No two Global Mobility functions are alike. Their structures are shaped by a complex mix of company size, industry, geographic spread, business strategy, and how the organization approaches talent development. What works for a global consumer goods company may not be suitable for a fast-growing tech firm—or a resource-focused multinational.
As part of our commitment to supporting evolving talent strategies, AIRINC conducted fresh, in-depth research to explore how Global Mobility functions are designed and executed across industries. Read more on the original paper here. Our latest publication, The Global Mobility Function: A Collection of Case Studies, includes detailed case studies drawn from interviews with Mobility leaders around the world.
To bring those insights to life, this blog series presents real-world examples grouped into four broad classifications:
In this opening post, we focus on the Operator classification—Mobility functions that prioritize operational excellence and process consistency.
This global oil and gas company blends centralized oversight with local responsiveness by organizing its Mobility function as a Center of Excellence (COE) supported by Shared Services. With 55 team members, the COE oversees policy governance while regional teams manage execution tailored to local regulatory and business needs.
The Mobility function handles a diverse mix of relocations, focusing heavily on complex or high-risk locations. A centralized technology platform enables standardized case tracking and compliance across all regions.
Outsourcing is targeted: RMCs and DSPs provide operational support in challenging regions, while internal teams retain control over governance and strategic alignment. Regular check-ins with HR Business Partners ensure local nuances are reflected in global policies and allow for proactive talent planning.
Key Strength: This model offers the best of both worlds—policy consistency through centralized governance and regional agility to meet local demands.
Takeaway: A COE + Shared Services model is highly effective for multinational companies with complex assignment profiles and a wide geographic footprint
In contrast, a global healthcare company manages its entire Global Mobility function through a single, centralized team member. This solo structure is designed for clarity and efficiency, with day-to-day logistics outsourced to vendors and supported by an Assignment Management System (AMS).
Despite its limited capacity, the function delivers high visibility and responsiveness. Vendor contracts are managed at the parent company level, allowing the Mobility lead to focus on coordination and strategic engagement. The team collaborates with payroll, hiring managers, and People Services, while senior leadership steps in for executive escalations and future planning.
The function is expected to grow in the future as business needs expand. For now, the structure offers a clear point of contact, lean operations, and scalable oversight.
Key Strength: Streamlined control and clear communication, even in a resource-constrained setup.
Takeaway: Solo Mobility functions can be effective in smaller organizations—or as a foundation for future growth—when combined with strong vendor partnerships and leadership support.
These Operator-focused examples show how Mobility functions can scale from a single-person team to a global COE, depending on business needs and operating environments. Both models emphasize process reliability and consistent delivery—but take very different approaches to get there.
In the next post, we’ll explore Enabler-focused Mobility functions, where the priority shifts to delivering an exceptional employee experience and integrating Mobility with talent development strategy.
Stay tuned!
What do companies need to take into consideration when structuring their Global Mobility function? It should reflect the needs of the company, the size of the program, attitudes towards talent development, geographic reach, and industry.