REPATRIATION-HOW COMPANIES CAN PROTECT THEIR ROI By Galen Tinder Introduction For want of simple, cost effective programs, many international companies that regularly send employees on global assignments are squandering millions of dollars a year. For the largest companies that figure could be in the hundreds of millions. The villain is workforce attrition caused by the mismanagement, or non-management, of repatriates returning to their home country after several years on a global assignment. This represents an odd misappropriation of attention. We have been hearing for two decades about the corporate imperative to support its expatriates and their families. We have heard far less about what befalls these expatriates when they return home to pick up where they left off. Not only do we hear less about repatriation but find, upon investigation, that the companies are doing less to help those caught in its grip. Every person who studies the phenomenon of repatriation believes this inattention to be a costly oversight. They are supported by the numbers. According to the 2005 Global Relocation Trends Survey, issued by GMAC Global Relocation Services and the National Foreign Trade Council, 23% of repatriating employees leave their company in the first year. After three years the total is at least 40%, though some people place it closer to 50%. These figures represent not only widespread disruption in the lives of employees and their families but a staggering loss of corporate investment. A company that sends a manager abroad for a three-year assignment spends in excess of 1 million dollars, not including, as Russell Salton points out “the added cost of potentially losing a valuable resource and all of the knowledge base and years of investment in training, learning and development.” (gmacglobalrelocation.com) In an era when companies pay close attention to controlling costs and retaining talent this post-repatriation hemorrhaging of mobile personnel is a surprising instance of corporate self-neglect. To stem these losses requires, says Jan Nelson writing for Employee Benefit News (BenefitNews.com, November, 2005), “A formal repatriation program . . . to prepare employees and their families to reintegrate into their professional and personal lives, as well as to ensure the investment that was made to send the employee overseas does not walk away to the competition upon the expatriate’s return . . . “ An article on the Cartus Website echoes this call to corporate action, pointing out that during a global war for talent companies need to ensure that their policies “are focused on not only recruiting but also retention strategies to maximize experience of those, for instance, who are coming back from global assignments.” According to the 2006 Worldwide ERC Global Benchmarking Survey, Vol. 1, 59% of the 51 responding companies have a formal repatriation program. Interestingly, more companies from Asia sponsored programs (87%) than did those of from the US (45%). This 45% compares with 31% in 1989. According to Cartus’ Emerging Trends in Policy & Practices, 80% of the companies that have programs acknowledge that they leave room for improvement. While the challenges of expatriation have gotten the lion’s share of attention over the last couple decades, the need for corporate repatriation practices has not been entirely neglected, at least by scholars who have wanted to understand both the high one-to-three-year attrition rate and the lack of corporate response in the form of well- designed and executed programs. As early as 1982 M.C. Harvey wrote worriedly about the paucity of attention paid to repatriation compared to expatriation (Harvey, M.C., (1982). “The Other Side of Foreign Assignments: Dealing with the Repatriation Dilemma”. Columbia Journal of World Business. Vol. 17, No.1.). After 1982 repatriation issues received occasional theoretical interest. The early 1990s saw an outbreak of concern aroused by the continuing high rate of repatriate “failures.” In 1992 J.S. Black and his Dartmouth colleague H.B. Gregersen transcended the realm of theory to conduct the first studies involving actual repatriates. As they sought information that would explain the hefty post-return dropout rate they discovered what would prove to be the critical piece of information. When it came to both general acclimation to home turf and job adjustment, there was mismatch between expectation and reality. It was out of this mismatch that repatriate discontent grew. In 2003 Johanna Elenius, Lars Garyik and Fredrik Nilsson noted that, in reality, the majority of expatriates find repatriation to be tumultuous, both personally and professionally.” (Masters Thesis, Goteborg University, 2003). If companies want to stem the loss of human resources they needed to close the chasm between expectation and reality experienced by most returning employees. In the 14 years since the Black-Gregersen study, others have conducted more sophisticated and comprehensive studies of both corporations and individual repatriates. Their findings have elaborated on the 1992 study and these elaborations have prompted considerable speculation about the problem and its solution. But nobody has successfully challenged the basic Black-Gregersen explanatory model. Now, 14 years later, nobody tries. This passage of 14 years makes it all the more astonishing that the attrition problem has persevered with scant improvement and that companies have not mounted successful efforts to stem the flow of deserting personnel. The loss of revenue has been duly assessed and its chief cause identified. The necessary counter-measures are neither complicated nor costly. What, then, stands in the way of progress on this front? Could it be so simple as the ascendancy of intuition (even when mistaken) over fact? Is it simply, as Elenius, Garvik and Nilsson noted in 2003 (Masters Thesis, Goteborg University) that “Human resource personnel often find it inconceivable that returning expatriates need to readjust to anything when coming home?” To evaluate this curious possibility requires a closer look. Why Repats are Jumping Ship “To their great surprise many returnees and their families soon discover that they are returning neither to the home they remember nor to the homecoming they had anticipated,” writes frequent repatriate Jan Nelson (Employee Benefit News, November 2005). This is what she and others mean: First, reverse culture shock- many people living in a host country for several years experience what one repatriate called a “transformational” process. When immersed in a culture different from their own they go undergo a broadening of mind and outlook. It’s often more than the enrichment of living in a different culture. Some have epiphanies—they finally “get it” that what they have always taken for granted as THE- WORLD- AS-IT-IS constitutes only an infinitesimal slice of the human experience. For Americans, as an example, one part of this epiphany is really taking in for the first time that world history did not begin with the American Revolution. But how does one communicate this newfound awareness of the enormity of the human enterprise to the folks back home? Largely, one doesn’t; it is literally a “you had to be there” phenomenon that for some repatriates creates an unbridgeable chasm between themselves and people with whom they formerly shared a similar worldview. Second, misleading memories- on another level, most expatriates do miss home. So much so, in fact, that with the passage of time tricks of memory enhance its plain, prosaic realities. Homesick expatriates develop “myths about the general environment and culture of their home country” that no reality can match. (Bringing Them Home Again by Aaron Andreason and Kevin Kinneer, Industrial Management, Dec.2004). When they do return home the pleasant myths and heightened memories quickly succumb to plain facts. The reality they encounter can’t equal the myths their mind has woven.. When their idealities are vanquished by reality, expatriates can feel morose and diminished. Third, change happens- this disconnects between myth and reality takes place not only in the mind of the repatriate but also in the fact that even the reality they left has changed. It is not just a matter of the new supermarket where the old grammar school was razed, the dualization of Route 1, the modernistic renovations to First Community Church and the annoying traffic light interrupting the flow of main street traffic. It’s also the people. Some of the old friends and acquaintances have departed and been replaced by outsiders. Others have found new, time-consuming pursuits and aren’t available much. With others it is just hard to reconnect. All in all, repats returning home yearn for familiar comforts and the routine of continuity. Within several days they say to themselves and each other, “This is not what I thought it would be like.” The incongruity between expectation and reality has hit hard. Fourth, unwelcome lifestyle changes- On a practical level, unpleasant adjustments in lifestyle may prove necessary. While on foreign assignment the employee and family are often able to live in a semi-luxury that can’t be sustained in the home country. After returning to the US following seven years abroad, one woman, self-sufficient in many ways, sheepishly admitted that one of the most jarring adjustment of her resettlement in the US was the absence of domestic help. Ironically, along with the absence of maids repatriates may miss rubbing shoulders with that slice of the intellectual and cultural elite found in many expatriate communities but seemingly in short supply back home. Fifth, people again- many repatriates could gladly dispense with the elites if only the non-elites with whom they have reunited were more interested in their slide shows of foreign fauna and stories of what at the time seemed like grand adventures. But they are immersed in their own worlds and activities. They will stand tight for the punchy 30 second story, but lengthier accounts missing any pungent point elicit frozen smiles and antsy feet. Repats are often astounded at the incuriousness of most people. They feel discounted, and perhaps hurt and angry. Finally, loneliness-To top it all off, what saved them, as novice expats when they last felt as lousy as they do now is not available. When expats ask what they miss most about their global experience many cite the closely-knit expatriate community. They realize now that it was artificial in some ways, but it was also warm, vivid, embracing and fun. Even if wild beasts had prowled the outer walls of the expatriate compound and mandated convivial togetherness, they still felt cared for and safe. This community, forged by the commonality of a tiny minority in a strange land, has no equivalent at home. So what? For most repats the kicker is that they had no idea it would be like this. They feel almost betrayed, perhaps by the company, certainly by their own naïve expectations. That they have themselves, in part, to blame, does not stem the onrush of jumbled emotions like sadness, embarrassment, anger and loneliness. To paraphrase a variant of Tom Wolfe’s famous dictum: You can go home again, but it’s no longer home. At least the employee has a place he can go where he can feel affirmed in his global accomplishment, flushed with subdued pride and the expectation of reward. But again, reality disappoints. On his first day back at work he gets a jovial greeting from the former coworkers who are still there and is then ushered into a manager’s office to be told, in so many words, that the company is not sure what job they have available for him at this moment. Further conversation dispels the employee’s hopes for the immediate gratification of promotion and generous financial remuneration. It may take a couple days of murmured exchanges around the corporate campus until the repat is plumped down in a position that not only neglects the skills he left with but makes no use of those he gained while away. And it is all rather vague, hard to get hold of. Nobody really explains it to him straightforwardly and in this absence of information and convincing reassurances unhappy thoughts take shape. This is the sort of situation that led one recent repatriate to comment, “I can’t come up with anything positive…I would say zero positive aspects from repatriating. Professionally…no, absolutely zero positives professionally. Zero.” (Cited by Susan MacDonald and Nancy Arthur, Employees Perceptions of Repatriation, Journal of Career Development, 2003) The 2006 ERC Global Benchmarking Survey found that two-thirds of the Human Resources respondents believed international assignments essential to career mobility in their companies. But immediately upon their return many repatriates are alarmed to find that nobody knows what to do with them. They are stuck in lower level, temporary jobs that nobody knows the precise duration of. The old position is gone, either filled or absorbed by other functions and a job of equal challenge and authority did not materialize in honor of his return. Before he can blink twice the repatriate experiences “a reduced work status, downward career move and loss of autonomy.” (Maaike Platenburg, Expatica, 2006) This is what often happens in the majority of companies that the Cartus survey found bereft of ‘no-improvement- necessary’ repatriation programs. Within a week’s time the employee’s commitment to the company plummets. This disillusionment, seasoned with pinches of reverse culture shock, persuades the employee to evaluate his other options. From this point it is only a matter of time before he becomes another attrition statistic. Although not our primary focus, we should note that the partner is also struggling with a combination of personal and vocational issues. According to the 11th Global Relocation Trends Survey spouses and partners of expatriating employees accompany them 81% of the time. Of these, 60% worked pre-departure but only 21% worked after the relocation. The survey does not tell us what kind of work the 21% performed, but anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that about half were employed in their pre-departure profession. Thus, only 10% of working partners maintain a continuity of employment from pre-departure through expatriate relocation. The remaining 90% experience a career interruption likely to complicate their search for employment once repatriated. So the partner’s predicament features her employment struggles, trying to cope with her mate’s unexpected resentment, the logistics of getting the family resettled and a general sense of displacement. Companies that want to stem the flood of repatriate losses can’t afford to ignore the partner. What Companies Can Do Addressing painful issues of repatriation is not the responsibility of the company alone. But if looking for a rationale for action, companies can review Michael Harvey’s 1989 study, in which he says, “The work-role transition that repatriation represents is of great importance for the company because of the vast amount of financial resources invested in the person during the foreign assignment. It is a huge investment, and due to this, a “return on investment” in which the employee puts into practice his or her newly acquired knowledge or experience is expected.” (Journal of International Business Studies). In short, to preserve their ROI companies need to take decisive steps to prevent widespread repatriate disaffection. Fortunately, the causes of repatriate disaffection are straightforward and so are the remedies. Companies need to close the gap between expectation and reality. In some cases information and education can bring expectations into conformance with reality. In others companies need to bring reality into closer proximity with expectation. With intentionality and planning, both can be accomplished. According to H.L. Sullivan, writing in 2002, a successful repatriation is “one in which, upon return, the repatriate: gains access to a job which recognizes any newly acquired international competences, experiences minimal cross-culture readjustment difficulties; and reports low turnover intentions.” Companies can help produce such happy outcomes with a modicum of planning. When Worldwide ERC Global Benchmarking asked Human Resources professionals which features of international assignments posed the greatest risk to their companies they responded, in this order: • family difficulties posed by assignments, • selecting candidates that are either unsuitable or unwilling to accept assignments, • not taking advantage of the skills and knowledge acquired by assignees, • losing employees after repatriation, • remaining competitive while trying to control costs and provide consistent policy coverage, • security of assignees, and • non-compliance to various laws and regulations by assignees (sometimes caused by “stealth expatriates”). By instituting repatriation practices companies address three of the first four items of concern. Some observers suggest that repatriation planning should begin when the expatriate has about six months remaining on his assignment. But Andreason and Kinneer have it right in saying; “The time to begin planning for reentry is even before sending employees on foreign assignment.” This sentiment is echoed by Lisa Johnson, Director of consulting services for Cartus: “Set post-assignment expectations before the assignment begins.” Comprehensive and effective repatriation programming addresses itself to the three- fold structure of the repatriation event. Stage One: Pre-Expatriation 1. Pre-departure briefings and meetings are necessarily focused on the upcoming expatriate experience but should include preliminary information on expatriacy, especially on preparing the expats-to-be to develop realistic expectations of their post assignment life back home. Expatriates to be must understand that these sessions should be mandatory for employees and family members who are also making the trip. 2. An in-depth review of the employee’s goals and responsibilities while globally deployed should include establishing written processes by which employee performance and progress are monitored. While care should be taken not to impede, evaluative functions of the host office. But host offices don’t always have a person suited to manage expatriates and on issues of job expectation and performance it is important for the future repatriate to maintain ties with home country management. This helps ensure the integration of the employee’s pre-expat, expat and repat career objectives. On the whole, the more communication between the expatriate and the home office, the easier reentry is likely to be. The more accountability between expatriate and home office the more likely it is that the repatriate will secure a position that leverages his global learnings gained in the host country. The nature and timing of written and verbal reports should be stipulated along with the frequency and criteria for formal evaluation. These tasks can be executed by line supervisors and/or managers. 3. Mentoring, according to nearly everyone who has studied the vocational plight of repats agrees that mentoring is critical. In her article on the subject (Expatica.com, 2005) Pauline Cowell suggests that mentoring relationships be kept informal in deference to everyone’s time constraints. However, the mentoring function is too critical to leave to the vagaries of informality. Mentor and mentee should meet before the expatriate’s departure to build their relationship and agree on the nature and frequency of their contacts over the coming several years. Ideally, the mentor should be somebody positioned to speak knowledgably about company changes and to serve as the employee’s advocate when necessary. Mentor and mentee can communicate informally through email but should conduct scheduled phone calls once a month. The sessions are opportunities for the expatriate to speak honestly about any troublesome professional or personal issues and for him to hear about home office changes and developments, especially when they may affect him. 4. The repat’s exact position upon return to the home country cannot yet be determined. But it is not premature for the company and employee to have preliminary conversation about the kind of position that will benefit both parties. It is unrealistic to expect the company to guarantee a particular job three years hence. There is too much likelihood of change, within both the company and employee. But they can promise him a job and work with him to make it suitable to his background and recent learnings. Again, one of the purposes of introducing this topic at such an early stage is to help the employee to develop an accurate picture of how the global assignment fits in with his larger career, an endeavor sometimes called career “pathing.” Some employee advocates argue that a contract stipulating the guaranteed availability of a specific position be signed. his position should be signed by both parties. But so much can change over the next two or three years that this rigid an arrangement favors neither party. At this stage the discussions will be general but honest and lay the groundwork for further talk down the road. Stage Two-While on Global Assignment 1. Assuming that a solid foundation was laid pre-departure, the time on assignment will involve largely carrying out the established plans. 2. Since the more contact the better, it is a good idea for the employee to visit home base twice a year and to host return visits from home office personnel as often as possible. The key to healthy repatriation is frequent and open communication, with a vigilant eye kept on the relationship between expectation and reality. 3. Discussion of concrete job prospects About six months prior to repatriation the employee and the home office should discuss concrete job opportunities. At three months the employee should know the position he will assume. At the two-month mark the employee and family should attend several hours of reentry orientation training during which they learn about and discuss the issues raised in this exploration. It will be helpful if some of these sessions can be attended by several repats in training and led by a person who has experienced repatriation. 4. At three to six months partners who plan to work once back on home turf should begin working with a career and relocation consultant. Among other things, the consultant can help the partner prepare for a changed job market. Although space has not permitted a full examination of the partner’s needs along these and other lines, his or her concerns are as worthy of company attention as are the employee’s. Repatriation and Return 1. If the two previous stages have been handled properly, there should now be no unpleasant surprises. Casual friends may not badger them for slide shows or for detailed characterizations of host country foliage but the returnees will know that this has nothing to do with them, but is simple how things are. The key is no unpleasant surprises. 2. Within one to two weeks of repatriation the employee and family are invited (or mandated, as in the case of the employee) to attend a day of activities that includes an informal debriefing on the expatriate experience, open conversation on what repatriation has been like so far, training on reverse culture shock from somebody who has experienced it and, if at all possible, informal conversation with other employees and family members about the jolts of repatriation, jolts that should now be relatively minor because in some cases expectations have been adjusted to the reality and in others the reality brought into conformance with legitimate expectations. Ideally, these events should be led by a consultant to encourage honest conversation and protect employee confidentiality. 3. The early reentry phase of repatriation is not known to promote a high level of intimate partner-to-partner sharing. Both parties are under strain and understandably preoccupied with their own agendas. Though solid figures are hard to come by, the coming months can be maritally vulnerable. She partner should be invited to as many of debriefings and meetings as possible and should at this point be interacting regularly with her career and relocation consultant. 4. One of the most common repatriate complaints is that the talent and expertise gained while on global assignment is not put to use upon return. Even if the employee’s first job does not draw on global learnings, attentive company officials can provide repatriates with speaking opportunities by sponsoring seminars, luncheon Q&A sessions and other informal events. This will go a long way toward helping repatriates feel valued. 5. Lastly, we spoke earlier of the vital role played by the close-knit expatriate community. It is impossible to duplicate this on the home front but this does not negate the possibility of forming groups of repatriates to meet periodically in order to provide support and share coping strategies. CODCIL- We end with a genuine question—why doesn’t corporate awareness produce ameliorative actions—and a pointed query—why don’t repats themselves fight for what they need. The perplexity caused by the question is widespread. The problems of repats is commonly noted and discussed, as is the ongoing inaction of the keepers of the corporate tills. Since repatriate desertions come under the human resources retention under the human resource retention umbrella, it properly falls to human resources to tackle the gap between understanding and corrective action. One problem may be that those with the most to gain by human resource initiatives are already headed for the door, thereby depriving the cause of its most motivated constituency. If this is the case, then human resources needs to bring the cause more vigorously to current expatriates and their managers. In doing so they are bound to encounter the classic counter-intuitive nature of the difficulty. Fortunately, the studies and surveys have been performed and a plethora of articles and white papers written. Where the facts drive a coherent narrative that stresses the financial hit companies are taking, intuition will need to excuse itself from the conversation. The mention of current expatriates as a natural constituency to advocate for change brings us to our query: why don’t expatriates press repatriation issues more vigorously? The simplest answer is that their dispersion around the globe makes concerted action difficult to organize. And perhaps they too are displaying the common human trait of assuming that for them it will be different. So, the reform of our repatriation processes still awaits its champion. REA is an internationally recognized leader in providing global transition assistance and career management services to corporations and individuals. REA’s services, which are customized for both our client companies and our individual clients, include Spouse/Partner Career Relocation Assistance, Family Acclimation and Settling In Assistance, Outplacement Services, and Career Transition Coaching. REA's unique business model (localized delivery with centralized support) allows us to deliver quality service worldwide, price competitively, and expand on demand to meet your needs. REA's greatest strength is our highly educated and committed team of professional career consultants located throughout the world, familiar with local markets and industries, employer networks, and professional and community organizations. To learn more about REA and these services, please email us at jcowan@reacareers.com.