repatriation in australian organisations: effects of function and value of international assignment...

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(3)

Repatriation in Australian organisations: Effects of functionand value of international assignment on program scope

Sarah NewtonQueensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Kate HutchingsMonash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

Boris KabanoffQueensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

The rapid internationalisation of organisations in recent years has heightenedinterest in the need for cross-cultural preparation and support of individualsundertaking international assignments, and the reverse culture shock andadjustment issues that face repatriates. Research has suggested that organisationsthat do not successfully repatriate their employees will lose financially fromattrition and lose knowledge gained from repatriates’ international experience.Prior research has demonstrated that intense repatriation programs are the mosteffective means of retaining repatriates and transferring their knowledge, yetmany organisations do not employ repatriation programs. This paper investigatesfactors that influence Australian organisations to utilise repatriation programs,and proposes that the function of international transfer and organisations’ beliefs about the value of international experience will determine the scope ofrepatriation programs. Based on research conducted in 2003, the findings suggestthat Australian organisations recognise the importance of repatriation, but provideinsufficient support.

Keywords: Australia, experience, function, repatriation, scope

The dramatic increase in the international expansion of organisations since the1970s has heightened the interest of academicians and practitioners in the need

295

Correspondence to: Associate Professor Kate Hutchings, Department of Management,Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; e-mail: [email protected]

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi andSingapore; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright © 2007Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 45(3): 295–313. [1038-4111] DOI: 10.1177/1038411107082275.

APJHR 45_3_Newton.qxd 31/10/2007 11:15 AM Page 295

Literature review

for cross-cultural preparation and organisational support of individuals whoundertake international assignments (Hutchings 2005). Despite the debate overthe value of expatriates vis-à-vis host nation managers, organisations havecontinued to utilise expatriates as a means to internationalise and gather infor-mation (Foss and Pedersen 2002). In addition to discussions of the issues facingindividuals who sojourn overseas for international assignments (Hammer, Hartand Rogan 1998; Katz and Seifer 1996), attention has been devoted to the issuesof reverse culture shock and adjustment that also face expatriates when theyreturn from international postings (Gaw 2000; Gullahorn and Gullahorn 1963).Such research has suggested that organisations that do not repatriate theiremployees successfully will make financial losses from attrition of repatriates.Further, even where employees remain with their organisation after repatri-ation, if the individual is not successfully repatriated, the organisation will losethe knowledge gained during the expatriate’s international experience (Cianniand Tharenou 1999; Gupta and Govindarajan 2001; Kidger 2002).

Despite research demonstrating that an efficient and intense repatriationprogram is the most effective means of both retaining repatriated employeesand transferring their knowledge throughout the organisation, and that repat-riation programs minimise the stresses and problems associated with reinte-gration to the home country (Harvey 1989), only a minority of organisationsemploy intensive repatriation programs (Downes and Thomas 1999). Moreover,there is limited documented empirical research on the repatriation programsthat are utilised and the rationale behind organisations’ choices about whetheror not to employ repatriation programs. The research that does exist largelyaddresses organisations and repatriates in North America (Feldman andThomas 1992; Feldman and Tompson 1993; Hammer, Hart and Rogan 1998;Lazarova and Caliguiri 2001). Thus, the focus of the research presented in thispaper is to investigate some of the factors that influence repatriation programsin Australian organisations. In this paper it is proposed that the function ofinternational transfer and organisations’ beliefs about the value of internationalexperience will determine the scope of repatriation program utilised.

The rapid internationalisation of the world economy over the past two decadeshas heralded new ways of business trade and practice (Clegg and Gray 2002;Paik, Segaud and Malinowski 2002), which have necessitated that organisa-tions develop employees who can manage effectively across international envi-ronments (Katz and Seifer 1996) in order to remain competitive in the globaleconomy. The international movement of expatriates has resulted in a growthof international human resource management (IHRM) research on expatri-ation and expatriate management. Recognition has been given to the saliencyfor individuals and organisations to be cross-culturally sensitive, adaptive and

296 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(3)

APJHR 45_3_Newton.qxd 31/10/2007 11:15 AM 96

responsive when managing internationally if the culture shock (Oberg 1960)and non-adjustment (Stedham and Nechita 1997; Sussman 2002) which lead toexpatriate failure (Adler 1975; Black et al. 1999; Garoznik, Brockner and Siegal2000) are to be avoided. However, a significantly less researched area is repat-riation and the costs incurred by organisations when repatriates leave theirorganisations after return from international assignment or when they remainwith the employer but the organisation does not make use of the knowledgeacquired during the international sojourn.

Function of international transfer and international experience

Edstrom and Galbraith (1977) identified three reasons for internationaltransfers:

• position filling (PF) – transfer of technical knowledge where qualifiedlocals are not available;

• management development (MD) – managers are expatriated in order togain international experience to benefit the organisation;

• organisational development (OD) – transfers are used to change theorganisation’s structure, communication channels and processes.

More recently, Harzing (2001) amended these functions of internationaltransfer, replacing the organisational development function with the co-ordination and control (CC) function. She suggested that organisational devel-opment is not a goal but a result of the combination of PF, MD and CC. Onlywhen the international assignment is managed to transfer the tacit knowledgegathered overseas does organisational development occur. For the purposes ofthis study, Harzing’s (2001) delineation of Edstrom’s and Galbraith’s (1977)OD is used.

Given the said overemphasis on technical expertise at the exclusion ofother criteria such as cultural assimilation (Paik, Segaud and Malinowski 2002;Stedham and Nechita 1997) and the belief that expatriates in technical roleswill have little contact with local employees, there is a perception that inter-national assignments result in limited international experience (Adler 1991;Black et al. 1999). However, other roles, such as managerial development andco-ordination and control, require interaction and assimilation with the hostculture through communicating in a foreign language as well as training localmanagers. Many organisations use expatriates as a leadership development toolfor precisely the reason that they need to develop themselves in order tomanage in foreign environments. Lazarova and Caliguiri (2001) point out alink between function of international transfer and the repatriation programsoffered and suggest that different functions of international transfer requiredifferent strategic purposes, interactions with the host culture, and lengths oftime. Therefore, repatriation support should differ depending on what the

Repatriation in Australian organisations 297


function of international transfer is, given the differing variables inherent ineach function.

Baruch and Altman (2002) have developed a taxonomy in which theypropose that organisations evidence five approaches to expatriation and repat-riation: global, emissary, peripheral, professional and expedient, although theycaution that organisations may use more than one approach at a given time.Importantly, Yan, Zhu and Hall (2002) have identified a theoretical model ofinternational assignments in which they explore whether there is an alignmentbetween an organisation’s and an individual expatriate/repatriate’s expecta-tions of an assignment and its subsequent effect on assignment success. Theyrefer to four types within their model – mutual loyalty, mutual transaction,agent opportunism and principal opportunism.

Expatriates on international assignment develop a stock of knowledge andexperience that, when developed, becomes an inimitable resource for theorganisation as a whole (Foss and Pedersen 2002; Kidger 2002). This tacitknowledge is built from living and interacting within foreign cultures andmarkets, and as such, provides much information on how to operate withinthe global context (Tung 1998). Yet, there is failure to harness this knowledgewithin organisations as there is little attempt to integrate international experi-ence into organisations’ planning and development, and although organisa-tions profess the value of international experience and knowledge withinmanagement teams, repatriation programs and repatriate retention rates arepoor (Lublin 1996).

This study addresses one of Lazarova and Caliguiri’s (2001) recom-mendations for future research, by examining whether the function of inter-national transfer determines the scope of repatriation support practices offeredwithin Australian organisations. Thus, the first hypothesis investigated in thisresearch is:

Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between the function of internationaltransfer and the scope of repatriation programs offered.

Repatriation and the need for assistance

Research on expatriate management has viewed expatriation of employees tobe a cyclic process in which an individual should be selected for an interna-tional assignment, provided with pre-departure training, post-arrival in-situtraining, assimilation into the international assignment, assessed on perform-ance during the international assignment, and finally exited and repatriatedfrom the international assignment (Welch 1997). The ease of reintegration atthe stage of repatriation is determined by the extent to which reverse cultureshock occurs and the repatriate programs available to returned expatriates.

Gulahorn and Gulahorn (1963) observe that the main difference betweenreverse culture shock and culture shock is the expectation of sojourners (see



Huff 2001). They proposed that reverse culture shock arises when returneesdo not expect cultural differences on returning home, which in reality ismisguided as the home nation and organisation, and the sojourner will havechanged during the overseas appointment. As a result, the return home ispostulated to be more difficult than the actual culture shock of arriving in theforeign environment, and the most stressful aspect of sojourning (Gaw 2000;Hammer, Hart and Rogan 1998; Sussman 1986). The individual may experi-ence cultural identity conflict, depression, interpersonal difficulties, anxietyand feelings of alienation (Sahin 1990; Zaph 1991).

Experienced repatriates are often dissuaded from taking other overseasassignments due to the problems encountered on return home, which can bedefined as organisational problems, such as lack of recognition and unsuitablejob assignment, and personal problems, such as loss of status and standard ofliving (McDonald 1993). Paik, Segaud and Malinowski (2002) developed thisfurther, positing that repatriation issues are a composite of three factors: socio-cultural, family, and work environment. Repatriation programs aim tominimise the stresses and problems associated with reverse culture shock andreintegration to the home country by addressing these issues.

Jassawalla, Connelly and Slojkowski (2004) argue that effective utilisationof skills developed overseas, enhancement of human and intellectual capital,improved return on investment in skills and talents, higher retention andloyalty, and enhanced reputation for the organisation are some of the outcomesof effective repatriation. Further, effective repatriation is associated withsignificantly reduced anxiety and uncertainty, greater career satisfaction, andgreater feelings of cohesion and belonging to an organisation. Paik, Segaudand Malinowski (2002) argue that repatriation of sojourners must be managedeffectively through repatriation programs in order to exploit the embeddedknowledge and skills of the repatriate. Yet, it has been suggested that it iscommon that repatriates, upon repatriation, do not even have a long-termsecure job utilising their knowledge and experience (Downes and Thomas1999). Lazarova and Caliguiri (2001) identified 11 repatriation and supportpractices: their findings are consistent with those of other studies (see, forinstance, Feldman and Tompson 1993). Repatriates value the importance ofcommunication and pre-departure briefings as well as lifestyle assistance andcounselling.

Yet, prior research has shown that organisations give repatriates insuffi-cient notice of their expected date of repatriation (Halcrow 1999; McDonald1993), and when repatriated, repatriates find no guaranteed position (Downesand Thomas 1999), are usually given short-term lower level assignments, havegained additional skills and their increased levels of autonomy are not utilised(McDonald 1993). Often an expatriate returns to find that colleagues who wereat a similar organisational level prior to departure have been promoted andthat the organisation has also undergone change in terms of personnel, policyand technology (McDonald 1993). This often leaves the employee feeling



demoralised, unrewarded and frustrated and as such they are likely to experi-ence psychological problems for which counselling and mentoring are recom-mended but not always effective (McDonald 1993).

Harvey’s (1989) study provides some understanding of why repatriationprograms are not being utilised within organisations. Harvey (1989) found thetop three reasons for not instituting repatriation programs: lack of expertise inestablishing programs; cost of program to train repatriates; and no perceivedneed for repatriation training by top management. This paper updatesHarvey’s research in examining the extent to which organisational beliefsabout the value of repatriation program affects the disposition towardsemploying repatriation programs as well as considering the relationshipbetween international transfer and repatriate attrition and scope of repatriationprograms. This leads to the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The greater the value organisations place on internationalexperience, the greater the scope of repatriation program offered.

The information on which this research is based was obtained through a quan-titative e-mail survey, followed by a select number of qualitative semi-struc-tured interviews. All data was collected in late 2003 from HR managersinvolved in expatriation in Australian organisations. The survey was admin-istered via e-mail and the interviews by telephone. The survey was designedto ascertain what organisations are doing in respect to repatriation programs;while the interviews were conducted to ascertain why organisations make thechoices they do in respect to repatriation programs.

Procedure

The participants (HR managers in Australia who have some responsibility forexpatriation and repatriation) were drawn randomly from a number of sourcesincluding databases and special interest groups (i.e. the Australian BusinessWho’s Who (2003) and Jobson’s (2003)). In order to increase the sample size, anationwide international human resources group was approached for partici-pation.

Unlike the majority of studies in the area of expatriation and repatriation,the expatriates themselves were not surveyed. There are two reasons forchoosing only HR managers as the sample. The first is that the organisations’attitude toward function of international transfer, value of international experi-ence and policy toward repatriation is the focus of this study. Second, althoughsurveying the repatriates would have assisted in validating the accuracy ofresponses made by management to the questionnaire, past research indicates


Methods


the high levels of repatriate turnover and lack of support from Australianmanagement to interview repatriates (Davidson and Kinzel 1995) would havemade this extremely difficult. Indeed, Davidson and Kinzel’s (1995) reportedresearch involved a survey of only 37 Australian expatriates.

Where possible, the survey was e-mailed directly as an attachment with acovering letter to the HR Manager. In total 450 organisations were selected forthe study and 52 questionnaires were returned. This represents a response rateof R = 0.11. Twenty-nine e-mails from an export company listings werereceived explaining that most of the organisations on the listing were owner-operated with no expatriates and therefore not suitable to be included in thestudy. In a similar situation, Davidson and Kinzel (1995) eliminated a sampleas it would give misleading results. Similarly in this study, it was decided toeliminate the export company listing from the study giving a final responserate of R = 0.15. In order to gather more detail and clarify some responses, tenqualitative interviews were conducted. The interviews confirmed the findingsof the survey but due to space limitations the research reported herein refersonly to the quantitative data.

Sample

Organisations were drawn from multiple industry backgrounds. The locationof organisation headquarters was fairly evenly divided among respondents,with Australia being headquarters in 51.9% of the sample (n = 27) and variousoverseas locations for the remaining 48.1% (n = 25). The construction industryrepresented almost half the sample with 44% (n = 23) of respondents indicatingthey belonged to this sector. This was followed by engineering, electronics andtelecommunications at 26.9% (n = 14); manufacturing with 9.6% (n = 5);computer industry 3.8% (n = 2); and the process industry sector 1.9% (n = 1).Further company data is included in table 1.


Table 1 Demographics of survey respondents

Characteristic Mean (N = 52) SD Minimum Maximum

International aspect of job % 58.8 34.25 5 100

No. employees 9 252 21 969.28 4 120 000

No. countries 29 31.93 2 150

No. expatriates 212 791.45 1 4 000

No. repatriates 50.51 50.6 0a 180

Assignment length (years) 2.5 .78 1.5 4.5a Zero repatriates indicates that at the time of survey, expatriates had not yet returned from overseas

assignments.


Measurement

At the cost of richer information gathering, the questionnaire was limited tofive pages in length, allowing it to be completed and returned electronically inunder thirty minutes. Five-point Likert scales (ranging from strongly agree tostrongly disagree with uncertain in between) were used rather than bivariate,to allow for more informative analysis (Schriesheim et al. 1993). However, theresults of the survey provide but a small segment of the possible relationshipsbetween the variables. In the context of the hypotheses this is appropriate, asthe research aimed to determine whether there are relationships betweenfunction of international transfer, value of international knowledge and expe-rience, and repatriation programs, not the reasons why.

In order to ensure validity and reliability the questions utilised in the survey were taken from existing research in three areas: Function ofInternational Transfer, Value of International Experience, and Scope ofRepatriation Programs offered. The Function concept utilised research byEdstrom and Galbraith (1977) and Harzing (2001) and was measured usingfive item statements referring to a) transferring technology, b) buildingmanagement expertise, c) filling a skills gap, and d) transferring corporateculture as being a main objective of overseas assignments in this organisation.The fifth item, e), was worded somewhat differently from the others: ‘thisorganisation relies on expatriate assignments to reinforce corporate standardsoverseas’. Position filling (PF) was measured by items a and c, co-ordinationand control (CC) was measured by combining items d and e. Managerial devel-opment (MD) was constructed as a single-item measure, b.

The value of international experience was measured through twoconstructs, VALUEIE and VISIBILITY. VALUEIE is a multiple-itemmeasure, measuring the organisation’s perspective of the value employees withinternational experience bring to their organisation and subsequently the needfor them within the organisation. Three questions relating to internationalexperience (VALUEIE) were adapted from the 2002 Global Relocation TrendsReport (GMAC 2003). VISIBILITY is a single-item measure, designed todetermine whether the value placed on international experience is communi-cated to employees.

The presence of 11 support practices as identified by Lazarova andCaliguiri (2001) were used to determine scope of repatriation programs, withthe greater number present during the employee’s return representing agreater scope of repatriation. However, due to the wide ranging supportpractices and the ad hoc nature of repatriation reported in the literature, scope of repatriation was divided into four groupings reflecting specific typesof repatriation assistance and practices that should occur at differing stages of the repatriation process. The groupings are further known as POLICY,SOJOURN, CHANGES and RETURN.

POLICY looks at the formalisation of repatriation within the organisation



and whether the spouse and family are included in these proceedings as isrecommended in the literature, through two statement items. SOJOURN iscomprised of three items measuring the extent to which repatriation practicessuch as communication while overseas are being conducted prior to the returnhome. CHANGES measures through two items whether the organisationinforms or conducts training when the employee has returned from the assign-ment as to organisational or managerial changes that have occurred while theemployee was overseas. RETURN refers to the repatriation practices that areoffered once the employee has returned from overseas. Practices under thesefour groupings include lifestyle assistance and counselling, taxation andfinancial assistance etc. All statement items were randomly placed in the ques-tionnaire in order to eliminate the possible biases associated with responseorder effects. Two colleagues assisted with a survey pre-test by proof-readingthe measurement scales before the questionnaire was distributed. The SPSSstatistical program was utilised for analysis purposes.

Of the respondents, 42 per cent of the sample (n = 22) indicated that the lengthof expatriate assignment within their organisation was two years. In all 88 percent of respondents (n = 44) indicated that the average length of assignment intheir organisation was three years or less. A high level of non-response wasrecorded for the question of attrition among repatriated employees. Only 70per cent (n = 36) of the sample responded to this question, indicating either amisunderstanding of the question or a prevalence among organisations to notdocument attrition rates among repatriated employees. Table 2 sets out thepercentages of organisations that provide various aspects of repatriation andsupport programs.


Table 2 Percentage of organisations providing various repatriation programs

Repatriation Yes % No/unsure %

Includes family 79 21

Post-assignment guarantees 36 64

Discuss changes 44 56

Discuss changes while overseas 25 75

Financial assistance 73 27

Discussion while overseas 61 39

Lifestyle counselling 37 73

Mentoring 31 69

Continuous communication 60 40

Emotional response training 6 94

Results


In order to test the reliability of the scales and their groupings used in thisstudy, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for all the variables. Overall, the ques-tionnaire is reliable, with most of the variables reaching over 0.7 (table 3). CCand VALUEIE are a little low, a factor to be considered when examining theresults. Where predictor variables are single-item measures, the Cronbachalpha measure for reliability was not applied.

Correlation analyses were undertaken to test the study’s hypotheses asshown in table 4. Scope of repatriation program is measured by CHANGES,RETURNED, SOJOURN, POLICY and JOB. The correlates show that eachfunction of international transfer was related to different aspects of repatriation.


Table 3 Cronbach alpha reliabilities and summary descriptive statistics for scales

Scale (no. of items) Cronbach alpha Mean SD

Changes (2) .83 3.49 .92

Return (4) .97 3.16 .59

Sojourn (3) .72 2.87 .8

Policy (2) .87 2.06 1.11

Job (1) – 2.75 1.6

MD (1) – 2.73 1.1

PF (2) .88 1.99 .97

CC (2) .61 2.14 .78

Visibility (1) – 2.58 .87

Value of int. experience (3) .64 2.33 .76

PF = position filling; CC = co-ordination and control; MD = management development

Table 4 Correlation matrix of descriptor variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Changes

2 Return .36**

3 Sojourn –.11 .20

4 Policy –.45** .25 .39**

5 Job .29* .48** .23 –.20

6 MD .06 .29* .51** .45** .14

7 PF –.32* –.21 .13 .36** –.31* –.03

8 CC –.10 .30* .18 .54** .07 .19 .18

9 Visibility .01 .44** .39** .35* . 61** .55** .38** .28* .30*

10 Value –.02 .11 .11 .09 –.15 .25 –.06 .06 –.16 –.11

*p < .05 **p < .01


Hypothesis 1 is supported as the results indicate a relationship betweenrepatriation practices and the function of international transfer. There aremixed relationships between function of international transfer and scope ofrepatriation program. However, the relationships are not consistent indirection and across all functions. Training in regard to CHANGES in theorganisation is only related to the PF function of international transfer (r =–0.32, p = 0.02). POLICY repatriation items is related to the PF function (r =0.36, p = 0.009), and the presence of the JOB repatriation practice is related towhether PF was the function of international transfer (r = –0.31, p = 0.027).The repatriation POLICY was significantly related to all three functions ofinternational transfer: MD (r = 0.45, p = 0.001), PF (r = 0.36, p = 0.001) andCC (r = 0.54, p = 0.00). MD also significantly influences two other repatriationpractices, RETURNED (r = 0.288, p = 0.38) and SOJOURN (r = 0.514, p = 0.00).

Given the number of variables correlated with the functions of inter-national transfer, a standard multiple regression analysis was conducted todisseminate which variables were significant predictors of each of the repatri-ation practices. Table 5 summarises the results of the analysis.

The results of the multiple regression analysis show that there are somesignificant relationships between the function of international transferpredictor variables and the scope of repatriation programs offered. Function of


Table 5 Multiple regression analyses of function variables predicting scope of repatriation program

Dependent variable Independent variable Standardised β t-test Overall R2

CHANGES MD .06 .409

PF –.31 –2.225* .05

CC –.06 –.389

RETURNED MD .22 1.69

PF –.26 –2.00 .12**

CC .31 2.29*

SOJOURN MD .51 4.07**

PF .13 1.04 .21**

CC .06 .47

POLICY MD .38 3.65**

PF .30 2.84* .47**

CC .41 3.91**

JOB MD .11 .79

PF –.32 –2.34 .06*

CC .11 .76

*p < .05 **p < .01


international transfer accounts for 5 per cent of the variance in CHANGESwith adjusted R2 = 0.05. The variance is significantly related to only the PFfunction, and this relationship is negative (β = –0.31, p = 0.03) as expected fromthe correlation.

While for the repatriation practices initiated upon return home(RETURNED) there is correlation with MD and CC functions at the p < 0.05significance level in the matrix, only CC was statistically significant in theregression analysis (β = 0.31, p = 0.026). There does also appear to be an inverserelationship between RETURNED and PF (β = –0.26, p = 0.051), but this isnot statistically significant at p < 0.05 level. In the correlation matrix, whetherrepatriation programs conducted while still overseas (SOJOURN) are offeredis related to the MD function. This relationship is highly significant in theregression model (β = 0.51, p = 0.00).

POLICY, the formalisation of repatriation, is positively related to all theinternational transfer functions in the regression analysis and nearly 50 percent in the variance in POLICY was explained by the function of internationaltransfer (adjusted R2 = 0.47). The presence of a job for the expatriate on returnhome is negatively related to the PF function (β = –0.32, p = 0.02).

Hypothesis 2 suggested a relationship between measures of the value ofinternational experience (VALUEIE) and scope of repatriation practices.There was no significant relationship found between VALUEIE and any ofthe repatriation practices. However, the findings indicate that all repatriationpractices except CHANGES are significantly positively related to VISIBLE.Therefore, this shows that VALUIE itself is not related to repatriationpractices but to the visibility, and hence, communication of it is related to repat-riation items.

The offering of repatriation programs is significantly related to howvisible the value of international experience is within the organisation, exceptfor CHANGES. Both value of international experience variables account for19 per cent of the variance (Adjusted R2 = 0.19) in RETURNED (β = 0.46, p = 0.00). In SOJOURN (β = 0.41, p = 0.00) they accounted for 14 per cent ofthe variance. Of variation in POLICY (β = 0.36, p = 0.01), 10 per cent wasaccounted for by these two variables and JOB (β = 0.61, p = 0.00) variation was35 per cent. All these repatriation practices are influenced positively by thedegree to which value of international experience is visible. However, theactual value of international experience (VALUEIE) does not relate to any ofthe repatriation practices.

Function of international transfer

Overall, the results suggest that Australian organisations, when they do offerrepatriation programs, are not taking into account the unique requirements,


Discussion


roles and interactions that are required for the performance of their functionsof international transfer. That scope of repatriation is to some extent related tofunction of international transfer is important, yet these relationships do not indicate provision of useful repatriation programs. The position fillingfunction of international transfer tends to have negative consequences for theprovision of repatriation support in that the greater the position filling require-ments of the international transfer, the less likely there will be a guaranteedposition for the expatriate on return. Yet, there is no relationship between theother two transfer functions and guaranteed job on return. If the function ismanagerial development, then it could be expected that a repatriate would beguaranteed a position on return to utilise the experiences developed overseas;however, this is not evident in the results.

The employees transferred for the purposes of position filling are lesslikely to receive training on changes which have occurred in the organisation,despite the value of such training for reorientation on repatriation. Managerialdevelopment functions are positively related to the organisation beginningrepatriation programs while still overseas, i.e. the greater the managerial devel-opment function as the reason for international transfer, the greater theprovision of early repatriation discussions. However, it is concerning to notethat the co-ordination and control function does not determine whether repat-riation programs are begun prior to departure. Individuals who were trans-ferred for co-ordination and control reasons can provide useful information asto networks, systems, government agencies and protocol of the subsidiarycountry and as such it would be expected that efforts would be made to ensuretransfer of this information to the organisation on return.

Value of international knowledge and experience

The researched organisations do not uniformly make use of the repatriates’international knowledge and experience – an issue which may in part beexplained by the nature of the international job. Often individuals are expat-riated to fulfil a specific need and HR departments may not recognise the otherimportant roles and functions the expatriate performs while overseas. Forinstance, though the majority of researched organisations may expatriate inorder to fill positions, once overseas, expatriates may also find themselves co-ordinating and controlling, yet the consequent skills development may not beutilised on repatriation because the organisation may view it simply as abyproduct of the international experience not the key reason for the use of theexpatriate.

The results suggest that the actual value of international experiencewithin the organisation has no relationship with the scope of repatriation.Rather, it is the appearance of valuing international experience which deter-mines scope of repatriation as. through the provision of repatriation supportpractices, the perceptions and visibility of the organisations’ value of inter-



national experience increases. It could also be expected that the organisationswhich value international experience would make it highly visible thoughlarge scope repatriation programs, but the results do not indicate this. Theorganisations explored within this research suggest some congruency with thecategory identified by Baruch and Altman (2002) as having an expedientapproach to repatriation, which reflects their being relative newcomers on theglobal scene and hence taking an ad hoc approach which fails to recognisepotential longer term benefits of investment in repatriates.

Repatriation programs

It is evident that there is the lack of comprehensive and multifaceted repatri-ation programs being offered in Australian organisations. In the survey 71 percent of respondents indicated their organisation had some form of repatriationpolicy. During the follow-up interviews the interviewees suggested that repat-riation programs (like expatriation programs) tend to be centred on taxationand financial assistance which occur after return from overseas, rather thanreadjustment issues. Although over 60 per cent of organisations discussedrepatriation while the expatriate was still overseas and 60 per cent also practicecontinuous communication throughout the international assignment, this isthe extent of repatriation support. Organisations were found to give littleattention to social and psychological problems confronted on re-entry, par-ticularly change of status and lifestyle, with only 6 per cent of organisationsoffering counselling for these issues.

Why not provide repatriation programs?

The lack of provision of repatriation programs in the researched organisationsmay be accounted for by the nature of the international transfer and organ-isations’ beliefs about the assistance that may be required of these individuals.For instance, one HR director suggested that their organisation only usedexpatriates for position filling in overseas locations. It was suggested that theyhad little turnover of expatriates, who are a pool of professional expatriateswho move from one international assignment to another, and, as such, believedthat they did not require repatriation assistance. This is consistent with thefindings of Edstrom and Galbraith (1994) that where position filling is a keyfocus of expatriation, a stable pool of expatriates is utilised by organisations,attrition rates are low and the nature of the staffing profile means that repat-riation programs and support may not be necessary.

A second reason for lack of repatriation assistance being provided by theresearched organisations may relate to organisations’ own stage of internationaldevelopment. Kidger (2002) suggests that the structure of an organisation andits degree of international orientation can have an affect on the value of theexperience and knowledge gained overseas and, hence, on the employment of



repatriation programs to utilise repatriates’ acquired knowledge and experi-ence. This suggests that the more globally integrated the organisation in termsof moving towards transnational orientation, the greater the likelihood thatefforts will be made to integrate and utilise international experience in theorganisation through repatriation. Given that the majority of Australianorganisations have a relatively recent history of internationalisation (Hutchings2003), then it could be argued that their approach to repatriation might alsobe indicative of less global integration.

The results of this study indicate there is a strong tendency for Australianorganisations to reduce support for employees who have returned from aposition filling function and to provide insufficient repatriation support forthose who have undertaken co-ordination and control, and managerial devel-opment functions. Further, while the visibility of how much the organisationvalues international experience is related to the scope of repatriation programsoffered, the actual value of the experience is not.

Implications for theory

This research builds on previous repatriation research in two key respects.First, it examines a new theoretical model in order to determine whether thescope of repatriation support practices is determined by the function of inter-national transfer, and in what direction, and to what extent. Second, thisresearch also empirically examines the repatriation practices of Australianorganisations by examining the relationships between function of internationaltransfer, value of international experience, and the scope of repatriationprograms offered. With the entire sample being drawn from Australian HRmanagers involved with repatriation, this research broadens the primarilyNorth American-focused repatriation literature.

Implications for management

The results of this research suggest that a universal approach to repatriation isbeing applied in Australian organisations, despite the differences betweeninternational job assignments and their requirements. Close attention to thefunctions of international transfers and HRM practices tailored to thesefunctions may assist in making repatriation more successful for both employeesand the organisation in assisting reintegration of the repatriate and reducingpotential attrition for the organisation.

Though training about changes in the organisation is provided to indi-viduals transferred for managerial development, such training needs to be


Conclusions


available for all repatriates as an aid to reorientation into the organisation.Moreover, in order to maximise retention of repatriates, early discussion ofrepatriation needs to be provided to all employees not just those transferredfor managerial development. Further given that the interviewees suggestedthat, on re-entry, their repatriates face difficulties coping with changes in jobstatus and lifestyle, it is recommended that organisations provide counsellingto assist with these work and social adjustments.

However, while organisations might have a moral or ethical obligation to provide support on repatriation to assist with adjustment issues, it has to be questioned whether there is knowledge to be retained or indeed ifattrition/turnover of repatriates does result in substantive loss to the organisa-tion. Consideration does need to be given to what value repatriates add to theorganisation. Can their acquired knowledge and experience be used to betterprepare other expatriates for international operations, or can it contribute tointernational expansion of the organisation through the development of inter-national contacts and networks? Is there evidence of knowledge transfer/capacity building in the international operations? Do the repatriates offer anygreater capacity building for the organisation than do domestic employees withinternational work components (fly-in/fly-out)? The strategic purpose ofexpatriation is essentially for control and co-ordination, transferral of companypolicy and procedure, and technical and managerial capacity that is notavailable among local employees. Yet, not all expatriates actually add value tointernational operations, either during or after the assignment, and as such itmight be argued that where the organisation gains little value, it has littleincentive for offering repatriate support or indeed for implementing practicesdesigned to retain repatriates. Where there is a lack of organisational–individual alignment, to which Yan, Zhu and Hall (2002) refer, the organisa-tion may have little to gain from investment in a strategic repatriationprogram.

Limitations of the research

The relatively small nature of the sample used in this research raises concernsof statistical power, making higher level analysis impossible to conduct. Assuch the findings should be noted with caution and though they provideinsight into repatriation practices in Australia, they are not generalisable. Thesmall sample can be linked to the fact that access was limited by needing toconduct research with HR managers who deal with expatriates. Throughtraditional means of information gathering, such as database and annual reportsearches, the actual persons involved with expatriation and repatriation weredifficult to identify. A further limitation of this research is that there may beother factors beyond perceived function of international transfer that affectorganisations’ scope of repatriation. These factors may include cost, lack oftime and other resources, and lack of expertise.



Issues for future research

For future research it is recommended that efforts be made to draw upon alarger sample (perhaps by utilising a longitudinal methodology) in order totake account of influences on scope of repatriation programs such as size,industry, HR development, and stage of internationalisation of organisations.Future research might examine the impact of variables such as cost andexpertise on the propensity to develop a repatriation program. As this researchfocuses only on Australian organisations, it would be useful for future researchto compare the findings of this study with those of other nations. Finally,future research would benefit from replicating this study at both subsidiaryand headquarters organisations to determine whether there is any differencebetween the function that individuals are expatriated to perform and whatoccurs in practice.

Sarah Newton (BA, UQ; BBus (Hons), QUT) has worked extensively in Australia and Britain, and is

currently self-employed in small business management.

Kate Hutchings (PhD, UQ) is an associate professor and director of the International Business Research

Unit in the Department of Management, Monash University, Australia. She was previously employed at

the Queensland University of Technology and prior to that at the University of Queensland. She has

taught in China and Malaysia, and held visiting research positions in the US, Denmark, and France. She

has co-authored or co-edited three books, and published 55 book chapters and journal articles (in a

wide range of international journals). Her current research interests include expatriate management,

HRM in China, China’s OFDI, and intercultural knowledge sharing.

Boris Kabanoff (PhD, Flinders) is a professor of management in the School of Management, Faculty of

Business, QUT. Between 2003 and 2005 he was director of Research & Development and prior to this he

was head of the School of Management, QUT (1996–2003), a position he assumed after being at the

Australian Graduate School of Management, UNSW for 14 years (1982–96). He is a fellow of the

Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management and in 2005 was awarded the Elton Mayo Prize

by the Australian Psychological Society for his research contribution to the field of organizational

psychology. He has won Australian Research Council grants on nine occasions and been a member of

the editorial board of a number of leading international and Australian journals. His main research

interests are in the areas of organisational values, and managerial and organisational cognition with a

focus on strategic cognition. He also has a special interest in the application of content analytic

methodology, in particular computer-aided text analysis to research questions in these areas.

References

Adler, P.S. 1975. The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 15(4): 13–23.

Adler, N. 1991. International dimensions of organisational behavior. Boston: PWS-Kent.Baruch, Y., and Y. Altman. 2002. Expatriation and repatriation in MNCs: A taxonomy.

Human Resource Management 41(2): 239–49.



Black, J.S., H.B. Gregersen, M.E. Mendenhall, and L.K. Stroh, et al. 1999. Globalizing peoplethrough international assignments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Business Who’s Who of Australia. 2003. Sydney: Dun and Bradstreet.Cianni, M., and P. Tharenou. 1999. Going global: A cross-cultural study of the willingness of

new hires to accept expatriate assignments. Monash University Faculty of Business andEconomics Working paper 17/99. Monash University: Melbourne.

Clegg, B., and S. Gray. 2002. Australian expatriates in Thailand: Some insights for expatriatemanagement policies. International Journal of Human Resource Management 13(4):598–623.

Davidson, P., and E. Kinzel. 1995. Supporting the expatriate: A survey of Australianmanagement practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 33(3): 105–16.

Downes, M., and A.S. Thomas 1999. Managing overseas assignments to build organisationalknowledge. Human Resource Planning 22(4): 33–48.

Edstrom, A., and J. Galbraith. 1977. Transfer of managers as a co-ordination and controlstrategy in multinational organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly 22(June):248–63.

Edstrom, A., and J. Galbraith. 1994. Alternative policies for international transfers ofmanagers. Management International Review 34: 71–82.

Feldman, D.C., and D.C. Thomas 1992. Career management issues facing expatriates. Journal of International Business Studies 23(2): 271–94.

Feldman, D.C., and H.B. Tompson. 1993. Expatriation, repatriation and domesticgeographical relocation: An empirical investigation of adjustment to new jobassignments. Journal of International Business Studies 24(3): 507–29.

Foss, N.J., and T. Pedersen. 2002. Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of subsidiaryknowledge and organisational context. Journal of International Management 8(1): 49–67.

Garoznik, R., J. Brockner, and P.A. Siegal. 2000. Identifying international assignees at risk forpremature departure: The interactive effect of outcome favourability and proceduralfairness. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(1): 13–20.

Gaw, K.F. 2000. Reverse culture shock in students returning from overseas. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations 24: 83–104.

GMAC. (2003). Global relocation trends 2002 survey report. New Jersey: GMAC GlobalRelocation Services.

Gullahorn, J.T., and J.E. Gullahorn. 1963. An extension of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues 19(3): 33–47.

Gupta, A.K., and V. Govindarajan. 2001. Converting global presence into global competitiveadvantage. Academy of Management Executive 15(2): 45–58.

Halcrow, A. 1999. Expats: The squandered resource. Workforce 78(4): 42–8.Hammer, M.R., W. Hart, and R. Rogan. 1998. Can you go home again?: An analysis of the

repatriation of corporate managers and their spouses. Management International Review38(1): 67–86.

Harvey, M.G. 1989. Repatriation of corporate executives: An empirical study. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 20(1): 131–44.

Harzing, A-W. 2001. An analysis of the functions of international transfer of managers ofMNCs. Employee Relations 23(6): 581–98.

Huff, J.L. 2001. Parental attachment, reverse culture shock, perceived social upport, andcollege adjustment of missionary children. Journal of Psychology and Theology 29(3):246–64.

Hutchings, K. 2003. Cross-cultural preparation of Australian expatriates in organisations inChina: The need for greater attention to training. Asia Pacific Journal of Management20(3): 375–96.

Hutchings, K. 2005. Koalas in the land of the pandas: Reviewing Australian expatriates’China preparation. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16(4): 553–66.



Jassawalla, A., T. Connelly, and L. Slojkowski. 2004. Issues of effective repatriation: Modeland managerial implications. SAM Advanced Management Journal 69(2): 38–46.

Jobson’s Business Directory of Australia. 2003. Sydney: Dun and Bradstreet.Katz, J.P., and D.M. Seifer. 1996. It’s a different world out there: Planning for expatriate

success through selection, pre-departure training and on-site socialization. HumanResource Planning 19(2): 32–48.

Kidger, P.J. 2002. Management structure in multinational enterprises: Responding toglobalisation. Employee Relations 24(1/2): 69–85.

Lazarova, M., and P. Caligiuri. 2001. Retaining repatriates: The role of organisational supportpractices. Journal of World Business 36(4): 389–401.

Lublin, J. 1996. An overseas stint can be a ticket to the top. Wall Street Journal, 29 January, B1.McDonald, G. 1993. ET go home: The successful management of expatriate transfers.

Journal of Managerial Psychology 8(2): 18–30.Oberg, K. 1960. Culture shock: Adjustments to new cultural environment. Practical

Anthropologist 7: 177–82.Paik, Y., B. Segaud, and C. Malinowski. 2002. How to improve repatriation management:

Are motivations and expectations congruent between the company and expatriates?International Journal of Manpower 23(7): 635–48.

Sahin, N.H. 1990. Re-entry and the academic and psychological problems of the secondgeneration. Psychology and Developing Societies 2(2): 165–82.

Schriesheim, C.A., K.P. Powers, T.A. Scandura, C.C. Gardiner, and M.J. Lankau. 1993.Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and aquantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencilsurvey-type instruments. Journal of Management 19(2): 385–417.

Stedham, Y., and M. Nechita. 1997. The expatriate assignment: Research management andpractice. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 35(1): 80–9.

Sussman, N.M. 1986. Re-entry research and training: Methods and implications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10: 235–54.

Sussman, N.M. 2002. Testing the cultural identity model of the cultural transition cycle:Sojourners return home. International Journal of International Relations 26: 391–408.

Tung, R.L. 1998. American expatriates abroad: From neophytes to cosmopolitans. Journal ofWorld Business 33: 125–44.

Welch, D. 1997. Expatriation and career development in the changing global workscape.Paper presented at the 23rd Annual EIBA Conference, 14–16 December. Stuttgart,Germany: EIBA.

Yan, A., G. Zhu, and D.T. Hall. 2002. International assignments for career building. Academy of Management Review 27(3): 373–83.

Zaph, M.K. 1991. Cross cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing with culture shock.International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 14: 105–19.



repatriation in australian organisations: effects of function and value of international assignment...

Documents