Last summer, we worked on a C-suite role that required relocation to Europe.

Perfect role for the perfect candidate.

During the three months process, the candidate and the client were both really excited about the role.

Naturally so were we, it would be a big win.

But unexpectedly, Before the offer acceptance, the candidate pulled out.

It turned out that candidate’s spouse was really unhappy about the decision….

I'm sharing this because if you've ever hired internationally or considered moving yourself, you need to hear this. Relocation looks simple on paper, but it's one of the most emotionally complex decisions candidates and their families face. So how do we actually predict whether it's worth it?

This weeks article is about that.

I learned about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs years ago during my HR degree. At the time I did not pay much attention to it - like a typical student. But… it took me another 15 years to learn that Maslow has a lot of relevance for recruitment. Here’s how:

Because most C Suite leaders are already at the top of their game, their physiological, safety and social needs are usually already met. i.e. high salaries, job security, and well respected.

But… relocation forces people down the pyramid: safety, stability, belonging, social/family factors are much more relevant.

For companies, you actually need to inverse the pyramid… Too often companies spend too long showing candidates how the job will be fulfilling, challenging etc. often neglecting the social and environmental challenges that come with the role.

For senior leaders, this means understanding that relocation isn't about climbing higher, it's about whether you're willing to rebuild from the bottom up. You might get a better title and more money, but you'll be starting from zero on safety, stability, and belonging. And that's a trade-off most people underestimate until it's too late.

Unlike many recruiters, we're privileged that all of the jobs we represent are exciting, well-respected, and mostly fulfilling.

However, if we spend too long with companies and candidates focusing only on these factors, we'll miss the parts of the placement that actually create the most friction.

This is a challenge because we can't assume that just because a role is a good fit professionally, it's also a good fit socially, emotionally, or practically.

Now, to test this, I ask these questions:

1. How important is your local network to you - both personally and professionally?

Some leaders are effective in their role precisely because of their standing in a specific location. Their network is their competitive advantage. Relocating doesn't just mean starting over socially, it means losing professional capital that took years to build.

2. What does your family and social situation look like right now?

For example:

If kids are already in schools, if a partner has a thriving career, if elderly parents depend on proximity, I know I need to be much more considerate and get a better picture of the candidate's real needs.

More importantly, I need to understand what the client can actually do to accommodate these needs:

Because at the end of the day, a $450K offer means nothing if the candidate's life falls apart in the process.

The interview process for the job we mentioned earlier took three months. During that time, we spoke frequently and the offer was genuinely worth moving for:

In my mind this was a slam dunk… what’s not to like?

But as the hierarchy of needs suggests, people are complicated, and even after being in recruitment for 14 years we can overlook the simplest of things…

From initial "yes, we can relocate" to final decision took three months (not candidates fault). What companies often underestimate is this: Life Happens!

What felt exciting three months ago can feel terrifying today:

Fix:Here are a few options for the fix:

Most companies spend 90% of their time selling the role, the challenge, the impact, the growth opportunity, the compensation. All self-actualisation stuff.

But for a candidate who's relocating, that's not where the friction is.

The friction is at the bottom of the pyramid:

We're selling the top of the pyramid to someone who's worried about the bottom.

Fix: Flip your pitch for relocation roles.

The partner is the real decision-maker- but they're usually left out of the conversation until the offer stage.

Family considerations are treated as logistics, not deal-breakers

Fix: Map out family considerations early and involve the partner from the start.

Working in crypto adds complexity.

The industry moves fast. Regulations shift. What looks stable today might look different in six months. For C-suite candidates in crypto, you're not just evaluating a company and location you're evaluating:

The expensive lesson (we lost $60K in revenue) is that recruiting is not always about the role or the high salary. It's about understanding where someone actually sits on Maslow's pyramid — and whether relocation forces them down it.

The TLDR: You can't pay someone enough to abandon the foundation they've built. And if you try, you'll lose the placement.

P.S I've turned the relocation questions I use in C-suite searches into a simple Relocation Due Diligence Checklist.

Click here to download it:

See you next Friday,

Sam
WorkInCrypto.Global