Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

Based on the resource-based view of the firm, the value of knowledge for gaining and sustaining competitive advantages has long been established (Barney, 1991; Drucker, 1969, 1992). Knowledge can be defined as a “mental state of ideas, facts, concepts, data and techniques, recorded in an individual’s memory” (Bender & Fish, 2000, p. 126). Put differently, knowledge is information enriched by personal experience, values, beliefs, and contextual information. More recently, the relevance of intraorganizational knowledge transfers across national borders and the development of a globally savvy workforce has increased due to the international character of many organizations nowadays (Quigley, Tesluk, Locke, & Bartol, 2007; Stahl, Chua, Caligiuri, Cerdin, & Taniguchi, 2009). One mechanism that is applied by multinational companies to enable intraorganizational knowledge flows and to develop global leaders is sending employees abroad on international assignments (Bonache & Zárraga-Oberty, 2008; Kraimer, Shaffer, & Bolino, 2009). Employees who are sent abroad on international assignments by their organization are called expatriates (McEvoy & Buller, 2013), and expatriates who return to their domestic organizations are called repatriates (Berthoin Antal, 2001).

Research has shown that both expatriates and repatriates can act as boundary spanners across national borders and units of the organization, as they have lived and worked in different countries in which the company operates (Harzing, Pudelko, & Reiche, 2015; Reiche, 2011). Furthermore, they can enable intraorganizational knowledge flows and organizational learning, due to their ability to adapt and restructure knowledge and to apply it to new contexts (Argote, 2013; Argote & Ingram, 2000). Consequently, expatriates and repatriates can play a very important role in enlarging and internationalizing the knowledge base of organizations (Hocking, Brown, & Harzing, 2004; Inkson, Arthur, Pringle, & Barry, 1997). Studies on expatriate knowledge transfer have reported that the influence of expatriates as knowledge transferors has a positive impact on the performance of the subsidiaries (Chang, Gong, & Peng, 2012; Fang, Jiang, Makino, & Beamish, 2010). Nonetheless, scholars have acknowledged that this focus on expatriate knowledge transfers might be too narrow and ethnocentric (Kamoche, 1997). Therefore, the competency-based view of international assignments (Harvey & Novicevic, 2006) has been expanded to include the process of knowledge transfer upon repatriation (Berthoin Antal, 2001). Knowledge transfer describes an interactive and socially embedded process between knowledge senders and recipients. Knowledge is disseminated by knowledge senders, acquired by knowledge recipients, and then applied to new contexts (Szulanski, 1996; Wang & Noe, 2010). Therefore, knowledge transfer differs from other related knowledge exchange processes, such as knowledge sharing, due to its emphasis on the application of the newly acquired knowledge by knowledge recipients (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

The body of the literature on repatriate knowledge transfer (RKT) has grown considerably since the first empirical study by Berthoin Antal in 2000. To date, scholars have provided typologies of repatriate knowledge (Berthoin Antal, 2000; Fink & Meierewert, 2005), developed conceptual models (Bonache & Zárraga-Oberty, 2008; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005; Oddou, Osland, & Blakeney, 2009), and started to examine the variables that influence RKT success (Burmeister, Deller et al., 2015; Huang, Chiu, & Lu, 2013; Oddou et al., 2013). While these studies have contributed to a more nuanced understanding of RKT, much empirical research remains to be done. For example, quantitative research is scarce, some relationships that have been proposed conceptually have yet to be tested empirically, and the complex interrelationships between variables on different levels need to be investigated. As a result, the complex processes and relationships associated with RKT are not fully understood.

As a first step to address these limitations, I reviewed the literature on RKT that has been published between 2000 and 2015, to describe the status quo of the current scholarly conversation. I draw upon the categorization of antecedents of knowledge transfers into knowledge, individual, relationship, and contextual characteristics, which are provided by the literature on general knowledge transfers (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003; Szulanski, 1996). As a result of this synthesis, I present an integrated multilevel framework of the antecedents of RKT. Furthermore, the theoretical foundation of the literature on RKT is examined. Based on the analysis of the literature on RKT, I propose avenues for future research as well as implications for practitioners.

Method

Data Collection

In order to increase the objectivity of results and to provide a comprehensive overview and a conceptual consolidation of the field of RKT, I conducted a systematic review of the literature on RKT (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). The identification of relevant publications was guided by the following selection criteria. First, only publications that focused on RKT and related knowledge transfer processes (i.e., inpatriate knowledge transfers; Reiche, 2011, 2012) within an intraorganizational context were included. For example, studies that focused on related but different topics, such as repatriate retention, adjustment, career development, and talent management, were excluded. Second, only peer-reviewed journal articles and articles from edited volumes were included to ensure high quality of the publications (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Third, only publications in English were included. Fourth, the literature review was limited to publications between 2000 and June 2015. I choose 2000 as the starting year because other researchers have shown that no earlier work on RKT has been published. For example, Oddou et al. (2009) argued that, at that time, only three published pieces on RKT existed (Berthoin Antal, 2000, 2001; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). In addition, the literature review by Nery-Kjerfve and McLean (2012) on repatriation identified 39 articles in total (1999–2009). However, only eight of these publications focused on organizational knowledge, knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing, and learning transfer. Again, the first publication that was referenced here was the work by Berthoin Antal (2000). I choose to extend the period of the literature review to June 2015, to provide the most recent summary possible.

The search for relevant publications on RKT was conducted as follows; First, relevant publications were identified through a keyword search in the databases Business Source Premier (via EBSCOhost), PsycInfo, and Web of Science. These databases were chosen because they provide a comprehensive overview of high-quality publications in the social sciences (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). The initial search of the databases was undertaken using two keywords—knowledge transfer and repatriation—and their derivatives (for example, knowledge sharing, knowledge exchange; repatriat*). The topic area (that is, title, abstract, keywords) of publications was searched (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). This search returned 7 articles for Business Source Premier, 10 articles for PsycInfo, and 16 articles for Web of Science. However, 11 of these publications had to be excluded because they did not meet the selection criteria outlined above. Finally, after removing duplicates, 12 publications that focused on RKT remained. This initial search result was expanded by the use of the snowballing sample technique, which meant searching the reference lists of already identified publications for additional relevant publications (Greenhalgh, Potts, Wong, Bark, & Swinglehurst, 2009). The reference lists of the 12 articles were searched, and 14 other relevant publications were identified. In sum, 26 articles on RKT and closely related knowledge transfer processes (that is, inpatriate knowledge transfers; Reiche, 2011, 2012) were included in this systematic literature review.

Data Analysis

The initial analysis of the identified publications on RKT revealed that several conceptual (for example, Bonache & Zárraga-Oberty, 2008; Oddou et al., 2009) and empirical (for example, Huang et al., 2013; Oddou et al., 2013) publications focused on the identification of variables or antecedents that influence the RKT process. Therefore, this literature review focused on this aspect. The summary of the research results with regard to the variables that influence RKT was structured according to three levels: individual, dyadic, and organizational. This multilevel logic is based on the guidance of the literature on general knowledge transfer, which has identified four groups of antecedents of knowledge transfers: knowledge, individual, relationship, and contextual characteristics (Argote et al., 2003; Kostova, 1999; Szulanski, 1996). Szulanski (1996) had argued that the internal stickiness of knowledge transfers can be explained based on these characteristics, and this categorization is widely accepted and used by knowledge transfer researchers (for example, Riusala & Suutari, 2004).

Researchers have demonstrated that knowledge is embodied by individuals (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Therefore, I subsumed knowledge characteristics under the individual level. In addition, relationship characteristics reflect the dyadic level in the proposed RKT framework, and contextual characteristics are summarized on the organizational level. I aimed to summarize the research findings with a sufficient but limited number of categories on the three levels in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the most relevant antecedents of RKT. The categories followed the guidance provided by the literature on general knowledge transfers (for example, Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland, 2000) and the conceptual frameworks by Bonache and Zárraga-Oberty (2008) and Oddou et al. (2009). On the individual level the categories were knowledge characteristics (that is, type, tacitness, criticality), ability of repatriates and recipients, and motivation of repatriates and recipients. On the dyadic level, two categories were used: interaction and mutual trust. The interaction category subsumed more quantitative aspects of the relationship between repatriates and recipients, such as frequency and intensity of interaction. In contrast, the mutual trust category consisted of more qualitative aspects of their relationship. Finally, three categories were used on the organizational level: organizational culture, organizational support, and managerial support. These categories represent contextual characteristics that have been shown to influence knowledge transfer behavior (Santosh & Muthiah, 2012).

Results

Table 8.1 provides a chronological overview of the 26 publications on RKT. The table includes information about the year of the publication, authors, outlet, theoretical foundation, research design, and variables under investigation. In addition, the main findings of each study are briefly summarized. Before the antecedents of RKT are presented, the theoretical foundations of the identified publications on RKT will be reviewed. This analysis should enable the reader to develop a more nuanced understanding of the theoretical embeddedness of the literature on RKT.

Table 8.1. Overview of the literature
Full size table

Theoretical Foundation of the Literature

As can be seen in Table 8.2, the literature on RKT builds on diverse theoretical foundations.

Table 8.2. Theoretical foundation of the literature
Full size table

Two different theoretical approaches have primarily been used: theories on knowledge creation and organizational learning as well as the resource-based view of the firm. First, studies on RKT that built on knowledge creation and organizational learning theories have discussed the process of knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), the process of knowledge transfers (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Szulanski, 1996), and the development of learning organizations (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Garvin, 1993). This perspective has emphasized the dynamic and interactive aspect of knowledge creation and transfer, and it has clarified that organizational learning is dependent on the creation, acquisition, and dissemination of individual knowledge within the organizational network (Garvin, 1993). Second, the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) argues that resources that are valuable, rare, non-imitable, and non-substitutable can represent a sustained competitive advantage of firms. Emerging from the resource-based view of the firm, social capital theory (Adler & Kwon, 2002) and social resource theory (Lin, 1999; Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981) have also been used to describe the value of resources that are associated with social relationships. These social resources can help individuals to achieve certain objectives by providing information and support (Mäkelä, 2007; Mäkelä & Brewster, 2009; Reiche, 2011, 2012).

In addition to these theoretical foundations, scholars who have examined RKT have also used communication theory (Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Wood, 1997) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962; Homans, 1961). The basic source-recipient model in communication theory posits that communication is dependent on a sender, a message, and a recipient. The transactional model of communication by Wood (1997) highlights the relevance of the relationship between senders and recipients, a relationship that she refers to as shared field. Social exchange theory posits that social behavior is a result of a self-interested cost-benefit analysis of the interactions with and relationships to others (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962; Homans, 1961). Thus, relationships are maintained as long as reciprocation of one’s investments in that relationship can be expected. After this brief review of the theoretical foundations of extant research on RKT, I will now analyze the literature on RKT with regard to its antecedents.

Multilevel Analysis of the Literature

The conceptual RKT framework presented in Fig. 8.1 synthesizes the research results of previous studies with regard to the antecedents of RKT on three levels: individual, dyadic, and organizational. The presentation of the results is structured according to this framework.

Fig. 8.1
figure 1

Prerequisites for repatriation strategy implementation

Full size image

Individual Level: Knowledge

Type of Knowledge

Two of the publications on RKT focused on the analysis of the type of knowledge that repatriates acquired while working abroad and then brought back to the parent company (Berthoin Antal, 2000; Fink & Meierewert, 2005). The typology by Berthoin Antal (2000) distinguished between the following five types of knowledge: know-what (declarative), know-how (procedural), know-when (conditional), know-why (axiomatic), and know-who (relational). The first four types of knowledge were derived from a review of the organizational learning literature, and only the last type of knowledge, relational knowledge, emerged as novel in the context of repatriation. Fink and Meierewert’s (2005) typology of repatriate knowledge also has five categories, namely market-specific knowledge, personal skills, job-related management skills, network skills, and general management capacity.

Knowledge Tacitness

In contrast to explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge has been defined as knowledge that is person-specific and context-specific, complex, difficult to codify, and difficult to teach (Polanyi, 1967; Zander & Kogut, 1995). In the context of RKT, many researchers have emphasized that repatriate knowledge is often tacit (Lazarova & Tarique, 2005; Oddou et al., 2009). For example, Fink and Meierewert (2005) argued that market-specific knowledge is relatively easy to codify and transfer, whereas personal skills, job-related management skills, and network knowledge are more tacit and, therefore, more difficult to transfer. To Fink and Meierewert (2005), general management capacity cannot be transferred at all because it is highly tacit. Consequently, repatriate knowledge can consist of tacit knowledge, and this tacitness of repatriate knowledge is likely to influence the mode of transfer between repatriates and domestic work unit members.

Knowledge Criticality

Knowledge that is non-duplicative, relevant to the new context, and high in commercial and scientific value is more likely to facilitate the achievement of organizational aims. As a result, knowledge recipients tend to be more interested in acquiring this kind of knowledge (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Ipe, 2003; Szulanski, 1996). In the context of RKT, Oddou et al. (2013) found that repatriates were conscious about having the right knowledge before initiating RKT. Thus, they assessed their repatriate knowledge with regard to its capacity to contribute to solving current issues of the work unit. Burmeister et al. (2015) supported this finding and showed that repatriates critically assessed the value of their knowledge prior to the initiation of RKT.

Individual Level: Ability

Disseminative Capacity

Extant research on general knowledge transfer has used the term disseminative capacity to refer to the ability of knowledge senders to transfer their knowledge (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Mu, Tang, & MacLachlan, 2010; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). This term is the counterpart to the widely accepted term absorptive capacity on the recipient side (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Minbaeva, Pedersen, Bjoerkman, Fey, & Jeong, 2003), and it has been defined as the ability of knowledge senders to contextualize, translate, and communicate knowledge to other individuals (Parent, Roy, & St-Jacques, 2007). In the context of RKT, a very limited number of empirical studies have examined the ability of repatriates to transfer their knowledge (Oddou et al., 2013; Reiche, 2012). For example, the study by Reiche (2012) suggested the importance of the social capital of inpatriates (that is, an employee who is transferred from a foreign subsidiary to headquarters) for the facilitation of knowledge transfer. Inpatriates’ structural and relational host-unit social capital increased access to as well as the transfer of knowledge, to subsidiaries. Oddou et al. (2013) argued that repatriates must be able to detect teachable moments, in which members of the domestic work unit face challenges that can be tackled by using repatriate knowledge. In addition, repatriates, who were able to adjust their transfer approaches to the needs of different audiences, were more successful than other repatriates.

Absorptive Capacity

Absorptive capacity is a widely accepted term in the literature on general knowledge transfer (Chang et al., 2012; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Minbaeva et al., 2003; Szulanski, 1996), and it is defined as the ability to “recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends” (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, p. 128). Several publications on RKT have conceptually acknowledged the importance of the ability of domestic work unit members to receive knowledge for RKT success (Blakeney et al., 2006; Bonache & Zárraga-Oberty, 2008; Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Oddou et al., 2009). However, empirical research is largely non-existent. One exception is the study by Reiche (2011), in which he showed that low perceived absorptive capacity of the headquarters inhibited the positive effect of inpatriates’ boundary spanning on knowledge acquisition by headquarter staff.

Individual Level: Motivation

Repatriates’ Motivation to Transfer Knowledge

The motivation to transfer knowledge refers to the willingness to disseminate knowledge to others (Siemsen, Roth, & Balasubramanian, 2008). Research on RKT has emphasized extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors that facilitate knowledge transfer behavior of repatriates. With regard to external factors, researchers have argued that repatriates’ willingness to share knowledge can be influenced by the level of organizational support received (Furuya et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2013; Reiche, 2012). For example, effective career and repatriation support can increase repatriates’ motivation to share knowledge (Reiche, 2012). With regard to the internal factors, the findings by Oddou et al. (2013) indicated that repatriates are also motivated to share knowledge because they want to be good organizational citizens. Accordingly, repatriates were committed to contributing to organizational success by sharing their knowledge without expecting to be rewarded in return.

Recipients’ Motivation to Receive Knowledge

While many RKT researchers have conceptually highlighted the importance of the motivation of knowledge recipients for RKT success (Blakeney et al., 2006; Bonache & Zárraga-Oberty, 2008; Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Oddou et al., 2009), empirical research is scarce. Preliminary insights are solely based on qualitative studies. For example, the findings by Berthoin Antal and Walker (2011) indicated that the members of the domestic organization needed to be ready to learn in order to enable RKT. In addition, Burmeister, Deller et al. (2015) examined the process of RKT and found that knowledge transfer attempts that were completed successfully increased the willingness of domestic work unit members to receive repatriate knowledge in the future.

Dyadic Level

Interaction: Frequency, Intensity, Opportunity

Similar to general knowledge transfer processes, RKT requires interaction between repatriates as knowledge senders and domestic work unit members as knowledge recipients (Szulanski, 1996). Therefore, RKT has been defined as a dyadic process (Oddou et al., 2009). The interaction between repatriates and knowledge recipients during the RKT process and the resulting quality of their relationship have been regarded as important for RKT success in current conceptual models (Blakeney et al., 2006; Crowne, 2009; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005; Oddou et al., 2009). The work by Mäkelä (2007) and Mäkelä and Brewster (2009) demonstrated that expatriate and repatriate interactions tend to result in closer relationships compared to other interaction contexts, such as interunit meetings. In addition, Huang et al. (2013) demonstrated that knowledge sharing opportunities have a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior.

Mutual Trust

Knowledge transfer researchers have shown that mutual trust is necessary for knowledge transfer behavior to occur, or put differently, in the absence of trust knowledge transfer is unlikely (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Ipe, 2003). Trust can be defined as the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of a trustee based on the expectation that the trustee will perform a particular action (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Empirical research on RKT that focuses on this variable is still limited, but Oddou et al. (2013) emphasized that a certain level of trust between repatriates and the domestic work unit members is necessary for the initiation of RKT. In the absence of trust, domestic work unit members are less likely to accept the knowledge of repatriates.

Organizational Level

Organizational Culture

Organizational culture has been defined as “basic assumptions about the world and the values that guide life in organizations” (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013, p. 361), and it can unite organizational members and shape their assumptions about what is acceptable and expected within an organization. In turn, organizational members will adapt their behavior according to the organizational culture of the organization (Martin, 2002; Moon, Quigley, & Marr, 2012). In the context of RKT, research on the influence of organizational culture is scarce. However, Berthoin Antal (2001) and Santosh and Muthiah (2012) have emphasized the relevance of an organizational culture that is compatible with knowledge transfer behavior. In particular, they highlighted that an organizational culture needs to support learning and innovation, and diminish potential fears of lost power and stolen ideas when sharing knowledge openly with others.

Organizational Support

Several empirical studies have examined the link between organizational support practices and improved RKT success. For example, Furuya et al. (2009) showed that organizational support and repatriation policies were positively related to competency transfer to the new job after repatriation. In addition, Reiche (2012) demonstrated that the perceived level of career and repatriation policies moderated the relationship between repatriates’ social capital and transfer of host-unit knowledge upon return. Thus, medium and high levels of career and repatriation reduce the need for repatriates’ structural social capital. In general, these and other studies on organizational support argue that companies need an integrated system of practices in order to take advantage of the knowledge that repatriates have acquired (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2009).

Managerial Support

RKT research has also shown that managers can play an important role when it comes to the outcomes of knowledge transfer processes because they are responsible for articulating the organizational objectives that provide guidelines for individual behavior (Berthoin Antal, 2001; Crowne, 2009; Oddou et al., 2013). For example, Crowne (2009) argued that top managers can be important facilitators of RKT when they create opportunities for interaction between repatriates and knowledge recipients. They can create these opportunities through feedback-seeking behaviors and the establishment of social networks. In addition, studies by Berthoin Antal (2001) and Oddou et al. (2013) showed that narrow-minded managers, who do not have a global mindset and lack international experience themselves, can be inhibitors of RKT success. Conversely, if managers acknowledge repatriate knowledge as a strategic asset and promote the value of that knowledge within their work unit, RKT success can be facilitated.

Overview of the Current State of the Field

I provide an overview of the current scholarship that examines the antecedents of RKT in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3. Status quo of existing research
Full size table

Except for organizational culture, the majority of the variables that were identified in the systematic literature review have, as this table shows, been included in conceptual models. A considerable number of these variables have been examined qualitatively, but quantitative research on most variables (except for organizational support) is scarce or nonexistent. There is, for instance, a lack of quantitative research on knowledge tacitness or the motivation to receive knowledge.

Discussion

In times of globally distributed organizational setups, repatriate knowledge can help to enlarge and globalize the knowledge base of organizations (Oddou et al., 2009; Reiche, 2012). This systematic literature review of the literature on RKT published between 2000 and 2015 contributed an integrated framework of the variables that affect RKT success. The extant research results were synthesized into a multilevel framework including variables on three levels: individual, dyadic, and organizational. This review showed that RKT is a complex and multilevel construct with a great variety of interrelated variables that influence the transfer process. To date, particularly quantitative research on RKT is still insufficient (Huang et al., 2013).

Limitations

The findings of this systematic literature review on RKT should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. Even though a systematic approach was followed in order to increase the objectivity and reproducibility of the results, a certain level of subjectivity with regard to the synthesis of the identified publications cannot be eliminated. In addition, researchers have shown that a time lag of about two years exists between the submission and the final acceptance of publications in top tier journals (Phelan, Ferreira, & Salvador, 2002). Thus, additional publications on RKT might be under review currently, but not published yet (for example, Burmeister, Lazarova, & Deller, 2015). Nonetheless, I am hopeful that the multilevel framework of RKT provides guidance for both researchers and practitioners.

Directions for Future Research

First, and as shown in Table 8.1, studies on RKT have used a variety of different theoretical foundations. Instead of treating these theories as distinct, future research can combine these different approaches to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of RKT. For example, linear communication models (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) identify the relevance of senders, recipients, and the message they intend to share, for communication processes. In addition, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962; Homans, 1961) explains why individuals engage in social behavior. Future research can combine these two theories in many productive ways. For example, researchers can examine whether and how the characteristics of the knowledge influence the motivation of repatriates and knowledge recipients to share and receive knowledge. Thus, knowledge characteristics can be used as a moderator to understand under which conditions motivational factors influence RKT success. This approach would lead to a more nuanced understanding of the variables that affect RKT.

Second, social exchange theory can also be used to investigate to which extent repatriates and recipients influence their perspective on knowledge transfer behaviors. RKT researchers can collect data from repatriates and knowledge recipients, in order to perform dyadic data analyses and model the interdependencies of their perceptions. For example, RKT researchers can use the Actor-Partner-Interdependence-Model (APIM) proposed by Kenny (1996), which considers actor as well as partner effects when modeling relationships between independent and dependent variables. Several guidelines on how to conduct these analyses have been provided (Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006; Kenny, Mannetti, Pierro, Livi, & Kashy, 2002; Ledermann & Kenny, 2015). Empirical research that models the interdependency between repatriates and knowledge recipients would acknowledge the interactive and dyadic nature of RKT processes. This approach would be more balanced and offer a more nuanced perspective on the variables that influence RKT.

Third, RKT researchers that wish to conduct quantitative research need to address the challenge that, at this point, there is no single measurement instrument that is based on a solid theoretical foundation and that captures RKT behavior in a reliable and valid way. This is also a shortcoming of the general knowledge transfer literature, and Wang and Noe (2010, p. 126) have pointed out that “because measures of knowledge sharing are not readily available in the literature researchers need to devote time to develop valid and reliable measures.” These kinds of measures need to consider current definitions of knowledge transfer and its different dimensions: dissemination, acquisition, and application of knowledge in new contexts (Minbaeva et al., 2003; Szulanski, 1996). The work by Wang (2015) represents an important step forward, as the author divided the process of knowledge transfer into two stages: knowledge sharing and knowledge adoption. Future studies can build on this approach and develop a scale that is reliable and valid (DeVellis, 2012; Hinkin, 1995). Another topic, related to the discussion of methodological shortcomings, is the lack of longitudinal research on RKT. To date, the study by Reiche (2012) on inpatriate knowledge transfer provides the only exception. However, insights with regard to the longitudinal development of RKT will advance the field. For example, studies could examine the difference between expected knowledge transfer upon return and actual knowledge transfer after return to the domestic organization.

Fourth, the global mobility literature has moved away from a focus on traditional forms of international assignees, such as company-initiated expatriates, and now also focuses on alternative forms of international assignments, for example short-term, frequent flyer, and commuter assignments (Meyskens, Von Glinow, Werther Jr, & Clarke, 2009; Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, & Bolino, 2012). RKT research has yet to acknowledge the influence of these different types of assignments on the RKT process and its outcomes. Therefore, future studies can investigate RKT in the context of alternative forms of international assignments.

Fifth, while research on RKT has started to examine the antecedents of RKT (for example, Huang et al., 2013; Oddou et al., 2013), there are no studies on the consequences of RKT. The resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991) could be used to identify outcomes of knowledge transfer behavior in the context of repatriation. This kind of perspective is likely to complement extant research on the antecedents of RKT and to provide additional arguments for the usefulness of harvesting repatriate knowledge. This kind of research can draw on the multilevel framework that I presented. For example, on the individual level, outcomes such as job satisfaction, job performance, or turnover intention could be examined. On the dyadic level, researchers could investigate team performance indicators. Finally, the impact of RKT on the organizational level could be examined by looking at a variety of indicators, for example innovativeness, project completion times, cross-unit cooperation, and organizational performance.

Implications for Practitioners

The multilevel RKT framework proposed here can be a starting point for organizations to evaluate and, if necessary, to improve their current practices related to the management of RKT. First, organizations can evaluate whether their organizational culture is compatible with the attitudes and behaviors needed for successful RKT. Effective organizational cultures need to improve transparency, teamwork, open information and knowledge sharing, and innovation (Oddou et al., 2013; Santosh & Muthiah, 2012). Second, organizations can assess whether their organizational support practices are suitable to increase the knowledge transfer ability and motivation of repatriates and knowledge recipients. For example, specific training programs could be introduced to improve knowledge transfer skills (Argote et al., 2003). Repatriates, in particular, can be motivated by involving them in international projects where they can leverage the knowledge they gained abroad in a way that contributes to organizational performance (Kraimer, Shaffer, Harrison, & Ren, 2012). In addition, financial and non-financial benefits can be given to repatriates and recipients to reward their engagement in knowledge transfer and to increase their motivation to continue to do so in the future. Third, line managers and senior managers have to reflect on their role in RKT. Being curious about the knowledge and experiences of repatriates and involving other domestic work unit members in the discussion can increase mutual understanding, and, in turn, facilitate RKT.