Ridderprint

Paradoxes in global talent pipelines 133 However, this effect was limited to the STIA duration and two additional results suggest that STIA does not necessarily improve talent retention. First, the amount of international experience did not affect employees’ turnover at either organization. We had expected that organizations and employees would seek to leverage such experience (Haslberger & Brewster, 2009). Scholars have suggested that a single international experience can be equally or more valuable than multiple, consecutive assignments (Bolino, 2007; Kraimer et al., 2009). Here, more time abroad may not improve retention as employees become detached from their parent organization, its culture and its leadership team (Bolino, 2007; Selmer, 2002; Peltonen, 1997). Alternatively, the value of STIA experiences could have depended on the jobs’ responsibilities, the distance to headquarters, or the level of hardship (Bolino, 2007; Stahl et al., 2009). Potentially only a few, specific international experiences improved trainees’ retention. Second and paradoxically, repatriates at Shell became over twice as likely to leave as compared to their unassigned peers. This finding matches the high turnover rates reported among traditional repatriates (e.g., Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001), but was not replicated at Consumer Goods. Here, assignment duration may provide an explanation: the median STIA at Shell lasted twice as long as those at Consumer Goods – twelve instead of six months. Assignees at Shell thus endured the overseas adjustment challenges and disrupted social networks longer, often exceeding the original 12-month STIA duration. This may have demanded larger personal investments from expatriates, resulting in stronger reward expectations and contract imbalance upon repatriation, which many studies have linked to increased search for alternative employment (e.g., Kraimer et al., 2009; Kraimer, Shaffer, Harrison, & Ren, 2012; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, 2007). Moreover, as discussed earlier, assignees on prolonged overseas stays may have become detached from the home organization (Bolino, 2007; Peltonen, 1997; Selmer, 2002), resulting in more turnover upon return. Alternatively, the difference could be a matter of organizational context, where differences in repatriate management practices explain the repatriate turnover. Unfortunately, we lacked detailed and objective information to compare these practices across organizations and follow-up research, for instance, using qualitative comparative analysis, would be valuable. 6.6.5 Practical Implications The current study has four main implications for practice. First, we reiterate that relative performance evaluation can help organizations retain their talents and repel poor performers. Systems should thus be designed to leverage such benefits. Ratings should be as objective as possible, closely resembling the desired behaviors, and organizations should consider what distribution of scores best approximates actual differences in employee performance. We acknowledge that these are challenging tasks. Second, organizations should assess their current approach to talent management. While the organizations in this study managed and assessed talent differently, neither exclusive approach improved talent retention. In general, organizations should be cautious in classifying potential as the ratings may send strong signals, raising or lowering employees’ expectations. Without clear expectation management or actual career opportunities, potential assessment could have adverse effects. Alternatively,