1

Managers and academics are increasingly recognizing the complexity of repatriation.

Critically analyse both expatriate and multinational responses to repatriation.

A contemporary approach regarding the complexity of repatriation

Introduction

At present, turbulence and continuous change in the business environment forces

global organisations to administer human resources efficiently, particularly for the

expatriation process, in order to attain organisational performance (Dowling, Festing, &

Engle, 2008; Samson & Daft, 2009). The latter comprises repatriation (re-entry), which is

defined as the action of bringing the expatriate back to the home country upon completion of

the assignment (Wittig-Berman & Beutell, 2009). Although literature emphasizes the

importance of managing this process adequately, expatriates constantly cite re-entry as the

area of highest dissatisfaction, despite improvements (Andors, 2010; Wittig-Berman &

Beutell, 2009). The latter is corroborated by recent research showing as many as 50 percent

of employees leaving within the first two years back from the international assignment

(GMAC Global Relocation Services, 2008). Furthermore, past studies indicate that

repatriation is underestimated and the least carefully considered aspect in the expatriation

process by organisations, regardless of the impact it had in workers (Black & Gregersen,

1992; Collings, Doherty, Luethy, & Osborn, 2011). This is because re-entry is viewed as

simple since the individual is coming back ‘home’ (Collings et al., 2011). Failed re-entry

often leads to career derailment for employees and lost resources for companies (Herman &

Tetrick, 2009). However, the trend is changing as managers and academics are increasingly

recognising the complexity, importance and implications for repatriation (Herman & Tetrick,
 3

2009; Furuya, Stevens, Oddou, Bird & Mendenhall, 2007). This paper will critically analyse

both individual (job-related and social factors) and multinational responses to re-entry,

discuss reasons for their complexity and suggest solutions using empirical studies.

Main body

Work issues

A primary issue concerning repatriation revolves around work-related issues within

the organisation: career anxiety, job adjustment and loss of status and pay (Collings et al.,

2011; Dowling et al., 2008). The former refers to the distress developed by international

employees due to uncertainty about their future, which negatively affects performance as it

builds up. According to Boya, Demiral, Ergor, Akvadar and De White (2008), nurses that

perceived job insecurity felt threatened, resulting in high levels of anxiety and depression.

Generally, returning expatriates are assured (by firms) that they will be brought back to the

home country, even though no guarantee is given that an official post-assignment position is

waiting; there is no role clarity (MacDonald & Arthur, 2005). A recent survey indicated that

approximately 70 percent of repatriated workers did not have a job guaranteed upon return

(GMAC Global Relocation Services, 2004). The lack of information gives the individual the

impression that the organisation is careless, resulting in increased anxiety (Black &

Gregersen, 1991). Furthermore, a second variable that increases distress levels is drastic

changes in the workplace structure and environment (Boy et al., 2008). Assuming the

expatriate is still in the assignment, and there is a merger, acquisition or re-structuring in the

firm, it might exacerbate anguish.

 4

Alternatively, the repatriate might not adjust to the workplace as it re-enters the home

country, due to devaluing experience and loss of status (Dowling et al., 2008). As employees

are repatriated, they are typically moved from managerial to non-managerial positions,

depicting an obvious loss in status (demotion) and payment (Baruch & Altman, 2002).

Accordingly, living standards to which the family and individual were accustomed are

reduced too. As a result, repatriates continuously describe the frustration they feel with lack

of opportunities to employ the international experienced gained while on assignment on

return; overseas experience is devalued (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007). This creates role conflict

as there are discrepancies between what is expected from repatriates in the new role and the

experience they can or cannot employ (Collings et al., 2011). Therefore, those who are not

promoted on return are inclined to categorize themselves as underemployed (Collings et al.,

2011). As they believe they are overqualified for their current role, they seek new jobs that

satisfy their skills; they are not bounded by the organisation and are willing to market their

newly acquired experience as a premium (Kraimer, Shaffer, & Bolino, 2009; Lazarova &

Cerdin, 2007).

As can be seen, repatriation is not as simple as bringing back an individual ‘home.

Firms have to be prepared to address both problems through the use of career management

(Baruch & Altman, 2002). This refers to a pre-prepared plan that matches the objectives

between the repatriate and the company (Baruch & Altman, 2002). There are three major set

skills, which include technical, human and conceptual, that must be considered in order for

effective transfers and promotions (MacDonald & Arthur, 2005; Pattie, White, & Tanksy,

2010). At an executive level, understanding the firm as a whole, comprehending the

interaction between different areas in the company and making effective decisions and plans

(conceptual) are crucial to an expatriate (MacDonald & Arthur, 2005). In contrast, knowledge
 5

and expertise in specific tasks (technical) is needed in lower levels (MacDonald & Arthur,

2005). Human skills (working efficiently with individuals) are required at all levels

(MacDonald & Arthur, 2005). Despite the relevance of this solution, Lazarova and Caligiuri

(2001) report that only 37 percent of organisations do any career planning for their

international assignees. In any case, career management can solve the presented complexities;

if the repatriate is downsized, it will possess enough skills to quickly adapt to another

organisation using previous international expertise. On the other hand, the possibility of

demotion will decrease, as proper training to succeed in the company will be provided when

the expatriate re-enters the home country. MacDonald and Arthur (2005) assert that career

planning is necessary, at least on an annual basis, to prevent turnover rates from workers

returning from their international assignments.

Social factors

Aside from job-related aspects, social factors such as family adjustment and cultural

distance, intensifies complexity of repatriation (MacDonald & Arthur, 2005; Paik, Segaud,

Malinowski, 2002). For instance, when the family unit suffers from the shock of

reintegration, it interferes with the returning expatriate’s responsibilities at the firm’s office

(Paik et al., 2002). MacDonald and Arthur’s (2005) investigation claimed that female

spouses have more difficulty with repatriation than males. Furthermore, studies show that 90

percent of spouses receive no support at all when it comes to re-entry and 40 percent when it

comes to relocation assistance (Black & Gregersen, 1992; Pattie et al., 2010). Albeit moving

a family from a foreign country (and providing adequate training) is expensive, the stress for

the family will be reduced, thereby decreasing any negative feelings in the repatriate, as well

as any chances of turnover (Vidal, Valle, & Arago, 2008). Organisations should take in
 6

account helping with family troubles as partner’s readjustment patterns are positively

associated (meaning they reinforce each other), according to Szkudlarek (2009).

Moreover, socio-cultural factors, including cultural distance between home and host

country atmospheres, as well as keeping close relationships with friends in the home country,

have a considerable impact on repatriation as well. Black, Gregersen and Mendenhall (1992)

comment on the difficulty of transition from liberal societies, with few restraining rules and

norms (North American), against societies where there is a strict behavioural code of conduct

(Asian); repatriation from North America and Western Europe was harder for an Asian in

comparison to other countries with similar values (Szkudlarek, 2009). This is why repatriates

tend to assign higher priority to suitable reintegration into the home country (Paik et al.,

2002). Accordingly, the human resource managers should recognise the fact that the

individual is trying to assimilate new norms and values; thus repatriate’s performance can be

affected although it is not a major re-entry problem to worry about (Paik et al., 2002).

Besides from cultural matters, developing and maintaining an intimate relationship has

recently become an important factor regarding the complexity of repatriate success according

to Benson and Pattie (2009). International assignees feel confident as they re-enter and have

someone that is looking out for their personal interest (Benson & Pattie, 2009). Nonetheless,

dissimilar goals, time zones, and loss of personal contact are some issues that weaken

connectivity.

In practice, repatriate training has been a viable solution to overcome the complexity

of social factors preventing successful re-entry (Cox, 2004). Over the past decade, subjects

who undergo training before returning to the home country assert that it is the best

opportunity to talk through any cultural or emotional issues with respect to repatriation
 7

(Szkudlarek, 2009). Nowadays, Ripmeester (2005) claims that only personalized individual,

one-on-one sessions are utilised for the repatriate and family to ease re-entry. In like manner,

Klaff (2002) states that a counsellor is needed to host these sessions, as it will help repatriates

in reintegration to the host-country. Regarding family adjustment, as spouses get proper

training, there will be decreased negativity when it comes to repatriation and will not affect

the international assignee’s performance (responsibility). Empirical evidence is depicted in

Szkudlarek’s (2009) study who demonstrated that participation in social activities overseas,

whilst receiving adequate information, in addition to having counselling activities,

contributed to a smoother re-adjustment for repatriate’s partners. A propos preserving and

maintenance of relationships, the counsellor can be utilised as emotional support.

Multinational responses

In contrast to the repatriate’s perspective, multinationals also have their own set of

responses towards re-entry; two important factors are preoccupation for current and future

staff availability, which includes any incurred costs taken by the firm, and knowledge transfer

between home country employees and repatriates (Dowling et al., 2008; Leiba, 2002).

Concerning the personnel’s disposition, multinationals tend to place leaders in the company

on international assignments; the implicit assumption is that these individuals will eventually

return home, be promoted, and use their novel expertise to benefit the organisation (Leiba,

2002). Therefore, firms will always have high-class staff at all times, along with motivational

tools; workers will be driven to try their best to be sent abroad. However, as reported by

Leiba (2002), repatriate turnover is high, due to underutilisation of repatriates’ skills. This

may occur because management may not be able to offer them suitable placements to apply

their newly acquire expertise or may not know how to the gained knowledge can be correctly
 8

applied (Wittig-Berman & Beutell, 2009). The cost involved, apart from a replacement,

occurs in the long-term as there is lack of competent employees in the organisation (Wittig-

Berman & Beutell, 2009).

A second factor vis-à-vis the multinational’s viewpoint is related to the knowledge

repatriates attain during the international assignment and the best way to harvest it

appropriately once they return. Nonetheless, lack of empirical research (only four or five real

studies) reveals that only few organisations realise the impact it has on the complexity of re-

entry and consider it valid (Oddou, Osland, & Blakeney, 2008). Oddou et al., (2008) proposes

the repatriate knowledge transfer model, which stresses the main stages of transferring

information. Analogous to literature earlier, as the repatriate undergoes a cultural integration

and fitting to the country and multinational, frequency of communication is essential for the

individual to understand the expectations to avoid role conflict (Oddou et al., 2008; Collings

et al., 2011). Eventually, the work unit and the repatriate will develop mutual trust, and the

person will earn the label of an in-group member, which will predispose the group to an

uncomplicated expertise transfer (Oddou et al., 2008). Nevertheless, if this process does not

occur and the repatriate does not gain mutual trust, or is categorized as an out-group, there

will be difficulties in the potential transfer of knowledge; consequently the international

company will suffer from losses; both human and financial (Oddou et al., 2008).

As illustrated, the main issue influencing the complexity of repatriation for the

outlined variables is lack of communication between the individual and the multinational.

According to MacDonald and Arthur (2003), repatriates assert that one of the most important

factors is in fact the details provided with respect to the re-entry process. Effective

communication between home-country office and overseas office will prevent

 9

underutilisation of expatriate’s skills, facilitate incorporation into the home country and

prevent any friction in the course socialisation (MacDonald & Arthur, 2005). Specifically,

Lazarova and Caligiuri (2001) indicate that mentoring can be employed to enhance

connectivity mechanisms, which will help repatriates with social networking, providing

necessary information, support, career direction, etc. (MacDonald & Arthur, 2005). Since

returning employees are more informed, integrated and can actually match their goals with

the firm’s, repatriation complexity will be reduced. However, a formal mentor program only

exists in 7 percent of the US companies (Pattie et al., 2010).

Conclusion

In conclusion, various factors such as including work-issues, social aspects and multinational

features highlight the importance of re-entry. What is more, it influences managers and

academics, who are increasingly recognising the complexity of repatriation. It has been

shown that multinationals must address these problems using various approaches (career

management, repatriate training and strong communication) to manage the intricacy of re-

entry. Nonetheless, given that most of these are inter-related, it is difficult to choose one as a

definite solution to reduce complexity. Thus, the international firm must focus and combine

as many as possible to administer the stated issue. The examples used have reinforced the

mentioned arguments, as well as giving a practical overview and application of the named

features.

Word count: 2,182

 10

References:

Andors, A. (2010). Happy returns: the success of repatriating expatriate employees requires

forethought and effective management. Human Resource Magazine, 55 (3), 61 – 63.

Baruch, Y., & Altman, Y. (2002). Expatriation and repatriation in MNCs: a taxonomy.

Human Resource Management, Vol. 41 (2), 239-59.

Benson, G., & Pattie, M. (2008). Is expatriation good for my career? The impact of expatriate

assignments on perceived and actual career outcomes. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 19 (9), 1636 – 1653.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). When Yankee comes home: Factors related to

expatriate and spouse repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies,

22 (4), 671–694.

Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., & Mendenhall, M. E. (1992). Toward a theoretical framework

of repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 16 (4), 737 – 760.

Boya, F., Demiral, Y., Ergor, A., Akvadar, Y., & De Witte, H. (2008). Effects of perceived

job insecurity on perceived anxiety and depression in nurses. Industrial Health, 46 (6),

613 – 619

Collings, D. G., Doherty, N., Luethy, M., & Osborn, D. (2011). Understanding and

supporting the career implications of international assignments. Journal of Vocational

Behaviour, 78 (3), 361 – 371.

Cox, B. J. (2004). The role of communication, technology, and cultural identity in

repatriation adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(4), 201–219.

Dowling, P. J., Festing, M., & Engle, A. D. (2008). International Human Resource

Management, 5th ed., London, UK: Thomson Learning.

 11

Furuya, N., Stevens, M. J., Oddou, G., Bird, A., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2007). The effects of

HR policies and repatriate self-adjustment on global competency transfer. Asia Pacific

Journal of Human Resources, 45 (1), 6 – 23.

GMAC Global Relocation Services. (2004). Global Relocation Trends 2003/2004 Report.

Retrieved Aug 18, 2011, from: www.nftc.org/default/hr/GRTS%202003-4.pdf .

GMAC Global Relocation Services. (2008). Global Relocation Trends 2008 Report.

Retrieved Aug 27, 2011, from: www.nftc.org/default/hr/GRTS%2008.pdf.

Herman, J. F., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping

strategies and repatriation adjustment. Human Resource Management, 48 (1), 69 – 88.

Klaff, L. (2002). The right way to bring expats home. Workforce, 81 (7), 40–44.

Kraimer, M. L., Shaffer, M. A., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). The influence of expatriate and

repatriate experiences on career advancement and repatriate retention. Human Resource

Management, 48 (1), 27−47.

Lazarova, M. B., & Caligiuri, P. (2001). Retaining repatriates: The role of organization

support practices. Journal of World Business, 36 (4), 389−401.

Lazarova, M. B., & Cerdin, J. L. (2007). Revisiting repatriation concerns: Organizational

support versus career and contextual influence. Journal of International Business

Studies, 38 (1), 404−429.

Leiba, S. (2002). The protean approach to managing repatriation transitions. International

Journal of Manpower, 23 (7), 597 – 616.

MacDonald, S., & Arthur, N. (2005). Connecting career management to repatriation

adjustment. Career Development International, 10 (2), 145 – 158.

MacDonald, S., & Arthur, N. (2003). Employees’ perceptions of repatriation. Canadian

Journal of Career Development, 2 (1), 3 – 11.

 12

Oddou, G., Osland, J. S., Blakeney, R. N. (2008). Repatriating knowledge: variables

influencing the ‘transfer’ process. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (1), 181

– 199.

Paik, Y., Segaud, B., & Malinowski, C. (2002). How to improve repatriation management.

International Journal of Manpower, 23 (7), 635 – 648.

Pattie, M., White, M. M., & Tanksy, J. (2010). The homecoming: a review of support

practices for repatriates. Career Development International, 15 (4), 359 – 377.

Ripmeester, N. (2005). Handle with care. Graduate Recruiter, 22 (1), 25.

Samson, D., & Daft, R. (2009). Management, 3rd ed., Melbourne, Australia: Cengage

Learning Australia.

Szkudlarek, B. (2009). Reentry – a review of the literature. International Journal of

Intercultural relations, 34 (1), 1 – 21.

Vidal, M. E., Valle, R. S., & Arago, M. I. (2008). International workers’ satisfaction with the

repatriation process. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19 (1),

1638 – 1702.

Wittig-Berman, U., & Beutell, N. J. (2009). International assignment and the career

management of repatriates: the boundaryless career concept. International Journal of

Management, 26 (1), 77 – 87.