(Caligiuri, 2000a, 2000b). MNCs should assess the expatriate’s performance on
the basis of any desired developmental competencies (Caligiuri and Day,
2000). From the perspective of a total knowledge management system, it fol-
lows that the repatriates who were selected, and whose developmental com-
petencies were coached appropriately, would be the greatestbenefit to the
organization.
7 CONCLUSION
The strategic context for repatriation, in the framework of organizational learn-
ing, is creating new implications for HR professionals. With the rise of globali-
zation and the colossal scale of the global economy, international experience
is becoming a criticalasset for global organizations. International assignment
experience is rare, 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 (Carpenter et al., 2000). In order to be able to capitalize on
their repatriates’ skills and knowledge, MNCs need to cultivate a global vision
and corporate culture that supports repatriates and values international expe-
rience and its contribution to the strategic development of the company
through organizational learning on a global scale.
8 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1 What can organizations do to measure the ‘return on expatriate investment’?
What are some factors that will indicate whether retaining repatriates con-
tributes to improving the performance of the organization/ department/unit?
2 Suggest a plan for a comprehensive strategic repatriation system. What are some
major programs that need to be introduced to help individuals make the transition
more effectively? From an organizational standpoint, what should MNCs do to
facilitate transfer of knowledge across subsidiaries?
3 Research has suggested that there are often differences between the repatriation
experiences of senior level managers and lower level employees, with senior
managers traditionally receiving more support from the MNC to facilitate the
potential repatriation concerns they may have. From a point of view of knowl-
edge transfer, are there differences between the two groups of repatriates? Is one
group more ‘valuable’ than the other? Why, or why not?
Repatriation and Knowledge Management 351