A Moving Story for Spouses

Why are men so reluctant to follow their working wivesto new cities?

By Anne Hendershott, published on September 01, 1995

A recent slogan for a major moving van line warns couples to "Pick the Right Mover, or Pick the Right Marriage Counselor." Strategically placed in business periodicals and designed to appeal to the frequently relocated corporate employee, the ad makes explicit every couple's nagging fear: The relocated family has only one dependable source of continuity--each other.

Granted, uprooting the kids from the old neighborhood is disorienting, but that's not even half the battle. In the age of the dual-income couple, corporate relocation may mean dragging a spouse out of job. And if that spouse happens to be a husband, you may find yourself tangling with a cultural taboo--one that will put a huge strain on your marriage. At the very least, your beliefs about equality will be tested against the actual balance of power in your relationship.

Few couples have tempted the rocky cultural terrain. Of the 22 million people who packed up and moved for work last year, only 2 million were husbands trailing their wives. While that's double the number from 1980, it's a sluggish progression considering the large number of women who have reached middle- and upper-management, positions ripe for relocation assignments.

Even though countless women have silently resigned themselves to trailing their spouses for decades, the smattering of men who follow their wives are kicking and screaming so loudly that their dilemma now has a name. "The Trailing Spouse Crisis" hit the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The articles warn of the "dangers" of being the trailing spouse and document the indignant male cries of "It isn't fair!" One husband complained that after three moves to follow his wife, "I have never been able to remain in one position long enough to find out how successful I might have been in my own career."

Haven't we heard this before? Sure, but the trailing spouse issue came alive only when it became real for men. But what really smarts is the fact that it doesn't apply to more men. Of those people who moved for work in 1993, a scant 17 percent were women--and only 10 percent of them were married. It's tempting to write off this vast relocation gap to women being passed over for relocation opportunities, but that's only part of the problem. A recent poll of unemployed executives showed that men are three times as likely to pick up and move for a new position than women.

Why, in this era of increasing egalitarianism at work and at home, are women continuing to trail their husbands's jobs, yet unlikely to move for their own? If relocation is often the ticket to job advancement, aren't women paying dearly for their immobility? And what makes men immune to the family pressures to stay in one place? Do the pioneering men who follow their wives pay the same price as their female counterparts? The answers are complex but the questions fundamental. The relocation gap may well be a subtle refuge of gender inequality, where men and women sacrifice themselves to norms they openly disavow.

For the Love of Money?

Some economists would have us believe that a family's decision to move for work is simply a matter of maximizing family financial well-being. Wives, they assert, are over-represented in the "trailing spouse" category just because women make less money than men. But in actuality it's not that simple. Even when wives have the potential to earn substantially more than their husbands, they are still more likely to decline a move for their own work if it disrupts their husband's job.

A study by Mobil Corporation found that a man generally will follow his wife only if she earns at least 40 percent more than he does. Other research indicates that she must earn at least twice what he is currently earning. In contrast, even when a woman is earning more money than her husband, she is still likely to discontinue her employment and move for his job.

Snubbed?

Obviously, the relocation gap can't be explained by salary and stature. But don't think that the gap is filled only by women who turn down opportunities to relocate. Many women are never given the option. Susan Anderson, a 30-year-old division manager for an insurance company, is anxious to relocate, but no one is asking her. After seven years with her company she is frustrated by her lack of movement:

"I missed out on two good promotions because they both required moves to the home office in Southbrook. In both cases, I had more experience than the person they chose, but men move men around here. Everyone knows it. It's really kind of a dub. They all get together at lunch and chronicle their move stories, comparing mortgage differentials and movers, and school districts and neighborhoods in Southbrook. Everyone at the top here has been to Southbrook at least once, but I doubt I'll ever get a chance."

Indeed, "men move men" may well explain why 95 percent of foreign relocations in international businesses go to men. Perhaps, since most managers are men, they promote or relocate people they trust and feel most comfortable with--other men.

Yet even well-intentioned managers may purposefully overlook women for relocation out of reluctance to create problems for their marriage. Other managers may be projecting their own stereotypical beliefs about dual-career marriages and relocation. Imagining the upheaval that might ensue if their own wives were asked to move, some managers simply suppress the option of relocating married women.