Single mindedness means
Most do not believe, however, that the variance is sufficient to warrant the expense of programs designed to select or train candidates for international assignments.
As a result of such thinking, the only time companies pay special attention to their expats is when something goes spectacularly wrong. Of course, some companies do engage in serious efforts to make foreign assignments beneficial both for the employees and the organization.The fact is, however, that most companies get anemic returns on their expat investments.Over the past decade, we have studied the management of expatriates at about 750 U. We asked both the expatriates themselves and the executives who sent them abroad to evaluate their experiences.In addition, we looked at what happened after expatriates returned home.Was their tenure worthwhile from a personal and organizational standpoint? managers sent abroad returned early because of job dissatisfaction or difficulties in adjusting to a foreign country.Yet we have found that they all follow three general practices: When making international assignments, they focus on knowledge creation and global leadership development.
Many companies send people abroad to reward them, to get them out of the way, or to fill an immediate business need.
Let’s explore the practices in turn, illustrating them with companies that have put them to good use over the past several years.
For as long as companies have been sending people abroad, many have been doing so for the wrong reasons—that is, for reasons that make little long-term business sense.
That’s a turnover rate double that of managers who did not go abroad.
If getting the most out of your expats is so important, why do so many companies get it so wrong?
The main reason seems to be that many executives assume that the rules of good business are the same everywhere.