6 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

The effects of HR policies and repatriate self-adjustment on global competency transfer

Norihito FuruyaIGB Network Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan

Michael J. StevensUniversity of Texas – Pan American, Edinburg, Texas, USA

Gary OddouCalifornia State University, San Marcos, California, USA

Allan BirdUniversity of Missouri, St Louis, Missouri, USA

Mark E. MendenhallUniversity of Tennessee, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA

A growing body of literature has emphasized the important role of internationalassignments in helping create a more globally competent management cadre.Indeed, the competencies acquired through international assignments can often bea significant source of competitive advantage for firms. However, for employers toderive benefits from a repatriate’s newly acquired global competencies, they mustwork to ensure the successful transfer of those competencies to subsequent jobassignments. This study specifically examined the degree to which a firm’s HRpolicies and practices influence the transfer of global competencies acquiredthrough an overseas assignment. In addition, we examined the impact oncompetency transfer of the repatriate’s capacity and desire to adjust to therepatriation job assignment, which has been a largely neglected element in thisstream of research. The relative predictive effects on competency transfer of both

Correspondence to: Allan Bird, Eiichi Shibusawa-Seigo Arai Professor of Japanese Studies,College of Business Administration, University of Missouri – St Louis, One University Blvd,St Louis, MO 63121-4499, USA; e-mail: abird@umsl.edu

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by Sage Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi andSingapore; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright © 2007Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 45(1): 6–23. [1038-4111] DOI: 10.1177/1038411107073595.

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 6

the firm’s HR policies and the employee’s self-adjustment were determined viahierarchical regression. Results showed a large incremental change in predictedvariance when firm’s HR policies were entered after employee self-adjustment.Conversely, employee self-adjustment showed only minimal incremental changein predicted variance when entered after HR policies. A deliberate and proactiveconsideration of a firm’s HR policies and practices, therefore, seems of primaryimportance in deriving benefits from an employee’s overseas assignment, while theemployee’s self-adjustment experiences are also important but relatively less so.

Keywords: employee self-adjustment experiences, HR policies, international assignments, learning

transfer, overseas assignments, repatriation policies

Much has been written about the importance of international assignments inthe growing world of globalization (Black and Gregersen 1999; Oddou 2003;Stanek 2000). A small but growing body of literature has hailed internationalassignments as an important element in creating a competitive advantage forfirms in the global marketplace (Carpenter, Sanders and Gregersen 2001;Harvey and Novicevic 2006; Roth 1995; Sambharya 1996; Stroh and Caliguiri1997). Particularly, Larsen (2004) argues that multinational organizations areoften knowledge intensive and that, consequently, the core competencies ofthe firm are embedded in employees, whose potential departure may put thefirm at risk.

More recently, Harvey and Novicevic (2006, 325) have labeled thisperspective a ‘competency-based view’ of repatriation, noting that:

a continuous sourcing of repatriation-based competencies allows the organization to develop a mindset for competing effectively inhypercompetitive market segments. To develop dynamic capabilitiesthrough repatriation of managers, global organizations need to ensuresuccessful reintegration of repatriated managers into the domesticorganization to permit maximum utilization of their knowledge/relationships/experiences acquired during the expatriation assignment.

Conn and Yipp (1997) previously found that the most effective means of trans-ferring such competencies is through personnel transfers such as internationalassignments. However, acquiring such competencies within a firm’s employeeranks is one thing; utilizing them once the repatriate has returned home isanother. Specifically, the focus of this paper is on the transfer of such compe-tencies to the repatriate’s sphere of work and associates with whom the repat-riate works, and is not on firm-level transfers.

For the firm to extract the value of such competencies gained during theinternational assignment, the firm must have appropriate HR policies andpractices to help the repatriate transfer those competencies and successfully re-

Global competency transfer 7

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 7

enter the workplace. Yet, the literature shows that these HR processes arelargely lacking and that a relatively high proportion of repatriates end upleaving the firm within a short time after repatriation (Adler 1981; Black andGregersen 1999; Stroh 1995; Tung 1998), often because of such reasons as notbeing positioned in jobs that are natural follow-on opportunities to apply thosecompetencies (Baughn 1995; Black and Gregersen 1999; Stahl and Cerdin2004; Stroh 1995). In addition, the transfer and integration of those compe-tencies depends not only on the degree to which firms proactively address boththe re-entry process and job-fit issue, but also on the repatriate’s personalcapacity and desire to adjust to the new environment.

Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) have proposed a knowledge flow modelapplying a basic communications model. It includes the sender (the repatriate),the message (knowledge to transfer), and the recipient (the work unit/organ-ization). This study explores a singularly important sender (i.e. the repatriate)‘characteristic’ as well as the ‘message’ (characteristics of the competencies/knowledge), and aspects of the recipient (the firm) that are key to facilitatingthe transfer of repatriate competencies.

First, for this study’s purpose, the fundamental ‘sender’ characteristic thatwe have focused on is the repatriate’s level of self-adjustment. It is clear fromthe literature that the repatriate transition from expatriation is a challengingone, often more difficult than the expatriation transition (Hammer, Hart andRogan 1998). Similar to Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) and their knowledgeflow process, Oddou (2003) argues that repatriates need both the ability totransfer knowledge as well as the motivation to do so. Minbaeva and associates(2003) find empirical support for the thesis that employee ability and motiva-tion play a central role in the transfer of knowledge within multinationalorganizations. Furthermore, they find that HR policies and practices canfavorably enhance knowledge transfer. Clearly, if repatriates do not adjust tothe new work environment, something that can be facilitated by HR policiesand practices, they may lack the motivation and/or the ability to effectivelycommunicate or apply competencies learned as an expatriate. As a result, weargue that repatriate self-adjustment is a baseline variable that will influencethe likelihood of knowledge transfer.

Second, the ‘message’ (i.e. knowledge or competencies) can be character-ized by the type of knowledge or competency. Some types of knowledge orcompetencies can be more easily transferred than others. Finally, the thirdelement in the communication model, the recipient’s (i.e. firm) characteristics,was operationalized as the firm’s human resource (HR) policies and practices.As will be shown below, the effectiveness of the firm’s HR policies andpractices can affect knowledge transfer.

8 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Theoretical basis

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 8

As mentioned above, previous literature shows that firm performance andother related outcomes can be enhanced by international assignment experi-ence (Carpenter, Sanders and Gregersen 2001; Roth, Schweiger and Morrison1991; Sambharya 1996; Stroh and Caligiuri 1997). For example, literature hasbegun to focus on the importance of human resources and HR policies andstrategies since they can affect firm performance (Bowen and Ostroff 2004).Terms such as ‘intellectual capital’, ‘social capital’ and ‘knowledge workers’reflect the renewed focus on people as keys to competitive advantage and firmperformance. Nevertheless, the relationship between international assignmentexperience and firm or unit performance variables needs to be better under-stood.

Ulrich (1997) and others have highlighted ways that firms can managetheir human resources to create more effective organizations. Such argumentshave been reinforced empirically by researchers who have found that the HRsystem of a firm, in general, can contribute to effective organizational func-tioning and performance (Becker and Huselid 1998). Others have foundsimilar relationships (Delaney and Huselid 1996; Delery and Doty 1996). Forexample, Cavanaugh and Noe (1999) demonstrated that certain HR manage-ment practices can positively affect employee job satisfaction and intent toremain with the firm, while other researchers have consistently argued thatcoherent HR policies and practices provide the environment for effectiveselection strategies, compensation systems and management development andtraining activities (Huselid 1995; Jackson and Schuler 1995; Pfeffer 1994).Further, Pfeffer (1998) has argued that one of the practices that leads tosuperior firm performance is the widespread sharing of information, and morerecently Collins and Clark (2003) found that strategic HR practices related tofirm performance through the social network of top management. Many ofthe competencies (or ‘assets’) an international assignee learns while workingabroad relate to information that is transferable and useable, such as an under-standing of different cultures, the development of a network of people andtheir competencies, a more comprehensive understanding of the interrela-tionships among firm entities (e.g. customers, suppliers, etc.), and so on.Although such transfer can happen informally, previous studies have clearlyshown that appropriate HR systems can also more formally encourage andfacilitate the sharing of knowledge and competencies. In particular, Lazarovaand Caligiuri (2001) found that the more supportive organizational practicesthere were, the more committed the repatriate was to the firm and hence thegreater retention. Relatedly, Gregersen and Black (1996) discovered that it wasthe perception the firm valued their international experience that engenderedgreater commitment to the firm on the part of the Japanese repatriates. Clearly,repatriate retention and commitment are significant prerequisites to enabling

Global competency transfer 9

The role of HR policies and practices on repatriate competencytransfer

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 9

and motivating the repatriate to transfer knowledge and competencies. Thus,having HR policies and practices that can facilitate a repatriate’s adjustmentand knowledge transfer can be clear signals to employees that the firm valuestheir contributions.

However, HR management systems include both strategic HR policiesand practices, and more general HR policies (Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Ulrich 1997). Strategic HR policies and practices relate to those issues that focus on the fit between specific HR elements (e.g. career pathing) and the firm’s business strategy. General HR policies, by contrast, relate more to common processes and functions within the firm (e.g. recruiting andhiring policies, training and development programs, health benefits policies).In terms of how strategic and general HR policies might affect learningtransfer, we would expect that strategic HR policies should be more closelyrelated to repatriate competency transfer because they represent a moreformal attempt at matching the repatriate to the right job. For example, wewould expect learning transfer to be higher if a company’s strategic HRpolicies on career pathing and job-fit considerations emphasized a deliberaterationale for matching the repatriate’s new job assignment upon re-entry to the competencies the repatriate acquired while on the international assignment. This presumably means that organizations, and perhaps the repatriates also, are both willing and able to evaluate the repatriates’ job qualifications, and that they then attempt to match the repatriates to a positionthat is known (via job analysis, for example) to correspond to those qualifi-cations. Thus, based on the preceding arguments, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: General HR policies will have a positive correlation with thetransfer of repatriate competencies.

Hypothesis 2: Strategic HR policies will have a positive correlation with the transfer of repatriate competencies.

However, although these two hypotheses will help us establish theseparate, univariate predictive capacity of both general and strategic HRpolicies, it seems appropriate also to consider their relative predictive capacityto explain the transfer of repatriate competencies incrementally. That is, webelieve it appropriate to consider the degree to which general and strategic HRpolicies will each explain variance in competency transfer beyond that whichis explained by the other (such as might be determined via hierarchical regres-sion analysis). The following hypothesis is therefore proposed:

Hypothesis 3: General and strategic HR policies will both incrementallyexplain the variance in repatriate competency transfer beyond that which isexplained by either one alone.

10 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 10

It goes without saying that transfer of repatriate competencies requires thatthe firm must, at a minimum, be able to retain the employees who have thosecompetencies and who can share and use what they have learned. Indeed, aswas suggested above, a study on ‘best practices’ by Pfeffer (1998) found HRpolicies that enhanced employment security and retention are among thosethat can have the most positive effect on firm performance. Yet, in addition tothe importance of the company having appropriate HR policies related tolearning transfer, successful transfer of the repatriate’s new competencies alsoassumes that repatriates are able to properly adjust to the new environmentand will choose to stay with the firm and work through any discomforts theymay face upon re-entry. This strongly suggests that for successful learningtransfer to occur, repatriates need to first adjust to their home environment,which is not an easy task (Sussman 2000). Thus, to the degree that repatriatescan adjust to the new environment, their capacity to transfer learning fromthe international assignment experience to actual on-the-job behaviors willincrease.

To date, however, researchers have focused mainly on the adjustment ofexpatriates when going overseas, rather than on repatriates when they return.Although adjustment to the new foreign assignment upon expatriation iscritical, repatriate self-adjustment upon re-entry has often been an overlookedissue and yet can be even more challenging (Black 1991; Black, Gregersen andMendenhall 1992; Osland 1995, 2000; Stroh, Gregersen and Black 1998). Ineither case, the extant research on both expatriation and repatriation has shownthat self-adjustment to the new environment is actually a multifaceted issue.For example, Black (1988) and Black and Stephens (1989) found that there arethree types of adjustment: interaction, work and general adjustment.Interaction adjustment refers to the adjustments that employees might haveto make to accommodate to a new language, communication style, or socialcustoms that change the nature of the interpersonal dynamics they face. Workadjustment refers to the need to accommodate to changes in the workplace,such as the type of supervision, the nature of the work, the methods to get thework done, and so on. General adjustment refers to accommodations that aretypically required in one’s general living environment, for instance. Althoughthere might be some differences across nationalities in self-adjustment, by andlarge, the evidence shows that self-adjustment factors are quite universal acrosscultures (Paik, Segaud and Malinowski 2002; Suutari and Valimaa 2002).

Of the three facets of adjustment, we expect that the repatriate’s adjust-ment to the work conditions would be more of a factor than adjustment to thegeneral environment when it comes to transferring competencies. Black (1994,1996) has found, for example, that Japanese repatriates who felt they hadgreater work role discretion adjusted better to their work environment. Such

Global competency transfer 11

The role of employee self-adjustment on repatriate competencytransfer

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 11

adjustments logically would enable the repatriate to more easily transferknowledge. Similarly, we expect that adjustment to the new interactions withpeople at work will positively impact the repatriate’s ability to influence othersin ways that would facilitate the transfer process more than the repatriate’sadjustment to the general environment. Thus, based on the precedingarguments, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Overall employee self-adjustment upon re-entry will have apositive correlation with transfer of repatriate competencies.

Hypothesis 5: Work and interaction self-adjustment will have a greater positive effect on the transfer of repatriate’s competencies than general adjustment alone.

In summary, we have considered in this section the degree to whichemployee self-adjustment will affect the transfer of competencies upon repa-triation. In addition, the previous section considered the likely effect of bothgeneral and strategic HR policies on the transfer of competencies upon repa-triation. However, it seems appropriate at this point also to consider the degreeto which these two broad constructs will each explain variance in competencytransfer beyond that which is explained by the other (such as might be deter-mined via hierarchical regression analysis). The following hypothesis istherefore proposed:

Hypothesis 6: Overall employee self-adjustment and overall HR policies willboth incrementally explain the variance in repatriate competency transferbeyond that which is explained by either one alone.

Hypothesis 6 is stated as the null hypothesis because there is neither previousresearch nor compelling rationale to propose a directional hypothesis sug-gesting that one or the other of these variables should be more important thanthe other when it comes to predicting the transfer of repatriate’s competencies.

Sample

The sample employed in this study consists of 305 Japanese repatriates fromfive large Japanese multinational enterprises. These repatriates representedcohort groups, all returning to Japan after a one-to-two-year first time overseasassignment as part of each employer’s planned personnel rotations. Three ofthe employing firms came from the manufacturing sector (i.e. chemical, auto-mobile, and automotive parts), while one came from the transportation and

12 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Methodology

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 12

logistics sector, and the final came from the services sector. For this sample,mean age was 32.1 years, while 86% reported completing at least a 4-yearcollege degree and the remainder completed ‘at least some college’. In addition,27% reported holding middle management positions, 26% held entry-levelmanagerial/supervisory positions, and 43% held non-supervisory/hourlyposition; in traditional Japanese style 98.7% were male.

Measurement

The study survey was developed specifically for this research project andconsisted of questions on the employing company’s HR repatriation policiesand practices, the level of employee self-adjustment, and the transfer of compe-tencies upon repatriation. The questionnaire items were written in English tocover the content domain of interest for each of the various areas of the study.Items were translated by a native Japanese language speaker from the originalEnglish version and then back translated by one of the authors who is fluentin Japanese. Subjects were asked to read each survey item and then indicatetheir level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’to 5 = ‘strongly agree’ with a ‘neutral’ response in the middle).

All subjects completed the questionnaire at a point in time that wasanywhere from four months to two years after their repatriation. Althoughthere is no definitive research on the optimum amount of time to allow for thereadjustment process, the U-curve hypothesis would seem to suggest that aperiod ranging from four months to two years is an appropriate time periodfor repatriates to have experienced re-entry shock, and also to have begun (orpossibly even finished) their reintegration back into the firm. Although somemight argue that measuring repatriates at a point in time two years after theirre-entry is too long, Osland’s (1995, 2000) research indicates that both expatri-ation and repatriation are quite singular events in an individual’s life, andtherefore the events and feelings surrounding the transition points in thesecareer events are likely to be quite pronounced and thus remembered withfacility.

Predictor variables

Two independent variables were measured to test the study’s hypotheses. Theywere: repatriates’ perceptions of their firm’s HR repatriation policies andpractices, and repatriates’ adjustment experiences upon re-entry.

HR repatriation policies and practices

In total, 11 survey items were used to measure company repatriation policiesand practices across the two subdimensions of strategic HR policies (six items),and general HR policies (five items). Strategic HR policy questions consisted

Global competency transfer 13

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 13

of such items as: ‘The company has a consistent and systematic repatriationpolicy for returning managers’, while general HR policy questions consisted ofsuch items as: ‘The company provided a reorientation program for me on mynew duties upon my return’.1 The overall coefficient alpha reliability for the11-item repatriation policy composite was 0.86, while the alpha for the sixstrategic HR policy items was 0.83, and the five general HR policy items was0.75. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the underlying relation-ships between items and the overall scale. Results show that all items loaded asexpected, with individual item factor loadings ranging from between 0.459and 0.778.

Employee self-adjustment

Subjects were asked a total of 14 questions related to their self-adjustmentexperience. Six items were used to measure work adjustment, and includedsuch questions as: ‘I’ve sometimes felt more stress related to my work demandsand expectations since I returned’, and ‘When I returned home, it was veryeasy for me to move into my current position’. Four items were used tomeasure interaction adjustment, and consisted of such questions as: ‘Sincereturning, I have been able to work with my superiors without any trouble’,and ‘I can talk to my old colleagues the same way I did before my overseasassignment’. Finally, four items were used to assess general adjustment, andincluded such questions as: ‘I had some culture shock upon returning home’.The coefficient alpha reliability was 0.72 for the six work adjustment items,0.70 for the four interaction adjustment items, and 0.65 for the four generaladjustment items. The overall alpha for the combined 14-item composite was0.82. Exploratory factor analysis was again used to examine the underlyingrelationships between items and the overall scale, with items loading asexpected (individual item factor loadings ranged from between 0.444 and0.833).

Outcome variables

The key dependent variable for this study was competency transfer uponrepatriation, which was measured by seven survey questions. Sample itemsincluded: ‘I currently utilize my new international business knowledge’, and‘When ambiguous situations occur, I now understand them more quicklybecause of my foreign experiences’. The coefficient alpha reliability for these

14 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

1 The scales used in this study are proprietary, with the copyright owned by the Kozai Group, Inc. The Kozai Group, Inc. (www.kozaigroup.com) does not allow publication of the full set of scale items; however, they will allow the use of the scales for research purposes under certain conditions.

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 14

seven items was 0.78. Although these competency transfer data were collectedin the same questionnaire as the repatriation policy and employee adjustmentdata (above), items were written and presented so as to minimize commonmethod variance. For example, these seven transfer items were set apart intheir own section of the survey, with separate instructions, telling subjects toanswer the questions in reference to their experiences since returning fromtheir overseas assignment. In addition, items in this section were preceded withthe tag line ‘Because of my overseas assignment…’, followed by each of thespecific competency transfer questions.

A basic correlation matrix was generated to present the overall means,standard deviations and intercorrelations between all variables in the study.Table 1 gives the results for HR policies and practices (both overall HR policiesand its two individual facets of strategic HR and general HR policies),employee adjustment (both overall adjustment and its three facets of work,interaction and general adjustment) and competency transfer upon repatria-tion. A quick scan of values in table 1 shows a correlation of r = 0.50 betweencompetencies transfer and overall firm HR repatriation policies. In addition,we also note that the relationships between competencies transfer and bothstrategic HR policies (r = 0.45) and general HR policies (r = 0.46) are confirmedin table 1. Strong support of hypotheses 1 and 2 is thus observed.

Hypothesis 3 was tested by means of two regression models. First, a hier-archical regression analysis was run with general HR policies entered as step1, followed by strategic HR policies in step 2. The incremental change in R2

when adding strategic HR policies in step 2 shows a significant increase in R2

of 0.04 (see model 1 in table 2). In addition, a second hierarchical regressionanalysis was run with the pattern reversed; that is, strategic HR policies wasnow entered as step 1, followed by general HR policies in step 2. The incre-mental change in R2 when adding general HR policies in step 2 shows a signif-icant increase in R2 of 0.05 (see model 2 in table 2). We thus conclude thatfavorable support is found for hypothesis 3, which is that both general andstrategic HR policies have incremental predictive effects (beyond that which ispredicted by either alone) on competencies transfer for our data set.

For the effect of employee self-adjustment, the values presented in table 1show a correlation of r = 0.37 between competencies transfer and overallemployee self-adjustment, thus providing strong support for hypothesis 4. Inaddition, table 1 also shows significant correlations between competenciestransfer and both work and interaction adjustment (r = 0.41 and r = 0.38,respectively), whereas general adjustment shows a nonsignificant correlationwith competencies transfer (r = 0.03, ns). While this quick and cursory reviewof zero-order correlations in table 1 would seem to confirm hypothesis 5, we

Global competency transfer 15

Results

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 15

16 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Tab

le 1

Mea

ns, s

tand

ard

dev

iati

ons

, rel

iab

ility

co

effic

ient

s an

d in

terc

orr

elat

ions

fo

r al

l var

iab

les

incl

uded

in t

he s

tud

y

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

(and

alp

has)

Stu

dy

varia

ble

sM

ean

SD

12

34

56

78

1. O

vera

ll fir

m H

R r

epat

riatio

n p

olic

ies

2.83

0.66

0.86

2. S

trat

egic

HR

rep

atria

tion

pol

icie

s2.

790.

710.

920.

83

3. G

ener

al H

R r

epat

riatio

n p

olic

ies

2.89

0.75

0.89

0.63

0.75

4. O

vera

ll em

plo

yee

self-

adju

stm

ent

3.31

0.47

0.51

0.46

0.46

0.82

5. W

ork

adju

stm

ent

3.22

0.58

0.59

0.51

0.55

0.88

0.72

6. In

tera

ctio

n ad

just

men

t3.

900.

550.

320.

270.

310.

720.

520.

70

7. G

ener

al a

dju

stm

ent

2.70

0.75

0.15

0.15

0.12

0.60

0.32

0.17

0.65

8. C

omp

eten

cy t

rans

fer

upon

rep

atria

tion

3.42

0.63

0.50

0.45

0.46

0.37

0.41

0.38

0.03

†0.

78

Not

e: n

= 3

05.

All

corr

elat

ions

are

sig

nific

ant

at le

ast

at t

he p

< 0

.05

leve

l with

one

exc

eptio

n, m

arke

d w

ith s

uper

scrip

t† . C

oeffi

cien

t al

pha

rel

iab

ilitie

s ar

e p

rese

nted

in t

he m

atrix

dia

gona

l for

eac

h sc

ale.

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 16

nevertheless tested it more thoroughly by using two hierarchical regressionmodels, similar to what we did to test for hypothesis 3. Specifically, hierarchicalregression was run with both work and interaction adjustment entered as step1, followed by general adjustment in step 2. As predicted, the incrementalchange in R2 when adding general adjustment in step 2 shows a small increasein R2 of 0.02 (see model 3 in table 2). Given the relatively small change in R2

for this second step, we conclude that hypothesis 5 found moderate support.Finally, we examined hypothesis 6 by conducting two additional hier-

archical regression analyses. First, we entered overall employee self-adjust-ment in step 1, followed by overall HR policies in step 2. This gave us anestimate of the incremental predictive capacity of overall HR policy, whichshowed a very significant increase in R2 of 0.13 beyond overall employee self-adjustment (see model 4 in table 2). Conversely, when overall self-adjustmentwas entered second, it showed minimal incremental prediction beyond overallHR policies with a change in R2 of only 0.02 (see model 5 in table 2). Thus,hypothesis 6 is confirmed, especially for the relative importance of HR policiesand practices for explaining repatriate competency transfer beyond employeeself-adjustment for our data set.

Global competency transfer 17

Table 2 Regression analyses for predicting repatriation competency transfer via HR policies and self-adjustment

R2 ∆R2 ba

Model 1: Competency transfer upon repatriation

Step 1. General HR policies 0.21 0.29**

Step 2. Strategic HR policies 0.25 0.04 0.26**

Model 2: Competency transfer upon repatriation

Step 1. Strategic HR policies 0.20 0.26**

Step 2. General HR policies 0.25 0.05 0.29**

Model 3: Competency transfer upon repatriation

Step 1. Work adjustment and 0.21 0.34**interaction adjustment 0.23**

Step 2. General adjustment 0.23 0.02 –0.14**

Model 4: Competency transfer upon repatriation

Step 1. Overall employee self-adjustment 0.14 0.16**

Step 2. Overall HR policies 0.27 0.13 0.42**

Model 5: Competency transfer upon repatriation

Step 1. Overall HR policies 0.25 0.42**

Step 2. Overall employee self-adjustment 0.27 0.02 0.16**

Note: n = 305. R 2 = total variance explained at given step. ∆R 2 = incremental change in R 2 when variable is enteredat given step. b2 = standardized regression coefficient for final equation. **p < 0.01

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 17

Previous literature clearly demonstrates the positive effects that internationalassignments can have on various aspects of firm performance. Given theimportance of international assignment experiences and the benefits they canbring to a firm, it is therefore critical to understand the mechanisms thatincrease the likelihood that such experience will lead to greater integration ofthe repatriate’s newly acquired global competencies into the firm’s HR cap-abilities.

In conducting this study, we suggest that at least two contributions havebeen made. First, this research adds significant findings to the shortage ofempirical research on employee repatriation and knowledge transfer (Downesand Thomas 1999, 2000). To date, the majority of research on repatriation hasbeen limited primarily to factors related to the employee’s readjustment processand to the general personal and career effects of repatriation. However,research on career issues related to repatriation has not been addressed viasystematic empirical analysis, but instead has rested largely on anecdotal oroverly simplistic research methodologies (e.g. reporting only percentages, etc.).Hence, the present study adds much needed empirical complexity and rigorto the research literature on repatriation and the issues of learning transfer ofglobal competencies acquired on overseas assignments.

The second contribution of this research is that it reveals how both theHR policies (in terms of both strategic and general HR practices) of a firm andthe employee’s personal adjustment experiences upon re-entry are positivelyrelated to the repatriate’s learning transfer process. More specifically, we foundthat the firm’s strategic and general HR policies and practices were signifi-cantly more important in explaining learning transfer variance beyond therepatriate’s self-adjustment experiences. Another way of stating this is thatwhile it certainly remains beneficial for firms to manage repatriates throughthe adjustment process upon re-entry, it seems much more critical for firms topay close attention to the impact that their HR policies and practices will haveon the transfer of their repatriates’ newly acquired global competencies.

The findings also suggest several avenues for future research. First, whilethe general linkage between HR policies and practices and competencytransfer has now been established, little is known about the specifics regardingthe psychological decision processes repatriates employ before deciding toactuate and apply knowledge gained overseas in their new work assignments.There is a clear need for further model-building that incorporates a consider-ation of HR policies and repatriate self-adjustment.

Second, though many scholars have argued for increased organizationalsupport structures to enhance expatriate skill development and/or globalcompetency acquisition and have suggested ideal structures as well (Bonache,Brewster and Suutari 2001; Mendenhall, Kuhlmann and Stahl 2001), littleresearch has empirically investigated what specific types of supportive mech-

18 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Discussion

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 18

anisms are the most robust and should be valued over other options in regardto repatriation. Expatriation research work has addressed types, sequencing,and rigor of cross-cultural training programs (Black et al. 1999); however, nocomparable line of inquiry has addressed the types of systematic knowledgecreation or knowledge management programs that would support repatriatecompetency transfer. The entire field of global organizational support mech-anisms is reliant upon best-practices assessments (which often do not assessadequately the context in which the best practice evolved and thrived), consult-ants’ programs, and anecdotal evaluations of a wide variety of different organ-izational support mechanisms.

Our findings would appear to have several practical implications formultinational employers. For example, if organizations value internationalexperience and wish to capitalize on their expatriates’ experiences, then theywould be well served to pay more proactive and considered attention to thedevelopment of their HR policies and practices, since our results demonstratethat such efforts play a significant role in the reintegration of the repatriates’learning into the firm. This would seem to be true for both the immediatejob–person fit and performance effects in the short term, as well as the long-term benefits of having a globally competent management cadre. In addition,our results strongly suggest that multinational employers also need to payattention to the roles of both strategic and general HR repatriation policies andpractices if they want to positively influence repatriate learning transfer.Strategic HR repatriation policies involve considerations that focus on the fitbetween various HR elements and the firm’s business strategy, whereas generalHR repatriation policies involve considerations that focus on commonprocesses and functions within the firm, such as specific reorientation ortraining programs. Our findings demonstrate that both aspects of HR policymake a positive contribution to the transfer of the repatriate’s competenciesonce the overseas assignment has been completed.

Beyond HR policies and practices, work and interaction adjustment werealso important predictors of learning transfer in our study, while generaladjustment had no discernible impact. It seems reasonable to expect thispattern of results, though, since the transfer of global competencies involvesthe application of both newly acquired knowledge and the ability to manageworking relations with others more effectively, which are the primary typesof adjustment at issue when considering interpersonal effectiveness.Competency transfer also entails communicating information and helpingothers to understand the information and its importance. That is, the processesof influence and interaction with others are central to the process of persuasion.

There is at least one key limitation in this study that should be acknowl-edged and addressed in future research. Specifically, the sample we used forthis study was comprised exclusively of Japanese repatriate employees, almostall of whom were males. Given the Japanese elements of cultural uniqueness,such as high employee loyalty, and the generally strong success of Japanese

Global competency transfer 19

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 19

expatriates, it therefore seems possible that these subjects might not be espe-cially representative of repatriates of other nationalities (Gregersen and Black1996). Still, research on HR trends across Japanese, U.S. and Europeancompanies, with respect to internationalizing employees, has shown asurprising commonality in their trends (Derr and Oddou 1993). Thus, aplausible counter-argument here might be that it is possible for the factorsrelated to learning transfer to be common across employees from differentculture and ethnic groups. Future research should address this uncertainty byseeking to control both subject nationality and firm nationality by matchingsamples with subjects from other foreign countries. This would help clarifythe degree to which the present study’s findings are generalizable to othercultures and ethnic groups. Additionally, future research would also benefitfrom multi-country samples and more comparative analyses.

Norihito Furuya (PhD, Tsukuba Univ) is CEO of IGB Network Co., Ltd. He is also a senior representative

of The Kozai Group in Japan. Dr Furuya has has over 30 years experience working internationally, and

has extensive experience in conducting research, training and consultation services in the arena of

global human resource management for 35 of the leading firms in Japan. He has over nine years

experience as an expatriate, having lived and worked in the United States, the Middle East, and the

UK as a manager for Japan Airlines.

Michael J. Stevens (PhD, Purdue) is an associate professor of management at the University of Texas,

Pan American. His primary research interests include: development and validation of assessment tools

for selection and for training needs analysis; improving organizational performance through teamwork,

empowerment and cross-cultural effectiveness; and interpersonal effectiveness in the global workplace.

He is the lead author of the Teamwork-KSA employment test, and a key developer of the Global

competencies inventory. He has also consulted widely and has held leadership positions in industry,

government, and not-for-profit enterprises.

Gary Oddou (PhD) is a professor of international management and the Global Business program

director at California State University San Marcos. His research is in global leadership and international

human resource management. He teaches cross-cultural management, global leadership and

international business and is a partner in the Kozai Group, a consulting firm specializing in the

identification and training of managers who wish to be effective in cross-cultural environments.

He has taught in France, England, Yugoslavia, Vietnam and Taiwan.

Allan Bird is the Eiichi Shibusawa-Seigo Arai Professor of Japanese Studies in the College of Business

Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis. His work has appeared in leading management journals,

including the Academy of Management Journal, the Strategic Management Journal, the Journal of

Organizational Behavior, the Journal of International Business Studies. He is the author/editor of several

books, including The encyclopedia of japanese business and management and Japanese multinationals

abroad: Individual and organizational learning. His research interests focus on effective management in

intercultural contexts, with a particular focus on intercultural sensemaking and global leadership

development.

20 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 20

Mark E. Mendenhall holds the J. Burton Frierson Chair of Excellence in Business Leadership in the

College of Business Administration at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. He has authored many

books, his most recent is Managing culture and human resources in mergers and acquisitions (with G.K.

Stahl, 2005) and has published numerous journal articles in the area of international human resource

management. He is a partner in the Kozai Group, a consultancy that specializes in global leadership and

expatriate development processes.

References

Adler, N. 1981. Re-entry: Managing cross-cultural transitions. Group and OrganizationalStudies 6: 341–56.

Baughn, C. 1995. Personal and organizational factors associated with effective repatriation. InExpatriate management: New ideas for international business, ed. J. Selmer, 215–30.Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Becker, B. and M. Huselid. 1998. High performance work systems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications. Research in Personnel and HumanResources Management 16: 53–101.

Black, J.S. 1988. Workrole transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in Japan.Journal of International Business Studies 19: 277–94.

Black, J.S. 1991. Returning expatriates feel foreign in their native land. Personnel 68: 32–40.Black, J.S. 1994. O Kaerinasai: Factors related to Japanese repatriation adjustment. Human

Relations 47: 1489–98.Black, J.S. 1996. Multiple commitments upon repatriation: The Japanese experience. Journal

of Management 22: 209–20.Black, J.S. and H.B. Gregersen. 1999. The right way to manage expats. Harvard Business

Review 77: 52–7.Black, J.S., H.B. Gregersen and M.E. Mendenhall. 1992. Toward a theoretical framework of

repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies 23: 737–60.Black, J.S., H.B. Gregersen, M.E. Mendenhall, and L. Stroh. 1999. Globalizing people through

international assignments. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.Black, J.S. and G. Stephens. 1989. The influence of the spouse on American expatriate

adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal ofManagement 15: 529–44.

Bonache, J., C. Brewster and V. Suutari. 2001. Expatriation: Developing a research agenda.Thunderbird International Business Review 42: 3–20.

Bowen, D. and C. Ostroff. 2004. Understanding the HRM-Firm performance linkages: Therole of the strength of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review 29: 203–29.

Carpenter, M., W. Sanders and H.B. Gregersen. 2001. Bundling human capital with organ-izational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinationalfirm performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal 44: 493–511.

Cavanaugh, M. and R. Noe. 1999. Antecedents and consequences of relational components ofthe new psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20: 323–40.

Collins, C. and K. Clark. 2003. Strategic human resource practices, top management teamsocial networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices increating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal 46:740–51.

Conn, H. and G. Yipp. 1997. Global transfer of critical capabilities. Business HorizonsJanuary–February: 22–31.

Global competency transfer 21

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 21

22 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Delaney, J. and M. Huselid. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices onperceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal 39: 949–69.

Delery, J. and D. Doty. 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:Tests of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance predictions.Academy of Management Journal 39: 802–35.

Derr, C.B. and G. Oddou. 1993. Internationalizing managers: Speeding up the process.European Management Journal 11: 435–42.

Downes, M. and A. Thomas. 1999. Managing overseas assignments to build organizationalknowledge. Human Resource Planning 22: 33–49.

Downes, M. and A. Thomas. 2000. Knowledge transfer through expatriation: The U-curveapproach to overseas staffing. Journal of Managerial Issues 12: 131–49.

Gregersen, H.B. and J.S. Black. 1996. Multiple commitments upon repatriation: The Japaneseexperience. Journal of Management 22: 209–29.

Gupta, A.K. and V. Govindarajan. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations.Strategic Management Journal 21: 473–96.

Hammer, M.R., W. Hart and R. Rogan. (1998). Can you go home again? An analysis of therepatriation of corporate managers and their spouses. Management International Review38: 67–86.

Harvey, M. and M.H. Novicevic. (2006). The evolution from repatriation of managers inMNEs to ‘patriation’ in global organizations. In Handbook of research in internationalhuman resource management, eds G.K. Stahl and I. Bjorkman, 323–46. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.

Huselid, M. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 38:635–72.

Jackson, S. and R. Schuler. 1995. Understanding human resource management in the contextof organizations and their environments. Annual Review of Psychology 46: 237–64.

Larsen, H. 2004. Global career as dual dependency between the organization and theindividual. Journal of Management Development 3: 869–78.

Lazarova, M. and P. Caligiuri. 2001. Retaining repatriates: The role of organizational supportpractices. Journal of World Business 36: 389–401.

Mendenhall, M.E., T. Kuhlmann, and G. Stahl. 2000. Developing global business leaders.Wesport, CT: Quorum.

Minbaeva, D., T. Pedersen, J. Bjorkman, C. Fey, and H. Park. 2003. MNC knowledgetransfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International BusinessStudies 34: 586–9.

Oddou, G. 2003. Repatriate assets: A conceptual framework for understanding their value.Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meetings, Seattle, WA,August.

Osland, J. 1995. The adventure of working abroad: Hero tales from the global frontier. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Osland, J. 2000. The journey inward: Expatriate hero tales and paradoxes. Human ResourceManagement 39: 227–38.

Paik, Y., B. Segaud and C. Malinowski. 2002. How to improve repatriation management: Are motivations and expectations congruent between the company and expatriates?International Journal of Manpower 3: 635–48.

Pfeffer, J. 1994. Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Roth, K. 1995. Managing international interdependence: CEO characteristics in a resource-

based framework. Academy of Management Journal 38: 200–31.Roth, K., D.M. Schweiger and A.J. Morrison. 1991. Global strategy implementation at the

business unit level: Operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 22: 361–94.

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 22

Sambharya, R.B. 1996. Foreign experience of top management teams and internationaldiversification strategies of US multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal17: 739–746.

Stahl, G. and J. Cerdin. 2004. Global careers in French and German multinationals. Journal ofManagement Development 23: 902–11.

Stanek, M. 2000. The need for global managers: A business necessity. Management Decision38: 232–42.

Stroh, L. 1995. Predicting turnover among repatriates: Can organizations affect retentionrates? International Journal of Human Resource Management 6: 443–56.

Stroh, L. and P. Caligiuri. 1997. increasing global competitiveness through effective peoplemanagement. San Diego, CA: The Global Leadership Institute.

Stroh, L., H.B. Gregersen and J.S. Black. 1998. Closing the gap: Expectations versus realityamong repatriates. Journal of World Business 33: 111–24.

Sussman, N.M. 2000. The dynamic nature of cultural identity throughout cultural transitions:Why home is not so sweet. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4: 355–73.

Suutari, V. and K. Valimaa. 2002. Antecedents of repatriation adjustment: New evidencefrom Finnish repatriates. International Journal of Manpower 23: 617–29.

Tung, R.L. 1998. Confucian connection in China. In International management in China: Cross-cultural issues, ed. J. Selmer, 197–206. London: Routledge.

Ulrich, D. 1997. Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and deliveringresults. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Global competency transfer 23

Furuya.qxd 30/01/2007 10:04 AM Page 23