Knowledge in multinationals travels not only from but also to headquarters.

Expatriation involves employees from the headquarters (HQ) of a multinational company (MNC) undertaking an international assignment in a foreign subsidiary, usually with the aim to develop subsidiary employees’ knowledge, processes and/or practices based on the HQ’s vision and experiences. Previous research on the matter indicates that such international assignments are particularly effective ways to transfer knowledge in MNCs. For example, this applies to so-called forward knowledge transfer, i.e. knowledge transfer from expatriates to subsidiary employees, which tends to be organizationally mandated and, under the right circumstances, expected and accepted by subsidiary employees. Of course, there is also value in newly gained knowledge abroad that is brought back home once individuals complete their international assignment and return to the HQ, i.e. they repatriate. However, knowledge transfer upon repatriation to the HQ tends to be less mandated and is often challenging. Despite the possible benefits of such reverse knowledge transfer, the process has received little research attention so far. Our recent article, published in the Journal of Management Studies, adopted a time-lagged, multisource design to understand how and when repatriate knowledge transfer occurs.

Knowledge transfer can be a form of indirectly reciprocating obtained benefits.

We approached the research question through the lens of social exchange theory (SET), which postulates that social behaviour is the result of an exchange process that is equitable and reciprocal. As such, we started off by proposing that well-integrated repatriates will reciprocate the received exchange benefits in the form of successful reintegration at HQ by transferring knowledge upon their return. However, social exchanges are not only limited to direct, reciprocal exchanges between two individuals. We build on the generalized exchange perspective in SET, which shifts the attention from dyadic exchanges to a wider range of social exchange relations within an organization. This means reciprocity in social exchanges can be indirect. This idea allows us to consider that repatriates can receive support during their reintegration from one particular HQ colleague but transfer knowledge to another. In terms of the perceived benefits that repatriates obtain (and later reciprocate), we distinguish between nurturing interpersonal relationships (reflected by the frequency of communication with, and the trust in HQ colleagues), and fostering career development (reflected by perceived career and repatriate support, and career satisfaction). Taken together, our study integrates both the preparation for and the reintegration in HQ, and examines how these two stages are interrelated with repatriate knowledge transfer.

Knowledge transfer upon repatriation starts during the assignment.

Our findings suggest that both the preparatory stage of repatriation and the actual reintegration stage at HQ are important for successful repatriate knowledge transfer. More specifically, we identified that frequent communication with HQ colleagues and perceived career and repatriate support during the preparation stage positively related to reintegration in HQ, which in turn was positively related to subsequent repatriate knowledge transfer. Additionally, our data indicates a moderating variable of trust in HQ colleagues, such that a positive relationship between reintegration and repatriate knowledge transfer is strong when trust levels are high. By contrast, at low levels of trust, the relationship between reintegration and knowledge transfer is not significant. This suggests that trust acts as an important social assurance, especially in contexts where the potential for free-riding exists such as generalized exchanges.

What can multinationals do differently? 

Our study has several implications. First, our results emphasize the importance of the preparatory stage and smooth reintegration for reverse knowledge transfer to occur. Reintegration can be supported by repatriation training programmes, for example. Second, because our study highlights the facilitative roles of communication with HQ and perceived support, formalized and clearly communicated career paths, and career support programs are relevant. Such initiatives would also imply more frequent communication between HQ colleagues and expatriates already during their international assignment. Naturally, assignees themselves need to invest into frequent communication with HQ, taking a proactive stance towards maintaining open lines of communication with their HQ counterparts. To that end, recurring business trips and home leaves during the international assignment are recommended. Finally, to tackle the problem of often ‘under mandated’ reverse knowledge transfer, we recommend organizations to nurture the development of trust between repatriates and HQ staff. After all, repatriates will more likely trust HQ colleagues and, hence, transfer their knowledge, when they feel recognized, appreciated, and provided with opportunities to share their valuable knowledge.

Photo by Kipras Štreimikis on Unsplash