The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2049-8799.htm

Informal repatriate knowledge Informal

repatriate
transfer: a qualitative analysis of knowledge
transfer
Malaysian corporate executives
Sabrina Amir, Tyler G. Okimoto and Miriam Moeller 107
Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Received 15 September 2019
Revised 26 November 2019
Abstract 31 January 2020
9 April 2020
Purpose – This paper examines how informal knowledge transfer processes unfold during the repatriation of Accepted 9 April 2020
Malaysian executives. The goal is to develop a repatriate knowledge transfer process model, explaining the
informal process through which repatriates make decisions about and transfer newly acquired knowledge.
Design/methodology/approach – Given the unexplored nature of the informal knowledge transfer process
the study investigates, this research adopts an exploratory qualitative research approach using interview data
from 10 Malaysian corporate executives over a period of 14 months, covering prerepatriation and
postrepatriation stages.
Findings – The findings indicate that from the repatriates’ perspectives, the process flows during repatriates’
knowledge transfer depend on the ability and motivation of repatriates, as well as their opportunity to
communicate the newly acquired knowledge to their home country organization. We likewise learned that the
repatriates’ ability to overcome repatriate adjustment and knowledge transfer challenges is crucial in order for
them to proactively initiate informal knowledge transfer.
Practical implications – This research is significant as it will assist current and future expatriates to plan
and prepare for repatriation and eventual knowledge transfer. The findings will also be useful to organizations
that employ repatriates in preparing action plans for repatriation rather than solely focusing on expatriation.
Originality/value – Research and practice formally argue that expatriates are expected to transfer
knowledge from the home country organization to the host country organization. While on assignment,
expatriates become exposed to various types of new knowledge during the assignment, setting them up to
disseminate this newly acquired knowledge to their home country organization upon repatriation – however,
knowledge transfer upon repatriation is largely informal. This paper examines how this informal knowledge
transfer process unfolds in the repatriation context over a period of 14 months by qualitatively tracing the
experiences of 10 Malaysian corporate executives.
Keywords Repatriation, Knowledge transfer, Emerging market, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Knowledge is a key resource that organizations should acknowledge, manage and integrate
to create and grow a sustainable competitive advantage (Oddou et al., 2013). Knowledge can
guide the actions and decisions of individuals, while also helping organizations to compete
more effectively (Kostova et al., 2004); within multinational corporations (MNCs), valuable
knowledge is routinely transmitted between each foreign subsidiary and its parent company.
MNCs depend greatly on the strategic placement of their human assets such as expatriates
for international assignments (IAs) to successfully transfer knowledge from the home
country organization (HMCO) to the foreign host country organization (HCO).
As carriers of knowledge, expatriates have an opportunity to acquire, create and transfer
valuable information to their overseas context (Oddou et al., 2009). In this study, we define
knowledge transfer (KT) as “the process through which one unit (e.g., group, department, or
division) is affected by the experience of another” (Argote and Ingram, 2000, p. 151), which is Journal of Global Mobility: The
Home of Expatriate Management
recognized as essential for organizations. Oddou (2002) argues that such knowledge can be Research
specified as cognitive (e.g., broader perspectives, cognitive complexity), relational (e.g., social Vol. 8 No. 1, 2020
pp. 107-140
networks), attitudinal (e.g., tolerance of differences) and behavioral (e.g., intercultural skills, © Emerald Publishing Limited
2049-8799
management skills), all of which are likely to become active during the expatriation and DOI 10.1108/JGM-09-2019-0043
JGM likewise repatriation phases. As representatives of the HMCO, expatriates most often carry
8,1 an inherent power to control and oversee operations at the HCO, and with that comes the
opportunity to exchange international business-related ideas and differences in business
practices between cultures (Tallman and Fladmore-Lindquist, 2002). Thus, newly acquired
knowledge (NAK) makes the experienced expatriate a valuable resource for the organization
(Oddou et al., 2013).
Expatriates on IAs then have the opportunity to acquire, create and transfer valuable
108 knowledge during expatriation but likewise upon their return from their IA (Oddou et al.,
2009). Repatriation, which was first conceptualized in the 1980s (Harvey, 1982), is the final
stage of the IA when expatriates return to their home country upon the completion of an IA
(Sussman, 2011; Suutari and Brewster, 2003). Although both expatriation and repatriation
offer the opportunity KT, the expectations and processes of transmitting the knowledge
acquired abroad are much less clear and often less formal. This process is often referred to as
repatriate knowledge transfer (also “reverse knowledge transfer” – the knowledge flow from
foreign subsidiaries to parent companies (e.g., the flow from the HCO to the HMCO). Notably,
repatriate knowledge transfer (RKT) is distinct from what the literature has defined as
reverse diffusion or secondary KT. Reverse diffusion is a process whereby organizational
practices and knowledge, originating in a foreign subsidiary are transmitted to other foreign
subsidiaries as well as to the headquarter (Edwards and Ferner, 2004). KT is the transfer of
knowledge from the primary affiliate of a foreign investor to a secondary affiliate, that is, one
controlled by the primary affiliate (Buckley et al., 2003). For the purpose of our paper, we focus
on RKT as it occurs when new knowledge is exclusively transmitted from the HCO to the
HMCO by means of repatriation.
RKT is equally important to expatriate KT but is grossly underresearched (Ambos et al.,
2006; Rabbiosi, 2011; Yang et al., 2008). Limited attention has been given to the process of
repatriation compared to the process of expatriation, as indicated by extant literature
(MacDonald and Arthur, 2005; Szkudlarek, 2010); thus, we have a limited understanding of
the RKT process. KT upon repatriation is also not managed particularly well in practice;
empirical research of expatriate KT finds that MNCs rarely manage these processes
consciously or with a view that knowledge ought to be used and disseminated strategically
upon repatriation (Hocking et al., 2004). We suggest that no common perspective on KT
(Oddou et al., 2009) within the entire cycle of expatriation, inclusive of repatriation, has so far
emerged from the literature.
Exacerbating this issue, RKT often comes through informal routes. Ipe (2003) categorizes
knowledge-sharing opportunities as formal and informal (Huang et al., 2013). A formal
knowledge-sharing opportunity is a planned learning opportunity, while an informal
opportunity primarily assists repatriates to interact with other people and develop respect
and friendship (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). However, most organizations lack explicit or
formal mandates for KT upon repatriation, relying on informal mechanisms that are more
susceptible to interference from the aforementioned adjustment challenges.
Unfortunately, although there is a growing body of literature on repatriation, the
processes that influence repatriation and repatriates’ KT are scarce (M€akel€a, 2007; Nery-
Kjerfve and McLean, 2012). While some research sheds light on the key variables that may
facilitate or hinder successful repatriate KT, none have explained how the RKT process
unfolds over time. Moreover, previous research suggests that existing KT research has
focused on expatriates at the organizational level such as what an organization can or should
do to facilitate successful KT (Lazarova and Tarique, 2005); we lack a precise understanding
of the thoughts, actions and behavior of repatriates in the KT process.
While previous studies have discussed competitive advantage, the importance of
knowledge acquired during expatriation and the variables that may facilitate or hinder KT
upon repatriation, only few studies have examined the process of RKT (e.g., Al Ariss and
Shaoa, 2020; Burmeister et al., 2015; Burmeister and Shaffer, 2017; Burmeister et al., 2018; Informal
Harzing et al., 2016). Al Ariss and Shaoa (2020), for example, offer insight into how different repatriate
characteristics of self-initiated expatriates can influence the KT process. Burmeister and
Shaffer (2017) offer a review in which among other items they suggest that multilevel
knowledge
research on RKT could offer significant insight into the important role of repatriates as KT transfer
agents and the processes in which they engage. Burmeister et al. (2018) specifically highlight
the dyadic nature of the process by focusing on repatriates’ disseminative capacity and
domestic employees’ absorptive capacity for RKT to be successful. 109
Similar to Burmeister et al. (2015), our research also proposes a RKT model. However, the
model in our research is based on a longitudinal study, capturing the KT process from
knowledge acquisition in the host country office to KT in the home country organisation.
Although in discussing their findings Burmeister et al. (2015) informed that some of the
repatriates indicated that the assessment of knowledge criticality that helps repatriates select
knowledge began prior to repatriation, it was not depicted in their proposed model. Our paper
specifically focuses on the microprocesses involved in KT from the repatriates’ perspectives
with the aim of identifying and analysing the sequence of interdependent phases that occur
during RKT. The precise aim of this research is to develop a process model of RKT,
explaining the process through which repatriates transfer their NAK from the HCO back to
the HMCO. This research is significant as it contributes to the literature on IAs and KT in the
context of repatriation.
This leads to the following overarching research question: How do repatriates manage
KT from the host country organization to their home country organization? In order to
answer this research question, we developed 3 step-wise research questions. To explore
the types of knowledge that repatriates can offer to the home country we ask the following:
What newly acquired knowledge learned in the host country organization is selected
for practice in the home country organization and why? To identify the knowledge
practiced and strategies pursued by repatriates in ensuring the implementation of the
newly acquired knowledge, we ask the following: How is the newly acquired knowledge
implemented in the home country organization? To understand the barriers encountered in
transferring the newly acquired knowledge, we ask thef following: What newly acquired
knowledge is successfully or unsuccessfully implemented in the home country organization
and why?

Repatriate KT
When international business activities increase, employees often need to be transferred
overseas for various IAs. In the event that the company is not able to find competent local
managers from the host countries to oversee its foreign subsidiaries, some employees from
the home country may be transferred overseas (Yeaton and Hall, 2008). On average,
expatriation of employees who are temporarily located overseas by their employers entails an
assignment of three to five years (Black et al., 1992) after which they are expected to return to
work at their original HMCO (Sussman, 2011). In addition, while some expatriates relocate
overseas for a new job in a new organization (also known as self-initiated expatriates; see for
example Froese and Pektokorpo (2012)), this research concerns expatriates who were
relocated to foreign subsidiaries or joint venture companies of their existing HMCO as the
organization expanded its business globally.
However, in many cases, expatriation is a strategic decision for the organization. Adler
and Gundersen (2008) note that MNCs often choose their best employees for IAs. Employees
are often transferred as part of their personal development and preparation for upward
movement in their career (Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1987), especially to enhance managers’
foreign business and managerial skills (Yeaton and Hall, 2008). Indeed, Suutari and Brewster
JGM (2003) posit that one of the factors influencing an individual’s propensity to accept an IA offer
8,1 is the expectation that IA will increase their career opportunities (Suutari and Brewster, 2003).
Critically, expatriation practices also serve as an opportunity for MNCs to transfer
knowledge across their geographically dispersed and diverse locations, which can serve as a
competitive advantage for MNCs (Kogut and Zander, 1993; Pablos, 2006). In other words,
expatriates serve as bridges for the transference of knowledge from the headquarters to
the HCOs.
110 As previous research has discussed, eimployees selected for IA are both knowledge
senders (Bonache and Brewster, 2001) and knowledge receivers (Hocking et al., 2007). In other
words, while they are entrusted to transfer knowledge from their HMCO to the HCO, they also
have the opportunity to learn and acquire new knowledge from the HCO. Thus, KT also
occurs as repatriates share knowledge acquired during expatriation with colleagues upon
repatriation to the HMCO. However, the absence of processes or structures to communicate
this knowledge significantly hinders the distribution of repatriates’ knowledge and
organizational long-term learning (Oddou et al., 2009).

Knowledge acquired abroad

In the IA literature, scholars have argued that knowledge is context-specific (Fink et al., 2005;
Subramaniam and Venkatraman, 2001). Thus, the longer an IA, the more knowledge related
to the host country and its people that expatriates will gain (Hocking et al., 2007). In addition,
knowledge that is acquired and transferred in the context of IA can be characterized as either
explicit or tacit (Kostova, 1999; Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009). The difference between tacit
and explicit knowledge is based on whether knowledge can or cannot be codified and
transmitted in a formal, systematic language (Zander and Kogut, 1995). Explicit knowledge
can be described as knowledge that can be codified and is transferable through written or
verbal mediums of communication such as manuals and training (Nonaka and von Krogh,
2009). On the other hand, tacit knowledge can be described as knowledge that stays in its
carrier’s mind (Argote and Ingram, 2000) and is acquired through personal experience
(Downes and Thomas, 2000), thus making it hard to transfer without face-to-face
communication (Hsu, 2012). Tacit knowledge is usually acquired and manifested through
actions. In addition, although tacit knowledge is difficult to transfer, it is critical in influencing
organizational capabilities (Subramaniam and Venkatraman, 2001). Thus, tacit knowledge is
“fragile and subjected to decay or loss if it is not passed on from one individual to the other”
(Shariq, 1999, p. 246).
Numerous studies have acknowledged the criticality of knowledge’s tacitness. In the field
of knowledge management (Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar, 2016), most discussions by scholars
surrounding the tacitness of knowledge are associated with Polanyi’s (1967) work (Grant,
2007). Though Polanyi acknowledges language can be used to share knowledge, he asserts
that “we can know more than we can tell” (Polanyi, 1967, p. 4). In other words, while we know
how to do things, we may not know or be able to articulate to others why and how to do those
things. Thus, while repatriates may acquire new skills and practices that enhance personal
and professional competencies during an IA, they may not be able to transfer the NAK to their
HMCO. This is especially true when the NAK cannot be codified and transmitted formally.
Thus, as highlighted by Whitehill (1997), organizations should focus on knowledge that leads
to competitive advantages – create organizational intellectual capital by leveraging the
existing.
The knowledge acquired during IAs often cannot be acquired by other means – such as by
reading or attending training (Crowne, 2009) – and therefore remains with the acquirer – in
the context of this research, repatriates. As such, organizations will attempt to keep
knowledge proprietary and prevent it from seeping to competitors (Argote and Ingram, 2000).
The process of KT Informal
To date, the dyad of parent company and foreign subsidiary relationship has been the repatriate
dominant theme in reverse KT. For example, research has examined how subsidiary
characteristics (e.g., subsidiary willingness and external embeddedness) and relationship
knowledge
characteristics (e.g., internal embeddedness, socialization mechanisms and shared values) transfer
can impact the degree of RKT (Najafi-Tavani et al., 2012). Oddou and colleagues (2009), on the
other hand, speak of boundaries (Burmeister et al., 2018) in their research. Their boundaries
include an exclusive transfer of knowledge within the work unit, excluding outside work unit 111
transfers; a sole focus on the sender and receiver rather than pinpointing characteristics of
knowledge or deciphering the actual transfer and a distinct focus of transfer within the work
unit leaving aside the organizational context. Mudambi et al. (2014) suggest that reverse KT
without headquarter involvement and cooperation can severely limit reverse KT. Likewise, it
is probable that reverse KT is sensitive to subsidiary entry mode. These studies merely serve
as examples of the level of research conducted on reverse KT. While the outcomes of this type
of research are significant, it continues to undervalue the agency of the repatriate.
We argue for the importance of understanding the actions taken by repatriates. The
transfer of knowledge is first and foremost realized and honed through the actors of the actual
knowledge transferor. A study by Huang et al. (2013) argues that even when employees are
encouraged and rewarded by extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to share knowledge,
effective knowledge sharing would not necessarily be guaranteed. However, few studies
touch upon the importance of managing repatriates and their treatment of acquired
knowledge. Indeed, Lazarova and Tarique (2005) argued that there is a need to better
understand how individual ability, motivation and career aspiration affect the process of
transfer between individuals as well as organizational units.
In the context of KT within MNCs, proactive repatriates often aim to transform both
themselves and their environment to create the best fit within their HMCO (Adler, 1981).
However, repatriation is the most difficult stage of IA (Stroh et al., 2000), and although most
expatriates would like to use their newly acquired knowledge upon repatriation (Stahl et al.,
2002), repatriates are likely to face difficulties transferring NAK to the HMCO. Considering
that the ability to develop, exploit and transfer knowledge across organizational units is a
fundamental attribute to ensure MNC success (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000), it is crucial to
understand how the KT process unfolds in the challenging context of repatriation.

Challenges of RKT
Despite the benefit to the organization at large, the effectiveness of KT in organizations varies
significantly (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Szulanski, 1996). Scholars have identified several
challenges faced by repatriates upon returning to their home country (e.g., Sussman, 2000;
Suutari and Brewster, 2003). These challenges can be classified as organizational, personal
and cultural challenges. Organizational challenges refer to challenges that repatriates face
while readjusting to the HMCO. Personal challenges primarily relate to nonwork-related
issues that are outside office surroundings such as managing family and friendship circles.
Cultural challenges, such as culture shock, may relate to both organizational- and personal-
related issues and may thus cover a variety of domains and contexts.
Despite these challenges, organizations primarily provide only administrative support
toward repatriation, neglecting the strategic importance of managing such delicate
information more strategically. Organizations’ tendency to overlook the importance of
repatriation can cause difficulties as repatriates try to reintegrate in their HMCOs. It is
believed that successful adaptation to the HCO and its environment during expatriation
should ease the process of repatriation (Cox, 2004). Recent research highlights that the lack of
attention to repatriation follows the assumption that repatriates know both the home country
JGM and the home organization very well (Szkudlarek, 2010), meaning they grew up in that
8,1 country and have previously worked in the organization. As collectively argued by scholars,
repatriation is often assumed to be an easy process considering “who could possibly have
difficulties ‘coming home’?” (Hunt, 2001), especially when they are returning to a familiar face,
to one’s home country (Adler and Gundersen, 2008) and coming home to where they belong
(Hunt, 2001; Stroh et al., 2000). As a result, employers typically assume that there is no need
for further explanation or adjustment, therewith allocating company resources elsewhere.
112 Indeed, many organizations do not have proper repatriation policies and procedures in place
because repatriates are considered to be returning to a familiar setting (Harvey, 1982).
In summary, the process of repatriation is less clear than the expatriation phases in all
regard, particularly for KT. More often than not, repatriation is not managed consciously or
strategically by the organization, which may potentially undermine the effectiveness of the
KT process. Although a variety of variables have been proposed that may impact the RKT
process, the nature of those challenges remains poorly understood and is in need for in-depth
study. Better understanding this process can potentially help organizations facilitate reverse
KT through both informal and formal mechanisms but is currently under-researched and
thus requires further study. The current research offers a qualitative exploration of the
reverse knowledgeKT transfer process from the perspective of repatriating executives over
an extended period of time (Flora et al., 2018), offering deeper insight into the experience of KT
among repatriates.

Methodology
This research uses a qualitative research strategy to obtain the “intricate details about
phenomena such as feelings, thought processes, and emotions that are difficult to extract or
learn about through more conventional research methods” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Through an investigative qualitative research process, we can gradually makes sense of
unexplored social phenomena (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1984; Strauss and
Corbin, 1998; Yin, 1994) by contrasting, comparing, replicating, cataloguing and classifying
the object of the study (Miles and Huberman, 1984). In other words, while the quantitative
approach commences with theory testing (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), qualitative methods
adopt a theory-building orientation (Babbie, 2001; Lincoln and Guba, 1985) to answer
research questions that require deep description and understanding of a particular
phenomenon (Zikmund, 1991), especially situations that have received little attention
(Babbie, 2001).
Qualitative research requires the researcher to attend the site where the participants
perform the behaviors of interest, in order to observe and identify details pertaining to the
research question to gain a deeper insight of participants’ experiences (Cavana et al., 2001;
Creswell, 2003). Thus, a case study is preferred as it permits the problems to be investigated
in-depth and intensively (Zikmund, 1991), especially for “how” and “why” research questions.
In reviewing previous research conducted on subsidiary knowledge flows in MNCs (host
country back to home country) between 1996 and 2009, point out that studies using
qualitative methods are underrepresented, which limits the in-depth understanding of an
already understudied phenomena. Therefore, given the unexplored nature of the research
problem this research investigates – how the KT process unfolds in the context of
repatriation – a holistic case study with embedded (multiple) units would be most
appropriate, as illustrated in the following Figure 1.
Although most available literature on repatriation and/or KT looks at samples in United
States, European or Western countries, scholars have slowly shown growing interest in
repatriation and/or KT in the context of Asian countries, for example, the process of strategy
formation in KT in an emerging economy, China (Buckley et al., 2003), repatriation
adjustment in Taiwan and Japan and KT in Japan (Furuya et al., 2009). The current research Informal
seeks to achieve its objectives in the context of Malaysian organization, representing a novel repatriate
South East Asian cultural context.
knowledge
transfer
Unit of analysis
According to Yin (1994), the appropriate unit of analysis should be aligned to the specific
research questions. Given that this research aims to explore how the repatriates transfer 113
knowledge that they have acquired during their IA to their HMCOs, the unit of analysis at the
individual level (the repatriate themselves) is the most appropriate; evidence of the KT
process was sought from individual repatriates rather than from their organizations. As this
research seeks to achieve its objectives in the context of Malaysian organizations, data were
sourced from repatriates in a Malaysian organization with an overseas regional office.
As part of the organization’s business interests, the organization where the repatriates
worked has a country office in Australia and a joint venture (JV) company with an Australian
MNC. While local Australians held some positions in the country office, the majority of
managerial positions were held by Malaysians from the HMCO. Several experienced senior
engineers and managers from the HMCO were seconded to the JV company to lend their
expertise and to protect the HMCO’s business interests. Due to confidentiality and for the
purpose of this research, both the country office and the JV company will be referred to as the
host country organization (HCO).
This study includes ten Malaysian repatriates. Similar to a study by this study did not
include any female repatriates due to the small number of females in the industry. Although
two female expatriates were identified prior to their repatriation and agreed to participate in
this study, they were unable to commit to the longitudinal nature of this research. Therefore,
they had to be dropped from this sample.
Prior to accepting this international assignment, the majority of participating repatriates
had already had experience working internationally. However, those experiences were short
term and ranged from a couple of days to a few weeks of required business visits/meetings.
Despite coming from a developing country and although the HCO has longevity in the
industry relative to the HMCO, the HMCO was more experienced, established and matured in
the industry in which they are involved, making the repatriates the subject matter experts as
compared to their local HCO colleagues.
We are more experienced in this area as compared to them. Yes, their organisation was established
earlier than ours, but we have more ventures in this area and that have given us more exposure to
understand this better. (R3-1)
All ten repatriates in this research hold tertiary qualifications in business, IT or engineering.
Most have worked in the HMCO for more than ten years prior to their IA and were attached to
the HCO for at least 3 years, except one who was called back two months early to fill a position
in the HMCO. Within the first seven months upon repatriation, two repatriates were promoted

CONTEXT (MALAYSIAN)

Case (A Malaysian MNC)

Repatriate 1 Repatriate 2 Repatriate 3 Repatriate 4 Repatriate 5

Figure 1.
Repatriate 6 Repatriate 7 Repatriate 8 Repatriate 9 Repatriate 10 Single case with
embedded units
JGM to senior manager and general manager positions respectively. Within 8–14 months of
8,1 repatriation, another four repatriates were promoted to positions of manager, senior manager
or general manager. Seven of the ten repatriates had at least ten years of experiences in the
industry, with the majority having held positions such as advisor or head of department
during the IA and offered their expertise in respective technical and business-related
knowledge to the HCO. Table 1 portrays the demographics of the ten repatriates (see Table 2).
Scholars have argued that positivist researchers often question the trustworthiness of
114 qualitative research, contesting its validity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Marshall and Rossman,
1999). However, such validity concerns can be addressed by maximizing the credibility and of
the research itself, which is one of the factors in establishing trustworthiness in qualitative
data (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In this study, research credibility was achieved through
research triangulation via data sources involving not only interviews with repatriates from
three different time frames but also with their coworkers.
A total of 18 coworkers (2 were repatriates’ superiors, 3 were peers and 13 were
subordinates) were interviewed for this study. Besides validating the information gathered
from the repatriates, interviews with the coworkers were conducted to gain understanding
from the knowledge recipients’ perspectives on how the repatriates transfer the knowledge.
This was also conducted to enable holistic views on the KT process that the repatriates
experienced. Given the male dominance in the industry, only four female coworkers could be
interviewed, one as a peer and three as subordinate to the repatriates. In addition, of the
eighteen coworkers, only eight of them had prior working experience with the repatriates
prior to the repatriates’ international assignments. The following Table 3 illustrates the
demographics of the co-workers:

Number of
Demographic repatriates Additional information

Age group 30–39 6 All males

40–49 3 All males
50–59 1 Male
Tertiary Education Local 4 Malaysian universities
Overseas 6 US and Australian universities
Years of service prior to overseas Ten years and 5 Four years and six months as the
assignment less shortest service
More than ten 5 27 years as the longest service
years
Years of overseas assignment 3 years and less 6 Two years and ten months as the
shortest service
More than 3 4 Four years and three months as
years the longest service
Position during overseas Middle 5 Three senior executives, two
assignment management managers
Senior 5 Five senior managers
management
Position upon repatriation (First Middle 4 Three senior executives, one
7 months) management manager
Senior 6 Five senior managers, one
management general manager
Position upon repatriation (Next Middle 3 One senior executive, two
Table 1. 8th–14th months) management managers
Demographics of Senior 7 Five senior managers, two
repatriates management general managers
 Position upon
Tertiary Years in organisation Years in Position during IA repatriation (first Position upon repatriation
Gender Age education before Australia Australia in Australia 7 months) (next 8th–14th months)

R1 M 40–55 Malaysia More than 15 More than Senior management Senior management Senior management
three years
R2 M 30–39 Malaysia Less than 15 More than Middle Senior management Senior management
three years management
R3 M 40–55 Overseas More than 15 Three years Senior management Senior management Senior management
and less
R4 M 30–39 Malaysia Less than 15 Three years Middle Middle management Middle management
and less management
R5 M 30–39 Overseas Less than 15 More than Senior management Senior management Senior management
three years
R6 M 40–55 Overseas More than 15 Three years Senior management Senior nanagement Senior nanagement
and less
R7 M 30–39 Malaysia Less than 15 Three years Middle Middle management Middle management
and less management
R8 M 40–55 Overseas More than 15 More than Senior management Senior management Senior management
three years
R9 M 30–39 Overseas Less than 15 Three years Middle Middle management Senior management
and less management
R10 M 30–39 Overseas Less than 15 Three years Middle Middle management Middle management
and less management
knowledge
repatriate
Informal

transfer

115

demographics of
Individualized

repatriates
Table 2.
JGM Sampling strategy
8,1 This research adopts a purposive sampling strategy, as targeted samples are needed
(Marshall and Rossman, 1999). According to Cavana et al. (2001), judgment, snowball and
quota sampling are the three main methods of purposive sampling strategies. Prior to
conducting the field research, the researcher sought expert advice from eight expatriates,
repatriates and individuals who worked with repatriates. Information gathered from these
experts assisted in developing criteria for selecting respondents. A nonprobability
116 sampling via the snowball method was then used, whereby the experts (key informants)
helped identify additional participants; they helped to ensure that selected samples met the
required criteria, which subsequently provided the right data for this research (Cavana
et al., 2001). Table 4 illustrates the criteria that serve as guide to selecting the right
respondents for this research.
In discussing how theoretical saturation can be achieved in a case study research,
Eisenhardt (1989) argues that it is not uncommon for researchers to plan in advance of the
number of cases to be included, upon considering the availability of resources and time
constraints. In this case, selection of repatriates was also grounded by the availability of
respondents to participate in all three stages of this longitudinal research. However,
theoretical saturation is also achieved when additional interviews are unlikely to yield further
insights (Eisenhardt, 1989). In this study, the decision to stop recruiting more respondents (at
that time they were still expatriates) was considered when the researcher noticed similar
answers to the previous respondents were given by the eighth respondent during stage 1
interview. By the tenth interview, the decision to stop recruiting was finally made when no
new information pertaining to knowledge acquired was shared by the respective respondent.

Data collection and analysis

Unlike expatriation, whereby the process ends the moment expatriates are transferred back
to their home country, repatriation literature has not provided a clearly defined end to the
repatriation process. In order to provide greater understanding and a complete view of the

Number of
Demographic coworkers Additional information

Relationship Superiors 2 Both superiors have been working in the

organisation longer than the repatriates
Peers 3 All three peers have less years of experience
working in the organisation compared to the
repatriates
Subordinates 13 Four of the subordinates have been working in
the organisation longer than the repatriates;
eight of the subordinates have less years of
experience working in the organisation than the
repatriates; one of the subordinates has the same
years of experience with the repatriate
Prior working Yes 8
relationship No 10
Years of service in Less than ten 8 One and a half years as the shortest service
the organisation years
10–20 years 7
Table 3. 21–30 years 3 30 years as the longest service
Demographics of the Gender Male 14 Two superiors, two peers, ten subordinates
coworkers Female 4 One peer and three subordinates
Criteria for selection
1 Malaysian expatriates who have been on
international assignment for a minimum of seven
months, to allow for a sufficient exposure to
acquire significant host country practices,
facilitating a more holistic view
2 Malaysian expatriates who are about to end their
international assignment, ready to be repatriated
back to their home country organization and
continue working in the same organization for at
least another year
3 Malaysian repatriates holding managerial
positions have at least one subordinate (direct or
indirect reporting) in the home country
Justification
Informal
repatriate
Based on feedback from informal discussions / knowledge
consultations with randomly approached
expatriates (industry experts’ views were gathered transfer
prior to the official data collection), it was advised
the following: Expatriates took an average of two to
three months to familiarize and adjust themselves to 117
the host country organization’s operations and
practices and an average of six months to familiarize
with the host country’s culture
This will ensure a successful implementation of
longitudinal study, which requires data collection on
the expatriation experience, prior to leaving the host
country and KT upon repatriation
This will allow for opportunities to investigate the
utilization of different managerial skills and Table 4.
business practices acquired during expatriation – Criteria for
the knowledge that this study is investigating respondents

entire RKT process, data from the repatriates in this study was collected at three different
stages as follows: stage 1: prerepatriation, stage 2: postrepatriation – phase 1 and stage 3:
postrepatriation – phase 2.
To understand the full scope of KT in the repatriation context, it is critical to examine
these questions longitudinally; a cross-sectional view of repatriation would be unlikely to
capture the full arc of the RKT process. By focusing on repatriates from one particular
Malaysian organisation for this research, the researcher is able to explore the research
questions in depth; a single (longitudinal) case study provides the opportunity to describe,
understand and explain how each of the Malaysian repatriates in the organisation transfers
the knowledge he/she acquired during his/her IA to the HMCO.
Moreover, the current longitudinal research approach answers calls for longitudinal
studies over the full arc of repatriation and KT (Sussman, 2011). By collecting data in three
longitudinal stages, this research aims to identify a valid timeline for the repatriation process.
Table 5 summarizes the data collection timeline.
At least one coworker per each repatriate was interviewed in this research. Eight
coworkers were interviewed twice within 14 months after the repatriates came home,
providing an opportunity to gain longitudinal data from the coworkers’ perspective as well.
Table 6 summarizes the coworkers’ data collection timeline.

Stage 1 Year 1 Year 2

Number of respondents interviewed Six Four

Stage 2 Months after repatriation
1st–2nd 3rd–4th 5th–7th
Number of respondents interviewed Two Five Three
Stage 3 Months after repatriation Table 5.
8th–9th 10th–11th 12th–14th Repatriate data
Number of respondents interviewed Zero Two Eight collection timeline
JGM Stage 1 interviews were conducted less than a month prior to their repatriation. While the
8,1 timing was practical for the repatriates, as it gave them more time to focus on their
preparation for repatriation, it was also an advantage for this research as the interviewees
were “in their repatriation mode”. They were able to reflect on what they have experienced
over the years and enthusiastic in sharing their anticipations of what and how their
repatriation and KT to the HMCO would be. An empirical study of repatriation among
European female corporate executives suggests that repatriates often require 6–12 months to
118 readjust to their home country. Thus, postrepatriation interviews in this study were
conducted at two different phases – stage 2 interviews (within the first seven months of their
repatriation) and stage 3 (within 8th to 14th months of their repatriation). Stage 2 aimed at
identifying the challenges faced upon their repatriation and successes achieved in
transferring the NAK. Stage 3 aimed to determine whether repatriates continued to face
challenges similar to those they faced in the first seven months after repatriation. This will
help understand strategies used to manage those challenges and their efforts to transfer
knowledge. Table 7 summarizes the interview procedures and the purpose.
In line with the exploratory nature of this research, the data were analyzed to ascribe
meaning (Corbin and Strauss, 2008) and identify similarities and differences in the emerging
themes (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Thus, the content analysis
process identified and categorized primary patterns in the data (Cavana et al., 2001); focus
was given to similar responses to identify recurring regularities that could subsequently be
coded according to emerging themes. This was accomplished through a manual coding
process, which lies at the heart of a qualitative data analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1984). The
researcher conducted coding and analysis to allow “intimate engagement with the data and
the search for confirming and disconfirming evidence” (Fontaine and Richardson, 2005).
Guided by the thematic analysis process of Braun and Clarke (2006), the lead researcher
reviewed the interview transcripts several times to familiarize herself with the data.
Emerging key concepts were then identified and grouped into categories before being
organized into broader themes. Finally, these themes were reviewed, and key repatriation and
KT themes were further analyzed to determine support or contradiction of present literature
(Creswell, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989). To address the issue of research interpretive bias, the
researcher had discussions with the two transcribers, who are both fluent in Malay and
English languages, during coding process; discussion helped to clarify ideas and doubts
related to the interviews’ content, including finalizing codes/themes identified by the
researcher. Complete analysis of each interview was not conducted until all interview
transcriptions were completed “to maintain the independence of the replication logic’ (Brown
and Eisenhardt, 1997). Once the individual interviews had been analyzed, cross analysis was
conducted to develop the emerging constructs and theoretical logic (Brown and Eisenhardt,
1997). As a result of this analysis, the study now offers insight into NAK, how it is generally
selected, why, how it is implemented and determinants of successful and successful attempts

Interview 1 Interview 2
Months after
Months after repatriation repatriation
Number of respondents interviewed 1st–4th 5th–8th 9th–11th 12th–14th 13th 14th

Table 6. Superior (SP) Two

Coworkers data Peers (p) On Two
collection timeline Subordinates (S) Eight Four One Two Six
Stage 1: Prerepatriation
(1) Semi-structured interviews were conducted
prior to the expatriates leaving the host country
(2) The interviews aim to identify the relevant
knowledge acquired by the repatriates
Stage 2: Postrepatriation – phase 1
(1) Semi-structured interviews were conducted
within the first seven months of repatriates’
return to their home country organisation
(2) Interviews aim to identify challenges
repatriates faced and strategies used in the first
seven months of repatriation as they try to
apply the newly acquired knowledge as shared
during data collection in stage 1
Stage 3: Postrepatriation – phase 2
(1) Semi-structured interviews were conducted 8–
14 months after the repatriates return to their
home country organisation
(2) The interviews aimed to determine whether
repatriates continued to face challenges similar
to those they faced in the first six months after
repatriation. This will help understand
strategies used to manage those challenges and
their efforts to transfer knowledge
Justification
Informal
repatriate
(1) Findings from these interviews helped to set an knowledge
expectation framework of the new knowledge
repatriates planned to apply upon repatriation, transfer
which will be investigated in stage 2
Justification 119
(1) Findings from these interviews identified
• Challenges faced during the first seven
months of repatriation
• Knowledge that was successfully or
unsuccessfully applied within the first six
months of repatriation and why
• Strategies used to successfully transfer
knowledge
(2) Findings will guide the final stage interview that
will be conducted in the 7–14 months after
repatriation
Justification
(1) Findings from these interviews will help to
conclude the following:
At what stage of the 14 months of repatriation
repatriates finally “fit” and “settled down” back into
the organisation
Knowledge that was not successfully applied within
14 months of repatriation and why
Knowledge that was successfully applied within Table 7.
14 months of repatriation and strategies used to Interview research
successfully transfer that knowledge procedure

of RKT. In this vein, we now process to further elaborate on the findings resulting from the
data analysis.

Findings: stage 1
Although the literature review and research approach were guided by three research (sub)
questions, the findings themselves have been organized in a slightly different orientation that
reflects the emergent theoretical understanding provided by the data. Nonetheless, “Findings
Stage 1” generally speak to the (1) form and (2) process of knowledge acquisition and transfer
within the repatriate, while “Findings Stage 2 and 3” generally speak to (2) the process of KT
and (3) challenges and success factors.

Knowledge acquired
Though the objective of this study is to better understand the KT process and not the content
of the transferred knowledge, the transfer process may indeed depend on the form and
function of the acquired knowledge. As such, it is important to first understand the
knowledge that the repatriates perceived to be NAK learned in the HCO. According to the
repatriates, due to the nature of their work assignment and their experience being the expert
in the industry, there was little new technical-related knowledge learned during their
international assignment. Rather, data show two forms of NAK. The first included
differences in the application of various skills/practices between the HMCO as compared to
the HCO.
JGM I think in Australia there is less emphasis or dependence on hierarchical structure, [. . .]. It’s less of a
position, less of a protocol even the office layout is open plan, which is basically a CEO or manager
8,1 have the same set-up as a new graduate for example. [. . .] if something is of great benefit to the
organisation, they can just basically walk to the CEO or the VP and have some time to talk about it.
(R9-1)
The second form of NAK included strategies/ways of implementing certain skills/practices
that were not seen as being applied (effectively) in HMCO. For instance, a repatriate shared
120 how he experienced empowerment in the HCO through his superior’s trust in him. According
to him, successful empowerment was rarely implemented in the HMCO because trust was an
issue. From his IA, he acquired a strategy that he could now use to encourage empowerment
in the HMCO.
It’s different in Malaysia because people have to earn your trust first, before you can trust him. So
now probably I’ll go back and say trust everybody first, unless he proved that he is not trustworthy.
Rather than say you have to do this you have to do that, I’ll say “this is your job; I know you can do it,
the deliverables are such and such and datelines are such and such. Come out with a plan, show me
and get on with it.” I’m not going to micromanage and say that we have to do this way, we have to do
that way. (R2-1)

Motivation to transfer knowledge

Despite acquiring new knowledge, repatriates did not plan to transfer all of NAK to their
HMCO. Data suggest that the NAK that repatriates selected for transfer when preparing for
repatriation were those that would either benefit them personally and/or would benefit their
HMCO. For example, NAK regarding leadership was seen as having potential to improve
their HMCO upon repatriation.
Basically, it gives me a better idea of what style of leadership I want to take up when I go back and
have subordinates again. [. . .] So, I basically have experienced that here and what I take from that is
basically go back and be a better leader. (R9-1)
In another example, acquiring the skills to speak in an open and transparent manner and
engaging everyone in the organization in a less hierarchical manner (which is not the case in
the HMCO) was seen as having benefit for both superiors and subordinates, reducing the
likelihood of problems occurring, preventing existing problem from escalating and resulting
in being more efficient and productive work.
Because, when you are open, when you are transparent, and then people, your subordinates, or your
peers easily or they will also be open. They will come to you if they have problem for example, rather
than talking or discussing among themselves [. . .] In the HMCO, all the subordinates hiding their
problems under the carpet. [. . .] it surfaced out when the problem become critical, the problem
become not manageable, which is too late for me. (R1-1)
In essence, minimizing hierarchical communication was seen as providing a bridge to the
current gap between superiors and subordinates in the HMCO and ultimately improves the
flow of information.
When you can communicate with people, half of the battle is won. Because, if you know that person,
you definitely can communicate well with that person [. . .] CEO could get information everywhere,
not only through board meeting [. . .] Some of the information in the organisation does no’t go up
because it has been screened at lower level. (R2-1)
Again, following this theme of personal and organizational benefit, repatriates planned to
implement NAK that they believed could help in improving the HMCO’s productivity and
efficiency. For example, according to the repatriates, time management practised in the HCO
is very much influenced by work–life balance that is widely respected in the HCO but not Informal
in HMCO. repatriate
I’ll give you one example. If you are working from 8 in the morning and you go back at 11pm. [. . .] Of knowledge
course, when you arrived at home that night you will be really tired and tomorrow morning you have transfer
to start again at 8. Can you really think well the next day? Probably cannot. So that actually can
affect their performance the next day. Whereas in Australia because we have much more time for
ourselves and with family over the weekend, so when you go to work the following week, or the next
day, you are fresh, you are able to think straighter. (R6-1) 121

Anticipated challenges and strategies to overcome

Balanced against the advantages of the NAK, the repatriates’ selection of NAK to be
transferred upon repatriation was also guided by the potential challenges that they foresaw.
These expected challenges stemmed from cultural, organisational and personal barriers.
According to the repatriates, implementing the NAK might be a challenge due to cultural
differences between Malaysia (HMCO) and Australia (HCO). Different cultural values and
norms were seen as guiding repatriates’ choice of implementing certain practices.
Here I can look at somebody and say ’you know what, I do no’t agree with you’ and that’s not a
problem. But in the Asian context, you have to help save the face of that individual [. . .] That will be
the challenge actually. But in Australia, that is not a challenge because people do accept that’s how
people work. But in Malaysia, if you were to do that, that is the exception from the norms. But here, if
you are being too nice, that is exception from the norms. (R5-1)
However, beyond challenges introduced by cultural differences, repatriates also recognized
organisational challenges that might similarly inhibit transfer of NAK. For example,
numerous repatriates recognized that organizational habits might be a potential issue:
The only difficulty that I can see now is more on managing the big bosses rather than subordinate
because subordinates I probably can influence. I can lead them to the good practices in Australia. But
again, the old school bosses in Malaysia probably slightly difficult. (R1-1)
Challenges were also identified at the individual level, constituting anticipated personal
issues that might limit transfer despite having the motivation to do so.
It’s going to be hard because I kind of expect when I go back to Malaysia, I’m going to have a lot of
work! Hahaha. . . I need to start multitasking, probably to work some late hours. That’s going to be
hard because here they really focus on work life balance. Here, I do no’t bring work home, so that’s
good. Whereas in Malaysia, there is always something to do, even if you do no’t want to. (R10–1)
Many of the personal issues identified were less about repatriates’ own desires but rather
their recognition that other (e.g., organizational and cultural) challenges would necessitate a
high degree of persistence and/or may come at a personal cost. Therefore, they noted that
their decision to transfer knowledge would depend on the receptivity of their HMCO
coworkers.
How far do I want to do that? I can go very far, but eventually, does it worth it? It might ruin your
good names, or you might be seen as the bad guy in the organisation. (R7-1)
As a consequence of these perceived challenges at the cultural, organizational and personal
levels, repatriates noted that when they do plan to transfer NAK, it would be important to
make sure that they communicate the reasons or the benefits of such NAK, rather than
forcing it. For example, repatriates planned on first gaining support from higher
management, getting the support from their circle of influence (subordinates) and
adjusting and adapting the NAK to better suit to the HMCO.
JGM There is benefit in terms of pursuing a more balance work life environment. I think it shows me that
there is an alternative way to of getting things done. [. . .] Not really sure if it suited my home country
8,1 organisation, but definitely there is something to it. Not to the extent where it is adapted to the host
country version of it, probably a modified version. (R8-1)

Knowledge not selected for transfer

122 Interestingly, the decision to not transfer certain NAK was driven primarily by repatriates’
concern on how the NAK would impact the organisation, rather than themselves – it was only
these organizational factors that were cited when making a conscious choice to avoid transfer
of NAK. Some NAK was seen as contradicting the HMCO’s objectives or goals, policies or
practice, risking the HMCO’s well-being. This was well-summarised by one repatriate.
I’m working for the nation’s company, so coming from that angle is different coming from all these
people. I mean, these people just see it as this is a corporate entity so probably they did no’t have to
bother too much about ownership. Most people just come and do the work, get paid and yeah, that’s
I’m not going to implement. Spending money like nobody’s business that is not the way a nation’s
company do business. We know we work for the nation of Malaysia, so we really need to be mindful
about spending and everything. (R4-1)
Corporate governance was also identified as an organizational challenge that repatriates
were not willing to risk.
c. [. . .] So, I think when it comes to empowerment, we do see more when the company is a smaller
company, as oppose to a large multinational like the HMCO for that matter. Because I think for the
HMCO, which has inbuilt, institutionalised in it a much more rigid risk process. [. . .] the kind of
system that is needed for you to make a good investment decision. (R5-1)
Related, the decision to withhold transfer of NAK was also justified by their organizational
role and the associated accountabilities that limit potential application.
Here, it’s a moving KPI. If cannot finish today, can always do it next week. [. . .] in Malaysia, I talked
already about consequence management. When there is a KPI, a dateline, and you are not meeting
the dateline, there is a consequence to that action. Meaning to say that you are not meeting the
requirement. (R6-1)
In conclusion, data from stage 1 suggested that their selections of NAK to be transferred to
the HMCO were influenced by their ability and motivation to transfer the NAK upon
repatriation, as determined by the anticipated outcomes that the NAK would/could bring for
both personal and organisational improvement. Their evaluation of their ability to transfer
was also affected by their anticipated repatriation and KT challenges at the cultural,
organizational and personal levels.

Findings: stage 2
Adjustment upon return
Upon repatriation, the majority of the repatriates were still adjusting to their new roles in the
HMCO 4 months into their repatriation. All of the repatriates highlighted that apart from a
one week transfer leave given upon arrival in the home country, there was no specific time
given for them to adjust upon repatriation. They were expected to be able to jump straight
into business the day they reported for duty while working their own way through any
necessary adjustment period. As such, unless they went back to their previous department
prior to the IA or were assigned to roles in areas with which they were familiar, the repatriates
were still adjusting during this period. Little assistance was provided during their
repatriation adjustment compared to their expatriation. Unfortunately, there was a
widespread assumption that they should be able to find their own way back into the system Informal
and start working as usual. repatriate
I do no’t really expect much, but at least the first day somebody should just welcoming me and say knowledge
“welcome back, this is what’s happening in the department”, rather than me going around asking transfer
people what’s going on. [. . .] well it’s not that you need party or something, but more like at least
that’s the minimum briefing. [. . .] In terms of administrative work like telephone, laptops, instead of
me going to the person [. . .] I think it’s kind of frustrating and a bit demotivating actually. [. . .] I think
the reason maybe because I am from the old organisation and come back to the same position, that’s 123
the reason why it was so-called taken for granted in way. (R10–2)
The assumption that repatriates would be able to jump back into work at the HMCO was
problematic because they nonetheless experienced adjustment challenges. Some repatriates
went through a smoother readjustment process, but most took longer to readjust to the
HMCO than expected. These challenges echoed some of the anticipated problems prior to
their return and again were related to cultural, organizational and personal issues.

Cultural issues
During stage 1 of the data collection, the repatriates predicted that the different culture and
values between Malaysia and Australia would be one of the challenges they would face upon
repatriation and when introducing NAK to the HMCO. True enough, readjusting to
contradicting cultural practices was a major challenge and reduced their likelihood of
introducing NA.K
I did not give any feedbacks to my bosses yet [. . .] The only reason I continue working is because it is
still manageable. But if it is too often until I cannot manage it, then I think I will voice my opinion.
Manageable as in 1–2 hours extra and also not many occasions and I think it is still too early to tell.
(R4-2)
Those repatriates that did consider transfer of NAK explicitly adapted to the HMCO cultural
context.
I think it is also our culture not to sound out at people in front of the public, right? [. . .] Put it this way.
It is almost like this in Australia “I do no’t agree because of this and this and this”. Here, you’ve got to
start with “because of this, this, this, I do no’t agree”. You have to shift it the other way around. But
you still get there, just a bit longer. (R5-2)

Organizational issues
Repatriates who were assigned to a new department in a new subsidiary also faced a different set
of adjustment challenges due to the change in their organizational context; it involved a new
environment in a new location, with new coworkers and different systems and work processes. In
addition to the lack of working relationships, repatriates were also overloaded with the time
required to get to know people and to understand and become familiar with new work processes.
In term of adjusting working with the people, I would say it takes couple of weeks. [. . .] Technicians,
there are a lot of senior people who have been working with this outfit for more than 20 plus years
and some more than 30 years. There are some who just work for 1–5 years. Some of the senior ones
have been working since the outfit first started. (R3-2)
A large part of these challenges was due to the lack of social capital in the new department,
requiring them to establish new working relationships and amplifying the motivation to “fit
in” instead of going against the grain by attempting to implement NAK.
But I have to blend in as well. [. . .]. Based on my experience, if we do no’t blend in, they perceive us as
the foreigners, outsiders, and that will be terrible. (R6-2)
JGM Further emphasizing this point, coworkers actually appeared to applaud repatriates who
8,1 were open to adopting current HMCO practice, rather than trying to effect change.
We teach him how to do this, the proposal, and then after a while, he can manage by his own. Means
he has no so called, tak malu untuk bertanya tau (he was no’t even embarrassed to ask). Even he’s the
manager, but he’s tak malu bertanya (he was no’t even embarrassed to ask) how to manage all this
thing one by one. [. . .] I’m okay and I try to help him, okay, in such that he can manage later on when
his subordinate is away from the office. (S13–1)
124
This is also consistent with the finding that those repatriates who had the opportunity to visit
the HMCO prior to officially being repatriated appeared to be more successful. These visits
helped keep the ties between members of the HMCO while keeping them up to date with the
progress in the HMCO.
I think it took me very short time to adjust [. . .] I adjusted to the environment in no time to mix with
my team members [. . .] Except my boss, all of them I knew them before. So, to get very close, there
was no problem at all. [. . .], because same old office. [. . .] I think I’m still very much familiar with the
way they work, although I was a way for 3 years. (R7-2)
Echoing this analysis, the cases where there were relatively few organizational challenges
were those situations where the repatriates returned to the same department or subsidiary,
which specifically aided adjustment because they knew the system and the people involved in
the business.
I do no’t feel any sense of adjustment because the work is about the same. (R2-2)
Again, a large part of this ease of adjustment was attributed to existing social capital:
Also, his experience and credibility. His reputation also. That’s some of the factors influencing other
people to listen to his suggestion and decision. (S5-1)

Personal issues
In addition, repatriates also had to deal with their own personal adjustment challenges. Many
repatriates realised that their personal values had been changed by their overseas
experiences and struggled to reconcile this with their return home.
Actually, I think I might have changed quite significantly [. . .] The main significant change is, I think
I’m the very few in the office that dare to voice out anytime or every time that I feel it’s not right,
regardless the audience; CEO, GM or SM, I’d voice out. And I do no’t like to be quiet and be polite or
diplomatic. That is the big difference. I think 3 years ago, I would not do that. (R7-2)
I have mentioned this to other colleagues that I’m going to follow the Australian way [. . .]. They
respected the decision but they dare not follow the footstep. Because to them, they have a lot of things
at stake. (R2-2)
Prior to repatriation, some repatriates had raised concerns about readjusting to HMCO due to
these changes, unsure of what the coworkers’ reactions would be. However, upon repatriation
and despite the concern and regardless of the potential outcomes, a few decided to stay true to
themselves, believing that their different behaviors and actions were for the greater good of
the HMCO.
In term of giving opinion, the protocol is very rigid or very obvious. When you want to give your
opinion, you need to “tapis” (screen) it, because sometimes people do no’t accept it the way we are
thinking or accepting it [. . .]. Sometimes they take it personally as if we try to “tembak” (attack) them.
But it was not actually attacking as we are giving opinion, which they cannot accept that and they
take it very personal. But it’s up to them, as I do no’t really care, as I do no’t take it personal. (R6-2)
Although these personal challenges did not generate resentment toward the HMCO’s lack of Informal
planning and assistance, it was demotivating and potentially limited their engagement in repatriate
transfer of NAK.
knowledge
Initially, it demotivates me, but I look at it as an opportunity and then just get back on my feet and transfer
just move. I take it as an opportunity to do what I want to do and start thinking on what difference I
can make and what improvement I can deliver to the organisation. (R4-2)
125
Successful KT
Following these challenges, when presented with the opportunity to transfer the NAK, the
repatriates were very cautious about the limitations surrounding their KT efforts. Most
repatriates during this stage of repatriation reported being more successful in continuously
practising NAK that improved their leadership/organisational practices themselves, rather
than attempting to influence others or imposing new practices.
Well, the staff, my non-direct report, they know that 5pm I will go and they said I have made them a
point to understand that I will be around until 5pm. So, if they need to do anything like getting my
approvals, just come before I go as after 5 I will not be going to stay. (R2-2)
However, when successful transfer did occur, repatriates described explicit strategies in
order to overcome the expected challenges, including building rapport, rationalizing the
importance of NAK, waiting for the right moment, sharing informally, adjusting/adapting
NAK, avoiding comparisons, leading by example, exercising positional power and managing
up (see Table 8 for examples of these strategies).

Unsuccessful KT
The inability to successfully transfer NAK that the repatriates had intended to implement
was due to several constraints which were closely related to the nature of the HMCO. These
constraints were consistent with what they predicted prior to their repatriation, which were
also identified as reasons certain NAK was not considered/selected for transfer. These
include culture and organisational structure, powerless position, work demand, sense of
responsibility and lack of superior’s support (see Table 9 for examples of these constraints
and their explanations).
In sum, the success or failure of transferring NAK was based on the impact such NAK has
on the repatriates’ personal or organisational improvements. Nonetheless, although the NAK
would benefit the repatriates personally, it would not be implemented if the outcome is at the
organisation’s stake. As such, if a particular NAK would positively impact an individual at a
cost to the HMCO’s productivity, the understanding was that it was not to be transferred or
accepted, as summed up by one repatriate.
The cohesiveness is much better here compared to Australia. In Australia is trying to take care of one
self. Here, I will take care of myself and at the same time I will make sure that people surround me will
not be affected. (R3-2)

Findings: stage 3
The majority of the repatriates reported that their first few months were spent on their
repatriation adjustment, which included familiarising themselves with the people, learning
their new roles and catching up with the systems in the HMCO, while also attempting to grapple
with personal issues. However, stage 3 provided a much deeper follow-up investigation to
further explore the repatriates’ adjustment within 8–14 months following repatriation.
Inclusion of this stage provided further insight into how NAK was successfully transferred to
JGM Strategies used Samples of evident from interviews
8,1
Building rapport Once you have created the rapport, then working together is not difficult. So, I
would think that will be something that needs to be in place. (R5-2)
Rationalizing the If you think it is right, do not feel afraid to offend people. Especially the people that
importance you ‘offend’ more often than not, they do not do their job or failed to perform in
their job. So, just voice it out or just challenge them. [. . .] I feel it’s right and I need
126 to show people that such approach can work as well. (R7-2)
Waiting for the right My first impression is that you wait a while, get adjusted first, then you talk, you
moment say to me that thing again in three months’ time la whether it is applicable or not.
(S12–2)
Sharing informally I did several sharing sessions just to enlighten them, to share my knowledge. The
formal meeting you can attract the crowd, but sometimes the level of sharing is
probably not really deep because when smaller group, they tend to ask beyond the
scope. (R4-2)
Adjusting and adapting In Australia, even if an executive is organising a meeting and there is a lot of
bosses in that meeting, he can control the time because he is the organiser [. . .] But
here, if you said that, it’s disrespect [. . .] So I have to be really sort of subtle. [. . .]
For example, I jokingly say “ok, almost 12:30 and I think my stomach is already
growling”. (R10–2)
Avoiding comparison Especially when they know that you say “oh I learned this during my days in
Australia”. They will just say “ahh., sombong (arrogant), just want to show off”.
[. . .] Yes, give them examples of what I have experienced before, without
mentioning about Australia. (R7-2)
Leading by example My strategy, again as a leader, you have to show by example. By leading the team;
showing them all these key elements in your behaviors, that will directly or
indirectly nurture them to practise the same. But then again, it cannot be done
overnight but still can be done. (R1-2)
Exercising positional “I think, whatever within my direct control, it’s a lot easier to do. In terms of
power working time, can work it out with my direct reports. [. . .]I can certainly work
based on results with them; because it is within my accountability, my direct
control [. . .] For the ones that within my circle of influence, I find it I have institute
some changes which I thought is for the better.” (R8-2)
Managing up He’s the boss; he can ask whatever he likes [. . .] so he can change. I mean this
culture comes from the top. If the others are convinced with this kind of working
Table 8. culture and all those new practices, then easy to impose and implement on the
RKT strategies others. (S12–2)

the HMCO and why some were unsuccessfully transferred, even after the initial adjustment
challenges were resolved.

Adjustment and ongoing personal challenges

During stage 3, the majority of the repatriates stated that they had slowly, if not completely,
adjusted to the HMCO; they were able to resume their respective roles better, as compared to
during stage 2 interviews. These repatriates highlighted that by this stage of their
repatriation, they were able to transfer more NAK as compared to when they first came back
from their IA. In other words, the ability to adjust themselves to the HMCO provided them
with better opportunity to implement the NAK.
Notably, repatriates who overcame cultural barriers tended to conform or adapt to them,
rather than fighting against them.
At this time, he’s already converted to that Malaysia’s HMCO’s working environment [. . .] tuned
back to the original that before he went to Australia for the assignment. [. . .] Now he’s working like
Malaysian style. (S13–2)
Reasons
Culture and organisational
structure
Powerless position
Work demand
Sense of responsibilities
Lack of superior’s support
Samples of evidence from interviews
Informal
repatriate
While the coworkers acknowledged that some NAK was good in terms of its knowledge
outcome, not everyone was ready to adopt it immediately. Most of the time, it
was due to the cultural constraints ranging from different cultural beliefs and transfer
practices, to the norms in the HMCO that contradicted those of the HCO. As a
result of this limitation, the repatriates ended up following the crowd to gain
acceptance and not to upset the group at large 127
“Cause it sort of going against the norm [. . .] I think, I sort of either I try to
impose what I have been practising before, or I succumb to whatever is being
practised here.” (R10–2)
Being the only one in the department practising the NAK in the HMCO was
already a challenge that got even harder when the repatriates were not in a
position to impose or influence others to follow through. Thus, getting support
from employees other than their own subordinates when transferring NAK
was not successful
“Even if you have the credibility but not the authority, you might not have the
visibility. Else, you can only change at your level, which is very minimal and
cannot give huge impact to the company.” (R4-2)
Given the size and business ventures of the HMCO as compared to the HCO,
repatriates had to spend more time performing their tasks. As such,
transferring NAK was not their priority
“[. . .] when he comes here, he told us that about the work-life balance, and I
remembered he is saying that. But I think that many also General Manager
said that before. . .many of them are not successful because there are so many
things here, and I do no’t think he can go back at 5 or 5:30.” (S8-2)
As the leader, they saw that it as their responsibility to manage and protect the
organisation’s well-being. Thus, if implementing the NAK would jeopardise
the HMCO, they opted to not transfer the NAK
“First, the pressing business needs. [. . .] Well, that is the responsibility given to
me. If I have to deliver, I have to deliver [. . .]. To me, it’s my job to do that.” (R1-2)
According to the repatriates, they needed to get the superior on their side
promoting the transfer and encouraging implementation of the NAK for NAK
to be fully accepted. However, in some cases, superiors were not supportive,
which affected the repatriates’ efforts to transfer the NAK Table 9.
“I think the very key is the bosses. With the very aggressive timeline, the bosses, Reasons why some
the culture is different. In Australia, after 5pm, they will never call you. But NAK was
over here, they will call you anytime because their bosses also did that to them. unsuccessfully
So, they cannot do anything.” (R1-2) implemented

Few repatriates reported they were still adjusting to organizational challenges, as most of
them had managed to take control of the situation, especially when they were promoted to
higher positions or given bigger roles that provided them with power over others.
Ok, when I first came back, first 6 months was a struggle [. . .] But now, since I’ve been promoted [. . .],
it’s all under my control. So, it’s a bit easier because I can control. (R1-3)
Despite the longer time taken to understand their new roles, on top of adjusting with new
coworkers, they explained that they were finally able to run the business as expected of them,
effectively transferring NAK as intended.
Ok, maybe for the first one or two months I saw that he’s quite struggling lah to adopt that kind of
role [. . .] Now he’s almost 9 months here, he already have rules that others need to follow his rules. So
he developed, he improved and then he shared those ideas. (S13–2)
JGM Repatriates who made the effort to learn from their subordinates also adjusted better, gaining
8,1 more respect for wanting to seek help from the subordinates in their attempts at NAK
transfer.
Even until today even he knows already those things is still also maybe a one of few or two issues
that he still refers to us. And we discuss, even though I’m not familiar with those issue and we discuss
together how to resolve the issue and to put the proposal for client. (S13–2)
128 Nonetheless, data also show that a few of the repatriates were still adjusting. The difficulty in
fully readjusting was mainly due to the misfit of roles or the ineffective utilization of human
resources as a result of poor repatriation plans. Consequently, residual challenges in
transferring of NAK were generally at the personal level, given that they have not fully
adjusted to and gained support from the HMCO; they were still struggling to fit in with the
coworkers, as well as catching up with the business, in order to serve in their assigned roles.
Last we spoke in September, it was still ok, I tried to follow the style, I tried to adapt, but still there
was a culture shock due to the 3 years’ experience in Brisbane. But after xxx (confidential data), I
stopped trying. I just feel there is no point trying to accommodate them. Just be myself. So, I started
being myself again and be strong. If they talked nonsense, I’ll argue back. (R7-3)
However, not being able to change themselves in adjusting to the HMCO’s expectations also
led some repatriates to find new personal meaning in their work. Their experience made them
more confident in portraying their true selves although they ended up not favored by their
coworkers.
I think the most important reason that I do no’t have to be worried in doing that is because I know I
am marketable. I do no’t need to be worried about my rice bowl. So that makes me do whatever that I
think is right. Of course, I did it professionally. (R7-3)

KT: successful knowledge implementation

Despite the challenges faced during the repatriation and in their attempts to transfer NAK, the
majority of respondents were firm in their decisions to continue employing NAK and indicated
that working through these challenges had helped their personal development. They reported
that their commitment to achieving organizational improvement took precedence over the
challenges. In fact, repatriates did not mind the negative perceptions of others, especially when
implementing a particular NAK would lead to people to take them more seriously:
I think it has made some progress with some people. For example, I’m meeting with [. . .] manager on
operation. So, when I told them meeting at 10, let say it’s already 10, they will call and said, “Can you
give me another 2 minutes? I’m coming, in the lift”. Meaning to say, they know I take this seriously
that they inform me of them being late. (R2-3)
The repatriates also reflected on the several months of adjustment required after repatriation.
Although it delayed their NAK transfer plans, they were able to use the readjustment stage to
assess the current HMCO and identify the right moment and the NAK that were critical for
transfer.
I guess what I did was some situational assessment of how things are and how different it was then
[. . .] and then I looked for opportunities where I can put whatever culture or practices that I’ve
learned from the previous international assignment to my current organisation. [. . .] then, that’s
where I can draw some of the practices that are of benefit to be added in this organisation. (R8-3)
In their NAK transfer efforts, repatriates again echoed the transfer strategies outlined in
stage 2. However, they also pointed out that support from their peers also helped in getting
buy-in from others; they used close coworkers to ensure that NAK could be transferred
more broadly across the entire HMCO. In stage 2, the majority of the repatriates emphasised Informal
that they were able to transfer NAK to their circle of influence only; most of the time, this repatriate
referred to their subordinates. In stage 3, however, interviews with subordinates revealed
that those subordinates began to benefit from the NAK transferred to them and that they
knowledge
had started to indirectly become the “change agents” as well, providing further spread of transfer
that NAK.
129
KT: unsuccessful knowledge implementation
According to the repatriates, the ongoing challenges to successfully transferring NAK were
mostly due to the NAK being perceived as change and meeting resistance. Understandably,
changing something that people were so used to doing for many years can be difficult
Interesting because the past 1 plus year journey, you see there are people who are really resistant to
change. Simply because they are used to it for the last 20–30 years. They do no’t want to change. If
you try to change, push them, force them, they probably still follow you but maybe you can see from
their faces it’s not really sincere. (R1-3)
The majority of the repatriates also agreed that culture differences remained as one of the
reasons why NAK was not successfully transferred. They emphasised how they had to keep
on reminding the coworkers that despite the organizational culture it was important for NAK
that could help to improve their work performance and organisation’s productivity to be
replicated in the HMCO. The repatriates explained that when they had coercive power, they
nonetheless had to hold back from forcing others to practice adopt NAK because doing so
would jeopardize their long-term relationships in the organization. In the event where they
were powerless, many repatriates had given up and submitted to contemporary practice.
Related, lack of superior support was commonly cited as one of the reasons for the lack of
transfer. Similarly, some coworkers who started to emulate the NAK also felt that their
inability to influence others was limited by their lack of power.

Discussion
The findings from this research are consistent with previous studies on RKT that focused on
the identification of key variables for RKT success (Oddou, et al., 2013; Reiche, 2012),
particularly the ability–motivation–opportunity framework of work performance by, as well
as the social capital theory in building intellectual capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). The
findings indicate that from the repatriates’ perspectives, the process flows during RKT
depends on the ability and motivation of repatriates as well as their opportunity to
communicate the NAK to their HMCO. A previous study highlighted that for a KT to take
place, expatriates (who possessed the knowledge) need to have the ability and motivation to
engage in the knowledge-sharing process.
In discussing factors moderating the relationship between individual and interunit
intellectual capital, proposed the importance of having the home country office maintain their
communication with the expatriates during their IA, regardless of, for example, physical or
geographical distance. Their study also proposed that inpatriates will be more motivated to
build interunit intellectual capital (transferring knowledge upon repatriation) if they have a
successful repatriation experience. Data in this study support these propositions with regard
to the ability and motivation of knowledge transferors (the repatriates). For instance,
repatriates who have the opportunity to stay in contact with the HMCO during their IA, by
attending regular visits/meetings in the HMCO, faced less resistance from their coworkers
when introducing the NAK upon repatriation (Yogeswaran et al., 2017). The ability to update
and share on their experiences in the HCO, while visiting the HMCO, provided the
opportunity for the coworkers to “be aware of’ and “familiar with’ the NAK that the
JGM repatriates later intended to transfer. In addition, findings also suggest that familiarization
8,1 visit prior to repatriation, which was experienced by one of the repatriates and also suggested
by the other repatriates, is another communication channel that can be implemented to
increase repatriates’ ability to transfer NAK. These findings may yet again vary depending
on the category of international assignee (Burmeister et al., 2015; Harzing et al., 2016),
including self-initiated expatriates who may return to their home country (Al Ariss and
Shaoa, 2020).
130 In other words, from the findings, we learned that the repatriates’ ability to overcome
repatriate adjustment and KT challenges is crucial in order for them to initiate KT. Based
on their assessment of the anticipated and actual experiences adjusting to the HMCO,
repatriates then carefully select the NAK to be transferred. Consequently, repatriates
should also consider adjusting both their KT behavior and the NAK to local context, as a
strategy to increase chances of successful KT. The RKT process also depends on the
repatriates’ motivation, which is the outcome of KT toward their personal and
organizational improvements. Thus, repatriates need to be able to communicate the
importance of the NAK to their coworkers, in order to get their buy-ins. Repatriates also
need to be able to look for opportunities to engage with the coworkers, to ensure smooth
implementation of the NAK. Through their social interactions with the coworkers,
repatriates can slowly introduce the NAK before executing the actual transfer, upon
detecting appropriate timing to do so.
This research proposes four phases of RKT, which starts when the repatriate is still in the
HCO and ends in the HMCO, as follows: (1) knowledge acquisition, (2) knowledge initiation, (3)
knowledge implementation and (4) knowledge replication. The following Figure 2 illustrates
the RKT process (see Figure 2).

Knowledge acquisition phase

The Malaysian repatriates in this study highlighted that they did not acquire much new
technical-related knowledge pertaining to the areas in which they were involved. This was
due to them being the experts in the industry and being assigned to an IA with the
expectation that they were to share their expertise. Given the fact that the repatriates were
assigned to an IA in Australia, where the culture varies greatly from their home country
and HMCO, the repatriates acquired different perspectives on managing people and the
organization while they shared their technical expertise with HCO’s coworkers during their
average 3 years of IAs. The NAK that repatriates gained from their IA includes (1) skills/
practices that are implemented differently and (2) strategies/ways of employing certain
skills/practices that were not successfully implemented in their HMCO previously. These
new or different perspectives are identified as tacit knowledge as they are not easily
codified and taught to those who do not have first-hand experience of such skills or
practices.

Knowledge initiation phase

While not all of the NAK from their IA was considered for implementation in their HMCO
upon repatriation, some NAK was selected for transfer. Thus, the decision to transfer NAK
was initiated when the repatriates assess the significance of the NAK before they finally
select the most appropriate NAK to be transferred. The assessment and selection are
motivated by the criticality of the knowledge. Data suggest that the NAK that the repatriates
selected for transfer can be categorized into NAK that will benefit them personally and NAK
that will benefit their HMCO. At a personal level, the repatriates believed that the NAK
selected could assist them in becoming better leaders in HMCO if they continued to practice
them upon repatriation. At the organizational level, the repatriates believed that the NAK
 PRE-REPATRIATION: HOST-COUNTRY REPATRIATION: HOME-COUNTRY

Ability to Transfer

Repatriation and Knowledge Transfer Challenges

x Cultural
x Organisational
x Personal

anticipated actual anticipated actual

Knowledge Successfully
Transferred

Newly-acquired knowledge Selected to Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge be Transferred Strategies

Knowledge Unsuccessfully
anticipated actual anticipated actual Transferred

Motivation to Transfer

Knowledge Transfer Outcomes

x Personal Improvement
x Organisational Improvement

Acquisition Initiation Implementation Replication

KEY:
Anticipated influence projected while in the
HCO
Actual influence experienced in the HMCO
knowledge
repatriate
Informal

transfer

131

Figure 2.

transfer process model

Repatriate knowledge
JGM could enhance the HMCO’s current business practices, should they be successfully
8,1 implemented. The assessment and selection are also influenced by the repatriates’ ability
to overcome repatriation adjustment and KT challenges.
Data also show that the assessment and selection stages occur at two points: prior to
repatriation and upon repatriation. Prior to repatriation, the assessment and selection were
made based on their anticipated motivation to transfer, as well as their anticipated ability to
transfer. Hence, upon repatriation, their assessment and selection were based on the actual
132 motivation and ability, guided by their experience in the HMCO as they attempted to transfer
the NAK. In addition, given the assessment and selection stages were conducted prior to and
upon repatriation, the strategies on how to implement the NAK were also planned based on
the anticipated and actual motivation and ability to transfer.

Knowledge implementation phase

This is the phase that sees the flow of knowledge as NAK is transferred to the HMCO. Data
collected show that knowledge implementation occurs at two stages – introduction and
execution. During introduction, it is important that the repatriates build rapport with their
coworkers, before attempting any KT. Furthermore, the repatriates need to rationalise the
importance of implementing the NAK to get buy-in from coworkers. Such information
sharing can be done during informal sessions (Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar, 2016) or as they
coach coworkers. During these sessions, the repatriates need to be aware of sensitivities to
comparing the differences between HCO and the HMCO practices around the NAK. While
comparison might be needed to justify the need for KT, it should not be done in a way that
could be perceived as belittling the HMCO. Given the repatriates’ early stage of adjusting to
the HMCO and the tacit nature of some NAK, one strategy used to introduce the NAK was
leading by example. Given the cultural values in the HMCO, repatriates could also obtain
superiors’ support for their attempts to introduce NAK. At this stage of the implementation,
repatriates normally introduce the NAK to their circle of influence – immediate superiors and
subordinates.
Repatriates may begin to execute the transfer of NAK when suitable work-related
moments arise. Alternatively, repatriates who have power to impose the execution of NAK
may do so if they believe implementing NAK would benefit the organization at large.
However, repatriates need to be cautious and ready to adapt the NAK to the local context,
should it conflict with the HMCO’s culture values or have the potential to jeopardize the
HMCO. While implementation at the introduction stage primarily involves subordinates,
implementation at the execution stage involves both subordinates and peers. Peers’ and
subordinates’ involvement in the execution of NAK increases the chances of developing
“change agents’. Successfully executing the NAK with them increases the potential for the
NAK to be replicated by more people in the HMCO.

Knowledge replication phase

The final phase of the RKT is knowledge replication, wherein NAK is being replicated or
applied by coworkers. This phase is similar to the ramp-up phase by Szulanski (1996) and the
evaluation phase by Burmeister et al. (2015). Similar to findings from the recent study by
Burmeister et al. (2015), the success of a particular KT attempt influences subsequent KTs.
This is the stage at which coworkers begin to employ the NAK in their daily business
interactions and operations in the HMCO.

Implications for theory

This study is the first longitudinal study to take a process perspective to understand
repatriates’ KT. The longitudinal study conducted answers the call for studies over the full
arc of repatriation and KT studies made by scholars in the areas of repatriation and KT Informal
(Oddou, et al., 2009; Sussman, 2011). Thus, through the development of process model for repatriate
RKT, this longitudinal study extends the current RKT process model (Burmeister et al., 2015),
suggesting that the process does not start when repatriates enter the work unit in the HMCO
knowledge
but rather that the process starts prior to repatriates leaving the HCO. As argued by transfer
(Szulanski, 1996), initiation – the first stage of the KT process – consists of all events that lead
to the decision to transfer. In this present study, findings suggest that the decision to transfer
particular NAK first occurred during the knowledge initiation phase, which occurs prior to 133
repatriation. Based on their knowledge and experiences working in the HMCO, repatriates
were able to assess in predicting potential repatriation and KT challenges in the HMCO that
ultimately influenced their selection and strategies to implement the NAK. We also learned
that in order to explain and predict reverse KT, we must challenge our thinking around
antecedents. In our study, we have identified that despite long-term adjustment opportunity,
it is possible that reverse KT remains problematic for repatriates, suggesting cultural
differences as one of the reasons of an unsuccessful reverse KT. This leads us to a related
implication to be explored in the next paragraph.
Second, this study also contributes to the development of the Asia-centric approach by
exploring the challenges and strategies during repatriation and knowledge transfer in
Malaysian context. In his analysis of Asia-centric studies on Asian communication, Miike
(2006) defines Asiacentricity as “the metatheoretical notion that insists on placing Asian
values and ideals at the centre of inquiry in order to see Asian phenomena from the
standpoint of Asians as subjects and agents” (p. 5). Applying the notion of Asiacentricity in
the context of repatriation and KT, this study addresses the second (of five-pronged) Asia-
centric agenda proposed by Miike; expanding the geographical focus of study beyond the
traditional Asian geographical focus, such as Japan, China and India only.
There are distinct aspects presented in our research that suggest the Malaysian context
to contribute differently to RKT compared to other contexts, possibly those identified as
Western and other Asian contexts. This garners specificity for Malaysia as a research
context. Based on our research findings, it is plausible that the Malaysia research contexts
feature variation in level of empowerment of repatriates. Associated with that are issues of
trust between repatriates and locals across the hierarchy. Among other factors, we suspect
leadership styles, a general lack of social capital upon return work–life balance, country
working culture and other cultural (e.g., saving face) and organizational habits to impact
RKT differently in Malaysia compared to other contexts. We quote Miike (2006) who
would say that local (Malaysian) inputs and insights may lead to different findings. In fact,
these different findings may challenge the generalizability of previous findings in the
literature.

Implications for practice

The findings of this research are relevant to managers’ understanding of how expatriation
(especially in significantly different cultures) contributes to organizational knowledge upon
returning to the HMCO. Understanding how the cultural, organisational and personal
challenges that could affect repatriates’ ability to perform KT successfully will help them to
also identify the appropriate strategies (Yogeswaran et al., 2017) in achieving KT’s positive
outcomes at both personal and organisational levels. Furthermore, findings are of value to the
organization in developing strategies to ensure knowledge retention in the case of repatriate
turnover.
This study also shows how poor repatriation planning leads to poor repatriate adjustment
upon return to the HMCO, when compared to repatriates with well-charted repatriation and
career plans. Thus, the findings inform organisations (particularly the human resource
JGM management department) in preparing action plans for repatriations to supplement
8,1 expatriation plans. Organisations can learn from this to better prepare future expatriates’
international journeys. Organisations that become more adept at transferring knowledge are
likely to become better at pre-empting or resolving transfer-related problems during the next
transfer. Dramatic reductions in the eventfulness of transfers can occur if problems are
identified, solved and catalogued (Szulanski 2000).
Given the findings, this study proposed that organisations consider the following
134 suggestions in managing the repatriation process to ensure positive outcomes on KT efforts:
(1) Equal attention should be given to expatriation and repatriation to ensure a
successful and fruitful international assignment.
(2) In the process of selecting the right candidate for an international assignment,
organisations should consider the repatriation plan for the candidate. Specifically,
repatriation planning starts when the expat candidate is identified to clarify future
expectations and career opportunities for the HMCO and candidate. The position
offered and experience to be gained in the HCO must match the position in HMCO upon
repatriation for the organisation to fully benefit from the expatriation. This means
charting a holistic career path for the candidate that will ultimately benefit the HMCO
rather than simply filling an empty position in the HCO to achieve HMCO’s specific
goals. Thus, expatriation and repatriation plans should be considered hand in hand.
(3) Regular debriefings to keep expatriates posted with updates progress and changes in
the HMCO should be communicated to expatriates in the HCO to minimise the issue of
“out of sight” and “out of mind” (Napier and Peterson, 1991) and a feeling of alienation
upon repatriation (Gomez-Mejıa and Balkin, 1987).
(4) This study observed that repatriates who were assigned to a work unit and position
that did not complement their experiences and expertise struggled in adjusting to the
HMCO and were unsuccessful in implementing KT. This finding informed the
organisation to consider discussing expatriates’ career path with them prior to
repatriation. This will allow expatriates to have input on the potential new work unit
and maximise the potential Return of Investment (ROI) from the overall international
assignment.
(5) The present study also highlights how an orientation to the future work, conducted in
the prior unit prior to repatriation, provides future repatriates an opportunity to learn,
understand and prepare themselves for potential organisational, cultural and
personal challenges in the HMCO. Thus, organisations should arrange for future
repatriates to attend familiarisation visits to the future work unit in the HMCO to ease
the repatriation adjustment and KT process.

Research limitations
A notable limitation to this research is a result of its qualitative approach, which limits the
generalizability of results across other cultures, organizations or industries. Thus, the
replication of the results across repatriates outside Malaysia might not be possible.
However, using the research procedures to study repatriates’ KT in other countries is
possible. Given the limited time frame, this study focused on repatriation KT from the
repatriates’ point of view only. Although interviews were also conducted with the
repatriates’ coworkers, it was from coworkers’ view of the repatriates’ reentry (adjustment)
to the HMCO and the implementation strategies they employed. If a thorough analysis were
to be conducted on views from the coworkers, a fully integrated repatriate’s KT process
could be the result.
Directions for future research Informal
This study has five major future research directions to offer as follows: First, it is suggested repatriate
that future research look at a more holistic perspective by including views from coworkers;
interviews should include each of the repatriates’ immediate subordinates, immediate
knowledge
superiors and colleagues. It is also suggested that future research include an equal number of transfer
superiors and subordinates to be interviewed for each repatriate at all stages of the data
collection. Multilevel research on RKT could likewise offer significant insight into the
important role of repatriates as KT agents (Burmeister and Shaffer, 2017). 135
Second, recent research shows that multinational organizations are increasingly sending
host national employees from subsidiaries (referred as inpatriates) to the parent company
(Reiche, 2012). Therefore, investigating KT from inpatriates to coworkers from the parent
company and/or coworkers from the subsidiary warrants future research attention.
Third, suggests that management techniques or philosophies that are appropriate in one
national culture are not necessarily appropriate in another culture (i.e., not transferrable).
However, findings from this study show several strategies were successfully used by
repatriates in implementing the managerial skills and business practices acquired from a
different cultural setting after some adjustment was made to adapt those skills and practices
(referred as NAK in this study) to the HMCO context. Given the generalisability limitation of
this qualitative study, future research could test the applicability of those strategies
quantitatively.
Fourth, the findings from this study also highlighted that repatriates who had a more
structured repatriation plan adjusted to the HMCO more smoothly and transferred the NAK
more easily compared to repatriates who returned with no certainty of their next position.
Future research should therefore consider the possible interactions between structured
repatriation plans and repatriation adjustment and its effects on KT.
Finally, the model of repatriate’s KT process developed in this study was designed based
on the repatriation and KT journey experienced by repatriates who returned to their HMCO
after an IA. Nonetheless, at present, there are various other IAs such as parent country
nationals (PNCs) on short-term assignments in other countries, host country nationals (HCNs)
who come to headquarters as inpatriates and HCNs who are transferred to other subsidiaries.
All these groups have the opportunity to transfer knowledge upon returning from their
assignment. In fact, three of the repatriates who participated in this study were heavily
involved in other IAs upon their repatriation thus resulting in materialising KT a completely
different challenge. Thus, future research should test if the model requires adjustment for
different types of repatriates and context.

References
Adler, N.J. (1981), “Re-entry: managing cross-cultural transitions”, Group and Organization Studies,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 341-356.
Adler, N.J. and Gundersen, A. (2008), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 5th ed.,
Thomson/South-Western, Eagan, MN.
Al Ariss, A. and Shaoa, J.J. (2020), “Knowledge transfer between self-initiated expatriates and their
organizations: research propositions for managing SIEs”, International Business Review, Vol. 29,
p. 101634.
Ambos, T.C., Ambos, B. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (2006), “Learning from foreign subsidiaries: an
empirical investigation of headquarters’ benefit from reverse knowledge transfers”,
International Business Review, Vol. 15, pp. 294-312.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms.
[Article]”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-169,
doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2893.
JGM Asrar-ul-Haq, M. and Anwar, S. (2016), “A systematic review of knowledge management and
knowledge sharing: trends, issues, and challenges”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 3,
8,1 p. 1127744.
Babbie, E. (2001), The Practice of Social Research, 9th ed., Wadsworth Thomson Learning,
Belmont, CA.
Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B. and Mendenhall, M.E. (1992), Global Assignments: Successfully Expatriating
and Repatriating International Managers, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
136
Bonache, J. and Brewster, C. (2001), “Knowledge transfer and the management of expatriation”,
Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 43, pp. 145-168.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997), “The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory
and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1-34.
Buckley, P.J., Clegg, J. and Tan, H. (2003), “The art of knowledge transfer: secondary and reverse
transfer in China’s telecommunications manufacturing industry”, Management International
Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 67-93.
Burmeister, A. and Shaffer, M.A. (2017), “Repatriate knowledge transfer: a systematic review of the
literature” in Bader, B., Schuster, T. and Bader, A.K. (Eds), Transatlantic Dialogue: 225-264,
Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Burmeister, A., Deller, J., Osland, J., Szkudlarek, B., Oddou, G., Blakeney, R. and Chase, R. (2015), “The
micro-processes during repatriate knowledge transfer: the repatriates’ perspective”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 735-755.
Burmeister, A., Lazarova, M.B. and Deller, J. (2018), “Repatriate knowledge transfer: antecedents and
boundary conditions of a dyadic process”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 53, pp. 806-816.
Cavana, R., Delahaye, B. and Sekaran, U. (2001), Applied Business Research: Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods, John Wiley and Sons, Brisbane.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Cox, J.B. (2004), “The role of communication, technology, and cultural identity in repatriation
adjustment”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 28 Nos 3-4, pp. 201-219, doi: 10.
1016/j.ijintrel.2004.06.005.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design, 2nd ed., SAGE, California.
Crowne, K.A. (2009), “Enhancing knowledge transfer during and after international assignments”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 134-147.
Downes, M. and Thomas, A.S. (2000), “Knowledge transfer through expatriation: the u-curve approach
to verseas staffing”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 131-149.
Edwards, T. and Ferner, A. (2004), “Multinationals, reverse diffusion and national business systems”,
Management International Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 49-79.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Fink, G., Meierewert, S. and Rohr, U. (2005), “The use of repatriate knowledge in organizations”,
HR.Human Resource Planning, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 30-36.
Flora, F.T., Chiang, E., Thomas, A.B. and Shaffer, M. (2018), “Repatriation: what do we know and
where do we go from here”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 188-226.
Fontaine, R. and Richardson, S. (2005), “Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese, malays and indians
compared”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 63-77.
Froese, F.J. and Peltokorpi, V. (2012), “Organizational expatriates and self-initiated expatriates: Informal
differences in cross-cultural adjustment and job satisfaction”, The International Journal of
Huma Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1953-1967, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2012.725078. repatriate
Furuya, N., Stevens, M.J., Bird, A., Oddou, G. and Mendenhall, M. (2009), “Managing the learning and
knowledge
transfer of global management competence: antecedents and outcomes of Japanese repatriation transfer
effectiveness”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 200-215, doi: 10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8400416.
Gomez-Mejıa, L. and Balkin, D.B. (1987), “The determinants of managerial satisfaction with the 137
expatriation and repatriation process”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Grant, K.A. (2007), “Tacit knowledge revisited–we can still learn from polanyi”, The Electronic Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 173-180.
Gupta, A. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge Flows within multinational corporations”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-496.
Harvey, M.G. (1982), “The other side of foreign assignments: dealing with the repatriation dilemma”,
Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 53-59.
Harzing, A.-W., Pudelko, M. and Reiche, S.B. (2016), “The bridging role of expatriates and inpatriates
in knowledge transfer in multinational corporations”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 55
No. 4, pp. 679-695.
Hocking, J.B., Brown, M. and Harzing, A.W. (2004), “A knowledge transfer perspective of strategic
assignment purposes and their path-dependent outcomes”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 565-586.
Hocking, J.B., Brown, M. and Harzing, A.W. (2007), “Balancing global and local strategic contexts:
expatriate knowledge transfer, applications, and learning within a transnational organization”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 513-533, doi: 10.1002/hrm.20180.
Hsu, Y.S. (2012), Knowledge Transfer between Expatriates and Host Country Nationals: A Social
Capital Perspective, PhD, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Huang, M.C., Ya-Ping and Lu, T.C. (2013), “Knowledge governance mechanisms and repatriate’s
knowledge sharing: the mediating roles of motivation and opportunity”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 677-694.
Hunt, D.M. (2001), “A framework and model for studying the repatriation experiences of expatriates
from developing nations”, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-32, doi: 10.1300/
J098v03n01_02.
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993), “Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the
multinational corporation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 625-645,
doi: 10.2307/1551.
Kostova, T. (1999), “Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: a contextual
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 308-324.
Kostova, T., Athanassiou, N. and Berdrow, I. (2004), “Managing knowledge in global
organizations”, in Lane, H., Maznevski, M., Mendenhall, M. and McNett (Eds), The
Blackwell Handbook of Global Management: A Guide to Managing Complexity, Blackwell,
Maiden, MA, pp. 275-288.
Lazarova, M. and Tarique, I. (2005), “Knowledge transfer upon repatriation”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 40, pp. 361-373.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
MacDonald, S. and Arthur, N. (2005), “Connecting career management to repatriation adjustment”,
Career Development International, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 145-159.
JGM M€akel€a, K. (2007), “Knowledge sharing through expatriate relationships: a social capital perspective”,
International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 108-125. doi: 10.2307/
8,1 40397707.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1999), Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miike, Y. (2006), “Non-Western theory in western research? An Asiacentric agenda for Asian
communication studies”, The Review of Communication, Vol. 6 Nos 1-2, pp. 4-31.
138
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A. (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods,
SAGE Publications, London.
Mudambi, R., Piscitello, L. and Rabbiosi, L. (2014), “Reverse knowledge transfer in MNEs: subsidiary
innovativeness and entry modes”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 47, pp. 49-63.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
Advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Najafi-Tavani, Z., Giroud, A. and Sinkovic, R.R. (2012), “Mediating effects in reverse knowledge
transfer processes: the case of knowledge-intensive services in the U.K”, Management
International Review, Vol. 52, pp. 461-488.
Nery-Kjerfve, T. and McLean, G.N. (2012), “Repatriation of expatriate employees, knowledge transfer,
and organizational learning”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 36 No. 6,
pp. 614-629, doi: 10.1108/03090591211245512.
Nonaka, I. and von Krogh, G. (2009), “Perspective – tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion:
controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory”, Organization
Science, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 635-652, doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0412.
Oddou, G.R. (2002), “Repatriate assets and firm pedormance: toward a model”, Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
Oddou, G., Osland, J.S. and Blakeney, R.N. (2009), “Repatriating knowledge: variables influencing the
"transfer" process”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 181-199.
Oddou, G., Szkudlarek, B., Osland, J.S., Deller, J., Blakeney, R. and Furuya, N. (2013), “Repatriates as a
source of competitive advantage: how to manage knowledge transfer”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 257-266. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.07.003.
Pablos, P.O.d. (2006), “Transnational corporations and strategic challenges: an analysis of knowledge
flows and competitive advantage”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 544-559, doi:
10.1108/09696470610705433.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Rabbiosi, L. (2011), “Subsidiary roles and reverse knowledge transfer: an investigation of the effects of
coordination mechanisms”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 97-113.
Reiche, B.S. (2012), “Knowledge benefits of social capital upon repatriation: a longitudinal study of
international assignees”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1052-1077.
Shariq, S.Z. (1999), “How does knowledge transform as it is transferred? Speculations on the
possibility of a cognitive theory of knowledgescapes”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 243-251.
Stahl, G.K., Miller, E.L. and Tung, R.L. (2002), “Toward the boundaryless career: a closer look at the
expatriatecareer concept and the perceived implications of an international assignment”,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 216-227, doi: 10.1016/S10909516(02)00080-9.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., SAGE Publications, London.
Stroh, L.K., Gregersen, H.B. and Black, J.S. (2000), “Triumphs and tragedies: expectations and
commitments upon repatriation”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 681-697, doi: 10.1080/09585190050075060.
Subramaniam, M. and Venkatraman, N. (2001), “Determinants of transnational new product Informal
development capability: testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas
knowledge”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 359-378, doi: 10.1002/smj.163. repatriate
Sussman, N.M. (2000), “The dynamic nature of cultural identity throughout cultural transitions: why
knowledge
home is not so sweet”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 355-373, doi: transfer
10.1207/s15327957pspr0404_5.
Sussman, N.M. (2011), “Working abroad and expatriate adjustment: three disciplinary lenses for
exploring the psychological transition cycle of international employees”, Social and Personality 139
Psychology Compass, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 393-409, doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00361.x.
Suutari, V. and Brewster, C. (2003), “Repatriation: empirical evidence from a longitudinal study of
careers and expectations among Finnish expatriates”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1132-1151.
Szkudlarek, B. (2010), “Reentry—a review of the literature”, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.06.006.
Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within
the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (SUPPL. WINTER), pp. 27-43.
Tallman, S. and Fladmoe-Lindquist, K. (2002), “Internationalization, globalization and capability-based
strategy”, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 116-135.
Whitehill, M. (1997), “Knowledge-based strategy to deliver sustained competitive advantage”, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 621-627.
Yang, Q., Mudambi, R. and Meyer, K. (2008), “Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in
multinational corporations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34, pp. 882-902.
Yeaton, K. and Hall, N. (2008), “Expatriates: reducing failure rates”, Journal of Corporate Accounting
and Finance, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 75-78, doi: 10.1002/jcaf.20388.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods, 2nd ed., SAGE, California.
Yogeswaran, T., Vijayakumar, R., Balasubramaniam, J. and James, R. (2017), “Repatriation adjustment
and knowledge sharing: a theoretical view”, Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 81-99.
Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (1995), “Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
organizational capabilities: an empirical test”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 76-92.
Zikmund, W.G. (1991), Exploring Marketing Research, Dryden Press, Chicago.

Further reading
Antal, A.B. (2001), “Expatriates’ contributions to organizational learning”, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 62-84.
Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B., Mendenhall, M.E. and Stroh, L.K. (1999), Globalizing People through
International Assignments, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bonache, J. (2005), “Job satisfaction among expatriates, repatriates and domestic employees: the
perceived impact of international assignments on work-related variables”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 110-124.
Bossard, A.B. and Peterson, R.B. (2005), “The repatriate experience as seen by american expatriates”,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 9-28, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2004.10.002.
Burmeister, A. and Deller, J. (2016), “A practical perspective on repatriate knowledge transfer”, Journal
of Global Mobility, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 68-87.
Eden, L. (2009), “Letter from Editor-in-Chief: reverse knowledge transfers, culture clashes and going
international”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 177-180.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 109-122, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171110.
JGM Gregersen, H.B. and Black, J.S. (1992), “Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and a foreign
operation”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 65-90.
8,1
Harvey, M. and Moeller, M. (2009), “Expatriate mangers: a historical review”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 275-296, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00261.x.
Harzing, A.W. and Pinnington, A. (Eds) (2011), International Human Resource Management, SAGE,
London, Vol. 3.
140 Hofstede, G. (2007), “Asian management in the 21st century”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 411-420.
Kraimer, M.L., Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A. and Ren, H. (2012), “No place like home? An identity
strain perspective on repatriate turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 2,
pp. 399-420.
Lazarova, M.B. and Caligiuri, P. (2001), “Retaining repatriates: the role of organisational support
practices”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 389-401.
Littrell, L.N., Salas, E., Hess, K.P., Paley, M. and Riedel, S. (2006), “Expatriate preparation: a critical
analysis of 25 years of cross-cultural training research”, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 355-388.
Mendenhall, M.E. and Stahl, G.K. (2000), “Expatriate training and development: where do we go from
here?”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 39 Nos 2-3, pp. 251-265.
Molinsky, A. (2010), “A situational approach for Assessing and teaching acculturation”, Journal of
Management Education, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 723-745, doi: 10.1177/1052562909337713.
Przytuła, S., Rozkwitalska, M., Chmielecki, M., Sułkowski, L. and Basi nska, B.A. (2018), “The
knowledge transfer from the headquarters to local subsidiaries through expatriates – local
employees’ perspective”, International Journal of Contemporary Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 207-239.
Sanchez-Vidal, M.U., Sanz-Valle, R. and Barba-Aragon, M.I. (2018), “Repatriates and reverse
knowledge transfer in MNCs”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 1767-1785.
Sims, R.H. and Schraeder, M. (2004), “An examination of salient factors affecting expatriate culture
shock”, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 73-87.
Vidal, M.E.S., Valle, R.S. and Aragon, M.I.B. (2008), “International workers’ satisfaction with the
repatriation process”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 9,
pp. 1683-1702, doi: 10.1080/09585190802295256.

Corresponding author
Miriam Moeller can be contacted at: m.moeller@business.uq.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.