Introduction
Repatriation is the final phase of the international assignment. It is the re-entry of the international assignee to the home company. Repatriates are considered as a source of knowledge for the organization and as such, a source of competitive knowledge. The knowledge and experience that the international assignee acquires while posted in foreign countries can be advantageous for the organization.
Repatriation can be a very problematic process both for the organization and the individual. Therefore, management must focus considerable attention to this process as repatriates encounter different challenges when they re-enter the headquarter in the home country. These problems and difficulties may affect their personal life, their career and the organization as a whole. This paper tackles the different issues that repatriates and organizations face during repatriation. The importance of effective repatriation and the negative effects of poor repatriation are given emphasis.
The Problem of Poor Repatriation
Allen and Alvarez (1998) assert that poor repatriation is a big HRM problem which has a potential to endanger the company and the success of its international business. Black et al (1991) added that poor repatriation can result to massive financial losses for the organization. Poor repatriation can result to inefficient utilization of employees.
Organizational Challenges in Repatriation
Among the many issues that are becoming more and more obvious to organizations and researchers is repatriate retentions. Researchers assert that retaining repatriates can be very beneficial to organizations and can be a source competitive advantage. For example it has been suggested that global assignments provide the means for substantial personal and professional development (Fenby, 2000; Stanek, 2000; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; O’Connor, 2002). Individual development may in turn result to the establishment of competitive expertise for the organization. International experience of to executives according to Carpenter et al (2001) is linked to bottom-line results. Bonache et al (2001) consider expatriates and repatriates as unique vehicles for knowledge transfer and organizational learning – the process that constitute the foundation for building organizational competitiveness in a global economy. In order for multinational enterprises (MNEs) to utilize the benefits of international experience, they should ensure that repatriates stay with them upon their return from their international postings. Unfortunately many organizations face repatriation problems. One of these problems is repatriate turnover.
One view on repatriate turnover focuses on companies ignoring repatriates and their newly acquired skills that result in the repatriates to leave their work. It has been argued that organizations and their lack of attention to repatriates are to blame for the problems encountered by repatriates. Organizations must create strategies and policies that will support repatriates and fulfill their needs and career goals (Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Leiba-O’Sullivan, 2002). This means that repatriates are leaving because of lack of appropriate organizational support (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007).
The organization also deals with problems brought about by job dissatisfaction of repatriates. Repatriates have a hard time adjusting back to the organizational culture and environment that he or she left during his or her international assignment. In this, the problem centers on culture. One perspective on studying culture is Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Hofstede identifies five cultural dimensions – power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-feminity, and short term-long term orientation. The power distance dimension focuses on the degree of inequalities in power that is present in a culture. Uncertainty avoidance is about the degree of intolerance of uncertainty and vagueness. High level of uncertainty avoidance results in the creation of structured formal rules and restriction for individuals who are deviant. The individualist-collectivist dimension is about the level of connection between the individual to his or her group. Whether he or she is prioritizes individualism or the group. Masculinity-femininity dimension is about the degree of masculine or feminine characteristics that a culture projects. In countries with a short-term orientation, the emphasis is on the immediate gratification of needs, a focus on the present and the attainment of short-term goals. In cultures with a more long-term orientation, the satisfaction of needs is deferred for the sake of long-term benefits and growth.
As can be inferred from the preceding discussion, culture can be a very big problem before, during and after the international assignment. An international assignee needs to be educated and trained in order to be ready for the international assignment especially culture-wise. During assignment, the international assignee comes in close contact with the culture of host-country. Upon return, the international assignee, having successfully adjusted to the culture in the host-country, needs to readjust again for the culture in the home-country. For example, an American manager was assigned to manage the operations of a Chinese subsidiary needs to study and be able to cope with the Chinese culture. After two or three years of working in China, the American manager comes back to the US headquarters. He finds that the organization has changed and there are many people that were not there when he left the company. This can cause isolation. Moreover, the manager was successful in coping with Chinese culture and customs and he may find it hard to work again in a culture that is very different from his own. For example, in China there is a very high power distance, therefore subordinates are expected to follow without questions. This is not the case in American organizations.
Job change can be stressful for repatriates because of discontinuities in job duties, coworkers, supervision, and performance appraisal standards. Many multinationals experience significant costs because of poor repatriation practice, These can be summarized in terms of three problem areas as described below:
1. Loss of key personnel – too often, companies lose their best and brightest repatriates soon after their return from overseas assignment (Allen & Alvarez, 1998).
2. Underutilization of key personnel – past literature has reported widespread loss of promotional opportunities for expatriates as a result of their international assignments. Many repatriates report that they had returned to their home country only to discover that they had lost ground in their careers, and that other managers who did not make an international move have been promoted. Executives report that organizations all too often failed to reward or recognize the new skills and knowledge acquired in overseas positions. The high cost of expatriate assignment is partially squandered when repatriates are randomly placed in assignments that do not fully utilize their talents or leverage their newly acquired overseas experience (Allen & Alvarez, 1998).
3. Inability to recruit key personnel into overseas positions – it has been suggested that poor repatriation has given the offer of an overseas assignment the ‘kiss of death’. Young employees watching what happens to repatriates may choose to avoid a career route that has had disastrous implications for the careers of other employees (Allen & Alvarez, 1998).
Personal Challenges faced in Repatriation
An investigation conducted by Harvey (1989) focused on repatriation of corporate executives, He investigated on the personal challenges that repatriate executives face during repatriation. According to Harvey (1983) the repatriation of a corporate executive into the domestic organization and social environment simultaneously has a sudden and profound impact on the individual as well as family members. There is an unanticipated reentry culture shock or a sense of loss and isolation resulting form a lack of current understanding of the repatriates’ home country. The different problems associated with repatriation can also have an impact on the organization. That is why the organization needs to react to the pressure of the dissatisfied repatriate. Among the problems faced by repatriates are discussed below:
1. Organizational/Career Issues – career and professional adjustments are necessary for the repatriate. Aside form these, the repatriate must also deal with financial pressures that may create stress (Harvey, 1989). On repatriation the ambiguity f a new position as well as the modification in careers path will be the utmost concern to repatriated executives. Reestablishing themselves in the domestic organization normally takes an extended time period and productivity is hampered due to other changes taking place in the executives personal and professional lifestyles.
2. Financial Pressure – financial problems for the repatriated executive center on the difference in foreign compensation levels and loss of overseas allowances. When foreign assignments entail an increase in pay for overseas service, the loss of that pay differential adds stress to repatriation because the expatriate’s standard of living typically was adjusted while overseas.
3. Family Problems – the children have difficulties in reintegrating themselves into schools and becoming accepted in social groups. This is particularly pronounced in children returning to high school in their junior and senior years. The expatriate’s spouse may be less supportive of the repatriate because he or she did not expect to encounter problems on returning to the domestic environment. The spouse may also experience difficulty starting or restarting his or her career.
4. Executive Psychological Stress – the expatriate may also experience high levels of stress because of organizational and career pressures as we;; as financial pressures and family problems. The repatriation process itself, may be stressful for the repatriate and may increase the psychological strain. If the organization does not have a well-articulated repatriation program the executive may have to deal with the reentry problems without organizational support.
The personal problems faced by repatriates may negatively affect the organization. For example, if the personal problems of the repatriate affect his or her performance, the effectiveness of the organization may be reduced. Younger executives observing this trend of the repatriate employees become less valuable to the organization, may attribute their career failure to the foreign assignment. This viewpoint makes it more difficult to attract others to take foreign assignments as a means to propel their careers ahead (Tung, 1981).
Organizational Strategies to Ease Repatriation
In order to help repatriates overcome the challenges of repatriation, several writers came up with a comprehensive list of action items associated with effective repatriation (Poe, 2000; Solomon, 2001). Some of these actions include training managers before their international assignments, supporting them while they are on their international assignments and helping them upon their return. Jassawalla et al (2004) suggests a model for helping repatriates to cope with repatriation. The model is consist of three stages: prior departure, during stay, and upon return. The components of these model will be discussed below:
1. Prior Departure – the main concerns of managers leaving for foreign assignments relate to the uncertainty and anxiety that shape their perceptions, both those formed when they are abroad, and those that emerge from retrospective evaluations. One strategy that the organization can employ is making sure that the tasks of the international assignee is clear. Managers who say that their repatriation was successful according to Klaff (2002), report high levels of clarity about their task assignment. Task clarity is essential for (a) increasing the focus of the international assignee on task and lessening their anxiety while overseas, (b) creating a sense of accomplishment when their overseas task is completed, and (c) lessening their anxiety upon their return, and easing their transition into the home base (Jassawallaet al, 2004). Another strategy according to Suutari and Brewster (2001) is career counseling. Managers satisfied with their repatriation processes report that they received formal career counseling that explained (a) how their overseas assignment fit with the goals of the firm, (b) how their contribution to the foreign assignment made a difference for the firm, (c) how the skills and knowledge acquired from the overseas assignments would translate into career enhancements when they returned, and (d) the kinds of positions they would be offered in the home office depending on their performance overseas. Formalize policies for repatriation will also help repatriates adjust effectively. The presence and quality of policy guidelines according to Linehan and Scullion (2002) is lined to repatriation effectiveness. In addition to lessening managerial anxiety, formal statements that specify the firm’s objectives seem to contribute to the confidence with which they leave for and return from foreign assignments.
2. During Stay – the problems that arise during managers’ foreign assignments relate to the feelings of isolation and the loss of connection with the events in the home office. During the foreign assignment, organizational support is one of the most important and effective strategies that organization can employ. Managers reporting effective repatriation experiences uniformly recount being supported with on foreign assignment, referring to their perceptions of their organizations’ concern for their transition and adjustment to the new environment (Jassawallaet al, 2004). Nature and frequency of communication also have an important role in repatriation. Frequent visits to the home office according to Klaff (2002) significantly contribute to the feelings of connectedness among expatriates. In addition to reducing feelings of isolation, frequent communication also signals the importance of the overseas assignment of the expatriate and the organization. It also signals the company’s view that they are still part of the organization and participating in its activities.
3. Upon Return – upon return, the repatriate may realize that changes occurred in the home office (Forster, 2000). In order to aid in repatriation the organization needs to ensure that the repatriates have quality interactions with sponsors. Managers reporting satisfactory repatriation processes commonly identified a sponsor as an important contributor to their positive experience. A sponsor is a person who has more formal authority than the manager, who has personal stake in the success of the foreign assignment and who is vested in the career growth of the returning expatriate. Sponsors can act as confidantes and advocates – scouting for opportunities that repatriates can pursue within the firm upon their return.
Conclusion
Repatriation is a neglected part of international assignment. Repatriates face different challenges upon return. Most repatriates suffer from isolation, inadequate attention and lack of organizational support. As a result many repatriates leave their work after poor repatriation. Loss of repatriates also means loss of competitive advantage and knowledge source for organizations.
The repatriation process is the last part of the international assignment. It is when the expatriate is brought back home. The repatriation process is composed of three phases. Before the global assignment (phase 1), multinationals must assign home sponsors or mentors and hold them responsible for keeping the expatriate in touch with changing conditions in the home country. During the assignment (phase 2) work-related information exchanges, sponsor communications and a systematic pre-return orientation must be facilitated. Allowing for periodic returns to the home country will help the expatriate and he/his family to reconnect with firm employees, family and friends and catch up with changing business conditions. Upon return (phase 3), issues relating to housing must be dealt with. Schools for children, new shopping patterns and family survival activities in new locations are required. Repatriates must be assigned a new work space, and given a whole new orientation to the MNE. The new job assignment and local work group must be encountered and understood on a broader scale, the repatriated must reconnect with the local and social network of the multinational, and personal and career dynamics may have to be adjusted in new and potentially unpredictable ways.
References
Allen, D. & Alvarez, S. (1998). “Empowering expatriates and organizations to improve repatriation effectiveness”. Human Resource Planning, 21(4), 29+.
Bonache, J. et al. (2001) “Expatriation: a developing research agenda”. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(1), 3-20.
Carpenter, M.A. et al (2001) “Bundling human capital with organizational context: the impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay”. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 493-511.
Fenby, J. (2000) “Make that foreign posting your ticket to the boardroom” Management Today, 48-53.
Forster, N. (2000). “The myth of the international manager”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 126-42.
Harvey, M. G. (1983). “the other side of foreign assignments: Dealing with the repatriation dilemma”. Columbia Journal of World Business, 53-59.
Harvey, M. G. (1989). “Repatriation of corporate executives: An empirical study”. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(1), 131+.
Jassawalla, A. et al (2004). “Issues of effective repatriation: A model and managerial implications”. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69(2), 38+.
Klaff, L. G. (2002). “The right way to bring expats home”. Workforce, 81(7), 40-44.
Lazarova, M. & Caligiuri, P. (2001) “Retaining repatriates: the role of organization support practices”. Journal of World Business, 36(4), 389-401.
Lazarova, M. B. & Cerdin, J. (2007). “Revisiting repatriation concerns: Organizational support versus career and contextual influences”. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3), 404+.
Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (2002) “The protean approach to managing repatriation transitions”. International Journal of Manpower, 23(7), 597-616.
Linehan, M. & Scullion, H. (2002). “Repatriation of female executives: Empirical evidence from Europe”. Women in Management Review, 17(2), 80-88.
McCall, M.W. and Hollenbeck, G.P. (2002) Developing global executives: The lessons of international experience, Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
O’Connor, R. (2002) “Plug the Expat knowledge drain”. HR Magazine, 47(10), 101-107.
Poe, A. (2000). “Welcome back”. HR Magazine, 45(3), 94-105.
Solomon, C. M. (2001). “Global HR: Repatriation planning”. Workforce, 22-23.
Stanek, M.B. (2000) “The need for global managers: a business necessity”. Management Decision, 38(4), 232-242.
Suutari, V., and Brewster, C. (2001). “Expatriate management practices and perceived relevance: Evidence from Finnish expatriates”. Personnel Review, 30(6), 554-577.
Tung, R. (1981). “Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments”. Columbia Journal of World Business, 66-78.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment