Forced Relocation for a Promotion: How it Can Create Distrust and Increase Turnover

I once accepted a postion that required two to three relocations during a two year period. I remember how stressful it felt not knowing when I would need to move again, or what location I would be moved to. It created stress and anxiety for my entire family and I was terrified to protest as I knew it would cost me my job. My employer expected me to move where they needed, when they needed me, no questions asked. Ultimately I decided the income and the potential opportunity were not worth the stress and I self-selected away from this employer. I have heard from several of my clients something similar. Their employers demanded full flexibility to move when needed with no consideration for family impact. This led to them self-selecting away to find a new opportunity with better work-life balance.

Forced relocation for a promotion is a complex issue that impacts employees both personally and professionally. At the heart of the matter is the tension between career advancement opportunities and the potential disruption to an employee's life outside of work. When not managed with a great deal of sensitivity and support, mandatory moves can create a host of negative outcomes, including distrust within the organization and increased turnover rates. These consequences can be profound and lasting, both for the individual employees involved and for the company as a whole.

Distrust

Let's start by understanding distrust. Trust is the bedrock of any healthy organizational culture. It is built over time, through consistent and transparent actions and policies that show a company values and respects its employees. When an employer requires an employee to relocate to take a promotion, this can signal a breach in that trust. For the employee, such a mandate can imply that the company does not recognize or appreciate the full scope of the employee's life and obligations, such as family ties, spousal employment, children's schooling, and social networks that extend beyond the workplace.

This sense of disregard is exacerbated when companies do not offer adequate support or incentives to offset the upheaval that relocation entails. If the decision is presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, employees may feel cornered and disrespected. Trust diminishes further when employees see their peers being forced into similar moves or when they hear of those who refused and suffered career stagnation as a consequence. Such practices can swiftly transform a culture of trust into one of skepticism and anxiety.

Turnover

The second major outcome, turnover, often follows on the heels of distrust. Voluntary turnover, where employees leave of their own accord, can spike when a company routinely enforces relocation for promotions. Even those employees not directly affected by the policy may choose to leave, anticipating that their turn might come next. This anticipation breeds its own form of distrust in the organization's leadership and future direction. High-performing employees especially may opt to seek employment elsewhere, in environments where they feel more in control of their destinies and where policies are more employee-centric.

In discussing turnover, one cannot ignore the involuntary variety, which occurs when employees refuse relocation and are either directly terminated or left with limited career prospects. This, in turn, sends a signal to the rest of the workforce that the company values compliance over contribution, discouraging risk-taking and innovation, which are crucial for any business's growth and adaptability.

The aftermath of either form of turnover is costly. The loss of an employee results in lost knowledge and experience and imposes the direct costs of recruiting and training replacements. The company's employer brand suffers as well, making it harder and more expensive to attract top talent in the future.

Key Takeaways

Distrust and turnover as consequences of forced relocation can also interact in a vicious cycle. As distrust grows within the company, so too does the likelihood of turnover, which in turn can further erode trust among those left behind, who may wonder why their colleagues are leaving and whether they should consider the same.

The act of relocation itself may also contribute to a decline in team cohesion and performance. Teams often develop a strong sense of camaraderie and efficiency through prolonged interaction and shared experiences. When key members of a group are forced to relocate, it disrupts these dynamics, and the remaining team members may have to adjust to new roles or new colleagues who lack the same level of experience or understanding of the team’s history and work ethic. This disruption can lead to a decline in overall team performance and morale, contributing to a broader atmosphere of dissatisfaction and disengagement within the company.

These negative outcomes are exacerbated when relocations are handled poorly, with insufficient support for the relocating employee. Moving to a new city or country involves a tremendous array of logistical challenges and emotional adjustments. When employers do not provide adequate relocation assistance—like housing support, cultural training for international moves, and assistance in job searches for trailing spouses—employees may feel overwhelmed and abandoned, leading to heightened dissatisfaction and potentially resignation.

The effects of distrust and turnover ripple outward, affecting not only the individual and organizational performance but also the perception of the company in the marketplace. Clients and customers, who are more socially connected and aware than ever before, may view high turnover and employee dissatisfaction as indicative of a company's instability or a negative corporate culture. This perception can damage the company's reputation, affect customer loyalty, and hinder business performance.

Additionally, turnover resulting from forced relocations can create knowledge gaps within the organization. Experienced employees carry with them not just their explicit skills and qualifications but also a wealth of implicit knowledge about the company's processes, culture, and history. This tacit knowledge is not easily replaced, and its loss can disrupt the smooth operation of the company, leading to errors, inefficiencies, and a decline in product or service quality.

To ameliorate these outcomes, companies must adopt a more empathetic and flexible approach to employee relocation. They should engage in open and transparent discussions with employees about the necessity of moves for career progression while also considering alternative arrangements such as remote work, flexible scheduling, or the development of new local leadership opportunities that don't require relocation. If relocation is absolutely necessary, it's important that companies provide comprehensive support and incentives to mitigate the disruption and demonstrate their commitment to the employee's well-being.

Better still, companies could opt for a more collaborative approach by building relocation policies with employee input, thereby ensuring that the concerns and needs of the workforce are considered. Employees who feel heard and valued are much more likely to trust their employer and commit to shared goals, including relocation when it's truly beneficial for both parties.

Ultimately, forced relocation for promotion is a delicate issue that needs careful handling to avoid creating a culture of distrust and triggering excessive turnover. Companies must balance their strategic objectives with the personal lives of employees, fostering an environment of mutual respect and understanding. By doing so, organizations will not just prevent negative consequences but will create a positive, aligned workforce that drives strong, sustainable growth for all.