices.

❖ Why the expenses reimbursed to employees for using their own cars for business purposes in Poland counts as taxable income.

❖How should companies prepare for the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

❖How ‘Resignation Agents’ operate in Japan and how their legality is likely to be severely limited.

❖ Why employers in Lithuania may now ask an employee, or prospective employee, for criminal record certification without having any stated need to do so.

❖ The fact that overtime work in Mexico beyond legal limits is now treated as a form of labour exploitation punishable by up to 12 years imprisonment.

❖ How employers can deal with the court ruling removing employee whistleblowing protection in Denmark when reporting has been purely internal.

❖ The increasing difficulty in the European Union for an employer to sidestep liability for errors leading to a GDPR breach by their employees.

❖ Progress being made in the UAE over Emiratisation targets

❖ Why vacation days in the EU may not be forfeited at year end unless employers take specific actions.