In this chapter, I provide an overview of firm-level results from a comparative case study conducted in two large, mature emerging market multinational enterprises (Firm A and Firm B). I aim to identify the international staffing approaches these firms employ in response to the challenges presented to them by the emerging market context and establish why they approach international staffing in a particular way, what types of international employee mobilities they choose to use, and how they manage managerial international assignments. I first present the characteristics of the two sample firms. I then present the international staffing approaches used in these firms for top managerial posts across their networks as well as the shifts in these approaches during the 2012–2017 period for which detailed data on individual managers’ international transfers is available in the firms’ annual reports (see Sect. 6.1). I continue the chapter with a discourse analysis that provides insights into firm-level rationalisations of the international staffing strategies and practices by emerging market firms (see Sect. 6.2). An outline of the types of international employee mobilities that such firms employ (according to duration, purpose, direction, location, and category of host entity) follows (see Sect. 6.3). The chapter ends with a presentation of the main challenges related to managing managerial international assignments and the organisational responses to them (see Sect. 6.4).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
eBook EUR 106.99 Price includes VAT (France)
Softcover Book EUR 137.14 Price includes VAT (France)
Hardcover Book EUR 137.14 Price includes VAT (France)
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Its employer branding also includes international employee mobility opportunities, which indicates the long-term strategic international staffing orientation of Firm A.
Hofstede (2001: 83) describes power distance “as a measure of the interpersonal power or influence between the boss and subordinate as perceived by the less powerful of the two”. See also Khatri (2009) and Ghosh (2011) for some implications of power distance for organisations.
For definitions of the different staffing approaches see Perlmutter and Heenan (1974).Firm A’s annual reports show that, in the newly acquired locations, individuals from the headquarters are managing foreign units either for a transitional period before they transfer their responsibilities to (new) local management; or permanently—in teams or pairs with local managers (Firm A’s annual reports for 2012–2017).
The analysis only covers the location changes of top managers. However, there are also cases of individuals changing locations at lower managerial levels or across levels that are not recorded in the annual reports (see e.g. Interview 3a).
Three of the changes have been related to entity closure: one representative office in an unstable market and two subsidiaries (in markets where the firm remained represented by an already existing representative office or associate company) namely ceased to exist (Firm B’s annual reports for 2012–2017). The firm’s shift in a staffing approach can thus signal business closure to local employees (see also Interview 1b), which is why the firm needs to be particularly cautious in making international staffing shifts and communicate the reasoning for these clearly to the local staff.
While comparisons with international assignees and international assignments across firms may cause some convergence in organisational and individual practices, more research on this impact is needed in the future. This aspect of emerging market firms’ international staffing is beyond the scope of my study.
I include assignees with assignment experience from different developmental stages of the organisation in the research design. Results from (content and) discourse analyses from these interviews are reported in Chap. 8.
The full corpus is only available for large MNEs included in the pilot and comparative case study, whereas smaller entities from the pilot study can only be studied through interview data.
Short-term international assignments from and to the headquarters are predominantly aimed at technology transfer, transfer of process knowledge, establishing business functions (usually through team assignments), and the introduction of improvements through project work or developmental tasks (Interview 4a).
The interviews in Firm A also reveal that short-term visits and training do not suffice for adequate firm–employee familiarisation. Through sporadic training (regardless of how intense and comprehensive) or headquarters visits, the individual does not acquire sufficient firm-specific knowledge and does not become adequately embedded in the headquarters, while the parent firm does not get adequately familiar with the employee’s work style and attitude, accomplishments, and work ethic. Intense regular work in the headquarters is required for strengthening the individual–organisation relationship and effective collaboration in highly centralised firms.
Although international staffing is barely mentioned in the annual reports, the accounting reports clearly demonstrate a focus on long-term managerial international assignments.
The similarities between the two sources may occur due to the interviewee’s involvement in creating (international) staffing strategies, practices, and actions in Firm A—as well as them probably co-writing parts of the annual reports.
This is also related to the firm’s centralised organisational structure that requires intense inter-entity collaboration.
The same holds for the firm’s reluctance to use flexpatriation, as the latter only enables (limited) relationship perseverance rather than relationship building, and prevents the quality interactions needed for problem solving and development. However, the use of flexpatriation nonetheless suggests that the effects of relationship building during expatriation with the more permanent physical presence of an individual in the host entity can be lagged.
See also Leana and Rousseau (2000) for conclusions on the importance of the different relationships within and of the firm for successful business performance, as well as Moser (2005) for research findings on the effect of recruits possessing internal information about the employer on their familiarity with an organisation and the meeting of expectations regarding the employment contract.
See also Chattopadhyay et al. (2010) for the implications of professional status hierarchies within teams for intra- and inter-category competition for status.
For an overview of different coaching principles as organisational responses to specific identity challenges see e.g. Yip et al. (2020).
The control function is prevalent in markets known for, or where the firm has experienced, corruption, whereby assignees break local networks as well as introduce the headquarters’ standards and processes to the foreign facility (Interviews 1a–8a).
The coordination role is relevant due to the operational connectedness of entities forming the MNE network to the headquarters and their functional dependence on the latter (Interviews 1a–8a).
For a definition see Sect. 13.1. For definitions see Sect. 13.1. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the pilot interviews.The same individual (also included in pilot interviews) has been engaged in short-term mobilities in the context of the firm as well as independently. The shift to a ‘sole proprietor’ arrangement has been beneficial for both the assignee and the firm: i.e. it is not disruptive to extant firm–employee relations and allows the individual to create greater profit margins as well as establish a better work–life balance.
Specialists have a relative advantage in one task, whereas generalists are equally capable at multiple tasks (Prasad 2009).
One of the pilot interviews indicated that repatriation may be less of a challenge at the earlier developmental stages of a business, when growth is fast and new positions are opening quickly.
These departments are responsible for content-related preparation of assignees for their tasks abroad, whereas the HRM department is responsible for overall career planning and employee development, administrative support for the assignees, and support for foreign HRM departments. Assignees are not engaged in assignment planning or management, but their feedback is incorporated in the assignment management guidelines (Interviewee 1a).
Self-efficacy is the individuals’ judgment about their own ability to perform a particular behaviour or achieve a certain level of performance (Bandura 1978, 1986).
Initially, the internal training scheme was developed for bridging the silos in the firm. The international dimension was added later on (Interview 1a).
Only young, ambitious staff (and not necessarily assignment-ready or suitable in terms of skills) rather than mature and experienced staff are willing to expatriate (Interview 1b).
The parent firm and its employees that have not experienced mobility cannot fully comprehend the difficulties and the immense (work and non-work related) challenges that an assignment imposes on an individual—in part also due to the distance between entities. International mobility seems more attractive and less challenging from a distance, whereas when experienced it is more demanding on an individual than expected (Interview 1b).
While internal recruits can be experts with middle- rather than top-level managerial experience, external recruits usually have managerial experience, as their preparation for an assignment already requires investment in the acquisition of firm-specific knowledge (Interview 1b).
The firm’s emphasis on soft skills and soft skills training is also consistent with its focus on relationship building at different levels and with different stakeholders.
In Interview 3b, the assignee references this type of support as extremely valuable and particularly useful for their integration into the local team (facilitating their acceptance among local employees) and market, as well as effective assumption of their managerial tasks.
These being acknowledged by the firm implies that they are significant enough to have an effect on individual’s or team’s performance and thus be noticed by the organisation.
For a quantitative study on this see Koleša et al. (2021).The latter are related either (1) to the lack of motivation among assignees’ colleagues to provide support for an assignment since reciprocity of benefits may not be apparent or (2) employees unwillingness to accept assignees’ new roles when these are in breach of social norms or are reflected in the colleagues’ perceived or actual demotions.
Firm B also acknowledges that these arrangements are negotiated between an individual and the firm in macro context. This means that the institutional environments in the sending and receiving countries (individually and comparatively) need to be taken into account as they can determine what is the most favourable arrangement for a firm or an individual. The latter is usually prioritised due to the lack of assignment-willing and ready candidates.
Since career development is often considered as assignee preparation, additional pre-assignment trainings are rare. Firm A has, for example, introduced a holistic skills-focused training for its talents that supports internal networking for long-term collegial support, but is not assignment specific (it is rather expertise- or management-focused). Firm B, on the other hand, looks for well-rounded individuals already at the stage of their recruitment to the firm.
Other forms of support for role transitions, with an exception of career development, are not indicated. This is despite the psychological effects on an individual as well as relational effects on team dynamics and the firm–employee relationship that these transitions have.
