The Hardest Person to Recruit Isn't the Candidate (#how mobility can help!)

A recent Korn Ferry piece opened with a scenario that will feel uncomfortably familiar to anyone running a global mobility program: a candidate returns home ready to sign, only to find a teenager in tears and a spouse still worn out from the last move. The deal isn't dead — but it's now in someone else's hands.

The math behind that scenario is significant. As leadership roles turn over to younger generations, more candidates are moving with families in tow: 80% of relocating candidates move with a spouse, and nearly half with children, according to figures from job prep firm Impact Group. And those families aren't always on board. According to data from Atlas Van Lines, a third of employees who turned down a 2025 relocation pointed to family issues as the reason.

In other words: the candidate may be sold, but the household isn't always there yet.

Why This Matters for Policy Design

Korn Ferry's sourcing makes the financial stakes plain: recruiting a candidate typically runs 25–35% of their annual pay, and family-inclusive recruiting pushes that higher still, with no guarantee the candidate accepts, and an average U.S. job tenure that's now under four years. Against that backdrop, treating relocation support as a single lever (more cash, or less, depending on budget pressure) is a costly oversimplification. When the real decision-maker is a family weighing a career move against a partner's job or a child's school, cash alone rarely closes the gap.

A few implications for program design:

• Spousal/partner career support isn't a nice-to-have. Korn Ferry compensation expert Tom McMullen notes that family-related support is frequently what tips a candidate's decision one way or the other. Job search assistance, career coaching, and networking introductions for the accompanying partner matter as much as the offer letter itself — especially now that roughly 62% of U.S. families are dual-career households, meaning most relocations put two careers on the line, not one.
• Offering support and delivering support aren't the same thing. Industry data shows that while close to 8 in 10 companies offer some form of spouse or partner assistance, only about 1 in 5 eligible employees actually use it. That gap is a design problem, not a demand problem. Generic resume-review services and recruiter lists don't move the needle for a partner who needs a license transferred across state lines or a warm introduction into a specific industry. Closing that gap is where mobility programs earn their keep.
• Plan for the kids. School connections and enrollment support keep parents from scrambling to meet application deadlines mid-search, and can be the difference between a family that feels supported and one that feels rushed.
• Support shouldn't stop at the offer. Engagement expert Mark Royal points out that a family's comfort is one of the strongest predictors of a new leader's success — and that settling-in support (neighborhood orientation, healthcare referrals, even help finding a Little League team) sends the signal that the company sees the whole person, not just the role.
• A vetoed move late in the process is expensive and avoidable. One Korn Ferry search consultant described losing two CFO searches this year when a spouse rejected the move after everything else was agreed — both had to restart from scratch. Involving the family earlier, even informally on a final visit, surfaces objections while there's still time to address them.

The Takeaway

Companies that treat relocation as a candidate-only conversation are negotiating with half the decision-making unit. The organizations getting this right do more than offer benefits. They build mobility programs flexible and well-designed enough that families actually use the support available, closing the gap between "we provide spousal assistance" and a spouse who feels genuinely helped. That's the difference between a policy on paper and a household that says yes to relocation.