International Assignments as a Career Development Tool: Factors Affecting Turnover Intentions Among...

Faculty & Research Working Paper International Assignments as a Career Development Tool: Factors Affecting Turnover Intentions among Executive Talent

_______________

Günter K STAHL Chei Hwee CHUA Paula CALIGIURI Jean-Luc CERDIN Mami TANIGUCHI 2007/24/OB

International Assignments as a Career Development Tool: Factors Affecting

Turnover Intentions among Executive Talent

April 2007

by

Günter K. Stahl*

Chei Hwee Chua**

Paula Caligiuri***

Jean-Luc Cerdin****

and

Mami Taniguchi*****

This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network electronic library at:

http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1032166

* Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at INSEAD, 1 Ayer Rajah Avenue, Singapore 138676; (phone) +65 6799 5345, [email protected]

** Moore School of Business U. of South Carolina 1705 College Street Columbia, South

Carolina 29208, USA, (phone) +1 803 799 9776, [email protected] *** Associate Professor of Human Resource Management at Rutgers University 200B Janice

Levin Building 94 Rockafeller Road Piscataway, NJ 08854, (phone) (732) 445-5228, [email protected]

**** Associate Professor at ESSEC, Avenue Bernard Hirsch – B.P.105 95021 Cergy-Pontoise

Cedex, France, (phone) (+33) 1 34 43 30 25, [email protected] ***** Associate Professor, Graduate School of Commerce, Waseda University Shinjuku-ku Tokyo

169-8050 Japan, (phone) +81 3 3203-4369, [email protected] A working paper in the INSEAD Working Paper Series is intended as a means whereby a facultyresearcher's thoughts and findings may be communicated to interested readers. The paper should beconsidered preliminary in nature and may require revision. Printed at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Kindly do not reproduce or circulate without permission.

2



Abstract

International assignments have become an integral part of individuals’ careers and are considered

one of the most effective talent development tools. Yet, one problem that is particularly acute

from a talent development perspective is that of high turnover rates among repatriates. 1,779

international assignees participated in a study that examined the nature and scope of the

repatriate retention problem, as well as the factors influencing repatriate turnover intentions. The

results indicate the importance of differentiating between three types of international

assignments: developmental, functional and strategic. Depending on the type of assignment,

assignees differ in the factors that push and pull them towards an international assignment;

aspects related to the psychological contract; perceived career implications; and turnover

intentions. While vulnerability to turnover varies depending on the type of assignment, two sets

of variables were found to play a key role in international assignees’ decision to stay or quit: the

perceived company-provided support and effectiveness of the repatriation management system,

as well as the career advancement opportunities within the company relative to those available

outside the company. The implications for research and practice are discussed.

3



Introduction

Originally sparked by McKinsey & Company’s study on the “War for Talent” (Chambers,

Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin & Michaels, 1998), the past decade has produced a growing

interest in talent management as a source of competitive advantage. The interest continues to

rise as the demand for talent-intensive skills grows while, in many industries and markets, the

supply of top talent is limited, thus making it increasingly difficult for companies to attract, hire

and retain high-potential employees. In addition to demographic trends, this talent management

challenge is compounded by an economy growing in technical and global complexity which

requires an increasingly more technically and culturally sophisticated workforce. The latter

challenge -- and the associated need for companies to have globally integrated operations,

globally savvy leaders, and globally-oriented knowledge workers -- is the focus of this paper.

The extensive literature on leadership development suggests a number of practices and

activities that companies can utilize to develop global business acumen and intercultural

competence. International mobility, in the form of international job rotations, multinational team

assignments, or long-term global assignments, has been advocated as one of the most effective

among those practices (Evans, Pucik & Barsoux, 2002; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Yeung &

Ready, 1995). In a recent study of talent management best practices, HR executives of 35 leading

multinational companies rated “job rotations and challenging assignments” (including

international assignments) as the most effective talent development tool (Stahl, 2006). In fact,

some senior executives believe that international assignments are the “most powerful experience

in shaping the perspective and capabilities of effective global leaders” (Black, Gregersen,

4

Mendenhall & Stroh, 1999, p. 2), as they provide managers with an opportunity to improve their

general management skills, acquire a “global mindset”, and develop a network of relationships

within and outside the company; all key assets in today’s globally-integrated organizations.

The use of international assignments as a training and career development tool is not only

critical for developing talent but also for attracting and retaining high-potential employees. A

compelling “employee value proposition” (Chambers et al., 1998; Lawler, 2003) includes, in

addition to financial incentives, elements such as exciting challenges, career advancement and

growth opportunities, and opportunities to travel or work abroad. A study of more than 1,000

MBA students from top schools in North America and Europe (see Adler, 2002, pp. 340-350),

for example, found that this group of future managers showed strong interest in pursuing the

global aspects of their careers. More than four out of five wanted an international assignment at

some point during their career, most of them because they saw it as an opportunity for cross-

cultural and personal growth experiences. Although this study was conducted in the mid-1980s,

the main findings are consistent with the results of more recent surveys on what drives “high

potential” employees (e.g., Business Week, 2006).

International assignments have thus become an integral part of individuals’ careers and, for

most companies, an indispensable tool for attracting, developing and retaining talent. Yet,

research on expatriate careers suggests that an international assignment can be a double-edged

sword, both from the perspective of the individual and the organization. Problems reported in the

expatriation literature include expatriate adjustment problems, underperformance, and career

derailment, as well as high costs to the company due to failed expatriation and repatriation (e.g.,

Black et al., 1999; Feldman & Thomas, 1992; Tung, 1998). One problem that is particularly

acute from a talent development perspective, and which has received increased research attention

5

in recent years (e.g., Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Yan, Zhu & Hall, 2002) is that of the high

turnover rate among repatriates. The purpose of this article is to provide a better understanding of

the nature and scope of the repatriate retention problem, with a particular focus on the retention

of international assignees with developmental career goals – the group most important to retain

in light of the looming talent shortage, but, at the same time, most vulnerable to turnover.

This manuscript first reviews the extant literature on expatriate careers to identify factors that

make retention of international assignees with developmental career goals particularly

challenging, compared to other types of international assignees. 1,779 international assignees of

North-American, European and Asian companies participated in a questionnaire survey on these

issues. We explore international assignees’ motives for accepting the international assignment,

their satisfaction with companies’ support systems, repatriation concerns, and perceived career

advancement opportunities as they predict turnover intentions.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

International Assignments: A Double-Edged Sword

Although top managers often claim that global mobility and international experience are

highly valued assets and a prerequisite for promotion into the ranks of senior management, the

career implications for employees returning from an international assignment are often dis-

appointing. Research suggests that many companies lack effective expatriate management and

repatriation practices, and that they usually fail to integrate international assignments with long-

term career development and succession planning (Black et al., 1999; Caligiuri & Lazarova,

2001; Riusala & Suutari, 2000). Due to poor career planning, repatriates are often placed in a

“holding pattern” and assigned jobs that are available without regard to the individual’s abilities,

qualifications and preferences (Harvey & Novicevic, 2006). Not surprisingly, the majority of

6

repatriates report dissatisfaction with the repatriation process. Studies of the repatriation

experience of international assignees show that many feel that their international assignment had

a negative career impact; that their reentry positions have less authority and are less satisfying

than the positions they held abroad; and that their international experience is not valued in their

home organizations (Adler, 2002; Hammer, Hart & Rogan, 1998; Stroh et al., 1998).

As a result of traumatic repatriation experiences or limited career opportunities, a substantial

percentage of expatriates leave their company after repatriation. Past research on U.S. companies

suggests that between 20 and 25 percent of repatriated employees leave their firm within a year

after return (Black, Gregersen & Mendenhall, 1992; O’Boyle, 1989). Some companies have

reported losing between 40 and 55 percent of their repatriates through voluntary turnover within

three years after repatriation (Black et al., 1999). For example, Baruch, Steele and Quantrill

(2002), in a case study of a UK-based financial services firm, found that some 50 percent of

repatriated employees left the company within a few years after return, most of them because the

company did not utilize their newly acquired skills. Other studies found that 74 percent of

repatriates did not expect to be working for the same company within one year after returning to

their home country, 42 percent had seriously considered leaving their company after repatriation,

and 26 percent had been actively searching for an alternative employment (Black et al., 1992).

Those who stay often become professionally unproductive and personally dissatisfied because of

“xenophobic responses” from colleagues or supervisors, or simply because there are limited

opportunities for using their newly acquired knowledge and skills (Adler, 2002).

If companies consistently mismanage the repatriation process and fail to integrate

international assignments into long-term career paths, as the above evidence suggests, then why

do employees continue to pursue international careers? To explain this paradox, researchers have

7

suggested that the principal motivation for managers and professionals to accept an international

assignment may be to gain the additional skills and experience needed to increase their

marketability to other prospective employers (Stahl, Miller & Tung, 2002; Tung, 1998). This is

very much in line with new career perspectives, such as Schein’s (1996) concept of the “internal”

career and the emergence of “protean” (Hall, 1996), “aspatial” (Roberts et al., 1998), “multi-

directional” (Baruch, 2004) or “boundaryless” (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996) careers. According to

Schein (1996), the internal career involves a subjective sense of where one is going in one’s

work life, whereas the external career refers to advancement within the organizational hierarchy.

For individuals pursuing internal careers, one’s work life may no longer be perceived as a

progression of jobs within a single organization. Rather, individuals will move from one

company to another (or one country to another) to pursue the best career opportunities (Parker &

Inkson, 1999). The “boundaryless” careerist implicitly admired in this literature is the highly

qualified mobile professional who builds his or her career competencies and labor market value

through continuous learning and transfer across boundaries (Thomas, Lazarova & Inkson, 2005).

The rise of boundaryless careers appears to be a response to broader economic and societal

changes in an era of corporate downsizing, reorganizing, and rapidly changing technology.

Boundaryless careers are driven by a desire to maintain a permanent state of employability in an

environment of increasing economic insecurity and diminished trust between employers and

employees (DePhilippi & Arthur, 1996; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). These ideas are consistent

with research concerning the changing nature of the “psychological contract”, particularly the

observed shift from relational contracts, based on loyalty, to more transactional contracts, based

on economic exchange between the parties (Altman & Post, 1996; Rousseau & Schalk, 2000).

As a result, the responsibility for career development has shifted from the organization to the

8

individual. As Lazarova and Tarique (2005) pointed out: “Self-reliance has become the key

ingredient for career development and organizations are to be viewed primarily as offering

opportunities for … self-development, rather than as providing structured career paths” (p. 367).

This suggests that managers may increasingly seek international assignments to gain new skills

and experiences that will make them more marketable – and more likely to leave.

In the subsequent section, we will look at different types of international assignments and

discuss the nature and scope of the retention problem for different categories of assignees, with a

particular focus on the group of developmental assignees.

How Vulnerable to Turnover are Different Types of International Assignees?

Most companies have dealt with expatriates from a policy point of view as if they are a

homogenous group (Evans et al., 2002). However, not all international assignees are created or

intended to be equal, in terms of their strategic significance to the organization, the learning and

development opportunities available to them during the assignment, and the need for the

international assignee’s competencies upon repatriation (Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2001). Also,

employees take up international assignments for different reasons, and this has important

implications for repatriation and retention. The basic premise underlying this study is that

different types of international assignees are likely to vary in their motivations for accepting the

international assignment, the perceived negative consequences for refusing it and the expected

rewards for completing it successfully. These factors may influence aspects related to the

psychological contract and, ultimately, the assignee’s decision to stay with the company or quit.

Edström and Galbraith (1977), in their classic article on international assignment objectives,

identified three principal, and sometimes overlapping, motives for the global transfer of

managers: to fill positions that cannot be staffed locally because of a lack of technical or

9

managerial skills; to support organizational development, referring to the coordination and

control of international operations through socialization and informal networks; and to support

management development, enabling high potential individuals to acquire international

experience. Pucik (1992) groups international assignment objectives into two categories:

Demand-driven (or task-driven) assignments, which include coordination and control,

knowledge transfer, and short-term problem solving assignments; and learning-driven

assignments, which are initiated for competency development or career enhancement (or both).

Learning-driven international assignments may include short-term learning assignments, such as

job rotations across several countries or regions, as well as longer-term assignments that

constitute an integral part of the career development planning for high potential young managers.

The framework adopted in this study is consistent with Edström and Galbraith’s (1977) and

Pucik’s (1992) typologies of international assignment objectives. It distinguishes between three

types of international assignments based on the assignees’ hierarchical level in the organization,

their main responsibilities during the assignment and the principal objectives of the assignment,

particularly the extent to which the assignment is intended to be developmental for the employee

(Caligiuri & Colakoglu, forthcoming):

Technical and Functional Assignments: The principal assignment objective is task-

related and may include coordination and control, knowledge transfer, problem solving or

filling a position that cannot be staffed locally. These individuals can be from all levels

within the organization. Learning and development is not a stated goal of this type of

assignment.

Developmental Assignments: While these assignees are sent abroad to do a specific job,

the main purpose of their assignment is leadership development and career enhancement.

Such learning driven international assignments occur relatively early in their professional

career, when the learning impact is greatest, thus becoming an integral part of the career

10

and development process. These assignees are often more junior or mid-level within the

organization.

Strategic Assignments: These assignees generally hold senior positions within the global

organization (e.g., the positions of country manager or regional division head). Gaining

new skills can be a secondary goal for these assignees. Having international experience

may be critical for their long-term career success within the company. This category may

also include those senior managers who are part of an international cadre (i.e., who

accept consecutive international assignments).

We propose that international assignees across these different types of assignments enter

them with different career orientations and motivations, perceived negative consequences for

saying “no” to the offer of an international assignment, and expected rewards for completing the

assignment successfully. For an individual considering an international assignment, there are

influencing forces that both “push” the individual, such as poor career prospects in the home

country or pressure by the company to accept an international assignment, and forces that “pull”

the individual towards an international assignment, for example factors such as intrinsic interest

in foreign cultures or specific features of the position offered (Baruch, 2002; Brewster & Suutari,

2005; Suutari, 2003). These influencing forces involve the specific career aspirations, needs,

motives, life stage, and family situation of the individual, as well as characteristics of the job –

all variables that are likely to differ across the three types of international assignees.

Accepting the Assignment: Differences in Motivations for Saying “Yes” and Consequences for

Saying “No”

For the group of employees termed developmental assignees, international experience is

likely to be a prerequisite for career success. These individuals are often designated as “high

potentials” and part of the global talent pool of the company. By offering an international

assignment, the company shows that it is committed to the employee’s career development and

11

that it is willing to make a significant human capital investment. From the perspective of the

employee, saying “no” to the offer of an international assignment would entail considerable

risks, especially if the assignment is part of a formal management development or succession-

planning program and the employee is being groomed for a position that requires international

experience. Such a refusal could mean the end of a promising career since international mobility

at the discretion of the company is considered to be an integral part of the employment

relationship by most multinational companies (Evans et al., 2002). To a lesser extent, this is also

true for executive assignees, as the number of companies that consider international experience

as an important criterion required for entrance into the executive suite is growing. In contrast, the

consequences for refusing an international assignment are likely to be less negative for

functional assignees as international experience is not a necessary requirement for career success

in most technical or functional roles.

The three groups of international assignees are not only likely to differ in terms of their

perceptions of negative consequences for refusing an international assignment and their expected

rewards for completing it successfully, but also in terms of their career orientations and

motivations for accepting it. Research on the factors that drive high potential employees (e.g.,

Chambers et al., 1998; Stahl, 2006) suggests that for the group of developmental assignees,

factors such as exciting challenges, growth opportunities and future career prospects are at least

as important in affecting their career decisions as are financial considerations. Since candidates

for a developmental assignment tend to be relatively young, family-related concerns are less

likely to play a major role in the decision to accept or reject an international assignment

(although dual career concerns might be an issue). For executive and functional assignees, we

expect financial considerations and family-related factors to play a more important role, and

12

opportunities for personal growth and future career advancement to be less important factors

compared to developmental assignees. Although international experience may be critical for

executive assignees’ long-term career success within the company, we expect this group to be

motivated primarily by the importance of the job itself and the challenges involved in running a

foreign operation (Evans et al., 2002). Of the three groups considered in this study, we expect

functional assignees to be the least driven by career development considerations.

The foregoing discussion supports the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a. Developmental assignees will have more career-oriented motivations

compared to executive assignees and executive assignees will have more career-

oriented motivations compared to functional assignees.

Hypothesis 1b. Developmental assignees will perceive the rewards for being on the

assignment to be higher compared to executive assignees and executive assignees will

perceive the rewards to be higher compared to functional assignees.

Hypothesis 1c. Developmental assignees will perceive the consequences for refusing

the assignment to be more negative compared to executive assignees and executive

assignees will perceive them to be more negative compared to functional assignees.

On the Assignment: Differences in Repatriation Concerns, Satisfaction with Company Support

and Perceived Future Opportunities

Since the three types of assignees are likely to differ in their motivations, career

consequences and perceived rewards for the international assignment, their psychological

contract can also be expected to differ. This has potentially important implications for

repatriation and retention. There is reason to believe that repatriation of developmental assignees

is, in some ways, easier than for the other two types of international assignees. These individuals

are on average relatively young, mobile, and have skills that are in high demand. They are thus

unlikely to be seen as being “hard to fit back into the company” (O’Boyle, 1989, p. B1). Also,

13

their next assignment is often known well in advance of the completion of the international

assignment, especially if the assignment is part of a formal management development or

succession-planning program, and the expatriate is well aware that he or she is being groomed

for a given position. Furthermore, developmental assignees are less likely to fall victim to the

“out-of-sight, out-of-mind” syndrome (Stahl et al., 2002) because the duration of their

assignments is limited and they remain in close contact with key people (e.g., mentors, superiors,

etc.) in the home organization. From the perspective of the individual, this significantly reduces

the amount of uncertainty and risk associated with the repatriation process. The same is true for

executive assignees because of their strategic significance to the organization and the high

visibility and administrative support they enjoy.

In contrast, functional assignees are generally less visible and enjoy less organizational

support for their assignments. They are often times less engaged in the company’s formal

leadership development and succession planning activities. While technical and functional

experts are needed throughout the organization and are in relatively high demand, there is a

significant risk that their knowledge and skills become obsolete or are no longer needed by the

time they approach the end of their international assignments (because of rapidly changing

technology, restructuring, etc.), thus making it difficult for the company to fit them back into the

organization (Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2001). Overall, we expect this group of international

assignees to be less satisfied with the company support during the assignment, more concerned

about the repatriation and less optimistic about their future career prospects within the

organization.

Hypothesis 2a. Executive assignees will be more satisfied with the company support

than developmental assignees and developmental assignees will be more satisfied than

functional assignees.

14

Hypothesis 2b. Functional assignees will be more concerned about repatriation than

executive assignees and developmental assignees.

Hypothesis 2c. Developmental assignees will be more optimistic about their career

prospects inside the company than executive assignees and executive assignees will be

more optimistic than functional assignees.

Remaining Upon Repatriation: Differences in Perceptions of Options and Turnover Intentions

Paradoxically, despite their organizationally-programmed career advancement opportunities

within their companies, developmental assignees may be the most likely to leave upon

repatriation. Developmental assignees, when repatriated, tend to be relatively young, high-

potential and (now) possess the international experience and other global competencies (e.g.,

cross-cultural knowledge, ability to speak a foreign language), making them more valuable and

sought out in the external labor market. As a group, they also know the value of their newly-

acquired skills. A large body of research (Bossard & Peterson, 2005; Lazarova & Cerdin,

forthcoming; Riusala & Suutari, 2000; Stahl et al., 2002; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Tung, 1998)

suggests that the vast majority of international assignees believe that demand for the skills they

have developed during their international assignments is high and that there are plenty of career

options available to them outside their companies (more than within their companies).

Although the availability of career options outside the company does not necessarily mean

that an individual will actually pursue them, the trends and changes in career perspectives

described in the preceding section make it likely that expatriates are vulnerable to turnover. A

“boundaryless” career orientation, which seems to have become the pattern for international

assignees (e.g., Inkson, Pringle, Arthur & Barry, 1997; Stahl et al., 2002; Tung, 1998), implies

that individuals will move from one company to another to pursue the best opportunities for their

professional growth and career advancement. This kind of “job-hopping” is common not only

15

among expatriates but among high demand professionals in general, such as management

consultants, accountants or information technology engineers (Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2001).

Consistent with this observation, Yan et al. (2002) have argued that when the psychological

contract is transactional, individuals may see an international assignment as a means to promote

their marketability. International assignees can get involved in activities such as cultivating local

networks that increase their attractiveness to future employers, jockeying between companies for

better job offers, or withholding strategic information from their company to increase their

bargaining power. A likely outcome of this scenario is that repatriates “betray” the company

upon repatriation by leaving to pursue better opportunities elsewhere. A shift away from mutual

loyalty to opportunism is particularly likely when the assignee’s relative bargaining power vis-à-

vis the organization increases. Yan et al.’s (2002) analysis suggests that increased marketability

and availability of career opportunities with other companies will motivate international

assignees to behave opportunistically, either by exiting from (i.e., quitting) or renegotiating the

existing exchange relationship (e.g., demanding a promotion).

This tendency is likely to be strongest in the group of developmental assignees. These

individuals, because of their age, high potential status and generally high marketability, are likely

to have the best career opportunities available outside their companies. Also, these individuals,

more so than others, tend to thrive on new challenges and learning and growth opportunities.

Finally, the high potential employees comprising this group tend to be very proactive in terms of

their career management strategies and behaviors (e.g., Bryan, Joyce & Weiss, 2006; Chambers

et al., 1998). Thus, the foregoing discussion suggests that turnover intentions are highest among

developmental assignees. Specifically, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3a: Developmental assignees will be more optimistic about their career

prospects outside the company than executive assignees and functional assignees.

16

Hypotheses 3b: Developmental assignees will be more willing to leave their company

after repatriation than executive assignees and functional assignees.

Understanding these variables and relationships is particularly important because factors such

as satisfaction with the company support, repatriation concerns and perceived career prospects

are likely to be predictive of turnover intentions.

Turnover Intentions: Differences in Predictors of Repatriate Retention

Several studies have investigated the factors that predict expatriate turnover intentions and

repatriate turnover rates (Adler, 1981; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001;

Stroh, 1995; Tung, 1998), though usually not across different types of international assignees.

Lazarova and Cerdin (forthcoming) provide an integrative framework that synthesizes our

current understanding of the antecedents and consequences of repatriation success from the

perspective of both the individual and the organization. They identified three sets of predictors of

repatriation outcomes: individual variables (e.g., demographic characteristics); environmental

variables (e.g., available employment opportunities in the home country); and organizational

variables (e.g., availability of repatriation support practices). Since the purpose of this paper is to

give practical recommendations on how companies that utilize international assignments as a

career development tool can address the turnover problem, we will focus on influences on

repatriate retention that are within the control of the organization. We propose that for

international assignees, two factors will play a key role in the decision to stay with the company

or quit: a) perceived company-provided support and effectiveness of the repatriation

management system; and b) perceived long-term career advancement and growth opportunities

within the company, relative to those available outside the company.

17

Of the many factors proposed to affect repatriate turnover, the one that consistently emerged

as the most important in empirical studies is the repatriate’s perception of how well the company

plans and manages the repatriation process (Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Feldman & Tompson,

1993; Stroh, 1995; Tung, 1998). This suggests that if potential repatriation problems are

considered, and effectively addressed, by the organization in advance, repatriate turnover will

occur less often. The underlying assumption here is that repatriates who perceive that they have

more support from their organization will be more committed to that organization – and will be

more likely to stay with it after repatriation (Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001). This is consistent with

equity theory, which suggests that when one party in an exchange relationship (e.g., the

organization) changes the inputs into the relationship (e.g., by not providing a challenging job

upon return), the other party (e.g., the repatriate) will also adjust inputs (e.g., by leaving the

organization) to maintain “equity” in the relationship (Stroh, 1995). Conversely, when the

company shows a strong commitment to the employee’s career development and offers adequate

support during the international assignment and upon repatriation, equity theory predicts that the

repatriate should be more willing to stay with the organization.

These ideas are very much in line with Yan et al.’s (2002) model of the role that

psychological contract fulfillment plays in the exchange relationship between the international

assignee and the organization. According to this model, any mismatch of the two parties’

expectations for an international assignment can result in assignment failure from the perspective

of the organization (e.g., repatriate turnover) or the individual (e.g., career derailment). They

argue that organization-individual alignment is a dynamic process, as changes in the individual,

organization, and environment can occur during the assignment. For example, the company may

involuntarily commit opportunism as a consequence of changes in the business environment,

18

such as restructuring or a merger. As a result, an international assignee’s former job may be cut

due to a cost reduction effort, or his or her contact with a mentor in the home organization might

be lost so that the individual falls “out of the loop” on key decisions on career planning back

home. Thus, the original match in loyalty expectations falls apart. Conversely, a company may

wish to have a continuing relationship with an international assignee because he or she has

acquired valuable skills and is seen as having high potential. The company may thus offer career

advancement opportunities and other incentives to induce the employee to stay. Yan et al.’s

(2002) analysis of the social exchange relationship between the international assignee and the

organization suggests that the expatriation and repatriation experiences are inherently related.

They argue that “success in repatriation is determined not only by organizational arrangements

made at the individual’s reentry but also by the extent to which such arrangements are in

accordance with the individual’s expectations in the expatriation stage” (p. 373).

This is consistent with studies that have found that the availability of organizational support

and career development programs during the international assignment is an important factor in

assignees’ decision to quit. For example, several studies have shown that expatriates who see a

strong connection between their international assignments and their long-term career paths are

more likely to complete their assignments successfully and to stay with the company upon

repatriation (Feldman & Thomas, 1992; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Stroh, 1995). However, it is

important to note that the key issue here is the international assignee’s perception about the

availability and effectiveness of the company’s support and career development systems. The

results of a study of repatriates from North-American companies by Lazarova and Caligiuri

(2001) show that it is the repatriates’ subjective perceptions of their organization’s support,

19

rather than an objective assessment of whether certain practices are useful, that has a greater

influence on whether they will remain with the organization upon repatriation.

Collectively, these arguments support the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4a: Satisfaction with the company support during the international

assignment is negatively related to turnover intentions among international assignees.

Hypotheses 4b: Concerns about how the company manages the repatriation process

are positively related to turnover intentions among international assignees.

Although the availability of company-provided support and effective repatriation practices

are likely to influence turnover intentions, organizations should expect some natural attrition

from international assignees – as they would from other high demand professionals (Caligiuri &

Lazarova, 2001). In some cases, even with the best possible international assignment policies and

repatriation program, companies will not be able to retain certain repatriates. This may be the

case, for example, with a project manager who identifies with the project he or she is currently

working on, regardless of the employer, and who will move on to the best available next project

after completing the international assignment (Yan et al., 2002). In cases where the international

assignment helped assignees to increase their marketability, they may be leaving to pursue more

lucrative and challenging opportunities elsewhere. Thus, “retention upon repatriation may not

necessarily be determined by repatriates’ frustration, but rather by a rational choice to move

elsewhere in search of a better career fit” (Lazarova & Cerdin, forthcoming, p. 9).

Hypotheses 4c: The greater the perceived gap between the career advancement

opportunities offered within the company and those available outside the company the

more willing to leave are international assignees.

Our final set of hypotheses addresses how the antecedents of turnover intentions may differ

across the three types of international assignees. It is important to note that the fact that a specific

20

group of assignees is more or less satisfied with the company support, more or less concerned

about the repatriation, or more or less optimistic about the future career prospects within the

organization does not necessarily mean that these variables are stronger or weaker predictors of

turnover intentions for this particular group. In predicting turnover intentions, it is important to

consider an individual’s satisfaction with the company support, repatriation concerns and

perceived career opportunities inside the company in relation to the career options that are

available to the individual outside the company. For example, functional assignees, for the

reasons discussed above (e.g., less support, partly obsolete knowledge and skills, less demand for

the skills they have developed abroad), may be the least satisfied and have the greatest

repatriation concerns among the three groups, but since they have fewer career options outside

their companies, these concerns may not readily translate into higher turnover intentions. By

contrast, executive and developmental assignees who are unhappy with how their companies

manage the expatriation or repatriation process might be willing to leave as they feel they have

attractive career options available outside the company. Developmental assignees, in particular,

may be quick to leave if they perceive a gap between the career advancement opportunities

offered within the company and those available outside the company, as these assignees tend to

be more open to new challenges and guided by personal career objectives.

These arguments lead to our final set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5a: In predicting turnover intentions, satisfaction with company support

and repatriation concerns will be less closely associated with turnover intentions for

functional assignees compared to executive and developmental assignees.

Hypotheses 5b: In predicting turnover intentions, a perceived gap between the career

advancement opportunities offered within the company and those available outside the

company will be more closely associated with turnover intentions for developmental

assignees compared to executive and functional assignees.

21

Method

Sample

To test the hypotheses, we surveyed international assignees of five nationalities (German,

French, US, Singaporean, Japanese) in 93 countries. A sample of 1,779 international assignees

from 141 multinational corporations participated in this study. 33 companies were German-

based, 20 were French-based, 32 were US-based, 31 were Singapore-based, and 25 were Japan-

based. The companies represented a variety of industries, including electronics, automotive,

chemicals, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, telecommunications, airlines, and financial

services. A broad representation of different industries, countries of origin and countries of

assignment was preferred over a more narrow range of industries and countries to enhance the

generalizability of findings.

Procedure

Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire which had been developed after an

extensive review of the expatriate career literature. The English version of the questionnaire that

was used in the survey of US and Singaporean expatriates was translated into French, German

and Japanese and was back-translated into English based on methodological guidelines provided

by Brislin (1986). Request for participation in the questionnaire survey was made directly to

expatriates, as well as through HR professionals in charge of managing expatriate assignments.

The completed questionnaires were returned to one of the authors to ensure confidentiality of

responses. The response rates for the German, French, US, Singaporean and Japanese samples

were 46 percent, 38 percent, 34 percent, 50 percent, and 39 percent respectively.

Table 1 shows the demographic profiles of the three groups of international assignees. The

typical respondent in this survey was a college-educated male, married, occupying a managerial

22

position, had been on the international assignment for less than two years, and had a career

emphasis that was either on international assignments or a mixture of domestic and international

responsibilities. The group of functional assignees was comprised of individuals who had been

sent abroad for various reasons (e.g., knowledge transfer, coordination and control, etc.) but for

whom learning and development was not a stated goal of the assignment. These individuals

could be from all levels within the organization except senior management. The executive

category included international assignees who held senior management positions, as defined by

their companies. The group of developmental assignees was comprised of employees who were

under 40 years of age and had been sent on the international assignment to gain exposure and

experience for future positions either within the parent company or within foreign operations. As

indicated by Table 1, this group consisted of a relatively greater percentage of assignees who

were single and without children, a smaller percentage of assignees who had been on the

assignment for more than two years, and was on average more junior and less internationally

experienced. Interestingly, this group consisted of a significantly larger percentage of females

compared to the other groups of assignees.

________________

Insert Table 1 here ________________

Measures

Perceived rewards for international assignment. This variable was measured with a 4-item

scale which ranged from 1 to 5, where 1= very little extent, 3= neutral, 5= very great extent. A

sample item is “In your opinion, to what extent does your company reward its employees for

developing an international perspective?”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was α = .79.

23

Perceived negative consequences. To examine the extent to which refusal of the

international assignment would have lead to negative consequences, we asked respondents to

select from a list of six possible negative consequences those that applied to them. The

instruction read, “In your opinion, what would be some of the negative consequences if you had

refused the international assignment?”. An example of a negative consequence is: “The timing of

future promotions would have been slowed”.

Motives for accepting the assignment. To examine what motivated respondents to accept

an international assignment, we asked them to select their five most important considerations in

the decision to accept the assignment out of a list of twelve possible considerations and to rank

order them in terms of importance, with l = least important and 5 = most important. The list

contained both intrinsic and extrinsic motives identified in the expatriation literature, for

example, “Personal challenge” (intrinsic) or “Future opportunities for career advancement”

(extrinsic).

Satisfaction with company support. This variable was measured with a 5-item scale which

ranged from 1 to 5, where 1= highly dissatisfied, 3= neutral, 5= highly satisfied. A sample item

is “How satisfied are you/were you with your company’s support concerning the pre-departure

preparation for the requirements of your new job?”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was α = .78.

Repatriation concerns. The variable was measured with a 4-item scale ranging from 1 to 5,

where 1= highly concerned, 3= neutral, 5= not concerned. A sample item is “How concerned are

you about limited opportunities for using your newly acquired knowledge and skills upon

repatriation?”. The items in this scale were reverse coded. Cronbach’s alpha was α = .76.

Perceived career opportunities. Single items measured the perceived career advancement

opportunities within the company and outside the company. The scale ranged from 1 to 5, where

24

1= highly unlikely, 3= neutral, 5= highly likely. The item measuring career advancement

opportunities within the company read, “In your opinion, what is the likelihood that successful

performance in your current international assignment will advance your career within your

company?”. The item measuring career advancement opportunities outside the company read,

“In your opinion, what is the likelihood that successful performance in your current international

assignment will be important to your career opportunities among other possible employers?”. To

assess the extent to which a gap exists between the perceived career advancement opportunities

within and outside the company, a new variable was created by computing the difference

between the two scores. A positive score indicates better perceived career advancement

opportunities with other companies than inside the respondent’s own company.

Turnover intentions. A single item measured respondents’ turnover intentions. The scale

ranged from 1 to 5, where 1= highly willing, 3= neutral, 5= highly unwilling. The item read,

“Are you willing to leave your company for a better job in another firm?”. The item was reverse

coded.

Moderator. To test for the moderating effects of assignee type, we created two dummy

variables, Assignee type 1 and Assignee type 2. Functional assignees were coded 0 for Assignee

type 1 and 1 for Assignee type 2. Developmental assignees were coded 1 for Assignee type 1 and

0 for Assignee type 2. Executive assignees were coded 0 for Assignee type 1 and 0 for Assignee

type 2.

Control variables. Since there is evidence that expatriate turnover intentions may be

affected by environmental variables, such as available employment opportunities in the home

country (Lazarova & Cerdin forthcoming), we controlled for country of origin effects, as well as

individual-level variables that may potentially affect turnover intentions. Dummy variables were

25

created to control for respondents’ nationality. Other control variables included: age (in years);

gender (male, female); position level (senior management, middle management, lower

management, other professional positions); tenure (in years); and time on the current

international assignment (in years).

Results

Differences across Different Types of International Assignees

Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 1c suggest that the three types of international assignees are likely to

vary in their motivations for accepting an international assignment, their expected rewards for

completing it successfully and their perceptions of negative consequences for refusing it.

Specifically, we predicted that developmental assignees will have more career-oriented

motivations, perceive the rewards for being on an international assignment to be higher, and

perceive the consequences for refusing the assignment to be more negative compared to

executive assignees and functional assignees. The latter group was hypothesized to be the least

motivated by career development considerations, to be the most skeptical that international

experience will be rewarded by the company, and to expect the fewest negative consequences for

refusing the assignment among the three groups. To test these hypotheses, we examined whether

the mean scores on these variables differed significantly across the different types of assignees.

As predicted, the results presented in Figure 1 indicate that professional growth and career

advancement opportunities played a more important role for developmental assignees in their

decision to accept an international assignment compared to both executive and functional

assignees. Contrary to our expectations, executive assignees do not seem to be more motivated

by career development considerations than functional assignees. Executive assignees’ primary

motivation for accepting the assignment was the importance of the job itself.

26

_________________

Insert Figure 1 here _________________

With regard to the perceived rewards for completing the international assignment

successfully, the findings suggest that both developmental assignees and executive assignees

perceive the rewards to be significantly higher compared to functional assignees, thus providing

some support for Hypothesis 1b. Figure 2 illustrates the perceived negative consequences for

refusing an international assignment across the three groups. As hypothesized, developmental

assignees, more so than executive and functional assignees, expected a variety of negative

consequences if they had refused the international assignment.

_________________

Insert Figure 2 here _________________

Hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c suggest that the three groups of international assignees differ in a

number of psychological contract dimensions that are likely to affect their turnover intentions.

Overall, the results presented in Figure 3 provide only mixed support for our hypotheses. As

predicted, executive assignees expressed the greatest satisfaction with the support received

during their international assignment among the three groups. Developmental and functional

assignees did not differ in terms of their satisfaction with the company support. With regard to

repatriation concerns, contrary to our expectation that functional assignees would be more

concerned about the repatriation than executive and developmental assignees, the mean

differences among the three groups were non-significant. As predicted, developmental assignees

were significantly more optimistic about their future career prospects inside the organization

compared to executive assignees, who, in turn, were more optimistic than functional assignees.

27

________________

Insert Figure 3 here ________________

Our previous analysis suggests that despite the positive assessment of their career prospects

inside the company, developmental assignees are the most vulnerable to turnover among the

three groups. Consistent with Hypothesis 3a, the results suggest that developmental assignees are

more optimistic about their career prospects outside the company than executive assignees or

functional assignees. Also, as illustrated by Figure 4, the developmental assignees expressed a

greater willingness to quit compared to the other two groups. When asked whether they would be

willing to leave their company for a better job in another company, almost one-half of the

respondents in the developmental assignee group indicated that they were willing to do so and

less than a quarter of them indicated that they were unwilling. In the group of executive

assignees, the proportion of respondents who indicated that they were unwilling to leave was

greater than of those who considered leaving the company. Functional assignees fell in between

these two groups in terms of their turnover intentions. Collectively, these results provide strong

support for Hypothesis 3b.

________________

Insert Figure 4 here ________________

Predictors of Turnover Intentions

Given the high vulnerability to turnover among all three groups, what are the factors that

influence international assignee turnover intentions? We hypothesized that two sets of

organizational-level variables are likely to play a key role in the decision to stay or quit: the

perceived company-provided support and effectiveness of the repatriation management system,

28

as well as the perceived career advancement opportunities within the company relative to those

available outside the company. To examine the predictors of international assignee turnover

intentions, we conducted a moderated regression analysis. In the first step, gender, tenure with

the current firm, time on the international assignment, and the respondent nationality dummy

variables were entered to control for individual-level differences and country-of-origin effects. In

the second step, the hypothesized predictors of turnover intentions were entered, along with the

assignee type x predictor interaction terms. This was done to test whether the predictors of

turnover intentions differ across the three types of international assignees.

The findings presented in Table 2 suggest that both sets of predictors matter. While

satisfaction with the company support during the assignment was negatively associated with

turnover intentions, repatriation concerns and a perceived gap between career advancement

opportunities available within and outside the company were positively related to intention to

leave. Furthermore, there is evidence that the antecedents of turnover intentions may differ

across different types of international assignees. As indicated by the significant interaction terms

in Table 2, both satisfaction with company support and repatriation concerns were found to be

less closely associated with turnover intentions for functional assignees compared to executive

and developmental assignees. No evidence was found for a moderating effect of international

assignee type on the relationship between turnover intentions and perceived gap between the

career advancement opportunities offered inside and outside the company.

________________

Insert Table 2 here ________________

29

Discussion

Key Findings and Implications for Research

The results of this study extend our understanding of international assignments as they relate

to the talent management strategies of multinational companies. The results also raise some

important questions that need to be answered and offer directions for future research. Supporting

the differentiation of international assignment categories, the results suggest that, depending on

the type of assignment, assignees differ in their reasons for accepting (and not accepting) the

assignment, their satisfaction with company support and perceived future opportunities.

Across all three types of assignees, turnover intentions were high. When asked whether they

would be willing to leave their company for a better job in another firm, between one-third and

one-half of respondents indicated that they were considering leaving the company and an

additional one-quarter of respondents said they were undecided, meaning that they could be

persuaded to leave with an attractive job offer. While it is true that some repatriate turnover is

expected, in most cases, repatriate turnover is dysfunctional because it inflicts a costly expense in

terms of time, money, and human capital (Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2001; Stahl et al., 2002). Also,

since international assignees acquire valuable tacit knowledge, global coordination capabilities,

and social capital during their assignments, opportunities for reverse knowledge transfer,

organizational learning and global integration of activities are often lost (Downes & Thomas,

1999; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). Finally, high turnover rates among repatriates may discourage

other employees – especially those designated as high potentials – from accepting an

international assignment for fear that it may result in a negative career move (Tung, 1988).

This study found that professional growth and career advancement opportunities played a

more important role for developmental assignees in their decision to accept an international

30

assignment compared to both executive and functional assignees. An interesting finding that

emerged from this analysis is that for developmental assignees, monetary considerations seem to

play a less critical role in their decision to accept an international assignment compared to

executive and functional assignees. Future studies should examine the extent to which the met

expectations between expatriates’ reasons for accepting an international assignment and their

experiences while on assignment affect the repatriation retention.

With regard to the perceived rewards for completing the international assignment

successfully, the findings suggest that both developmental assignees and executive assignees

perceive the rewards to be significantly higher compared to functional assignees. In interpreting

this finding, it is important to note that the “perceived rewards” measure used in this study does

not capture the extent to which respondents expect to be personally rewarded for pursuing an

international assignment. Rather, this scale was designed to measure whether respondents

believe that they are working for a company that rewards international experience and

encourages employees to accept an international assignment. Future studies should examine the

perception of personal rewards and actual rewards on the outcome of the assignment.

Developmental assignees, more so than executive and functional assignees, expected a

variety of negative consequences if they had refused the international assignment. While

executive assignees indicated that refusal of the international assignment would have limited

their future career advancement opportunities, technical and functional assignees seemed to be

more concerned that refusal might have tarnished their professional reputation. It would be

interesting for future research to examine the accuracy of these beliefs at the company level.

As predicted, executive assignees expressed the greatest satisfaction with the support

received during the international assignment among the three groups. Given that companies often

31

offer greater support to more senior executives, this is not surprising. Future studies should

examine whether the variance in support will affect expatriates willingness to remain with the

firm in a way that suggests a greater investment in expatriate support practices. With regard to

repatriation concerns, contrary to our expectation that functional assignees would be more

concerned about their repatriation than executive and developmental assignees, the three groups

were comparable. From a strategic perspective, future research should examine ways to alleviate

repatriation concerns among the groups most critical for the future growth of firms – the

developmental and executive assignees.

As predicted, developmental assignees were considerably more optimistic about their future

career prospects inside the organization compared to executive assignees and functional

assignees. Our previous analysis suggests that despite the positive assessment of their career

prospects inside the company, developmental assignees are the most vulnerable to turnover

among the three groups. This prediction is based on the fact that these individuals, due to their

age, high potential status and generally high marketability, are likely to have plenty – and in

many cases better – career advancement opportunities available outside the company.

Developmental assignees are more optimistic about their career prospects outside the company

and express a greater willingness to quit compared to the other two groups. Not surprisingly, this

study further found that satisfaction with the company support during the international

assignment was negatively associated with turnover intentions and repatriation concerns and a

perceived gap between career advancement opportunities available within and outside the

company was positively related to intention to leave. The different types of assignments are

important with respect to predicting turnover intentions. Both satisfaction with company support

and repatriation concerns were found to be less closely associated with turnover intentions for

32

the group of functional assignees compared to executive and developmental assignees. Future

studies should examine the full array of predictors (e.g., individual level and job market)

suggested by Lazarova and Cerdin (forthcoming) to predict repatriation turnover.

Managerial Implications

This study has several practical implications, especially with respect to the way in which

expatriates are managed. From the organization’s point of view, employees who have been

posted abroad for leadership development purposes and career enhancement – the focal group for

this study – are presumably most important to retain. These assignees are often groomed for

higher-level positions within the global organization, and retaining them is critical to the

company’s leadership development and succession planning efforts (Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2001;

Evans et al., 2002). Although these individuals are usually not sent solely for developmental

purposes, the nature of their assignments means that by the end of their stints abroad they have

acquired knowledge, skills and social capital that make them valuable assets to their companies.

An international assignment of this type represents a significant human capital investment, and

turnover upon repatriation is seriously detrimental not only to the company’s leadership

development and succession planning activities, but to its entire globalization efforts. Yet, as this

study has shown, these developmental assignees are most likely to defect upon repatriation. By

enabling high potential employees to acquire international experience and other transferable –

and tradable – skills, companies are automatically making them more valuable for the external

labor market.

How can companies that utilize international assignments as a career development tool

address the turnover problem and make sure that both the individual and the organization will

benefit from the experience? In terms of company support and career development programs, the

33

notion of integrating international assignments with long-term career development seems to be

the most critical variable in facilitating repatriation success. In a study by Stahl et al. (2002), of

the more than 200 expatriates who indicated that they perceived a discrepancy between the

company’s stated internationalization goals and its actual international assignment policies and

practices, over half said they did so because of a lack of long-term career planning. In this study,

of the various aspects of the expatriation and repatriation process examined, respondents

expressed by far the greatest dissatisfaction with the long-range planning of the repatriation.

There are various career development and repatriation practices that can assist companies in

the successful career-pathing and repatriation of international assignees, including managing

assignees’ career expectations, providing career-path information, organizing participation in

networking activities that allow assignees to stay in touch with key people in the home

organization, providing ongoing coaching or mentoring, and improving expatriates’ career self-

management skills (e.g., Lazarova and Caligiuri, 2001; Mendenhall et al., 2002; Selmer, 1999).

However, most importantly, senior management must aggressively – and credibly – demonstrate

that it values international expertise, and that such experience will enhance one’s career

advancement and prestige within the organization. In a study of the antecedents of turnover

intentions among repatriates, Lazarova and Caligiuri (2001) found that rather than choosing any

specific type of repatriation assistance, repatriates rated visible signs that the company values

overseas experience and that international expertise is beneficial to one’s career as the most

important elements in the IHRM system. Unfortunately, only a minority of assignees surveyed in

this study felt that their international experience was appreciated by their companies.

While well-designed career development and support programs can assist in the effective

repatriation and retention of managers after an international assignment, it is clear that in some

34

cases, even with the best possible international assignment policies and repatriation practices,

companies will not be able to retain certain repatriates. In cases where international assignees

have acquired valuable new skills during their assignments, increased their marketability and

gained a new perspective on life, they may be leaving for both motivational and monetary

reasons to pursue other opportunities that help them achieve their personal growth and career

goals (Harvey, 1982). As Lazarova and Cerdin (forthcoming) have pointed out, in an era of

diminished trust between employers and employees, with “boundaryless” careers on the rise,

why should companies expect repatriates to stay with them if better career opportunities are

available elsewhere? From this perspective it is arguable whether organizations lose repatriates

because they are not providing enough support. Rather, repatriates may be leaving to pursue

other opportunities that help them achieve their professional growth and career goals.

In conclusion, given the rise of globalization and the dynamic changes occurring within the

global economy, international experience is becoming a critical asset for global organizations.

International assignment experience is valuable and hard to imitate. In the right context, it can

create competitive advantage – both for the individuals and for the companies that employ them.

In order to be able to capitalize on their repatriates' skills and knowledge, multinational

companies will need to cultivate the appropriate corporate culture, support practices and talent

management program to value international experience among repatriates. Going forward, to be

successful, global firms will need to develop repatriation systems which align the MNC’s and the

repatriate’s interests, expectations, and competencies – with their global business strategies.

35

References

Adler, N.J. (1981). Re-entry: Managing cross-cultural transitions. Group and Organizational

Studies, 6, 341-356.

Adler, N.J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Cincinnati:

South-Western College Publishing.

Altman, B.W., & Post, J.E. (1996). Beyond the "social contract": An analysis of the executive

view at twenty-five large companies. In D.T. Hall & Associates, The Career is dead ─ Long

live the career: 46-71, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Arthur, M.B., & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment

principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baruch, Y. (2002). No such thing as global manager. Business Horizons, 45(1), 36–42.

Baruch, Y. (2004). Tranforming careers: from linear to multidirectional career paths. Career

development International, 9 (1), 58-73.

Baruch, Y., Steele, D.J., & Quantrill, G.A. (2002). Management of expatriation and repatriation

for novice global player. International Journal of Manpower, 23(7), 659-671.

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

and spouse repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(4), 671-694.

Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B., & Mendenhall, M.E. (1992). Global assignments: Successfully

expatriating and repatriating international managers (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B., Mendenhall, M.E., & Stroh, L.K. (1999). Globalizing people

through international assignments. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Bossard, A.B., & Peterson, R.B. (2005). The repatriate experience as seen by American

expatriates. Journal of World Business, 40(1), 9-28.

Brewster, C., & Suutari, V. (2005). Global HRM: Aspects of a research agenda. Personnel

Review, 34(1), 5-21.

Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J.

W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137-164. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Bryan, L., Joyce, C., & Weiss, L. (2006). Making a market in talent. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 98-

109.

Business Week (2006). Get ready for a pickier workforce. September 18, 2006.

36

Caligiuri, P.M. & Colakoglu, S. (in press). A strategic contingency approach to expatriate

assignment management. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(4).

Caligiuri, P.M., & Lazarova, M.B. (2001). Strategic repatriation policies to enhance global

leadership development. In M.E. Mendenhall, T.M. Kühlmann & G.K. Stahl (Eds.): 243-256,

Developing global business leaders. Westport: Quorum.

Chambers, E.G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S.M., & Michaels, E.G. (1998). The

War for talent. McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 44-57.

DePhilippi, R.J. & Arthur, M.B. (1996). Boundaryless contexts and careers: A competency-

based perspective. In M.B. Arthur & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new

employment principle for a new organizational era: 116-131. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Downes, M., & Thomas, A.S. (1999). Managing overseas assignments to build organizational

knowledge. Human Resource Planning, 22(4), 33-48.

Edström, A., & Galbraith, J.R. (1977). Transfer of managers as a coordination and control

strategy in multinational organizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 22, 248-263.

Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J.-L. (2002). The global challenge: Frameworks for

international human resource management. McGraw-Hill.

Feldman, D.C., & Thomas, D.C. (1992). Career management issues facing expatriates. Journal of

International Business Studies, 23, 271-294.

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(3), 507-529.

Hall, D.T., editor. (1996). The Career Is Dead--Long Live the Career: A Relational Approach to

Careers (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

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.

Harvey, M.G. (1982). The other side of foreign assignments: Dealing with the repatriation

dilemma. Columbia Journal of World Business, 17(1), 53-59.

Harvey, M.G., & Novicevic, M.M. (2006).The evolution from repatriation of managers in MNEs

to ‘patriation’ in global organizations. In G. K. Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of

37

research in international human resource management (pp. 323-343). London: Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Inkson, K., Pringle, J., Arthur, M.B., & Barry, S. (1997). Expatriate assignment versus overseas

experience: Contrasting models of international human resource development. Journal of

World Business, 32, 351-368.

Lawler, E. E. (2003). What it means to treat people right. Ivey Business Journal, Nov/Dec 2003.

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

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

Lazarova, M.B., & Cerdin, J.-L. (forthcoming) Revisiting repatriation concerns: organizational

support vs. career and contextual influences. Journal of International Business Studies.

Lazarova, M.B., & Tarique, I. (2005) Knowledge transfer upon repatriation. Journal of World

Business, 40(4), 361-373.

McCall, M.W., & Hollenbeck, G.P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of

international experience. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

O’Boyle, T.F. (1989). Grappling with the expatriate issue: Little benefit to careers seen in

foreign stints. The Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B4, December 11.

Parker, P., & Inkson, K. (1999). New forms of career: The challenge to human resource man-

agement. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 37, 76-85.

Pucik, V. (1992). Globalization and human resource management. In V. Pucik, N. Tichy, & C.

Barnett (Eds.). Globalizing management: creating and leading the competitive organization:

61-84. New York: Wiley.

Riusala, K., & Suutari, V. (2000). Expatriation and careers: Perspectives of expatriates and

spouses. Career Development International, 5(2), 81-90.

Roberts, K., Kossek, E.E., & Ozeki, C. (1998) Managing the global workforce: Challenges and

strategies. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 93-106.

Rousseau, D.M., & Schalk, R. (2000). Psychological contract in employment: cross-national

perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage.

Schein, E.H. (1996) Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the 21st

century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 80-88.

Selmer, J. (1999). Corporate expatriate career development. Journal of International

Management, 5, 55-71.

38

Stahl, G. K. (2006). Talent management in global corporations. Paper presented at the

conference Managing Human Resources in a Global Context, Judge Business School,

University of Cambridge, December 5-6, 2006.

Stahl, G.K., Miller, E., & Tung, R. (2002). Toward the boundaryless career: A closer look at the

expatriate career concept and the perceived implications of an international assignment.

Journal of World Business, 37, 216-227.

Stroh, L.K., (1995). Predicting turnover among repatriates: Can organizations affect retention

rates? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(2), 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(2), 111-124.

Suutari, V. (2003). Global managers: Career orientation, career tracks, life-style implications and

career commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(3), p185-207.

Suutari, V., & Brewster, C. (2003). Repatriation: Empirical evidence from a longitudinal study

of careers and expectations among Finnish expatriates. International Human Resource

Management, 11(7), 1132-1152.

Thomas, D.C., Lazarova, M.B., & Inkson, K. (2005). Global careers: New phenomenon or new

perspectives? Journal of World Business, 40, 340-347.

Tung, R.L. (1998). American expatriates abroad: From neophytes to cosmopolitans. Journal of

World Business, 33, 125-144.

Tung, R.L. (1988). Career issues in international assignments. Academy of Management

Executive, 2(3), 241-244.

Yan, A., Zhu, G. & Hall, D.T. (2002). International assignment for career building: A model of

agency relationships and psychological contracts. Academy of Management Review, 27,

373-391.

Yeung, A.K., Ready, D.A. (1995). Developing leadership capabilities of global corporations: A

comparative study in eight nations. Human Resource Management, 34(4), 529-547.

39

FIGURE 11 Motives for Accepting an International Assignment Across Three Types of International

Assignees

FIGURE 22 Perceived Negative Consequences for Refusing an International Assignment Across Three

Types of International Assignees

1 The results of the significance tests can be obtained from the second author. 2 The results of the significance tests can be obtained from the second author.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

MonetaryConsiderations

Family considerations

Professionaldevelopment

Personalchallenge

Importance of the job

Future advancement opportunities

Mean

Functional Developmental Executive

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Slow Down Future

Promotions

Reduction ofRewards

No FutureInternationalAssignments

Limit CareerOpportunities

Tarnish My Professional

Image

Negative Consequences,but don't know

what

Mean


40

FIGURE 33 Psychological Contract Dimensions Across Three Types of International Assignees

FIGURE 4 Willingness to Leave across Three Types of International Assignees

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Highly unwilling Unwilling Neutral Willingly Highly willing

Perc

enta

ge


3 The results of the significance tests can be obtained from the second author.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction with Company Support

RepatriationConcerns

Inside CareerOpportunities

Outside CareerOpportunities

Turnover Intentions


Mean

41

TABLE 1 Demographic profilesa

Percentage

Demographic variables Functional Assignees (N=544)

Developmental Assignees (N=493)

Executive Assignees (N=449)

Position level Senior management 0 0 100.0 Middle management 48.9 43.2 0 Lower management 29.6 31.0 0 Others 21.5 25.8 0

Company objective of international assignment b

Gain experience and acquire skills for future positions within headquarters 0 83.6 34.3

Gain experience and acquire skills forfuture positions within foreign operations 0 65.9 26.1

Investigate subsidiary’s potential for expansion and profit 17.1 17.0 32.3

Coordinate subsidiary’s activities with overall activity of corporation 45.0 52.5 57.7

Ensure that headquarters’ policies are carried out locally 44.5 51.9 61.5

Conduct transactions for subsidiary and corporation as a whole 18.0 13.6 23.2

Transfer of technical, administrative or management know-how 53.1 56.1 51.9

Improve communication between headquarters and subsidiary 38.2 57.6 49.0

Age

20 – 29 years old 7.2 18.3 0 30 – 39 years old 50.3 81.7 29.9 40 – 49 years old 27.9 0 41.7 > 50 years old 14.6 0 25.1

Marital status

Single 21.3 31.0 13.0 Married/Living with someone 78.7 69.0 87.0

Has children

Yes 65.1 45.8 81.8 No 34.9 54.2 18.2

42

Gender

Male 89.4 85.6 96.2 Female 10.6 14.4 3.8

Educational level Non-degree holder 32.8 24.1 29.2 Degree holder 67.2 75.9 70.8

Previous international assignment experience

Yes 50.7 42.5 65.7 No 49.3 57.5 34.3

Career emphasis

Domestic operations 12.6 8.2 6.0 Mixture of domestic & international assignments 55.6 60.8 49.0

International assignments/responsibilities 31.8 31.0 45.0

Nationality German 35.7 38.1 30.1 Singaporean 12.3 13.8 19.4 French 23.0 26.6 21.8 American 12.7 10.8 12.7 Japanese 16.4 10.8 16.0

Time on current assignment < 1 year 29.8 35.4 27.5 1 – 2 years 41.4 45.2 36.2 > 3 years 28.8 19.4 36.3

a Due to missing data and the fact that some respondents cannot be categorized into one of the three types of assignees, the total usable sample size of this study is 1486. b Respondents were instructed to indicate multiple company objectives for sending them on their current international assignment.

43

TABLE 2

Moderated Regression of Predicting Turnover Intentions among International Assignees

Independent variable Beta Step 1: Control Variables

Gender -.05 Nationality dummy 1 -.05 Nationality dummy 2 -.12*** Nationality dummy 3 -.07* Nationality dummy 4 .03 Tenure -.13*** Years on current assignment .04 ∆R2 .04

Step 2: Main effects and moderators

Satisfaction with company support -.25*** Repatriation concerns .13** Perceived gap between within and outside company career advancement opportunities

.16**

Assignee type 1 x Satisfaction with company support .10 Assignee type 2 x Satisfaction with company support .15* Assignee type 1 x Repatriation concerns .01 Assignee type 2 x Repatriation concerns -.18* Assignee type 1 x Perceived gap between within and outside company career advancement opportunities

-.01

Assignee type 2 x Perceived gap between within and outside company career advancement opportunities

.03

∆R2 .12

Overall R .39 Overall R2 .15 Overall adjusted R2 .14 Overall F 14.76***

Note. N = 1370 *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Europe Campus Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France Tel: +33 (0)1 6072 40 00 Fax: +33 (0)1 60 74 00/01 Asia Campus 1 Ayer Rajah Avenue, Singapore 138676 Tel: +65 67 99 53 88 Fax: +65 67 99 53 99 www.insead.edu

Date post:	09-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

International Assignments as a Career Development Tool: Factors Affecting Turnover Intentions Among...

Documents