Global mobility has changed — and the way the function is designed needs to change with it.
In this Bite-Sized Advice conversation, Morgan Crosby and Brigitte Warhover discuss why function design has become such a hot topic and why there is no single model that works for every organization.
Mobility was once heavily focused on the operational work of getting people from A to B. Today, teams are being asked to advise on tax and immigration, respond to geopolitical disruption, support different types of cross-border movement, evaluate technology, and help the business think more strategically about talent deployment.
That means mobility leaders need to be clear about what their function is there to do — and then design the team, technology, sourcing model, and skill set around that purpose.
The scope of global mobility has expanded significantly. Historically, many mobility teams were focused primarily on processing relocations and managing international assignments. That work is still important, but the function is increasingly being asked to do much more.
Mobility teams may now be expected to advise on tax and immigration, manage the impact of global conflict, support workforce planning, and help determine how talent can be deployed most effectively across borders.
As the role becomes more strategic, the structure of the function also needs to evolve.
Technology is another major factor shaping mobility teams. Questions around AI, automation, mobility platforms, and other technology solutions are becoming part of the day-to-day conversation. That creates new responsibilities for mobility professionals.
Teams may now need to think about technology strategy, assess whether a particular tool is right for their program, participate in technology RFPs, and become more informed buyers of systems they may never previously have been responsible for selecting. The question is no longer simply, “How do we manage this process?” Increasingly, it is also, “Should technology be managing part of this process for us?”
The types of mobility activity organizations manage have also changed. Traditional international assignments are now only one part of the picture. Teams may be supporting permanent relocations, commuters, extended business travelers, immigration-only cases, locally hired foreign nationals, evacuations, and other cross-border workforce situations.
That can create a perception challenge. A business may look only at the number of traditional expatriates and assume the mobility function is relatively small, while the team is actually supporting a much broader and more complex population. Understanding the full scope of the work is essential when thinking about how the function should be designed.
One of the most important questions Morgan and Brigitte raise is also one of the simplest:
Is the team primarily there to execute the transactional work of mobility?
Is its purpose to create a strong employee experience?
Is it expected to advise the business on how best to deploy talent?
Or is it helping the organization think more broadly about building and supporting a global workforce?
The answer matters because it becomes the foundation for function design. Once the purpose is clear, organizations can make more informed decisions about what skills they need, what work should remain in-house, what should be outsourced, and what technology should support the function.
It is a common question — but there is no universal answer.
The right number of full-time employees depends on what the function is responsible for and how the work is delivered. A team that manages significant activity internally may require a different level of resourcing from one that outsources much of the operational work. Program complexity, the types of mobility being supported, service expectations, technology, and the degree of strategic advisory work all influence staffing needs. That is why simply comparing FTE numbers from one organization to another can be misleading.
The better question is whether the function has the right resources to deliver against its purpose.
Once the role of the function is clear, sourcing decisions become easier to evaluate. Some organizations may want to retain more expertise internally. Others may choose to rely heavily on external partners for transactional work while keeping strategic advisory capability in-house.
There is no one correct model.
What matters is making deliberate choices based on the type of mobility function the organization wants to build.
The same principle applies to technology. Tools should support the function’s goals rather than drive the design simply because a particular solution is available.
Mobility functions operate in very different environments. Organizations vary in size, program complexity, geographic footprint, outsourcing strategy, technology maturity, workforce needs, and expectations of the mobility team. So a structure that works perfectly for one company may not make sense for another.
Successful function design requires looking across all of those factors rather than trying to replicate a standard model. It also requires some creativity.
As mobility continues to evolve, organizations may need new combinations of skills, partnerships, technology, and operating models to support what the business needs next.
Mobility function design should start with purpose.
Before deciding how many people are needed, what should be outsourced, or what technology to invest in, organizations need to understand what they expect mobility to deliver.
The function of the future may need to do much more than administer moves. It may need to advise, enable, respond, plan, and help the business deploy talent across borders in an increasingly complex environment.
There is no one-size-fits-all structure.
The strongest design is the one built around what your mobility function needs to achieve — today and in the future.
And stay tuned for more Bite-Sized Advice from my advisory colleagues.