Why Lifting and Shifting Employees Internally Is Not Always the Best Move for Organizations
Internal job transfers are often seen as a smart and efficient way to move talent around an organization. Instead of hiring externally, companies can promote or reposition existing employees who already understand the business. On paper, this seems like a clear win. But new research suggests that how employees move internally matters just as much as whether they move at all.
A recent academic study takes a close look at internal mobility and reveals that transferring employees—especially when entire teams move together—can produce unexpected organizational consequences. The findings challenge some long-held assumptions in human resources and management, particularly the idea that moving a well-functioning team as a group is always beneficial.
Understanding Internal Mobility and Why Companies Rely on It
Internal mobility refers to employees moving between roles, teams, or units within the same organization. These moves can be promotions, lateral transfers, or shifts to entirely new departments. Companies rely heavily on internal mobility because it helps retain talent, reduces recruitment costs, and allows valuable institutional knowledge to stay inside the organization.
However, most research and HR discussions focus on individual career outcomes—such as employee satisfaction or promotion speed. Much less attention has been paid to how internal mobility affects entire teams and organizational units. This is exactly the gap the new study aimed to fill.
The Research Behind the Findings
The study, conducted by Caitlin Ray, an assistant professor in the Human Resource Studies Department at Cornell University’s ILR School, examined internal mobility at a much broader level. She collaborated with Mark Maltarich from the University of South Carolina and Greg Reilly from the University of Connecticut.
Their research paper, published in August 2025 in the Academy of Management Journal, analyzed internal transfers over a three-year period at a large Fortune 500 retail company. The organization operated more than 1,200 retail stores, including both long-established locations and newly opened ones.
The dataset included movements involving sales associates, assistant managers, and general managers, offering a detailed look at how internal mobility plays out across different levels of responsibility.
The Theoretical Framework Driving the Study
The researchers based their work on human capital resources theory. This theory suggests that employees accumulate knowledge, skills, and abilities over time, collectively known as human capital. Some of this capital is transferable across organizations, while some is firm-specific, meaning it only has value within the company where it was developed.
When an employee transfers internally, human capital doesn’t disappear—it simply moves from one unit to another. One team loses resources, while another gains them. The study sought to understand whether this transfer creates a net gain or loss for the organization overall.
To measure outcomes, the researchers examined unit size and sales performance in the months following employee transfers, allowing them to assess real, measurable business impact.
Different Types of Internal Transfers Examined
The study did not treat all transfers as equal. Instead, it carefully distinguished between several types of internal mobility:
- Single-employee transfers, where one individual moves from one unit to another
- Multiple individual transfers from different units, where employees from various teams join the same new unit
- Comobile transfers, where multiple employees move together from the same unit to another unit
This distinction turned out to be crucial for understanding the outcomes.
When Internal Transfers Actually Benefit the Organization
The findings show that not all internal transfers are risky. In fact, two types consistently benefited the organization overall.
First, single-employee transfers tended to produce positive results. While the employee’s original unit experienced a small loss, the receiving unit gained enough productivity to more than offset that loss. Across the organization, the net effect was positive.
Second, transfers involving multiple employees from different units also worked well. These employees brought diverse experiences, skills, and perspectives, which helped the receiving team perform better. At the same time, no single unit lost too many people, minimizing disruption.
In both cases, internal mobility helped redistribute talent in a way that strengthened the organization as a whole.
Why Lifting and Shifting Entire Teams Can Backfire
The most surprising results emerged when the researchers examined comobile transfers, often referred to as “lifting and shifting” a team.
At first glance, moving a group that already works well together seems logical. These employees share trust, routines, and coordination, which should allow them to perform quickly in a new setting. However, the study found that these group moves produced no net organizational benefit.
One key reason is unit-specific capital. While these employees worked efficiently together, their shared habits and norms were closely tied to their original unit. When they moved as a group, they struggled to adapt to the culture, expectations, and workflows of the new unit.
Additionally, because all members came from the same background, they brought less diversity of thought and experience than individuals arriving from different units. This limited the innovative and problem-solving advantages that diverse teams often enjoy.
As a result, the productivity gains in the receiving unit did not outweigh the losses experienced by the unit they left behind.
What This Means for Managers and HR Leaders
These findings carry important lessons for leaders responsible for talent decisions. Internal mobility should not be treated as a simple logistical move. Instead, managers should think carefully about where employees come from, not just where they are going.
The research suggests that it is often more effective to source internal transfers from multiple units, rather than lifting an entire team from one place. When group transfers are unavoidable, managers should invest in intentional onboarding efforts, helping transferred employees build new relationships and integrate into the culture of the receiving unit.
Ignoring these social and cultural factors can significantly reduce the value of internal mobility initiatives.
Implications for Employees Making Internal Moves
The study also offers useful insights for employees. Internal transfers, especially lateral moves, can be emotionally complex and professionally challenging. Success in a new role depends not only on technical skills but also on relationship-building and cultural adjustment.
Employees who proactively engage with new colleagues, learn unit norms, and adapt their working styles are more likely to thrive after a transfer. Internal mobility is not just a career step—it’s a social transition as well.
Broader Insights on Internal Mobility in Organizations
Beyond this specific study, internal mobility continues to be a major topic in workforce strategy. Companies increasingly view internal movement as a way to retain talent, close skills gaps, and support long-term career development.
However, this research highlights that internal mobility is far more complex than it appears. The structure and source of transfers can determine whether they create value or unintentionally weaken teams. Simply moving people around without understanding group dynamics can lead to disappointing results.
Final Takeaway
Internal mobility remains a powerful tool, but it must be used thoughtfully. While individual transfers and diverse sourcing tend to strengthen organizations, lifting and shifting entire teams does not automatically deliver the same benefits. In some cases, it may even cancel them out.
For organizations aiming to get the most from their talent, the message is clear: internal movement should be strategic, intentional, and supported, not assumed to be an easy win.
Research paper:
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.0311
