This document summarizes a study on organizational reintegration practices and reverse culture shock. The author surveyed 99 individuals from six fields and found most organizations provide some reintegration resources but often focus too much on administrative tasks rather than addressing culture shock. While reverse culture shock is underestimated, the best practices for mitigating it include establishing formal reintegration timelines, maintaining social support systems, tailoring programs to individuals, and helping travelers feel their experiences have value. Overall, the study finds organizations could better support reintegration by viewing it as an ongoing process rather than a single event.

1. Institutional Success and Failure of Reintegration: Best Practices and Common Faults
James A. Royce
American University

2. INTRODUCTION
Most foreign travelers understand the expectation of culture shock when leaving the
United States for a foreign assignment and some organizations invest substantial time and
resources into preparing their travelers for that culture shock. However, the traveler and the
organization often devalue or underestimate the impact of reverse culture shock upon their
return. Mitigating reverse culture shock is more than providing literature on expectations; to
combat reverse culture shock you need tailored and preventative reintegration programs. The
information provided here by no means answers organizational reintegration failures, instead it
provides insight to some of the firsthand accounts of reintegration issues experienced, and
solutions recommended by those foreign travelers.
REVERSE CULTURE SHOCK
Reverse culture shock may be more complicated and damaging to the traveler than initial
culture shock. When a traveler embarks on a foreign assignment, there is an expectation a
difficult adjustment, challenging transitions, and inherent differences in culture, language, and
expectations that complicate the capability of environmental understanding. Reverse culture
shock compounds these issues because the traveler perceives returning home as less stressful
than leaving home. The traveler does not anticipate the challenges of returning and is often so
excited about the return they do not consider the complications that may arise. Therefore, when
they return home and the symptoms of reverse culture shock are experienced, they are much
more dramatic.

3. ORGANIZATIONAL FIELDS
In this study, I looked at
how 99 respondents from six
organizational areas experienced
reverse culture shock (see
chart1
). These fields each
approach foreign assignment
reintegration differently, though
with some commonality amongst them. They recognize that reverse culture shock exists and is
an issue that most travelers face however, the resources provided to assist their travelers is as
varied as the organizations themselves.

4. (Results from the “Reintegration from Foreign Assignment or Experience” Survey, 11 December 2014)
Diplomacy and Research Organizations tend to train their personnel prior to a foreign
assignment however, reintegration training can be lacking depending on the organization. For
example, the U.S. Department of State provides a reintegration program titled “High Stress
Assignment Outbrief Program,” however only employees who have spent more than 90 days in
one of five selected countries are required to attend. Any other employees that wish to participate
do so voluntarily.
“Stress of having to come back to what others call a normal life. We were told to
basically suck it up and return to a desk assignment after being in Afghanistan”
Education Exchange Organizations face a greater challenge because of the disparate
location of their travelers. Participants are not permanent members of the organization and the
only opportunity for face-to-face reintegration training may be for a short period immediately
upon their return. Because their participants are typically less experienced with foreign travel,
they may experience reverse culture shock more severely than others who are more mature or
have had greater cross-cultural experiences.

5. “Reverse culture shock was a major issue I had to deal with, as a student abroad
I did not expect to have such a different outlook when I returned.”
The Military Services have a standardized reintegration program that has evolved
greatly over the last 14 years. However, this only begins upon return from the overseas
assignment and not prior to. The military services have dedicated resources for families to
receive reintegration training as well before their service member returns, but only if they elect to
attend.
“My other pre-deployment and reintegration training was minimal. When it did
occur, it was mostly check the block and not really of value.”
Civilian-Military Support Organization travelers are composed of civilians working
for the Department of Defense. It is common for embedded civilians to train with their military
counterparts prior to the deployment however, upon their return they can quickly find themselves
excluded from the typical support systems provided for the same service members they worked
alongside with during the deployment.
“Our final flights to our families was on a commercial flight and usually
separated from our deployed teams so that we come back as individuals and
seemingly normal civilian travelers. That was tough! I ended up routing through
Las Vegas and had to spend my final flight… with a bunch of rowdy drunk folks
asking if I'd been camping (I only had cargo pants to travel home in).”

6. Private Sector Organizations typically fail to capitalize on the benefits a reintegration
program can provide. What little reintegration training private organizations do provide is so
limited in scope that it seems to be merely focusing on securing employment, stabilizing
finances, and locking in a residence.
“…issues or concerns that you felt were not addressed? Changing identity and
perspective, and how to leverage the growth that occurred as a result of the
international assignment”
Volunteer Organizations have a compounded issue where their travelers may
experience reverse culture shock along with the task of seeking employment. Some organizations
recognize this and place reverse culture shock and employment opportunities high in their
reintegration priorities. However, these organizations have little time with their travelers prior to,
and after their assignment. The volunteer organizations tend to conduct their reintegration
training prior to the traveler’s departure, giving them time to absorb the information but failing to
provide necessary follow up training upon their return to the United States.
“I had gathered great knowledge on the human rights issues… in the region I
worked with, but upon arrival, there was almost NOTHING I could do with that
information. Nobody encouraged me either to do so. It sucks, I feel I can do so
much more with that information, but there are so little ways.”
ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE
Nearly every organization type has a list of references and resources available online that
address reintegration challenges. Some reintegration resources, like the United Nations

7. Volunteer Reflection Toolkit, are exceptionally detailed. Other resources, like those provided to
military service members and their families are difficult to locate and can vary depending on
which military installation or service branch you are working with. However, one characteristic
that all six of these organizational areas have in common is that they place ownership of
reintegration requirements heavily on the individual and the perception that the organization
absolves itself of any further requirements once it conducts its reintegration program.
We spend so much time and resources in preparing our travelers for their overseas
experience that we neglect the more vital component of cross-cultural training, and that is
preparing them for their return to the American society. Of the 99 respondents from the survey,
73% recognized a significant personality change in themselves from when they left to when they
returned from their foreign assignment. Unfortunately, many of them felt ill prepared for the
challenges of reverse culture shock that awaited them. In place of adequate reintegration training,
many of the organizational programs focused on a number of inconsequential areas like warning
against making large purchases, medical and financial administrative paperwork, future goals of
the organization, and returning equipment. While these administrative tasks are necessary, this
takes away from providing resources to transition through reverse culture shock.
Decompression following the return is essential for the traveler to acclimate back into
American society but extended decompression can be just as detrimental as the lack of it. Of the
survey respondents, 22% were back to work or school within 4 days while 23% took more than a
month to either return to/find new employment or enroll in school. To determine adequate
decompression time, one-on-one evaluation during the reintegration process is necessary, a fully
incorporated service in the reintegration program that is missing across the board. The military

8. service does attempt to conduct one-on-one evaluations; however, the sheer number of personnel
may make it difficult to provide adequate evaluation.
Social support, maintained by both the traveler and the organization, is a critical
component to reintegration. The inherent definition of reverse culture shock comes from the
unanticipated stress of returning home. Maintaining a connection between home and the traveler
can serve to mitigate some of the stress involved in returning home. Depending on the location
of the assignment, the traveler may not have access to modern telecommunications. Of the
respondents, 62% felt they had some form of social support while overseas however, very little
of that was facilitated by the organizations itself, contrary to how it should be.
Finally, determining the responsibility an organization has to travelers that self-terminate
or where the organization terminates the assignment is arguable. Of the 99 respondents, 11 did
not complete their overseas assignment due to unspecified reasons. In each case, the organization
did not provide reintegration upon their return to the United States. This begs the question as to
what responsibilities an organization may hold to its travelers return early, their fault or not. One
can argue that the organization maintains an obligation to society to provide reintegration
resources regardless of the reason for return to ensure that the traveler has the best opportunity to
reintegrate back into society.
REINTEGRATION BEST PRACTICES
Regardless of the organizational area, I have observed specific reintegration best
practices that can be effective across the sectors. The intent behind sending any traveler overseas
should not just be the success of the immediate mission, but the continuation of success and the
repetitive use of the traveler. These best practices serve as guidelines for successful reintegration

9. that not only benefits the traveler, but also enhances the organization’s ability to continue
sending personnel overseas.
 Establish a formal reintegration timeline prior to return: Having a plan in place on what
training will occur, how long the training will last, decompression timelines, and their
follow-on activities – employment or school. This is a necessary requirement in
alleviating some of the unanticipated stress that many travelers experience.
 Establish a social support system between the traveler and the organization: Facilitating
and maintaining a connection between the traveler and their home location may serve to
eliminate much of the anticipated stress involved in returning home. The more
knowledgeable they are about return expectations – from family life to current events –
the more prepared they can be to mitigate reverse culture shock.
 Provide opportunities and resources beyond reintegration and allot time to take advantage
of them: Many organizations provide additional resources but few provide dedicated time
for travelers to take advantage of them. These resources made available over extended
periods is especially advantageous when reverse culture shock may not set it until
sometime after the traveler’s return.
 Let the traveler know that their experience is beneficial: Integrating the experience of the
overseas assignment into future reintegration programs helps the traveler feel as he or she
is part of the solution and that their experiences, good and bad, can be used to the benefit
of the organization and others. It allows the traveler to feel that the time spent away from
home had value, not only to them but also to the organization.
 Tailor reintegration programs to the traveler: Many respondents felt that much of the
reintegration training had no meaning for them. A central topic in many reintegration

10. programs in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. While a valid concern for any
organization, the overemphasis of this or any other subject during reintegration training
can lose your audience and make them feel that the training provided is inconsequential.
Reintegration training to combat reverse culture shock does not start upon the return of a
traveler, it starts during the planning process for sending them overseas. Organizations that limit
themselves to handouts and online resources are destined to inflict unnecessary hardships on
their personnel. Those organizations that can and do employ these best practices however, can
expect their personnel to be better prepared to handle the challenges of reverse culture shock and
more importantly, their personnel will feel that their organization has a true interest in their
reintegration process.
1
“Reintegration from Foreign Assignment or Experience,” Last modified December 11, 2014,
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XY9GTPQ

11. APPENDIX A: Sanitized Survey Responses