20788806

WILL I STAY OR WILL I GO?
EXPLAINING REPATRIATION BY SELF-INITIATED

EXPATRIATES
Author(s): PHYLLIS THARENOU and NATASHA CAULFIELD
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, No. 5 (October 2010), pp. 1009-1028
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788806
Accessed: 06-11-2016 10:31 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Academy of Management Journal
This content downloaded from 14.142.16.19 on Sun, 06 Nov 2016 10:31:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy of Management Journal

2010, Vol. 53, No. 5, 1009-1028.
WILL I STAY OR WILL I GO?

EXPLAINING REPATRIATION BY
SELF-INITIATED EXPATRIATES
PHYLLIS THARENOU
Flinders University of South Australia
NATASHA CAULFIELD
University of South Australia
Offering an integrated framework, we sought to explain why and how professionals
who self-initiate expatriation repatriate. We measured host country "pull" and "push,"
home country pull, "shocks," and the intention to repatriate of 546 Australians and, a
year later, their home country job search during the preceding year and whether they
had repatriated. We found that host country pull (weak embeddedness), home country
pull, and shocks explained their intention to repatriate and that shocks also played a
key role in explaining job search and repatriation. The mediation of host country
embeddedness, home country pull, and shocks by intention, and of intention by job
search, explained how repatriation occurred.
The world has become one large employment

pool for professionals, who increasingly initiate
and finance their own expatriation to take advan
tage of lucrative work opportunities created by a
More professionals initiate their own expatria

tion than are assigned abroad by their company, as
shown for professionals from Western countries (65
percent self-expatriates vs. 35 percent company ex
patriates [Doherty, Dickmann, & Mills, 2008]),

women from several countries (42 percent self
expatriates vs. 20 percent company expatriates
shortage of professionals (Manpower, 2006) in both
developed and developing economies (Interna

tional Labour Organization [ILO], 2006; Organisa
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development
[Napier & Taylor, 2002]), and Australians (about 60

percent self-expatriates vs. 19 percent company ex
patriates [Hugo, Rudd, & Harris, 2003]). The excep
tion is Finnish economists (50 percent self-expatri
ates vs. 50 percent company expatriates [Jokinen et
al., 2008]) and engineers (33 percent self-expatri
ates vs. 63 percent company expatriates [Suutari &
Brewster, 2000). The prevalence of professionals'
self-expatriating is also shown by the number em
[OECD], 2008a). "Self-initiated expatriates" are
professionals who choose to expatriate and who are

not transferred by their employer (Harrison, Shaf
fer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004). Instead, they relo
cate to a country of their choice to seek a job or to
try an entrepreneurial venture (Jokinen, Brewster,
& Suutari, 2008; Saxenian, 2005), often with no

definite time frame in mind (Harrison et al., 2004;
Suutari & Brewster, 2000). They most often expa
igrating. At least 1.5 million skilled people mi

grated to an OECD country in 2004 (Bozionelos,
2009). Although 25 countries had fewer than 5
percent of their professionals expatriate to an
OECD country, a high 25 had 5-10 percent, 23 had
triate by resigning from their job and moving
abroad, finding a job once there; to a lesser extent,

they find work before they expatriate (Bozionelos,
2009; Frank & B?lair, 1999; Napier & Taylor, 2002;
Suutari & Brewster, 2000; Thang, MacLachlan, &

Goda, 2002). Worldwide, global and multinational
corporations (MNCs) rely on self-made expatriates
to redress their shortage of skilled labor and inter
national managers (Banai & Harry, 2004; Suutari &
Brewster, 2000; West & Bogumil, 2000). We seek to
explain what motivates this valuable source of tal
ent to repatriate or stay abroad. We add value by
developing an overarching theoretical framework
10-20 percent, and 21 had over 20 percent (OECD,
2008a).
A great deal of research has been conducted into

the repatriation of company-assigned expatriates,
especially into company repatriation policies and
expatriates' postentry adjustment, unmet expecta
tions, and job turnover (e.g., Black, Gregersen, &
Mendenhall, 1992; Harvey, 1989; Lazarova & Cer
din, 2007; Stroh, Gregersen, & Black, 1998). Com

pany-assigned expatriates usually repatriate by in
in which we propose multiple routes to explain
tracompany transfer to "return to one's home
why self-expatriates repatriate, integrated with se

quential mediated linkages to explain how.
country upon completion of an assignment" (Har

1009
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express
written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.
1010 Academy of Management Journal October
rison et al., 2004: 208). Only 8 percent, on average,
choose to return early (GMAC Global Relocation
Services, 2009). Research into why this small group

chooses to repatriate has focused on what can be
done to prevent their early return, although only
intention has been examined (Harrison et al., 2004).
Meta-analyses have shown that poor cultural ad

justment by expatriates or their partners or fami
lies, and job dissatisfaction, are the factors most
related to an intent to return early (Bhaskar-Shrini
vas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Hechanova,

Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003).
Unlike most company expatriates, self-initiated
expatriates themselves choose to repatriate; they
must decide whether to return and, if so, when.
Repatriation is self-initiated when "people return
to their country or place of origin after a significant
period in another country" (King, 2000: 8). The

proportion of skilled workers that repatriates is un
known. On average, their return migration rate

from the United States was 24 percent after five
years (OECD, 2008b), and from other developed

countries it was about 40-50 percent within ten
years (OECD, 2008a). Unlike most company expa
triates, self-expatriates must manage their own re
turn, find a new job or try an entrepreneurial ven
ture, or else return unemployed (Begley, Collings, &
Scullion, 2008; Saxenian, 2005; Suutari & Brewster,

2000). Research into self-expatriates' repatriation
has focused on trying to reverse the "brain drain"
and has sought to uncover what encourages return
(Hugo et al., 2003). Findings have been limited,
since most studies rely on frequency statistics. The

most frequently cited reasons skilled expatriates
intend to return (e.g., Frank & B?lair, 1999; Hugo et
al., 2003; Inkson et al., 2004; Mak, 1997), or have
returned as "repatriates" (e.g., Barrett & O'Connell,
2001; Hugo et al., 2003), are the pull of home coun
try family and lifestyle. Their most frequent barri
ers are the career, financial, professional, and busi
ness opportunities and conditions offered abroad
(Fontes, 2007; Hugo et al., 2003; Inkson et al.,
2004), suggesting that professionals' careers may

embed them abroad.
In contrast to company expatriates, self-expatri

ates do not appear to repatriate because of poor host
country adjustment. Self-initiated expatriates re

port greater cultural adjustment, ability to adapt to
the host country, and confidence in their capacity

to live and work abroad than company expatriates
(Doherty et al., 2008; Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009),
perhaps because they chose to live in a foreign

culture and they interact more with locals. More
often than company expatriates, self-expatriates:
(1) expatriate for adventure, to see the world, to live
in the host country, to experience the host culture,
and to learn the language (Doherty et al., 2008;

Napier & Taylor, 2002; Suutari & Brewster, 2000)
and (2) work in host country rather than home
country companies and MNCs, live in the commu
nity rather than in an expatriate enclave, live in a
host country longer, and have a host country or
working partner (Doherty et al., 2008; Jokinen et al.,
2008; Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009; Suutari & Brew
ster, 2000). So it is not surprising that self-expatri

ates are culturally better adjusted than company
expatriates.
Studies explaining why self-made expatriates re
patriate are limited, however. They have most often
relied on frequency analysis and cross-sectional

data, and they also have a limited conceptual un
derpinning. The simple "push-pull" view (Toren,
1976) has most often been applied, whereby self
expatriates return because they are pulled by their

home country (i.e., family, lifestyle) and pushed
away by their host country (e.g., lack of job oppor
tunities). Most of the other theories applied have an
economic basis, such as cost-benefit analysis (Co
may, 1971) and human capital theory (Barrett &

O'Connell, 2001), despite the extant support given
for family- and lifestyle-motivated repatriation. We
advance knowledge by testing a theory-based, psy

chological explanation using a prospective design
to predict actual return.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
We seek to remedy the scant attention paid to
psychological theory to develop a framework to
explain why self-made expatriates repatriate. We
adapt contemporary job turnover theory to do so.
As March and Simon (1958) did for turnover, Toren
(1976) used push and pull factors to explain repa
triation. Deficiencies in the explanation of self-re
patriation?which have arisen from researchers'

not considering the impact of embeddedness and
"shocks" or simultaneously explaining why self
expatriates repatriate and the process by which
they do so?are similar to those identified in con
temporary, integrated models of turnover (Allen &
Griffeth, 2000; Lee, Gerhart, Weiler, & Trevor,
2008). Our interest is in repatriation, and most ex
patriates who quit a country repatriate rather than
move to a third country (e.g., 86 percent of the
Norwegians studied [OECD, 2008a]), especially

those from developed countries, as is our sample. It
is skilled expatriates from developing countries
who most often move to a third country. Figure 1

displays the overarching framework we build to
explain self-repatriation.
Contemporary frameworks include at least three
routes to turnover (leaving a job): push factors, pull
2010
1011
Tharenou and Caulfield
FIGURE 1
Overarching Conceptual Framework and Model to Be Tested Explaining Self-Repatriation9
Pull to Remain:
Host Country Embeddedness
Career Embeddedness
Community Embeddedness
Pull to Repatriate:
Home Country Attraction
Career Instrumentality
Lifestyle Instrumentality
Family Encouragement
National Identity
Push to Repatriate:
Host Country
Dissatisfaction
Intention to
Repatriate
Job
Search
Repatriation
a The dashed lines indicate the paths to job search that were removed to test for part versus full mediation by intention to repatriate in
relation to job search. In addition, the path from shocks to job search was removed.
factors, and shocks (Allen & Griffeth, 2000; Lee et
al, 2008). In March and Simon's (1958) induce
ment-contributions theory, continued participation

in an organization is a function of two motivational
forces: (1) the perceived desirability of leaving, or

push factors, usually conceptualized as job dissat
isfaction, and (2) the perceived ease of leaving, or
pull factors, usually conceptualized as the external
job alternatives perceived by an employee.
The influence of home country pull has received
more research attention as an explanation for why
self-expatriates repatriate than has host country
push (King, 2000). We therefore examine the influ
ence of host country push (dissatisfaction), but we
also examine an important pull from the host coun
try: how embedded professionals are. Worldwide,
professionals most often self-initiate expatriation
for employment opportunities, professional devel
opment, and income (e.g., Barrett & O'Connell,

2001; Frank & B?lair, 1999; Gill, 2005; Hugo et al.,
2003; Nerdrum & Sarpebakken, 2006; Suutari &

Brewster, 2000). They may become embedded in
their host country because of these career opportu
nities and be reluctant to sacrifice them by repatri
ating. Figure 1 therefore includes not only home
country factors that pull expatriates to return and
host country factors that push them to return (dis
satisfaction), but also host country factors that pull
them to remain (embeddedness).
Past theory proposing "embedding" constructs
has explained company expatriates "going na
tive" (Black & Gregersen, 1992), emigrants assim

ilating into a host country (Berry, 1997), and so
journers losing their cultural identity (Sussman,
2002). We develop a broader construct than trans
fer of one's allegiance to a host operation or of
one's cultural identity to a host country that is
especially relevant to professionals. It assesses
expatriates' embeddedness in host countries
through their career and community, and, unlike
past research, we theorize and examine how em

beddedness is related to repatriation versus re
maining abroad (Figure 1).
A third route to job turnover is via an employee
experiencing "shocks to the system." In the un

folding theory of turnover, Lee and Mitchell
(1994) proposed that turnover often occurs in
response to jarring events?as opposed to dissat
isfaction?that cause employees to reassess their
employment situation in the context of their val
ues, goals, and plans, and that may result in their
deciding to quit, at times suddenly. Shocks may

happen on or off the job, be positive or negative,
and be expected or unexpected. Shocks have not
been examined as an explanation for why self

expatriates repatriate, an omission that we at
tempt to rectify (Figure 1).

Contemporary frameworks integrate the three
routes to turnover with the process by which it
arises (cf. Allen & Griffeth, 2000). Mobley's (1977)
intermediate linkages model indicates proposed

stages that take place between evaluating a job and
quitting. Studies have examined Mobley's process
to show that there are three or four broad stages
(e.g., Griffeth, Horn, & Gaertner, 2000; Horn & Grif
feth, 1991). Scholars have concluded that proximal

determinants (e.g., job dissatisfaction) lead to a gen
eral intent to leave; that intent to leave crystallizes
before the pursuit of job alternatives and is more
likely to lead to a specific search for alternative
employment (rather than the reverse); and that job
search, combined with the intent to leave, then
directly affects turnover (e.g., Griffeth et al., 2000;
Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008; Horn et al.,

1991; Horn & Griffeth, 1991; Maertz & Campion,
and we test the explanatory power of shocks. To

explain how self-repatriation occurs, we offer a
new contribution by testing a process that exam
ines the sequential mediating roles that satisfac
tion, intent to repatriate, and job search play. De
spite satisfaction and intention being likely to
transmit the influence of push and pull factors and
shocks (and intention itself to transmit the influ
ence of satisfaction), their mediating roles have not
been examined. Job search should help a profes

sional to execute an intent to return; yet studies
have not examined the mediating effect of job
search, an untested part of the puzzle that we
examine.
1998).
We combine the perspectives on the three routes

to turnover and the process by which it occurs to
explain self-repatriation (Figure 1). We propose

that both the pull of a host country (embeddedness)
and shocks affect expatriates ' satisfaction with liv
ing in the host country, which may, in turn, affect
their intention to repatriate. Further, reviewers
have concluded that such factors may also directly
affect an employee's intention to quit without first
being transmitted through dissatisfaction (Holtom
et al., 2008; Maertz & Campion, 1998), as we show
in Figure 1 for the effects of host and home country
pull and shocks on intention. Adapting theory for
job turnover (cf. Griffeth et al., 2000; Maertz &
Campion, 1998), we also propose that intention to
repatriate is vital for transmitting the influence of
pull and push factors. Professionals who have a

strong intention to repatriate are likely to examine
the chance of finding work at home to assess the

feasibility of return, but they may also repatriate
without first searching for a job. Figure 1 shows
that a shock can produce the same effects (cf. Lee &
Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman,
1996; Mitchell & Lee, 2001). However, researchers

have also proposed that pull and push factors may
affect whether an employee searches for a job (Kan
fer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001; Mitchell, Hol
tom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001), as is shown in
Figure 1. In turn, the greater the job search, the
greater will be the chance of uncovering job pros
pects to enable repatriation.
In sum, the study offers a conceptual contribu
tion that advances explanation of self-repatriation
by developing and testing an overarching inte
grated framework to explicate why and how repa

triation occurs, in contrast to the earlier, limited
"why" explanations. To explain why, we apply
concepts new to repatriation research. We derive

the concept of host country embeddedness to ex
amine the neglected influence of host countries,
DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES
Figure 1 shows the three routes that lead to a
decision to repatriate and the process by which
they translate into return?through mediation by

host country satisfaction, intention to repatriate,
and job search. We now provide the hypotheses

that were tested to seek support for our theoretical
model.
Pull to Remain: Host Country Embeddedness

Expatriates can become embedded in their host
countries, a situation that pulls them to remain
rather than to leave. For professionals from devel
oped countries, leaving most often means repatri
ating (OECD, 2008b). In job embeddedness theory,
employees are encouraged to remain in their organ
izations by a combination of three factors: the sac
rifices that they would have to make; the loss of fit
of their values, goals, and plans with their job and

organization; and the loss of the links with people,
groups, and institutions they have gained through
their job (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Mitchell, Holtom, &
Lee, 2001). Applied to expatriates, this theory sug
gests that when expatriates are strongly embedded
in a host country, they are pulled to remain and
have little intent to leave, most often meaning that
they have little intention to return home. To exam
ine the impact of embeddedness on a professional's
decision to stay or return, we develop the new
concept of host country career embeddedness and

adapt the construct of community embeddedness
to a host country focus.
With regard to career embeddedness, if repatria
tion means that professionals will have to make
substantial career sacrifices, that their valuable ca
reer links will be fractured, and that a fit between
their career goals and the host country's opportu
nities will be lost, then they are more likely to
remain and less likely to consider repatriation. If
2010 Tharenou and Caulfield 1013
they are embedded by career benefits, they are

more likely to be satisfied living abroad and less
inclined to return, as professionals themselves
have recounted (Gill, 2005; Harvey, 2009). Thus,
Hypothesis 1. Host country career embedded

ness is positively related to host country satis
faction and negatively related to intention to
repatriate.
With regard to community embeddedness, if by
repatriating expatriates are likely to sacrifice many
social activities and ties, lose much fit with their
community, and break many links with family and
friends, they are likely to feel pulled to remain. In
addition, an expatriate is likely to be more firmly
embedded in a community when he or she has a
partner and/or children, both of which facilitate
links with friends and community and assist in
creating a satisfying social life that is hard to leave

(Hugo et al., 2003; Mak, 1997). Skilled self-expatri
ates appear to display stronger intentions to repa
triate when they are childless, or their children are
not settled into the host country, or their partners
are of home country origin (Harvey, 2009; Hugo et
al., 2003; Mak, 1997). Partners of home country
origin may be less likely than those of foreign origin
to become embedded abroad and more likely to
push expatriates to repatriate to reunite with family
and friends and regain their lifestyle and national

culture. In sum, when expatriates are strongly em
bedded in their community, it is more likely that
their social needs are being met and that they are
more satisfied with living in the host country and
less inclined to return. Thus,
Hypothesis 2. Host-country community embed
dedness is positively related to host country

satisfaction and negatively related to intention
to repatriate.
Pull to Repatriate: Home Country Attraction

Home country factors are an attracting and influ
ential force on a decision to return, but they are not
likely to affect an expatriate's satisfaction with liv
ing in a host country because they are not directly
related to an evaluation of life there. We therefore
propose paths from home country pull factors (ca

reer and lifestyle instrumentality, family encour
agement, and national identity) to intention to re
patriate, but not to host country satisfaction.
Professionals are likely to construct outcome ex

pectations of the benefits for their career from re
patriating (cf. Tharenou, 2008), in keeping with

expectancy theory (Comay, 1971). Adapting Thare
nou's (2008) construct for expatriation, career in
strumentality with regard to repatriation explains

the extent to which an expatriate expects that repa
triation will produce career benefits. When expa
triates anticipate that they will gain career oppor
tunities and financial outcomes, they are more
likely to perceive repatriation as easy. Professionals

also construct outcome expectations of the benefits
for their lifestyle from returning. Lifestyle instru
mentality explains the extent to which expatriates
believe that repatriation will offer lifestyle benefits
(e.g., the lifestyle itself, the physical environment,
friendship, a place to raise children). When expa
triates anticipate that repatriation will result in
their regaining the benefits of a home country life
style, they will expect it to be easy as they will be
returning to a familiar lifestyle and environment
and to family and friends. Thus,
Hypothesis 3a. Repatriation's instrumentality

for gaining career outcomes is positively re
lated to the intention to repatriate.
Hypothesis 3b. Repatriation's instrumentality

for gaining lifestyle outcomes is positively re
lated to the intention to repatriate.
Expatriates are also pulled home by their family
in their home country. Their family actively seeks
their return, and the secondary family at home?
parents, grandparents, siblings, others?may exert
considerable pressure on expatriates to repatriate
(Jones, 2003). Expatriates (and their partners) are
encouraged to return to reunite with family and
friends, to bring up children at home, to care for
aging parents and relatives, and to gain the benefits
of extended family (Harvey, 2009; Hugo et al.,
2003). Strong encouragement by the home country

family is likely to result in expatriates expecting to
gain great support in this major life change and

upheaval, including the provision of help in find
ing accommodation, schools, and jobs and of emo
tional support. Therefore,
Hypothesis 4. Family encouragement is posi

tively related to intention to repatriate.
Expatriates are also likely to be attracted home
when they strongly identify with their home
country. Individuals with a strong national iden

tity have positive feelings about being a citizen of
their home country, often reflect on how central
their nationality is to them, and have strong ties
and bonds with compatriots (Cameron, 2004).
They are therefore more likely to be drawn home.
Because of their familiarity with their national

culture, expatriates are likely to believe that re
turning will be easy. Studies have indicated that
national identity is related to skilled self-expatri
ates' intentions to repatriate (e.g., De Cieri, Shee
han, Costa, Fenwick, & Cooper, 2009; Inkson et

al., 2007). Therefore,
Hypothesis 5. National identity is positively
related to intention to repatriate.
Repatriation-Related Shocks
A shock is "a particular, jarring event that ini
tiates the psychological analyses involved in quit
ting a job" (Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Inderrieden,
2005: 339-340; Lee et al., 1996: 6). We adapt the
construct from the explanation proposed for quit
ting a job to quitting a host country to repatriate. A
shock may jolt an expatriate into appraising
whether life in the host country is meeting his or

her values, goals, and plans; if not, he or she may
become dissatisfied and be inclined to return
home. Dissatisfaction and intent to repatriate may

arise from shocks that are positive (e.g., a wedding
back home forces an expatriate to evaluate life

abroad and consider the desirability of return to
regain the lifestyle and rejoin family and friends) or
negative (e.g., an event linked to elderly parents

triggers thoughts of return to reunite with them and
care for them). Dissatisfaction and intent to return
may also result from a shock incurred in a host

country (an unhappy job situation results in a neg
ative evaluation of life abroad and prompts
thoughts of return) or home country (a visit home

results in a negative appraisal of life abroad, awak
ening the desire to once again live at home).
A shock may also jolt a professional directly into
deciding to return, perhaps triggering a search for a
job at home to realize that decision. But a shock
may also cause a professional to repatriate without
deliberation or job search because it activates a

preexisting plan or "script" (cf. Lee & Mitchell,
1994; Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee, 2001). For example,
an expatriate or his/her partner becoming pregnant
or having a child may trigger return because of a

previously determined plan to have a child close to
the family or to bring up children at home (Inkson
et al., 2004).
A range of types of shocks can therefore affect

return, and they vary according to the person. To
account for the variety of shocks, we examined the
incidence of shocks in general, adopting the same
approach as Lee et al. (1996:12, 34) to the measure
ment of shocks in interviews or surveys of employ
ees who left jobs. Therefore,
Hypothesis 6. Shocks are negatively related to

host country satisfaction and positively related
to intention to repatriate, home country job
search, and repatriation.
The Process of Repatriation as
Mediated Linkages
When an expatriate does not become embedded

in a host country by career or community benefits,
or incurs shock(s), as we have explained, he or she

may become dissatisfied living in the host country.
Dissatisfaction may render the prospect of repatri
ation desirable and push the expatriate to return,
consequently increasing intent. The effects of host
country embeddedness and shocks on intention to
repatriate thus arise in part because of dissatisfac
tion. Satisfaction is a partial mediator, since em
beddedness and shocks, as we earlier described,
may also directly affect an expatriate's intention to

return.
Hypothesis 7. Host country satisfaction partly

mediates the links of career and community
embeddedness and shocks with intention to
repatriate.
As we have explained, a professional is likely to
have a stronger inclination to repatriate when he or
she is weakly embedded in a host country, is dis

satisfied with living there, and incurs a shock or
shocks that trigger thoughts of return. Similarly,
when expatriates expect repatriation to gain them
career and lifestyle benefits, when their home

country family encourages them to return, and
when they identify with their home nationality,
they are more inclined to return. Pull and push
factors and shocks are therefore likely to have their
impact partly as a consequence of their link to an
expatriate's intention to repatriate, which, in turn,

impels them to search for work at home to achieve
their goal of return. Hence, intention to repatriate
will mediate the influence of such factors on job
search.
Intention may be a partial and not a full media

tor. Firstly, this is because shocks, as we explained,
are likely to directly affect job search with a view to
enable return. Secondly, intention may also be a
partial mediator because pull and push factors
could directly affect a professional's job search.

Adapting theory for domestic job search, expatri
ates who are pushed, for example, by job dissatis
faction (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee et al., 2001), and
who are pulled, for example, by high expectations

of outcomes (Kanfer et al., 2001), are more likely to
search for a job at home. Being weakly embedded

abroad may also enable an expatriate to search for a
job that will enable return. Hence, host country
push (dissatisfaction), lack of host country pull

(embeddedness), and home country pull (e.g., in
strumentality) may directly affect job search, ren
dering intention a partial mediator of their effects

on job search.
Hypothesis 8a. Intention to repatriate partly

mediates the links of shocks with job search.
Hypothesis 8b. Intention to repatriate partly

mediates the links of career and community
embeddedness, host country satisfaction, ca
reer and lifestyle instrumentality, family en
couragement, and national identity with job
search.
A strong intention to repatriate is needed to mo
tivate repatriation. Unlike domestic job leavers,
only 15-20 percent of whom relocate (Mitchell,
Holtom, Lee et al., 2001), expatriates do not just
leave a job and find a new job in the same location.
They leave a country and find a new job in their old
country and readapt to their old culture. But peo

ple's intentions do not always result in their goal
being achieved (Gollwitzer, 1999). In implementa
tion intentions theory (Gollwitzer, 1999), to imple
ment an intention, people must determine how to
reach their goal and implement those behaviors.
Job search is a purposive, volitional behavior car
ried out in response to a discrepancy between an
employment goal and a current state of affairs (Kan
fer et al., 2001). Searching for a job in her/his home
country helps to facilitate a professional's goal of

return by uncovering job prospects or finding a job
at home, increasing the probability of return.
Not all professionals who intend to repatriate

will search for a job at home. Some may decide to
return unemployed and search for work once they
are home; others may have the finances to return
without a job to go to; still others may have been
offered a job and do not need to search. Thus, job
search will only partly mediate the prediction of
repatriation by intention because not all of those
with a high intent to return need to search for a job.
Hypothesis 9. Home country job search partly

mediates the prediction of repatriation by in
tention to repatriate; intention to repatriate
also directly predicts repatriation.
METHODS
Data Collection
most often initiate expatriation for employment op

portunities and professional development (Hugo et
al, 2003; Parker, 2006). Professionals from the

United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, and combined
country samples (Crowley-Henry, 2007; Frank &
B?lair, 1999; Gill, 2005; Nerdrum & Sarpebakken,

2006) behave similarly, as do those from combined
Western country samples, Britain, and Finland,
who also expatriated often for travel, adventure,
and cultural and international experience (Doherty
et al., 2008; Richardson & Mallon, 2005; Suutari &
Brewster, 2000). As do other small developed econ
omies (OECD, 2008c), Australia has moderate

skilled expatriation. Enabling a fair test of whether
professionals will repatriate or not, about a half to
two-thirds of Australian professionals have said

that they do not intend to, or are not likely to,
return permanently (47 percent [De Cieri et al.,
2009], 49 percent [Hugo et al., 2003], 64 percent
[Parker, 2006]).
We sought self-initiated expatriates via ten Aus
tralian professional associations with international
members and expatriate associations (e.g., Institute
of Chartered Accountants Australia; Australian
Chambers of Commerce). Nine of the ten associa

tions placed a message on their website or in their
electronic newsletter through which members
could access the survey and return it to us. We told

expatriates that we were seeking Australian profes
sionals who were currently working abroad and we
wished to understand their intention to repatriate
or to stay abroad. We could calculate the response
rate for the one expatriate association that e-mailed
the survey directly to all of its 300 members, giving
a satisfactory 45 percent return.
We received 764 surveys. We asked expatriates to
provide their addresses if they wished to be fol
lowed up; 755 did. A year later we e-mailed the
time 2 survey and received 649 surveys back, for an
86 percent response. We searched for those with

outdated addresses using the internet or found fol
low-up addresses. We made contact with the sur
vey nonrespondents to ask whether they had repa
triated or not; 103 of the 106 responded. We thus
measured repatriation for 752 of the 755 respon

dents. By time 2, 97 of the 755 had repatriated. Of
the 97, 87 returned the time 2 survey, a number
comprising 13 percent of the 649 time 2 surveys.
Using chi-square tests on the time 1 items, we
We surveyed Australian self-initiated expatriates

to assess pull and push factors, shocks, and inten
tion to repatriate (time 1). A year later (time 2), we
measured how much they had searched for jobs in

their home country during the preceding year and
whether they had repatriated or not. Australian
professionals were suitable for the study. They
tested whether the 115 expatriates from whom we

did not have a time 2 survey differed from the 649
from whom we did on 34 demographic (e.g., age)

and other variables. For 31 of the 34 tests, there
were no significant differences. Overall, then, it is
unlikely that nonresponse affected the explanation
found for repatriation.
Measures
Sample
To ensure we sampled self-initiated expatriates,
we asked expatriates whether they were deployed
abroad on an expatriate assignment by their organ
ization; 173 confirmed that they were. We excluded
them, leaving 591. We also asked expatriates if they
had self-initiated their expatriation, as opposed to

being sent by their employer, accompanying a part
ner, or going for family reasons; 546 of the 591
confirmed that they had. We omitted the 45 who
had not (36 appeared to be trailing spouses). The

546 formed the time 1 sample, of whom 471 re
turned the time 2 survey, including 14 percent who
had repatriated.
At time 1, two-thirds of the 546 self-expatriates
were from 25 to 39 years old, on average in the age
range of 35 to 39. Most (90%) had lived abroad for
over a year, on average from 3 to 5 years. Three
tenths had originally intended to expatriate for
The Appendix provides the items for all scales,

which we averaged to form the scores.
Host country career embeddedness. A nine
item scale measured career embeddedness and was
based on the organizational measure of job embed

dedness (Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Hol
tom, 2004; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee et al., 2001).
Three items measured the career sacrifices that ex
patriates would incur should they repatriate (e.g.,

"career and employment opportunities" [Hugo et
al, 2003]) and were scored from 1 ("not at all") to 5
("to a very great extent"). Four items measured

career fit, asking the extent to which expatriates
agreed that their career goals (e.g., "career needs")
fitted with host country opportunities, and these
items were scored from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7
("strongly agree"). Two items measured links: ten

ure with the current employer (a seven-point item)
fewer than 2 years, a third from 2 to 5 years, over a
and permanency of the job (a three-point item)

(Tanova & Holtom, 2008). We standardized scores
fifth for 5 or more years or permanently, and 15

percent had no time frame in mind. Despite their
categories. Career embeddedness should be more
intentions, 31 percent had stayed longer. Sixty-five
related to a host country's economic and job oppor
percent of the sample of 546 was male. Sample

members held mostly undergraduate (43%) and
postgraduate (53%) degrees and had permanent
jobs (70%) rather than contracts (27%) or casual
jobs (3%). They were managers and executives
(33%), accountants (29%), or other professionals
(e.g., lawyer, 6%; teacher, 5%). They ranged from
nonmanagers (15%) to chief executive officers
(11%); 56 percent were senior managers or above.

Most (87%) worked in the for-profit sector (13 per
cent worked in the government, community, and
not-for-profit sector) and MNCs (61 percent: 6 per
cent Australian owned). Most were married or co
habiting (72%). Of their partners, 43 percent were
foreign citizens, 16 percent held dual citizenship,
and 54 percent had family in Australia. Some ex
patriates were parents (41%), of whom 70 percent
had children born abroad; 21 percent of children
were of high school age. Expatriates lived in Europe
(42 percent: 38 percent United Kingdom); Asia (27
percent: 9 percent Singapore, 8 percent Hong

Kong); United Arab Emirates/Gulf States (18%);
other English-speaking countries (11 percent: 7 per

cent United States); and other countries (2%). Most
were Australian born (83%). About a quarter (28%)
were dual citizens, almost all of whom (93%) had

family living in Australia, suggesting that Australia
was their home and that they were not likely to

have become expatriates because they had perma
nently relocated abroad.
for averaging as the items had different response
tunities than to an expatriate being older, at a

higher managerial level, or having a dual home
host country identity. Supporting its convergent

and discriminant validity, career embeddedness
was more related to perceiving substantial host

country economic opportunities (r = .53, < .01)
and greater occupational rewards than in the home
country (r = .55, < .01), than to age (r = -.05,

n.s.), managerial level (r = .25, < .01), or dual
identity (r = .18, < .01).
Host country community embeddedness. We
used a ten-item scale adapted from the community
measure of job embeddedness (Lee et al., 2004;

Mitchell, Holtom, Lee et al., 2001). Three items
measured the extent of community sacrifice that

expatriates would make by repatriating (e.g., "in
social activities and events") and were scored from
1 ("not at all") to 5 ("to a very great extent"). Three
items assessed community fit (e.g., "This commu
nity is a good match for me") and were scored from
1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly agree"). Four
items assessed community links (e.g., "My close
friends live nearby"), including having a partner
and children. Community embeddedness should
be more related to satisfaction with a host culture

and fitting into the country's values than to merely
having family there, a foreign-born partner, or a

dual home-host country identity. Supporting con
vergent and discriminant validity, community em
beddedness was more related to satisfaction with
the culture (r = .45, < .01) and fitting into the
host country [r = .39, < .01) than to having family

living there (r = .16, < .01), a foreign partner (r =
ular event that caused you to think about leaving"

(Lee et al., 1996: 12, 34), by substituting "repatri
measured by two items: whether expatriates had a

dual home-host country identity and a global iden
thoughts about repatriating. We averaged respon

dents' ratings on these questions to create scores
for home and host country shocks and for nega
tive (e.g., family illness or death, job dissatisfac
.13, < .01), or a dual identity (r = .22, < .01).

We assessed whether host country embedded
ness was distinct from acculturation, which we
tity as a citizen of the world. We used confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to test one-, two-, and three

factor models of career and community embedded
ness and international identity (dual and global).
We found that the three-factor model fitted better
( 2 = 257, < .01) than the two-factor model,

which fitted better ( 2 = 1,120, < .01) than the
one-factor model, supporting the discriminant va
lidity of the embeddedness measures as being dis
tinct from a measure of international identity.
Repatriation's career instrumentality and life
style instrumentality. Two items from past studies

(Hugo et al., 2003; Inkson et al., 2004) assessed the
expected likelihood of gaining "career opportuni
ties" and "money/income" from repatriation (cf.
Tharenou, 2008). Six items from past studies (Bar
rett & O'Connell, 2001; Hugo et al, 2003; Inkson et
al., 2004) assessed the likelihood of gaining family
and other lifestyle outcomes from repatriation (e.g.,
"the lifestyle," "a better place to bring up chil
dren"). The items were scored from 0 (0%, "do not
expect this outcome at all") to 10 (100%, "com

pletely expect this outcome").
Home country family encouragement. Three
items assessed if expatriates were encouraged by

their home country families to repatriate (e.g., "My
family in Australia encourages me to return home
to live") and were scored from 1 ("strongly dis

agree") to 7 ("strongly agree"). Family encourage
ment should be more related to being close to one's
family in Australia than to merely having family
there. Family encouragement was more related to
closeness to parents and relatives in Australia (r =
.34, < .01) than to expatriates (r = .19, < .01) or

their partners (r = .01, > .05) having family in
Australia, supporting scale validity.
National identity. We used Cameron's (2004)
validated nine items to measure national identity

as: (1) affect (e.g., "I don't feel good about being
ating" for "leaving." We also asked if there had

been multiple events or factors. We also assessed
if 11 specific events or factors had caused
tion) and positive (e.g., wedding, pregnancy/
childbirth) shocks. The shocks variable was more

related to incurring home country than host coun
try shocks (r = .40 vs. .28, < .01) and more related
to incurring negative shocks than positive shocks
(r = .37 vs. .25, < .01). Shocks was most related
to the specific shocks of illness, death, or failing
health (r = .29, < .01), events linked to elderly

parents or relatives (r = .27, < .01), a visit (r =
.27, < .01), and a wedding or engagement (r = .24,
< .01) back home, and job or work dissatisfaction
abroad (r = .27, < .01). Other shocks were less
related (e.g., pregnancy/childbirth: r = .12, < .05;

job offer back home/employer contact: r = .09,
< .05).
Host country satisfaction. Four items assessed
how satisfied expatriates were with living in

their host country (e.g., "living in this country in
general"; "my job, employment, career"). They
were scored from 1 ("strongly dissatisfied") to 7
("strongly satisfied"). To be valid, the measure
should be more related to other measures of host
country satisfaction and finding it difficult to

leave the country than to an expatriate's merely
being high in managerial level or having lived
abroad for a long time. In support of scale valid
ity, host country satisfaction was more related to
having experienced job or work situation dissat

isfaction that triggered thoughts of return (-.36,
< .01) and to finding it hard to leave the coun
try (r = .41, < .01) than to an expatriate's

managerial level (r=.15,p<.01)or time abroad
(r = .13, < .01).
Intention to repatriate. We assessed intent using

three items from past studies (Hugo et al., 2003;
Inkson et al., 2004; Mak, 1997), scored from 1
and (3) ties with countrypersons (e.g., "I feel strong
("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"); for ex

ample, "I intend to repatriate to ... to live perma
nently" with "Australia" inserted. To be valid, the
measure should be more related to other measures
ties to other..."). We inserted "Australia" as the
of intention to repatriate and repatriation than to a
country. The extent of agreement with the items was
general willingness to relocate or mobility. In sup
scored from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly
port of convergent and discriminant validity, inten
an . . . ," reversed for averaging); (2) centrality

(e.g., "I often think about the fact that laman...");
agree").
Shocks. Two items, scored as 1 ("no") or 2
("yes") were averaged. We adapted items used to

measure shocks that asked "if there was a partie
tion to repatriate was more related to how long

expatriates had originally intended to expatriate
(r = -.31, < .01) and whether they had repatri

ated in the past year (r = .39, < .01) than to a
general willingness to relocate (r = .15, < .01)

and their number of expatriations (r = -.13, <
.01) and domestic relocations (r = -.03, n.s.).

Job search. We adapted ten items from Blau's
(1993) preparatory and active job search scales to
measure at time 2 how often expatriates had

searched for jobs in their home country during
the preceding year to facilitate repatriation. Pre
paratory search items asked how often expatri

ates had sought job information, made job con
tacts, and prepared job applications with a view
to repatriating (e.g., "searched for information on
jobs back in Australia"). Active search items mea
sured seeking or gaining job prospects to enable
repatriation (e.g., "had an interview for a job in

Australia"). Items were scored from 1 ("not at
all") to 5 ("very frequently"). The preparatory
ing return. We controlled for resident in the United
Kingdom, scored as 0 (not living in the U.K.) or 1

(living in the U.K.), because 38 percent of the sam
ple lived in the U.K.
Method of Analysis
We used the LISREL 8 program (J?reskog & Sor
bona, 1996) to fit the model (Figure 1). Because of
the sample's size in relation to the number of pa
rameters to be estimated, we ran path analysis
(Carlson & Kacmar, 2000). We tested for common

method variance, which would be indicated (Pod
sakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Wil
liams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989) if the fit of the model
Repatriation. We coded repatriation as 1 (the 13

percent of the sample that repatriated by a year
later) or 0 (the 81 percent that had stayed in the
host country and the 6 percent that had moved
comprising the ten multi-item latent variables of

Figure 1 (a 10-factor model) was improved by add
ing an uncorrelated latent method factor on which
all items loaded (an 11-factor model). If the fit was
improved, we assessed the variance explained by
the method factor by summing the squared load
ings to reveal the extent of its influence. We also
used CFA to assess the discriminant validity of the
ten multi-item latent constructs, while recognizing
that embeddedness measures were formative aggre
onward to a third country). The small percentage of
gate constructs (Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield,
and active search scores were highly related (r =

.75), and the scale was internally consistent [a =
.91); hence, the ten items were averaged to create
one job search score.
onward movers supports other studies (OECD,
2008a; Parker, 2006). The stayers and onward mov

ers did not differ significantly in any major way
(but both differed from repatriates), so we retained
both. At time 2, most repatriates (82%) reported

that they had returned permanently, and a few
(18%) were unsure, but none said they would re
turn abroad. To assess the score's accuracy, six
months after time 2 we recontacted repatriates to

ask their status. All but one was still a repatriate,
confirming score accuracy.
Control variables. We controlled for sample fea
tures that may have influenced our explanation of
repatriation. We controlled for time abroad, scored
from 1 ("under a year") to 7 ("over 20 years"),
because those abroad for a shorter time are more
likely to repatriate (OECD, 2008b). We did not con

trol for age as it was strongly related to time abroad
(r = .55, < .01) and number of children (r = .63,

< .01). We controlled for working for a home
country MNC, scored as 1 ("do not work for an
MNC"), 2 ("work for a foreign-owned MNC"), or 3
("work for an Australian MNC"), since return may
be greater for self-expatriates working in MNCs
with Australian offices because they could be trans
ferred. We controlled for dual citizenship, scored
as 1 ("Australian citizen only") or 2 ("dual: Austra
lian and other country"), because dual citizenship
was related to living in the U.K. (r = .22 < .01)

and foreign birth (r = .36, < .01), perhaps reduc
2007; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee et al., 2001).

For the path analysis, the input was the co vari
ance matrix, and maximum likelihood was the es
timation procedure. We corrected for measurement
error in each single-indicator (multi-item) measure

of a latent variable by fixing the latent to manifest
parameter for each variable at the square root of the
measure's reliability and calculating the residual as
[(1 - reliability) X variable variance] (Carlson &
Kacmar, 2000). We corrected the single-item con

trols (time abroad, home country MNC, dual citi
zenship, resident in the U.K.) for error by fixing the

factor loadings to one and calculating the error term
as [{1 - reliability) X variable variance] using reli

abilities of .95, since the variables were objective
and likely to have little or no error. We did not
correct the variable repatriation, which was per
fectly measured. We included paths in Figure 1
from each of the controls to intention to repatriate
and job search.
We fitted the model shown in Figure 1, in which

we propose partial mediation by host country sat
isfaction and intention to repatriate. To assess par
tial mediation, we compared the fit of this model
with models in which satisfaction and intention
were full mediators. First, we tested whether satis
faction was a partial mediator of the links of career
and community embeddedness and shocks to in

tention by comparing the fit of the theoretical
model with that of a nested model in which satis
faction was a full mediator, by omitting their paths
to intention to repatriate. We used the chi-square

difference test to compare the fits of the partly and
fully mediated models to determine the best-fitting
model and to assess Hypothesis 7. Next, we took

the best-fitting model from that analysis to test
whether intention to repatriate partly mediated: (1)
the link of shocks to job search (Hypothesis 8a) and
(2) the links of embeddedness, satisfaction, instru
mentality, family encouragement, and national

identity to job search (Hypothesis 8b). First, we
omitted the path from shocks to job search to derive
the model fully mediated by intention to compare

its fit to that of the partly mediated model that
included the path. Second, we omitted the paths
from embeddedness, satisfaction, instrumentality,
family encouragement, and national identity to job
search (the dashed lines in Figure 1) to compare the
fit of the model fully mediated by intention with
the partly mediated model that included them. We
used the results to assess Hypotheses 8a and 8b as
well as to identify the best-fitting model to test the
remaining hypotheses. In the theoretical model in
Figure 1, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), non
normed fit index (NNFI), and confirmatory fit in

dex (CFI) should be high (> .90) for acceptable fit,
and the root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) and standardized root-mean-square re

sidual (SRMR), low (< .08) (Browne & Cudeck,
1989).
therefore, are unlikely to be explained by common
method variance.
To assess discriminant validity, we compared the
fit of the ten-factor measurement model with that of
sequentially nested six- and three-factor models.

The six-factor model restricted covariance to one
within three sets of variables: (1) career and com
munity embeddedness; (2) career instrumentality,
lifestyle instrumentality, and family encourage
ment; and (3) shocks and intention to repatriate.
The three-factor model restricted covariance to one
within sets covering all variables: (1) career and

community embeddedness, host country satisfac
tion; (2) career and lifestyle instrumentality, family
encouragement, national identity; and (3) shocks,

intention to repatriate, and job search. The ten
factor model (GFI = .988; NNFI = .986; RMSEA =
.092, SRMR = .085) fitted better ( 2 = 196, <
.01; df= 34) than the six-factor model (GFI = .976;
NNFI = .973; RMSEA = .151, SRMR = .115), which

fitted better ( 2 = 678, < .01; df = 15) than the
three-factor model (GFI = .961; NNFI = .959;

RMSEA = .156, SRMR = .136), supporting dis
criminant validity. The ten-factor model showed
good fit (> .95). RMSEA was greater than .08 but
less than .10, which is acceptable (Browne & Cud
eck, 1989), in that the embeddedness measures are
aggregate formative constructs, not reflective.
Testing the Structural Model and Hypotheses
RESULTS
Table 1 givesthe means, standard deviations, cor
relations, and alpha coefficients for the variables,
indicating satisfactory reliability and no multicol
linearity. Intent to repatriate had a midrange mean
and a wide spread (mean = 3.29, s.d. = 1.15),
allowing its prediction. We omitted ten people

with missing data from the path analysis, fitting the
model with 461.

We assessed common method variance. The 11
factor model, which included the method factor,
had higher fit indexes than the 10-factor measure
ment model without it (GFI = .994 vs .988; NNFI =
.993 vs .986; SRMR = .076 vs .085), but the higher
chi-square difference test ( 2 = 1,934, < .01)
and RMSEA (.377 vs .092) of the 11-factor model

supported a poorer fit. Hence, there was inconsis
tent support for improvement of fit by the method
factor. Moreover, the method factor explained only
9.48 percent of the total variance, which is about

two-fifths of that usually observed in studies (Pod
sakoff et al. [2003], 24 percent; Williams et al.

[1989], 25 percent). The current study's results,
We ran the path analysis to fit the model shown

in Figure 1. We tested whether host country satis
faction partly mediated the links of career and com
munity embeddedness and shocks to intention to

repatriate by comparing the fit of the theoretical
model with that of the nested model removing their
paths, and thus testing satisfaction as a full medi
ator. The partly mediated model (GFI = .973,

NNFI = .953, CFI = .979, RMSEA = .048, SRMR =
.021) fitted better [A 2 = 34.94, < .01) than the
model in which satisfaction was a full mediator
(GFI = .964, NNFI = .931, CFI = .967, RMSEA =
.060, SRMR = .030). Figure 1 was thus best fitting,
with high fit and low error.
We then tested, as proposed in Figure 1,
whether intention was a partial mediator. First,

we compared the fit of the Figure 1 theoretical
model, in which intention partly mediated the
path of shocks to job search, with the fit of the
model in which intention was a full mediator of
that path, by removing it. The partly mediated
model (GFI = .973, NNFI = .953, CFI = .979,
RMSEA = .048, SRMR = .021) fitted better (A 2 =
36.19, < .01) than the fully mediated model
(GFI = .964, NNFI = .910, CFI = .966, RMSEA =
.31
13 14
-.04 .16 -.05

.17 -.22 -.08
12
.01 -.07
11
-.11
.72
(.91)
10
.17
-.10 -.03 -.01
.49.69
(.88)
-.22
.18
.03
-.10
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities'

a Correlations > .09 are significant at < .05, and those > .1 are significant at < .01. Alpha coefficients are on the diagonal. Care r and community embeddednes were z-scores;
TABLE 1
satisfaction, on a 1-7 scale; intention to repatriate, on a 1-5 scale; job search, on a 1-5 scale; repatriation behavior, as scores of 1 or 2; time abroad, on a 1-6 scale; home country
career and lifestyle instrumentality were measured on a 1-10-point scale; family encouragement, on a 1-7 scale; national identity, on a 1?7 scale; shocks, as scores of 1 or 2; host country
12. Time abroad, time 1 4.23 1.66 .16 .21 -.21 -.23 -.08 -.16 .16 .11
7. Shocks, time 1 1.52 0.47 -.12 -.15 .12 .28 .26 .12 (.88)
10. Job search, time 2 1.46 0.64 -.14 -.18 .18 .30 .19 .16 .41 -.21
11. Repatriation, time 2 0.12 0.32 -.18 -.24 .25 .41 .24 .22 .50 -.28
14. Dual citizenship, time 1 1.28 0.47 -.00 .12 .03 .03 -.04 -.20 .04 .05
Mean s.d.
8. Host country satisfaction, time 1 5.25 0.94 .39 .50 -.20 -.26 -.09 -.12 -.31 (.76)
6. National identity, time 1 5.73 0.92 -.07 -.14 .23 .38 .09 (.89)
multinational corporation, on a 1-3 point scale; dual citizenship, as 1 or 2; resident in United Kingdom, as 0 or 1.
9. Intention to repatriate, time 1 3.29 1.15 -.24 -.34 .35 .55 .27 .31 .36 -.31
13. Multinational corporation, time 1 1.66 0.58 .17 -.02 -.07 .09 .05 .06 .04 .02
15. Resident in United Kingdom, time 1 0.38 0.50 .01 -.13 .19 .38 .32 .09 .11 -.09
5. Home country family encouragement, time 1 4.18 1.61 .09 -.12 .11 .27 (.85)
2. Community embeddedness, time 1 0.00 1.00 .23 (.74)
4. Lifestyle instrumentality, time 1 6.08 2.26 -.14 -.32 .45 (.83)
3. Career instrumentality, time 1 2.79 2.39 -.42 -.14 (.85)
1. Career embeddedness, time 1 0.00 1.00 (.78)
Variable
.062, SRMR = .029), supporting intention as
partly mediating the shocks-job search link. Sec

ond, we compared the fit of the Figure 1 model,
in which intention was a partial mediator, with
the fit of the model in which intention fully me
diated the paths of embeddedness, satisfaction,
instrumentality, family encouragement, and na
tional identity to job search, by removing those
direct paths. The fully mediated model (GFI =

.980, NNFI = .961, CFI = .985, RMSEA = .044,
SRMR = .020) fitted better ( 2 = 12.50; < .05)
than the Figure 1 model (GFI = .973, NNFI =
.953, CFI = .979, RMSEA = .048, SRMR = .021).
The best-fitting model, in which intention fully

mediated the links of host and home country pull
factors to job search, had good fit and low error.
It explained a high 69 percent of repatriation,
supporting low misspecification. Hence, we used

it to assess the hypotheses. Figure 2 provides the
model, giving its standardized path coefficients.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported. As pre
dicted, career (Hypothesis 1) and community (Hy

pothesis 2) embeddedness were related positively
to host country satisfaction and negatively to inten
tion to repatriate (Figure 2). We also fitted the

model to test Hypothesis 2 with a second commu
nity embeddedness measure, which replaced the
"partner" item with two items that assessed
whether expatriates' partners were foreign citizens
and foreign born [a = .74) and thus used sample

members who had partners (n = 368). Community
embeddedness, when including the link of a for
eign partner, was related to host satisfaction ( =
.46, < .01) and intention to repatriate ( = ?.21,
< .01), the latter more than was the main embed
dedness measure ( = -.10, < .01).
Hypotheses 3a and 3b showed mixed support.

Lifestyle (Hypothesis 3b) but not career (Hypothe
sis 3a) instrumentality was positively related to
intention to repatriate. Hypotheses 4 and 5 were
supported. Home country family encouragement
(Hypothesis 4) and national identity (Hypothesis 5)
were positively related to intention to repatriate.
Hypothesis 6 was supported. Expatriates who ex
perienced shocks that triggered thoughts of return
were less satisfied with their host country, had
greater intent to repatriate, searched more often for
FIGURE 2
Completely Standardized Structural Coefficients for the Theoretical Model
a Nonsignificant paths are omitted. Each of the control variables (years abroad, host country MNC, dual citizen, resident in the United
Kingdom) had paths to intention and job search.
a job, and were more likely to repatriate in the

next year.
return. Shocks also jar expatriates into searching
Hypothesis 7 was not supported. Satisfaction

did not have a significant path to intention to
repatriate, as shown in Figure 2; hence, it could
not partly mediate the links of career and com
munity embeddedness and shocks to intention.
We had also fitted the model in which satisfac
The other three contributions made by this re

search are more specific, in that we have applied
concepts new to the repatriation literature to ex
plain self-repatriation. Firstly, we derive the new
concept of host country embeddedness to bring the
influence of an expatriate's host country to bear.
Being weakly embedded in a host country is related
tion was a full mediator by dropping the paths of

embeddedness and shocks to intention from the
for a job at home or directly motivate their return.
to a stronger intent to repatriate because profession
model shown in Figure 1. Satisfaction then had a
als do not have to make substantial career and
which became nonsignificant in fitting the model
and community fit, and to fracture many career and
significant path to intention (? = -.24, < .01),
with satisfaction as a partial mediator. Addi

tional model fitting showed that adding the paths
from career and community embeddedness, but
not shocks, to intention rendered the path from
satisfaction to intention nonsignificant.
Hypothesis 8a was supported. As previously re
ported, intention partly mediated the link of shocks
to job search; shocks indirectly, not just directly,

increased job search, by increasing intention. Hy
pothesis 8b was not supported. As previously re

ported, intention fully, not partly, mediated the
links of embeddedness, instrumentality, encour
agement, and national identity to job search. In sum
(Figure 2), when expatriates were less embedded in
their host country, expected repatriation to gain
them lifestyle outcomes, were encouraged by fam
ily to return, identified strongly with their home
country, and incurred shocks, they had a stronger
intention to repatriate, which, in turn, predicted
their searching more often for jobs. Shocks also
directly predicted job search.
Hypothesis 9 was supported. Intention to repa
triate predicted home country job search, which, in

turn, predicted repatriation, supporting mediation.
However, intention also directly predicted repatri

ation. Hence, job search partly mediated intent's
prediction of repatriation.
DISCUSSION
We sought to advance understanding of why self
initiated expatriates?who comprise a keenly
sought source of professionals worldwide?repatri

ate or remain abroad. Our results make four theo
retical contributions. The first, a general contribu
tion, lies in our development and support of an

overarching, integrated framework that explains
why and how self-repatriation occurs. Weak host
country pull, strong home country pull, and shocks
motivate professionals to repatriate because they
are related to a greater intention to return, which, in

turn, leads to an increase in the effort they put into
searching for a job at home or leads directly to
community sacrifices, to relinquish strong career

community links. We advance the theory proposed
for company expatriates' transfer of company alle
giance (Black & Gregersen, 1992) and migrants' and
sojourners' transfer of cultural identity (Berry,
1997; Sussman, 2002) by revealing that being
weakly embedded fosters repatriation because it is

associated with a stronger intention to repatriate,
which, in turn, leads to job search conducted to

enable return or directly motivates repatriation.
In the second of our specific contributions, we

find that shocks are a powerful force that impels
professionals to contemplate and assess the impli
cations of an event vis-?-vis staying in the host
country. Shocks are positively related to the inten
tion to return and lead to job search?and thus
repatriation?but they also propel repatriation di

rectly. Finally, we show that job search is an im
portant mediator that enables return by helping
transform the jarring effect of a shock, and an ex
patriate's strong intention to repatriate, into

repatriation.
The results may also inform the literature on why
company expatriates choose to repatriate, which

has focused on host country push and has not ex
amined actual repatriation (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et
al., 2005; Harrison et al., 2004; Hechanova et al.,
2003). Our results indicate that a lack of host coun
try pull, in the form of weak embeddedness, and
strong home country pull, in the form of lifestyle
benefits, family ties, and national identity, explain
voluntary return because they are associated with a
greater intention to repatriate. We harness the con
ceptual power of the intention to repatriate, reveal
ing it to be the key mechanism by which host and
home country pull and shocks translate into job
search and return. We also employ job search the
ory (Kanfer et al., 2001) to show that intention
predicts repatriation, in part, because those with a
greater intention to repatriate implement their goal
by conducting a search for a job at home. Explana
tion of why company expatriates repatriate, on
those occasions when they must manage their own

return, may benefit from the application of our
integrated framework for examining the factors that
when a professional experiences a shock from
either leads to return through job search or directly
home or forms a strong intention to return, suggest

ing that he or she redirects thoughts away from the
translate into an intention to return, which then
motivates repatriation.
Why and How Self-Initiated

Professionals Repatriate
The results suggest that professionals are more
inclined to return when they are pulled home by
the ease by which this can be accomplished, when
a shock forces them to entertain the prospect, and
when they are not embedded in their host country.
Professionals are more inclined to repatriate when
they perceive it to be easy to do so?rather than
because living in the host country is undesirable?
owing to rejoining their home country lifestyle and
national culture and having strong support from

family at home. All provide a reassuring, support
ive environment for return. On the other hand,
host country, which leads to spending cognitive

and operational effort in searching for a home
country job in preparation for leaving. By searching
for a job, a professional deals with one of the major
barriers to return?its feasibility?and gains infor
mation about suitable jobs, makes contact with

those who can assist in getting a job, uncovers job
prospects, and finds jobs for which to apply.
Limitations, Future Research, and

Practical Implications
This study has several limitations. The first
concerns the generalizability of the results. It is

quite common for young Australian expatriates to
spend time in the United Kingdom, at times as
sisted by ancestor-based U.K. work permits
low expectation of career benefits (Table 1), inten

tion to repatriate is not increased.
The results reveal that shocks are key factors in
repatriation, with negative shocks and those com
ing from a home country appearing most influen
(Hugo et al., 2003). Since 38 percent of the sam

ple's members were working in the U.K., the rea
sons for professionals' repatriating may be less
relevant to countries with more stringent entry
conditions. Another quarter was living in former
British colonies and English-speaking countries.
redirect his or her thoughts away from living in a

host country to events at home and to lead him or
countries culturally similar to their own than to

dissimilar countries (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996;
when return is not anticipated to be easy, through a
tial. They are likely to prompt an expatriate to
her to consider how return could be achieved.
Yet a shock may not always initiate an intention

to repatriate or a job search. A jarring event at
home, such as a relative's illness or an event

concerning elderly parents, may prompt immedi
ate return.
To a lesser extent, expatriates who are less em

bedded abroad by their career and community have
fewer barriers to return and lower costs arising
from it. Weak embeddedness in a host country
makes staying less desirable and is associated with

a greater intent to return.
The results also illustrate how self-repatriation
occurs. It may not begin as a result of being
dissatisfied with life in a host country. The link

between dissatisfaction and intention to repatri
ate became nonsignificant once embeddedness
was controlled; similarly, dissatisfaction has

been found to be unrelated to turnover when job
embeddedness was related (Lee et al., 2004;
Tanova & Holtom, 2008). Hence, not being em

bedded in a host country may explain intention
to return better than does dissatisfaction. How
ever, further research is needed before conclud
ing that dissatisfaction is not also a constituent
factor in the process of return.
The results support repatriation as commencing
Professionals are more willing to expatriate to
Dupuis, Haines, & Saba, 2008; Tharenou, 2003),

and professionals from Western countries most
often expatriate to other Western countries, espe
cially the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia
(Doherty et al., 2008; OECD, 2008a). Our results
are thus more likely to apply to the repatriation of

professionals who expatriate from one developed
country to another (about 16 percent of skilled

expatriation), rather than from a developing to a
developed country (37%) or to another develop

ing country (24% [OECD, 2008a]). When consid
ering the percentage of Australians who live
abroad (5%) and the rate of migration of tertiary
educated Australians (2.5%), Australian profes

sionals expatriate to a similar extent as those
from other relatively small, prosperous nations
(three Nordic, four French and Germanic, three
Southern European; e.g., OECD, 2008c). In sum,
our results are most likely to be relevant to

explaining repatriation from developed coun
tries by professionals from small, prosperous
economies.
Moreover, tendencies within particular cul
tural backgrounds may influence return, which

cannot be assessed by a study of a single English
speaking home country culture. Why profession
als repatriate to a developed economy may not
explain why they repatriate to a developing econ
omy (OECD, 2008b). Research needs to examine

what prompts professionals to repatriate to de
veloping countries and to a range of home coun
tries that vary in culture.
Because our sample members were culturally

similar to host country members, there was a
limit to the acculturation the expatriates could
experience. The greater the cultural distance be
tween host and home country, the more expatri
ates may repatriate (cf. Nerdrum & Sarpebakken,
2006). Research thus needs to examine the role

that cultural distance plays in self-expatriates'
return. A further area not examined was the in
fluence of acculturation on the formation of a

dual host?home country identity and whether
professionals with a dual-country identity are
2001). Host country embeddedness may buffer the

effect of shocks on intent to repatriate (Mitchell,
Holtom, Lee et al., 2001), requiring research in this
area. Men and women's repatriation may be subject
to different influences owing to their possibly dif
ferent family and career roles; hence research is
needed into the interaction between career and
family factors and gender. To fully apply job turn

over theory to explain leaving a country, it may also
be useful to examine intention to move out of a host
country, job search outside the host country, and

turnover that involves leaving the host country.
The results suggest strategies designed to assist

the managements of host country organizations to
retain their expatriate employees and those of
home country organizations to attract expatriates to
return to take up jobs in their organizations. Man

agements of host country organizations need to en
courage their foreign professionals to stay by en
less likely to return than those who maintain only

a home country identity.
Despite the study's design strengths, we cannot
hancing: (1) their career embeddedness, through
changes in the mediators, which led to changes in

behavior. Future research needs to measure the me
diators of intention and satisfaction at different
atives and (2) their community embeddedness,

through community involvement programs, in
cluding those for families. To encourage profes
say whether changes in determinants led to
reward management and career development initi
times than the determinants (push and pull factors)
sionals' return, the managements of home country

organizations, on the other hand, need to initiate
recruitment drives (e.g., an industry sector taking
job fairs abroad) to take advantage of shocks that
may have prompted expatriates to consider return
construct. In future research, other items should be
Companies can also influence self-expatriates to
test their effects.
repatriate for jobs in their organizations by includ

ing information about lifestyle outcomes and na
tional identity in recruitment processes. To encour
are measured. Despite the support given to their

measurement properties, the measures of embed
dedness used here are preliminary and would ben
efit from additional development. Career links
need to be measured by items representative of the
added to the embeddedness measures to further
Moreover, we did not theorize or examine the

impact of specific types of shocks on return or
examine the time elapsed between a shock and

repatriation, requiring research in this area. In
regard to our measure of shocks, any kind of
or that remind expatriates of their national identity.
age professionals already entertaining ideas of
repatriation, management can ensure that search

agencies are used to make expatriates aware of job
opportunities; that job search processes in their
event that forces self-expatriates to consider re
organizations are straightforward; that information
host country, intention to repatriate, search for a
is accessible through multiple methods and readily

provided; and that job application procedures are
turning may lead to dissatisfaction with their

job, and repatriation. Research needs to ask ex
patriates to rate whether particular events (that
could cause them to consider return) have oc

curred and how much the events that occurred
made them consider return. Research needs to
assess whether those events that led to thoughts
of return predict host country satisfaction, intent
to return, job search, and return.
The results suggest other research directions in
the quest to identify why in-demand professionals
choose to repatriate. The lack of influence of satis
faction and the key role of shocks suggest that re
search should examine whether a variety of paths
lead to repatriation, as they do in the unfolding
theory of job turnover (Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee,
easy.
REFERENCES
Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. 2000. Job performance and
turnover: A review and integrative multi-route

model. Human Resource Management Review,
9: 525-548.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y., & Chew, J. 1996. The willingness of
managerial employees to accept an expatriate as

signment. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
17: 267-284.
Banai, M, & Harry, W. 2004. Boundaryless global careers:
The international itinerants. International Studies

of Management and Organization, 3(3): 96-120.
Barrett, A., & O'Connell, P. J. 2001. Is there a wage pre

mium for returning Irish migrants? Economic and
Social Review, 32(1): 1-22.
Begley, A., Collings, D., & Scullion, H. 2008. The cross

cultural adjustment experiences of self-initiated re
patriates to the Republic of Ireland. Employee Rela
tions, 30(3): 264-282.
Berry, J. W. 1997. Immigration, acculturation and adap

tation. Applied Psychology: An International Re
view, 46: 5-68.
activities or active careerists? Paper presented at

the 24th EGOS Colloquium, Amsterdam, July 10-12.
Dupuis, M. J., Haines, V. Y., & Saba, T. 2008. Gender,

family ties, and international mobility. Interna
tional Journal of Human Resource Management,
19: 274-295.
Fontes, M. 2007. Scientific mobility policies. Science

and Public Policy, 34: 284-298.
Frank, J., & B?lair, E. 1999. South of the border. Cat. no.
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M., & Luk,
81-587XPB, Minister of Public Works and Govern

ment Services, Hull, Quebec.
D. 2005. Input- and time-based models of interna

tional adjustment. Academy of Management Jour
Gill, B. 2005. Homeward bound. Innovation, 18: 319

341.
nal, 48: 257-280.
GMAC Global Relocation Services. 2009. Global Reloca
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, . . 1992. Serving two masters:

Managing the dual allegiance of expatriate employ
ees. Sloan Management Review, 33(4):61-71.
Black, J. S., Gregersen, . ., & Mendenhall, . E. 1992.

Toward a theoretical framework of repatriation ad
justment. Journal of International Business Stud
ies, 23: 737-758.
Blau, G. 1993. Further exploring the relationship be

tween job search and voluntary individual turnover.
Personnel Psychology, 46: 213-330.

Bozionelos, N. 2009. Expatriation outside the boundaries
of the multinational corporation: A study of expatri
ate nurses in Saudi Arabia. Human Resource Man
agement, 48: 111-134.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1989. Single sample cross
validation indices for covariance structures. Multi
variate Behavioral Research, 24:445-455.

Cameron, J. E. 2004. A three-factor model of social iden
tity. Self and Identity, 3: 239-262.
Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. 2000. Work-family con

flict in the organization: Do life role values make a
difference? Journal of Management, 26:1031-1054.
Comay, Y. 1971. Determinants of return migration: Cana
dian professionals in the US. Southern Economic

Journal, 37: 318-322.
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L.
2007. Development of a global measure of job em

beddedness and integration into a traditional model
of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychol
ogy, 97: 1031-1047.
Crowley-Henry, M. 2007. The protean career: Exempli
fied by first world foreign residents in Western Eu
rope. International Studies of Management & Or
ganization, 37(3): 44-64.

De Cieri, H, Sheehan, C, Costa, C, Fenwick, M., &
Cooper, B. 2009. International talent flow and in
tention to repatriate: An identity explanation. Hu
man Resource Development International, 12:

243-261.
Doherty, N., Dickmann, M., & Mills, T. 2008. Career
tion Trends 2009 Survey report. Horsham, PA:
Brookfield Global Relocation Services.
Gollwitzer, P. M. 1999. Implementation intentions.

American Psychologist, 45: 493-503.
Griffeth, R. W., Horn, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A

meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of em
ployee turnover. Journal of Management, 26:

463-488.
Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, . A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P.

2004. Going places: Roads more and less traveled in
research on expatriate experiences. In J. J. Martoc
chio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human re
sources management, vol. 23:199-247. Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.
Harvey, M. G. 1989. Repatriation of corporate executives.
Journal of International Business Studies, 20:131

144.
Harvey, W. S. 2009. British and Indian scientists in Bos

ton considering returning to their home countries.
Population, Space and Place, 15: 493-508.
Hechanova, R, Beehr, . A., & Christiansen, D. E. 2003.
Antecedents and consequences of employees' ad
justment to overseas assignment: A meta-analytic

review. Applied Psychology: An International Re
view, 52: 213-236.
Holtom, . C, Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B.

2008. Turnover and retention research. In J. P. Walsh
& A. P. Brief (Eds.), Academy of Management an

nals, vol. 2: 231-274. Essex, U.K.: Routledge.
Holtom, . C, Mitchell, T. R, Lee, T. W., & Inderrieden,
E. J. 2005. Shocks as causes of turnover. Human

Resources Management, 44: 337-352.
Horn, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. 1991. Structural equations
modeling test of turnover theory: Cross-sectional and
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol
ogy, 76: 350-366.
Hugo, G., Rudd, D., & Harris, K. 2003. Australia's dias
pora. Melbourne: CEDA.
Inkson, K., Carr, S. C, Allfree, ., Edwards, M. F., Hooks,

J. J., Jackson, D. J. R., & Thorn, K. J. 2007. The psy
chology of migration and talent flow: A New Zealand
perspective. In A. I. Glendon, . M. Thompson, &

. M. Myors (Eds.), Advances in organisational psy
chology: 301-321. Brisbane: Australian Academic
Press.
Inkson, K., Carr, S. C, Edwards, M., Hooks, J., Jackson,

D., Thorn, K., & Allfree, N. 2004. From brain drain to
talent flow. University of Auckland Business Re
view, 6(2): 29-39.
International Labour Organization. 2006. Competing for
global talent Geneva: ILO.

Jokinen, T., Brewster, C, & Suutari, V. 2008. Career cap
ital during international work experiences. Interna
tional Journal of Human Resource Management,
19: 979-998.
sults. Milwaukee: Manpower.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New

York: Wiley.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, . C., & Lee, T. W. 2001. How to
keep your best employees. Academy of Manage

ment Executive, 15(4): 96-108.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, . C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J.,
& Erez, M. 2001. Why people stay. Academy of

Management Journal, 44: 1102-1121.
Mitchell, T. R, & Lee, T. W. 2001. The unfolding model

of voluntary turnover and job embeddedness. In
B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational be
havior, vol. 23: 189-246. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jones, R. C. 2003. Multinational investment and return

migration in Ireland in the 1990s?A country-level
analysis. Irish Geography, 36(2): 153-169.
J?reskog, K. G, & S?rbom, D. 1996. LISREL 8. Chicago:
SPSS.
Kanfer, R, Wanberg, C. R, & Kantrowitz, T. M. 2001. Job
search and employment. Journal of Applied Psy

chology, 86: 837-855.
King, R. 2000. Generalizations from the history of return
migration. In B. Ghosh (Ed.), Return migration:

7-45. Geneva: United Nations.
Lazarova, M. B., & Cerdin, J. L. 2007. Revisiting repatri

ation concerns. Journal of International Business
Studies, 38: 404-429.
Lee, T. H, Gerhart, B., Weller, I., & Trevor, C. O. 2008.

Understanding voluntary turnover: Path-specific job
satisfaction effects and the importance of unsolicited
job offers. Academy of Management Journal, 51:
651-671.
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 1994. An alternative ap

proach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee
turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19:
51-89.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton,
J. P., & Holtom, B. C. 2004. The effects of job

embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job
performance, volitional absences, and voluntary
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47:
711-722.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S.

1996. An unfolding model of voluntary employee
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39:
5-36.
Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. 1998. 25 years of volun

tary turnover research: A review and critique. In
C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International
review of industrial and organizational psychol

ogy: 49-81. New York: Wiley.
Mak, A. S. 1997. Skilled Hong Kong immigrants' inten

tion to repatriate. Asia and Pacific Migration Jour
nal, 6(2): 169-184.
Manpower. 2006. Talent shortage survey: Global re
Mobley, W. H. 1977. Intermediate linkages in the rela
tionship between job satisfaction and employee
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62: 237
240.
Napier, N. K., & Taylor, S. 2002. Experiences of women

professionals abroad. International Journal of Hu
man Resource Management, 13: 837-851.
Nerdrum, L., & Sarpebakken, B. 2006. Foreign researcher

mobility. Science and Public Policy, 33: 217-229.
OECD. 2008a. The global competition for talent. Paris:
OECD.
OECD. 2008b. Return migration: A new perspective.

Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2008c. A profile of immigrant populations in the
21st century. Paris: OECD.
Parker, K. 2006. Australians in the US survey results:

Report 1. University of Adelaide, Department of
Geographical and Environmental Studies.
Peltokorpi, V., & Froese, V. 2009. Organizational expatri
ates and self-initiated expatriates. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 20:
1096-1112.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, Y., & Podsa
koff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behav

ioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:
879-903.
Richardson, J., & Mallon, M. 2005. Career interrupted:

The case of the self-directed expatriate. Journal of
World Business, 40: 409-420.
Saxenian, A. 2005. From brain drain to brain circulation.
Studies in Comparative International Develop

ment, 40(2): 35-61.
Stroh, L. K., Gregersen, . ., & Black, J. S. 1998. Closing
the gap: Expectations versus reality among repatri
ates. Journal of World Business, 33: 111-124.
Sussman, . M. 2002. Testing the cultural identity model
of the cultural transition cycle: Sojourners return
home. International Journal of Intercultural Rela
tions, 26: 391-408.
Suutari, V., & Brewster, C. 2000. Making their own way:
International experience through self-initiated for

eign assignments. Journal of World Business, 35:
417-436.
Tanova, C, & Holtom, B. C. 2008. Using job embedded

ness factors to explain voluntary turnover in four
European countries. International Journal of Hu
man Resource Management, 19: 1553-1568.
Thang, L. L., MacLachlan, E., & Goda, M. 2002. Expatri
ates on the margins?A study of Japanese women
working in Singapore. Geoforum, 33: 539-551.
Tharenou, P. 2003. The initial development of receptiv
ity to working abroad: Self-initiated international
work opportunities in young graduate employees.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy

chology, 76: 489-515.
Tharenou, P. 2008. Disruptive decisions to leave home:
Gender and family differences in expatriation

choices. Organizational Behavior and Human De
cision Processes, 105: 183-200.
Toren, . 1976. Return to Zion. Social Forces, 54: 546-558.
West, L. A., & Bogumil, W. A. 2000. Foreign knowledge

workers as a strategic staffing option. Academy of
Management Executive, 14(4): 71-84.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. 1989. Lack of
method variance in self-reported affect and percep

tions of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74:
462-468.
APPENDIX
Items (with Shortened Stems) Comprising the
Multi-Item Scales
Host Country Career Embeddedness

To what extent would these be sacrifices or losses for
you if you repatriated from abroad?
1. The career and employment opportunities I have

here/abroad
2. The money I earn or can earn here/abroad
3. The business opportunities I have here/abroad
How much do you agree with these statements with

respect to the country you live in? (Fit)
4. My career needs fit with the opportunities available in
this country
5. My professional growth and development fits with
what is happening in this country
6. My career plans do not fit with what is available back
home (reversed)
7. I have needs for international experience met by the
opportunities in this country
With respect to your employment abroad: (Links)
8. How long have you worked for your present em

ployer? Up to 2 years (1), 2 to 5 years (2), 5 to 10 years
(3), 10 to 15 years (4), 15 to 20 years (5), 20 or more
years (6).
9. Is your employment abroad casual (1), contract (2),

permanent (3)?
Host Country Community Embeddedness
To what extent would these be sacrifices or losses for
you if you repatriated from abroad?
10. The range of social activities and events I have here/
abroad
11. The friends and social ties I have abroad

12. The lifestyle of the country I live in
How much do you agree with these statements with

respect to the country you live in?
13. The community I live in is a good match to me (Fit)
14. The area where I live offers the leisure activities that
I like (Fit)
15. I think of the community where I live as home (Fit)
16. My close friends live nearby (Links)
17. My family roots are in the community I live in

(Links)
With respect to your family life abroad (Links)
18. Do you have children? 0, no children; 1,1 child; 2, 2

children; 3, 3 or more children
19. Are you married or do you have a partner you live
with/cohabit with? 1, no; 2, yes
20. Where was your partner born? 1, Australia; 2, an
other English-speaking country; 3, a non-English
speaking country
21. What is your partner's citizenship? 1, Australian; 2,
dual citizenship (Australian-another country); 3,
only another country's citizenship
Repatriation's Career Instrumentality and Lifestyle

Instrumentality
There are many reasons why you might return home to
live.... What is the likelihood you would expect to gain

each of these outcomes if you repatriated?
22. Career opportunities (Career)
23. Money/income (Career)
24. The lifestyle (Lifestyle)
25. Physical environment and/or weather (Lifestyle)
26. Safety and security (Lifestyle)
27. A better place to bring up children (Lifestyle)
28. Settling down (Lifestyle)
29. Friendships at home (Lifestyle)
Home Country Family Encouragement

What is the extent to which you agree or disagree with
each of these statements?
30. My family in Australia encourages me to return

home to live
31. I get family pressure from Australia to return home to
live
32. My friends in Australia encourage me to return home
to live
National Identity
45. Your job, employment, career abroad

46. The culture of the country you live in
47. Your family life abroad
33. In general, I'm glad to be an Australian
Intention to Repatriate
34. I don't feel good about being an Australian (reversed)
35. I have a lot in common with other Australians
36. Generally, I feel good when I think about myself as
an Australian
48. I intend to repatriate to Australia to live permanently
37. I often think about the fact that I am an Australian
49. I intend to remain abroad permanently (reversed)

50. I plan to return to Australia within the next two
38. I feel strong ties to other Australians
years
39. In general, being an Australian is an important part

of my self-image
40. The fact that I am an Australian rarely enters my
Home Country Job Search
head (reversed)
With respect to repatriating back to Australia from

abroad to live, how often have you undertaken (or had
you undertaken) these activities in the last year?
41. I don't feel a sense of being connected to other Aus

tralians (reversed)
Shocks
51. Searched for information (e.g., advertisements) on

jobs back in Australia
52. Prepared or revised your CV or resume for a job in
There may have been particular events or factors

that have caused you to think about repatriating home
Australia
to live. Please answer no or yes to each of these

statements:
53. Talked with friends or relatives about possible job

leads back in Australia
42. There has been a particularly identifiable event that
54. Contacted a prospective or past employer or other

business acquaintance about work
55. Listed yourself with job agencies or other means to
get a job back in Australia
started me thinking about repatriating
43. There have been multiple events that have contrib

uted to me thinking about repatriating
56. Visited Australia to consider or to prepare for

repatriation
Host Country Satisfaction

The following statements concern how satisfied you
are living in the country you reside in abroad. Please
57. Applied for jobs back in Australia

58. Actively approached and negotiated with a prior em
ployer for a job in Australia
59. Had an interview for a job back in Australia
indicate the extent of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with respect to:

44. Living in the country in general
60. Got a job offer back in Australia/got a job.
Phyllis Tharenou (phyllis.tharenou@flinders.edu.au) is

the executive dean, Faculty of Social and Behavioral
Sciences, at Flinders University, Australia. She received
Natasha Caulf?eld (natasha.caulfield@unisa.edu.au) is a

program executive officer in the International Graduate
School of Business at the University of South Australia.
She received her Ph.D. in human resource management
from the University of South Australia. Her research
her Ph.D. in organizational psychology from the Psychol
ogy Department at the University of Queensland. Her

research interests include international careers, repatria
interests include the repatriation of self-initiated expatri

ates, job stress, and retention of university students.
tion, career advancement, women in management, gen

der and careers, and training and development.
-fi

20788806

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

20788806

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WILL I STAY OR WILL I GO?

EXPLAINING REPATRIATION BY SELF-INITIATED

? Academy of Management Journal

WILL I STAY OR WILL I GO?

The world has become one large employment

More professionals initiate their own expatria

percent self-expatriates vs. 35 percent company ex

patriates [Doherty, Dickmann, & Mills, 2008]),

shortage of professionals (Manpower, 2006) in both

developed and developing economies (Interna

[Napier & Taylor, 2002]), and Australians (about 60

[OECD], 2008a). "Self-initiated expatriates" are

professionals who choose to expatriate and who are

& Suutari, 2008; Saxenian, 2005), often with no

igrating. At least 1.5 million skilled people mi

triate by resigning from their job and moving

abroad, finding a job once there; to a lesser extent,

Suutari & Brewster, 2000; Thang, MacLachlan, &

10-20 percent, and 21 had over 20 percent (OECD,

A great deal of research has been conducted into

Mendenhall, 1992; Harvey, 1989; Lazarova & Cer

din, 2007; Stroh, Gregersen, & Black, 1998). Com

in which we propose multiple routes to explain

tracompany transfer to "return to one's home

why self-expatriates repatriate, integrated with se

country upon completion of an assignment" (Har

1010 Academy of Management Journal October

rison et al., 2004: 208). Only 8 percent, on average,

choose to return early (GMAC Global Relocation

Services, 2009). Research into why this small group

Meta-analyses have shown that poor cultural ad

vas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Hechanova,

period in another country" (King, 2000: 8). The

known. On average, their return migration rate

years (OECD, 2008b), and from other developed

Scullion, 2008; Saxenian, 2005; Suutari & Brewster,

(Hugo et al., 2003). Findings have been limited,

since most studies rely on frequency statistics. The

(Fontes, 2007; Hugo et al., 2003; Inkson et al.,

2004), suggesting that professionals' careers may

In contrast to company expatriates, self-expatri

country adjustment. Self-initiated expatriates re

the host country, and confidence in their capacity

perhaps because they chose to live in a foreign

and to learn the language (Doherty et al., 2008;

2008; Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009; Suutari & Brew

ster, 2000). So it is not surprising that self-expatri

relied on frequency analysis and cross-sectional

expatriates return because they are pulled by their

economic basis, such as cost-benefit analysis (Co

may, 1971) and human capital theory (Barrett &

advance knowledge by testing a theory-based, psy

patriation?which have arisen from researchers'

Norwegians studied [OECD, 2008a]), especially

is skilled expatriates from developing countries

who most often move to a third country. Figure 1

Tharenou and Caulfield

factors, and shocks (Allen & Griffeth, 2000; Lee et

al, 2008). In March and Simon's (1958) induce

ment-contributions theory, continued participation

forces: (1) the perceived desirability of leaving, or

opment, and income (e.g., Barrett & O'Connell,

2003; Nerdrum & Sarpebakken, 2006; Suutari &

has explained company expatriates "going na