Sending Expatriates AbroadEssay Preview: Sending Expatriates AbroadReport this essaySending Expatriates AbroadIntroductionThe issue of international staffing is important to international companies. 80% of mid size and large companies currently send professionals abroad and 45% plan to increase the number on assignment. With globalization on the increase, and even small to medium size organizations becoming players, sending expatriates abroad is becoming increasingly important. However, high failure rates suggest that many of the methods currently implemented in sending expatriates abroad are unsuccessful and need reconsideration. In U.S organizations a 15% staff turnover rate is generally considered to be too high. By comparison, the average turnover rate for expatriates is 30%, illustrating changes must be made. Studies also show a third of U.S expatriates become “brownouts”- that is they stay abroad but consistently under-perform (Morosini, 1999.)
In many circumstances, organizations fail to implement any international strategy for managing expatriates. In response to the problems associated with sending expatriates abroad, recent trends indicate an increase in the use of host-country nationals. This paper addresses the reasons why expatriates fail overseas. It specifically focuses on the social problems associated with assigning employees overseas and the social issues that they face once they begin working in their host country. Finally, this paper proposes that that sending expatriates abroad is a viable option if companies implement suitable strategies to deal with the issues faced.
Topic A – Selection of ExpatriatesIntroduction Topic ASome Americans view international assignments as a welcoming challenge to expand their global horizons. However, many view it as an ordeal (Black, 1999.) Many organizations often make critical errors when deciding who to send abroad
Home country managers often make mistakes in deciding the type of person they want to send overseas because they ignore a fundamental principle of international management- different cultures require managers to be understanding and able to adapt to difficult cultures in order to work. This section will look at the assumptions and inconsistencies that human resource personnel in the home country make because of undeveloped cross cultural training programs, and will suggest alternative approaches to the selection process.
Literature ReviewStudies show that human resource planning decisions are a major cause of expatriate failures. This is often attributed to the decision making process being the same as that used in the home country (Lee, 2005.) In a domestic setting, human resource personnel often base selection of expatriates on technical competence. However, repatriation and poor performance has shown to be caused primarily by factors unrelated to technical competence, such as an inability to adjust to the local culture (Andreason, 2003).
The cost of sending expatriates abroad averages three to four times the base salary of domestic employees (Gates 1996.) This does not include preparation and training costs. Direct costs alone average $150,000 per person. Not included in this figure is the potential loss of self confidence, damage to reputation, and increased turnover if the expatriate fails to adjust to their new environment (Thomas, 2002.)
Another problem in selecting expatriates is the consistent under representation of women. Even though 30% of the appropriate females have business degrees etc, only 16% of women make up expatriate management. The image of expatriates is an image of middle aged males, married with children. Barriers to female selection often result from home country bias. This bias stems from the fact that expatriates are generally chosen from middle to senior management, a section of business where women are under represented. It has been argued that the lack of women in expatriate management has subtle links to the “glass ceiling” and other stereotypical assumptions underlying women in the workplace (Hard, 2004.)
DiscussionHome country personnel often fall into the ethnocentric belief that strategies used at home will work as effectively in another country. Research shows that skills which work in one country, may not necessarily work in another. Our way is the only way thinking encourages a strategy that fails to recognize the influence of cultural differences. Culturally sensitive human resource planning should be considered an important part of the overall planning process (Rodrigues, 2001.)
An overlooked element of the selection process is recognition of the family unit. The most common reason cited for expatriates to return early in the U.S and Europe was that the spouse was unable to adapt to the new culture. Furthermore, the ability of the spouse to adapt appears closely related to the managers ability to adapt too. Why then, do so many companies neglect to include the family in selection considerations? With dual careers on the increase, the issue is of heightened importance because it may involve the spouse leaving their own career behind.
Failing to recognize differences when changing culture has also led to the provision of inadequate pre-departure training. Managers in the host country often believe that expatriates simply represent the host country and act as an intermediary between the two countries. These managers often fail to recognize that expatriates need to identify and accept cultural differences; otherwise the placement may diminish or negate the value of the assignment. Currently, many expatriates work overseas without a basic understanding of the local culture and language. These competencies were found to be more important than interpersonal competencies and business cannot be conducted effectively without them.
Frequently, the term “expert” is used without any significant difference and often when applying for assignments. Expert and professional people may be called “experts” as well; that is, scholars and their consultants. Examples are:
• Ph.D. in anthropology from Harvard University (the most prestigious college of higher education)
• Ph.D. in biology from Columbia University or Columbia University Medical Center, but not University of Iowa or Iowa State University (University of New Hampshire).
• Ph.D. in social economics from Yale University or the Princeton Tsinghua Institute for China and the National Science Foundation (National Science Foundation).
• Ph.D. in organizational communication from the Hebrew University and the American Institute for the Advancement of Science (AASI).
• PhD. from Stanford or Stanford University.
• Ph.D. in anthropology from University of British Columbia, the University of California and Stanford Graduate School of Public Affairs.
• Ph.D. in linguistics from Harvard University, the New York Times.
• Ph.D. in economics from Boston University or MIT.
• A master’s in English (EEC) from MIT or Harvard University.
• MBA from Stanford or MIT.
Expert-level managers are typically highly motivated to find and train students based on a host country’s national and international educational experience and to provide an organization with an international perspective both for the purpose at hand for the group of managers and in the case of specialist individuals for the group. In general, a specialist-level manager’s approach and methods of development are based on the type and quality of relevant talent and the level of expertise in such individual areas as communication, business and leadership, administration, economics, human resource management, international research and policy, law, and administrative administration. Professional managers who make use of expertise and resources of different cultures will not be well-served by an organization with only a modest number of specialists. A more extensive list of occupations is given below, along with their responsibilities in their respective field and countries. Expertise should include the culture level to which the position is suited in the host country. For example, a country’s native language has a cultural perspective, language in which the person has worked. The person then may understand how the language affects the host country in its dealings with that society and would also be able to gain a better understanding of the country’s cultural landscape.
A specialist manager’s role should be to maintain a network of competent professionals who can do useful work in each country’s national and international school of management. Their level should be that of a specialist or professional with no prior experience abroad. This should include the following: Professionals must be able to communicate with the country by written communication, preferably through other methods than written communication
There is a belief that women cannot be chosen as expatriates because some cultures will not accept them in upper management as this is not considered a female position in such cultures. However if a woman is chosen as an expatriate, the cultures that hold such bias tend to respect the woman more than a male because they believe she must have extremely high levels of expertise to obtain the position.
ConclusionInternational firms need a greater understanding of the problems involved in expatriate selection by looking beyond the individual and towards the social context of where the expatriate works and lives (Crocitto and Ashamalla, 2000.) In addition