Case 6 Teaching Note: Andrew Robinson: The Challenges of a Short Term

Assignment*

Case background

The case covers the period November 2000-August 2001. The case was researched using

a variety of methods: 1) interviews with the main participants mentioned in the case; 2)

participant observation; 3) analysis of internal company documents, email

correspondence and intranet. The name of the companies involved, as well as the names

of the people mentioned in the case, have been changed at the request of the

interviewees, however the case reports real events and situations. The exact location of

Telequip in Australia, or its headquarters in Europe, is also not specified for this reason.

Precise details about the product being developed, or about the business activities of

Telequip and Taicom, are also omitted in order to preserve confidentiality.

Case synopsis

Andrew Robinson was a software engineer employed by the Australian subsidiary of a

multinational telecommunications equipment supplier, Telequip. Telequip Australia had

plans to transform a network management platform it had developed for a local customer

into a global product, and their first foreign customer was a telecommunications carrier

in Taiwan, Taicom. The project soon ran into problems and Andrew Robinson was asked

to go to Taipei on a short-term assignment to help deal with the technical issues that had

arisen. The case details the challenges Andrew faced during his assignment and his

* Copyright © C. Welch, University of New South Wales, 2003.

1

attempts to adjust to living and working in Taipei. In the end, Telequip’s project failed,

with Andrew Robinson attributing some of the blame to the company’s inattention to the

cross-cultural and human resource dimensions of the project.

Suitability of case for teaching purposes

Types of courses: The case is suitable for courses in International Management,

International Human Resource Management and Cross-Cultural Management.

Level: The case is aimed at MBA, postgraduate and upper-level undergraduate students.

Teaching strategy: The case has been written to stimulate class discussion.

Student assignment questions

1. Did Telequip provide Andrew Robinson and his colleagues with sufficient support for

their international assignments in Taipei?

2. Telequip Australia has appointed you as a consultant to conduct an audit of its

management of short-term assignments. What recommendations would you make to the

company?

3. Was Andrew Robinson a suitable person to send on an international assignment to

Taiwan?

4. Is Andrew Robinson liable to pay tax in Taiwan, despite the existence of an

International Taxation Agreement between Australia and Taiwan?

5. Andrew Robinson is part of a new breed of expatriates – namely those on short-term

assignments of between a month and a year. What are the advantages and disadvantages

2

of short-term assignments over their more traditional variant? In your answer, consider

the issues for both employer and employee.

Case analysis

Theoretical background to case:

The case reports on a new trend in expatriate management: the use of non-standard

assignments, such as commuter, virtual and short-term assignments (see Chapter 3 of

Dowling and Welch). Short-term assignments are usually defined as lasting between one

and twelve months. They are therefore longer than a business trip but shorter than the

traditional expatriate assignment. Short-term assignments involve some of the traditional

problems of traditional expatriate assignments, but pose some additional challenges of

their own. Moreover, the terms and conditions for these employees tend to be different

than those for traditional expatriates.

The case is somewhat unusual in two ways. Firstly, it explores human resource issues

concerning an international project - a subject that has not been widely researched. The

case introduces some typical problems encountered by companies managing international

projects. As well as facing the challenge of cross-cultural communication, Telequip

needs to manage development work occurring in two countries, and complaints from the

customer that there are too few Telequip staff ‘on the ground’.

Secondly, the case explores issues surrounding expatriate management in the subsidiary

of a multinational enterprise, rather than the more typical headquarters perspective. The

subsidiary is trying to expand its mandate and take on world product responsibilities (see

3

eg. Delany 2000). The evidence from the case is that expanding a subsidiary mandate has

significant HR implications. While the case makes reference to the fact that Telequip

does have company guidelines on short-term assignments, the evidence suggests these

guidelines were not properly implemented by the inexperienced Australian subsidiary.

Other issues covered by the case include:

expatriate selection (1): there is no evidence that Andrew Robinson, Jonathan

Samuels, Malcolm Donaghue or other Telequip employees (eg. the Indian

subcontractors) were selected on the basis of their cross-cultural suitability or

language abilities (although Malcolm had worked in Hong Kong). Rather, they were

selected solely on the basis of their technical ability and availability. Prior research

shows that Telequip’s emphasis on technical skills is not uncommon. However, the

problem is that a person with high technical abilities at home may not be able to

function at the same standard abroad.

expatriate selection (2): what are the ideal attributes of an expatriate? Students should

be encouraged to consult the selection criteria listed in Dowling and Welch. Andrew

certainly had some of these qualities, despite his lack of prior experience.

Interestingly Malcolm’s prior experience in Asia did not in the end help him

overcome the complexities he faced in leading the multi-country project.

lack of predeparture training: Andrew Robinson and others on the project received no

training prior to their assignments, and were sent to Taiwan at very short notice.

Research has found that many expatriates do not receive training, yet the lack of

training can increase the risk of expatriate failure.

4

cross-cultural adjustment: Black et al. (1991) suggest the cross-cultural adjustment is

multi-dimensional in nature, involving adjustment to work, adjustment to interaction

with host-country nationals and adjustment to the general nonwork environment.

While Andrew Robinson adjusted fairly well to living in Taipei, Malcolm Donaghue,

Herbert Nguyen and Jonathan Samuels are examples of poor adjustment. Andrew

Robinson developed a range of coping strategies and he occasionally did things that

were out of character eg. his night-club escapade. However, he proved willing to

adapt, was able to integrate himself into local society to some degree, and displayed

the ‘openness’ deemed an important quality in an expatriate. The evidence from the

case is that short-term expatriates still face significant cross-cultural adjustment

issues, yet due to the short duration of their assignment, never have the chance to feel

‘at home’ in their new location.

degree of stress: high stress levels and burnout are often reported to be part of the

expatriate experience (Sanchez et al. 2000), and Malcolm Donaghue is the obvious

example of this in the case. Malcolm is an example of a ‘commuter’ assignment, ie.

commuting regularly between Australia and Taiwan. The PWC report on non-

standard assignments (2000) found this to be the most stressful form of non-standard

assignment. While Malcolm did have prior experience of working abroad, the

management demands of the project exacted a high personal toll.

compensation: Andrew Robinson continued to be paid his home salary in his home

country, but with a bonus per diem on top of his normal salary. A PWC survey

(2000) found that home country salaries delivered via the home country payroll are

the norm for short-term assignments.

5

taxation: while Australia and Taiwan have a double taxation agreement, this did not

prevent Andrew Robinson from incurring a tax liability in Taiwan as well as

Australia. Additional taxation is an emotive issue for expatriates (see Dowling and

Welch, Chapter 6), and in the case Andrew Robinson and his wife begin to feel that

the incentives Telequip was offering them were being eroded. Telequip eventually

decide to equalise Andrew Robinson’s tax (ie he does not need to pay more than he

would at home), however HR did not inform him of this decision until after the

assignment had ended (see epilogue).

Telequip neglected to provide their employees with timely relocation and ‘logistical’

assistance (cf. ‘best practice described by Black et al. 1999) eg. Andrew Robinson

found his own accommodation, used his personal credit card to make payments and

enrolled himself into a Chinese language course at his own initiative.

repatriation: usually an issue considered in the context of a traditional assignment,

repatriation turns out to be difficult and traumatic for the Telequip Australia

employees, since their repatriation comes as a result of the failure of their

international project.

Short -term assignments avoid some of the problems of traditional assignments, eg.:

relocation of spouse: those Telequip employees who were relocated to Taipei left

behind their families. This means they could relocate without also relocating their

families. However, short-term assignments still cause disruption to the family. While

this meant that Andrew Robinson’s wife was able to continue working in Australia,

6

she felt a negative impact on her life and the separation caused tension between the

couple.

flexibility: allows for the company to relocate the employee in a shorter time frame.

This meant Telequip was able to respond quickly and flexibly to the needs of their

Taiwanese customer. Short-term assignments are therefore suited to international

projects. However, it also meant that the company did not have time to set up a

suitable system for supporting the staff it sent abroad at such short notice.

cost: short-term assignments are seen as less costly than the traditional assignment ie.

some costs, such as relocating the family, are avoided altogether, and there is a cost

saving in terms of the duration of the assignment. Moreover, companies need to keep

in mind the fact that employees still need a high degree of support in making their

cross-cultural adjustment. Yet short-term expatriates may not receive the support and

preparation that is more standard practice in the case of the more traditional

assignment. The perception may be that because of the short duration of the

assignment, such assistance is not required.

Short-term assignments are often portrayed as a potentially attractive alternative to long-

term assignments (eg. Foster 2000). The case, however, suggests the reality of short-term

assignments is more complex. While short-term assignments are often seen as a more

cost-effective solution for the company and also a way to avoid the problems of dual

careers and family disruptions, their potential downsides also need to be taken into

consideration by companies.

7

Suggested answers to student assignment questions:

1. Andrew Robinson and his colleagues received very little preparation prior to leaving

Australia and almost no support upon arrival in Taipei. Andrew had little warning about

his short-term assignment and did not really know what to expect. He did not receive the

terms and conditions for his assignment until the evening before his departure. Once in

Taipei, he found an apartment on his own and enrolled himself into Chinese classes on

his own initiative.

2. Possible recommendations for Telequip Australia:

- selection of short-term expatriates on the basis on cross-cultural as well as technical

qualifications.

- introduction of pre-departure programmes. Students could also be encouraged to

discuss what sort of pre-departure training they would recommend (referring to the

Black et al figure in Dowling and Welch, Chapter 5.

- relocation and ‘logistical’ assistance, especially suitable housing arrangements.

- language training while in Taipei.

- security guidelines: ie managing the personal risks expatriate staff may face (ie.

typhoon).

- post-return debriefing of expatriates.

- benchmarking: while Telequip Australia had little experience of running international

projects, other parts of the company did. They therefore could have provided examples of

‘best practice’ against which the Australian subsidiary could have benchmarked itself.

8

Telequip Australia is an example of a ‘tactical-reactive’ rather than ‘strategic-systemic’

approach to short-term international assignments (Black et al. 1999).

3. Andrew Robinson’s technical abilities are strong, and while in Taipei he seemed to

perform well at a technical level. However, he did not have prior experience in working

abroad, had not visited Taiwan before, and did not speak Chinese. He did not know what

to expect, assuming that because he liked Chinese food and had Chinese friends he would

be able to fit in. Nevertheless, he did fit the profile of a successful expatriate in many

ways. He was open-minded, adaptable, and was the only member of his project who

seemed to enjoy socialising with local colleagues and learning about the local culture.

4. Andrew’s stay in Taiwan exceeded 90 days (c.30 days + c.60 days + c.40 days = 130

days) but was less than 183 days in a calendar year. Therefore, Andrew needs to lodge a

Taiwanese tax return and pay tax on the income he earned, although in theory he is

eligible for a refund. In practice, obtaining a refund is complex and expensive, and may

not be successful.

5. Advantages of short-term assignments (for employees and employers):

- family can stay at home – less disruptive to partner, children at school etc

(family commitments are a major reason why employees turn down assignments).

- more flexible option for employer, not such a long-term commitment, well-

suited to the demands of an international project.

9

- good introduction to working abroad for people without prior experience; allows

for ‘globalisation’ of staff.

- potentially lower cost to employer.

Disadvantages of short-term assignments (for employees and employers):

- potentially, high degree of stress and uncertainty.

- disruption to family life.

- employees still require support for cross-cultural adjustment and ‘logistical’

assistance, ie. short-terms assignments not an ‘easy fix’.

- employees may not work effectively or confidently, due to ‘culture’ shock and

poor adjustment. Because the term of the assignment is so short, they may never

overcome their culture shock and feel they have adjusted to their new

environment.

Additional reading:

J S Black, H B Gregersen, M E Mendenhall and L K Stroh 1999. Globalizing people

through international assignments. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

J S Black, M Mendenhall and G Oddou 1991. Toward a comprehensive mode of

international adjustment: an integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of

Management Review, 16, 2: 291-317.

10

E Delany 2000. Strategic development of the multinational subsidiary through subsidiary

initiative-taking. Long Range Planning, 33: 220-244.

N Forster 2000. The myth of the ‘international manager’. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 11, 1: 126-142.

H W Lane and J J DiStefano. 2000. The global manager. In P W Beamish, A J Morrison,

P M Rosenzweig and A C Inkpen (eds) International management: text and cases, 4th

edn, pp. 178-195. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

G W Latta 1999. Expatriate policy and practice: a ten-year comparison of trends.

Compensation and Benefits Review, 31, 4: 35-39.

J I Sanchez, P E Spector and C L Cooper 2000. Adapting to a boundaryless world: a

developmental expatriate model. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 2: 96-106.

S C Schneider & J-L Barsoux 1997. Managing across cultures. London: Prentice Hall.

Epilogue

Andrew Robinson’s tax liability in Taiwan was paid by Telequip. Less than six months

after the failure of its Taiwanese venture, Telequip announced a major new contract with

11

another overseas telecommunications carrier. Early indications were that the company

had not sought to learn from its mistakes in Taiwan.

12