Exploring the Career Capital Impact of International Assignments within Distinct Organizational Contexts
| Author | Noeleen Doherty,Michael Dickmann |
| Published date | 01 June 2008 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00539.x |
| Date | 01 June 2008 |
Exploring the Career Capital Impact of
International Assignments within Distinct
Organizational Contexts
Michael Dickmann and Noeleen Doherty
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK
Corresponding author email: m.dickmann@cranfield.ac.uk
The existing expatriation literature concentrates on what individuals need to perform in
an international assignment (IA) but neglects what they gain from their foreign work
experience. Using a dual-dependency perspective this study presents results from 26 in-
depth interviews with international secondees within two UK-based organizational
contexts. The paper explores the perceived impact of an IA on the career capital of
individuals, showing that the outcomes of IAs can be equivocal for expatriates. Each
firm concentrated their human resource mechanisms on developing different types of
career capital and this focused individual behaviour on diverse career capital activities.
In one of the organizations there was an internal misalignment between organizational
and individual assignee focus. Based on the research a number of propositions were
developed. This study provided an exploratory insight into points of departure rather
than complementarity in individuals’ international careers in organizations, which has
been at the core of much recent research and writing. A more complex, contextualized
picture of the effects of IAs on the careers of individuals emerged.
Career capital (Inkson and Arthur, 2001) con-
siderations have taken on more prominence in the
dynamic global business environment in which
organizations aim for agility and flexibility. Pat-
terns of international work are changing, with
developmental assignments for talented individuals
becoming more central to global business strategy
(Cedant International Assignment Services, 2002;
Harris and Dickmann, 2005). International assign-
ments (IAs) are regularly positioned as beneficial
to organizational success and individual career
progression, implying mutual benefit. However,
the career impact of an IA is not sufficiently clear
(Dickmann and Harris, 2005; Stahl and Cerdin,
2004) and there is a lack of attention to the
outcomes of working abroad. The discussions of
‘expatriate failure’ (Mendenhall and Oddou, 1985;
Tung,1981),highcosts(Blacket al., 1999) or
turnover on repatriation (Naumann, 1992) flout
the notion of assured organizational benefits. At
the individual level, an IA may be deemed a failure
if improved skills, insights, networks and motiva-
tion do not result, challenging the notion of
complementarity (Brousseau et al., 1996). Some
writers suggest that the relationship between
expatriate and organization is one of ‘mutual’ or
‘dual’ dependency (Larsen, 2004) and urge the use
of a more complex view of expatriate success that
is sensitive to the context (Bonache, Brewster and
Suutari, 2001; Harzing, 1995; Harzing and Chris-
tensen, 2004).
This paper explores the experiences of interna-
tional assignees focusing on the career capital
implications of working abroad. The research is
context-sensitive in that it uses two UK-head-
quartered global organizations as case studies to
explore the interaction of company policies and
individual perceptions and behaviours. We devel-
op propositions and discuss practical implica-
tions for retention, repatriation and the
realization of long-term individual and organiza-
tional benefits of IAs. The complex nature of the
British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, 145–161 (2008)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00539.x
r2007 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
links between IAs, the organizational human
resource (HR) policies and practices and indivi-
duals’ career capital activities gave rise to our key
research questions.
What perceived impact does an IA have on the
career capital of individuals?
How does the organizational context shape
the career capital perceptions and activities of
individuals in relation to an IA?
Career capital – organizational and
individual approaches
To explore these questions we first consider the
relationship between individual and organiza-
tional career capital management. Organizations
employ many methods to ‘manage’ the careers of
individuals in general (Granrose and Portwood,
1987; Gutteridge, Leibowitz and Shore, 1993)
and specifically for international career develop-
ment (Baruch and Peiperl, 2000). Methods used
to build organizational resources include the
acquisition of skills, knowledge and abilities
(Boyatzis, 1982; Selmer and Chiu, 2004). Orga-
nizations may also attempt to influence the
identification (and commitment) of their employ-
ees through socialization into the organizational
culture (Schein, 1985), team-building (Mills,
2000), reward policies and career management
processes (Evans, Pucik and Barsoux, 2002).
Moreover, DeFillippi and Arthur (1994) suggest
that organizations use mentoring programmes
and customer and in-company networking to
support social capital accumulation. Active en-
couragement to join specialized communities of
interest, planned job rotations or involvement in
project teams as well as IAs are also common
practices. Overall, a company’s culture, skill and
network-building approaches, as outlined above,
may be taken as organizational counterparts to
the three types of individual career capital
(Arthur, Claman and DeFillippi, 1995).
According to DeFillippi and Arthur (1994,
1996), individual career capital consists of three
ways of knowing. Knowing-how career compe-
tences refer to career-related skills and job-related
knowledge which accrue over time, encompassing
a broad and flexible skill base and emphasizing
occupational rather than job-related learning.
These capabilities provide an individual with the
career-relevant skills and work-related knowledge
and understanding that are needed for perfor-
mance. They consist of soft skills such as people
management and team-working skills and hard
skills including technical competence in strategic
planning and marketing techniques (see for exam-
ple Sturges, Simpson and Altman, 2003).
Knowing-whom career capabilities consist of a
range of intra-firm, inter-firm, professional and
social relations combined in a network. This
includes relationships with others on behalf of the
organization (such as customers and suppliers)
and personal contacts (such as professional and
social acquaintances) (Parker and Arthur, 2000).
Such social capital (Raider and Burt, 1996) may
be created by targeting those persons who may be
helpful to one’s own career development (Jones
and DeFillippi, 1996).
Knowing why relates to the individual’s identity
and the fit between identity and career-related
choices (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1994), which can
change as a result of changing circumstances
(Inkson and Arthur, 2001). It includes the values,
meanings and interests that determine how a
person’s career develops (Jones and Lichtenstein,
2000). Knowing why gives individuals a sense of
purpose, energy, identification and direction in
work, attributes which are linked to motivational
energy and the confidence to follow an envisaged
career and are seen to lead to commitment that
increases performance.
Eby, Butts and Lockwood (2003) found that
the three ways of knowing were important in
predicting perceived career success, and perceived
internal and external marketability in boundary-
less careers. They indicated that all three types of
career competence are likely to add value to
individuals’ careers but found different patterns
of influence between the three facets of knowing.
They found that knowing how was most impor-
tant in external marketability, while knowing why
was more essential to predicting perceived career
success and internal marketability.
The above studies suggest the importance of
organizational context and the different influence
of the three ways of knowing on perceived
individual career success. While career behaviour
within an organizational context is impacted by
the employer’s formal and informal career
management systems, Larsen (2004) argues that
the organization is also dependent on the
individual. He concludes that contemporary
146 M. Dickmann and N. Doherty
r2007 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial