Purpose – The purpose of this paper isto contribute to a grounded understanding of how mobility impactstalentdesignation and with what consequences.

Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory qualitative case study was conducted of a global medicaltechnology corporation, based on interviews with HR managers, line managers and non-managerial employees.

Findings – The findings illustrate that mobility plays a significant role in how employees are assigned talentstatus, and that mobility manifests and impacts talent designation through two types – geographical and lateralmobility. Mobility is not determined based on abilities and competencies, but rather on an employee’s overallpersonal situation, including age, family status and relationship status. Two main practices emerged throughwhich these determinants were decided: direct questioning and guesswork. The consequences that follow arethat individuals are left with little room to influence their own talent situation, and that there is a risk ofdiscriminatory and exclusionary consequences arising.

Originality/value – The study makes two main contributions. First, it provides a more nuanced understandingof how talent designation unfolds in practice, showing that performance and potential alone cannot explain theprocess and emphasizing the consequential role of mobility. Second, it contributes with knowledge about theconsequences of basing talent designation heavily on mobility. Individual employees are left with significantlyless room for enacting agency and playing active roles in relation to TM than has been suggested. Added to thisare the potential discriminatory and exclusionary consequences.