Talent Mobility Programs 2025

Talent Mobility Programs 2025

Executive Summary

Internal talent mobility is gaining momentum — over 80% of organizations now see it as a significant or critical part of their talent strategy. When done well, it enables faster, more efficient filling of open roles, boosts retention by offering meaningful career pathways, and strengthens organizational connectivity as employees move across teams and functions.

Yet despite its promise, talent mobility doesn’t always deliver consistent results. While more than half of organizations report a strong positive impact, others see only moderate or limited gains. The key question is: what separates the most successful mobility programs from the rest?

This study explores that question by examining the critical enablers of effective talent mobility, including:

• The technology organizations use to power mobility programs
• The metrics they track to measure success
• The barriers that commonly get in the way

One standout finding is the importance of skills frameworks. Organizations that assess both employee skills and job requirements are better equipped to match the right people with the right opportunities — at speed and scale.

From technology to talent strategy, this research offers a snapshot of where organizations stand today on their talent mobility journey, and what they can do to move from promise to performance.

Major Research Findings

Editor’s Note: We define talent mobility leaders and laggards in detail in the first section. Please note that the findings and recommendations contained in this report are informational only. Nothing in this report should be construed as constituting legal opinions or advice. Please consult an attorney if you have questions about the legal requirements, rules, or regulations associated with any content discussed in this report.

Talent Mobility Maturity

Almost all respondent organizations (98%) have some talent mobility programs in place.

But that doesn’t mean these practices are all high functioning. Although two-thirds have advanced programs with a well-integrated mobility framework, about a third have programs that lack integration, consistency, or a measurable impact.

Moreover, as we will see when we analyze respondent answers to other questions in the survey, some of the participants that claim to have advanced programs may be overestimating their organizational capabilities.

In the absence of measurable impact, HR may struggle to get the support needed to take their mobility program to the advanced level.

Finding: Over a third of respondents say internal talent mobility is a critical part of the overall talent strategy

One reason that so many organizations have advanced programs is that they prioritize them. In fact, 84% rate these programs as either significant or critical to their organization’s overall talent strategy. Only 16% rate the priority of their programs as “emerging,” meaning that the program is recognized as valuable but not a strategic priority.

Finding: Mobility leaders are more than twice as likely as laggards to say internal talent mobility is “critical” to talent strategy

One important difference between mobility leaders and laggards is that mobility leaders are much more likely to say that internal mobility is of critical importance to the organization’s overall talent strategy. This will likely lead to a greater investment of time and energy into the program and hence a greater likelihood of creating a positive impact.

The Outcomes of Talent Mobility Programs

Finding: About half of the respondents use employee engagement and satisfaction as a measure of the effectiveness of their talent mobility program

Employers are better able to manage talent mobility programs if they have metrics. The most common approach, used by almost half of the respondent organizations, is to look at employee engagement and satisfaction. In particular, feedback on mobility experiences helps separate the value of talent mobility from other actions affecting engagement.

Just 1 in 4 respondents look at business performance and project outcomes. If HR can show that internal talent moves lead to greater business outcomes, then that will reassure managers that an internal hire is a good alternative to hiring externally.

Another quarter of respondents look at retention and internal promotion metrics. This analysis can potentially get quite granular by looking at departments with high and low rates of internal movement and seeing how that affects retention.

Note that in this survey the respondents were asked to identify one measurement method they use. In practice, of course, many organizations likely use more than one set of measures to get insight into how well the talent mobility program is working, and we recommend using multiple measures.

When comparing the talent mobility leaders and laggards, we found that leaders are considerably more likely to point to business performance and project outcomes as the way they measure the success of their talent mobility programs.

Finding: More than half of the respondents say talent mobility has a significant positive impact on business outcomes and retention

The data paints an encouraging picture: over half of respondents report that talent mobility delivers a significant positive impact on both business performance and employee retention. An additional 38% note a moderate impact—underscoring the growing strategic value of internal movement.

However, the results aren’t universally positive. 8% of respondents say their talent mobility efforts have had minimal or no impact, highlighting the need for intentional design, leadership alignment, and consistent execution to realize the full benefits.

Finding: Mobility leaders are twice as likely as laggards to say talent mobility has had a significant positive impact on organizational performance and employee retention

Mobility leaders tend to get better results from their talent mobility programs. Specifically, they are twice as likely as laggards to say talent mobility has had a significant positive impact on organizational performance and employee retention. This suggests that the effort required to become a mobility leader (i.e., achieve an advanced level of maturity in talent mobility) pays off.

Finding: About half do not feel as if they are meeting employee aspirations for career progression very effectively

Earlier we saw that about two-thirds claimed to have well-integrated talent mobility frameworks, but here we see that this confidence may well have been overstated. Nearly half say they are only somewhat effective or not effective at all at providing clear internal mobility pathways that align with employee aspirations. Yet, such pathways are a fundamental feature of any mature and well-integrated mobility program. This suggests that some respondents have overestimated the robustness and execution of their talent mobility strategies.

Finding: Mobility leaders are more than twice as likely as laggards to very effectively address employee aspirations for career progression

HR is concerned with organizational outcomes such as performance and retention. They are also concerned with meeting employee aspirations. Mobility leaders are much more likely than laggards to very effectively meet employee aspirations for career progression.

Challenges to Talent Mobility

Finding: The most common challenge to internal mobility is managers prioritizing external hiring

Internal mobility relies mostly on managers who are open to hiring internal talent rather than hiring externally. Unfortunately, our study found one-third of leaders prioritize recruiting externally rather than nurturing existing employees.

The advantage of looking outside is that it’s a much bigger talent pool. The advantage of hiring from within is that the risk is lower and there are the intangibles of knowledge of the culture and network an internal person has. Furthermore, there is the less visible but still important fact that internal mobility can help motivate, retain, and attract talent. HR must help managers understand the pros and cons of supporting internal mobility.

The second most likely cited challenge (28%) is limited budget, but this is also an area where leadership buy-in plays a strong role. This often goes hand in hand with another challenge - inadequate technology. In fact, 18% of respondents pointed to inadequate technology as a major barrier to internal mobility, highlighting how outdated or insufficient tools can limit visibility into talent pools, slow internal hiring processes, and hinder scalability.

Finding: Limited internal job and skills visibility is cited by 30% of respondents as the main barrier to internal talent mobility

When asked about the main barriers to internal talent mobility, the responses were mixed. The most common answer was “limited internal jobs and skills visibility,” but the three other options were all cited by at least 20% of respondents. It appears that any one of these potential barriers can be a problem and hence HR leaders might need to work to overcome each of them.

Limited skills visibility suggests there may be “hidden gems” in the workforce. These could be employees who are perfect for an internal opportunity but are unseen due to lack of data. This lack of visibility could be very costly to organizations.

Finding: Only about two-fifths of respondents say their organization is highly effective at providing managers with visibility into employee skills, interests, and development needs

Organizations can make it easier for managers to support the talent mobility program by providing them with visibility into employee skills, interests, and development needs. But this is challenging to do well. Only 39% of respondents say their organization is highly effective at providing this visibility.

Unfortunately, not all managers are so lucky. Nearly one in five respondents say their organization is minimally effective or not effective at all providing managers with visibility into employee skills, interests, and development needs.

Finding: Mobility leaders are more than twice as likely as laggards to say their organization provides managers with highly effective visibility into employee skills, interests, and development needs

Providing visibility into employee skills, interests, and development needs is another area where mobility leaders perform far better than laggards. Mobility leaders are more than twice as likely as laggards to say they provide highly effective visibility into employee skills, interests, and development needs.

Finding: One in five respondents say rigid hierarchies and silos significantly limit internal mobility

There is a lot of variability as to whether organization structure supports or inhibits internal mobility. Over a quarter have supportive structures, a fifth have highly restrictive structures, and the remaining 52% sit somewhere between those two extremes.

It will not be easy for HR leaders wishing to promote internal mobility to change the overall organizational structure, but awareness of how the structure affects mobility will be useful in designing a successful talent mobility program.

Addressing Talent Shortages and Skills Gaps

Finding: The most common approach to dealing with talent shortages is to expand skills development

Respondents use a variety of methods to deal with talent shortages and skill gaps. The most common approach, used by 35% of respondents, is to expand skills development by investing in upskilling and reskilling programs. Another popular approach, used by 29%, is improving internal talent utilization by enhancing internal mobility to maximize existing talent pools.

Somewhat less common is focusing on potential, which is cited by 20% of respondents, and relying on maintaining traditional approaches, cited by 17% of respondents.

Finding: Nearly 70% of respondents report that employees’ learning potential is an important part of their talent mobility strategy

Whereas an external hire may potentially have precisely the skills and knowledge required for a job, an internal move normally requires the employee to learn new skills. Hence, we see that most respondents (68%) say “learning potential," "upskilling/reskilling potential," or "willingness to learn" is important and essential for success in their internal talent mobility strategy. A further 31% say it is considered but other factors are prioritized when selecting candidates for mobility.

Finding: Mobility leaders are much more likely than laggards to say, “learning potential,” "upskilling/reskilling potential" or "willingness to learn” is essential for success

Only about half of mobility laggards rate learning potential, upskilling/reskilling potential, or willingness to learn as important for the organization’s overall talent mobility strategy. This number is well below the 78% of mobility leaders who say the same.

Making Talent Movement Decisions

Finding: Almost 80% of respondents say cultural or regional factors have a moderate or significant impact on mobility decisions and opportunities

If an organization is spread across the country or globally, then it's almost inevitable that cultural or regional factors will affect mobility decisions and opportunities. About four in five respondents say cultural or regional factors have a moderate or significant impact.

HR won’t be able to eliminate these cultural or regional factors, so it needs to start with being aware of how they can impact talent mobility. With this understanding, HR can look for ways to mitigate the biggest potential challenges. An overarching objective should be ensuring that there is better visibility of the talent that exists outside the head office.

Finding: Nearly 90% of respondents say data is important or critical in making mobility decisions

As one would hope, the vast majority of respondents (87%) say data is important or critical in making mobility decisions. The difference between “critical” and “important” comes down to the weight given to qualitative factors such as management judgment. Those who rate data as important rather than critical give more weight to managerial judgment.

Giving weight to qualitative factors is not necessarily good or bad. It depends on the culture, the quality of the objective data, and the quality of management judgment.

Finding: Mobility leaders are more than twice as likely as laggards to say data-driven insights are critical to most mobility decisions, guiding strategy and actions

A striking difference between mobility leaders and laggards is their use of data-driven insights. Mobility leaders are more than twice as likely as laggards to say data-driven insights are critical to most mobility decisions. This difference may reflect both an attitude about data and also the availability of reliable data.

Finding: Respondents are more likely to use performance reviews to assess an employee’s potential for internal moves than scientific assessments or self-reporting

The most commonly used tool for evaluating an employee’s potential for an internal move is the performance review. This is a natural choice given that most large organizations have performance reviews for most employees.

Using scientifically based skills and competency assessments is often considered more accurate at assessing potential than a performance review, yet only 29% of respondents use these.

Just over one-quarter of respondents rely on employees to self-nominate. This is the simplest process and presumes employees are in fact typically in a good position to assess their suitability for an open role.

You should note that the survey question asked for a single answer to the question, and it is likely many organizations use more than one method for assessing the potential for an internal move.

Finding: Mobility leaders are more likely than laggards to say they are highly confident that their skills data is validated, accurate, up-to-date, and provides a reliable basis for decision-making

Lack of confidence in skills data can lead to uncertainty that inhibits internal mobility. Over three-quarters of mobility leaders are highly confident that their skills data is valid, accurate, up-to-date, and provides a reliable basis for decision-making. However, just 46% of mobility laggards say the same.

Finding: Sixty percent find it somewhat or very challenging to translate and measure skills using their current skills framework

Skills frameworks tend to be complicated, which may be one reason why 60% of the respondents find it somewhat or very challenging to translate and measure skills using their current skills framework.

On a more positive note, almost a third describe their situation as “manageable” because they have streamlined their skills framework to minimize complexity and improve measurement.

Fewer than 10% say their skills framework is concise and well-structured, allowing for easy translation and measurement.

Finding: One-quarter of respondents are streamlining role profiles to focus on core skills and flexible responsibilities for future adaptability

Organizations need to decide how to approach evolving role profiles to meet current skills demands and adapt to future work needs.

There are several options. The most common option is proactively redefining roles. This involves regularly updating role profiles to focus on both today’s skills and the future of work. Over a third of respondents use this approach.

One-quarter of respondents are exploring simplification. They are streamlining role profiles to focus on core skills and flexible responsibilities for future adaptability.

A third option, chosen by 24% of respondents, is to emphasize adaptable human skills alongside technical expertise in role definitions.

Finally, some respondents, 16%, are not changing their approach. They continue to use static job profiles with limited consideration of changing work dynamics

Finding: Nearly 40% of respondents are keeping pace with the changing nature of work by embracing technology

The changing nature of work can put pressure on the talent mobility strategy. A few respondents (16%) say they have not made changes and are continuing to use established processes despite the changing nature of work. However, many more (39%) are embracing technology by leveraging AI and automation to identify redeployment opportunities and optimize mobility decisions.

Another approach is to support flexible work models by adapting mobility strategies to accommodate hybrid, remote, and gig-based workforces. This approach is used by 24% of respondents.

Finally, 21% of respondents are redefining roles and skills by moving beyond static job profiles to focus on dynamic skills and evolving work requirements.

The Future of Talent Mobility

Finding: Over 40% of respondents see AI as the most important trend in internal talent mobility

Respondents were asked to identify a trend shaping internal talent mobility in the next 3-5 years. The most common answer, selected by 43% of respondents, was AI and data-driven decisions. The second most commonly cited trend, selected by 22%, was the expansion of remote and hybrid work.

Finding: Only 38% say AI is having a significant impact on talent mobility programs

Although many expect AI and data analytics to drive mobility decisions in the future, only 38% say it is having a significant impact today. On the other hand, 42% say AI has a moderate impact on talent mobility and is being used in some aspects of talent mobility such as data analysis or matching. Although AI is a helpful tool, it is important to keep the human element in talent mobility related decisions.

Finding: Mobility leaders are more than twice as likely as laggards to say AI is having a significant impact on their talent mobility program

AI is already having an impact on talent mobility in some organizations and is likely to have a greater impact in the near future. Mobility leaders are ahead of laggards in getting value from AI and are twice as likely as laggards to say AI is already having a significant impact on their talent mobility program.

Key Final Takeaways