What are the major concerns for corporations in developing and retaining expatriate employees, especially managers?

© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014 DOI 10.1179/1024529414Z.00000000060

competition and change, Vol. 18 No. 3, June 2014, 265–79

Managing Across Borders: Global Integration and Knowledge Exchange in MNCs Kathleen Park MIT Sloan School of Management, USA and Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait

Ursula Mense-Petermann Department of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany

In this article we explore expatriate managers as international boundary spanners and problem solvers in promulgating knowledge exchange in mul- tinational companies (MNCs). Theoretical perspectives on agency, expatria- tion and MNCs connect notions of individual volition with expatriation interactions and organizational outcomes. This conceptualization questions the exaltation of individual excellence in the earlier heroic perspective on the expatriate. Rather, interculturally competent, strategically localized expatriate managers address recurring global–local tensions in everyday interactions with the host country subsidiary staff. The expatriates’ boundary spanning, problem solving and knowledge exchange enhance the global integration, national responsivenes s, and worldwide innovation and learning concomitan t with the transnational form of the MNC.

keywords multinational companies, transnational management, expatriate managers, intercultural competency, boundary spanning

Introduction

Since the end of the 1980s, inspired by the path-setting work of Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), scholars in organization studies, international business and strategic manage- ment have investigated changes in the global strategies and organizational structures of multinational companies (MNCs) targeting enhanced cross-border integration of their worldwide activities. MNCs today must exploit opportunities arising from the globalization of value chains, while confronting the difficulties of integrating geographically dispersed processes of sourcing, production and sales. While the MNC

266 KATHLEEN PARK and URSULA MENSE-PETERMANN

headquarters represents the most important locus of organizational strategic decision making, the headquarters does not function as the sole site of management or of knowledge creation and dissemination. An essential challenge in the practice of inter- national management consists of connecting knowledge distributed across different locations and making productive use of that knowledge to gain competitive advan- tage. Expatriate managers embody an indispensable aspect of the global dispersion and development of organizational resources. We question the heroic, individualisti- cally triumphant perspective on the expatriate by investigating conditions for the successful fulfilment of the boundary-spanning and problem-solving roles antecedent to knowledge exchange. These roles become crucial in balancing the tension between global integration and national responsiveness inherent in achieving transnationaliza- tion, where the transnational company represents the most efficacious form of the MNC (Bartlett & Beamish, 2011).

In the transnationalization of multinational companies (MNCs) — that is, in the realization of an MNC that functions simultaneously highly on global integration, national responsiveness, and worldwide innovation and learning — the functions of expatriate managers in the cross-border transfer of organizational models, work structures and best practices assume pivotal importance. Expatriate managers possess unique skills as internationalized agents impacting managerial and technological practices in both their home and host countries (Hébert et al., 2005). This impact occurs whether the home and host countries are at the same or disparate levels of economic development (Luo & Zhao, 2013). In the context of globalization across the economic gradient (Kim & Tung, 2013), expatriate managers serve MNCs in processes of knowledge exchange and worldwide integration. We examine how expatriate managers span boundaries and solve problems within and between borders in transnationally-orientated MNCs.

The subjective and objective importance of global assignments has grown consider- ably throughout the globalization of the economy and the increased cross-border coordination of worldwide activities of MNCs (Dickmann & Doherty, 2008). While debates on the globalization phenomenon initially focused on the organizational level, with MNCs considered as central driving forces of global economic integration, attention subsequently shifted increasingly to the level of actors putting organiza- tional globalization into practice (Dörrenbächer & Geppert, 2006). The expatriate manager hence becomes a central character.

Literature review and theoretical framework Expatriate managers can be viewed as important actors in organizational global- ization in two fundamental respects. Expatriates can play an important part in implementing global programmes, distributing best practices and aligning the organi- zational cultures of the headquarters and globally dispersed subsidiaries, thereby furthering the global integration of MNCs (Black et al., 1992). In addition, expatri- ates can acquire the breadth and depth of knowledge necessary to assist MNCs in managing myriad intercultural factors reflecting both global and local forces (Berthoin Antal, 2001). The expatriate manager has emerged as a boundary spanner in accordance with the research of Ancona and Caldwell (1990, 1992), with the appreciation and awareness of global and local forces as articulated by Au and

267MANAGING ACROSS BORDERS

Fukuda (2002). Expatriates form part of a core management cadre playing increas- ingly indispensable roles in assuring both local responsiveness and global integration as globalization continues.

The literature on expatriates and global assignments has grown in relation to globalization of the economy and the expanded reach of MNCs. We focus on trends related to corporations and careers as well as the worldwide economy, strategy and knowledge management. Several intertwined strands emerge as especially important for our conceptualization of the boundary-spanning and problem-solving capabilities of expatriate managers: transnational management, bridging boundaries, global career mobility and global career orientation. These strands are interrelated in the convergence of, yet distinction between, global and local business forces and also in a broader understanding of expatriation as a form of human agency. The agency understanding marks the guiding edge of our conceptual framework.

Agency and expatriation Agency perspectives illuminate expatriation as organizational instrument, human capital consequence and career calculation. Agency concerns the capacity of indi- viduals to make choices and to act on their decisions (Bandura, 1982). Expatriation exhibits agency in that the expatriates — sometimes from individual assertion and sometimes at institutional behest — have elected to take job assignments in locations other than the home country. In this article, we use the term expatriates to mean managers or experts dispatched by headquarters to a subsidiary of the MNC in a different country for business enhancement purposes (Perlmutter & Heenan, 1974). This definition of expatriate excludes other types of internationally mobile manager, such as in-patriates (employed by a subsidiary of an MNC and assigned to the corporate headquarters, usually for reasons of qualification), third country nationals, or bicultural/bilingual persons recruited within the subsidiary country and referred to as local hires. With our focused definition, we emphasize human agency within the organization. For instance, structure–agency linkages have been previously explored with respect to executive search firms and CEO labour markets (Khurana, 2002), cultural differences in individual motivations (Hernandez & Iyengar, 2001) and sub- sidiary learning as mediated by individual actors in MNCs (Saka-Helmhout, 2007). We examine the links between organizational structure and human agency as reflected in expatriate manager behavioural practices and promotion. Expatriation becomes a mediating mechanism for understanding the relationship between human agency and organizational global integration and knowledge integration, as well as the relationship between agency and careers, as viewed in practices of managing across national and cultural boundaries in MNCs.

Transnational management and expatriate managers Multinational companies function as innovation and learning networks for partici- pants across borders within these organizations, as exemplified by expatriate manager s daily engaged in intercultural interactions (Park & Hollinshead, 2011). The transfer of resources and capabilities across national and cultural boundaries occurs at expa- triate levels from the top executive suite to the factory floor (Geppert & Clark, 2003). We focus on expatriate managers with project and personnel oversight responsibilities

268 KATHLEEN PARK and URSULA MENSE-PETERMANN

and with divisional and bottom line accountability. In the range of MNCs — from multinational to international to global to transnational — the transnational firm to the greatest extent shares innovation and learning capabilities between headquarters and subsidiaries. Intellectual competencies in the transnational are not concentrated at headquarters, but rather exist worldwide through interconnections among knowledge-intensive individuals and teams. These interconnections represent a meta- network on which MNCs can draw to enhance their innovation and learning perfor- mance (Ahuja, 2000). Knowledge flows between geographic nodes and the dispersion of professionals facilitates the transfer of essential information to endorse the global competitive advantage of the firm (Lazarova & Tarique, 2005).

The importance of knowledge transfer for MNCs in general, and for the transna- tional type of MNC in particular, centres on this creating and sustaining of global competitive advantage (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001; Morris & Snell, 2011). Multi- national firms must enhance core competencies in varied locations around the world and must be continually on the lookout to anticipate and respond to competition, whether global or local, in identified crucial markets. Whether the company occupies the dominant strategic position of defending worldwide preeminence or the subordi- nate position of challenging the global leader, it must engage in an iterative sequence of tasks to identify issues, gather information, devise strategic actions, respond to competitor reactions, and overall generate the tripartite performance (financial, social and environmental) now expected of the largest MNCs in demonstration of their global corporate citizenship (Rasche et al., 2013). The transfer of knowledge remains vital for organizations operating in the global economy, in an information age where leading-edge knowledge-based capabilities represent the intangible asset most in demand for competitive advancement. For transnational MNCs, the flow of knowl- edge becomes especially important because of the greater diffusion of capabilities and responsibilities across national borders.

Expatriate managers and global assignments During the past few years, global assignments have increasingly drawn the attention of scholars in international business and management. Global corporations have intensified integration of their worldwide activities, necessitating revised strategies and enhanced understanding of both global and local cultural and competitive forces. Three dominant perspectives can be identified — the managerial, organizational and expatriate — in the literature on global assignments.

The global manager perspective

The entire world becomes the purview of a new breed of managers as well as the scholars who study them (Sklair, 1995). The global manager successfully masters the transnational challenge of balancing global integration and local responsiveness. These world-class executives operate in companies interlinked through global value chains — these managers are cosmopolitan, adept in varied geographic and social settings, and adroit in bridging differences among actors (Kanter, 1995). Moreover global managers excel in creating influential, boundary-spanning networks, the potency of which derives from the managerial facility for moving easily within multiple social spaces (Park, 2005). The intercultural, transnational managers become

269MANAGING ACROSS BORDERS

the essential economic agents for navigating cross-border activities in MNCs amidst the competitiveness of global markets.

Crucially, global assignments develop managers who can oversee worldwide coordination and control functions in addition to bilateral information flows across borders (Hamori & Koyuncu, 2011). According to the global manager view, MNCs adopt a geocentric management approach (Perlmutter & Heenan, 1974), responding to the imperative to build a global management cadre meeting the challenges of global competition (Bossard & Peterson, 2005). These managers are the progenitors and heirs of the transnational capitalist class (Sklair, 2000) that began evolving in modern form in the mid- to late twentieth century, with increasing prominence in the present.

The organizational perspective

This perspective elucidates the organizational conditions that can make global assign- ments successful. The research focuses on organizational practices such as selection, training, compensation, performance appraisal and repatriation (Björkman & Schaap, 1994; Chang & Smale, 2013; Fish & Wood, 1996; McPhail et al., 2012; Peterson et al., 2000). A range of questions has been considered: What strategic roles do global assignments play for multinationals (Duncan et al., 2010)? How can MNCs successfully expatriate and repatriate international managers (Cox, 2004; Fish & Wood, 1996; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001)? What role do different individual alle- giance patterns play in successful expatriation and repatriation (Black & Gregersen, 1992)? What can expatriates contribute to organizational learning (Berthoin Antal, 2000, 2001; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; McIntyre et al., 2012; Wong, 2005)? These contributions reprise the intra-organizational processes and practices connected with expatriation and repatriation, and hence adopt an HRM perspective. Some research has also resulted in best practice recommendations to MNCs for global assignment policies.

Complementing the strategic HRM perspective, other researchers have adopted an institutionalist perspective (Westney, 2005). Studies comparing staffing practices of MNCs of different national origin reveal the importance of home country as well as host country effects on the propensity to staff overseas management positions with expatriates (Boyacigiller, 1990; Peterson et al., 2000). Boyacigiller (1990) considers differing levels of political risk, cultural distance, and competition, and operations with different levels of complexity and interdependence to be important host country variables. Peterson et al. (2000: 145) differentiate at least three models — Anglo- American, Japanese and German — of expatriate management and subsidiary con- trol. Björkman and Lu (2001) studied HRM practices in Sino–Western joint ventures, asking whether these practices more closely resembled those typical for the Western MNC or for the local Chinese firms. They determine expatriates to be important carriers of culture, implementing the practices of their home organizations. These institutionalist studies consider the role of expatriate managers within a wider perspective that addresses questions of organizational convergence or divergence in the globalization process — one of the main areas of debate on organizational globalization during recent years.

270 KATHLEEN PARK and URSULA MENSE-PETERMANN

The expatriate perspective

This literature identifies the problems and opportunities arising from global assign- ments and explores the implications of these assignments for the expatriate roles of boundary spanner (Au & Fukuda, 2002) and culture carrier (Björkman & Lu, 2001). Issues of intercultural communication and transnational cooperation crystallize in connection with these functions (Mense-Petermann, 2005). Not only intercultural dif- ficulties during deployment but also difficulties relating to readjustment upon return to the home country have been revealed by these investigations (Black et al., 1992; Cox, 2004; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001). The alignment between expectations and reality becomes crucial for expatriates in developing perceptions of success resulting from their overseas career ventures (Harvey et al., 2012). Some studies extend the perspective to include the partners and families of expatriates, examining the role played by these important life-world members in the decision to accept a posting as well as the success of that posting (Black & Gregersen, 1991; Harvey, 1997). In the range of studies, cultural differences have clearly emerged as the main source of the difficulties experienced by expatriates (cultural differences between the home and host countries as well as between the headquarters and subsidiary offices). To cope with these differences and to formulate effective intercultural collaborations (Gertsen & Søderberg, 2011), the boundary-spanning and problem-solving aptitudes of the expatriates come especially into play.

We continue now with the cultural strands of the perspectives, addressing expatri- ates as boundary spanners and studying the prerequisites for fulfilling this role successfully.

Expatriate managers as boundary spanners and culture carriers Boundary management requires both an external and an internal orientation. Tradi- tionally, management research focused on the internal orientation of groups for the tasks required for group performance (Hackman & Morris, 1975). Later research on the external orientation of groups explicated the associations between the group and the wider organization and business environment (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988). Likewise, the framework applies to individuals, who can cultivate external (inter- organizational) and internal (intra-organizational) orientations as seen in three sets of potential facilitative actions: (1) ambassador (persuading, lobbying and informing actors at different hierarchical levels in the within-firm or between-firm network); (2) task coordinator (discussing ideas, assimilating feedback and harmonizing activities across network actors); and (3) scout (scanning the networks for ideas and informa- tion) (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). These diverse manifestations of boundary manage- ment correspond to the nature of communications between the knowledge broker and other information agents or recipients. The ambassador, task coordinator and scout roles are not mutually exclusive; rather, they emphasize different aspects of exchange of greater or lesser importance at various times. The boundary-spanning functions of key individuals can, in addition, facilitate firms’ innovation performance (Levina & Vaast, 2008).

Boundary spanning highlights issues related to progressively bridging cultural differences (Harvey, 1996; Hofstede, 1997, 2001; Javidan & House, 2001) as well as problems connected with the enduring juxtaposition between the headquarters and

271MANAGING ACROSS BORDERS

local subsidiaries (Black & Gregersen, 1992). The global integration and knowledge exchange of MNCs surfaces in the actions, interactions and reactions among key organizational actors, in particular expatriates.

Within the transnational type of MNC, boundary spanning occurs extensively among the globally dispersed affiliates. As a result of their multiple locations, MNCs are intrinsically embedded in multi-layered environments and confronted with con- tradictory expectations (Westney & Zaheer, 2001, 2010). Organizations dealing with conflicting expectations surfaced as a core issue in the seminal work of Meyer and Rowan (1977) on the myth and ceremony of formal organizational structures. Meyer and Rowan assert the importance of decoupling organizational units to cope with inconsistencies in conjunction with interdependencies. Such decoupling can readily occur, for instance, in the multinational type of MNC, which has relatively high national differentiation and responsiveness in combination with relatively low global coordination and integration (Bartlett & Beamish, 2011). Regardless of the particular type of MNC or other organization, when decoupling cannot occur, conflicts erupt. These conflicts must then be handled within the context of informal relationships among individuals (Meyer & Rowan, 1977: 258). In transnational MNCs, expatriates bear the responsibility for this intra-organizational boundary spanning and informal relationship building.

Building on the work of Ancona and Caldwell (1992), Au and Fukuda (2002) accentuate the directionality of the boundary-spanning role in the multinational con- text. The ambassador tends to convey knowledge from headquarters to subsidiaries, the scout from subsidiaries to headquarters, and the task coordinators in both directions. Expatriates can play more than one role at different points in time. The successful adoption and alternation of boundary-spanning roles depends on the effi- cacious handling of cultural differences and intercultural translations by the expatri- ate manager in the knowledge-intensive environment. The literature on knowledge exchange has convincingly demonstrated the necessity of translating — that is, dis- embedding and re-embedding — crucial knowledge (Becker-Ritterspach & Raaijman, 2013; Czarniawska, 2012; Mense-Petermann, 2005). Organizational learning and knowledge transfer within MNCs unfolds as a series of intercultural interactions between expatriates and local staff. The competence to successfully act in intercul- tural situations therefore becomes central for expatriates in performing each of the boundary-spanning roles.

Intercultural interactions occur between locals and expatriates. Expatriates can be considered to be either those appointed by the corporation or those who have been educated and gained work experience abroad who then return to their home country (that is, a host country for the MNC) as so-called self-internationalizing expatriates (Berthoin Antal, 2001). The self-internationalizing expatriates are in some sense simultaneously local and global and hence possess the capability to function particu- larly well as boundary spanners. This category of expatriate has been growing; China, for instance, as a result of its economic ascendancy and greater career opportunities, has increasingly lured back the diaspora of professional talent. The returning well-educated, internationally-orientated individuals have the bilingual and bi- cultural skills for facilitating cross-border, cross-functional and inter-organizational communications and knowledge exchange.

272 KATHLEEN PARK and URSULA MENSE-PETERMANN

In addition, expatriates tend to occupy positions and acquire the knack for span- ning inter- and intra-organizational boundaries. Expatriates can locate business opportunities and disseminate information within global organizations. Also, expatri- ates can serve as conduits for information flows between organizations at regional, national or international levels. The performance of expatriates in these bridging roles depends on the depth of experience in a particular locale and the extensiveness of networks formed there. The fulfilment of a range of boundary-spanning functions validates the sense of professional efficacy experienced by expatriates, leading also to higher levels of job satisfaction and power within their positions (Au & Fukuda, 2002). The greater autonomy accorded to subsidiaries in the transnational model underscores the importance of strategic interconnections and boundary spanning. Expatriate managers embody linkages between the home and host countries. Drawing on their intercultural savvy and interactions, expatriate managers facilitate knowl- edge exchange, which leads to the embedding of innovations that can stimulate world-class corporate performance. Delving further into the boundary-spanning function illuminates the complexities and specificities of these home–host linkages. We now turn to the differentiation of expatriates who prospectively fulfil these functions.

Career orientations and boundary-spanning capacities The career orientations of expatriates influence their boundary-spanning capacities, as established in the work of Loveridge (2005, 2006b), who differentiates three career types based on his intensive study of expatriates: (1) diplomats, whose role has been mainly developing new international ventures and troubleshooting on a global scale; (2) fast-trackers, also referred to as tourists, who have carefully calibrated and monitored their career trajectories to benefit from relatively briefer overseas time, and who exhibit a primary allegiance to headquarters as the source of promotion and the location to which to return; and (3) locals, whose outlooks have been modified through marriage, religious conversion or otherwise social assimilation into the local community, and whose prospects and interests have accordingly changed to antici- pate career trajectories and conclusions in their host (now home) countries. We focus on locals and tourists as the key contrasting types of expatriate agent in relation to their boundary-spanning and problem-solving capacities within MNCs.

In additional formative work, Loveridge (2006a) analysed the exchanges between European MNCs and associated agencies in the host countries of Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand and Singapore. He examined technology transfer between the host and home sites in the context of expatriate managers navigating the local business terrain. External interfaces and internal resources influenced the embedding of innovation, as reflected in technologies for accelerating economic development in these regions. He found that senior expatriate managers in the MNCs served in effect as diplomats, with close ties to the heads of the host country agencies. These high-level connections endowed them with the political capital and relational resources to get things done. The fast trackers, also known as tourists, represented a group of rising expatriate managers with shorter-term career horizons in the host countries, who nevertheless functioned as goal-orientated pace setters with high managerial, technological and innovation expertise. Toward the accomplishment of designated goals, the fast- trackers benefited from the input of the local form of expatriate manager. Having

273MANAGING ACROSS BORDERS

longer-term career spans in the host country, these managers assimilated and accul- turated to a greater extent. This localization conferred on them a relatively lower status, as viewed by some corporate colleagues. As concluded by Loveridge, based on his study of 20 European MNCs and their subsidiaries in assorted Asian host coun- tries, both locals and diplomats demonstrate considerable skill in handling cultural differences and facilitating knowledge exchange, while tourists typically excel much less in these areas.

Extending the career influence perspective of Loveridge (2005, 2006a, 2006b), we suppose that the career orientations and organizational allegiances of expatriates affect the manner and intensity with which they immerse themselves in the local busi- ness and social environment and culture. As expatriates differ in how their interna- tional assignments relate to their short-, medium- and long-term career expectations, expatriates involve themselves in their host countries to different extents. Differing career orientations invoke varied boundary- spanning capacities in the respective expatriates, as their career orientations are connected, for example, with levels of willingness to learn the local language, to engage in local communication and con- flict, to form relationships with local businesses, government officials (Heikkliä, 2012) and other individuals, and generally to absorb the local worldview. Figure 1 provides our conceptual overview of the expatriation context and anticipated outcomes, as mediated by the capabilities of the differing types of expatriates themselves together with specific aspects of the integration mechanisms of boundary spanning and problem solving.

figure 1 Expatriate managers, global integration and knowledge exchange.

274 KATHLEEN PARK and URSULA MENSE-PETERMANN

Discussion

In this article we have explored expatriate managers as international boundary spanners and problem solvers in relation to knowledge exchange across borders within MNCs. Theoretical perspectives on agency, expatriation and MNCs link the individual volition of the expatriation decision with organizational outcomes related to those decisions. Specifically, the individual-level decision making of the agency perspective leads into the inter-group interactions of the expatriates with the host country subsidiary staff in terms of boundary spanning and problem solving, which in turn impacts the MNC trajectory in relation to the apotheosis of transnationalism. The more readily expatriation occurs as a desirable career development opportunity, and the more readily the headquarters-dispatched expatriates intermingle with the host country subsidiary staff and propagate bilateral knowledge exchange, the more the MNC advances toward transnational realization along the triple dimensions of global integration, national responsiveness and worldwide innovation and learning. We find that the polarized tourist and local types of expatriate do not necessarily distinctly occur. Likewise, the valiant ideal of the touristic expatriate manager dramatically resolving tensions between global competitiveness and local responsive- ness does not in reality exist. Interculturally competent, to some degree localized expatriate managers instead address recurring global–local tensions through their boundary-spanning and problem-solving capabilities. These capabilities occur in a range of interactions between the host country subsidiary staff and the home country expatriate managers sent from headquarters.

Building on the expatriate typology of Loveridge (2005) and identifying boundary spanning and problem solving as the mechanisms for knowledge transfer, we have identified the dynamic interplay between strategy, culture and career in MNC expa- triation. Previous research has determined that MNCs tend to advocate the more touristic transient form of expatriation over the local form, while locals experience greater success than tourists in transferring knowledge as a result of their greater intercultural competencies. At the extremes, the global mobility structures, processes and policies of MNCs actively support and promote the tourist type of expatriate, while disregarding and disadvantaging the local type. The disharmony between the benefits devolving to the MNC from the locals versus the promotion by the MNCs of the tourists can in part be resolved through the observation that no pure type of expatriate in reality exists. The most successful expatriates combine elements of the tourist and the local: in relation to the home country headquarters and the duration of their assignments, they function as tourists; in relation to the subsidiary host country, they function as locals. In this synthesis enacted through their intercultural proficiencies and headquarters–subsidiary network connections, the successful expatriates address the dialectic between home and host cultures and between global competitiveness and local responsiveness.

Tourists and locals can be differentiated as ideal types, but expatriates in reality display features of either type to greater or lesser degrees. We contribute to the expatriation debate and extend the findings of Loveridge by positing that neither pure type of expatriate best serves boundary spanning and problem solving. The tourists lack the essential intercultural understanding and competencies, while the locals lack the requisite relationships with headquarters. To succeed as boundary spanners,

275MANAGING ACROSS BORDERS

actual expatriates must balance local and headquarter perspectives in their everyday work and interactions. Boundary spanning then manifests as a form of expatriate agency, invoking individual capabilities, decisions and actions. Yet intercultural competencies and understanding of local conditions (which require time to acquire) and tied relationships with headquarters (which tend to loosen over time) mean that expatriation does not represent the solution to the problem of global integration of MNCs but rather presents an ongoing challenge.

Local expatriates are better equipped to manage knowledge transfer at the local interface than are tourist expatriates, although tourists have access to the most recent business and technological innovations and practices provided by headquarters. The relative proficiencies of each type of expatriate provide potential for the synthesis of orientations and capabilities, as seen in the most successful expatriates. With the local expatriate orientated primarily toward the foreign subsidiary and the tourist expatri- ate orientated primarily toward headquarters, integrative results can be obtained through individual and collective efforts. The integration of capabilities and perspec- tives can occur within an expatriate — for instance, multi-competency expatriates functioning as highly-contributing individuals can incorporate aspects of both the tourist and the local. Tourists and locals as pure types tend not to be both widely hired in the same outpost; rather, expatriates can change from tourists to locals when they stay long enough.

While the tourists and local type of expatriates are conceptually polarized and seldom equally recruited at a particular location, the tourists and the local (host country) subsidiary staff more widely rely on and need each other. The tourists cannot so rapidly and frequently change country locations without the deeper contextualized functioning of the local subsidiary staff to back them up. The local staff cannot so well deploy their capabilities without the knowledge and authority imparted from headquarters by the tourists. In the host country, the tourists in coop- eration with headquarters have the international–global content, and the locals in conjunction with their own networks hold the linguistic and cultural key for unlock- ing dissemination into the foreign subsidiary. The global competitiveness and national responsiveness mandates of the transnational corporation can be fulfilled, for instance, in tourist expatriate–local staff combinations. The third required dimen- sion of the transnational corporation, worldwide learning and innovation (Bartlett & Beamish, 2011), occurs also through this collaboration. Innovation transpires at both the headquarters and local levels and relies on bilateral knowledge exchange facili- tated by the range of expatriates and local staff. Successful transmission across the headquarters–subsidiary synapse requires a spectrum of expatriate–local interaction.

Expatriate professionals illustrate contradictions in the transnational model of glo- bal operations. As boundary-spanners, expatriates work at the intersection between headquarters and local subsidiaries. They mediate the conflicting rationalities of these organizational units. As problem solvers, expatriate managers work in conjunction with multiple organizational members on an array of issues requiring the integration of diverse capabilities and perspectives in relation to global excellence. The allocation of expatriates in itself becomes a dilemma for MNCs. The tension between local responsiveness (which classically could best be addressed by the local type of expatri- ate) and global competitiveness (which now becomes the domain of the tourist to

276 KATHLEEN PARK and URSULA MENSE-PETERMANN

support) appears in decisions concerning which expatriates to assign for fulfilling which goals and responsibilities. These allocation decisions do not have easy answers. The tourists experience pressure from both the business performance aims of head- quarters and their own motivations and expectations for expatriation, while the locals experience more pressure from within themselves to achieve the goals driving their orientation within a new country and culture. This synchronization of individ- ual and organizational expatriate aims, challenges and accomplishments becomes essential to successful management across borders in the modern global MNC.

References Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 45: 425–55. Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups.

Group and Organization Studies, 13: 468–94. Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. 1990. Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product

development teams. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1: 119–35. Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organiza-

tional teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634–65. Au, K. Y. & Fukuda, J. 2002. Boundary spanning behaviors of expatriates. Journal of World Business, 37:

285–96. Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37: 122–47. Bartlett, C. & Beamish, P. W. 2011. Transnational Management, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press. Becker-Ritterspach, F. & Raaijman, T. 2013. Global transfer and Indian management: A historical hybridity

perspective. Management International Review, 53: 141–66. Berthoin Antal, A. 2000. Types of knowledge gained by expatriate managers. Journal of General Management,

26: 32–51. Berthoin Antal, A. 2001. Expatriates’ contributions to organizational learning. Journal of General Management,

26: 62–84. Björkman, I. & Lu, Y. 2001. Institutionalization and bargaining power explanations of HRM practices in

international joint ventures: The case of Chinese–Western joint ventures. Organization Studies, 22: 491–512. Björkman, I. & Schaap, A. 1994. Outsiders in the Middle Kingdom: Expatriate managers in Chinese–Western

joint ventures. European Management Journal, 12: 147–53. Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H. B. 1991. The other half of the picture: Antecedents of spouse cross-cultural adjust-

ment. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 461–77. Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H. B. 1992. Serving two masters: Managing the dual allegiance of expatriate employees.

MIT Sloan Management Review, 33: 61–71. Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B. & Mendenhall, M. E. 1992. Global Assignments: Successfully Expatriating and

Repatriating International Managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bossard, A. B. & Peterson, R. B. 2005. The repatriate experience as seen by American expatriates. Journal of

World Business, 40: 9–28. Boyacigiller, N. 1990. The role of expatriates in the management of interdependence, complexity and risk in

multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 21: 357–81. Chang, Y. Y. & Smale, A. 2013. Expatriate characteristics and the stickiness of HRM knowledge transfers.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24: 2394–410. Cox, J. B. 2004. The role of communication, technology, and cultural identity in repatriation adjustment.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28: 201–19. Czarniawska, B. 2012. Operational risk, translation, and globalization. Contemporary Economics, 6: 26–39. Dickmann, M. & Doherty, N. 2008. Exploring the career capital impact of international assignments within

distinct organizational contexts. British Journal of Management, 19: 145–61.

277MANAGING ACROSS BORDERS

Dörrenbächer, C. & Geppert, M. 2006. Micro-politics and conflicts in multinational corporations: Current debates, re-framing, and contributions of this special issue. Journal of International Management, 12: 251–65.

Duncan, K., Kiessling, T. & Harvey, M. 2010. Exploration of firms’ strategic control mechanisms in Australia and the United States: Implications for global governance structures. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52: 571–87.

Fish, A. & Wood, J. 1996. A review of expatriate staffing practices in Australian business enterprises. Interna- tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 7: 846–65.

Geppert, M. & Clark, E. 2003. Knowledge and learning in transnational ventures: An actor-centred approach. Management Decision, 41: 433–42.

Gertsen, M. C. & Søderberg, A. M. 2011. Intercultural collaboration stories: On narrative inquiry and analysis as tools for research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 42: 787–804.

Govindarajan, V. & Gupta, A. K. 2001. The Quest for Global Dominance: Transforming Global Presence into Global Competitive Advantage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R. & Morris, C. G. 1975. Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effective- ness: A review and proposed integration. In: L. Berkowitz, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, pp. 45–95.

Hamori, M. & Koyuncu, B. 2011. Career advancement in large organizations in Europe and the United States: Do international assignments add value? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 843–62.

Harvey, M. 1997. Dual-career expatriates: Expectations, adjustment and satisfaction with international relocation. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(3): 627–58.

Harvey, M., Buckley, M. R., Richey, G., Moeller, M. & Novicevic, M. 2012. Aligning expatriate managers’ expectations with complex global assignments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42: 3026–50.

Harvey, M. G. 1996. Developing leaders rather than managers for the global marketplace. Human Resource Management Review, 6(4): 279–304.

Hébert, L., Very, P. & Beamish, P. W. 2005. Expatriation as a bridge over troubled water: A knowledge-based perspective applied to cross-border acquisitions. Organization Studies, 26: 1455–76.

Heikkliä, K. 2012. A business-network view on managing MNC relationships with state actors: Russian public officials in Finnish MNC business networks. Uniprint Turku (Turku School of Economics), Turku, Finland.

Hernandez, M. & Iyengar, S. 2001. What drives whom? A cultural perspective on human agency. Social Cognition, 19(3): 269–94.

Hofstede, G. 1997. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, revised ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across

Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Javidan, M. & House, R. J. 2001. Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE.

Organizational Dynamics, 29: 289–305. Kanter, R. M. 1995. World Class: Thriving Locally in the Global Economy. New York: Simon and Schuster. Khurana, R. 2002. Market triads: A theoretical and empirical analysis of market intermediation. Journal for the

Theory of Social Behavior, 32: 239–62. Kim, H. D. & Tung, R. L. 2013. Opportunities and challenges for expatriates in emerging markets: An

exploratory study of Korean expatriates in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24: 1029–50.

Lazarova, M. & Caligiuri, P. 2001. Retaining repatriates: The role of organizational support practices. Journal of World Business, 36(4): 389–401.

Lazarova, M. & Tarique, I. 2005. Knowledge transfer upon repatriation. Journal of World Business, 40: 361–73. Levina, N. & Vaast, E. 2008. Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in

offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 32: 307–32. Loveridge, R. 2005. Embedding the multinational: Bridging internal and external networks in transitional

institutional contexts. Asian Business and Management, 4: 389–409. Loveridge, R. 2006a. Developing institutions: ‘Crony capitalism’ and national capabilities: A European

perspective. Asian Business and Management, 5: 113–36. Loveridge, R. 2006b. Embedding the multinational: The micro-processes of institutionalization in developing

economies. In: M. Geppert & M. Mayer, eds. Global, National and Local Practices in Multinational Companies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 189–219.

278 KATHLEEN PARK and URSULA MENSE-PETERMANN

Luo, Y. & Zhao, H. 2013. Doing business in a transitional society: Economic environment and relational political

strategy for multinationals. Business & Society, 52(3): 515–49.

McIntyre, N. H., Harvey, M. & Moeller, M. 2012. The role of managerial curiosity in organizational learning:

A theoretical inquiry. International Journal of Management, 29: 659–76.

McPhail, R., Fisher, R., Harvey, M. & Moeller, M. 2012. Staffing the global organization: ‘Cultural nomads’.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23: 259–76.

Mense-Petermann, U. 2005. Transnationale Kulturalität: Ein konzeptioneller Vorschlag zum Problem der

Sozialintegration transnationaler Konzerne am Beispiel der Automobilindustrie. In: G. Schmidt, H. Bungsche,

T. Heyder & M. Klemm, eds. Und es fährt und fährt . . . Automobilindustrie und Automobilkultur am Beginn

des 21. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Sigma, pp. 173–200.

Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.

American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–63.

Morris, S. S. & Snell, S. A. 2011. Intellectual capital configurations and organizational capability: An empirical

examination of human resource subunits in the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business

Studies, 42: 805–27.

Park, K. M. 2005. Managerial diaspora: The global diffusion of leadership talent through international executive

labor markets. In: N. Delener & C. Chiao, eds. Global Markets in Dynamic Environments: Making Positive

Connections through Strategy, Technology and Knowledge. New York: Global Business and Technology

Association, pp. 947–52.

Park, K. M. & Hollinshead, G. 2011. Logics and limits in ethical outsourcing and offshoring in the global finan-

cial services industry. Competition & Change, 15: 177–95.

Perlmutter, H. V. & Heenan, D. A. 1974. How multinational should your top managers be? Harvard Business

Review, 52: 121.

Peterson, R. B., Napier, N. K. & Won, S. S. 2000. Expatriate management: A comparison of MNCs across four

parent countries. Thunderbird International Business Review, 42: 145–66.

Rasche, A., Waddock, S. & McIntosh, M. 2013. The United Nations Global Compact: Retrospect and prospect.

Business and Society, 52: 6–30.

Saka-Helmhout, A. 2007. Unravelling learning within multinational corporations. British Journal of Management,

18, 294–310.

Sklair, L. 1995. Sociology of the Global System, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sklair, L. 2000. The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell.

Westney, D. E. 2005. Institutional theory and the multinational corporation. In: S. Ghoshal & D. E. Westney,

eds. Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation, 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,

pp. 47–67.

Westney, D. E. & Zaheer, S. 2001. The multinational enterprise as an organization. In: A. M. Rugman & T.

Brewer, eds. The Oxford Handbook of International Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 350–79.

Westney, D. E. & Zaheer, S. 2010. The multinational enterprise as an organization. In: A. M. Rugman &

T. Brewer, eds. The Oxford Handbook of International Business, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

pp. 341–66.

Wong, M. M. L. 2005. Organizational learning via expatriate managers: Collective myopia as blocking mecha-

nism. Organization Studies, 26: 325–50.

Notes on contributors

Kathleen Park is Research Fellow in Global Studies and International Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, USA and International Faculty Fellow and Assistant Professor in Strategic Management and International Management at Gulf University for Science and Technology, College of Business, Kuwait. She received her PhD from the MIT Sloan School of Management. Her research interests include international mergers and acquisitions, alliances, corporate governance, executive careers and global leadership development. Dr Park is

279MANAGING ACROSS BORDERS

presently collaborating with Dr Ursula Mense-Petermann on ‘Expatriate managers: A new cosmopolitan elite’. In addition, Dr Park has received grants for projects on ‘MNCs as family businesses? Drivers of growth and internationalization from the GCC to the global economy’ and ‘Global leadership development in high-income emerging economies in the Arabian Gulf’. Her work has been published in Competi- tion & Change, Journal of International Management, Thunderbird International Business Review, International Journal of Business and Economics Research, Rout- ledge Companion on Mergers and Acquisitions and the Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings.

Ursula Mense-Petermann is Professor of Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Work at the Department of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany. Prior to her present chair at Bielefeld, she held a chair in Sociology at Klagenfurt University, Austria, and she was previously Assistant Professor for Economic Sociology at Bielefeld University. She earned her PhD with distinction at Magdeburg University, Germany. Her current research focuses on economic globalization and transnation- ally mobile work. The processes and problems of transcending political and cultural boundaries in the economic realm are at the centre of her research interests. She is principal investigator of three world society-related research projects: (1) Expatriate Managers: A New Cosmopolitan Elite, (2) The Globalization of Small and Medium- sized Enterprises, and (3) Global Mobility Policies as Mobility Regimes.

Correspondence to: Dr Kathleen Park, MIT Sloan School of Management, Building E62-300, 100 Main Street, Cambridge, MA, USA 02142. Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

Copyright of Competition & Change is the property of Maney Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.