UPPSALA UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS STUDIES

I use it, therefore it is

The case of knowledge transfer during

repatriation within management consulting

Marianne Södersten & Carolin Westman Wall

2010-01-16

Master thesis

Supervisor: Philip Kappen

2

Abstract This thesis examines which processes enable knowledge transfer and which factors affect

the transfer of knowledge from a repatriate to the home office within management

consulting services. The results from one firm engaging in management consulting activities

in Sweden suggest that the prime process for knowledge transfer is through providing post-

repatriation assignments, which requires the repatriate to use the acquired knowledge and

to cooperate with coworkers and thus share the knowledge. The main factors affecting the

knowledge transfer are a corporate culture and a strategy which promote teamwork and

sharing. The study indicates that the studied firm has a pragmatic view of sharing

knowledge; knowledge is shared when it is used, and all efforts should in the end gain the

firm's clients.

Key Words

Repatriate, repatriation, international assignment, management consulting, knowledge-

intense business, knowledge transfer

3

Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Problem discussion .................................................................................................................. 5

1.2. Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3. Research questions.................................................................................................................. 7

1.4. Delimitations ........................................................................................................................... 8

2. Literature review ............................................................................................................................. 8

2.1. Organizational learning and knowledge concepts .................................................................. 8

2.1.1. Types of knowledge ......................................................................................................... 9

2.1.2. Characteristics of knowledge .......................................................................................... 9

2.2. Knowledge transfer and factors affecting the dissemination of knowledge ........................ 10

2.2.1. Carriers of knowledge ................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2. Factors affecting the knowledge transfer ..................................................................... 12

2.3. Conceptual framework .......................................................................................................... 16

3. Method .......................................................................................................................................... 17

3.1. Operationalization of the theoretical overview .................................................................... 20

4. Empirical investigation .................................................................................................................. 22

4.1. International assignments at PWC ........................................................................................ 22

4.2. Knowledge within management consulting and in a repatriation setting ............................ 23

4.3. The repatriation process ....................................................................................................... 23

4.4. Knowledge transfer and factors affecting the dissemination of knowledge ........................ 24

5. Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 25

5.1. Knowledge concepts.............................................................................................................. 25

5.2. Knowledge transfer and factors affecting the dissemination of knowledge ........................ 26

5.2.1. Carriers of knowledge ................................................................................................... 26

5.2.2. Factors affecting the knowledge transfer ..................................................................... 27

6. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 31

7. Conclusions, limitations and further research .............................................................................. 34

References ............................................................................................................................................. 36

Sources .................................................................................................................................................. 38

Attachment 1: Interview Questions ...................................................................................................... 39

4

Tables and models Table 1: Carriers of knowledge .............................................................................................................. 12

Table 2: Factors affecting knowledge transfer ...................................................................................... 15

Table 3: Relation between concepts used in the conceptual framework and interview questions ....... 21

Model 1: Knowledge carriers and affecting factors, based on the theoretical overview ...................... 17

Model 2: Knowledge carriers and affecting factors within PWC .......................................................... 30

5

1. Introduction

Repatriation, the process of expatriates’ return and adjustment to their home countries

(Kamoche, 1997; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007), has been the subject of many studies the last

decades. Research has clearly indicated that the repatriation process is important for a

company: bad repatriation leads to dissatisfaction and the risk of former repatriates quitting

(Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2009; Bolino, 2006; Kamoche, 1997, Mäkelä & Suutari, 2009). The

company may risk loose valuable knowledge that is not turned into a company-wide asset.

(Allen & Alvarez, 1998; Reiche et al., 2008). The learning, which the repatriates return with,

is therefore largely wasted because it is not embedded into the organization (Jassawalla &

Sashittal, 2009; Benson & Pattie, 2008; Wittig-Berman & Beutel, 2009).

Some numbers could illustrate the seriousness of bad repatriation: an estimated 20% to 50%

of repatriates are leaving the firm within a year of returning home (Jassawalla & Sashittal,

2009); one fourth left the firm after the same time in the study of US expatriate managers

undertaken by Black and Gregersen (1999). In fact, international assignees often perceive

that the jobs where they best could utilize their newly acquired competencies often reside

outside their present employer (Mäkelä & Suutari, 2009; Stahl et. al, 2009).

Expatriates typically gain a considerable amount of knowledge from a variety of domains;

these include knowing-how (Riusala & Smale, 2007; Antal, 2000; Jokinen et.al.

2008) knowing-why, knowing-whom (Antal, 2000; Jokinen et.al. 2008) and declarative as

well as conditional knowledge (Antal, 2000). Although rewarding in many ways, the

expatriation experience is often in itself very difficult culturally, professionally and personally

(Clouse & Watkins, 2009). Upon return, the repatriate may for that reason be disappointed

to find out that the acquired international experience is not valued as highly by the parental

firm as the repatriate had imagined (Bolino, 2006).

1.1. Problem discussion

Because repatriates return with valuable knowledge (Bender & Fish, 2000) and as badly

managed repatriation can lead to a loss of human capital and consequently of knowledge, it

is of particular interest to study how the knowledge gained by repatriates is transferred to

the organization. The reasons for the interest that we put on the subject are twofold: first,

6

knowledge is argued to be a base for competitive advantage (Hitt et. al., 2001), and second,

an effective transfer of this knowledge, though often difficult, is also argued as being a

source of competitive advantage (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Nahpiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Studies

have shown that repatriate career success and repatriation support programs are positively

related to the organizational capability of retaining repatriates and their knowledge (Bolino,

2006; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007). The citation from a recent study on managers provides an

alarming insight: they indicated that multinational corporations (and HR functions) are “too

focused on expatriation instead of repatriation, too ad hoc and opportunistic instead of

strategic in their behaviors, and too disorganized to implement post-repatriation-related

programs scholars recommended” (cited in Jassawalla & Sashittal 2009, p.772).

As the core of industrialized economies has increasingly moved from natural resources to

intellectual assets, how knowledge is used in a company has become interesting for

executives as well as for researchers (Hansen et al., 1999). Indeed, the present economy is

rooted in the production, distribution and use of knowledge. Although knowledge is vital for

all companies, knowledge is especially distinct in knowledge-intense business services, which

are services that are concerned with the collection, analysis and distribution of information

and knowledge (Harrington et. al., 2006). As management consultancy services are

archetypical for knowledge-intense business services (Werr & Stjernberg, 2003) and as

knowledge is particularly important for firms engaging in management consulting activities

(Lahti & Beyerlein, 2000), this study will focus on knowledge transfer within the

management consulting industry.

A management consultancy services is defined as an:

“… advisory service contracted for and provided to organizations by specifically trained and

qualified persons who assist, in an objective and independent manner, the client

organization, to identify management problems, analyze such problems, recommend

solutions to these problems, and help, when requested, in the implementation of solutions.”

(cited in Harrington et. al., 2006, p. 102).

A fairly high percentage of a management consulting firm’s revenues are typically spent on a

knowledge management IT system (Ernst & Young spent 6 % and McKinsey spent 10 % of

their revenues in 2000, see Dunford, 2000, p. 297). Many of these firms see a capacity to

7

compete with accumulated knowledge and consequently, there is a high level of interest in

having good processes to manage a firm’s knowledge (Dunford, 2000). Therefore it is

particularly interesting to study repatriation within the context of management consulting.

Because of the importance put on the processes, we can hypothesize that within a

management consulting firm, the processes for retaining knowledge during the repatriation

are well developed.

Many of previous researches have focused on an individual level and have been based on

interviewed or surveyed expatriates (see Benson & Pattie 2008; Antal, 2000; Lazarova &

Cerdin, 2007; Mäkelä & Suutari, 2009). We argue that the alternative approach, to study the

repatriation processes from the firm's perspective, is a valuable contribution to the subject

that possibly can give clues to best practices applicable in other domains. Odduo et al.

(2009) also state that very little research has been done on how the practical repatriation

knowledge transfer is done. Following the basic concepts for communication, we will in this

study identify the sender as the repatriate, and the receiver as the home office. Evidently

the home office includes other co-workers. The knowledge acquired during the international

assignment constitutes the message that the sender tries to communicate. However,

transfer of knowledge implies an active part of the receiver, creating a more complex

setting.

1.2. Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to expand empirical research into an industry where knowledge

is highly valued, i.e. the management consulting industry, and develop further insights into

what constitutes knowledge transfer from repatriate to home office, from the organization's

point of view.

1.3. Research questions

From the above-stated purpose, the following research questions have been formulated:

Q1: Which carriers enable the knowledge transfer from the repatriate to the home office

within a firm engaging in management consulting activities?

8

Q2: Which factors affect the knowledge transfer from the repatriate to the home office

within a firm engaging in management consulting activities?

1.4. Delimitations

The purpose needs to be delimitated in regards to three aspects: the definition of an

expatriate, the scope of the knowledge transfer, and to what extent the thesis focuses on

what knowledge is transferred.

As Kamoche (1997) realized, expatriation is a type of international assignment within the

same firm lasting years, on the contrary to shorter attachments and business-trips. We have

chosen to define expatriation as lasting at least six months. According to Antal (2009), two

schools of organizational learning exist: the first sees organizational learning as a phase

model, an iterative process whereby information is first acquired, then distributed in the

organization, and the second school of learning is the spiral model described by Nonaka &

Takeuchi (1995). Although we acknowledge the continuous nature of knowledge expressed

in both theories, we will only focus on the period during which the firm actively undertakes

processes for supporting knowledge transfer from the repatriate. Finally, we emphasize that,

though exploring the nature of knowledge is a necessity for studying knowledge transfer, it is

not in the scope of this study to describe specifically which knowledge is transferred.

2. Literature review

To study knowledge transfer, a clarification is required of what knowledge is. The following review of relevant

literature is divided into two main parts. The first part goes through what knowledge is and what learning is

about. The second part concerns knowledge transfer and factors affecting this transfer. Both parts draw upon

general literature about knowledge transfer and knowledge transfer within the areas of repatriation and

management consulting. Theories from all these areas were studied to not undermine previous work and create

a better understanding for what is probable in this scenario. The sections are concluded with what theories will

be used in this study.

2.1. Organizational learning and knowledge concepts

This part goes through the types of knowledge and their characteristics.

9

2.1.1. Types of knowledge

Kogut and Zander (1992) provide a useful definition of knowledge as being constituted of

information and know-how. When it comes to the types of knowledge repatriates gain, a

pilot-study of Antal (2000) within the banking and pharmacy industry develops this definition

to encompassing more categories of knowledge: declarative, procedural, conditional,

axiomatic and relational (Antal, 2000). The declarative knowledge (knowing-what, concrete

knowledge related to cultures, markets, and the subsidiaries themselves), the procedural

knowledge (knowing-how), and the conditional knowledge (knowing-when, timing) are

transferable to the firm. Moreover the procedural knowledge can be applied independently

of the location. The axiomatic knowledge (knowing-why) is an individual comprehension of

the logic behind the actions and is more of a side-benefit. The relational knowledge

(knowing-who) cannot be transferred, but can be used to get things done efficiently as well

as for innovation if the repatriate is given a position on his/her return that necessitates that

kind of knowledge.

2.1.2. Characteristics of knowledge

Some researchers make a point of differentiating data, information, knowledge, intelligence

and wisdom in a hierarchical order. Data is not filtered, objective and has no meaning in

itself. Data becomes information when there is a meaning and a pattern, and information

becomes knowledge when it is interpreted and put into a context (Davenport & Prusak,

1998).

Furthermore, Kostova and Roth (2002) provide a noteworthy insight that engaging in

knowledge transfer, such as writing reports, does not necessarily mean that the knowledge

is used in the receiving unit and that the knowledge is transferred successfully. Their study

examined the spreading of organizational practice to different subsidiaries within a

multinational firm and they found that the recipient unit’s usage and adoption are key

factors to a successful transfer (Kostova & Roth, 2002).

The concepts of tacitness and explicitness of knowledge as they are expressed by Polyani

(1966) are useful for differentiating knowledge. Whereas explicit knowledge is formal,

systematic and can be articulated, tacit knowledge is personal and not easily expressed for

the individual. It is the “know-how”, which symbolizes the skills that are hard to pin down

10

(Nonaka, 1991). Odduo et. al. (2009) suggest that a lot of the knowledge a repatriate has

gained is tacit knowledge, leading to the repatriate perhaps not even being aware of what

he/she has learned, thus adding a challenge to the knowledge transfer.

Knowledge in this thesis

Drawn from the literature above, knowledge in this thesis is in essence defined as consisting

of information and the capability to use it (knowing-how). Furthermore, as was defined by

Antal in the specific context of repatriation, knowledge can take more complex forms,

namely the declarative, procedural, conditional, axiomatic and relational types of

knowledge. Though being sourced in data and information, we stress that knowledge is

processed and interpreted within a context. That knowledge is either tacit or explicit is also

of importance.

2.2. Knowledge transfer and factors affecting the dissemination of

knowledge

With the knowledge concepts in mind, this section first goes through how knowledge

transfer can be accomplished in practice and thereafter brings up implications to knowledge

transfer. As will be shown, the transfer can take a number of forms, which we refer to as

“carriers of knowledge”, and the type of carrier often correlates with the type of knowledge

transferred. Individual factors from the sender and recipient, as well as a number of

organizational factors, influence the success rate of the knowledge transfer.

2.2.1. Carriers of knowledge

Knowledge is not only held by individuals but it is also expressed at a collective level, such as

in groups or organizations (Kogut and Zander, 1992). According to the phase model theory,

organizational memory can take many forms, from formal and informal decision making

processes, standard operating procedures, structures, data banks and handbooks, to

organizational culture (Antal, 2009).

Within management consulting, Lahti and Beyerlein (2000) follow on the same note. The

carriers used to spread knowledge within firms engaging in management consulting

activities vary with the nature of the knowledge. Explicit knowledge is generally spread

through electronic means, by using documentation and computer-based group-share

11

technology. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is spread through sharing how to use

knowledge in a certain context. Generally speaking, this is done by personal interaction and

collaboration. Some concrete examples are learning by doing, mentoring, coaching, and

teaming (Lahti & Beyerlein, 2000).

Another categorization is proposed by Werr and Stjernberg (2003) stating that:

“An exploration of the different knowledge sources consultants referred to in planning,

designing and carrying out consulting assignments revealed three basic knowledge elements.

These were methods and tools, cases, and experience.” (Werr & Stjernberg, 2003, p. 889)

Abstract and explicit knowledge is embedded in methods and tools, which are general

descriptions of a sequence of activities on organizational level. They standardize processes

and provide a common language for consultants. Cases are made up of explicit knowledge

on an organizational level, embedded in various documents like process maps and client

proposals, produced by consultants working in various projects for clients, in order to help

consultants articulate their experience and to exemplify how methods can be used. They are

used to spread knowledge from particular projects and may also be used to distribute

contacts as a consultant can contact a person who was involved in a previous project. The

third and final type of knowledge element is the experience a consultant has accumulated

from practicing consulting. Personal experience carries tacit and individual knowledge and it

translates methods, tools and cases. Experience guides consultants in choosing which

methods, tools and cases to take into consideration for a particular problem and how to

adapt these to a specific case. However, the transfer of tacit knowledge residing in

experience requires extensive face-to-face interaction (Werr & Stjernberg, 2003).

Knowledge transfer in this thesis

In this literature review, the theories above are represented if their fullness. Most of the

aspects in the theories are used in this study. The carriers of knowledge, which are used to

transfer knowledge, are divided into two categories in this study. The first category

is tangible tools, which can also be described as various types of documentation where

something concrete is produced. In this case the individual recipient is passive at the point of

transfer and has to later make an effort to access the knowledge. The second category is

12

interactive tools, where the recipient is present and active during the moment of knowledge

transfer.

Table 1: Carriers of knowledge

Tangible tools IT-systems, e.g. group share technology

Methods and tools

Cases

Documents

Reports

Interactive tools Meetings

Coaching and mentoring

Collaboration through team work

Cross-functional teams

Source: Own production based on literature review

There are a few carriers from the literature review above, which are not used as studied

variables in this thesis as they are not valued as being relevant for this study. Trainings as a

process for knowledge transfer was regarded as not fitting for this situation as trainings are

more often used for knowledge transfer in the opposite direction, i.e. from organization to

individual. Additionally, experience was regarded as being a mean for the consultant to

internalize knowledge, and not externalize it.

2.2.2. Factors affecting the knowledge transfer

As was suggested in the previous section, there are a number of factors that affect the

spreading of knowledge. A literature review reveals that these factors have been extensively

studied. Some of the more prominent studies have highlighted factors such as the stickiness

of knowledge (Szulanski, 1996, 2000), the intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation (Osterloh &

Frey, 2000), and the “Not Invented Here syndrome” (Allen, 1977).

According to Bonache and Za´rraga-Oberty (2008), there are two main theoretical models

specifying the barriers to transnational knowledge transfer within a MNC; one developed by

Kostova (1999) and one by Szulanski (1996). The first-mentioned uses a cross-disciplinary

approach and proposes a set of factors affecting the success of transfer, namely social,

13

organizational and individual factors. Social factors refer to the degree to which the norms,

cognition and rules are similar in the sending and receiving country. Organizational factors

refer to if the firm’s culture is supporting learning and innovation, and how compatible the

firm’s underlying values are to the values proposed by the knowledge transfer. Lastly,

individual factors include the attitudes of the people participating in the knowledge transfer.

In her study though, the success of knowledge transfer is equivalent with the

institutionalization of that knowledge at the recipient unit. Szulanski (1996), on the other

hand, conducted a well-cited empirical study on an industry-wide level and identified

alternative factors: characteristics of the knowledge transferred, of the source, of the

recipient, and of the context in which the transfer takes place all contribute to the difficulty

of spreading knowledge in an organization. The major barriers to internal knowledge

transfer are, according to the author, the recipient’s lack of absorptive capacity, causal

ambiguity, and the quality of the relationship between the source and the recipient

(Szulanski, 1996).

In the repatriate setting, other researchers present a slightly different perspective, with

some visible similarities to what has been previously mentioned. Kamoche (1997) argues

that the existence of fundamental anomalies at a strategic level explains the failure of

organizations to benefit from the experience of repatriates. He proposes processes for

effective learning including two main parts; a strategic thrust, and operational and social

mechanisms. The strategic thrust includes a clearly articulated strategic vision to generate

and use expertise, as well as incorporate this into a strong culture (Kamoche, 1997). This

must be understood as corporate culture such as it has been expressed by Kogut and Zander

(1992): corporate culture is a forging force that forms social communities. The second part

proposed by Kamoche (1997), the operational and social mechanisms, are in turn divided

into two levels. The individual level refers to the adoption of a problem-solving attitude, the

capacity to challenge one's frame of reference, the capacity to appreciate the contribution of

others and the willingness to apply acquired experience to problems in other parts of the

organization. On an organizational level, effective learning is promoted by processes

providing opportunities for the transfer of knowledge and linking international assignments

with career management (Kamoche, 1997).

14

Similarly, in their theoretical overview of socialization process undertaken by repatriates

upon return, Odduo et. al. (2009) state that the ability and willingness of both the repatriate

and the staff at the home office are important factors for the knowledge transfer. Moreover,

the authors mention that if the sender and the receiver of knowledge have a similar

background, the transfer is easier as they have an easier time understanding each other.

Also, if the strategic purpose of the international assignment is not clear, it is sometimes

tough to know what knowledge is of value for the firm (Odduo et. al., 2009). Lastly, Lazarova

and Tarique (2005) stress the importance of an organizational fit between the repatriate's

career objectives and the career development opportunities offered by the home office

upon return to ensure that the repatriate stays with the firm and that knowledge can be

transferred.

In the management consulting industry, Lahti and Beyerlein (2000) identified five factors

affecting the dissemination of knowledge on an individual level and two factors affecting on

an organizational level. On an individual level, the capabilities of the sender and recipient to

transfer and receive knowledge, their willingness and awareness of the other’s experience

together with a common frame of reference are factors affecting the knowledge transfer.

The final factor on an individual level is, according to Lathi and Beyerlein (2000), specific for

management consulting, namely protectionism by the sender, defined as a reluctance to

share knowledge as a result of rivalry, which firms need to fight in order to enable

knowledge transfer. Consultants may want to keep knowledge to themselves as this would

make them more competitive within their company. The two factors affecting knowledge

transfer on an organizational level are proper systems and structures. Examples of systems

include evaluations of a consultant’s ability to transfer knowledge and testing of a

consultant’s ability to absorb knowledge, as well as linking successful knowledge transfer to

awards. The second factor, the structure of a firm, can in itself promote the sharing of

knowledge. Job descriptions, project designs, office layout, company vision and collaborative

work forms are examples of structures which may ease this (Lahti & Beyerlein, 2000).

Factors affecting knowledge transfer in this thesis

As the reader has seen, several elements are similar in previous research. Generally stated,

an effective communication is dependent on the characteristics of the sender and of the

15

receiver: their capabilities, willingness, experience, and frame of reference. The research

within management consulting highlighted an interesting specificity of the sender, namely

protectionism. Communication is also dependent on the setting where it takes place; the

literature review highlighted organizational factors that affect the knowledge transfer

between the organization and the individual. We call these factors “structure” following

Lahti and Beyerlein; “carrots and sticks“, implying the rewarding and punishing tools that the

firm may use to encourage knowledge transfer, according to the same authors; “corporate

culture” is the attitudes and norms within the firm; finally, “strategy” is the clearly

articulated vision and the watchwords on which the organization relies.

Table 2: Factors affecting knowledge transfer

Organizational level

Structure - This relates to the use of internal structures, such as the use of job descriptions, teams, project design, layout of office etc., which ease the knowledge transfer.

Structure provides a platform for the transfer and reception of knowledge.

Carrot & stick - The use of connecting carrots, i.e. rewards, bonuses, professional advancement, and sticks; i.e. evaluations and negative consequences etc., to knowledge transfer.

Carrots and sticks affect the individual’s motivation to transfer and receive of knowledge.

Corporate Culture - Attitudes and norms of the firm to encourage the sharing of knowledge.

Corporate culture affects the attitude of knowledge transfer and reception.

Strategy - A clearly articulated strategic vision and watchwords to generate and use expertise and a strong culture.

Strategy affects the design of the structure and of carrots and sticks, as well as the definition of the corporate culture.

Individual level Capabilities - The sender's and receiver's capability to share and receive knowledge.

Willingness - The sender's and receiver's willingness and attitude towards the knowledge transfer.

Experience - That a person's past experience affects the knowledge transfer and that other parties are aware of this. Also, if the sender and receiver have a similar background it makes the transfer easier.

Frame of reference - The existence of common words and methods, which ensures that the sender and receiver understand each other.

Protectionism - A consultant's unwillingness to share knowledge as knowledge is a source of comparative advantage towards

16

other co-workers.

Source: Own processing based on literature review

There are some factors that will not be used in this thesis, as they are not relevant in this

study. First, Kostova's social factor is not relevant as this relates to differences in norms etc.

between sending and receiving countries, but in this study, it is assumed that the repatriate

shares the same norms as the home office, as he/she was issued from it initially. The

characteristics of knowledge have been discussed in part 2.1 and will not be considered as a

factor. The factors that overlap have been combined. The context of the knowledge transfer

has been accounted for under carriers of knowledge in part 2.2.1. The organizational fit

suggested by Lazarova and Tarique is incorporated into the factor “structure” since it relates

to what job description the repatriate is offered upon return. Lastly, the factor “willingness”

accounts for the relationship between the sender and receiver, as well as a problem-solving

attitude.

2.3. Conceptual framework

Based on the literature review, and the research questions, a conceptual framework has

been developed. As is shown in model 1, knowledge is transferred from the individual

repatriate to the home office. We also attempt to grasp the full complexity of organizational

learning as a process involving both individuals and the collectivity on an organizational

level. As has been stated, the home office consists of individuals. The knowledge from

repatriate to home office is transferred through the carriers of knowledge, which was

summarized in part 2.2.1 on knowledge transfer through tangible and interactive means.

Additionally, the transfer is affected by various factors from both organizational and

individual levels, as was summed up in part 2.2.2.

17

Model 1: Knowledge carriers and affecting factors, based on the theoretical overview

Source: Own production based on literature review

3. Method

To clarify the reasoning behind this study, this section goes through the choice of the study object, of method

for empirical research and of operationalization of the conceptual framework.

As stated, this study has the ambition to explore knowledge transfer during the repatriation.

The research questions are designed on an organizational level of analysis. As was argued

previously, knowledge transfer from the repatriate to the organization occurs between two

levels of analysis, individual and organizational levels, as organizations learn because

individuals learn (Kamoche, 1997; Caligiuri et al., 2009).Knowledge and knowledge transfer

have been studied within management consultancy services, but not to a large extent in the

repatriation process. For that reason, the theoretical literature that we drew upon regarding

knowledge transfer during repatriation was based on other industries than management

consulting. We therefore complemented this with literature on management consulting,

providing industry-specific concepts that are used during the empirical investigation. The

choice of firms engaging in management consulting activities was motivated because these

are commonly discussed as the archetype of knowledge-intense firms (Werr & Stjernberg,

18

2003, p. 881), with knowledge being particularly important for management consulting firms

(Lahti & Beyerlein, 2000). We argue that if the knowledge is a critical resource, then the

knowledge transfer during the repatriation should be important and therefore provide us

with excellent study material of the processes.

In order to extensively study knowledge transfer during repatriation within a firm engaging

in management consulting, a case study design was opted for. Case studies are often used,

thorough in-depth examination, to understand a complex social phenomena (Yin, 2008),

which can be done in a number of ways including quantative and qualitative methods

(Bryman & Bell, 2007). Thus, below we describe the choices that were made regarding this

case study’s design and the implications these decisions have.

The choice of empirical study object followed three requirements. First, the organization

needed to engage in management consulting. Second, the organization needed to be

international and third, the organization needed to have operations in Sweden. With this in

mind, eight of the largest international firms offering management consulting services in

Sweden were contacted via e-mail. Out of these, one company accepted our proposal;

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). As a consequence, the findings from this study are only

valid for the repatriation process in Sweden within PWC and they cannot be generalized to

management consulting as an industry (compare to a case study of a single location, Bryman

& Bell, 2007, p. 62). PWC's services include accounting, risk management and tax

consultation among others (PWC, 2009a). Its practices may be more influenced by its

accounting department than its consulting department. Still, it remained a candidate for

being a study object as it was definitely a knowledge-intense business service. Additionally,

PWC is one out of a number of firms in Sweden, which are not pure management consulting

firms. An attempt to overcome the possible biases was made by stating the focus of this

study during all points of contact with PWC.

Conducting a case study on knowledge transfer requires access to the studied company’s

praxis and procedures. A detailed and intensive analysis of a case can entail both

quantitative and qualitative means (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p. 62). For this study, the

processes for knowledge transfer and the factors affecting them were accessible through the

HR-department. The literature review exposed the complexity of knowledge and

19

organizational knowledge and we opted for a qualitative research strategy given this

complexity and the exploratory purpose of the study. Conducting a quantitative study, for

instance by using questionnaires, would be possible, but the risk of misunderstanding and

not being able to ask follow-up questions was valued as being too high, given the subject

matter.

The study was designed in two steps. First, in order to gain an overview of the repatriation

and knowledge transfer, the main data collection was done by interviewing one of the two

people responsible for global mobility within the Swedish branch of PWC. Having the

possibility to interview both would have been desirable in order to increase the reliability.

This was not possible as the second manager was not available for an interview. A semi-

structured, in-depth, hour-long interview allowed us to cover the specific questions

concerning the processes and factors, but also let us ask the interviewee to elaborate and

ask follow-up questions. First, the questions listed in attachment 1 were asked to ensure

that all areas would be covered within the given time frame. Thereafter follow-up questions

were asked. The interview was held in Swedish, the native language of both interviewee and

interviewers. It was upon agreement taped and transcribed according to general methods

for interviews. The quotes that are used in this thesis are translated by the authors.

After gaining an initial understanding of the repatriation in PWC, the second step of the

study was planned to triangulate the primary data by means suggested in the first interview.

However, for various reasons, these alternative data collection methods were not

conducted. Interviewing repatriates in the firm could have been conceivable if not for the

difficulty of accessing the few repatriates available in Sweden. Another option was to study

documents; however the initial interview with the global mobility manager revealed that no

documents were suitable for this. Because of these reasons, one interview constitutes the

empirical data.

Thus this study is colored by one respondent's views, which most likely are not a perfect

reflection of the collective view of the firm. We offered the interviewee and the firm to be

anonymous in order to prevent the manager from flattering and distorting reality.

Additionally, a case study is supposed to be a detailed and intensive analysis of a single case

(see Bryman & Bell, 2007, p. 62) and it is debatable if one interview fulfills these criteria. It

20

would have been desirable to gather additional data, but the global mobility manager has

good knowledge of the firm's culture and procedures since she has been working for PWC

for four years. In addition to her being the global mobility manager, she is Human Resource

manager for two areas: accounting for governmental and municipal authorities and

accounting for NGOs. For global mobility, some of her responsibilities include having an

overview of the expatriation and repatriation process, supporting managers and employees

in these processes, being involved in the writing of contracts, and ensuring that the Swedish

branch follows global policies. Because of this, we have drawn the conclusion that she is

qualified for being interviewed and that her answers should represent the procedures

existing in the Swedish branch of PWC.

3.1. Operationalization of the theoretical overview

The research questions focus on the two aspects that this study aims at exploring: the

carriers that enable knowledge transfer and the factors affecting the knowledge transfer.

The relation between these aspects is depicted in the conceptual framework, which is based

on the theoretical review as was described at the end of the literature review. The questions

of the interview correspond to each of the variables described in the model, as is shown in

table 1. Since we wanted to explore how knowledge transfer is done within an industry

where knowledge is considered to be of utter importance, general questions were asked in

order to not reveal the underlying studied variables in the conceptual framework. By

avoiding to ask specific questions, the interviewee was able to use her own words and

concepts when answering the questions. This might mean that the result represents fairly

well the firm's view on repatriation and knowledge transfer, but there is a risk as some of

the studied variables might exist, but they simply did not come to the global mobility

manager's mind during the interview. Nonetheless, it was evaluated that for the purpose of

this study this method was preferable, and follow-up questions gave another opportunity to

dig deeper into an area if the initial answer was not satisfactory.

21

Table 3: Relation between concepts used in the conceptual framework and interview questions

Concepts used

The expatriate assignments in the studied company

Aim: to anchor the repatriation within the firm

Q 3. Which types of international assignments exist within advisory

1 in PWC?

Q 4. How many are going every year on international assignments?

Q 5. How long is the duration of international assignments?

Q 6. Which are the purposes of the international assignments?

Q 7. Who initiates an international assignment?

Q 8. How many expatriates terminate their assignments before the agreed on completion date?

Q 9. Describe your repatriation process!

Knowledge

Aim: to define what the firm considers to be knowledge

Q 10. What constitutes knowledge?

Q 11. What type of knowledge do repatriates bring back from their international assignments?

Carriers of knowledge Aim: to explore which functions are used to support knowledge transfer

Q 12. In which way do you consider that the repatriate’s knowledge is transferred to the home office?

Q 14. Which processes do you consider the best to support that knowledge transfer?

Q17. What does the home office do to keep the knowledge that a repatriate brought to the company, after that he/she has left the company?

Factors affecting knowledge transfer Aim: to explore which factors are perceived to affect the knowledge transfer

Q18. Are there factors that prevent or enable the knowledge transfer from repatriate to the home office?

· o If yes, which?

The measures taken by the company

Aim: to explore if the company is actively trying to affect the knowledge transfer

Q13. Do you actively do anything to enable the knowledge transfer from the repatriate to the firm?

o If yes, what?

Q15. Do you do anything to develop these processes for knowledge transfer? (See Q14)

Q19. Are you doing anything to influence these factors? (See Q18)

Control questions

Aim: to test whether the company uses special measures for the transfer of repatriate knowledge

Q16. Does the process differ between knowledge transferred from the repatriate to the home office compared to how knowledge is transferred in other cases?

o If yes, how?

1 Authors’ note: advisory = consulting within PWC

22

4. Empirical investigation

The empirical investigation first explains what international assignments there are within PWC, what

constitutes knowledge at PWC and then goes through the repatriation process and how knowledge is

transferred from repatriates to the Swedish branch of PWC.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), the company that accepted to participate in our study, is

the biggest consulting and accounting firm in the world with 163 000 employees in 151

countries. 3 600 of these employees work in Sweden (PWC, 2009b). The services the

company provides include advisory, accounting, risk management services, tax consultation,

and accounting for governmental and municipal authorities (PWC, 2009a).

4.1. International assignments at PWC

Currently, there are eight Swedish employees who are on international assignments.

However, as the global mobility manager stated, the number of projects PWC are working on

for clients influence the amount of international assignments. Thus, the current financial

state matters, according to the mobility manager. The various national branches must first

ensure that they have work for the consultants in their own country, before they can take on

someone from another country. For each assignment, two partners, one from the sending

and one from the receiving country, are responsible for the assignment. These partners are

joint owners of PWC and are thus higher up in the hierarchy. The two partners negotiate the

salary and discuss why this international assignment is worthwhile.

The type, length, purpose and initiation of the international assignment are dependent on

which kind of business area the projects fall within and on the client’s requirements.

Additionally, the type and purpose of an assignment is congruent with whom the expatriate

is. For a junior, the purpose can be personal growth as long as this person is of use to the

client, but for a senior the purpose can be to fill a knowledge deficit in the receiving country;

as defined by the client’s need. Another purpose can be to either go on a project abroad to

develop a tool2, or to go to a country where there are well-developed tools and then return

home to spread the knowledge about these tools. The lengths of the assignments are

defined as being more than one month long and they can sometimes last up to two years.

The global mobility manager did not have any exact figures, but according to her, very few

2 Tools standardize methods and processes (authors’ note)

23

leave before the assignment is completed. Lastly, the initiation of the assignment can have

varying sources. The request can come from the sending or receiving country as well as from

the employee.

4.2. Knowledge within management consulting and in a repatriation setting

The global mobility manager put forward the changing nature of knowledge as dependent

on what field of business one is in and as something not permanent. Additionally, she stated

that "knowledge is living... ", it "is in one's profession; it is the competence that I posses as a

co-worker". Knowledge was seen as changing with the changes of the surroundings.

Therefore, knowledge is not something latent; it is something that is used. The company

does, however, ensure that knowledge is duplicable through the use of tools.

When it comes to what knowledge a repatriate brings back from an international

assignment, the manager expanded the previously stated definition of knowledge to include

a variety of aspects. One aspect is that the repatriate's professional competence has been

challenged and evolved. Another aspect is related to the method of working, as the

repatriate has been exposed to other ways of going about various tasks. This can also be

different tools that the repatriate has learned. A third knowledge-type is relations, both

internally through networking with co-workers and externally by creating relationships with

clients.

4.3. The repatriation process

In PWC, the repatriation process starts when the employee is still abroad. A continuous

contact is kept with the expatriate. The partner from the sending country is responsible for

having continuous contact and meetings with the repatriate to hear how things are going

and to update this person on what is going on in the home country to ensure that the

expatriate does not lose touch with the Swedish branch. This contact also ensures that the

partner is aware of what tasks the employee has been doing.

Additionally, six months before the assignment is completed, a computer-generated e-mail

notifies the global mobility manager that it is time to start the repatriation process. She

sends a repatriation plan to the expatriate’s closest manager; this can be the same person as

the partner from the home country, but does not have to be. The manager and the

24

expatriate then agree on what will happen for the expatriate when he/she returns home and

the plan lasts until one year after the return. This plan includes practical aspects for the

move as well as what tasks and projects the expatriate should be working on upon return to

ensure that this person’s newly acquired knowledge is used. The repatriation plan is included

in a development plan that each employee has and as the employee returns with more

experience, this plan may be altered and the employee might find her/himself with a salary

raise as well as a promotion. Even though international assignments are strongly

encouraged, promotion to partnership does not require an expatriate experience.

The manager stated that most repatriates stay within the firm upon return, though some

end up leaving: “There has to be a certain turn-over”, she said.

4.4. Knowledge transfer and factors affecting the dissemination of

knowledge

The global mobility manager said that, to a large degree, knowledge is transferred as it is put

to use in similar projects as the employee was working on abroad. This can either be within

the same industry or for the same client. By working in a diverse team with both senior and

junior co-workers, knowledge is shared by being practiced. Team members can also come

from other fields to contribute with a certain expertise. However, the teams may be only 2

people or fairly large teams. According to the manager, this process is not different

compared to if a consultant rolled of a domestic project.

The repatriation plan does not specify exact things that a repatriate must do upon return.

There is no measurement for how much knowledge a repatriate transfers to the firm. “There

are no ways to measure that”, the manager concluded. Instead, it is expected that the

individual takes initiative to talk to team members and to his/her own network within the

firm, or, if relevant, to give suggestions of new ways of working in the projects. Other

facultative means through which the repatriate transfers his/her knowledge according the

manager, is through holding a class about a certain work tools that were used in the host

country, or through sharing his/her experience at information meetings for other interested

co-workers, or through coaching/mentoring if another co-worker is about to go to the same

destination. The manager believed that as a repatriate returns, this person is eager to share

his/her experience and share what he/she has learned abroad. She expressed that sharing

25

information and knowledge is in the culture of PWC. Although sharing is up to the

individual, it is promoted through the culture and three watchwords. These words are

teamwork, leadership and excellence. The global mobility manager stated that if one is not

aware of these watchwords, then this person “must be both blind and deaf”. The manager

explained that if you are working for PWC, this is something you should stand for. The

message of these watchwords is instilled through introduction courses, supplementary

training, and information letters and through an IT-portal. This portal however it is not used

for knowledge transfer during repatriation.

When it comes to personal contacts and relationships, these are transferred to others if the

repatriate leaves the firm, but they are not necessarily transferred to others if the repatriate

remains in the firm. The manager stressed the importance of transferring the knowledge to

the firm within one year after return in order to keep its relevance. Within PWC they do not

use cases where they write down the experience from a given project, but there may be

some documentation desired for instance if the repatriate is asked to examine a particular

working method. This is however not a standard procedure.

When asked about which factors affect knowledge transfer, the global mobility manager

stated that an issue could be if an employee is unwilling to share knowledge. She

acknowledged that this phenomenon might exist, but admitted that she has not noticed

much of this behavior. She said, “it is not in the culture”.

5. Analysis

When using the theoretical framework on the empirical framework, first the definition of

knowledge will be analyzed, followed by carriers of knowledge and lastly by factors affecting

the knowledge transfer.

5.1. Knowledge concepts

The global mobility manager described mostly the tacit characteristics of knowledge

belonging to the profession, in the sense that knowledge at PWC is what a person does

similarly to Kogut and Zander’s (1992) and Nonaka’s definitions (1991). Furthermore,

knowledge at PWC was mostly expressed as being on an individual level as it is what a

26

person does. The pragmatic view shown here demonstrates how a knowledge-intense firm

views knowledge in daily operations.

If the global mobility manager's perception of knowledge is compared to Antal's definition

(2000), some similarities are to be found. Declarative knowledge (what) can be found in the

manager's statement that the repatriate can come with suggestions of new ways of working,

thus the repatriate can be said to question what he/she previously has taken for granted.

Procedural knowledge (how) can be compared to that the repatriates have challenged and

evolved their professional competence. Conditional knowledge (when) is not something the

manager brought up. Axiomatic knowledge (why) was brought up when the manager

explained that the repatriate as a mentor or coach can transfer cultural knowledge, but this

is not something that is touched upon somewhere else in the interview. The manager did

however mention relational knowledge (who) as she talks about both internal and external

networks as a source of knowledge. Additionally, another source of relational knowledge can

be that the repatriate has contact with one partner in the receiving country and one in the

home country. As these partners are high up in the hierarchy, the repatriate might gain

valuable contacts.

5.2. Knowledge transfer and factors affecting the dissemination of

knowledge

Following a similar order as previously, first, carriers of knowledge are discussed, followed by

which factor affect the knowledge transfer.

5.2.1. Carriers of knowledge

Among the carriers of knowledge that were determined in the conceptual framework, the

firm mostly uses interactive carriers. There was evidence found for each of the interactive

carriers, but in varying degrees. Knowledge is seen as being transferred through team-work,

and to some extent through the use of cross-functional teams. The team members were

consciously selected to include both seniors and juniors to enable knowledge transfer to the

juniors. However, as some teams could be very small, the scope of the knowledge transfer to

other co-workers can be questioned. But, in either case, the knowledge is used for what

appears to be most important for PWC: the clients. Meetings and mentoring are seen as

facultative options for transfer of personal experience and cultural knowledge. However,

27

when the global mobility manager talked about information meetings for co-workers

interested in international assignments, it is possible to criticize if a repatriate shares

knowledge in this setting. Although it is conceivable that knowledge as experience and

axiomatic knowledge are shared this way. However, it appears that the main method used

for knowledge transfer is through the use of diverse teams, where the receivers are active in

the transfer.

What is clear is that knowledge is perceived as being shared when the consultant is placed in

a situation where it is used. This could be contrasted to the study of Lazarova and Tarique

(2005) who stressed the importance of the development opportunities upon return. A

critique could therefore be addressed to the model we designed as more emphasis should

have been put on the post-repatriation tasks as a carrier of knowledge. Group assignments

are not a guarantee for knowledge dissemination if they are not in the right context.

The tangible carriers of knowledge are not used for the transfer of knowledge from the

repatriate to the firm to a large extent. IT, for instance the portal, is not used in that purpose

and cases are not used at all. However, the knowledge acquired could possibly be

considered to be transferred through the use of documents, reports, methods and tools. For

example, the mobility manager explained that when needed, there are instances where a

repatriate may be asked to document a particular working method learned abroad.

However, that kind of documentation is not something required from all repatriates. Thus,

methods of transfer where the receiver is passive were not used to a large degree.

Since the global mobility manager is responsible for over-viewing the repatriation process, it

can be argued that these answers are representative for the carriers of knowledge that exist

within PWC in Sweden. But these answers represent what is supposed to happen from the

firm's perspective, and they may not be a true reflection of how knowledge is actually

transferred, if it even is transferred. Since the knowledge transfer is nothing that PWC

measures, they cannot be sure this is how the dissemination takes place.

5.2.2. Factors affecting the knowledge transfer

When asked about which factors facilitate or impede knowledge transfer, the global mobility

manager only mentioned two factors, which are both on an individual level; willingness and

28

protectionism. Except for these factors, she mentioned other factors in other parts of the

interview that can be analyzed using the conceptual framework. First organizational factors

will be analyzed followed by individual factors.

On an organizational level, most factors appear to exist to some extent. But the one factor,

which the global mobility manager kept on referring to, was culture. Corporate culture is not

something that can be specifically designed for the aim of transferring knowledge during

repatriation, but, as far as our study concerns, it seems that it heavily contributes to the

knowledge transfer. The firm considers that sharing and contributing knowledge is inherent

to their corporate culture, which is supposed to be upheld throughout the company by

codes of conduct, and internal education. This sort of corporate culture is also promoted by

a strategic thrust, which is shown in their use of watchwords that are reinforced through

various training and newsletters. It can also be possible to argue that how international

assignments and repatriation process are designed signals a strategic importance. There are

two examples of this. First, as two partners are responsible for the assignment, this can

signal to the firm that these assignments are important enough that partners work with

them. Thus, perhaps it is arguable that what the repatriate has gained must be important.

Second, the early design of the repatriation plan, six months before the assignment is

completed, might signal that it is important that what the repatriate has learned is used in

the next project this person will be working on. This is also how the manager viewed that

knowledge was transferred to a large degree. Through a continuous dialogue with the

consultant, the company actively tries to find projects where the consultant will make use of

the knowledge acquired abroad.

Structures as affecting factors were also prevalent. As the manager viewed that knowledge is

transferred when the consultant is working in projects, the structure of the project and the

structure of the teams matter. The use of both seniors and juniors has been mentioned.

Cross-functional teams can also exist if a certain expertise was needed in the teams, but it

did not appear that these teams were designed for the knowledge transfer between co-

workers. Again, the focal point was with the clients. One structure, which affected the

transfer to a large degree, was the use of job descriptions. As has been mentioned, ensuring

that the post-repatriation tasks engage the acquired knowledge was important.

29

Of the organizational factors affecting knowledge transfer, the one which least evidence was

found for was the use of carrots and sticks. Knowledge transfer is, because of the

acknowledged difficulty of measuring it, not evaluated. If it is not measured, it is tough to

reward or punish the behavior. However, one tendency, which might be considered to be

similar to a reward, is that a repatriate might, based on his/her experience abroad, be

promoted upon return to the home country. But this was only if the development plan that

all employees have call for the promotion and the promotion would have taken place

anyway if the repatriate had gotten the same experience from a project at home.

As mentioned about factors on an individual level, the global mobility manager stated

that there could be a risk that the repatriate is not always willing to share knowledge.

Although, in her mind, these things were not of big concern. She reports instead a high

willingness of sharing the experience and knowledge. Noteworthy is that she talks about the

repatriate's willingness, i.e. the sender's willingness and not the receiver's. This is particularly

interesting to note as the previous section stated that interactive methods, where the

receiver is active, were the predominant means of knowledge transfer at PWC. The

characteristics of the receiving consultant appear to be something PWC has not focused on.

Protectionism was in the manager's opinion not congruent with the company culture. It is of

course difficult to assess the validity of this statement, as the manager could be biased in her

opinion. More probably, the consultants themselves might not be willing to express any

protectionist tendencies.

However, the insights gained from former research on protectionism are supported in one

finding of this study. That the post-expatriation assignments are designed to use the

knowledge acquired is not shown when considering relations to be knowledge. The network

of the consultant can be considered as a strictly individual knowledge that is only to be

transferred through succession when the repatriate leaves the firm. This may be seen as

valuable knowledge that the consultant does not wish to share. Another interpretation can

be as Antal (2000) states; that relational knowledge cannot be transferred to someone else.

When it comes to a common frame of reference, the global mobility manager did not

explicitly state that having for instance a common language affected the knowledge transfer.

However, since tools are something that PWC uses, these can provide a common frame of

reference, as Werr and Stjernberg (2003) stated.

30

The other individual factors that the literature review produced were not something that the

manager mentioned. Thus, no support has been found for that the individual factors

experience and capabilities is something that PWC considers when designing the

repatriation process. However, although no support has been found, it is still possible that

these affect the transfer.

Model 2 describes which processes enable the knowledge transfer from the repatriate to the

home office, and which factors affect that knowledge transfer within PWC. The elements

that are written in grey were only partially supported or arguably not supported. Methods

and tools, collaboration through team work, the use of cross-functional teams are used as

knowledge carriers. Documents and reports, meetings, and coaching and mentoring,

although existing, were not consistently used and are therefore not perceived as regular

carriers of knowledge. The willingness and frame of reference were supported as factors

affecting knowledge transfer in this study. It is however questionable whether protectionism

did exist or not, as it could not be assured. Structure, culture and a strategic thrust are

shown to be affecting factors for the knowledge transfer during repatriation.

Model 2: Knowledge carriers and affecting factors within PWC

Source: Own processing

31

6. Discussion

This section puts forward and discusses a few interesting areas: PWC's pragmatic view of knowledge, why no

evidence was found for parts of the conceptual framework, similarities between consulting projects and

international assignments and what can be learned from this study.

In this study, six areas are intriguing to dig deeper into. First, it appears that PWC have a

quite hands-on attitude vis-à-vis knowledge and the transfer of knowledge. What can be

extracted from this analysis is a very pragmatic and instrumental view of what knowledge is

in at least this particular firm. It could be said about knowledge as with the saying "cogito,

ergo sum: absumo, ergo est" (I think, therefore I am: I use it, therefore it is). Knowledge

exists when it is used. That explains the focus on the assignments following the repatriate's

return and the lack of existence of institutionalized procedures for transferring knowledge

such as they were expected from the literature study. A reason behind this view (knowledge

exists when it is used) can be the focus on the acknowledged external market, and thus the

client. The management consulting industry seems to be highly conditioned by the client.

This client focus is reflected in the internal activities as well as the lack of superfluous

processes such as compulsory reports and so forth. Another element that may explain the

lack of carriers of knowledge is a belief on the individual and on own initiative. The attitude

of the global mobility manager vis-à-vis the repatriates is that they are willing to share. The

company relies on the individual's eagerness for sharing the knowledge acquired during the

foreign assignment. An alternative explanation may come from the firm's perception of what

organizational knowledge is. Indeed, the pragmatic attitude vis-à-vis knowledge transfer may

come from the belief that it is sufficient that one person masters some knowledge to

consider that the knowledge belongs to the firm, which would be reflected in the lack of

knowledge transfer processes. Instead, planning the consultant's projects beforehand

ensures that the valuable knowledge is put in use in its righteous context.

Second, the empirical findings did not support a number of the carriers of knowledge and

affecting factors. The carriers of knowledge that were not supported were IT and cases. IT

was used as a mean for sharing information within PWC, but was not used for transferring

knowledge from the repatriate. Cases were not used at all. It appears that these functions

for transferring knowledge do not quite fit with PWC's view of knowledge. Only describing

what has been learnt in a case or sharing knowledge through an IT-system may not apply to

32

PWC's view that knowledge exists when it is used. It could also be a matter of organizational

culture, thereby meaning that other firms might have more focus on IT or use cases. Of the

affecting factors on an individual level, no evidence was found for capability and experience.

Perhaps PWC's view of knowledge matters once again; if knowledge is shared by using it,

then everyone that uses it must be able to share. The existence of past experience as an

affecting factor, although not supported, could probably exist. But on the other hand, what

can a firm do about past experience among its employees? Perhaps because of this, it is not

something a firm pays attention to. One factor on an organizational level, which was not

used, was carrots and sticks. The most probable explanation is, as the global mobility

manager proposed, that it is tough to measure the transfer of knowledge. If it is not

measurable, it is difficult to reward or punish.

A third area, which is connected to the area previously mentioned, is that no evidence was

found for PWC taking the recipients into consideration. Additionally, more or less all of the

carriers of knowledge that was supported in this study can be criticized for how well

knowledge is received by the other employees. For instance, simply because another

employee is in the same team as a repatriate does not mean that this employee will learn

everything the repatriate knows. Since PWC does not measure the knowledge transfer, they

cannot be sure what knowledge is actually transferred. All the individual level factors that

the manager mentioned focused on the repatriate and it appears that no direct effort is put

into making the recipients pick up knowledge. However, having the watchwords "team work,

leadership and excellence", and being in an industry where an employee is evaluated and

judged partly based on ones knowledge, perhaps there is an indirect push for consultants to

accumulate as much knowledge as possible. As the consultants may be eager to learn, the

firm may not need to actively make sure that this happens.

A fourth area to discuss is the similarities between international assignments and domestic

consulting projects. It appears from the study that the firm perceives itself as fairly

successful with the repatriation process, based on that few repatriates leave the firm after

their return, and based on the turnover rate that our interviewee was content with. The

continuous contact and being able to use the knowledge gained when returning to the home

country combat some of the issues with repatriation that were stated in the introduction of

this thesis. Perhaps the existence of these processes is due to similarities of expatriation and

33

management consulting. A study by Fisher et. al. (2007) points at similarities between the

two roles as both including being away from the home office, working in another setting for

a shorter period of time, having to adapt to the receiving company/office and thereafter

repatriating to the home office. Thus, a firm engaging in management consulting must

always deal with consultants being distant from the home office and they may always need

to work at creating an environment where consultants feel connected to the firm and are

able to share their knowledge, no matter if the recent project was abroad or in the home

country.

Furthermore, it was hypothesized in the introduction that firms offering management

consulting services would have well developed processes for transferring knowledge during

the repatriation and we want to suggest what can be learnt from the knowledge transfer as

has been described in this study. First and foremost, the pragmatic view of knowledge

simplifies how the knowledge can be transferred. By making sure that the knowledge is used

in the post-repatriation project, the knowledge can be shared. Second, the constant client

focus ensures that all efforts with both the international assignment and the repatriation

knowledge transfer benefit the client. Third, by making sure that the repatriate is in contact

with the home office via a partner and that a clear repatriation plan is in place, the

repatriate stays connected with the home office. A final learning point is that PWC is

reinforcing a culture of teamwork and sharing through watchwords, trainings, newsletters

etc. As noted in previous studies, culture is important for setting a trusting ambiance where

people are willing to share and this was supported in this study as well.

Lastly, it is possible to discuss whether one single employee possessing a certain type of

knowledge means that the company possesses it as well through him/her. That observation

is consistent with Kogut & Zander’s statement that organizational knowledge, in the end,

resides in the individuals. Therefore, the definition of knowledge transfer from the employee

to the firm would not necessarily imply the interaction with other employees. But, in order

to become organizational knowledge, that knowledge holder has to remain in the firm and

use the knowledge.

34

7. Conclusions, limitations and further research

Following the analysis, the research questions as they were formulated in the purpose can

be answered as follows.

Q1: Which carriers enable the knowledge transfer from the repatriate to the home office

within a firm engaging in management consulting management consulting activities?

The provision of post-repatriation assignments that requires the use of the knowledge

acquired during the expatriation is the main process that ensures that the knowledge is

transferred to the company. Furthermore, in these projects, the repatriate is working

alongside co-workers with various experiences, thus ensuring that knowledge is spread

within the home office. Knowledge that is put to use may later on be enclosed within

methods and tools used in the company.

Q2: Which factors affect the knowledge transfer from the repatriate to the home office

within a firm engaging in management consulting activities?

The factors that affect knowledge transfer are primarily factors on an organizational level,

especially found in the strong corporate culture of sharing. Additionally a strategic thrust is

expressed for instance in the watchword “teamwork”, and the internal structures of projects

and teamwork ensure work forms where knowledge can be shared.

There are several limitations with this study. First, only one interview was executed, which

restricts the generalizations that can be made from this study. Clearly, no generalizations can

be made on an industry-wide level and preferably more empirical material would have been

desirable in order to generalize on a firm-level. Additionally, continuing the topic of this

thesis, the interviewee’s capability and willingness to share most likely affected the outcome

of this study. A second limitation of this study is the nature of the studied variables

knowledge and knowledge transfer. These are inherently difficult to study and measure. The

method that was chosen for this study was to compare the Swedish firm's point of view with

the conceptual framework.

Regarding proposals for future research and considering that this was an exploratory study,

a first proposal is to follow the same structure as this study, but on a larger scale. More

35

management consulting firms in Sweden can be studied, or the study can be done on an

international scale. Alternatively, the study could take a longitudinal design, attempting to

follow up some particular knowledge and how it is used and shared among colleagues over a

longer period of time. Another suggestion for future research is to do a comprehensive

comparative study about expatriation between production and service companies to explore

if they differ from each other, and if so, what the differences are. A proposal for future

research is also to do a comparative study between international and domestic assignments

within management consulting firms to examine how knowledge is transferred to the home

office. As was suggested in the discussions, these may be similar; however this area requires

further research. Our study pointed at group interaction, and to the closely related term of

learning-by-doing as a principal mean of spreading knowledge. The art of optimizing group-

work as a knowledge disseminator is a key point for the success of the repatriation plan,

both regarding the company and the employee. An investigation of knowledge

dissemination within groups could therefore be a useful continuation of our research of

knowledge transfer within repatriation.

36

References

Allen, T.J. 1977. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Allen, D. & Alvarez, S. (1998), "Empowering expatriates and organizations to improve repatriation effectiveness", Human Resource Planning, Vol. 21 No.4, pp.29-39.

Antal Berthoin, A. 2000. “Types of knowledge gained by expatriate managers”. Journal of General Management, Vol. 26 Issue 2, p32-51.

Argote, L. & Ingram, P. 2002. “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 150-169.

Bender, S., & Fish, A. “The transfer of knowledge and the retention of expertise: the continuing need for global assignments”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.4:2, pp.125-137.

Benson, G. & Pattie, M. 2008. “Is expatriation good for my career? The impact of expatriate assignments on perceived and actual career outcomes”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Sep2008, Vol. 19 Issue 9, p1636-1653.

Black, J.S. & Gregersen, H.B (1999), "The right way to manage expats", Harvard Business Review, pp.52-63.

Bolino, M. 2007. “Expatriate assignments and intra-organizational career success: implications for individuals and organizations”. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 819–835.

Bonache & Za´rraga-Oberty, “Determinants of the success of international assignees as knowledge transferors: a theoretical framework”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 2008, 1–18

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. 2007. Business Research Methods. Bath: Oxford University Press. Second edition.

Caligiuri, P., Tarique, I. & Jacobs, R. 2009. “Selection for international assignments”. Human Resource Management Review, No. 19, pp. 251-262.

Clouse, M. & Watkins, M. 2009. “Managing yourself”. Harvard Business Review, October 2009, pp. 115-119.

Davenport, TH.. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Dunford, R. 2000. “Key challenges in the search for the effective management of knowledge in management consulting firms”. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 295-302.

Fisher, S., Wasserman, M. & Palthe J. 2007. "Management Practices for On-Site Consultants - Lessons Learned From the Expatriate Experience". Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 17–29

Hansen, M., Nohria, N. & Tierney, T. 1999. ”What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?” Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 106-116.

Harrington, J. & Daniels P. 2006. Knowledge-based services, internationalization and regional development. Ashgate.

37

Hitt, M., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K. & Koshar, H. 2001. ” Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol, 44. No, 1, pp.13-28.

Jassawalla, A. & Sashittal, H. 2009. “Thinking strategically about integrating repatriated managers in MNCs”. Human Resource Management, Sep/Oct2009, Vol. 48 Issue 5, pp.769-792.

Jokinen, T., Brewster, C. & Suutari, V. 2008. ”Career capital during international work experiences: contrasting self-initiated expatriate experience and assigned expatriation”. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, June 2006, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp.979-998

Kamoche, K. 1997. “Knowledge creation and learning in international HRM”. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 213-225.

Kogut, B. & Zander, U. 1992. “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology”. Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 383-397.

Kostova, T. 1999. "Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: a contextual perspective". Academic Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 308–324.

Kostova, T. & Roth, K. 2002. “Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 215-233.

Lahti, R. & Beyerlein, M. 2000. “Knowledge transfer and management consulting: a look at “the firm””. Business Horizons, January-February 2000, pp. 65-74.

Lazarova, M. & Cerdin, J. 2007. “Revisiting repatriation concerns: organizational support versus career and contextual influences”. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 404-429.

Lazarova, M. & Tarique, I. 2005. "Knowledge transfer upon repatriation". Journal of World Business, Vol. 40, pp. 361-373.

Mäkelä, K. and Suutari, V. 2009. “Global careers - a social capital paradox”. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, Vol.20:5, pp.992 — 1008.

Nahpiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. 1998. “Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 242-266.

Nonaka, I. 1991. “The knowledge creating-company”. Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 96-104.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.

Odduo, G., Osland, J. & Blakeney, R. 2009. "Repatriating knowledge: variables influencing the ‘‘transfer’’ process". Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 181–199.

Osterloh, M. & Frey, B. 2000. "Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms". Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 538-550.

Polyani, M. 1966. The tacit dimension. Routledge & Keagan Paul, London.

38

Reiche, B.S., Harzing, A.W.K. & Kraimer, M.L. 2008. “A Social Capital Perspective of Knowledge Sharing and Career Outcomes of International Assignees”. Paper presented at the 2008 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, August 8-13, 2008 - Anaheim, California.

Shen, Y. & Hall, D. 2009. “When expatriates explore other options: retaining talent through greater job embeddedness and repatriation adjustment”. Human Resource Management, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 793– 816

Stahl, G., Chua, C., Caligiuri, P., Cerdin, J. & Taniguchi, M. 2009. “Predictors of Turnover Intentions in Learning-Driven and Demand-Driven International Assignments: The Role of Repatriation Concerns, Satisfaction with Company Support, and Perceived Career Advancement Opportunities”. Human Resource Management, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 89-109

Szulanski, G. 1996. “Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Special issue: knowledge and the firm, pp. 27-43.

Szulanski, G. 2000. “The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, No. 1, May, pp. 9–27

Werr, A. & Stjernberg, T. 2003. “Exploring Management Consulting Firms as Knowledge Systems”. Organization Studies, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 881-908.

Wittig-Berman, U. & Beutel, N. 2009. “International Assignments and the Career Management of Repatriates: The Boundaryless Career Concept”. International Journal of Management, Apr2009, Vol. 26 Issue 1, pp. 77-88.

Yin, Robert, K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods, 4 ed. Sage Publications:

Thousands Oaks, California.

Sources

Interview

Global Mobility Manager at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Stockholm, 2009-12-10, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Stockholm. Personal interview.

Internet sources

PWC, Öhrlings PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2009a. "Verksamheten". Retrieved 2009-12-14 from http://www.pwc.com/se/sv/karriar-for-erfarna/career0720.jhtml

PWC, Öhrlings PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2009b. "Företagsfakta". Retrieved 2009-12-14 from http://www.pwc.com/se/sv/om-oss/foretagsfakta.jhtml

39

Attachment 1: Interview Questions Questions for the interview About the interviewee: testing the validity of the interview

1. What are you working with? 2. How long have you been working for PWC?

Generalities about expatriation:

3. Which types of international assignments exist within advisory in PWC? 4. How many are going every year on international assignments? 5. How long is the duration of international assignments? 6. Which are the purposes of the international assignments? 7. Who initiates an international assignment? 8. How many expatriates terminate their assignments before the agreed on completion date?

About repatriation

9. Describe your repatriation process! About knowledge within management consulting:

10. What constitutes knowledge? 11. What type of knowledge do repatriates bring back from their international assignments?

About knowledge transfer:

12. In which way do you consider that the repatriate’s knowledge is transferred to the home office? 13. Do you actively do anything to enable the knowledge transfer from the repatriate to the firm?

● If yes, what? 14. Which processes do you consider the best to support that knowledge transfer? 15. Do you do anything to develop these processes for knowledge transfer? 16. Does the process differ between knowledge transferred from the repatriate to the home office compared to how knowledge is transferred in other cases?

● If yes, how? 17. What does the home office do to keep the knowledge that a repatriate brought to the company, after that he/she has left the company?

About factors affecting knowledge transfer:

18. Are there factors that prevent or enable the knowledge transfer from repatriate to home office?

● Which? 19. Do you do anything to influence these factors?