Internal Talent Marketplace Survey Questions: How Employees Experience Skills-Based Mobility

If you only judge your internal talent marketplace by applications and fills, you’ll miss the real blockers. These internal talent marketplace survey questions capture how employees experience visibility, matching trust, fairness, manager support, and usability—so you can spot issues early and make practical fixes before internal mobility stalls.

Internal talent marketplace survey questions (question bank)

Use the closed questions with a 1–5 scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). Keep the wording stable across cycles so you can track trends. If you also run an internal mobility program outside the interner Talentmarktplatz (manual postings, informal moves), tell employees to answer based on their real end-to-end experience—searching, matching, applying, and discussing moves with their manager.

(1) Awareness & understanding (Q1–Q7)

Q1. I know that our internal talent marketplace exists.
Q2. I understand what the marketplace is for (roles, projects, gigs, learning).
Q3. I know where to find the marketplace and how to access it.
Q4. I understand what information I should include in my profile to get relevant matches.
Q5. I trust that using the marketplace is encouraged in our company.
Q6. I know what happens after I express interest in an internal opportunity.
Q7. I know who to contact if I have questions about internal mobility.

(2) Visibility of opportunities (Q8–Q14)

Q8. The marketplace shows opportunities that are relevant to my skills and interests.
Q9. I can easily find roles/projects that fit my location and work setup (remote/office/shift).
Q10. Filters and search results help me narrow down opportunities effectively.
Q11. Opportunity descriptions are clear about scope, expectations, and time commitment.
Q12. I see a good mix of short-term gigs and longer-term role opportunities.
Q13. I feel I have equal visibility to opportunities compared to other teams/sites.
Q14. New opportunities appear often enough to keep the marketplace useful.

(3) Matching & fairness (Q15–Q21)

Q15. Suggested opportunities are a good match for my current skills.
Q16. Suggested opportunities help me discover options I wouldn’t find on my own.
Q17. I understand, at a high level, why the marketplace recommends certain opportunities to me.
Q18. The matching feels fair across roles, levels, and departments.
Q19. I believe employees at different sites/locations have equal chances to be matched.
Q20. I believe internal opportunities are genuinely open, not pre-decided.
Q21. I trust that the marketplace does not disadvantage people who are less visible internally.

(4) Manager & HR support (Q22–Q28)

Q22. My manager reacts constructively when I show interest in an internal opportunity.
Q23. I can discuss internal mobility goals in 1:1s without negative consequences.
Q24. My manager helps me plan timing and handover when I pursue a move.
Q25. HR (or People team) provides clear guidance on internal mobility steps.
Q26. I know what approval(s) are needed for internal moves.
Q27. I feel supported to apply even if I’m not a “perfect match” yet.
Q28. Manager support for internal mobility feels consistent across teams.

(5) Application & process experience (Q29–Q35)

Q29. Applying for an internal opportunity is straightforward.
Q30. The steps from interest to decision are clear.
Q31. I receive timely status updates during internal applications.
Q32. Communication from hiring/project owners is respectful and informative.
Q33. I understand why I was accepted or rejected for internal opportunities.
Q34. The process timeline feels reasonable (not overly slow or blocked).
Q35. The marketplace process protects confidentiality when needed.

(6) Skills & career clarity (Q36–Q42)

Q36. I can clearly see which skills are required for roles/projects I’m interested in.
Q37. I can assess my skill fit based on transparent criteria, not guesswork.
Q38. The marketplace helps me understand which skills to build next.
Q39. I have access to development options that connect to marketplace opportunities.
Q40. I believe my skill profile reflects my real capabilities.
Q41. I know how internal mobility relates to our career framework and levels.
Q42. I can see more than one realistic internal path for my career growth.

(7) Barriers & psychological safety (Q43–Q49)

Q43. I feel psychologically safe exploring internal opportunities.
Q44. I do not worry that using the marketplace signals disloyalty.
Q45. I do not fear backlash from my manager if I apply internally.
Q46. I trust the marketplace to handle my data appropriately (DSGVO/GDPR expectations).
Q47. I believe internal mobility decisions are based on skills and potential, not politics.
Q48. I know how to raise concerns if I experience unfair treatment in internal moves.
Q49. I believe confidentiality is respected when I explore opportunities discreetly.

(8) Overall impact & recommendation (Q50–Q56)

Q50. The marketplace increases my awareness of internal career opportunities.
Q51. The marketplace makes internal mobility feel achievable for people like me.
Q52. Using the marketplace saves me time compared to finding opportunities informally.
Q53. The marketplace supports better cross-team collaboration through gigs/projects.
Q54. The marketplace improves retention by offering real growth options internally.
Q55. Overall, I’m satisfied with the internal talent marketplace experience.
Q56. I believe the marketplace is becoming more useful over time.

Overall 0–10 rating questions (R1–R3)

R1 (0–10). How much do you trust the internal talent marketplace to be fair?
R2 (0–10). How relevant are the opportunities suggested to you?
R3 (0–10). How much has the marketplace improved your internal career prospects?

Open-ended questions (O1–O12)

O1. What is the main reason you use (or don’t use) the marketplace today?
O2. Which types of roles/projects/gigs do you wish you saw more often?
O3. What makes an opportunity description credible and attractive for you?
O4. If matching feels “off” sometimes: what is typically missing or wrong?
O5. What would increase your trust in how matching and selection work?
O6. What is one thing your manager could do to better support internal mobility?
O7. What is one thing HR/People Ops could change to reduce friction in the process?
O8. Where does the internal move process slow down most (step + why)?
O9. What would make you feel more psychologically safe exploring opportunities?
O10. If you experienced unfairness: what happened, and what outcome would be fair?
O11. What skills do you want to develop next, and what blocks you today?
O12. What should we start/stop/continue doing to improve the marketplace?

Question area	Score / threshold	Recommended action	Responsible (Owner)	Goal / deadline
Awareness & understanding (Q1–Q7)	Average <3,2 or ≥25% disagree (1–2)	HR publishes a 1-page “how it works” + runs 2 live Q&A sessions.	HR / Internal Comms	Materials within 14 days; sessions within 30 days
Visibility of opportunities (Q8–Q14)	Average <3,4 or Q11 <3,0	Marketplace owner standardizes opportunity templates + enforces minimum fields.	Talent marketplace product owner	Template within 21 days; compliance check within 45 days
Matching & fairness (Q15–Q21 + R1)	R1 <6,5 or Q20 <3,0	HR sets “open role” rules, audits exceptions, and reports aggregated outcomes.	HRBP lead + Legal/Compliance	Rules within 30 days; first audit within 60 days
Manager & HR support (Q22–Q28)	Q22 or Q23 <3,2	People team trains managers using a standard 1:1 script for mobility conversations.	People team + Department heads	Training within 45 days; adoption check within 90 days
Application & process (Q29–Q35)	Q31 <3,0 or Q34 <3,2	Hiring owners commit to response SLAs and publish a simple timeline per opportunity.	Hiring managers + TA/HR Ops	SLAs within 14 days; measured monthly
Skills & career clarity (Q36–Q42 + R2)	Q36 <3,2 or R2 <6,0	L&D maps 10 top roles to required skills and links learning to those skills.	L&D lead + Function heads	First 10 role maps within 60 days
Psychological safety (Q43–Q49)	Q44 or Q45 <3,4	Exec sponsor states “mobility is normal,” adds non-retaliation rule, and sets escalation path.	CHRO + Works council (Betriebsrat)	Policy update within 30 days; escalation live within 14 days
Overall impact (Q50–Q56 + R3)	R3 <6,0 or Q55 <3,4	Marketplace steering group prioritizes top 3 pain points and ships fixes as a 90-day plan.	HR leadership + Marketplace owner	Plan within 21 days; progress review every 30 days

Key takeaways

Measure trust and fairness, not only usage and hires.
Make manager support visible with clear thresholds and training actions.
Use open text to pinpoint where the process breaks.
Split results by groups to detect inequality early.
Turn low scores into owners, deadlines, and shipped fixes within 90 days.

Definition & scope

This Mitarbeiterbefragung measures how employees experience an internal talent marketplace end to end: awareness, opportunity visibility, matching trust, fairness, support, process quality, skill/career clarity, and psychological safety. It’s designed for all employees (or a defined pilot population) and supports decisions on marketplace roadmap, manager enablement, skill framework linking, and internal mobility governance.

Why employee experience matters in an internal talent marketplace

Most companies track adoption metrics because they’re easy: logins, clicks, applications, fills. But in DACH environments, trust, fairness, and works council (Betriebsrat) acceptance can decide whether employees use the interner Talentmarktplatz at all. If Q20 (“genuinely open roles”) or R1 (trust) drop below thresholds, you can expect silent disengagement before your dashboards show it.

A useful rhythm is: measure → decide → ship fixes → re-measure. Keep it tight so employees see change within 30–90 days. If the marketplace is still early, start with experience signals first and treat hires as a lagging indicator; you can align that approach with your wider talent marketplace strategy so the survey feeds governance and product decisions, not just reporting.

Simple process (4 steps): run the survey, tag results by dimension, pick the top 3 drivers of low trust, and assign owners with deadlines.

HR Analytics lead drafts a 1-page results snapshot within 7 days of close.
Marketplace owner selects top 3 roadmap fixes within 14 days of close.
Department heads confirm manager actions for Q22–Q28 within 21 days.
Internal Comms publishes “what we heard / what we’ll do” within 30 days.

How to run internal talent marketplace survey questions in DACH (Betriebsrat + DSGVO)

In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, survey trust often depends on clarity: purpose, anonymity, and data handling. Tell employees upfront that the goal is improving the marketplace and internal mobility process—not evaluating individuals. If you have a Betriebsrat, involve them before launch, share the question bank, and agree on reporting thresholds so nobody worries about being singled out.

Keep GDPR/DSGVO handling boring and predictable: collect only what you need, aggregate results, and define retention (for example, raw comments deleted after 90 days, aggregated trends kept longer). If you use a platform that automates survey sends and follow-up tasks, a talent platform like Sprad Growth can help automate survey sends, reminders and follow-up tasks—just ensure your processing agreement and permissions match what you promised employees.

3-step setup that avoids most friction: agree anonymity thresholds, define group cuts, and publish the follow-up workflow before the first reminder goes out.

HR + DPO (Datenschutz) define minimum reporting group size ≥10 respondents within 10 days.
HR + Betriebsrat agree which demographics are used (site, function, level) within 14 days.
HR Ops sets a retention rule (raw data ≤90 days) and documents it within 21 days.
People team trains managers on “mobility conversations” within 45 days.

From results to action: turning survey scores into mobility improvements

The fastest way to lose credibility is to ask, then do nothing. Your internal talent marketplace survey questions should trigger specific actions when scores fall below thresholds. Use one rule for experience dimensions (Likert averages) and one for risk signals (psychological safety items).

Practical thresholds work because they reduce debate. For example: if Q31 (timely updates) averages <3,0, you don’t need another workshop—you need an SLA and a dashboard. If Q45 (fear of backlash) averages <3,4, treat it like a culture and governance issue, not a UX bug.

If–then workflow (5 steps): identify low areas, confirm with open text themes, pick 1–2 fixes per area, assign owners, and re-pulse.

Marketplace owner drafts 3 UX/process fixes for Q29–Q35 within 21 days.
HRBP lead sets manager expectations for Q22–Q24 within 30 days.
L&D lead links 5 learning paths to Q36–Q39 gaps within 60 days.
HR Analytics publishes a monthly action tracker (done / doing / blocked) within 30 days.

Ready-made survey blueprints using internal talent marketplace survey questions

You don’t always need the full question bank. Use shorter blueprints to match the moment: launch, annual pulse, campaign pulse, or a targeted “recent applicants/movers” survey. If you already track internal move volumes in your internal mobility setup, these blueprints add the missing “why” behind the numbers.

Blueprint	When to use	Recommended items (example selection)	Total items	Owner + deadline
(A) Baseline (pre-launch / 4–8 weeks after launch)	When you need first experience signals and trust baseline	Q1–Q7, Q8–Q12, Q22–Q24, Q29–Q32, Q43–Q46, R1, R2, O1, O5, O9	20–22	Marketplace owner runs within 60 days of launch
(B) Annual employee pulse (deep but still doable)	Once per year to steer roadmap and governance	All dimensions: Q1–Q56, R1–R3, O1–O6	62–65	HR Analytics runs in Q3/Q4; action plan within 30 days
(C) Short pulse after campaign/feature release	After a communication push or matching change	Q1–Q3, Q8–Q10, Q15–Q17, Q29–Q31, R2, O4, O12	10–12	Marketplace product owner runs 2–4 weeks post-release
(D) Targeted survey for recent applicants/movers	Sent 7–14 days after application outcome or move	Q11–Q12, Q20, Q29–Q35, Q22–Q24, Q33, R1, R3, O3, O7, O8	12–15	HR Ops triggers automatically; review monthly

Keep one consistent rule: never use the targeted survey to rate individual managers. Use it to fix steps, templates, and response times. If you need manager-specific feedback, run a separate instrument and connect it to your wider 1:1 routines and coaching.

Linking skills, career frameworks, and marketplace matching

Matching quality rarely improves without clearer skill signals. If Q36–Q41 are weak, employees won’t trust recommendations because they can’t see the “why.” Anchor opportunity requirements in a shared skills language and connect them to your career framework so employees can self-assess fit and plan growth.

Start small: pick 10 high-demand roles and define the top 8–12 skills per role, with examples of evidence. Then connect learning options to those skills. If you’re building the foundation, align with your broader skill management approach so the marketplace doesn’t become a standalone tool with stale profiles.

3-step build (repeat quarterly): define skills for priority roles, validate with managers, then refresh employee profiles through lightweight prompts.

Function heads define skills for 10 roles within 60 days.
L&D maps learning resources to those skills within 75 days.
Managers validate employee skill profiles in 1:1s within 90 days.
HR Analytics checks if Q36–Q38 improve by ≥0,3 points in the next pulse.

Scoring & thresholds

Use a 1–5 Likert scale for Q1–Q56 (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). Treat scores as decision triggers, not “nice to know” data. A simple model works well across teams and countries.

Recommended interpretation: Average <3,0 = critical; 3,0–3,6 = needs improvement; 3,7–4,1 = solid; ≥4,2 = strong. For risk items (Q44–Q46), be stricter: if any average is <3,4, route it as a trust/safety issue. Convert results into actions: low Q29–Q35 drives process fixes; low Q22–Q24 drives manager training; low Q15–Q21 drives matching transparency and fairness audits.

Follow-up & responsibilities

Make ownership explicit so nothing disappears after the results presentation. Route signals to the level that can fix them: product/marketplace owners fix UX and matching, HR fixes process rules, leaders fix culture signals, and managers fix conversation quality.

Response times that keep trust: very critical feedback (for example, repeated fear of backlash in O9/O10 themes) gets acknowledgement within ≤24 h and a plan within ≤7 days. All other areas get an action plan within 30 days of survey close. Every action is logged with owner + due date, and reviewed monthly until closed.

HR Analytics sends results to owners within 7 days of close.
Marketplace owner publishes the roadmap response within 21 days.
HRBP lead schedules manager enablement within 45 days.
CHRO + Betriebsrat review psychological safety risks within 7 days.

Fairness & bias checks

Fairness concerns show up in patterns, not one score. Cut results by groups that matter for access: site/location, function, job family, level, tenure band, and remote vs. office—only where you can keep anonymity. Compare both averages and “disagree rates” (1–2 responses) to spot concentrated frustration.

Typical patterns and what to do: (1) One site scores Q13/Q19 lower by ≥0,4 points → check opportunity distribution and language/localization; assign marketplace owner to fix within 60 days. (2) One function scores Q22/Q23 lower → run manager clinics and track improvement in a 60-day pulse. (3) Juniors score Q36/Q37 lower → simplify skill requirements and provide examples of evidence; L&D updates within 75 days.

Examples / use cases

Use case 1: Low trust in “open roles”
Survey outcome: Q20 averages 2,8 and R1 is 5,9. Open text mentions “roles are already decided.” Decision: HR and leaders agree on a rule that every posted opportunity has a defined selection process and documented decision criteria. Change: hiring owners add criteria to postings and provide short rejection reasons. Next pulse: Q20 improves because the process is visible and consistent.

Use case 2: Marketplace adoption is fine, but employees feel unsafe
Survey outcome: Q45 averages 3,1 and comments mention fear of manager reactions. Decision: leadership sets a clear non-retaliation expectation and makes internal mobility a normal 1:1 topic. Change: managers get a simple script and a handover planning template. Result: employees report higher psychological safety, and mobility conversations start earlier.

Use case 3: Matching feels random
Survey outcome: Q15–Q17 average 3,0–3,2 and R2 is 5,7. Decision: the marketplace team adds explainability (“recommended because you have X skills”) and improves skill profile prompts. Change: employees are asked quarterly to confirm 5–10 key skills, managers validate in 1:1s. Result: employees see why matches appear and trust increases even before the algorithm gets perfect.

Implementation & updates

Run this like a product loop. Pilot in one business unit first, then expand. Train managers before you send the first survey, so they know how to react when employees bring up mobility. Review questions annually: keep core items stable (Q20, Q22–Q23, Q31, Q45, Q36) and only swap a small set tied to roadmap changes.

Practical rollout steps: pilot (6–8 weeks), rollout (next 1–2 quarters), manager training (before each cycle), annual review (once per year). Track 3–5 KPIs: participation rate, dimension averages (by area), R1 trust score, median process time perception (Q34), and action completion rate (percent of actions closed by deadline). If you also run broader engagement listening, align timing with your employee engagement survey cadence so employees don’t feel surveyed every month without change.

Conclusion

Internal mobility only scales when employees trust the system and feel safe using it. The internal talent marketplace survey questions above help you catch problems early—before people disengage quietly—because they measure visibility, fairness, manager support, and real process friction. They also improve conversation quality: managers get clearer signals, HR gets cleaner priorities, and employees see that feedback turns into shipped changes.

To start, pick one pilot group, load blueprint (A) into your survey tool, and pre-assign owners for each dimension so results don’t stall. Then agree thresholds with your Betriebsrat and Data Protection Officer, run the survey, and publish your action plan within 30 days. After 60–90 days, run a short pulse to prove that the marketplace is improving in ways employees can feel.

FAQ

How often should we run this survey?

Run a baseline 4–8 weeks after launch, then an annual deep pulse to steer roadmap and governance. Add short pulses after major changes (matching logic, new filters, big communication campaigns). For targeted “recent applicants/movers,” send 7–14 days after an outcome, then review trends monthly. Keep the total survey load predictable so employees associate feedback with visible changes.

What should we do if scores are very low (for example, average <3,0)?

Don’t broaden the program—tighten it. Pick the 1–2 most critical dimensions and fix root causes fast. Example: Q31 <3,0 calls for response SLAs and status updates, not another FAQ page. Q45 <3,4 is a trust issue: align leaders on non-retaliation, provide a clear escalation path, and involve the Betriebsrat. Publish what you’ll change within 30 days.

How do we handle critical open comments without breaking anonymity?

Separate two workflows: (1) aggregated improvement themes and (2) urgent risk signals. For urgent signals (harassment, retaliation threats), route them through an established speak-up channel and confirm handling within ≤24 h—without trying to identify the commenter from the survey. Set expectations upfront and align the process with GDPR principles; the European Commission GDPR overview is a good reference point for plain-language explanations.

How do we bring managers on board without making them defensive?

Frame this as process improvement, not blame. Give managers two tools: (1) a short script for mobility conversations (how to react, how to plan timing) and (2) clear escalation paths when they can’t approve a move. Show them which items they influence directly (Q22–Q24, Q31) and agree what “good” looks like (for example, Q22 ≥4,0 within 2 cycles).

How should we update the question bank over time?

Keep 70–80% of closed items stable so you can compare year over year. Rotate 20–30% based on roadmap changes (new matching, new gig types, new skill framework). Don’t rewrite items unless you must—small wording changes break trend data. Once per year, review which questions drive decisions, remove redundant items, and add 2–3 targeted open questions to explore new friction points.

Jürgen Ulbrich

CEO & Co-Founder of Sprad

Jürgen Ulbrich has more than a decade of experience in developing and leading high-performing teams and companies. As an expert in employee referral programs as well as feedback and performance processes, Jürgen has helped over 100 organizations optimize their talent acquisition and development strategies.