Survey

Existing research on knowledge flows in the workplace as well as return migration has helped to structure the questionnaire. This has the advantage of allowing the results of this survey to be comparable to those produced by other researchers examining international mobility and knowledge flows, focussing on the individual’s experience in the workplace (Williams and Balaz 2005; Tung and Lazarova 2006). On the other hand, since some aspects of the research are not suited to a multiple question format (and bearing in mind the need to keep the

questionnaire as short and clear as possible), the interviews are a crucial element of the research. The following section sets out the structure of the survey, highlighting the theoretical reasoning and analytical potential behind the questions (see Annex 6 for the questionnaire).

Individual data (questions 1 – 8)

The first section of the survey (eight questions) asks respondents to provide personal information including age, gender and length of time spent abroad. To provide context to international experience, questions 4 to 6 enquire about pre-mobility occupation, what the respondents did abroad, and level of education. Questions 7 and 8 cover the year of going abroad and length of time. Question 8 asks about the length of time spent abroad in order to test Hypothesis 1 concerning cultural disassociation and levels of satisfaction with life and work in the home country.

The thesis also compares returnees according to age to see if there are any differences in motivations for return, satisfaction with experiences in the workplace and ability to share knowledge. Levels of satisfaction with experiences in the workplace can influence re-migration potential (Thomas-Hope 1999; Bonache and Brewster (2001).

Based on research conducted on experiences of people working in the for-profit (FP) and not- for-profit (NFP) sectors in influencing return motivations and levels of satisfaction in the home country, this thesis analyses whether returnees are looking for personal career advancement or to contribute to homeland development. Tung and Lazarova (2006) found a number of differences according to the FP and NFP sectors. The authors found greater dissatisfaction with aspects of work such as wages, outdated infrastructure, inadequate administrative and management support and career development in the not-for-profit sector (Tung and Lazarova 2006).

Two questions cover a range of push and pull factors most commonly found to motivate people to go abroad. There is a rich literature on migration motives (although empirical studies are less common), including typologies such as Faist’s (1997:188) three levels of analysis:

1. Structural (political-economic-cultural factors in the sending countries and receiving countries)

2. Relational (social ties of movers and stayers) 3. Individual (degrees of freedom of potential movers)

Faist’s approach is also adopted in this research, and the survey includes economic and political conditions, as well as social and cultural reasons, framed as push and pull factors.

Motivations for going abroad are diverse and often the literature has trouble recognising or constructing theories based on all the different reasons why people choose to migrate. One should avoid undue generalisations about mobility at the level of individuals (Williams and Balaz 2008b: 178). A theoretical explanation for migration is to maximise returns on education and skills. Economic theory especially considers individuals like other forms of capital behaving as autonomous and rational units, moving between environments according to demand and supply. The propensity to migrate and actual movement, however, is more complicated. The questionnaire is designed to capture different motivational factors, including structural (economic, social and political); professional (career development and academic qualifications), and personal. The interviewees were additionally probed about why they chose to go abroad and come back, with the intention of understanding influential factors, from “individuals at one end, through families, groups, sub-national organisations, nations, supra-national organisations and the entire international system at the other end” (Hammar et al. 1997: 14). The push and pull factors are based on those used in surveys developed by other authors (Williams and Balaz 2005; Tung and Lazarova 2006). In terms of ‘push’ factors, the survey incorporates the influence of Serbia’s recent political and economic problems. In the past three decades in China, it has been argued that financial incentives must be matched with improvements in human rights before return is considered (Huang 1988; Biao 2005:12). On the other hand, others argue that politics has little effect, and instead other aspects such as the prospect of self- realisation and professionalism in the workplace are key (Biao 2005: 13). Indeed, Grecic’s

(1995) survey on Serbia highlighted the importance of personal self-improvement, as well as policies attracting scientists and highly-skilled personnel.

Employment, migration and other activities since graduation (questions 11 – 17)

These questions concern occupation and tendency to migrate. The responses are used to test for peripherality within the workplace (Hypothesis 4), international orientation of the workplace, and whether people are currently looking for work abroad. Question 15 asks about length of time worked in the current job in order to contrast the responses of newcomers and non- newcomers. Newcomer status is a proxy for peripherality although of course people also enter workplaces in senior positions where they have responsibility and are thus from the outset central to the operations of the workplace. In the analysis, this is called non-peripherality. Question 16 asks if the workplace is Serbian or foreign. This is a proxy used to see whether the workplace has any international connections or dimension to its operations. The two types of workplace are compared throughout the research.

Question 17 asks whether people are currently looking for work abroad. Those looking for work abroad therefore have high re-migration potential and through a comparison of the two groups (looking for work abroad and those not) the research will shed light on the significant factors contributing to dissatisfaction with the post-return experience.

Knowledge and competences gained abroad and their role in obtaining employment (questions 18 and 19)

Question 18 deals with the aspects of international experience that are considered instrumental in gaining employment in Serbia. The statements, related to Hypothesis 2, are designed to measure knowledge recognition as well as point to the potential for successful knowledge transfer, which is dependent on the demand for these skills in the home country (Tung and Lazarova 2006). Serbia has experienced large-scale highly skilled migration, and the responses could highlight scarce and abundant knowledge in the labour force. Alternatively, the results could show that in Serbia internationally convergent business practices and ways of doing things have yet to diffuse in the economy, and as a result there is little demand at the workplace level

for the knowledge that mobile individuals carry. Question 19 focuses on the factors that discourage return. The range of factors is based on other studies of Serbian migrantion (Grecic 1995), and includes economic and political, crime and corruption, bureaucracy and infrastructure.

Views on and retrospective evaluation of time abroad (questions 20 – 24)

This section asks respondents to rate the value of types of knowledge acquired abroad, covering a range of skills that studies show migrants acquire abroad (Bolino and Feldman 2000; Balaz and Williams 2004; Williams and Balaz 2005). The factors that respondents are asked to rate are divided broadly into two; the first half covers formal qualifications and explicit knowledge, whereas the latter is concerned with more intangible personal development. Balaz and William’s (2004: 228) found that many returnee Slovak students from the UK valued professional or technical skills less than the opportunity to study and work in a different cultural environment. Specific questions also ask about knowledge distinctions identified by Blackler (2002), based on the format used by Williams and Balaz (2008a). Questions 20 – 22 also ask respondents to state whether they believe skills can be acquired in Serbia as well as abroad, in order to gauge which skills are considered scarce in Serbia.

Using knowledge and skills in the workplace (questions 25 – 36)

Many of these questions deal with knowledge transfer and satisfaction in the workplace. They are designed to correlate with the theoretical conditions of knowledge sharing: the nature of the knowledge, motivations for sharing, opportunities for sharing and the culture of the work environment. Question 25 approaches the tacit/explicit knowledge distinction by asking respondents how easy it is for them to transfer their knowledge. Question 26 asks respondents about levels of satisfaction with aspects of work before and after the migration experience.

Question 27 asks about knowledge transfer mechanisms and learning channels and management oversight in the workplace (Hypotheses 3 and 7). Further probing of management oversight is also included in questions 27 and 29 (and question 32). Questions 25 – 33 are based on corporate theories of workplace knowledge transfer. Responses are also compared according to

for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, and whether people are looking for work abroad, which are also relevant for hypotheses 2, 3 and 4. Questions dealing with management oversight and autonomy in the workplace are used to test hypotheses 6, 7a and 7b.

Question 30 probes about the respondents’ ability to transfer their knowledge to colleagues according to the tacit/explicit and specific/general distinctions. The statements are designed to test for tacitness by asking respondents to assess their ability to transfer knowledge through methods such as observation, teamwork and participation. This channel presupposes tacitness. Interviewees are also asked about the application of knowledge and the channels through which their knowledge can be transferred, which helps to identify the tacit/explicit dimension (Bonache and Brewster 2001; Ipe 2003). By also asking about learning from colleagues through observation, the responses point to the importance of tacit knowledge in the workplace more generally. Specificity and generality are assessed by asking whether respondents believe their skills are applicable to different work environments.

Questions 31 - 33 measure respondents’ perception of their own career trajectory. Respondents are asked if their acquired work standards are in conflict with the prevalent work culture of their colleagues. Questions 30 and 32 ask about relations with work colleagues, which can influence knowledge transfer (Hypothesis 5). Studies have found that individuals assume opinions and preferences that are similar to (socially) connected group members and emphasise or create differences to unconnected members in order to gain acceptance (Phillips et al. 2004). Individuals with similar outlooks will converge in opinion and perspective and exaggerate differences with others. This process leads to an ‘othering’ of colleagues who do not share the experience and perceived values and goals of the socially connected group. Social work bonds encourage connected members to focus on commonly-held knowledge. As Thomas-Hunt et al.

(2003: 475) write: “Socially connected members may become so focused on maintaining their social connections that they focus more on contributing the knowledge possessed in common with those to whom they are socially connected rather than focusing on or sharing the knowledge they uniquely possess.” Both data collection instruments ask if returnees interpret the reaction of their colleagues to them as envy, due to their international experience and knowledge, which can inhibit the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge that contradicts or challenges current work practices is not shared by individuals in peripheral positions: “Despite

the possibility that socially isolated group members in heterogeneous groups may both be preoccupied with social acceptance, the mechanism used to gain or maintain this acceptance is likely to differ” (Thomas-Hunt et al. 2003: 467). In some cases, returnees believe their knowledge makes their position in the firm ‘dangerous’ for colleagues and managers without the same knowledge, and consequently they find that they are not utilised as much as local recruits (Berthoin Antal and Walker 2011: 11). Question 32 also assesses interaction challenges that also touch upon knowledge recognition, management oversight and conflicts with colleagues. Question 33 concerns general challenges, including job insecurity, country readjustment issues and family and personal problems.

At the interview stage respondents are asked to comment on the overall level of their skill utilisation in Serbian work environments (Hypothesis 2), the obstacles they face in fully utilising their skills, and how they cope with situations of mis-utilisation or under-utilisation of their knowledge (see Annex 7). The interviewees were probed about their position in the workplace and relationships with colleagues (Hypotheses 4 and 5). Obstacles to knowledge transfer need to be negotiated as employees move along the continuum from peripheral to within-group member, or from stranger to friend (Williams 2007a: 370; Nagel 2005). Studies have shown that some returnees are aware of the need to avoid behavior that could be interpreted by local colleagues as arrogant, and acting as though their knowledge is superior to local knowledge (Berthoin Antal and Walker 2011: 17). Depending on the work environment, returnees could encounter resistance from colleagues, particularly those who resent the attitude and status of returnees.

The interviewees were asked about knowledge management techniques to circulate knowledge (Hypotheses 3 and 7). For instance, one method is to rotate employees between jobs so they gain different skills. In this way, no one set of skills and responsibilities is limited to one person, and if someone leaves or is absent, other employees can cover them (Ashton et al. 2008). Following Szulanski (1996) and Ipe (2003) the participants are asked about knowledge transfer: motivation to share; opportunities to share and context of the transfer. This is a structure on which many studies of knowledge transfer are based (Hau and Evangelista 2007: Lyles and Salk 1996).

The complete data collection protocol is summarised below in Table 2.1:

Table 2.1 Summary of data collection protocol

Survey data Interview data

Pre-­‐migration  status  and  experience:  education  and  employment  

- Gender and age

- Pre-mobility occupational status - Education level

- Host country(ies) - Year of migration(s)

- Factors that influenced the migrants’ choice of country / education / employment abroad

- Past migration experience. Countries and periods, work places

Motivations and determinants for migration abroad

- Pull factors for moving abroad - Push factors for moving abroad

- Opinions on the social / economic / political situation in Serbia prior to their departure

- Factors influencing the decision to choose a particular migration channel and destination

Experience upon return to Serbia

- Return motivations

- First occupational status in Serbia - Migration after initial return to Serbia - Country of residence at time of survey - Occupational status at time of survey - Intentions to migrate again

- Opinions regarding measures to foster return and diaspora investment in Serbia - Opinions regarding the lack of return to Serbia

- Career advancement

- Occupational profile since return to Serbia

- Validation of migrants degrees and qualifications (nostrification)

- Use of language skills

- Opinions regarding facilitating measures to foster return and diaspora investment in Serbia

- Opinions regarding brain drain in Serbia - Intentions to stay in Serbia

- Levels of satisfaction with post-return life in Serbia

- Difficulties encountered by returnees since their return to Serbia: (e.g. housing, reintegration, re-adaptation, employment; low salaries; administrative and bureaucratic problems)

- Changes in occupation, income, and status

Experience abroad

- Opinion regarding importance of experience abroad in career

- Opinion regarding factors that

- Full occupational profile of migrant while abroad

- Language skills

discourage return migration to Serbia - Education and qualifications picked up abroad

- Professional training abroad - First occupational status abroad

- Last occupational status abroad before returning to Serbia

- Unless arranged beforehand, length of time needed to gain employment in host country

- Differences between work environments in Serbia and the respondent’s host country

- Role of networks in the flow of information, goods, money, services and people

- Tensions with local population

Skills development and utilisation

- Opinion regarding relative importance of foreign work experience

- Acquired knowledge and competences - Examples where these skills have been used - Confidence and other tacit skills

- Explicit skills

Acculturation

- Opinion regarding integration in host society

- Discussion of the problems returnees encounter in Serbia

Workplace

- International experience versus that of colleagues

- Work experience before and after migration

- Ability to use skills and knowledge in work environment

- Firm management and colleagues - Remuneration

- Levels of autonomy and responsibility - Interaction with colleagues

- Characteristics of knowledge: Competences (content related and practical / attitudes and values / learning / methodological / social and interpersonal)

- Aspects of the individual (motivation to share, etc)

- Aspects of the recipient of the knowledge (motivation to learn, etc) - Context of knowledge transfer (organisational structure, etc) - Instances where knowledge transfer has been observed - Importance for skills and knowledge utilisation for job attitudes

Knowledge

- Tacit / explicit and specific / general - Reception and recognition by colleagues and managers

- Ability to transfer knowledge easily -

- Characteristics of the knowledge: Tacit / explicit continuum; Specific / non specific knowledge

- The source of the knowledge (individual); recognition of knowledge; motivation to share; trust; capacity to share

motivation to learn: absorptive capacity / learning capability

- Context of the transfer: Organisational culture: interaction between workers: management oversight, strategies and procedures: type of tasks (routine, etc)