---
title: "Internal mobility needs a better deal for managers"
description: "Thom Staight explains how Microsoft's internal mobility work balanced managers' delivery pressures with clearer rules for moving talent."
url: "https://www.socialtalent.com/blog/recruiting/internal-mobility-better-deal-managers"
---

[Home](https://www.socialtalent.com/) » [Blog](https://www.socialtalent.com/blog) » Internal mobility needs a better deal for managers

# Internal mobility needs a better deal for managers

#### By Johnny Campbell

28th Oct. 2026 | Last Updated: 28th Oct. 2026

[Recruiting](https://www.socialtalent.com/blog/recruiting)

Calling it internal sourcing made sense to Thom Staight. Recruiters could help employees find jobs inside Microsoft rather than wait for applications. But leaders already fending off external headhunters heard something else: their own TA team wanted to approach their people too. The intention was helpful; the framing felt threatening.

That tension runs through my [Hiring Excellence conversation with Thom](https://www.socialtalent.com/podcasts/building-internal-mobility-at-scale-microsofts-playbook), who had recently left Microsoft after 11 years, most recently leading talent acquisition across EMEA and Asia. If you’re asking managers to accept more movement out of their teams, his account offers a useful challenge: what are you making easier for them in return?

There’s a good reason to intervene. Thom’s view was that high performers could be too busy doing their jobs to navigate a complex internal careers market. Meanwhile, competitors were bringing opportunities directly to them. Expecting employees to own their careers is reasonable, but it doesn’t follow that they should have to discover every opportunity unaided. The problem was how to offer that help without ignoring managers’ delivery pressures.

## Understand what the resistance is protecting

A CHRO-backed effort brought TA and talent management together to map how people moved and where they encountered friction. Thom expected business leaders to resist losing some control. What surprised him was resistance from some HR leaders closely aligned to those businesses. They could see what losing good people might mean for delivery. It’s a reasonable concern when the performance expectations aren’t going anywhere.

The team had also leaned too heavily on people strategy and cultural outcomes in its early discussions with HR leaders. Thom acknowledged that the connection to business results wasn’t robust enough. Yet there was a sharper argument available. After painful structural redundancies following the pandemic, TA was benchmarking candidates for later roles requiring adjacent skills. Sometimes recruiters realised they might be about to rehire someone who had left six months, 18 months or two years earlier. Better internal movement could help avoid paying to lose capability in one area and rebuild it in another.

## Give freedom, but make the boundaries clear

Resistance changed the design, not just the presentation. The team scaled back some ambitions and added guardrails around outreach. Recruiters could approach someone about an open requisition only within defined conditions, including skills matching and employee eligibility. This was an invitation to apply, not aggressive pitching or an automatic move.

That matching was supported by a skills taxonomy built years earlier and later simplified. Employees could manually add skills from earlier experience, helping make capability beyond their current job visible. Useful technology, certainly—but it still needed agreed rules about when approaching someone was appropriate.

Managers gained freedom too. In Thom’s example, someone had been developed as a successor for a year. Once the incumbent moved and the manager could demonstrate that the required criteria were met, the transfer could be self-service. That offers managers something useful alongside the prospect of people leaving: less bureaucracy and, potentially, better access to qualified internal talent.

By the time we spoke, the changes were seven or eight months past launch, after roughly 18 months of preparation. Thom expected shifting cultural norms to take years. The operating model was still bedding in.

[![CTA_L1_Ebook_1200x627-3](https://hubspot-no-cache-eu1-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/cta/default/143641590/interactive-244299538667.png)](https://cta-eu1.hubspot.com/web-interactives/public/v1/track/redirect?encryptedPayload=AVxigLJ8yaoWTfAM9aTrjBov4eNskoZlH%2B%2BHZOB5Almm3j4DlRLd%2FY%2F67YVl%2F%2FMbtjYD2bU1fX2oB2yWCWD0ntDIWX5BRc6%2BoBKv%2BY0eu6uStck4gyJT5cN%2FYC3O565rXHT0Wzreit0GULAMRqhJ%2BbbweGnSmMERDz1i6HfsDoHekb9wyZrNnw4V9tMEY9DMsMOuD6weJu2ZhaUrvaU131%2F7JFCaJS8L3umDOyZmwNbmG8WrsmZGALpKjgBRxhuiJGzo1mZJ4%2FASjEZd&webInteractiveContentId=244299538667&portalId=143641590)

## Start with one difficult move

Before you pitch a mobility programme, identify the business problem it must solve and the evidence that makes it worth tackling, such as the cost of vacant roles or potential rehires following redundancies. Then put one real movement scenario in front of TA, talent management and business-facing HR. For recruiter-led outreach, agree which vacancies justify contact, what matching and eligibility conditions apply, and how employees are invited.

Then look at the approvals managers face. Thom noted that some friction had been designed to protect fairness and inclusion, and some was removed as agility became the priority. These aren’t just administrative changes: be explicit about what a check protects before deciding to remove it. The aim isn’t to make managers stop caring about their teams; it’s to make supporting mobility a workable part of delivering for the business.

[![1-Apr-16-2025-01-53-03-1827-PM](https://hubspot-no-cache-eu1-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/cta/default/143641590/interactive-228804229345.png)](https://cta-eu1.hubspot.com/web-interactives/public/v1/track/redirect?encryptedPayload=AVxigLL2yXz2%2FeZfVxXFn6iySDVhWrLc0R6UTyPKFhn5PaXEaLPTsGi2x4w%2FaEWNOdL4Wcp6UJAP2fZmIddYQU68BZkWEew3LqeWSWCSYOdpzdv9mpOycynU6aefyiqhK2U4ygCX3A%3D%3D&webInteractiveContentId=228804229345&portalId=143641590)

## Frequently asked questions

Why did some Microsoft leaders resist internal mobility?

Thom described concerns about losing capable people while remaining accountable for team delivery. Some business-aligned HR leaders shared those concerns. The team responded with a stronger business case and tighter rules governing recruiter outreach.

What conditions applied to recruiter-led outreach?

Thom described an open requisition, a defined degree of skills matching and employee eligibility criteria. Recruiters could invite suitable employees to apply within agreed guardrails; the approach was not aggressive pitching or an automatic transfer.

How mature was the programme when Thom discussed it?

At the time of the interview, it was seven or eight months past launch, following roughly 18 months of preparation. Thom expected cultural change to take years and did not report quantified savings or retention improvements.