The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.

htm

CDI 12,3

The repatriation process a realistic approach

vblad Akmal S. Hyder and Mikael Lo
vle, Ga vle, Sweden Department of Business Administration, University of Ga
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to present how a realistic view of the situation for the repatriate can help companies increase the retention rate among this important group of employees. A complete understanding of the repatriation process is crucial to offering repatriating employees proper backing and moral support needed during the process. Design/methodology/approach A thorough review of the literature on repatriation is carried out to present a repatriation process model and a number of research propositions. Findings This paper suggests that by focusing on motives and individuals experience of the repatriation process, researchers and practitioners will be better able to understand the measures and support needed in the repatriation process to increase the retention of an organizations repatriated employees. Research limitations/implications Suggestions for future research include a test of propositions by a survey, a longitudinal study of repatriates and closer look at the variables of motives and repatriation experience. Originality/value This paper combines existing knowledge with new insights for understanding the repatriation process. Keywords Human resource management, Employee relations, Employee attitudes, Retention Paper type Conceptual paper

264
Received September 2005 Revised January 2007 Accepted January 2007

Career Development International Vol. 12 No. 3, 2007 pp. 264-281 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1362-0436 DOI 10.1108/13620430710745890

Introduction With business becoming increasingly global, employees with international experience have become an increasing important issue for multinational corporations (Tung, 1998; Downes and Thomas, 1999; Lazarova and Caligiuri, 2001; Bossard and Peterson, 2005). This has also had an effect on academic research, and over the last 20 years a substantial amount of research has been produced on the topic of expatriation (Guzzo et al., 1994; Scullion and Brewster, 2001; Harzing and Christensen, 2004). Less attention has however been paid to the subject of repatriation, and therefore little is known about what happens to the expatriates after the assignment, when they return home, become repatriates (Suutari and Brewster, 2003). The explanation for this limited research on repatriation is simple: the home culture is known, the work habits are known, and the people the expatriate will interact with are believed to be the same as before. It has not been expected that repatriation should be as problematic as expatriation, since the individual is now returning home (Black et al., 1992). However, research studies (Stroh et al., 1998; Morgan et al., 2004) indicate that it can be just as difcult, or even more difcult, to come back home after a foreign assignment than it was to relocate to the host country. Despite the growing recognition of its impact on successful expatriate management, repatriation continues to be a source of frustration to many human resource managers and the expatriates themselves (Paik et al. 2002). In a study of French and German multinational corporations, Stahl and Cerdin (2004) found that

expatriates have been especially disappointed with how their companies manage the long-range planning of their repatriation. In the expatriation literature, the concept of culture shock has long been used and discussed (Cox, 2004). In the repatriation process, the repatriate experiences a corresponding phenomenon, usually called reverse culture shock (Rodrigues, 1996; Baruch and Altman, 2002; Bossard and Peterson, 2005). During the time of the expatriate assignment, the home environment changes and so does the expatriate. However, the expatriate might still carry a picture of the home society based on how it was before he/she left, and the home environment expects that the person coming home is the same individual as the one who left (Martin, 1984). Accordingly, the expectations of the repatriate are not in line with the reality, and a reverse culture shock occurs. Frequently there is no job guarantee upon return, and the policy is unclear (Bossard and Peterson, 2005). The Global Relocation Trends 2003/2004 Survey Report (GMAC, 2004) indicates that 13 percent of US repatriates leave the company within one year after returning from an assignment, and another 10 percent leave the following year. The data of Baruch et al. (2002) offers a further alarming picture. Their analysis shows that some 50 percent of people left the company following repatriation within a few years after returning. Vermond (2001) also reports in her article that 49 percent of returning expatriates leave their companies within two years of repatriation. Research has shown that relevant repatriation support can substantially reduce the turnover within this group of employees (Harvey, 1989; Lazarova and Caligiuri, 2001). For several years now, scholars have worked to identify and explain the factors that affect the repatriation process. Black et al. (1992) developed a basic theoretical framework for repatriation adjustment. This model, which will be further elaborated in this paper, presents a multifaceted approach to repatriation adjustment. Furthermore, the role of organizational support (Lazarova and Caligiuri, 2001) has been investigated along with the role of altered cultural identity (Sussman, 2002) and the multiple commitments to the host and home organizations (Gregersen and Black, 1996). However, the present body of research still has to offer a more realistic approach dealing with the situation for the individual during the repatriation process and how this situation affects the desire of a repatriate to stay in the organization. This paper aims to fulll two purposes. One purpose is to make the repatriation process more understandable and applicable to the business rms that are dependent on expatriates for running their foreign operations. This is achieved by introducing motives as a totally new variable, and by using the individuals experience of the repatriation process as the focal point in the suggested model. Our model is an extension of the work of Black et al. (1992). The second purpose deals with the problem of retaining repatriates upon their return, and suggesting ways of how this can be done. The repatriation process model is presented as positive/negative effect on the retention of the individual, and a number of research propositions are formulated. In the next section, a review of the relevant literature is presented. Thereafter, a critical analysis of the past research on repatriation is taken up and an alternative view offering new insight in this area is suggested. A number of propositions are also drawn simultaneously. The discussion section includes treatment of the variables as well as an outline of how the propositions can be tested. The paper ends with conclusions and suggestions for future research.

The repatriation process

265

CDI 12,3

266

Literature review In one study, Osland (2000) found that American repatriates are confronted with a number of difculties, including reduced autonomy, uncertainty about jobs, housing, missing their life abroad, etc. Linehan and Scullion (2002), who investigated the repatriation of female international managers, noted repatriation problems relating to the growing size of the home organization, loss of status, family situation, ignorance of their skills by the home organization and colleagues, etc. Black et al. (1992) and Abueva (2000) have also recognized loss of autonomy and loss of status as problems when repatriating, but found additional problems such as lack of promotion opportunities, lack of support and sluggish career advancement. The list of problems related to repatriation is certainly longer. Recognizing this fact, in a study on American sojourners from work assignments in 44 different countries, Cox (2004) sought an understanding of the repatriation process and its outcome. Welch (1998) and Tung (1998), as reported by Suutari and Brewster (2003), argued that too little is known about the effect of international assignments on the career advancement of expatriates, and about what happens to them following repatriation. Knowing the difculties of repatriation, a number of researchers have stressed preparedness prior to the repatriation process. In an empirical study, Sussman (2001) examined the aspect of preparedness for repatriation, cultural identity change, and attributions of causality on the repatriation experience of managers returning home from overseas assignments. In a conceptual paper, OSullivan (2002) addressed the issue of managing repatriation transitions. She suggested that a successful repatriation transition can be attained when, upon return, repatriates gain access to a suitable job, experience minimal cross-cultural readjustment difculties and report low turnover intentions. Access to a suitable job requires a match between the repatriates expectations and the actual willingness and capacity of the home organization to meet those expectations. We argue that expectations are mainly based on the managers motives to accept the foreign assignments and how the repatriate has experienced the dealings with the parent company during the transition period. The issue of cross-cultural adjustment has been elaborated and tested by Sussman (2002) in a study of American teachers who sojourned to Japan. One important result of the study showed that sojourners whose home culture identity is afrmed and maintained throughout the cultural process can be expected to experience less repatriation distress upon their return home. If the repatriate has to stay abroad longer and adjusts to the local environment, however, the repatriate may undergo certain changes in his/her cultural identity. We therefore argue that after successful expatriation, it is possible that the repatriate possesses an altered culture and that also the home country culture that he/she returns to may not be the same as when he/she left (see also Sussman, 2002). Another important issue is overrepresentation of the American perspective what happens with the European or Asian repatriates? In which problems are they involved during the repatriation process? Linehan and Scullion (2002) have recognized the importance of training in the repatriation process. Osman-Gani et al. (1995) found in an earlier study that only 30 percent of locally owned Singaporean multinational rms had repatriation training programs. For foreign-owned rms located in Singapore, the gure was slightly higher (34 percent). The issues to be included in the training also varied in the different studies. Linehan and Scullion (2002) found that re-entry training needs to focus on

helping the expatriate manager and spouse to deal with home culture both in workand non-work situations. This nding also supports the view of an earlier study conducted by Hammer et al. (1998). Hurn (1999) suggested that a repatriation program should include reverse cultural shock training, stress management, communication-related training, a mentoring program, help in forming new social contacts, and assistance to spouses. Osman-Gani and Hyder (2004) nd that a balanced mix of training and information (to the spouses in nding jobs, schooling of the children) is necessary for the repatriates to form their expectations when returning to the home country. The central role that the expatriates expectations play in the repatriation process has frequently been stressed in the literature (Stroh et al., 1998; Riusala and Suutari, 2000; Suutari and Brewster, 2003). Later in the paper, we will present our model drawn with a clear notion of the expectations that lead to the formation of repatriation experience. Repatriation adjustment or repatriation experience? The present research on repatriation focuses to a great extent on the repatriates readjustment to the home country. This line of research focuses primarily on the situation of the employee during and after the process of returning to the home country. The rst research to take a broader grasp of the subject of repatriation adjustment was the model developed by Black et al. (1992). Their model contains three facets of repatriation adjustment and four categories of antecedent variables. The facets are: . work; . interaction with nationals; and . general adjustment. The antecedent variables are grouped into individual, job, organizational and non-work variables. The model also distinguishes between anticipatory adjustment and in-country adjustment stages. Black et al.s (1992) model takes repatriation research from a piecemeal and anecdotal state to a more complete view of the process. In addition to the focus on the individual readjustment, this paper takes a company perspective of the repatriation process, and suggests that by applying a realistic approach to the situation of the individual, the company will have a better chance to increase the retention rate of this important group of employees. Applying a realistic focus on the situation for the individual requires that the total repatriation experience is emphasized and well conceived. We argue that what actually increases the likelihood of the individual staying in the organization is not the adjustment as such, but rather the experience the individual has of the repatriation process. This has been suggested indirectly in the research performed by Lazarova and Caligiuri (2001), as they conclude that when the repatriate experience that he/she receives the proper support from the organization during the repatriation process, the relational contract between the repatriate and the employer will be strengthened and the desire to stay in the organization will increase. We suggest that repatriation adjustment becomes relevant and functional when repatriate experience is largely positive. A repatriate will not be interested to adjust and stay with the parent organization if experience with the repatriation process is negative.

The repatriation process

267

CDI 12,3

268

Another important issue that deserves special attention is repatriate motives, which are not included in the model of Black et al. (1992). Unless motives are identied and conceived, it is difcult to know what expectations the repatriates have and how signicant they are in keeping them in the organization. In this paper, we recognize experience, before and during the repatriation process, and motives over time as vital for evaluating repatriation and thereby offer an extension of the work of Black et al. (1992). The idea of motives and experience is elaborated in the next sections. How does experience guide motivation to stay in the organization? The relationship between the employee and the employer can be one of two basic types, i.e. transactional or relational (Rousseau, 1989; Stroh et al., 1998; Baruch and Altman, 2002). In transactional contracts, the prime focus is on economic issues such as payment received for work performed, and the relationship is more of a one-time affair. Relational contracts, on the other hand, generally span a longer period of time and contain socio-emotional as well as economic exchanges (Stroh et al., 1998). Guzzo et al. (1994), Arthur and Bennett (1995), Harvey (1997), and Baruch and Altman (2002) suggest that expatriation is a form of employment of a more relational rather than transactional nature. This is also true of the repatriation process. Given that expatriation and repatriation are dramatic events for the individual, the repatriation process can have a substantial impact on the relational contract between the organization and the employee, and thus have a strong inuence on the individuals intention to stay with the organization. This is also supported by the research of Lazarova and Caligiuri (2001). The expatriates experience of the repatriation process can either strengthen or weaken the relational value of the contract. The positive impact of a strengthened relational contract on retention is intuitive, and has also been proven true in empirical research (Allen et al., 2003). An employee who experiences good support from his/her organization feels a greater obligation towards it and is less inclined to leave (Allen et al., 2003). Putting this into the context of our model, it is therefore important to envisage how the repatriate perceives the treatment received from the home organization and the general environment. This perceived treatment is compared to the motives and expectations the repatriate carries with him/her when entering into the repatriation process, and the experience that occurs when the expectations meet the reality of that process. MacDonald and Arthur (2003) reasonably argue that it is not the real loss but the perception of loss including the loss of promotional opportunities, professional development and management positions are more important to the repatriate. We thus argue that experience is a combination of what is really received and what is perceived to be received. P1a. When the expatriates expectations about the repatriation process are met or perceived to be met, the relational contract between the employee and the organization will function and chance for repatriate retention will increase. P1b. Unmet real or perceived expectations will have a negative impact on the retention of the repatriate. In order to describe how the repatriation experience is shaped and affected by expectations and reality, along with how it inuences the repatriates willingness to remain with the organization, we present our own model in Figure 1.

The repatriation process

269

Figure 1. The repatriation process

According to the model, the repatriation experience depends on how well the individuals expectations match up with the reality he/she faces when going through the repatriation process, or in other words, the perceived quality of the process. The department managing the repatriation program can affect both the expectations and the reality in order to create a positive experience and thus increase the likelihood of retaining the employee. The experience will also be affected by cultural identity changes and demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status and education level. These factors need to be taken into consideration when formulating a repatriation program. The model shows that a persons expectations regarding repatriation can be divided into three main groups: (1) work; (2) interaction; and (3) general. These are basically the same variables that Black et al. (1992) called anticipatory adjustment. These expectations are formed before meeting reality, which in this case is entering the repatriation process. Once the process has begun, reality will be measured against the expectations, and the experienced quality of the process will be judged according to how well the expectations are met. The expectations are based on three factors: (1) motives; (2) information; and (3) earlier experiences. Each of these factors is elaborated further. Motives To understand the expatriates situation and the repatriation process, it is necessary to investigate why an employee has accepted an overseas assignment in the rst place.

CDI 12,3

270

For an employee, this is a major decision, and he/she is therefore likely to possess clear motives for taking or not taking a job abroad. Although expatriation may be a management decision, the process itself has a great impact on the employees career development and plans for the future. It can therefore be assumed that the expatriate will think the matter over several times and discuss it with the family before relocating in the host country. Motives are seen, in strategic alliance literature for example, as the starting point, because they offer some direction as to how the alliance is expected to operate and what result it should achieve (Hyder and Eriksson, 2005). From this perspective, the motives of expatriates constitute the base of their expectations that are likely to be realized by the successful completion of the repatriation process. This means expectations will vary depending on the nature and type of motives held by the repatriates. For example, a person who has taken an assignment with the primary motive of exploring future career possibilities will have higher expectations regarding the position he/she should assume upon return compared to a person who has taken an assignment for the enriching experience of living in another culture. These motives might also directly affect ones willingness to remain within the same organization after returning. Researchers like Stroh et al. (1998) and Hammer et al. (1998) have addressed the expatriates motives for seeking international assignments and their expectations upon returning. Suutari (2003) and Brewster and Suutari (2005) argue that mangers internal motivation is a key factor in global career orientation and commitment. But these studies do not go into depth as to whether or not companies share these same motivations or what impact the they have on the repatriation process. The only known work that discusses motives and expectations to improve repatriation management has been conducted by Paik et al. (2002). By a case study these authors have established that there are differences between company and expatriate/repatriate motives. Major differences concern career advancement, compensation and adventure as opposed to the companys willingness to transfer the home corporate culture and meeting project objectives as its business expands in the global market. MacDonald and Arthur (2005) argue that there are both repatriate and organizational motives that need to be consolidated and supported. We argue that all motives are not productive and feasible and therefore cannot be fullled. To create a win-win situation, there must be a mutual understanding on the nature of motives and to what extent they can be achieved in developing congruent work expectations. However, we believe that many of the motives will be of common interest and the remaining individual motives have to be dealt with carefully so that the repatriate does not feel deprived by the organizational action. Career management of repatriates needs to be planned, supported by management, and must nd a match between corporate and individual objectives (Baruch and Altman, 2002). The balanced approach for the management of careers can be instrumental in gaining success for individuals, and hence for the organizations they work for (Baruch, 2006). As career development and successful accomplishment of the assignment are central in the expatriate and company relationship (Paik et al., 2002), we view that motives will primarily affect work expectations: P2. If work-related motives are congruent, positive work expectations will develop and other expectations are also likely to be positive.

Earlier experiences The expatriates experiences before and during the expatriate assignment have an effect on the expectations about the repatriation process. The situation faced by an expatriate repatriating for the second time, compared to an employee with no experience of previous repatriation, is certainly different. Having gone through the process of returning to the home country before provides one with a more detailed understanding of the difculties one might encounter. For example, Baruch et al. (2002) found that experience gained by the repatriates was not recognized by the company and was somehow lost in the process. This is obviously a negative experience, and an experienced repatriate will not be willing to be in the same situation again and therefore will take measures so that things become different upon return. An experienced repatriate knows what demands to put on the home organization, and thus will be capable of guiding the process in a positive direction. Paik et al. (2002) see a successful repatriation as more of a personal achievement. One of the problems that organizations face with repatriates is dealing with their high expectations (Forster, 1994; Suutari and Brewster, 2003). An inexperienced repatriate has difculty in assessing which expectations are realistic and can be met by the company. There is a risk that inexperienced repatriates set very high expectations and a lower level of demand than the company is willing to accept. P3. Earlier experiences of expatriation and repatriation will have an effect on work, interaction and general expectations.

The repatriation process

271

A failed assignment (or the perception of failure) leads not only to high costs for the organization (according to Shaffer and Harrison, 1998, a single failed assignment can cost an organization as much as $US 1 million), but also to personal problems for the expatriate. A feeling of having failed may increase the likelihood of the person leaving the organization. It may also lead to lower performance upon return to the home organization due to decreased self-esteem if the individual is not given the proper support. If a perceived success is not taken seriously by the organization, the repatriate can feel frustrated and may be compelled to seek opportunities outside the organization. Information Information is a key issue in managing and understanding the expectations an expatriate may have of the repatriation process. However, as shown in the study by Cox (2004), it is not only a matter of receiving information, but also of having opportunities to communicate effectively with the home organization and environment. A key issue here is the communication behavior of the individual, but the support and practices of the company are also of great importance. Sussman (2001) nds that psychological preparedness has a negative correlation with repatriation distress. We argue that different types of contacts will have an effect on different aspects of expectations. A variety of contacts can provide useful information on social, political and economical aspects of the home country. For the home organization, there are clear possibilities for inuencing the communication process and making repatriating employees aware of the situation. Lazarova and Caligiuri (2001) suggest that a mentoring program can be helpful in this regard. Researchers like Bennett (1993) and

CDI 12,3

272

Riusala and Suutari (2000) have identied the importance of providing a named contact person in the home organization. Cox (2004) nds that new types of communication technology such as the internet and e-mail play an important role in providing information to the expatriate/repatriate. MacDonald and Arthur (2005) suggest that employees can be educated and encouraged by updating resumes, and requesting information about the home country ofce and available positions. Black et al. (1992) propose that frequent home visits may have an effect on all aspects of anticipatory adjustment. This is also supported by Cox (2004), who observes a correlation between fewer home visits and higher repatriation distress. However, the category of contact will serve different purposes as they are related to different expectations. It also means that varied types of contacts are necessary to fulll all expectations so that repatriates would like to stay in the parent company. P4a. Contacts with family and friends will have a positive effect on interaction and general expectations. P4b. Contacts with the home organization will have a positive effect on work expectations. Cultural identity changes and demographic factors While the above factors constitute the basics for understanding a persons expectations about the repatriation process, cultural identity changes and demographic factors have a direct effect on the repatriation experience. Cultural changes come slowly and therefore repatriates are not always aware of the changes that have taken place over time. Repatriates may not realize how they have changed personally, or these changes may not have been evident during expatriation, but are highlighted upon returning home (MacDonald and Arthur, 2005). The effect of cultural identity has been investigated and discussed by several scholars from various aspects. Sussman (2002) applied the concept to the repatriation process and found that different changes in cultural identity act as predictors to different types of outcomes in the repatriation process. Sussmans model assumes that there are four main types of cultural identities after adapting to a new culture: (1) afrmative; (2) subtractive; (3) additive; and (4) global. Each identity type predicts a certain repatriation outcome. An afrmative cultural identity means a strengthening of the positive feelings for the home country. Adaptation to the host culture is thus low, coming home again is something positive, and repatriation distress is expected to be low. Both subtractive and additive identiers integrate to a greater extent into the host culture and are expected to experience more repatriation distress. People with an additive cultural identity still identify strongly with the home culture, but have also added values, behaviors, etc., from the host culture. Finally, global identiers are typically individuals with experiences from several expatriate assignments who feel a part of a global society.

For global identiers, facing a new culture is nothing dramatic, and the return to the home country is similarly less stressful. Cox (2004) uses different terms to describe cultural identity outcomes after cultural adaptation: home favored, host favored, integrated and disintegrated. The ndings from his study suggest that home favored and integrated cultural identities are predictive of better mental health and functional tness upon return to the home country. These results at least partly support the ndings of Sussman (2002). Home favored identication can be compared with afrmative identication, which in both studies is shown to have a positive inuence on the repatriation experience. However, integrated identication had a positive effect in Coxs study, while Sussmans corresponding additive identication had a negative effect. The above two studies were conducted on American repatriates, belonging to a culture that fullls the criteria set by Sussman (2002) for the cultural identity model. As far we know (see also Suutari limaa, 2002; Stahl and Cerdin, 2004), no study has yet been done that reects on and Va the effects of cultural identity on the repatriation experience outside the USA. It will thus be of great interest to see how cultural identity changes affect the European repatriates. In suggesting a proposition, we have chosen to employ the terminology of Sussman (2002): P5. Afrmative and global identication will have a positive inuence on the repatriation experience, while subtractive and additive identication will have a negative effect.

The repatriation process

273

Demographic variables have been found to play a signicant role in predicting repatriation distress. The importance of gender has been debated and tested in several studies. Brabant et al. (1990) and Rohrlich and Martin (1991) found that female gender correlated to increased repatriation distress, while Cox (2004) found no such correlation. Also the importance of the age of the repatriate has been discussed. Suutari limaa (2002) did not nd support for their proposition that age would correlate and Va to repatriation adjustment. However, other studies have shown that younger age is associated with more repatriation distress (Cox, 2004). The length of the assignment correlated negatively to repatriation adjustment in the study performed by Suutari and limaa (2002), conrming the results of Moore et al. (1987). Moore et al. (1987) also Va studied the inuence of marital status and education level on repatriation adjustment among North American missionaries, indicating that these would be relevant factors when looking at repatriation experiences. We assume that these variables will also have an effect on the repatriation experience and formulate the next proposition: P6. Female gender, younger age and single marital status will have a negative effect on the repatriation experience.

When expectations meet reality Based on motives, information and earlier experiences, the expatriate will form his/her expectations for returning home and the repatriation process. Positive expectations will help the interacting parties, i.e. the expatriate and the organization, to interpret each others behavior in a positive way (Adobor, 2005), while negative expectations will do the opposite. The expectations concern how one will be treated by the home

CDI 12,3

274

organization and life outside the organization upon returning home. Three categories of expectations (i.e. work, interaction and general expectations) are discussed. Work expectations cover the relevance of the task in an organizational context, role discretion, promotion opportunities and skill utilization. The relevance of the task implies that the returning expatriate gets a job that fullls his expectation in terms of nancial benets and new assigned responsibilities. It is important that the repatriates acquired international knowledge is appreciated in the home organization and the repatriate has an opportunity to apply that knowledge in the current position. However, repatriate satisfaction is primarily inuenced by difculty in nding a suitable position upon relocation home (Morgan et al., 2004). Although repatriates need to take initiative regarding the development of accurate expectations related to work, researchers argue that companies should develop strategies to create realistic expectation during re-entry (Stroh et al., 1998; MacDonald and Arthur, 2005). Research on repatriation success, however, shows that repatriates have often been dissatised with the new assignments (Morgan et al., 2004). This had a distinct negative impact on the experience of the repatriation process. This is also supported by the research of Black and Gregersen (1999), where they found that about one third of the repatriates surveyed still held temporary assignments three months after returning. Role discretion, or the extent to which the individual can inuence his/her position, limaa (2002) to be a relevant factor for repatriation was found by Suutari and Va adjustment. We also assume that it will be an important factor relating to the repatriation experience. Researchers such as Abueva (2000) and Black et al. (1992) have identied a lack of promotion opportunities upon return to the home organization as having a negative impact on the repatriation experience. A factor that has proven important in earlier studies is skill utilization. Expatriates gain a lot of new experience during their assignments abroad. Again and again people report that the experience they gained was not recognized and was somehow lost in the process (Baruch et al., 2002). Research has found expectations have an enormous impact on repatriation satisfaction, and when job expectations are met or exceeded, adjustment is an easier transition (MacDonald and Arthur, 2003). P7. Fulllment of work expectations will be inuenced by the perceived relevance of the task, role discretion, promotion opportunities and skill utilization.

Interaction expectations are mainly the expectations of the repatriate concerning interactions with the colleagues in the parent organization after returning from the assignment. During the absence, many things can change; for example, some leave the organization, some even leave the country for other assignment and the organization can undergo a structural change. From the repatriates side there is a curiosity as how the person will be received and treated by the colleagues. In their research work, Stroh et al. (1998) anticipated that being out of touch with friends and co-workers in the home ofce can signicantly affect whether expatriates develop realistic or retain unrealistic non-work expectations. These researchers found in their study that 23 percent of the responding repatriates were positively surprised while 44 percent were negatively surprised about interpersonal relationships at work. A match between non-work expectations and the reality is necessary for easy readjustment. We assume that not only the work itself, even the working environment will facilitate or complicate a repatriates stay in the organization.

P8.

Fulllment of interaction expectations will be inuenced by the perceived interaction quality with colleagues and management of the home organization.

The repatriation process

General expectations refer to the environment outside the organization. Earlier research has indicated that a loss of social status leads to repatriation distress (Black et al., 1992; MacDonald and Arthur, 2005). Gregersen and Stroh (1997) found it to be an important factor among American repatriates, while a study by Suutari and Brewster (2003) nds it to be an insignicant factor for Finnish repatriates. Martin (1986) observes that the type of relationship is also important to ease the repatriation process. Family support is the primary source for social support, while friends play a more diversied role. Both research and practice underestimate the importance of the spouse and other family members in repatriation adjustment (Black et al., 1992). Usually families follow with the repatriates in foreign assignments and this is a great support for the successful accomplishment of the job. A recent survey shows that approximately 86 percent of married expatriates are accompanied by their spouse during the foreign assignment (GMAC, 2004). During return to the home country, things become more difcult as adjustment problems can be a reality for both the family and the repatriate. Expectations of the home country and the company can be high as the family went to fulll a mission of the company. However, Black and Gregersens (1999) ndings show that 90 percent of spouses receive no repatriation support. This leads us to formulate the following proposition: P9. Fulllment of general expectations will be inuenced by the perceived support for the expatriate and his/her family for readjustment to the home country.

275

Stroh et al. (1998) discuss in their work how the gap between expectations and reality can be closed, and suggest that repatriation training will not only help to retain the employees in the company but will also make their life easier in the home environment that they left for the overseas assignment. A major problem in repatriation is the home organizations belief that returning home will not be difcult, but many repatriation researchers have found repatriation to be both challenging and complicated (Cox, 2004; Osman-Gani and Hyder, 2004). Organizations can prepare the returning expatriate for changes that can impact their expectations and subsequent work adjustment (MacDonald and Arthur, 2005). Both training, preferably by experienced repatriates, and support are therefore necessary to overcome obstacles associated with the process of repatriation. Lazarova and Caligiuri (2001) have found that supportive repatriation practices offered by companies improve repatriates general perceptions of their companies. MacDonald and Arthur (2005) suggest that repatriation programs need to encourage and train employees to practice proactive career planning behaviors. Discussion limaa, 2002; Gregersen and Stroh, 1997) Past research (Black et al., 1992; Suutari and Va has mainly focused repatriation adjustment. We have instead argued that, when designing repatriation programs, the central focus should be the individuals experience of the repatriation process. An individual can be successfully adjusted to the home environment but dissatised with how he/she has been treated by the organization and thus also less motivated to serve this employer any longer. Put in a

CDI 12,3

276

different way, an individual who has a positive experience with the employer after return will try to nd ways to stay in the organization even it could be difcult in the beginning to adjust to the surrounding environment. The possible retention of the repatriate within the parent organization will thus depend on the variable of repatriation experience, as described in P1a and P1b. Our model, which is an extension of Black et al.s (1992) work, offers a new perspective with new and re-evaluated variables that should be considered when creating repatriation programs. By shifting the focal point from repatriation adjustment to the individuals experience of the repatriation process, researchers and practitioners will be better able to describe and manage the repatriation process and its effects on the individuals intention to stay with the current employer. In our model, the repatriation experience is dependent on two main factors: (1) how the reality of the repatriation process meets the expectations of the repatriate; and (2) the impact of demographic factors and cultural identity changes. The ways in which these factors affect the repatriation experience are addressed in P5-P9. How demographic characteristics and cultural identity changes affect repatriation have been taken up and elaborated in earlier research (Cox, 2004; Sussman, 2002) in an aim to measure their effect on repatriation adjustment. It remains to be researched whether they also affect the repatriation experience and, if so, what the effects are. The expectations of the repatriate have been dealt with in three main areas: (1) work; (2) interaction; and (3) general expectations. It remains to be studied what relative impact these variables have on the total repatriation experience. Do work expectations have a greater impact on the repatriation experience than interaction or general expectations? How important are the expectations of the individual for the repatriation experience compared to the impact of cultural factors and demographic characteristics? In our model, we have given these factors equal weight as this issue has yet to be properly studied. This is also true for the independent variables (i.e. motives, information and earlier experiences) which form the basis for ones expectations. How these variables affect the various types of expectations is dealt with in P2-P4. The propositions developed in this paper need to be tested. The emphasis on the process and links between the variables require that the proposed propositions largely hold, otherwise the model cannot be validated. The testing of propositions can suggest other interesting ndings and may lead to revision of the model. A survey can be conducted to test the propositions and also generalize the ndings. As earlier studies have dealt mainly with the North American context, we suggest that the propositions be specically tested in Europe to see what differences these studies can show compared to the previous works. For example, cultural identity is already one factor that distinguishes European and US repatriate managers thinking. We may nd that even other factors require different treatment on these two continents to make

repatriation programs successful. We are not saying that our model is only applicable in the European context, but we do suggest that it can offer a general viewpoint on the process of repatriation and is therefore applicable to MNCs irrespective of country or region. For instance, such a study can be conducted in South East Asia where new multinationals are coming up with similar retention problems. Conclusions In this paper, we have compiled the existing body of research about repatriation, focusing on the situation of the individual repatriate, to offer a realistic view of the repatriation process. We have introduced important variables, i.e. the impact of an individuals motives for taking an expatriate assignment and the role of the repatriation experience in the repatriation process, which were missing in the previous research. We have also linked different aspects of the repatriation process with a clear emphasis on retention, not the readjustment issue. The rationale for an organization to form a repatriation program is to increase the likelihood of keeping repatriates within the organization. By leaving, a repatriating employee not only causes the home organization a nancial setback, but also forces the company to lose the employees recently developed international competence and experience. For an international company, this knowledge is critical for development and success in the global market. International experience is rare, valuable, and hard to imitate (Lazarova and Caligiuri, 2001). We therefore suggest that a relational contract between the employee and the organization will assist in guiding the intentions of the individual to stay with the organization, and that the relational contract is affected by the individuals perception of the repatriation process. A repatriates perception of the repatriation process will to a great extent be inuenced by how well the repatriates expectations are met by the reality within the repatriation process. This perception will also be affected by changes in ones cultural identity and by demographic factors. Understanding the different aspects of the repatriation process enables the organization to manage the expectations of the individuals through keeping these expectations realistic, and being prepared to handle critical aspects such as cultural identity changes. This study suggests that there is no simple solution to how repatriates should be handled or successful design of repatriation programs. Instead, we nd it important to recognize that it is only by grasping the individuals situation that the organization can offer the support needed to make the repatriation process as smooth as possible. Rather than creating one repatriation program, the organization should set up a series of checkpoints, contact persons and procedures for maintaining close contact with the individual during the expatriate assignment and the repatriation process. In a future study, the validity of the model can be tested. It is important to investigate whether the propositions hold. A study on a sample of repatriated employees should be conducted for the investigation. A number of statements can be used to survey the opinion of respondents on a ve-point scale. This will not only help to test the propositions, but will also yield important insights on the issue of repatriation experience and what effect it has on the outcome of the repatriation process. In addition to a quantitative study, future research can deal with the repatriation process, and study the problem and solution more closely over a longer period of time.

The repatriation process

277

CDI 12,3

278

Similarly to Suutari and Brewsters (2003) recent longitudinal work, the same repatriates and their method of repatriation can be followed up over a number of years. The major difference between our proposed research and that of Suutari and Brewster (2003) is the focus. While Suutari and Brewster (2003) were interested in two issues, i.e. career development and expectations, we concentrate on the motives and total experience of the returning expatriates. We suggest that variables such as the motives for expatriation and repatriation, and repatriation experience are worthy of attention and separate study. Also, future research will need to conrm whether there is a need to add further variables to the suggested model in order to achieve the realistic view that we are aiming for. In their comparative study, Stahl and Cerdin (2004) found that German and French expatriates differ greatly in terms of motives. One explanation to this difference was the cultural diversity but the authors also suspected that another explanation could be demographic differences such as age, marital status, position level and previous working experience between the two nationalities. Stahl and Cerdin (2004) therefore suggest that future research would probably benet from a closer examination of demographic characteristics that enhances or constrains expatriate careers. As we know, expatriate careers do not only include foreign assignments but also the functions and responsibilities carried out by the repatriate after returning home. Baruch and Altman (2002) treat repatriation as an integral part of the expatriation process and therefore demographic characteristics, as suggested by Stahl and Cerdin (2004), need to be investigated both before and after expatriation.
References Adobor, H. (2005), Trust as sensemaking: the microdynamics of trust in interrm alliances, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 330-7. Abueva, J.E. (2000), Many repatriations fail, at huge cost to companies, New York Times, 17 May. Allen, D.J., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 99-118. Arthur, W. Jr and Bennett, W. Jr (1995), The international assignee: the relative importance of factors perceived to contribute to success, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 99-114. Baruch, Y. (2006), Career development in organizations and beyond: balancing traditional and contemporary viewpoints, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 125-38. Baruch, Y. and Altman, Y. (2002), Expatriation and repatriation in MNCs: a taxonomy, Human Resource Management, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 239-59. Baruch, Y., Steele, D.J. and Quantrill, G.A. (2002), Management of expatriation and repatriation for novice global player, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 659-71. Bennett, R. (1993), Meeting the challenges of repatriation, Journal of International Compensation and Benets, September/October, pp. 28-33. Black, J.S. and Gregersen, H.B. (1999), The right way to manage expats, Harvard Business Review, March/April, pp. 52-62. Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B. and Mendenhall, M. (1992), Toward a theoretical framework of repatriation adjustment, Journal of International Business, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 737-60. Bossard, A.B. and Peterson, R.B. (2005), The repatriate experience as seen by American expatriates, Journal of World Business, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 9-28.

Brabant, S., Palmer, C.E. and Gramling, R. (1990), Returning home: an empirical investigation of cross-cultural reentry, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 387-404. Brewster, C. and Suutari, V. (2005), Global HRM: aspects of a research agenda, Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 5-21. Cox, B.J. (2004), The role of communication, technology, and cultural identity in repatriation adjustment, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 201-19. Downes, M. and Thomas, A.S. (1999), Managing overseas assignments to build organizational knowledge, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 33-48. Forster, N. (1994), The forgotten employees? The experiences of expatriate staff returning to the UK, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 405-25. GMAC (2004), Global Relocation Trends 2003/2004 Survey Report, GMAC Global Relocation Services, National Foreign Trade Council and SHRM Global Forum, Oak Brook, IL. Gregersen, H.B. and Black, S.J. (1996), Multiple commitments upon repatriation: the Japanese experience, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 209-29. Gregersen, H.B. and Stroh, J.K. (1997), Coming home to the Arctic cold: antecedents to Finnish expatriate and spouse repatriation adjustment, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 635-54. Guzzo, R.A., Nooman, K.A. and Elron, E. (1994), Expatriate managers and the psychological contract, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 617-26. Hammer, M.R., Hart, W. and Rogan, R. (1998), Can you go home again? An analysis of the repatriation of corporate managers and spouses, Management International Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 67-87. Harzing, A.-W. and Christensen, C. (2004), Expatriate failure: time to abandon the concept?, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 616-26. Harvey, M. (1989), Repatriation of corporate executives: an empirical study, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 131-44. Harvey, M. (1997), Dual career expatriates: expectations, adjustment and satisfaction with international relocation, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 627-58. Hurn, B.J. (1999), Repatriation the toughest assignment of all, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 224-8. Hyder, A.S. and Eriksson, L.T. (2005), Success is not enough: the spectacular rise and fall of a strategic alliance between two multinationals, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, pp. 783-96. Lazarova, M. and Caligiuri, P. (2001), Retaining repatriates: the role of organizational support practices, Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 389-401. Linehan, M. and Scullion, H. (2002), Repatriation of female international managers, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 649-58. MacDonald, S. and Arthur, N. (2003), Employees perceptions of repatriation, Canadian Journal of Career Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-11. MacDonald, S. and Arthur, N. (2005), Connecting career management to repatriation adjustment, Career Development International, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 145-58. Martin, J.N. (1984), The intercultural reentry: conceptualization and directions for future research, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 8, pp. 115-34. Martin, J.N. (1986), Patterns of communication in three types of reentry relationships: an exploratory study, Western Journal of Speech Communication, Vol. 50, pp. 183-99.

The repatriation process

279

CDI 12,3

280

Moore, L.A., Jones, B.V. and Austin, C.N. (1987), Predictors of reverse culture shock among North American Church of Christ missionaries, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol. 15, pp. 336-41. Morgan, L.O., Nie, W. and Young, S.T. (2004), Operational factors as determinants of expatriate and repatriate success, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1247-68. Osland, J.S. (2000), The journey inward: expatriate hero tales and paradoxes, Human Resource Management, Vol. 39 Nos 2/3, pp. 227-38. Osman-Gani, A.A.M., Toh, T.S., Cheung, P. and Lee, T.Y. (1995), Manpower for overseas ventures: a study of MNCs and local companies in Singapore, Entrepreneurship Development Center, Nanyang Technological University, and Institute of Policy Studies and Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore. Osman-Gani, A.A.M. and Hyder, A.S. (2004), Repatriation readjustment of MNE managers in Singapore: a study of HRD issues, paper presented at the AIB Conference, Stockholm, 10-13 July. OSullivan, S.L. (2002), The protean approach to managing repatriation transitions, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 597-616. Paik, Y., Segaud, B. and Malinowski, C. (2002), How to improve repatriation management are motivations and expectations congruent between the company and expatriates?, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 635-48. Riusala, K. and Suutari, V. (2000), Expatriation and careers: perspectives of expatriates and spouses, Career Development International, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 81-90. Rodrigues, C. (1996), International Management, West Publishing Co., St Paul, MN. Rohrlich, B.F. and Martin, J.N. (1991), Host country and reentry adjustments of student sojourners, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 163-82. Rousseau, D.M. (1989), Psychological and implied contracts in organizations, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 121-39. Scullion, H. and Brewster, C. (2001), The management of expatriates: messages from Europe, Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 346-65. Shaffer, M.A. and Harrison, D.A. (1998), Expatriates psychological withdrawal from international assignments: work, nonwork, and family inuences, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 87-118. Stahl, G.K. and Cerdin, J.-L. (2004), Global careers in French and German multinational corporations, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 885-902. Stroh, L.K., Gregersen, H.B. and Black, J.S. (1998), Closing the gap: expectations versus reality among repatriates, Journal of World Business, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 111-24. Sussman, N.M. (2001), Repatriation transitions: psychological preparedness, cultural identity, and attributions among American managers, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 109-23. Sussman, N.M. (2002), Testing the cultural identity model of the cultural transition cycle: sojourners return home, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 391-408. Suutari, V. (2003), Global managers: career orientation, career tracks, life-style implications, and career commitment, Journal of Management Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 185-207. Suutari, V. and Brewster, C. (2003), Repatriation: empirical evidence from a longitudinal study of careers and expectations among Finnish expatriates, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1132-51.

 limaa, K. (2002), Antecedents of repatriation adjustment: new evidence from Suutari, V. and Va Finnish repatriates, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 617-34. Tung, R.L. (1998), American expatriates abroad: from neophytes to cosmopolitans, Journal of World Business, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 125-44. Vermond, K. (2001), Expatriates come home, CMA Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 30-3. Welch, D. (1998), The psychological contract and expatriation: a disturbing issue for IHRM?, 6th Conference on International Human Resource Management, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, 2-5 June. About the authors Akmal S. Hyder, PhD, is Professor and Chair of Business Administration at the Department of vle, Sweden. He has broad teaching experience and has Business Studies, University of Ga written several books and a number of articles in international refereed journals. Dr Hyder is currently engaged in research projects on strategic alliances by service rms and the impact of cultural differences on foreign establishments. Akmal S. Hyder is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ahr@hig.se vblad is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Business Studies, University of Mikael Lo vle, Sweden. He studies trust and commitment within buyer-seller relationships. Ga

The repatriation process

281

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.