Page 111 - DMGT548_GLOBAL_HRM

Global HRM

Notes and performance in the international assignment would result in career
advancement. When the expected promotion does not eventuate, the repatriate
may feel there is no option but to leave the organisation.
(ii) Re-entry position: Fears surrounding future employment and career
development can materialise. Peers are promoted ahead of the repatriated
manager, and the repatriate sometimes is placed in a position that is, in effect,
a demotion. The situation may be exacerbated if the repatriate had held a
senior position in the foreign location and now finds himself at a less senior
level. As a consequence, the re-entry position is frequently judged by whether
it matches the repatriate’s career expectation, particularly when the
international assignment has caused considerable family disruption, such as
forced break in the career of the accompanying partner or difficulties
experienced with the education of the children involved.

(iii) Devaluing the overseas experience: Career progression is important but to be
promoted upon re-entry signifies that international experience is important
and valued by the organisation. Career anxiety is compounded if the re-entry
position does not appear to be connected with the person’s international
experience. Repatriates find themselves in ‘holding’ positions, such as a task
force or project team, in temporary positions, engaged in duties that do not
appear to exploit their newly gained, international expertise.
The perceived degrading of the repatriate’s recent experience may be coupled
with negative career progression. The re-entry position is a less challenging
job with reduced responsibility and status than that held either during the
international assignment or prior to the period abroad. This combination can
have a demotivating effect on the repatriate, as well as affect the multinational’s
ability to attract potential expatriates.

(c) Coping with new role demands: Re-entry poses a challenge for the repatriate and
frequently reveals a mismatch of expectations which affect the repatriate’s perception
of the new role, especially if an anticipated promotion doesn’t materialise. Effective
role behaviour is an interaction between the concept of the role, the interpretation
of the expectations, the person’s ambitions, and the norms inherent in the role.
Readjustment problems occur because, although the repatriate is attempting to
function back in the home country, his role conception remains influenced by that of
the foreign assignment. While the repatriate may retain the role conception, and the
cultural norms regarding behaviour appropriate to that role, the foreign subsidiary’s
influence may linger. As shown by the broken line between the role sender and role
recipient boxes at the top, there is a ‘corporate boundary’ to be crossed in the
communication of the role conception between the role recipient (the repatriate)
and the role sender (the home company). The role sender may not recognise the
cultural and corporate boundaries that affect the repatriate’s role conception and
role behaviour, and thus unwittingly contribute to readjustment problems.

Example: An American working in Indonesia may have altered his participative
managerial style to one more authoritarian based on message sent by the foreign subsidiary, or
it could be that the time in the Indonesian subsidiary has repatriate does not resume the
managerial behaviour appropriate to the U.S. context upon return.
The elements of the repatriate’s role as a focus for a discussion of the readjustment
issues related to role behaviour are shown in the Figure 6.3:

106 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY