Background Global teams are considered an emerging topic in the international management literature. Empirical studies conducted in this field include studies on trust, communication, team relationships, conflicts over distance and leadership. Also, the topic of employee relocation has been extensively researched in the international management literature. Despite the fact that relocations in global teams occur in practices, both topics have yet to be researched together. This paper intends to fill this research gap and study both topics together. Aim This paper aims to investigate the consequences of employee relocation in global teams using a multi-stakeholder perspective. Methodology A qualitative study was conducted with eight individuals working in the same global company which operates in the financial services industry and is headquartered in London, UK. Out of the eight participants, five worked in the same global team. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the consequences of relocation in global teams from different perspectives. Findings A thematic analysis of the data revealed four main categories of relocation consequences that are acknowledged across the different stakeholders interviewed for this study: work redistribution, resource management, vulnerable team relationships and shift in communication. Despite a common acknowledgement of the consequences, the study showed that discrepancies between the stakeholders’ views on the consequences affected the way the team handled them. By contextualizing the results around a role, the multi-stakeholder perspective exposed different scopes of awareness on the impacts of the relocation consequences. This inferred that individuals showed a certain level of subjectivity influencing their scope of awareness on the impacts of the consequences of relocations.

Due to globalization, organizations are faced with keener competition than before and conglomeration becomes one of the effective ways to remain organizations¡¦ competitiveness advantage. Since conglomeration becomes a popular way to maintain organizations¡¦ competitive advantages, the issue of how to manage, to make the best of, to integrate conglomerate Human Resources get to be very important. Among them, conglomerate personnel transfer is one of the common HR practices. Different conglomerates have different transfer policies, purposes, cultures, practices and above all, outcomes. The research aims at transferring policies in conglomerates in Taiwan, especially five manufacturing conglomerates: Formosa Group, Yuen Foong Yu Group, FarEastern Group, Uni-President Groups, China-steel Corporation Group, integrating the transfer policies in the current practice among these five Taiwanese conglomerates, reviewing the literature on the definition of conglomerate, conglomerate investment mode, transferring-related theories to break the 5 Taiwanese Conglomerates into 4 transfer groups: 1. Institution Type¡GConglomerate Transfer activities become company¡¦s values and employees¡¦ duties when the concentration level for conglomerate relocation Human Resource policy is high and when the level of employee choice is low. 2. Strategic Type¡GConglomerate Transfer activities are the means for organizations to get resources needed to respond to organizational strategies when the concentration level for conglomerate transfer Human Resource policy is high and when the level of employee choice is high. 3. Political Type: Conglomerate Transfer activities are for the purpose of organizational political activities or headquarter-centered interest when the concentration level for conglomerate Transfer Human Resource policy is low and when the level of employee choice is high. 4. Administration Type: Conglomerate Transfer system and strategies are not very comprehensive and intact which is still under developing when the concentration level for conglomerate Transfer Human Resource policy is low and when the level of employee choice is low. After defining four types of Transfer systems, the research intends to respectively sort out the characteristics into dimensions, describing the process, content and outcome as follows: 1. Concentration level for conglomerate relocation Human Resource policy (the difference of Compensation & Benefits and Conglomerate Intensity) 2. Level of employee choice (tranfer culture and purpose) 3. The process and responsive relocation Compensation & Benefits measure 4. Relocation identity and Repatriation 5. Relocation Status quo, outcome and difficulties from the point of view of companies and employees The research also provides the insight for conglomerate personnel transfer and analyzes strength and shortcoming for each transfer type from the cases in practice.