Repatriation: what do we know and where do we go ...

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Repatriation: what do we know and where do we go from here Flora F. T. Chiang, Emmy van Esch, Thomas A. Birtch & Margaret A. Shaffer To cite this article: Flora F. T. Chiang, Emmy van Esch, Thomas A. Birtch & Margaret A. Shaffer (2017): Repatriation: what do we know and where do we go from here, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1380065 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380065

Published online: 19 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20 Download by: [The Open University of Hong Kong]

Date: 22 October 2017, At: 19:10

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380065

Repatriation: what do we know and where do we go from here

Downloaded by [The Open University of Hong Kong] at 19:10 22 October 2017

Flora F. T. Chianga, Emmy van Eschb, Thomas A. Birtchc and Margaret A. Shafferd a Department of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), Shanghai, China; bLee Shau Kee School of Business and Administration, Open University of Hong Kong, Ho Man Tin, Hong Kong; cSchool of Management, UniSA Business School, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia; dMichael F. Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

ABSTRACT

The unparalleled growth in multinational corporations in recent decades has witnessed a commensurate rise in the deployment of expatriates to foreign subsidiaries and their subsequent repatriation. However, despite considerable progress in our understanding of the expatriation phase of international assignments, the literature on repatriation remains fragmented and incomplete. Plagued with problematic re-adjustments, high turnover rates, and a range of other obstacles, there is an urgent need for an improved understanding of repatriation. This study systematically reviews the repatriation literature over the previous four decades, identifies its major themes, gaps and limitations, and provides a framework that consolidates the literature and prompts future work in several important new directions.

KEYWORDS

Repatriation; international assignments; cross-cultural management; international HRM

Introduction As organizations increase their presence in foreign jurisdictions, the number of international assignments is growing (Brookfield, 2015). An international assignment typically begins when an employee (expatriate) is sent abroad (expatriation) to work in a firm’s foreign subsidiary and ends when he or she (repatriate) returns home to the parent organization upon completion of the assignment (repatriation) (Bossard & Peterson, 2005; Kraimer, Shaffer, Harrison, & Ren, 2012; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2007; Vidal, Valle, Aragón, & Brewster, 2007). Individuals assigned to foreign subsidiaries (international assignees) are often expected to achieve a wide range of organizational objectives, including establishing, managing and coordinating foreign operations, opening new markets and expanding business networks, transferring knowledge and skills, and building

CONTACT Thomas A. Birtch

[email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


2

F. F. T. CHIANG ET AL.

international experience, capabilities, and learning (Bossard & Peterson, 2005; Paik, Segaud, & Malinowski, 2002; Reiche, 2012; Stevens, Oddou, Furuya, Bird, & Mendenhall, 2006; Takeuchi, 2010; Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2007; Vidal, Valle, Aragón, & Brewster, 2007; Yan, Zhu, & Hall, 2002). Thus, international assignees can play a significant strategic role in securing an organization’s competitive advantages. To date, the literature has primarily focused on the expatriation phase of international assignments. Perhaps this bias in the literature is because returning home (repatriation) is often considered to be less-problematic or even a ‘non-issue’ in comparison to going abroad (expatriation) (Black, 1992; Linehan & Scullion, 2002a). However, evidence suggests otherwise. For example, studies have shown that repatriation can lead to employee dissatisfaction (Suutari & Brewster, 2003), difficulties with re-adjustment (Linehan & Scullion, 2002a, 2002b; Osland, 2000), and feelings of alienation upon re-entry (Bossard & Peterson, 2005). Alarmingly, the turnover rate for repatriates has also been reported as being as high as 51% following the first two years of returning (Brookfield, 2015). Failed repatriations can be costly to organizations not only in terms of the lost investment in repatriates (e.g. an average of USD $1 million is spent on each international assignment; Kulkarni, Lengnick-Hall, & Valk, 2010; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001) but also in terms of lost skills, knowledge and networks that repatriates acquire and develop while abroad (Bolino, 2007; Cho, Hutchings, & Marchant, 2013; Kraimer et al., 2012) and the reduced productivity associated with re-adjustment and the replacement of repatriates. Research further suggests that failed repatriations may impose competitive risks because repatriates often take up positions in competing firms following their return (Kraimer et al., 2012). Such negative outcomes may also adversely affect the willingness of other employees in an organization from participating in international assignments (Cho et al., 2013; Kraimer et al., 2012). By providing a comprehensive review of the repatriation literature, this study makes three important contributions. First, by focusing on repatriation we extend prior reviews of the international assignment literature that have mainly emphasized expatriate human resource management practices, the antecedents and consequences of expatriate adjustment (Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, & Bolino, 2012) and expatriate experiences (e.g. Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004; Takeuchi, 2010). Second, in light of the growing interest in repatriation, we help to synthesize and consolidate a literature that is ripe for further advancement. Third, by identifying the gaps, limitations, and shortcomings of prior work (e.g. Furuya, Stevens, Bird, Oddou, & Mendenhall, 2009; Kraimer et al., 2012; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005; Reiche, 2012; Stevens et al., 2006; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2007; Vidal, Valle, Aragón, & Brewster, 2007) and introducing a holistic view of repatriation research, we suggest possible courses of action for future research in this important area of international human resource management.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

3


Scope of the review

Our review begins by defining repatriates and how repatriation has been conceptualized to date. Next, we explore the main themes that have emerged in the repatriation literature, including the implications of contextual (i.e. interpersonal/ team, organizational and country characteristics) and individual antecedents (i.e. coping, adjustment, identity, expectations, abilities, motivation and personality) and repatriation outcomes (i.e. individual and organizational outcomes). This is followed by a discussion of important methodological considerations. Throughout our review, we identify the shortcomings of earlier work, major challenges remaining, and possible avenues for future work. Our review followed several protocols. First, we only considered articles from leading peer-reviewed academic journals that regularly publish expatriation and repatriation research. Other published works (e.g. book chapters and teaching case studies) were excluded. Second, using an electronic database (i.e. EBSCO Business Source Complete), we searched for articles containing the term ‘repatriat*’ in their title, keywords, or abstract. No time frame was selected and articles that focused solely on expatriation were excluded. A careful manual content search was also performed to help minimize the possibility of overlooking relevant articles, including checking the reference list from each of the articles we found. Third, we focused only on those repatriates who returned from corporate (organization-sponsored) and self-initiated international work assignments. Other forms of repatriation, such as returning students, missionaries, volunteers and migrants (e.g. Sussman, 1986; Szkudlarek, 2010) were excluded. Fourth, we excluded studies on expatriates who instead of returning home (repatriation) continued their international assignments by moving to other destination (global assignees or serial expatriation). Despite our extensive search, we acknowledge the possibility that we may have overlooked some articles. However, it is not our intent to provide an exhaustive account of all studies on repatriation but rather to capture major contributions and developments in the field. Table 1 presents the number of repatriation articles published by journals that are included in the review. The three journals with the greatest number of relevant publications were the International Journal of Human Resource Management with 24, followed by Human Resource Management with 12, and the Journal of International Business Studies with 9 publications, respectively. Our review included a total of 91 articles of which 79.1% (n = 72) were empirical and 20.9% (n = 19) conceptual studies. For the empirical studies, 62.5% (n = 45) used surveys, 22.2% (n = 16) interviews, 4.2% (n = 3) case studies, and 11.1% (n = 8) mixed method research designs. Moreover, 20.9% (n = 19) of the articles were published between 1980 and 1999 and 79.1% (n = 72) from 2000 to mid-2017, indicating a growing interest in repatriation.

4



Table 1. Repatriation studies by journals and number of articles. Journal Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Review Career Development International Human Relations Human Resource Management Human Resource Management Journal International Journal of Human Resource Management International Journal of Intercultural Relations International Journal of Manpower Journal of Business Ethics Journal of Global Mobility Journal of International Business Studies Journal of Management Journal of Management Studies Journal of World Business Management International Review Personnel Psychology Total

Number of articlesa 1 1 7 2 12 1 24 8 8 1 6 9 1 2 5 1 2 91

a

The period from 1980 to mid-2017.

Deconstructing repatriation

Who are repatriates and what is repatriation? Repatriates are typically referred to in the literature as employees who ‘return from overseas employment’ (Herman & Tetrick, 2009, p. 69), ‘have recently returned from overseas’ (Benson & Pattie, 2008, p. 1636), ‘have returned back to one’s home country from an extended foreign assignment’ (Lee & Liu, 2007, p. 124) or ‘complete the international assignment and move to a subsequent position, either at the individual’s home unit or another MNC unit’ (Reiche, 2012, p. 1052) whereas repatriation is defined as ‘a transition from a foreign country to one’s home country after living overseas for a significant period’ (Kulkarni et al., 2010, p. 532), the ‘re-entry and readjustment of international managers and their families to their home countries’ (Linehan & Scullion, 2002a, p. 254) or ‘the final phase of expatriation that occurs when international assignees return to the home country’ (Kraimer, Shaffer, & Bolino, 2009, p. 28). In this study, our primary focus is on corporate (organization-sponsored) repatriation, however, we also include discussion relating to self-initiated international assignments where relevant (see Figure 1). Drawing on the international assignment literature, corporate repatriation refers to returning employees who were sent overseas by their employing organizations on either a short- (e.g. 3–12 months) or long-term (e.g. over 12 months) basis who are expected to complete a time-based task or accomplish an organizational goal (Harrison et al., 2004; Shaffer et al., 2012). By contrast, self-initiated repatriation refers to returning individuals who were not sent overseas by their organizations but rather initiated and financed their own short- or long-term international assignment to pursue personal and career development experiences (Harrison et al., 2004; Shaffer et al., 2012; Starr & Currie, 2009). Other forms of repatriation such as flexpatriation (e.g. 1–2 months assignment) and international business travel (e.g. 1–3 weeks


5

Repatriation

Returned from: International business travel (1-3 weeks)

Flexpatriation (1-2 months)

Short-term corporate expatriation (3-12 months)

Self-initiated expatriation (short to long term)

Corporate expatriation (+12 months)

Focus of Review


Time spent abroad

Figure 1. Deconstructing repatriation.

at a time) were excluded because they are unlikely to lead to the same types of re-adjustment problems and career development concerns as more traditional forms of corporate repatriation given their ad hoc nature, shorter duration, and limited likelihood of accompanying family members (Mayerhofer, Hartmann, Michelitsch-Riedl, & Kollinger, 2004; Shaffer et al., 2012; Welch, Welch, & Worm, 2007). Building on the above, this study defines repatriation as the final phase of a prolonged international assignment that occurs when the international assignee (repatriate) returns home to his or her parent or initiating organization together with accompanying family members, if any. Identifying themes in repatriation research Our review is summarized in Figure 2 and Tables 2 and 3. Figure 2 presents our framework, in which variables enclosed by solid lines indicates those previously examined and variables enclosed by dotted lines indicates examples of those identified as having potential for future investigation. Independent variables (i.e. contextual and individual) are depicted on the left side and dependent variables (i.e. repatriation and organizational outcomes) on the right side of the framework, respectively. Tables 2 and 3 provide a summary of the articles reviewed, including the types of studies, methods, samples, and findings. Contextual antecedents

A growing body of work has examined the relationship between contextual antecedents and repatriation outcomes, especially contextual factors such as interpersonal/team, organizational and country characteristics. Interpersonal/team characteristics We found two articles that examined the effects of team characteristics on repatriate outcomes (i.e. Mäkelä & Brewster, 2009; Oddou, Osland, & Blakeney, 2009). Oddou et al. (2009) proposed that five factors affect knowledge transfer during

6


Repatriation Outcomes Contextual Antecedents Individual Outcomes

Interpersonal and Team Characteristics - Ability/motivation to transfer knowledge - Social categorization - Interaction frequency -

Job Success - Job satisfaction - Job commitment

Group composition Social support Relationship quality Social networks

Career Success - Career satisfaction - Promotion / pay increase

Organizational Characteristics - HRM practices and policies - Career opportunities - Psychological contract breach - Differences home/host organizational culture - Job factors

Development Success - Career growth - Continued development opportunities - Learning - Marketability - Network and relationship building

- Organizational structure


Country Characteristics - Cultural distance/novelty - National culture home/host country - Economic and social development home/host country

Organizational Outcomes Retention of Repatriates - Turnover intentions - Actual turnover

Individual Antecedents --

Performance - General work performance

Re-adjustment Coping strategies International employee identity Expectations Abilities/motivations (Intercultural) personality traits

- Accomplishment of organizational tasks - Achievement of key organizational objectives

- Core-self evaluations - Type of repatriate - Demographic characteristics

Network and relationship building Transfer of Knowledge - Utilization of new knowledge - Access to host-unit knowledge - Transfer of host-unit knowledge

MEDIATORS: Trust; Employee engagement MODERATORS: HRM practices and policies; Organizational support; Job deprivation; Career opportunities; Career value of expatriation; Career orientation; Career stage; Life stage; Expectations

Topics examined in the literature Topics proposed for future research

Figure 2. A framework for repatriation research.

repatriation: the group’s orientation towards learning, absorptive capacity (the group’s ability to receive knowledge), perceived knowledge criticality, if a group leader has a global mindset, and a collaborative management style (the group’s motivation to receive knowledge). In line with this logic, Mäkelä and Brewster (2009) provided empirical evidence that repatriate interactions are associated with knowledge transfer via interpersonal trust and shared cognitive ground. Although such studies are important, further attention is needed to improve our understanding of how other group variables (e.g. group composition) may be related to repatriation outcomes. For example, heterogeneous group composition has been advocated as a major antecedent of organizational outcomes. According to Milliken and Martins (1996), heterogeneous group composition in organizations affects outcomes such as turnover and performance via affective, cognitive, communication and symbolic processes. In a heterogeneous group environment, employees experience less positive social interactions, may be less satisfied with their colleagues, experience less group cohesion, and be less likely to enjoy team experiences (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998), are less committed to their work (Riordan & Shore, 1997), and report more relational conflicts (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). As a result, membership in the group is likely to lose meaning and value, and one’s sense of belonging may be adversely affected. Employees who work in a heterogeneous group will therefore be less likely to identify with their team members

Cho et al. (2013)

Chaban, Williams, Holland, Boyce, and Warner (2011) Chi and Chen (2007)

173 repatriates from 7 Japanese MNCs

Survey

International Journal of Manpower International Journal of Human Resource Management Interviews

Interviews

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

135 repatriates from 16 MNCs in Taiwan 9 Korean expatriates and 6 spouses in Australia

44 New Zealand repatriates

Survey: 134 repatriates Interview: 22 repatriates and HR managers

Interviews; Survey

Black and Gregersen (1991) Bossard and Peterson (2005) Burmeister and Deller (2016)

Survey

174 repatriates from 4 US MNCs

Journal of Global Mobility

Black (1994)

Survey

292 Indian repatriates

20 repatriates in 7 American MNCs

Human Relations

Black (1992)

Survey

Interviews

Human Relations

Birur and Muthiah (2013)

Survey

Survey

4 HR employees, 15 repatriates from UK 96 expatriates, 82 repatriates, 187 domestic employees 159 expatriates, 359 repatriates, 2697 domestic employees

125 repatriates, 76 spouses in the US

International Journal of Human Resource Management

Benson and Pattie (2008) Biemann and Braakmann (2013)

Interviews

Sample 40 repatriates, 7 HR managers from Saudi Arabia 2 Saudi-Arabian companies

Survey

International Journal of Manpower International Journal of Human Resource Management International Journal of Human Resource Management

Baruch et al. (2002)

Case Studies

Data source Interviews

Journal of International Business Studies Journal of World Business

Journal International Journal of Human Resource Management International Journal of Human Resource Management

Study Aldossari and Robertson (2016) Aldossari & Robertson (In Press)

Table 2. Summary of empirical research on repatriation.

Lack of perceived psychological contract fulfillment may explain high repatriate turnover rates Korean employees rely on online information and advanced technology when seeking support to deal with cultural differences during expatriation and repatriation (Continued)

Organizations provide primarily administrative repatriation support, strategic and knowledge transfer-related support is missing Demonstrates that repatriate experiences are affected by exposure to different cultural environments

Main proposals or findings Problematic in terms of career advancement, perceived psychological contract breach and intentions to leave Demonstrates that HR policies and practices, and informal organizational norms impact repatriates’ perceptions of whether their psychological contracts have been fulfilled/ breached To achieve successful expatriation and repatriation management should handle both as integrated parts International assignees accept potential short-term setbacks to obtain long-term rewards Expatriates and repatriates have higher subjective and higher objective career success in terms of monthly wages in comparison to domestic employees High perceived support during and after assignment increases retention, low levels increase unfavorable attitudes toward the company and turnover intentions Those whose expectations are met adjust and perform better than those whose expectations are not met Age, time overseas, role discretion, role clarity, and social status relate to repatriation adjustment Age, time overseas, social status, and housing conditions relate to adjustment for repatriates and their spouses Repatriation is often more difficult than expectations.


THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 7

Harvey (1997)

Human Resource Management

Career Development International MIR: Management International Review

Herman and Tetrick (2009)

Interviews Survey

Personnel Psychology

Journal of International Business Studies Journal of International Business Studies

Survey

Journal of Management

Gregersen and Black (1996) Gregersen and Stroh (1997) Guo et al. (2013) Hammer et al. (1998)

Harvey (1989)

Survey

Personnel Psychology

Gregersen (1992)

Survey

Survey

Survey

Survey

Survey

Journal of International Business Studies

Furuya et al. (2009)

Survey, Interviews

Interviews, meetings, formal documentation Survey

Interviews

Survey

Survey

Data source Survey


Journal International Journal of Intercultural Relations International Journal of Human Resource Management The International Journal of Human Resource Management International Journal of Human Resource Management International Journal of Human Resource Management Journal of International Business Studies

Forster (1997)

Dickmann et al. (in press) Doherty and Dickmann (2009) Doherty and Dickmann (2012) Feldman and Tompson (1993)

De Cieri et al. (1991)

Study Cox (2004)

Table 2. (Continued).

282 repatriates who worked in Japan

78 expatriates & 72 spouses, 96 repatriates & 86 spouses

75 HR employees

104 repatriates, 56 spouses from Finland 20 Chinese self-initiated repatriates. 44 repatriates and 33 spouses


174 repatriates from 5 US MNCs


Survey: 1824 expatriates. Interview: 40expatriates; 20 repatriates

32 repatriate and 26 expatriate partners 203 Finish expatriates who worked abroad before 2004 13 repatriates, 2 HR experts, 3 repatriates with HR duties 9 MNCs from the USA, UK and continental Europe 296 domestic relocators, 123 expatriates, 40 repatriates

Sample 101 US repatriates

Main proposals or findings Relationship closeness, satisfaction with use of technology, and intercultural identity patterns relate to adjustment Self-esteem and social support relate to life satisfaction; life and family satisfaction relates to adjustment Demonstrates that international mobility has beneficial outcomes in terms of career capital in the long term Expectations of repatriates are often higher than the organization can meet Develop a set of metrics to explore and gauge the return on investment of international assignments Demonstrates the commonalities and differences among expatriates, repatriates and domestic geographical relocators in adjusting to new job assignments A broader definition of expatriation failure is needed which includes the problems expatriates and their dependants may experience during and after expatriation Organizational support, self-adjustment, and repatriation policies affect job motivation and performance via global competency learning and transfer Demonstrates how individual, job, organizational, and nonjob factors account for repatriate commitment A firm valuing international experience is the strongest predictor of organizational commitment Demonstrates the antecedents of repatriate and spouse adjustment Career agency is affected by individual and contextual factors Re-entry expectations relate to re-entry satisfaction for repatriates and to re-entry satisfaction and re-entry difficulties for spouses MNCs lack attention to problems during repatriation and are not aware of the need for repatriation programs Male repatriates experience stress because of the work environment. Female repatriates do not experience stress levels above expectations Coping strategies relate to general, interaction, and work adjustment


8 F. F. T. CHIANG ET AL.

Survey Survey




Academy of Management Journal


Journal of World Business

Journal of International Business Studies International Journal of manpower

International Human Resource Management Journal

International Journal of Manpower Human Resource Management


Jayasekara and Takahashi (2014) Johnston (1991)

Kraimer et al. (2009)

Kraimer et al. (2012)

Kulkarni et al. (2010)

Lazarova and Caligiuri (2001)

Lazarova and Cerdin (2007) Lee and Liu (2007)

Linehan and Scullion (2002a)

Linehan and Scullion (2002b) Mäkelä and Brewster (2009)

Osland (2000)

35 US repatriates

57 Finland-based managers working in large MNCs

Interviews Interviews; Content Analysis

32 European senior female managers

Interviews

50 European senior female managers

118 Taiwanese repatriates

Survey Interviews

133 repatriates

58 repatriates from 4 U.S.-based MNCs

27 Indians repatriated from the US

112 repatriates

84 repatriates from 5 U.S.-based MNCs

29 HR managers

155 Sri Lankan repatriates

21 repatriates

290 Vietnamese repatriates

Survey

Survey

Interviews

Survey; turnover data

Survey

Interviews


Howe-Walsh and Torka (2017)

Survey


Ho, Seet, and Jones (2016)

Three pull–push factors (dissatisfaction with career and life in home country; reverse culture shock; expected outcomes from re-expatriation) impact intention to re-expatriate Repatriation policies have to reflect the role of multiple stakeholders (headquarter HR, home/host HR, line managers) so that repatriates experience organizational support Pre-departure HRM practices relate to job commitment, organizational commitment, and retention MNCs’ repatriation management has immense implications for the retention, skills and experiences of repatriates Career advancement relates to turnover intentions via perceived underemployment. Organizational career support decreases turnover intentions Job deprivation moderates the relationship between international employee identity and identity strain. Identity strain relates to repatriate turnover Respondents experience lack of repatriation assistance upon return, which hinders the repatriation process Organizational support practices positively relate to repatriates’ feelings that the organization cares about their well-being and their desire to remain with the organization Organizational support is not a predictor of intention to leave when considered in the presence of career activism Adjustment is the strongest predictor of intention to leave followed by organizational commitment and job satisfaction Repatriation is more stressful than expatriation; females experience more difficulties; home-based mentors and access to networks while abroad contribute to success Home-based mentors and access to networks while abroad contribute to success Interunit, project, cross-border team, and expatriate/ repatriate interaction contexts relate to knowledge sharing via interpersonal trust and shared cognitive ground Proposes a framework which outlines expatriation stages and the complex, transformational nature of the expatriate experience and its paradoxes (Continued)



International Journal of Human Resource Management International Journal of Human Resource Management



Stevens et al. (2006)

Stroh et al. (1998)

Stroh et al. (2000)

Stroh (1995)



Schütter and Boerner (2013) Stahl et al. (2009)

Starr and Currie (2009)


Ren et al. (2013)


Survey


Reiche (2012)

Starr (2009)

Interviews

Journal of Management Studies

Pattie et al. (2010)

Survey

Survey

Survey

Survey

Interviews; discourse analysis

Interviews; discourse analysis

Survey

Survey

Survey

Interviews

International Journal of Manpower Career Development International

Paik et al. (2002)

Data source Interviews; Survey

Journal Career Development International

Study Osman-Gani and Hyder (2008)

Table 2. (Continued).

174 repatriates, 92 spouses from 5 US MNCs 174 repatriates, 92 spouses from 5 US MNCs

305 Japanese repatriates from 5 Japanese MNCs 51 international HR-specialists from 51 US-based MNCs

22 expatriates and repatriates from an US-based MNC

22 expatriates and repatriates from an US-based MNC

1779 assignees from 141 MNCs

15 expatriates and repatriates

84 repatriated employees of 5 U.S.based MNCs

85 inpatriate assignees in 10 German MNCs from 45 countries

42 HR-managers from US firms

7 HR-managers, 5 expatriates

Sample Interviews: 15 repatriates; Survey: 162 repatriates

Main proposals or findings Career development, physical relocation, and network opportunities are the most important and preferred features to be included in repatriation policies Discrepancy between HR-managers’ and expatriates’ motivations and expectations affects repatriation outcomes Lack of job openings in the home organization relates to involuntary turnover. Organizations’ poor utilization of repatriates’ skills relates to voluntary turnover Demonstrates how and under what conditions repatriates’ host-unit social capital entails knowledge benefits upon repatriation Psychological contract breach negatively relates to repatriates’ career satisfaction. This relation is weaker for those who perceive the assignment has career value Work-to-family conflict is perceived as a time-based conflict, family-to-work conflict as an energy-based conflict It is important to differentiate between developmental and functional international assignments to understand repatriates’ turnover intentions Develops a framework to understand the relevance and meaning of individual change associated with careerbased expectations of repatriation Support from a stay behind spouse is inevitable for positive repatriation experiences. Repatriates have to re-adjust their identity from one of independence back to being a couple Supportive HR-policies and practices and repatriate self-adjustment relate to repatriates’ satisfaction and attachment Corporate behaviors and attitudes that value overseas assignments, career development plans for repatriates, and organizational downsizing relate to turnover rates Demonstrates that a gap exists between repatriates’ work and non-work expectations and the reality Demonstrates how repatriates’ work and non-work-related expectations account for repatriate commitment to the parent company and local work unit



Vidal et al. (2010)

Vidal et al. (2008)


Case Studies


Wu, Zhuang, and Hung (2014)

Survey


Vidal, Valle, and Aragón (in press) Welch (1994)

Interviews


36 repatriates, 19 expatriates, 49 spouses, 10 heads of 4 Australian MNCs 277 repatriates

Case Studies Survey

115 Spanish MNCs

124 Spanish repatriates




121 repatriates

Survey

Survey

Survey

Survey

31 re-entry training providers

Interviews

International Journal of Intercultural Relations International Journal of Human Resource Management International Journal of Manpower International Journal of Human Resource Management Journal of Management Studies

Vidal et al. 2007b

53 Finish repatriates

Survey

30 Indian female scientists

53 Finish repatriates

203 Finish expatriates who worked abroad before 2004

133 US repatriates

44 US repatriates

Survey

Survey

Survey

Survey

International Journal of Human Resource Management International Journal of Manpower Human Resource Management

International Journal of Intercultural Relations Human Resource Management

Sussman (2002)

Suutari, Brewster, Mäkelä, Dickmann, and Tornikoski (in press) Suutari and Brewster (2003) Suutari and Välimaa (2002) Szkudlarek and Sumpter (2015) Valk, van der Velde, van Engen, and Godbole (2014) Van Gorp, Boroş, Bracke, and Stevens (2017) Vidal et al. (2007a)


Sussman (2001)

Differences between the host and domestic organizational culture can lead to turnover intentions via work adjustment difficulties. Organizational practices may act as moderator Demonstrates that the effects of repatriation adjustment vary over time Satisfaction with the repatriation process reduces repatriates’ turnover intentions Repatriation adjustment consists of two dimensions: work adjustment and general adjustment Repatriates’ disseminative capacity is positively associated with reverse knowledge transfer Proposes a framework to explain the interrelations between organizational factors and IHRM activities that influence a firms’ approach to the staffing of overseas subsidiaries Home country mentors’ role modeling and career development relates to adjustment outcomes

Emotional support from home versus host country friends/ relatives affect adjustment via international role identity

Demonstrates the interdependence between training content and training context Readjustment to India negatively impacts repatriation experiences

A failure from the company’s view is not always a failure from the repatriates’ view Demonstrates the antecedents of repatriate adjustment

Causes of repatriation distress are attributed more to situational locus of causality and external control and less to personal control Weak home culture identity strength relates to repatriation distress Demonstrates the positive long-term impacts of international work experience on career success





Human Resource Management Career Development International


Career Development International


Career Development International Journal of International Business Studies

International Journal of Manpower


International Journal of Human Resource Management Human Resource Management

Black, Gregersen, and Mendenhall (1992) Bolino (2007)

Cerdin and Le Pargneux (2009) Crocitto et al. (2005)

Haslberger and Brewster (2009)

Hyder and Lövblad (2007)

Lazarova and Tarique (2005)

MacDonald and Arthur (2005) Oddou et al. (2009)

O’Sullivan (2002)

O’Sullivan (2013)

Peltonen (1997)

Academy of Management Review

Career Development International

Szkudlarek (2010)

Yan et al. (2002)

Zikic et al. (2006)

Tharenou (2010)

International Journal of Intercultural Relations International Journal of Intercultural Relations Journal of Business Ethics

Sussman (1986)

Shen and Hall (2009)

Journal Human Resource Management

Study Baruch and Altman (2002)

Table 3. Summary of conceptual research on repatriation.

A lack of fairness and justice in selection, assignment and promotion decisions relate to women’s self-initiated expatriation Proposes a matrix for the alignment of the organization’s and the individual’s expectations of an assignment to predict assignment success Describes how repatriate hope drives career exploration toward career growth and career success, and how career success depends on expectations and social and organizational support

Main proposals or findings Proposes a framework outlining the main configurations of five organizational options, which generates a generic model for expatriation and repatriation Proposes a framework which argues that repatriation adjustment is different from other forms of work adjustment Proposes a framework of repatriate success which links expatriate performance and repatriate intra-organizational career success Career variables before, during, and after expatriation explain international assignment success Perceived international assignment success is more likely to occur if mentors in various locations provide information and career support During geographical relocations there is a stronger link between perceived breach and turnover cognitions than at other times in the employment relationship A focus on repatriates’ motives and experiences increases our understanding of the measures and support needed to increase retention A fit is needed between individual readiness to transfer knowledge and organizational receptivity to knowledge for effective knowledge transfer A focus on career management is an important intervention to support repatriate adjustment The ability of repatriates to transfer knowledge depends on individual characteristics and job-related characteristics Proposes a model of repatriate proactivity in which a proactive personality drives proactive behavior, which affects turnover intentions and re-adjustment Introduces a multi-stakeholder power perspective to the repatriate retention process. Argue that social media can empower key stakeholders in the repatriation process Interprets repatriates’ career outcomes in terms of the tournament dynamics of expatriates’ home organizations. Argues that a mismatch exists between expectations and realities of career outcomes The more connected repatriates are to their job, colleagues, organization, and community, the stronger their ties, and the more likely they stay and seek intra-organizational growth chances Discusses the relationship between overseas adaptation and re-entry adaptation. Suggests a general content outline for re-entry training programs Reviews re-entry literature and its strengths and limitations. Provides an agenda for future research





13

than employees who work in a homogeneous group, which may negatively affect the repatriate’s job satisfaction (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Another issue that could be considered in future studies is whether repatriates’ interpersonal relationships at work affect repatriation outcomes. In new environments, positive interpersonal relationships with others helps to create a sense of order, provides a sense of connection, and reduces the uncertainty associated with interacting (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). For example, social support from co-workers has been found to facilitate expatriate work adjustment (Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999), the quality of relationships at work (e.g. supervisor-subordinate relationships) predict task and contextual performance (Kraimer & Wayne, 2004; Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001), and social network characteristics (e.g. size, cultural diversity, closeness and contact frequency) can provide expatriates with informational and emotional support (e.g. Farh, Bartol, Shapiro, & Shin, 2010; Wang & Kanungo, 2004). The expatriation literature emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships at work, including that they can serve to lessen the stress and uncertainty associated with working in a foreign country. However, less is known about the implications of relationships (e.g. home supervisor or coworkers) on repatriates upon return, an avenue for future work that could provide promising insights. Organizational characteristics Organizational characteristics, such as human resources management practices, career opportunities, psychological contract breaches, home and host organizational cultures, and job factors have also been examined for their implications to repatriation. First, most studies examining the organizational antecedents of repatriation outcomes focus on human resources management practices as antecedents of repatriate retention. A supportive human resource system is believed to increase staff retention because it helps repatriates deal with the repatriation process and increases job motivation (Furuya et al., 2009; Kraimer et al., 2009; Kulkarni et al., 2010; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; O’Sullivan, 2002; Shen & Hall, 2009; Stahl, Chua, Caligiuri, Cerdin, & Taniguchi, 2009; Stevens et al., 2006; Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2007; Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2008; Welch, 1994). Yet, repatriates often believe that their home organization could have done more to help them cope with repatriating (Osman-Gani & Hyder, 2008). As evidence suggests, while the majority of MNCs offer logistical assistance to repatriates (Pattie, White, & Tansky, 2010), most fail to offer other kinds of support (Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Pattie et al., 2010). And, although some attention in the literature has been devoted to understanding the influence of human resources management practices, such as mentoring (Crocitto, Sullivan, & Carraher, 2005; Linehan & Scullion, 2002a, 2002b), career management (MacDonald & Arthur, 2005; Stroh, 1995; Vidal et al., 2008), opportunities to use newly acquired skills and knowledge (Furuya et al., 2009; Gregersen & Black, 1996; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007), access to networks while abroad (Linehan & Scullion,


14


2002a, 2002b), access to online information and advanced technology (Cho et al., 2013) and promotion opportunities (Kraimer et al., 2009), these factors are often examined independently suggesting that an investigation of such practices simultaneously in a single study and comparing their differential effects has merit (Kraimer et al., 2009). The implications of other practices, such as global executive coaching and in-country training and consultation, could also be explored. Research could also be undertaken to explore practices that may aid in the capture of repatriate knowledge (Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). Second, studies examining the organizational antecedents of repatriate turnover mainly emphasize career opportunities. As these studies suggest, repatriates can be considered as active agents who seek out the best available opportunities for further professional development, either within or across organizations (Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). Using career opportunity as a lens, studies have shown that repatriates may leave their employing organizations not necessarily due to job dissatisfaction but rather because they view opportunities for career advancement as being limited (Baruch, Steele, & Quantrill, 2002; Bolino, 2007; Doherty & Dickmann, 2012; Feldman & Tompson, 1993; Forster, 1997; Kraimer et al., 2009; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Pattie et al., 2010; Stahl et al., 2009) or because the external job market is viewed to be more favorable (Forster, 1997; Stahl et al., 2009; Suutari & Brewster, 2003). Third, research on organizational antecedents also includes the role of perceived psychological contracts. Research suggests that employees are particularly sensitive to perceived psychological contract breaches in times of geographical relocation (i.e. expatriation and repatriation) (Haslberger & Brewster, 2009; Ren, Bolino, Shaffer, & Kraimer, 2013). Moreover, subjective perceptions of the psychological contract fulfillment have been found to be more important than actual changes (such as in position, pay, skills improvement) as a predictor of job attitudes (Chi & Chen, 2007). As Haslberger and Brewster (2009) argue, international assignees experience a stronger link between contract breach and turnover cognitions than during other periods in the employment relationship. Aldossari and Robertson (in press) similarly find that HR policies/practices and informal organizational norms about the expatriation/repatriation process impact repatriates’ perceptions of whether their psychological contracts have been fulfilled or breached upon their return. Ren et al. (2013) similarly find that during repatriation, contract breaches in terms of pay are negatively related to repatriates’ career satisfaction. And, Chi and Chen (2007) find that repatriates’ perceived psychological contract fulfillment is negatively related to turnover intentions and positively related to organizational commitment. Apart from Chi and Chen’s (2007) study, research has largely focused on the negative consequences of contract breaches. Hence, further examination of the consequences of contract fulfillment is warranted, as contract fulfillment versus breach are known to have differential effects on employee outcomes (Conway, Guest, & Trenberth, 2011).



15

Fourth, studies also focus on home and host organizational cultures. Harvey (1997) finds that male repatriates experience stress and conflict because of differences between host and domestic organizational cultures. In line with this, in their study of 10 cases, Vidal, Valle, and Aragón (2007) findings suggest that differences between host and domestic organizational cultures can lead to turnover intention via work adjustment difficulties. To counteract these negative outcomes, supportive organizational practices are proposed. Fifth, other studies focus on job factors. The work role transition research has identified several job factors that affect work outcomes, including role clarity, work load, role discretion, role novelty, and role conflict. Subsequently, the expatriate literature has investigated these job factors extensively and demonstrated strong effects on expatriation outcomes. However, few repatriation studies take job factors into account with the exception that role clarity and role discretion have been shown to be positively associated with commitment (Gregersen, 1992) and adjustment (Black, 1994; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Gregersen & Stroh, 1997). Extending the above lines of inquiry, future research could consider other organizational factors that may be related to repatriation outcomes, such as organizational structure. Organizational structure shapes patterns and frequencies of communication among colleagues and affects the efficiency and effectiveness of new idea implementation (Zheng, Yang, & McLean, 2010). It would thus be interesting to examine whether and how organizational structure is related to repatriation outcomes, such as knowledge transfer and network and relationship building. Country characteristics We are aware of only two articles that consider features of the home or host country as antecedents of repatriation outcomes. These studies focus on cultural distance/novelty and argue that the greater the distance between the home and host country, the more difficult the re-adjustment due to ‘reverse culture shock.’ Although one study finds that the novelty of the host country culture relative to the home country culture is negatively related to adjustment (Gregersen & Stroh, 1997), another study finds no significant effect (Black & Gregersen, 1991). This suggests that it may be necessary to measure the direction of the differences between home and host countries. For example, it might be that repatriating from a less to a more economically advanced country may create fewer re-adjustment problems than the reverse (Harrison et al., 2004). Another area to be considered is how the national cultures of home and/or host countries and their dissimilarities are likely to affect repatriation outcomes. Pursuing this avenue, researchers could consider whether repatriates from collectivistic societies, where relationships and social support are salient, re-adjust easier than those from more individualistic societies (Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2007). In addition, future studies could consider how the economic and social development of home and/or host countries affects the repatriation adjustment process. A higher standard of living provides repatriates with greater resources, which


16


could decrease their adjustment difficulties and motivate positive work outcomes. However, when one has fewer resources than he or she is accustomed to, he or she could be more sensitive to stressors that could lead to negative outcomes. Moreover, prior research conducted in Western countries has argued that repatriate turnover can be explained by limited career opportunities upon return (e.g. Baruch et al., 2002; Kraimer et al., 2009; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Stahl et al., 2009). However, two recent studies, one of Indian repatriates (Kulkarni et al., 2010) and another of Chinese repatriates (Guo, Porschitz, & Alves, 2013), show that repatriates experience positive career advancements upon return, due to the larger number of job opportunities in these emerging economies. They view their home country as ‘the next land of opportunity where they can build their careers and realize their dreams’ (Guo et al., 2013: 41). Because job opportunities may differ between developed and emerging economies, an interesting avenue for future research would be to compare the repatriation experience of repatriates from different economic contexts. For example, studies could consider the differences, if any, between repatriates whose home and host countries are both in developed or emerging economies, or those whose host countries have a developed economy while their home countries have an emerging economy, and vice versa (Kulkarni et al., 2010). Individual antecedents

Stevens et al. (2006) suggest that repatriates’ individual traits are important to the repatriation process, in particular that repatriate self-adjustment is a more significant factor than human resources management practices in explaining job attachment. However, little is known about the ‘journey inward’ (Osland, 2000) as only a few studies investigate the relationships between individual factors (e.g. re-adjustment, coping, identity, expectations, abilities, motivation and personality) and repatriation outcomes, as shall now be discussed. Re-adjustment Most studies that examine the relationships between individual factors and repatriation outcomes focus on re-adjustment as it is believed that re-adjustment issues due to ‘reverse culture shock’ are a prevalent reason for high turnover (Linehan & Scullion, 2002a; Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2007; Vidal, Valle, Aragón, & Brewster, 2007). But is this really the case? Could it be that repatriates who are re-adjusting well but whose organizations do not reward them upon return with opportunities for career advancement or to utilize newly acquired skills and knowledge may exhibit negative job attitudes? In other words, a well re-adjusted repatriate may be dissatisfied with other aspects of his or her work and thus be more inclined to leave the organization. Put differently, repatriates who have positive experiences with their organization upon return may remain in the organization even when experiencing difficulties adjusting to the environment (Hyder & Lövblad, 2007). In



17

a study of expatriates posted to more than 40 host countries, Shaffer and Harrison (1998) find that attitudes have unique predictive validity relative to adjustment, in particular, job satisfaction and non-work satisfaction fully mediate the effects of adjustment on expatriates’ decisions to quit their assignments. Thus, further work is needed to improve understanding of the interactions between attitudes, cognitions, behavior and adjustment and their implications to repatriation outcomes (Harrison et al., 2004). Moreover, studies on repatriate adjustment often apply the theoretical model of expatriate adjustment introduced by Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou (1991) which categorizes adjustment according to three dimensions: general, work and interaction adjustment. While most repatriation studies still focus on these three dimensions, the expatriation literature has already moved forward with new conceptualizations of adjustment (e.g. Haslberger, Brewster, & Hippler, 2013). For example, whereas most studies focus on three dimensions of repatriation adjustment (general, work, interaction), Vidal, Valle, and Aragón (2010) find only two dimensions are applicable: work adjustment and general adjustment. Suutari and Välimaa (2002) propose that the work adjustment dimension can be sub-divided into two separate dimensions: job adjustment and organization adjustment. Hence, the construct of readjustment is in need of further refinement particularly in relation to repatriation. Coping strategies Two studies were found to focus on repatriates’ coping strategies in relation to repatriate adjustment (Feldman & Tompson, 1993; Herman & Tetrick, 2009). The results show that problem-focused coping (strategies that seek to remove the stressor) positively relates to repatriate adjustment. In contrast, emotion-focused coping (strategies that seek to decrease negative emotions caused by the stressor) negatively relate to repatriate adjustment. However, do coping strategies really influence adjustment, or is it the other way around? Whereas repatriates who experience adjustment difficulties could be more likely to use emotion-focused strategies, well-adjusted repatriates could be more likely to use problem-focused coping strategies (Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005). For example, although repatriates who feel uncomfortable upon return could be more likely to withdraw from their colleagues (a symptom-focused coping strategy), repatriates who are better adjusted could be more inclined to seek help from their colleagues (a problem-focused coping strategy). As the causal relationships between coping strategies and adjustment remain unclear, future studies could longitudinally examine such relationships in an effort to shed further light on causal directions. Identity A few studies also consider repatriate identity, suggesting that exposure to a foreign country may influence an international assignee’s identity (e.g. Hyder & Lövblad, 2007; Kraimer et al., 2012). Repatriates may not realize that their identity


18


has changed or such changes may not be evident during the expatriation phase but become visible during the repatriation phase (MacDonald & Arthur, 2005). Kraimer et al. (2012) argue that identity-related processes may drive turnover, finding that repatriates, especially those who are highly socialized and embedded in their prior host communities, are likely to incorporate their international roles into their self-concepts to form and develop an international identity. In turn, the repatriate’s international identity influences how they compare themselves and interact with home country colleagues who lack international experience. Such social comparisons may contribute to repatriates’ psychological strain and turnover decisions, especially when they perceive less favorable treatment from their organizations upon return. In a similar vein, Hyder and Lövblad (2007) propose that affirmative identification (strong identification with the home country) and global identification (strong identification with a ‘global society’) have a positive effect on the repatriation experience, whereas subtractive identification (strong identification with the host country) and additive identification (strong identification with both the home and host country) have a negative effect on the repatriation experience as individuals who identify with the host country integrated to a greater extent to the host culture and experience more repatriation distress. Identity is a key foundational concept that helps explain why people think about their environments the way they do and behave in a certain way in those environments. It is at the core of why people join and leave organizations and the manner in which they perform their work and interact with others (Ashforth et al., 2008). Given that only a few studies examine repatriate identity, this provides a promising avenue for future research. Expectations Repatriates’ expectations have also been examined as antecedents of repatriation outcomes. Repatriates’ expectations are often higher than organizations can meet, which frequently leads to disappointment (Benson & Pattie, 2008; Doherty & Dickmann, 2009; Hyder & Lövblad, 2007; Peltonen, 1997; Shen & Hall, 2009; Stroh, Gregersen, & Black, 1998; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Zikic, Novicevic, Harvey, & Breland, 2006). Employees who accept international assignments often expect to be rewarded upon their return with opportunities for career advancement and to utilize newly acquired skills and knowledge and higher levels of support from the organization and colleagues (e.g. Peltonen, 1997; Suutari & Brewster, 2003). However, upon return they often fail to advance in their careers compared to local peers, which negatively affects their level of satisfaction (Peltonen, 1997). Other studies have demonstrated that repatriates whose expectations had been met reported higher levels of repatriation adjustment and job performance (Black, 1992), higher levels of commitment (Stroh, Gregersen, & Black, 2000) and are more satisfied (Hammer, Hart, & Rogan, 1998; Vidal et al., 2008) than those whose expectations had not been met. Although most studies rely on dichotomous measures (i.e. met/unmet expectations) (e.g. Black, 1992; Hammer et al., 1998; Hyder &



19

Lövblad, 2007; Stroh et al., 2000; Vidal et al., 2008), Stroh et al. (2000) underscore the importance of differentiating between met, undermet, and overmet expectations. They find that when expectations regarding interpersonal relationships at work are overmet, repatriates show higher commitment than when expectations are either met or undermet, and that when expectations regarding job constraints are undermet, repatriates show higher commitment than when expectations are either met or overmet, which indicates that the nature or content of the expectation influences its outcomes. However, a conceptual paper by Hyder and Lövblad (2007) offers an alternative view, by proposing that repatriation expectations can be divided into three categories: work expectations, interaction expectations and general expectations, which have different antecedents and consequences. As the above findings suggest, the accuracy of expectations is important to the repatriation process (Suutari & Brewster, 2003), especially for inexperienced repatriates which may have greater difficulties when assessing which expectations are realistic or can be met by an organization (Hyder & Lövblad, 2007). Thus, MNCs should help repatriates develop more realistic expectations before and after repatriation (Kulkarni et al., 2010; Stroh et al., 1998; Suutari & Brewster, 2003). Future studies should explore ways in which MNCs manage their repatriates’ expectations to better facilitate the repatriation process and generate positive outcomes (Kraimer et al., 2009; Suutari & Brewster, 2003) as well as compare the differential effects of difference types of repatriation expectations (Hyder & Lövblad, 2007). Abilities and motivation Abilities and motivation have also been shown to predict repatriation outcomes. We identified two studies that focus on the effects of repatriates’ motivation to accept an international assignment. The first, a conceptual study by Hyder and Lövblad (2007), considers repatriates’ motivation to accept an overseas assignment and proposes that the nature and type of repatriates’ motives affect one’s expectations. For example, an individual who accepts an overseas assignment with the primary motive of improving future career possibilities will have a higher expectation regarding career position upon return compared to an individual who accepts an overseas assignment for the enrichment associated with living in another country. The second, an empirical study by Paik et al. (2002) demonstrates that there are differences between the organizations’ and repatriates’ motives, such that repatriates are usually motivated by career advancement, compensation, or adventure, whereas the organization is often motivated more by the transfer of knowledge or the ability to satisfy other project objectives. As these scholars argue, the discrepancy between such motivations influences repatriation outcomes and can result in high repatriate attrition rates. Moreover, three studies consider abilities and motivation as an antecedent of knowledge transfer. For example, Oddou et al. (2009) propose that an individual’s ability to transfer knowledge is essential. The greater the degree of repatriates’


20


expertise, abilities to develop social networks at work, position power in their jobs upon re-entry and the similarity between the overseas assignments and position responsibilities in their re-entry jobs, the greater the probability they will transfer knowledge. The authors further argue that a repatriate’s ability to transfer knowledge is not sufficient on its own, he or she must also be motivated. The greater importance repatriates attach to career considerations that match organizational opportunities, the higher their organizational and work unit commitments and the greater the probability they will transfer knowledge. Lazarova and Tarique (2005) similarly highlight the importance of repatriates’ readiness to share knowledge. Furuya et al. (2009) also find that self-adjustment is positively related to global competency transfer among repatriates, and that it in turn influences affective (job motivation) and behavioral (performance) outcomes. Overall, research on repatriate motivation to date has mainly either focused on the effects of repatriates’ motivation to accept an international assignment or on the effects of repatriates’ motivation on knowledge transfer and, as a consequence, more research is needed to clarify whether, how, and when motivation processes contribute to repatriation outcomes. Personality While many expatriation studies aim to identify ‘essential’ personality traits and develop an ideal prototype, we know little about how personality traits are related to repatriation outcomes. For an exception, see O’Sullivan’s (2002) model of repatriate proactivity in which she argues that a proactive personality (i.e. high extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness and openness) drives proactive behavior (e.g. social networking and information seeking), which in turn affects turnover intentions and re-adjustment. Consistent with this model, Lazarova and Cerdin (2007) find that proactive repatriates are more likely to establish large networks and to seek information about alternatives to their current jobs, which relate to intentions to leave after repatriation. But what about other personality traits? Are extraversion, openness to experience, self-efficacy, positive affectivity, cultural flexibility and a willingness to communicate as important for repatriates as they are for expatriates? For example, extroverts are more sociable, active and likely to develop positive interpersonal relationships with others (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1997). One could thus speculate that extroverts have a more extensive social support network to draw on when encountering stressors during the repatriation phase. Further, individuals who score high on emotional stability are calmer, experience less stress and are better able to deal with stressful situations (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Judge et al., 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Individuals who score high on their openness to experience tend to enjoy novelty, variety and change. They are curious, imaginative and creative and have more positive attitudes toward learning new things (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Judge et al., 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1997). One could also speculate that because individuals who



21

have high emotional stability are more relaxed and those who are more open are more flexible and creative, repatriates with these traits are better able to deal with the changes and stressful situations that are often part of the repatriation phase. Future studies could also examine how core self-evaluations (CSEs) affect repatriation outcomes. CSEs have recently received considerable attention in the management literature because they reflect one’s self-worth, beliefs in one’s capabilities to control life, competences to perform, cope, persevere, and succeed, and a general sense that one’s life will turn out well (Judge, 2009). Given that CSEs predict a diverse array of work and non-work attitudes and behaviors, it would be interesting to examine how CSEs impact repatriation outcomes. Individuals with high CSE do not only perform better at work (Judge, 2009; Judge & Bono, 2001), they are also more satisfied with their jobs (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000), are less likely to experience stress and burnout (Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005), are more effective at goal setting (Erez & Judge, 2001), select activities that increase their control over their work environments (Judge et al., 2000), are more motivated (Judge & Bono, 2001), have more constructive reactions to feedback (Bono & Colbert, 2005), and experience less work–family conflict (Boyar & Mosley, 2007). Overall, a considerable number of studies have examined the relationship between contextual antecedents and repatriation outcomes, including contextual factors such as interpersonal/team, organizational, and country characteristics. However, only a few studies investigate the relationship between individual factors and repatriation outcomes suggesting that the literature would benefit from greater attention to potential individual predictors of repatriation outcomes (O’Sullivan, 2002; Yan et al., 2002). Repatriation outcomes

How is repatriation ‘success’ measured? As the literature suggests, a number of different criteria have been used to assess international assignment outcomes, including at both the individual and organizational levels. Individual outcomes Individual repatriation outcomes have mainly been examined in terms of job, career, and development success (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009). Job success has been measured in terms of job satisfaction (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Stevens et al., 2006; Yan et al., 2002) and commitment (Chi & Chen, 2007; Stevens et al., 2006; Stroh et al., 2000). Career success has been measured both objectively (e.g. promotions and pay increases) and subjectively (e.g. career satisfaction or the feeling of success relative to one’s own goals and expectations) (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009). Development success has been measured in terms of long-term career growth and continued development opportunities, such as challenging job assignments, promotions or increased responsibilities (Yan et al., 2002); experienced learning


22


(Yan et al., 2002) and the attainment of international knowledge, skills and abilities during expatriation; and one’s marketability upon return (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009). As international assignments enable assignees to develop a network of international contacts that can help them perform and develop their skills through shared experience, network building can also be considered an essential criterion of development success (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009). Moreover, repatriates often view their international assignments as opportunities to acquire skills and experiences that are not available at home, even if such skills do not help them obtain promotions within their own organizations at a later stage. That is, repatriates may value their expatriate experiences for the personal development and career enhancement opportunities it affords (Osman-Gani & Hyder, 2008). However, is returning from an international assignment actually beneficial to one’s career (Benson & Pattie, 2008)? To shed light on this issue, Benson and Pattie (2008) examine actual versus anticipated career outcomes of expatriation simultaneously. Specifically, they test how expatriate experience affects career outcomes within an organization and how these career outcomes in turn affect the perceptions of career opportunities during and after an international expatriate assignment, compared to employees without international work experience. Although their results indicate that repatriates are promoted less often and report fewer external recruiting calls in the short-run, in terms of their longer-term career prospects, repatriates perceive greater internal and external career opportunities than their domestic counterparts who have no international work experience. This suggests that although repatriates may accept potential short-term setbacks, they are more likely to be rewarded later in their careers, which underscores the need for future work to consider the long-term implications of repatriation (Benson & Pattie, 2008). Organizational outcomes From an organizational perspective, repatriation success is usually defined as the achievement of organizational tasks or key organizational objectives attached to the repatriation process (e.g. Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Yan et al., 2002). This stream of research typically focuses on retention, performance, network and relationship building, and knowledge transfer. First, organizational outcomes, such as retention, have been extensively investigated in the literature (e.g. Chi & Chen, 2007; Doherty & Dickmann, 2012; Haslberger & Brewster, 2009; Hyder & Lövblad, 2007; Kraimer et al., 2009, 2012; Pattie et al., 2010; Stahl et al., 2009; Stroh, 1995). Scholars often argue that repatriate retention is essential to an organization’s success because they act as boundary spanners between the home- and host-country operations (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Oddou et al., 2009). Because it is difficult to measure actual repatriate retention or turnover, most studies use turnover intention as a proxy (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Chi & Chen, 2007; Lee & Liu, 2007). However, caution must



23

be exercised as it has yet to be determined if turnover intention leads to actual turnover (versus retention) in the long run (van Dick et al., 2004). Second, of the few studies that have examined performance these are mainly conceptual. One exception is Furuya et al. (2009) who measure performance in terms of (general) work performance (Furuya et al., 2009; Yan et al., 2002). Others have proposed measuring performance as the accomplishment of organizational tasks, such as implementing a process and reducing the lengths of marketing cycles; or as the achievement of key organizational objectives, such as establishing operations, opening new markets, expanding networks, transferring knowledge and skills and building international experience (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Yan et al., 2002). Third, network building has also been proposed as representative organizational outcome of repatriation. According to Cerdin and Le Pargneux’s (2009) model of international assignment success, career variables (defined as network and relationship building) before, during, and after expatriation affect international assignment success. Networks are important for developing transnational capabilities because they facilitate coordination and control within the multiple units of the MNC (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Yan et al., 2002). However, to our knowledge, network building has not been examined empirically as an outcome of repatriation, indicating a gap in the current repatriate literature. In addition, there is a growing interest in the topic of repatriate knowledge transfer. Studies have primarily adopted a strategic knowledge perspective and focus on the value of the knowledge and skills expatriates obtain during expatriation and how these are transferred upon return. While abroad, international assignees are exposed to new experiences, ideas, business practices, key local suppliers and clients, foreign cultures and national markets, which facilitates the development of new and valuable international management skills and personal assets (Lazarova & Tarique, 2005; Stevens et al., 2006). Upon return, these newly acquired skills and knowledge have the potential to contribute to the creation of new knowledge within the assignees’ firms that can in turn lead to organizational competitive advantages (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Mäkelä & Brewster, 2009; Oddou et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 2006). Despite increasing interest, our understanding of repatriate knowledge transfer is still in its infancy, with many research issues remaining to be addressed. For example, most empirical studies have different conceptualizations of ‘knowledge transfer’ ranging from the perceived amount of received knowledge and the utilization of new knowledge to the access to hostunit knowledge (e.g. Furuya et al., 2009; Mäkelä & Brewster, 2009; Reiche, 2012). Future research should therefore clarify what is meant by repatriate ‘knowledge transfer’ or ‘reverse knowledge transfer,’ that is, whether the assignee is expected to transfer corporate knowledge to the foreign affiliate (e.g. corporate culture) or to access, learn, and acquire knowledge from the host country and transfer it back to the parent organization (e.g. local market knowledge). In this regard, organizational outcomes can be examined and evaluated against the strategic objectives


24


(e.g. for control) of the international assignments. Another issue is that little is known about individual level processes that affect knowledge transfer. Scholars have therefore called for more research on how individual ability, motivation, and career aspirations affect the process of knowledge transfer (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005; Mäkelä & Brewster, 2009). Overall, studies on individual and organizational outcomes suffer from several shortcomings. First, organizations and repatriates are likely to view success and failure differently. For example, whereas repatriate retention is an important outcome for organizations, it may not be the same for individual repatriates (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Yan et al., 2002). Suutari and Brewster (2003) find no significant differences in the level of satisfaction, willingness to recommend experiences to colleagues or willingness to accept a new assignment between those who leave an organization and those who remain. Second, certain measures for individual ‘repatriation success’ may overlap with measures for organizational success. For example, both perspectives emphasize the importance of newly acquired skills and knowledge and the importance of a network of international contacts (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Yan et al., 2002). And, although Cerdin and Le Pargneux (2009) propose a dual perspective for success, few empirical studies examine individual and organizational outcomes simultaneously (Reiche, 2012). Lastly, the long-term effects of repatriation need to be empirically investigated (Lazarova & Tarique, 2005), such as how long a repatriate can serve as a knowledge conduit after returning (Reiche, 2012). Mediators and moderators

Although the number of studies investigating repatriation is increasing, research has by and large investigated the direct effects of contextual or individual factors on repatriation outcomes. More recently, scholars have recognized that such effects are less straightforward than previously thought, suggesting a need to explore potential mediating and moderating variables. Mediators Acquiring a deeper understanding of the connection between antecedents and consequences requires examining underlying processes. Two studies examine trust as a mediator, the first study is Oddou et al. (2009), which finds that repatriate socialization, interaction frequency and social categorization are positively associated with knowledge transfer through the effect of the degree of interpersonal trust one develops over time and the second study is Mäkelä and Brewster (2009) who contend that expatriate and repatriate interaction contexts are positively associated with knowledge transfer via trust and shared cognitive ground. So far, trust has only been examined in relation to knowledge transfer.



25

We propose that employee engagement may also serve as an important mechanism through which demands emanating from work, family or the environment could affect repatriation outcomes. Factors such as value congruence, perceived organizational support, CSEs (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010) and job resources such as performance feedback, social support and supervisory coaching (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) are positively associated with employee engagement, which in turn is positively associated with task performance, organizational citizenship behavior (Rich et al., 2010), turnover intention (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) and extra-role performance (Bakker et al., 2004). In line with this logic, Lazarova, Westman, and Shaffer (2010) suggest that excessive personal and work demands are negatively related to adjustment, which in turn is related to performance via engagement. Hence, an avenue for future research could be to test multiple, potentially competing mediators as possible explanatory mechanisms. Moderators More recently, scholars have also begun to explore potential moderating variables. Prior studies have mainly examined organizational factors as moderators. First, based on 10 Spanish repatriate cases, Vidal et al. (2007a) propose that supportive human resources management practices, such as mentorships, compensation systems and career management systems, may moderate the effects of host and domestic organizational culture differences on repatriation outcomes. Second, Reiche (2012) finds that perceived career and repatriation support moderates the relationships between repatriates’ structural host-unit social capital and their access to and transfer of host-unit knowledge, such that the relationships are weaker at higher levels of support. High perceived career and repatriation support signals that the organization values repatriates, motivating them to invest in updating previous social ties and build new social ties at the host unit because the benefits of these relationships are likely to outweigh the costs of initiating them. In contrast, low perceived support may motivate repatriates to search for job opportunities outside of the organization instead of updating and developing ties, or to withhold host-unit knowledge from their colleagues to improve their employability in the organization. Third, Kraimer et al. (2012) find that perceived job deprivation moderates the relationship between repatriates’ international identity and identity strain. Upon return, when repatriates perceive that their jobs offer less responsibility, respect or pay or fewer opportunities than the jobs of their home country counterparts without international experience, they are more likely to believe that the organization does not value their international experience or that their international identity is threatened in their current organization. And, fourth, Zikic et al. (2006) propose in their conceptual model how organizational career support for repatriates moderates the relationship between post-assignment career exploration and repatriation career success. By providing constructive support and resources, organizational career support may foster


26


exploration and improve post-assignment career decision-making. Other studies have examined individual factors as moderators. For example, Zikic et al. (2006) propose that repatriate expectations moderates the relationship between repatriate hope (including one’s goals, pathways, and agency thought) and post-assignment career exploration. As repatriates are often faced with under-met expectations regarding their new job demands upon return, they are more likely to engage in the exploration of other career options. Ren et al. (2013) further propose that the perception that an international assignment is beneficial for one’s career goals moderates the relationship between psychological contract breaches and career satisfaction, as perceived benefits represent a psychological resource that helps repatriates cope with short-term job demands and feelings of deprivation. When repatriates perceive that an international assignment is beneficial for their career goals, they may anticipate that the experience will pay off later and are less likely to be influenced by their current low salaries than those who do not share the perception. Further, Shen and Hall (2009) develop a theoretical model and propose that the effects of job embeddedness and adjustment on repatriates’ career exploration are moderated by four factors. The first factor relates to career growth opportunities in that the more external offers and career-enhancing opportunities a repatriate has, the more likely he or she is to leave due to low job embeddedness or adjustment difficulties. The second factor relates to the repatriate’s life stage. For example, repatriates in later life stages are less affected by adjustment problems and low job embeddedness because their career exploration efforts tend to be weaker. The third factor relates to the repatriate’s career stage. At an early career stage, repatriates are more likely to engage in active career exploration in response to low job embeddedness or adjustment difficulties. The final factor is a repatriate’s career orientation. Repatriates with high protean career orientations are more likely to engage in self-initiated career exploration when high job embeddedness or few adjustment difficulties are experienced. They are also more likely to engage in external career exploration in response to low job embeddedness or adjustment difficulties. All of these studies clearly point to the importance of moderators, be they organizational or individual. Methodological considerations This section reviews a number of methodological considerations in the repatriation literature, including data collection methods, sample sizes, and the types of repatriates examined. Demographic characteristics

The samples found in prior work are mainly of employees who are male, married or have a partner, have children and are between 30 and 40 years old (e.g. Furuya et al., 2009; Herman & Tetrick, 2009; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Suutari & Brewster,


27


2003; Vidal et al., 2008). This suggests that for both theoretical and practical reasons, the sample population could be expanded, as follows. Sex Despite greater numbers of women in management positions, few studies explicitly examine female repatriates (Stevens et al., 2006; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; see Harvey, 1997; Linehan & Scullion, 2002a, 2002b; Tharenou, 2010 for exceptions). One exception is Harvey (1997), who finds that in contrast to their male counterparts that female repatriates do not experience stress levels above what they expected prior to returning. Another exception is Linehan and Scullion (2002a, 2002b) who find that female international assignees experience greater uncertainty over re-entry in part because they are believed to still be in pioneering roles and do not have female role models or career paths to follow. Lastly, Tharenou’s (2010) investigation of self-initiated repatriates finds that females experience a lack of fairness and justice in selection, assignment and promotion decisions. As these findings suggest, repatriate experiences may differ according to gender. Age Recent surveys indicate that there is a significant increase in international assignees between 20 and 29 years of age (e.g. Brookfield, 2015). However, the repatriation literature is still dominated by samples of employees between 30 and 40 years of age and above. As younger employees may be more flexible in adapting to different environments (Mamman, 1995), one may expect that they may have fewer adjustment difficulties upon return. Moreover, repatriation outcomes are also likely to differ between older and younger repatriates because they are at different stages of their career and life cycles. Whereas young employees may have more career development opportunities ahead, older employees face the increasing probability that each promotion is their last or ‘where the likelihood of additional hierarchical promotion is very low’ (Ference, Stoner, & Warren, 1977, p. 602). Hence, compared to their younger counterparts, older repatriates may perceive their future career advancement as less promising (Brett, Stroh, & Reilly, 1993; Nachbagauer & Riedl, 2002) and thus exhibit fewer intentions to leave their organization in search of better career advancement elsewhere (Rotondo, 1999). Type of repatriate

Because repatriates have been defined in different ways, the criteria used to identify and select them for investigation also varies, making it difficult to compare and generalize findings (e.g. Bossard & Peterson, 2005; Reiche, 2012; Ren et al., 2013; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Kraimer et al., 2009; Vidal et al., 2007a). Currently, the literature is dominated by studies of parent country nationals (PCNs), that is, employees who are assigned to foreign countries from their parent/home countries where the MNC headquarters is located and then return to their parent/home


28


countries (e.g. a Dutch national employed by Philips in the Netherlands who is assigned and later returns from Philips in Hong Kong, Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Oddou et al., 2009; Reiche, 2012). Other types of repatriates (e.g. inpatriates) have received relatively less attention. In our review, only one study (Reiche, 2012) was found that focuses on ‘inpatriates,’ that is, foreign nationals who are assigned to work at an MNC’s headquarters and then repatriate to the originating foreign affiliate (e.g. a Hong Kong employee who returns from an assignment at Philips in the Netherlands). Moreover, little is known about third country nationals (TCNs), that is, employees whose nationality differs from that of the MNC headquarters and the country of assignment (e.g. a Japanese employee who works at Philips in the Netherlands that is assigned and returns from Philips in Hong Kong). Additionally, only two studies focus on self-initiated foreign employees (Guo et al., 2013; Tharenou, 2010), who are believed to make up a larger share of the international workforce than employees assigned by their parent companies (Myers & Pringle, 2005). Because most studies focus on PCNs, the findings and propositions developed in these studies may not be generalizable to other types of repatriates. For example, given that TCNs are exposed to both a host country and the MNC’s cultures, they may be more susceptible to cultural issues and experience greater challenges during repatriation than PCNs (Harrison et al., 2004). As repatriation experiences and challenges may vary across repatriate types, future research is needed to understand potential differences between the different types of repatriates (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2009; Oddou et al., 2009; Reiche, 2012). Length of time on assignment

In terms of international assignment duration, most studies focus on assignments that are greater than nine months in duration (e.g. Black, 1992, 1994; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Gregersen, 1992; Gregersen & Black, 1996; Gregersen & Stroh, 1997; Stroh et al., 2000), greater than 1 year (e.g. De Cieri, Dowling, & Taylor, 1991; Osman-Gani & Hyder, 2008; Pattie et al., 2010), 2–4 years in length (e.g. Reiche, 2012; Stevens et al., 2006; Suutari & Brewster, 2003), or of 3–4 years (e.g. Chi & Chen, 2007; Suutari & Välimaa, 2002; Vidal et al., 2010). However, the number of short-term assignments (i.e. less than 1 year) is growing and often during such assignments the assignees’ spouse/family remain in the home country (Starr & Currie, 2009), imposing separation issues that are likely to influence repatriation experiences. For example, Starr and Currie (2009) find that those who return from a short-term assignment have to re-adjust their identity from one of independence back to being a couple and that social support from a ‘stay behind’ spouse is important to positive repatriation experiences. As these findings are based on an interview with only one repatriate, further research is needed.


29


Length of time since return

Studies that consider the length of time since return do so in two ways. Some focus on repatriates who have returned from an assignment within the past 2–3 years (Ren et al., 2013; Suutari & Brewster, 2003) and assume that this time lag allows repatriates to more fully experience the repatriation process and to develop a more balanced perception of that experience (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Stevens et al., 2006). Most studies, however, focus on more recent returnees, ranging from 4 months to 2 years (Black, 1992, 1994; Black & Gregersen, 1991; De Cieri et al., 1991; Furuya et al., 2009; Gregersen, 1992; Gregersen & Black, 1996; Gregersen & Stroh, 1997; Harvey, 1997; Kraimer et al., 2009, 2012; Stroh et al., 2000; Vidal et al., 2010) believing that this timing enables researchers to capture the repatriates’ fresher memories and ability to recall more details about their experiences (Bossard & Peterson, 2005). Given that an overseas assignment is a significant and often life-transforming event and combined with the finding that events are often more accurately recalled when they are salient (Shrimpton, Oates, & Hayes, 1998), we can assume that repatriates’ recollections of their experiences are likely to be accurate and reliable even after a more lengthy period of time has passed (Kraimer et al., 2012). Nevertheless, it would be interesting to conduct longitudinal research to address this issue more fully. Other stakeholders

A notable limitation of repatriation research is its lack of attention to other ‘stakeholders’ (Freeman, 1984), albeit some studies do take repatriates’ spouses into account (Black & Gregersen, 1991; De Cieri et al., 1991; Gregersen & Stroh, 1997; Hammer et al., 1998; Harvey, 1997; Stroh et al., 1998, 2000; Welch, 1994). For example, there is evidence that spouses’ experiences upon return have crossover effects on repatriation outcomes (e.g. spouses’ difficulties obtaining a job upon return, Osman-Gani & Hyder, 2008). The career disruption for the spouse may cause high levels of stress in the couple’s relationship which may affect the repatriates’ performance in their professional life (Harvey, 1997). In contrast, when repatriates’ spouses are positively surprised and their non-work expectations (e.g. housing, social conditions, financial conditions) are overmet, repatriates show higher levels of work unit commitment (Stroh et al., 2000). Thus, further work is needed if we are to more fully understand the influence of other stakeholders (e.g. family members) on repatriation outcomes (Takeuchi, 2010). Data collection methods

Most prior research utilizes self-reported data collected by survey. As in-depth case studies and theory building can improve our understanding of the repatriation phase, future work should create greater balance between qualitative and


30


quantitative approaches (Yan et al., 2002). For example, qualitative methods could help improve understanding about the mechanisms underlying repatriates’ decisions to resign following repatriation (Kraimer et al., 2009q, 2012). Moreover, most studies use cross-sectional designs with single source data. Although such designs are important, they do not enable causal inferences and raise concerns about common method variance bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Such limitations suggest that multi-source and longitudinal research designs may offer useful insights (e.g. Ren et al., 2013). However, access to repatriate samples is often problematic (e.g. Benson & Pattie, 2008; Cho et al., 2013; Kraimer et al., 2009, 2012; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Reiche, 2012; Ren et al., 2013) and sample sizes tend to be small (as discussed below) making it difficult to obtain additional rating sources or to conduct longitudinal research. Despite these difficulties, the literature is likely to benefit from explorations that examine the long-term implications of international assignments for both the individual and the organization (Reiche, 2012; Suutari & Brewster, 2003). Sample size

As access to repatriate samples is already considered difficult and because repatriate response rates tend to be low, stringent eligibility criteria may make it difficult to recruit sufficient numbers of respondents (Kraimer et al., 2009), as reflected by the small sample sizes of most studies. The majority of studies have relied on fewer than 100 respondents, that is, 10–30 respondents (e.g. Baruch et al., 2002; Bossard & Peterson, 2005; Cho et al., 2013; Doherty & Dickmann, 2009; Forster, 1997; Guo et al., 2013; Paik et al., 2002; Starr, 2009; Starr & Currie, 2009; Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2007), 30–60 respondents (e.g. De Cieri et al., 1991; Feldman & Tompson, 1993; Hammer et al., 1998; Kulkarni et al., 2010; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Linehan & Scullion, 2002a, 2002b; Mäkelä & Brewster, 2009; Osland, 2000; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Suutari & Välimaa, 2002; Welch, 1994), and 80–100 respondents (e.g. Benson & Pattie, 2008; Harvey, 1997; Kraimer et al., 2009; Reiche, 2012; Ren et al., 2013). Only a few studies are based on larger sample sizes (e.g. 100–140 respondents (Black & Gregersen, 1991; Chi & Chen, 2007; Gregersen & Stroh, 1997; Kraimer et al., 2012; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Lee & Liu, 2007; Vidal et al., 2008, 2010), 160–180 (e.g. Black, 1992, 1994; Gregersen, 1992; Gregersen & Black, 1996; Osman-Gani & Hyder, 2008; Stroh et al., 1998, 2000), and 280–310 respondents (e.g. Furuya et al., 2009; Herman & Tetrick, 2009; Stevens et al., 2006). Hence, smaller sample sizes make it difficult to detect significant relationships, especially moderating relationships (Kraimer et al., 2009; Ren et al., 2013), limit the ability to test hypotheses with techniques, such as structural equation modeling, that require larger samples (Kraimer et al., 2012), and make conducting longitudinal studies problematic (Reiche, 2012). Small sample sizes are thus a major limitation in the repatriate literature that will hopefully be bridged.


31


International assignment phase

It is also important to note that most studies have focused on either the expatriation or repatriation phase of international assignments in isolation. Only a few studies compare expatriates with repatriates or use control groups (e.g. domestic employees). Instead of viewing expatriation and repatriation as two separate processes, it is important for future studies to examine both phases of international assignments to provide a more holistic understanding (Benson & Pattie, 2008; Yan et al., 2002). For example, assignment success is measured by either the expatriation (e.g. premature return) or repatriation (e.g. repatriate turnover) stage (Yan et al., 2002). However, success in repatriation or expatriation tells only part of the story. Assignment success reaches beyond the relocation stage. It is thus necessary to examine both stages in relation to each other to fully understand the international assignment process. For example, Bolino (2007) proposes a conceptual framework of repatriate success that links organizational and employee outcomes during expatriation and upon repatriation. Reiche (2012) suggests two additional criteria for assessing international assignment success: the ongoing transfer of and access to host-unit knowledge upon return, providing repatriates with task-relevant resources in their subsequent positions. Further, Cerdin and Le Pargneux (2009) and Yan et al. (2002) argue that there is a link between expatriation and repatriation success. However, few empirical studies examine the relationship between expatriation and repatriation success, which leaves a significant gap in the literature. The literature is thus strongly in need of models that consider international assignments as an integrated process, models that must take into account both individual and organizational perspectives of success and consider experiences during both the expatriation and repatriation stages of the international assignment. Conclusion Interest in repatriation is growing. This study provided a review of key conceptual and empirical studies on repatriation published in leading peer-reviewed academic journals. It critically assessed the main challenges, gaps and limitations in the literature and provided a guiding framework for future research. Given that organizations are increasingly sending employees on international assignments, there is a growing need to better understand how repatriates can contribute to the competitive advantage of MNCs. Compared to expatriation, repatriation remains an under-researched phase of the international assignment that is in need of greater scholarly attention. An improved understanding of repatriation has the potential to not only contribute to the personal and professional development of repatriates, but also to organizations’ wishing to improve and develop effective international human resource management programs and practices to motivate and retain one of their most valuable resources: the repatriate.

32


Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.


References *References marked with an asterisk are included in the review. *Aldossari, M., & Robertson, M. (2016). The role of wasta in repatriates’ perceptions of a breach to the psychological contract: A Saudi Arabian case study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 1854–1873. *Aldossari, M., & Robertson, M. (in press). Repatriation and the psychological contract: A Saudi Arabian comparative study. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104. *Baruch, Y., & Altman, Y. (2002). Expatriation and repatriation in MNCs: A taxonomy. Human Resource Management, 41, 239–259. *Baruch, Y., Steele, D. J., & Quantrill, G. A. (2002). Management of expatriation and repatriation for novice global player. International Journal of Manpower, 23, 659–671. *Benson, G., & Pattie, M. (2008). Is expatriation good for my career? The impact of expatriate assignments on perceived and actual career outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1636–1653. Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job burnout: the test of alternative models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 441–451. *Biemann, T., & Braakmann, N. (2013). The impact of international experience on objective and subjective career success in early careers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3438–3456. *Birur, S., & Muthiah, K. (2013). Turnover intentions among repatriated employees in an emerging economy: The Indian experience. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3667–3680. *Black, J. S. (1992). Coming home: The relationship of expatriate expectations with repatriation adjustment and job performance. Human Relations, 45, 177–192. *Black, J. S. (1994). O Kaerinasai: Factors related to Japanese repatriation adjustment. Human Relations, 47, 1489–1508. *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, 671–694. Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16, 291–317. *Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., & Mendenhall, M. E. (1992). Toward a theoretical framework of repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 23, 737–760. *Bolino, M. C. (2007). Expatriate assignments and intra-organizational career success: Implications for individuals and organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 819–835. Bono, J. E. & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: the role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 171–203. *Bossard, A. B., & Peterson, R. B. (2005). The repatriate experience as seen by American expatriates. Journal of World Business, 40, 9–28.



33

Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 265–281. Brett, J. M., Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1993). Pulling up roots in the 1990s: Who’s willing to relocate? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 49–60. Brookfield (2015). Global relocation trends: 2015 survey report. Chicago, IL: Brookfield Global Relocation Services. *Burmeister, A., & Deller, J. (2016). A practical perspective on repatriate knowledge transfer: The influence of organizational support practices. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 4, 68–87. *Cerdin, J.-L., & Le Pargneux, M. (2009). Career and international assignment fit: Toward an integrative model of success. Human Resource Management, 48, 5–25. *Chaban, N., Williams, A., Holland, M., Boyce, V., & Warner, F. (2011). Crossing cultures: Analysing the experiences of NZ returnees from the EU (UK vs. non-UK). International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 776–790. *Chi, S. C. S., & Chen, S. C. (2007). Perceived psychological contract fulfilment and job Attitudes among repatriates: An empirical study in Taiwan. International Journal of Manpower, 28, 474–488. *Cho, T., Hutchings, K., & Marchant, T. (2013). Key factors influencing Korean expatriates’ and spouses’ perceptions of expatriation and repatriation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1051–1075. Conway, N., Guest, D., & Trenberth, L. (2011). Testing the differential effects of changes in psychological contract breach and fulfillment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 267–276. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5–13. *Cox, J. B. (2004). The role of communication, technology, and cultural identity in repatriation adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 201–219. *Crocitto, M. M., Sullivan, S. E., & Carraher, S. M. (2005). Global mentoring as a means of career development and knowledge creation: A learning-based framework and agenda for future research. Career Development International, 10, 522–535. *De Cieri, H., Dowling, P. J., & Taylor, K. F. (1991). The psychological impact of expatriate relocation on partners. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2, 377– 414. *Dickmann, M., Suutari, V., Brewster, C., Mäkelä, L., Tanskanen, J., & Tornikoski, C. (in press). The career competencies of self-initiated and assigned expatriates: Assessing the development of career capital over time. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., … Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15, 351–360. *Doherty, N. T., & Dickmann, M. (2009). Exposing the symbolic capital of international assignments. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 301–320. *Doherty, N. T., & Dickmann, M. (2012). Measuring the return on investment in international assignments: An action research approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3434–3454. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279. Farh, C. I., Bartol, k. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Shin, J. (2010). Networking abroad: A process model of how expatriates form support ties to facilitate adjustment. Academy of Management Review, 35, 434–454.


34


*Feldman, D. C., & Tompson, H. B. (1993). Expatriation, repatriation, and domestic geographical relocation: An empirical investigation of adjustment to new job assignments. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 507–529. Ference, T. P., Stoner, J. A., & Warren, E. K. (1977). Managing the career plateau. Academy of Management Review, 2, 602–612. *Forster, N. (1997). ‘The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates’: A reappraisal. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 414–433. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. *Furuya, N., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (2009). Managing the learning and transfer of global management competence: Antecedents and outcomes of Japanese repatriation effectiveness. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 200–215. *Gregersen, H. (1992). Commitments to a parent company and a local work unit during repatriation. Personnel Psychology, 45, 29–54. *Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1996). Multiple commitments upon repatriation: The japanese experience. Journal of Management, 22, 209–229. *Gregersen, H. B., & Stroh, L. K. (1997). Coming home to the Arctic cold: Antecedents to Finnish expatriate and spouse repatriation adjustment. PersonnelPsychology, 50, 635–654. *Guo, C., Porschitz, E. T., & Alves, J. (2013). Exploring career agency during self‐initiated repatriation: A study of Chinese sea turtles. Career Development International, 18, 34–55. *Hammer, M. R., Hart, W., & Rogan, R. (1998). Can you go home again? An analysis of the repatriation of corporate managers and spouses. Management International Review, 38, 67–86. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045. Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P. (2004). Going places: Roads more and less traveled in research on expatriate experience. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23, 199–247. *Harvey, M. G. (1989). Repatriation of corporate executives: An empirical study. Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 131–144. *Harvey, M. G. (1997). Dual-career expatriates: Expectations, adjustment and satisfaction with international relocation. Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 627–658. *Haslberger, A., & Brewster, C. (2009). Capital gains: Expatriate adjustment and the psychological contract in international careers. Human Resource Management, 48, 379–397. Haslberger, A., Brewster, C., & Hippler, T. (2013). The dimensions of expatriate adjustment. Human Resource Management, 52, 333–351. *Herman, J. L., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping strategies and repatriation adjustment. Human Resource Management, 48, 69–88. *Ho, N. T. T., Seet, P. S., & Jones, J. (2016). Understanding re-expatriation intentions among overseas returnees – An emerging economy perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 1938–1966. *Howe-Walsh, L., & Torka, N. (2017). Repatriation and (perceived) organisational support (POS): The role of and interaction between repatriation supporters. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 5, 60–77. *Hyder, A. S., & Lövblad, M. (2007). The repatriation process – A realistic approach. Career Development International, 12, 264–281.



35

*Jayasekara, P., & Takahashi, Y. (2014). Improving post-assignment behavioral outcomes of expatriates: A Sri Lankan perspective. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 2, 298–316. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763. *Johnston, J. (1991). An empirical study of the repatriation of managers in UK multinationals. Human Resource Management Journal, 1, 102–109. Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 58–62. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249. Kraimer, M. L., & Wayne, S. J. (2004). An examination of perceived organizational support as a multidimensional construct in the context of an expatriate assignment. Journal of Management, 30, 209–237. Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54, 71–99. *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, 27–47. *Kraimer, M. L., Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Ren, H. (2012). No place like home? An identity strain perspective on repatriate turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 399–420. *Kulkarni, M., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Valk, R. (2010). Employee perceptions of repatriation in an emerging economy: The Indian experience. Human Resource Management, 49, 531–548. *Lazarova, M., & Caligiuri, P. (2001). Retaining repatriates: The role of organizational support practices. Journal of World Business, 36, 389–401. *Lazarova, M., & Cerdin, J. L. (2007). Revisiting repatriation concerns: Organizational support versus career and contextual influences. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 404– 429. *Lazarova, M., & Tarique, I. (2005). Knowledge transfer upon repatriation. Journal of World Business, 40, 361–373. Lazarova, M., Westman, M., & Shaffer, M. A. (2010). Elucidating the positive side of the work-family interface on international assignments: A model of expatriate work and family performance. Academy of Management Review, 35, 93–117. *Lee, H. W., & Liu, C. H. (2007). An examination of factors affecting repatriates’ turnover intentions. International Journal of Manpower, 28, 122–134. *Linehan, M., & Scullion, H. (2002a). Repatriation of European female corporate executives: An empirical study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 254–267. *Linehan, M., & Scullion, H. (2002b). The repatriation of female international managers: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 23, 649–658. *MacDonald, S., & Arthur, N. (2005). Connecting career management to repatriation adjustment. Career Development International, 10, 145–159.


36


*Mäkelä, K., & Brewster, C. (2009). Interunit interaction contexts, interpersonal social capital, and the differing levels of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 48, 591–613. Mamman, A. (1995). Employee intercultural effectiveness in a multicultural workplace: Theoretical propositions, strategies and direction for future research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 528–552. Mayerhofer, H., Hartmann, L. C., Michelitsch-Riedl, G., & Kollinger, I. (2004). Flexpatriate assignments: A neglected issue in global staffing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1371–1389. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433. Myers, B., & Pringle, J. K. (2005). Self-initiated foreign experience as accelerated development: Influences of gender. Journal of World Business, 40, 421–431. Nachbagauer, A. G., & Riedl, G. (2002). Effects of concepts of career plateaus on performance, work satisfaction and commitment. International Journal of Manpower, 23, 716–733. *O’Sullivan, S. L. (2002). The protean approach to managing repatriation transitions. International Journal of Manpower, 23, 597–616. *O’Sullivan, S. L. (2013). The empowering potential of social media for key stakeholders in the repatriation process. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 1, 264–286. *Oddou, G., Osland, J. S., & Blakeney, R. N. (2009). Repatriating knowledge: Variables influencing the “transfer” process. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 181–199. *Osland, J. S. (2000). The journey inward: Expatriate hero tales and paradoxes. Human Resource Management, 39, 227–238. *Osman-Gani, A. A. M., & Hyder, A. S. (2008). Repatriation readjustment of international managers: An empirical analysis of HRD interventions. Career Development International, 13, 456–475. *Paik, Y., Segaud, B., & Malinowski, C. (2002). How to improve repatriation management: Are motivations and expectations congruent between the company and expatriates? International Journal of Manpower, 23, 635–648. *Pattie, M., White, M. M., & Tansky, J. (2010). The homecoming: A review of support practices for repatriates. Career Development International, 15, 359–377. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. *Peltonen, T. (1997). Facing the rankings from the past: A tournament perspective on repatriate career mobility. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 106–123. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. *Reiche, B. S. (2012). Knowledge benefits of social capital upon repatriation: A longitudinal study of international assignees. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1052–1077. *Ren, H., Bolino, M. C., Shaffer, M. A., & Kraimer, M. L. (2013). The influence of job demands and resources on repatriate career satisfaction: A relative deprivation perspective. Journal of World Business, 48, 149–159. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.



37

Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342–358. Rotondo, D. (1999). Individual-difference variables and career-related coping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 458–471. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. *Schütter, H., & Boerner, S. (2013). Illuminating the work-family interface on international assignments: An exploratory approach. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 1, 46–71. Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. (1998). Expatriates’ psychological withdrawal from international assignments: work, nonwork, and family influences. Personnel Psychology, 51, 87–118. Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M. (1999). Dimensions, determinants, and differences in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 557–581. Shaffer, M. A., Kraimer, M. L., Chen, Y. P., & Bolino, M. C. (2012). Choices, challenges, and career consequences of global work experiences: A review and future agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 1282–1327. *Shen, Y., & Hall, D. T. (2009). When expatriates explore other options: Retaining talent through greater job embeddedness and repatriation adjustment. Human Resource Management, 48, 793–816. Shrimpton, S., Oates, K., & Hayes, S. (1998). Children’s memory of events: Effects of stress, age, time delay, and location of interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 133–143. Stahl, G. K., & Caligiuri, P. (2005). The effectiveness of expatriate coping strategies: The moderating role of cultural distance, position level, and time on the international assignment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 603–615. *Stahl, G. K., Chua, C. H., Caligiuri, P., Cerdin, J. L., & Taniguchi, M. (2009). Predictors of turnover intentions in learning-driven and demand-driven international assignments: The role of repatriation concerns, satisfaction with company support, and perceived career advancement opportunities. Human Resource Management, 48, 89–109. *Starr, T. L. (2009). Repatriation and short-term assignments: An exploration into expectations, change, and dilemmas. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 286–300. *Starr, T. L., & Currie, G. (2009). ‘Out of sight but still in the picture’: Short-term international assignments and the influential role of family. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 1421–1438. *Stevens, M. J., Oddou, G., Furuya, N., Bird, A., & Mendenhall, M. (2006). HR factors affecting repatriate job satisfaction and job attachment for Japanese managers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 831–841. *Stroh, L. K. (1995). Predicting turnover among repatriates: Can organizations affect retention rates? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 443–456. *Stroh, L. K., Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1998). Closing the gap: Expectations versus reality among repatriates. Journal of World Business, 33, 111–124. *Stroh, L. K., Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (2000). Triumphs and tragedies: Expectations and commitments upon repatriation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 681–697. *Sussman, N. M. (1986). Re-entry research and training: Methods and implications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 235–254.


38


*Sussman, N. M. (2001). Repatriation transitions: Psychological preparedness, cultural identity, and attributions among American managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 109–123. *Sussman, N. M. (2002). Testing the cultural identity model of the cultural transition cycle: Sojourners return home. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 391–408. *Suutari, V., & Brewster, C. (2003). Repatriation: Empirical evidence from a longitudinal study of careers and expectations among Finnish expatriates. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1132–1151. *Suutari, V., & Välimaa, K. (2002). Antecedents of repatriation adjustment: New evidence from Finnish repatriates. International Journal of Manpower, 23, 617–634. *Suutari, V., Brewster, C., Mäkelä, L., Dickmann, M., & Tornikoski, C. (in press). The effect of international work experience on the career success of expatriates: A comparison of assigned and self-initiated expatriates. Human Resource Management. *Szkudlarek, B. (2010). Reentry – A review of the literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 1–21. *Szkudlarek, B., & Sumpter, D. M. (2015). What, when, and with whom? Investigating expatriate reentry training with a proximal approach. Human Resource Management, 54, 1037–1057. Takeuchi, R. (2010). A critical review of expatriate adjustment research through a multiple stakeholder view: Progress, emerging trends, and prospects. Journal of Management, 36, 1040–1064. *Tharenou, P. (2010). Women’s self-initiated expatriation as a career option and its ethical issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 73–88. *Valk, R., van der Velde, M., van Engen, M., & Godbole, R. (2014). International career motives, repatriation and career success of Indian women in Science & Technology. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 2, 203–233. *Van Gorp, L., Boroş, S., Bracke, P., & Stevens, P. A. (2017). Emotional support on re-entry into the home country: Does it matter for repatriates’ adjustment who the providers are? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 58, 54–68. *Vidal, M. E. S., Valle, R. S., & Aragón, M. I. B. (2007a). The adjustment process of Spanish repatriates: A case study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1396–1417. *Vidal, M. E. S., Valle, R. S., Aragón, M. I. B., & Brewster, C. (2007b). Repatriation adjustment process of business employees: Evidence from Spanish workers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 317–337. *Vidal, M. E. S., Valle, R. S., & Aragón, M. I. B. (2008). International workers’ satisfaction with the repatriation process. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1683–1702. *Vidal, M. E. S., Valle, R. S., & Aragón, M. I. B. (2010). Analysis of the repatriation adjustment process in the Spanish context. International Journal of Manpower, 31, 21–41. *Vidal, M. E. S., Valle, R. S., & Aragón, M. I. B. (in press). Repatriates and reverse knowledge transfer in MNCs. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Wang, X., & Kanungo, R. N. (2004). Nationality, social network and psychological well-being: Expatriates in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 775– 793. *Welch, D. E. (1994). Determinants of international human resource management approaches and activities: A suggested framework. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 139–164. Welch, D. E., Welch, L. S., & Worm, V. (2007). The international business traveller: A neglected but strategic human resource. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 173–183.


39


*Wu, M., Zhuang, W. L., & Hung, C. C. (2014). The effects of mentoring functions on repatriate adjustment–Moderating role of core self-evaluations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 177–188. *Yan, A., Zhu, G., & Hall, D. T. (2002). International assignments for career building. Academy of Management Review, 27, 373–383. Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, 63, 763–771. *Zikic, J., Novicevic, M. M., Harvey, M., & Breland, J. (2006). Repatriate career exploration: A path to career growth and success. Career Development International, 11, 633–649.