Lump sum relocation has always been a flashpoint in global mobility—lauded for its flexibility, criticized for its lack of structure, and often positioned as the cheaper, less supportive counterpart to managed moves. But as mobility models shift and employee expectations evolve, so does the debate. At WERC Global 25, that debate unfolded live on stage.
Moderated by William Taylor, senior vice president of business development at Relocity, the session brought together two corporate leaders whose relocation programs reflect sharply different philosophies. Victoria Smith, director of global mobility at Rivian, represented the modern, tech-enabled case for lump sum. Tricia Sirois, senior manager of global mobility at Adobe, made the case for the continued importance of managed moves.
“There’s no right way to run your program,” Taylor opened. “Lump sums may form a piece of that. It’s a growing form in our industry. We’re going to dig in and hear from the audience how to bridge the gap between duty of care and employee experience and lump sums.”
What followed was a fast-moving, highly interactive session driven by audience polls on everything from duty of care to technology.
What Does Lump Sum Actually Deliver?
The first poll—“Lump sum is just a cash payout”—received an immediate response.
“It can be, but it shouldn’t be,” Sirois said.
Smith agreed: “I’m with Tricia. It can be.”
But both emphasized that the real question is how the lump sum is structured. Smith described Rivian’s evolution from basic cash payments to curated, app-supported programs that still preserve maximum flexibility.
“When I say the cash lump sum we have at Rivian, we don’t just say ‘Here’s the money, get yourself there.’ We have a short-haul and a long-haul version. We supplement with technology as well. That’s important. People need a sense of being looked after and being provided with information.”
Rivian’s self-service model is intentional and unapologetic. “We are intentionally not asking for accountability on where the money goes,” she said. “We don’t ask for receipts.”
Adobe’s program has similar flexibilities, but with clearer guardrails.
“For us, it’s expectation setting,” Sirois said. “Our lump sum policy is called the ‘move yourself policy.’ We don’t want people to ask why they didn’t get more. It’s our responsibility to give them the info, but they’re adults. We empower them to make their decisions.”
Are Managed Moves Really ‘Better’?
When asked whether managed moves guarantee better outcomes, 69% of the audience said yes. Smith countered that Rivian’s data tells a different story.
“My perspective comes from Rivian data, and we see different results. We do a lot of managed moves and also a lot of cash lump sums.”
Sirois reminded the group that semantics matter. “How you define ‘better’ is key to how you answer this question.”
A recurring theme emerged: The success of any relocation model depends heavily on how well expectations are set and how well employees are supported throughout the process. At Adobe, Sirois said, the hybrid approach was driven partly by operational burden. “We saw a 77% decrease in overall exception volume from the new policies.”
Duty of Care: Can Lump Sum Deliver It?
Sixty-six percent of attendees voted “yes” to the statement “You can’t deliver duty of care without direct supplier control.”
Smith’s response: “What is duty of care? What are we trying to deliver and do?”
Sirois defined it differently. “Duty of care to me speaks more to compliance elements. The lump sum component is entirely separate for our program.”
Both organizations have adapted their approaches based on experience. At Rivian, Smith said, the team learned quickly that international lump sums required more human support. “People felt like they needed more support. We rolled in access to a counselor. We made that change five months after going live, but we didn’t know until we tried.”
Is Lump Sum a Gen Z Thing?
More than half of the audience said lump sum works best for Gen Z.
“Gen Z like cash, but we also see older people than Gen Z want cash for different reasons,” Smith said.
Sirois added that generational preference is only part of the picture. “My short answer is yes, but there’s another element to it: education and expectation-setting.”
Technology: The Game-Changer
An overwhelming 92% of attendees agreed that technology has significantly improved the lump sum experience.
Smith described how Rivian’s shift from PDF printouts to a branded digital platform aligned with employee expectations. “Before we introduced an app, people were getting a two-page printout. It felt like a basic experience. For us, introducing tech was a natural step forward to extend what the brand is.”
Sirois echoed that sentiment: “When I have to deliver something manual through our program, it’s a little painful. Everyone can track their packages and book a flight on their phone. When we can’t deliver that, it becomes potential dissatisfaction.”
Both companies now rely on usage data to justify investment and inform changes. Rivian, for instance, sees high utilization rates: “We have the data to support it. We can see how many times they go into the app.”
Program Design: Who Gets What—and Why
Across both companies, mobility programs are multifaceted.
At Rivian:
- Mid-level and below employees choose between a cash lump sum plus app or a fully managed move.
- “Our data has shown that 75%-80% of people choose cash,” Smith said.
- Senior leaders get managed moves—and many “wish they could have just had cash.”
At Adobe:
- Lump sums are highly defined, with three manager-selected levels.
- Within managed moves, family size and distance shape benefits.
- The goal is consistency and clarity.
- “You’re accepting the terms,” Sirois said of the self-move policy. “The cashout will always save the company money, and the employee feels empowered.”
Why This Debate Isn’t Going Away
Taylor challenged the panel: “Lots of folks are naysayers of lump sums. They say it’s a copout. Have we missed something? Is there another step that allows us to sell the value of what we do?”
Sirois emphasized education and brand alignment. Employees often tell managers they “don’t need relocation money, they just want the job,” she said, but that’s rarely true without clear communication.
Smith emphasized economic realities. “The economic reality is real. Rivian is still on a path to profit.”
Sirois noted the importance of administrative efficiency. Exception fatigue was a key driver behind Adobe’s policy overhaul.
The Talent Acquisition Connection
Both panelists singled out TA as a critical stakeholder.
“TA is our No. 1 partner,” Smith said. “They are the salesmen of our program.”
Sirois called TA’s involvement “huge,” adding that she wants TA “to be part of the journey more.”
Looking Ahead
Audience polling showed that 83% of organizations are already using a hybrid relocation model. Another 31% cited cost-savings pressure as a key driver behind expanding lump sum.
Both panelists agreed on one thing: Mobility teams must continue experimenting.
“It feels like a luxury and privilege to be at an org where we’re allowed to experiment,” Smith said. “We want to keep iterating to move the program forward and find what works for our employees.”
Sirois agreed: “Even though we have pretty different approaches, we both agree you have to try it out.”
The question of whether lump sum is “enough” may not have a single answer, but as this debate showed, the future of relocation will almost certainly include it.