Inpatriates: a review, synthesis and outlook of two decades of research

Abstract

introspection into the inpatriate phenomenon is justified for multiple reasons: (1.) The rapid pattern of globalization warrants HQ to exercise greater control over its subsidiaries across a plethora of diverse national territories; (2.) global hypercompetition entails the need for a global organizational mindset achieved by a global perspective while retaining the ability to act locally; (3.) industry surveys such as Brookfield point to a steady transfer of staff to HQ; (4.) the significance of emerging markets increases the necessity to learn from and understand these markets in real time; and (5.) increasing motivational problems to accept an expatriate assignment due to dual-career issues and challenges related to specific assignment locations squeeze the available talent pool and call for alternative forms of global staffing (see Borici, Borici and Dergjini, 2013; Kim, 2013). This chapter sets out to define inpatriates and distinguish characteristics of an inpatriate from those possessed by an expatriate, while highlighting the rationale for understanding this cadre of employees in the context of MNCs. The chapter also provides an overview of the limited set of conceptual and empirical works linked to inpatriates and their international assignment experiences. The chapter subsequently addresses the implications of studying and utilizing inpatriates on theoretical and practical grounds in a global mobility context, and ends with a detailed future research agenda. Inpatriates as a Form of Globally Mobile Employees The literature is replete with research on expatriates and their value to MNCs. At the same time, with the need to develop an even more capable, high-potential and highperformance global workforce to conquer the hyper-competitive nature of markets surrounding MNCs in developed and emerging nations, the literature on alternative

Managing International Assignments (Expatriates and Inpatriates): Effect of Cultural Diversity

“…Further, since knowledge is tacit, embedded in specific employees and culture accustom (Harvey et al, 2002), moving of local, national HCNs to the headquarters implies knowledge transfer (Reiche, 2011). In this line, inpatriation practices help to widespread and expertise further expand on the subsidiaries (Moeller & Reiche, 2017).…”

How Inpatriates Internalize Corporate Values at Headquarters: The Role of Developmental Job Assignments and Psychosocial Mentoring

“…This need reflects a shift from an ethnocentric or unidirectional approach (i.e., sending parent-country nationals from HQ to foreign subsidiaries) to a bidirectional approach (i.e., using expatriation and inpatriation). In doing so, MNCs aim to increase the effectiveness of global talent management and optimize HQ-foreign subsidiary relationships (Duvivier et al 2019;Harvey 2000aHarvey , 2000bMoeller and Reiche 2017;Reiche et al 2009b;Tharenou and Harvey 2006). The global talent management perspective (Collings 2014;Harvey and Buckley 1997;Harvey et al 2000b;Harvey et al 2011) emphasizes that MNCs should select inpatriates based on a track record of high potential, high performance, and a capacity to pursue MNCs' strategic goals as knowledgetransfer and knowledge-sharing agents (Moeller et al 2016;Reiche et al 2009a).…”

“…Multinational companies (MNCs) increasingly use inpatriation or invite foreign subsidiary employees to the parent country's headquarters (HQ) to increase the HQ's diversity and to develop "boundary spanners" or "bridge individuals" who form links between HQ and foreign subsidiaries (Collings et al 2010;Harzing et al 2016;Moeller and Reiche 2017;Reiche 2011;Reiche et al 2009a;Sekiguchi 2016). Inpatriates typically stay at HQ for a predetermined period before returning to their foreign subsidiaries to become managers.…”

Inpatriate managers: Are they being effectively utilized as global talent?

“…On the one hand, Harvey and colleagues describe the inpatriate assignment as semipermanent to permanent relocations, mainly with the aim of construing a more diverse global management team at HQ for the purpose of developing a competitive edge through a pluralistic management perspective (Moeller & Reiche, ). On the other hand, Reiche and others argue that inpatriates are employed over a shorter time frame (Peterson, ; Reiche, ; Van der Heijden, van Engen, & Paauwe, )—typically between two and five years for developmental and knowledge transfer purposes and to engage in training that allows for responses to future management challenges globally, not just at HQ (Moeller & Reiche, ). Reiche () has attempted to mediate these two camps by proposing that both interpretations are valid and that integrating them in fact broadens the applicability of the inpatriate construct in academic research and corporate practice.…”

“…Yet the inpatriate manager remains rather elusive. While there is an emerging body of literature on inpatriation, it is largely conceptual, and there has been very little empirical research in regards to inpatriate managers (Moeller & Reiche, ). Existing conceptual research tells us that these managers come from a diversity of backgrounds and they ostensibly offer a readily available internal source of global talent (Peltokorpi, ).…”