The micro-processes during repatriate knowledge transfer: the repatriates’ perspective

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to add a process perspective to the literature on repatriate knowledge transfer (RKT) and to understand how the knowledge transfer process unfolds in the repatriation context. Thus, this qualitative study uses existing knowledge transfer process models to assess their applicability to the context of repatriation and explain the micro-processes during RKT. Design/methodology/approach – To provide a rich understanding of these processes from the repatriate perspective, critical incidents reported by 29 German and US American repatriates were content-analyzed. Findings – The findings are summarized in a proposed RKT process model, which describes the roles and knowledge transfer-related activities of repatriates, recipients and supervisors as well as their interaction during four transfer phases: assessment, initiation, execution and evaluation. Research limitations/implications – The experiences of repatriates from different geographic areas as well as the perspectives of knowledge recipients and supervisors were not studied but should be included in future research. In addition, future research could test the applicability of the identified micro-processes to different knowledge transfer contexts. Practical implications – Managers can use the findings to facilitate the RKT process more effectively because the type of organizational support offered can be aligned with the changing needs of repatriates, recipients and supervisors during the four identified phases. Originality/value – This is the first study that takes a process perspective to understand RKT. The integration of the current findings with the existing literature can enable a more nuanced view on RKT.

Team knowledge exchange: How and when does transformational leadership have an effect?

“…Second, in addition to developing an inspiring vision for the future and portraying high performance expectations, transformational leaders foster ties with followers and offer them assistance during goal attainment, thereby creating further support for their vision (Bass & Riggio, ; House, ; Podsakoff et al, ). Support from transformational leaders is particularly relevant for team knowledge exchange because many communication‐related difficulties, such as misunderstandings, may emerge during knowledge exchange and need to be overcome (Burmeister et al, ). Accordingly, the individualized support provided by transformational leaders contributes to a safe learning environment, where followers of transformational leaders are more likely to perceive collective goals, such as team knowledge exchange, to be realistic and achievable (Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, ).…”

“…When team members strive for the knowledge exchange goal, they are more willing to invest effort into understanding specialized knowledge from team members and developing appropriate strategies to effectively transfer knowledge to others, thereby facilitating knowledge retrieval, communication, and aggregation. In addition, knowledge exchange is a demanding and iterative process that benefits from reflecting on successful and unsuccessful attempts so as to adapt the knowledge transfer strategy in a timely manner (Burmeister et al, ). As such, teams that engage in reflecting on their attainment of knowledge exchange goals (Bindl et al, ; Parker & Wang, ) might be more effective because they can develop more appropriate strategies for knowledge exchange.…”

“…As we know, team leaders play a critical role in influencing team knowledge exchange (Burke et al, ; Srivastava et al, ). For example, leaders can facilitate team knowledge exchange by connecting team members with different knowledge reservoirs (Burmeister et al, ) and developing an open learning environment that fosters the exchange of valuable knowledge (Oddou et al, ). In particular, transformational leadership, as an important team ambient input, can provide attitudinal, informational, and behavioral cues that inform team members about expected and appropriate behaviors (Chen & Kanfer, ), and thus should be particularly relevant to team knowledge exchange.…”

Repatriate knowledge transfer: Antecedents and boundary conditions of a dyadic process

“…Their role is particularly valuable when it comes to transferring tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967), knowledge that is intuitive and difficult to articulate independently of knowing subjects (Lam, 2000). However, research has documented that upon repatriation the knowledge that assignees gain at the foreign subsidiary is consistently underestimated as an assignment outcome and it is not viewed as a strategic resource that can leverage the global competitiveness of MNCs (Burmeister et al, 2015;Sanchez-Vidal, Sanz-Valle, & Barba-Aragon, in press). Thus, while repatriation creates a knowledge dissemination opportunity, evidence strongly suggests that this opportunity is rarely seized (Berthoin Antal, 2001; Oddou et al, 2013).…”

“…Treating RKT as a conventional knowledge transfer process in MNCs ignores the specific challenges and added complexities of reverse knowledge transfer processes (Kogut & Mello, 2017;Oddou et al, 2009;Yang et al, 2008). For example, RKT is particularly challenging because repatriates need to reintegrate into their domestic work units and convince domestic employees, who may have limited international experience and interest in their international knowledge, to receive their knowledge (Burmeister et al, 2015;Oddou et al, 2009).…”