Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1987; Harvey, 1982; Kendall, 1981). They feel that
the organization unfairly ignores their global competence. Indeed, a recent
study indicated that fewer than 40 per cent of repatriates had the opportunity
to utilize their international experience upon returning to their home coun-
try (Black et al., 1992a). Often, due to poor career planning, repatriates are
placed in a ‘holding pattern’ – being assigned jobs that are available, without
regard to the individual’s abilities,qualifications, and needs (Baughn, 1995;
Harvey, 1982, 1989). Many repatriates report that, upon return, they are
offered a limited number of career choices and are rarely considered for pro-
motions – which makes them feel that they have been removed from the
mainstream of corporate advancement. Not surprisingly, many repatriates
report bitter disappointment with the repatriation process (Adler, 1997;
Baughn, 1995; Black et al., 1992a, 1992b; Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1987;
Harvey, 1989; Stroh et al., 1998).
Challenges from the perspective of the organizationThe multitude of problems encountered by global assignees upon return has
traditionally been linked with low repatriate retention – an issue of great con-
cern for many MNCs. From the perspective of the organization, in order to
capitalize on the human capital investment of global assignments, repatriates
must remain with the organization upon repatriation. The reality of repatri-
ation, however, appears to provide evidence for some concerning trends.
Research from the late 1980s and the early 1990s suggested that approxi-
mately 20–25 per cent of repatriated employees left their firms within a year
after their return to the US. Additionally, more than 40 per cent of repatriates
had seriously considered leaving their companies after repatriation, 26 per
cent had been actively searching for an alternative employment, and 74 per
cent of them reported that they did not expect to be working for the same
MNC within two years after repatriation (Black, et al., 1992a, 1992b). The
1999 Global Relocation Trends Report reveals that companies report that 12
per cent of their employees leave within one year of returning and another
13 per cent leave within the following year – for a total of 25 per cent within
two years after repatriation (Windham International, NFTC, and SHRM,
1999).
Considering the large investment to develop, maintain, and transfer global
assignees, and their role for increasing organizational effectiveness, losing an
employee with valuable expatriate experience is costly and can affect the
MNC’s bottom line (Black et al., 1992a; Stroh, 1995). Moreover, the loss of an
internationally proficient employee often indirectly translates into providing
advantage to direct competitors, as repatriates are likely to find jobs with them,
thus providing them with a valuable human asset (Caligiuri and Lazarova,
338 International Human Resource Management