 

 

7.
mm
. .t

. J...
, t.”

57 . a.
.m“ r

- h

 

 

 

 

.7 a...
. ‘ a. a
(a. . 1..

>1:
.1.

1.”.

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Universlty .

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

TOWARD AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF CROSS-CULTURAL ADJUSTMENT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGING A GLOBAL WORKFORCE

presented by

Jennifer Palthe

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in IR/HR

 

 

WM knead,

Major professor

Date QQWA 50\ 200\

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

nnnﬁ

 

I, UUZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cleIRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15

 

TOWARD AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF
CROSS-CULTURAL ADJUSTMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGING A
GLOBAL WORKFORCE

By

Jennifer Palthe

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Labor and Industrial Relations

2001

ABSTRACT

TOWARD AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF
CROSS-CULTURAL ADJUSTMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGING A
GLOBAL WORKFORCE

By

Jennifer Palthe

This study extends previous research on cross-cultural adjustment by testing the
relationships between variables in an integrative model through a ﬁeld study of 196
American expatriates on assigmnent in the Korea, Netherlands, and Japan. The results
demonstrate how individual, work, non-work, and organizational factors differentially
inﬂuence three facets of cross-cultural adjustment (work, interaction, and general).
While past research has consistently shown that spouse-family adjustment is the strongest
predictor of cross-cultural adjustment, this study reveals that socialization at the host
company, previously proposed yet unmeasured, may be as strong a predictor of expatriate
adjustment. This research also extends past research by providing empirical evidence to
suggest that the relationship between spouse-family adjustment and expatriate non-work
satisfaction is mediated by general adjustment. The study outcomes also demonstrate
how cross-cultural adjustment accounts for a signiﬁcant portion of the variance in
expatriate job satisfaction and non-work satisfaction. Implications of these research

ﬁndings are explored and recommendations for ﬁiture research are offered.

© Copyright by
Jennifer Palthe
2001

To my husband Tako, and sons Daniel and Justin, with Love

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks are due to the numerous individuals who assisted me at various
stages of this research effort. I am particularly thankful to my husband and best friend,
Tako Palthe, for his constant love and support over the years. I thank my sons, Daniel
and Justin, for always reminding me that when we pursue anything worthwhile in life we
should do it with enthusiasm and persistence. Their patience, understanding, and love
served as a continuous source of inspiration. I extend my gratitude to my mother, Carol
Bullard, and my late father, Ronald Bullard, for teaching me the value of having a vision
and the importance of conscientious effort in realizing it.

I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for their valuable
contributions to this undertaking. I am especially grateful to the Chair of my dissertation
committee, Professor Ellen Ernst Kossek, for her creative insights and unrelenting
dedication to scholarly excellence. I am thankful to Professor Kevin Ford for his
wisdom, guidance, and meritorious contributions to this dissertation and my graduate
education at Michigan State University. I thank Professor Richard Block for his
valuable ideas and for enabling me to beneﬁt ﬁ'om research funding through the ALCOA
Foundation. I would also like to thank Professors Georgia Chao and Eunmi Chang for
their intellectual contributions and useful insights on conducting cross-cultural research.
I extend my sincere gratitude to Professor Stewart Black ﬁ'om the University of Michigan
for his creative suggestions for this study, and the American Chamber of Commerce

Executives for their endorsement of this research endeavor.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1
Importance of Topic 1
Gaps in the Cross-Cultural Adjustment Literature 4
Research Purpose and Objectives 8
Deﬁnitions of Core Constructs 10
Key Research Assumptions 12
Organization of Dissertation 13
CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF THE CROSS-CULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT LITERATURE 14
Overview of Integrative Model of Cross-cultural Adjustment l4
Cross-Cultural Adjustment 16
Antecedents to Cross-cultural Adjustment 18
Individual Variables in Cross-cultural Adjustment 36
Work Variables in Cross-cultural Adjustment 43
Non-work Variables in Cross-cultural Adjustment 46
Organizational Socialization Variables in Cross-cultural
Adjustment 5]
Cross—Cultural Adjustment and Expatriate Attitudes 56
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 61
Study Sample 61
Data Collection Procedure 64
Measurement Design and Operationalization of Variables 65

Data Analysis Strategy 73

vi

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Results of Regression Analyses
The Inﬂuence of Independent Variables on the Three
Facets of Adjustment
The Inﬂuence of Adjustment on Expatriate Attitudes
The Mediating Inﬂuence of Cross-Cultural Adjustment
on Expatriate Attitudes
The Mediating Inﬂuence of Interaction Adjustment on
Non-Work Satisfaction
The Mediating Inﬂuence of General Adjustment on
Non-Work Satisfaction

Summary of Hypotheses

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

Replicating and Extending Research on Cross—Cultural
Adjustment

Support for the Integrative Model of Cross-cultural Adjustment
Implications for Multinational Corporations Managing Expatriate
Assignments

Study Limitations

Conclusion and Directions For Future Research

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT SCALES

vii

76
76
82

82
87

89

9O

91
95

99

99
104

105

111
113

118

134
135

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Research on Cross-cultural Adjustment

Table 2. Factor Analysis of Adjustment Items

Table 3. Factor Analysis of Socialization Items

Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Variables
Table 5. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Work Adjustment
Table 6. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Interaction Adjustment
Table 7. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of General Adjustment
Table 8. Results of Multiple Regression Analyses of Expatriate Satisfaction on
Work, Interaction, and General Adjustment

Table 9. Results of Multiple Regression Analyses of Commitment on Job
and Non-work Satisfaction

Table 10. Regression Analysis Predicting Non-Work Satisfaction

Table 1]. Regression Analysis of the Mediator (Interaction Adjustment)
Predicting Non—work Satisfaction

Table 12. Regression Analysis of the Mediator (General Adjustment)
Predicting Non-work Satisfaction

Table 13. Hypothesized and Actual Relationships between Antecedents
and Cross—cultural Adjustment

Table 14. Hypothesized and Actual Relationships between Expatriate
Adjustment and Satisfaction

Table 15. Hypothesized and Actual Relationships between Expatriate

Satisfaction and Commitment

viii

21

67

71

78

84

85

86

88

89

92

93

94

96

97

97

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Integrative Model of Cross-cultural Adjustment

15

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This chapter provides a broad overview of the dissertation by highlighting the
importance of the topic under investigation, the main gaps in the cross-cultural
adjustment literature, the objectives and key assumptions of this research study, the

deﬁnitions of core constructs, and the overall organization of the dissertation.

Importance of Topic

” In today's global economy, having a workforce that is ﬂuent in the ways of the world
isn't a luxury. It's a competitive necessity. No wonder nearly 80% of midsize and large
companies currently send professionals abroad - and 45% plan to increase the number

they have on assignment." (Black & Gregersen, 2000)

In today's world economy, the national boundaries between organizations are
becoming increasingly and irrevocably obscure (Wagner & Hollenbeck, 1992). The
elimination of both personnel and trade barriers by the European Community and the
continued expansion of investment opportunities in Asia have created both competitive
challenges and opportunities for US. companies operating abroad. When US. companies
establish subsidiaries overseas, engage in joint ventures, or franchise their technology and

business knowledge to foreigners, it almost always involves the temporary placement of

personnel abroad. It has been estimated, for example, that over 80,000 employees in US.
organizations work as expatriates in over 130 countries (Arvey, Bhagat, & Salas, 1991).

A central and recurring problem of sending expatriates on assignments abroad,
however, has been the signiﬁcant and increasingly costly rates of premature returns. The
number of assignments that have ended prematurely, as a result of expatriates' not
adjusting to life in the host country, range from 16% to 50%, with losses amounting to as
much as $1 million for a single expatriate (Shaffer & Harrison, 1998). The average
expatriate position costs two to three times the equivalent position in the US. and
represents the single largest expenditure most organizations make on any one individual,
excluding the Chief Executive Oﬂicer (Black & Gregersen, 2000).

Organizational turnover represents the most costly effects of expatriate and
repatriate failure. Intentions to quit, decreased commitment, and dissatisfaction represent
harder to measure “invisible” costs to organizations in the form of loss of individual
credibility and poor corporate image as a whole (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985).
Moreover, given that expatriates are generally selected based on their high performance
levels domestically, the opportunity costs associated with their inadequate adjustment
abroad are often signiﬁcant (Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales, 1996). Hence, an
unsuccessful assignment is costly for the organization and damaging to the assignee’s
career thereby underscoring the need for organizations to develop innovative approaches
to motivating, and retaining valuable global assignees.

While the use of expatriates has been problematic, multinational corporations
have still been faced with increasing requirements to staff their overseas Operations

(Stewart & DeLisle, 1994). In addition, the ongoing globalization of business and world

markets, and the growing number of international mergers, has increased the number of
managers on assignments abroad (Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron, 1994). The frequency of this
intercultural contact between diverse nations is continuing to escalate due to the ongoing
growth of transnational alliances, and increased international travel (Thomas, 1996). This
is in light of the fact that inter-culturally competent personnel remain in short supply
(Kealey, 1996), and the demand for global leaders, in most multinational corporations, far
outweighs the supply (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999). Consistent with
these assertions, Pucik & Saba (1999) purport shortages of experienced and capable
expatriate managers have become particularly acute over the last few years.

The effective management of global assigmnents is not a new phenomenon. The
management of distant operations existed in ancient times, where the needs for control,
coordination, adjustment, and knowledge transfer, were no less signiﬁcant than they are
in multinational corporations today (Selmer, Kang, & Wright, 1994). In modern times,
expatriate success remains fundamental to the effective control of international
organizations (Doz & Prahalad, 1986), and is a crucial element in global organizational
learning (Bartlett & Goshal, 1989). However, as we enter the twenty ﬁrst century, the
nature and pace of globalization has intensiﬁed the pressures on multinational
corporations to actively facilitate the enhancement of expatriate adjustment abroad. This
is due to the fact that the success of these assignees is considered such a critical element
in the ability of US. corporations to compete internationally. As Porter & Tansky
(1999) argue: "Many organizations are just beginning to face this stafﬁng issue, and they
have little experience upon which to draw" (p. 47). Consequently, they look to more

experienced companies, and the research community, for guidelines to enhance the cross-

cultural adjustment and success of their global assignees. This, in turn, has ampliﬁed the
interest of both academics and practitioners to better understand and manage employee

adjustment to working in foreign cultures.

Gaps in the Cross-cultural Adjustment Literature

Cross-cultural adjustment has been researched for approximately three decades,
and the literature has been described as consisting of mainly anecdotal or atheoretical
efforts to comprehend the phenomenon (Aycan & Kanungo, 1997; Mendenhall & Oddou,
1985). Despite the plethora of conceptual work exploring the key drivers of the cross-
cultural adjustment process in the last decade (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1995; Black,
Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991a), many have asserted that the empirical research in this
area has been fairly devoid of a theoretical framework (Kealey, 1996; Ones &
Viswesvaran, 1997). In addition, while most of the published literature on expatriation
has focused on the training and selection of expatriates in international assignments, little
is known about the processes and mechanisms that expatriates ﬁnd most useful in
adjusting to living and working in a foreign country (Tung, 1998). Harzing (1995), in her
review of the expatriate failure literature, concluded by suggesting that while failure may
be an important factor, more attention should be focused on the reasons behind the failure
such as lack of cross-cultural adjustment and poor performance during the assignment.
Concomitant with these research gaps, very little empirical work has been done to
explicitly link cross-cultural adjustment with expatriate attitudes (Shaffer & Harrison,

1998; Van Dyne & Ang, 2000).

Aycan & Kanungo (1997) in their review of the expatriate literature, highlight
that the complexity of the expatriation phenomenon has tended to conﬁne the research in
this area to a descriptive and exploratory level. They argue that researchers need to ﬁll
these research gaps by building upon previous work to create integrative, comprehensive
and theoretically sound frameworks that can be empirically validated using rigorous
research methods. They point out that although a number of efforts have been made to
model expatriation (e.g. Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991), they have not paid
sufﬁcient attention to the "expatriate process mediators and causal links" @250).
Consistent with Aycan & Kanungo's (1997) assertions, Kealey (1996) argues that "there
is a need to develop comprehensive models that attempt to demonstrate how personal and
situational variables combine or interact to produce cross-cultural success." Kealey
(1996) further points out that the development and testing of such comprehensive models
are important to the ﬁeld for several reasons. First, these models provide a framework
and direction for future research that lead to more consistent and more powerﬁ11 ﬁndings.
Second, from a practical standpoint, these models guide international human resource
(HR) professionals in the design and Operationalization of HR activities such as the
training and selection of global assignees. Such frameworks also assist expatriates
themselves in identifying and developing the various prerequisites for international
success. Third, comprehensive models for explaining cross-cultural adjustment, Kealey
(1996) argues, have the "potential to inform the broader ﬁeld of intercultural education
and training aimed at enhancing overall cross-cultural understanding between groups and

individuals, domestically, and internationally" (p.94).

Consistent with these appeals, others have called for the development and testing
of theories that combine micro individual variables with more macro organizational
variables that can be applied in multiple cultural settings (Doctor, Tung, & Von Glinow,
1991; House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995). Ones & Viswesvaran ( 1997) also claim
that the main reasons why research on expatriate management has been so discouraging
is the lack of a unifying framework. They assert that what is needed is a theoretical
framework that links these constructs (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997).

In addition to appeals for comprehensive frameworks to guide cross-cultural
research, another signiﬁcant gap in the cross-cultural adjustment literature is the lack of
integration of the primarily U.S.-based work adjustment literature, and the international
adjustment literature streams (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). Whereas the
domestic adjustment literature has tested the impact of socialization on adjustment
(Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Jones, 1986), this variable has tended to be overlooked in the
international adjustment literature (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Stroh, Dennis, &
Cramer, 1994). Both Black et. al. (1991) and Stroh et. a1. (1994) explicitly called for
future adjustment research to test the relationship between organizational socialization
and cross-cultural adjustment.

Another noteworthy gap in the cross-cultural adjustment literature is that little
empirical research has been done to explicitly test the relative inﬂuence of individual
motivational variables such as self-efﬁcacy and learning orientation with work, non-
work, and organization socialization variables on cross-cultural adjustment. Harrison,
Chadwick, & Scales (1996) called for future research to test the combined inﬂuence of

these factors on cross-cultural adjustment. Where individual variables have been used to

predict cross-cultural adjustment in previous studies, they have usually comprised single-
item measures of expatriate demographic characteristics such as age and tenure. By
investigating the combined effect of individual, work, non-work, and organizational
factors on cross-cultural adjustment, academics and practitioners should achieve a greater
appreciation for factors that are more inﬂuential than others in predicting adjustment
abroad.

In summary, the relevance of the topic to contemporary organizations is
demonstrated by the increased evidence suggesting that inadequate adjustment to
international assignments is costly to both organizations and individuals in terms of
turnover, absenteeism, premature returns to the home country, and lower performance
(Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Shaffer & Harrison, 1998). Furthermore, given the early stage
of development of the international adjustment literature (Aycan & Kanungo, 1997
Laurent, 1986), and the paucity of integrative empirical work in the area (Kealey, 1996;
Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997), research that progresses toward the development and testing
of a comprehensive model of cross-cultural adjustment is imperative. As Caligiuri &
Day (2000) purport, it makes theoretical and empirical sense to work toward developing a
more grounded theory of predictor-criterion adjustment linkages, particularly given that it
can now be assumed that cross-cultural adjustment is (and always was) a

multidimensional construct.

Research Purpose and Objectives

Overall, the purpose of this study is to test the relationships between variables in
an integrative model of cross-cultural adjustment that builds upon some empirically
demonstrated and theoretically proposed antecedents and outcomes of cross-cultural
adjustment. By testing a unifying framework, this research aspires to bridge some of the
theoretical and empirical gaps exempliﬁed above while fulﬁlling the research objectives
outlined below.

First, this study seeks to explore the combined effect of individual, work, non-
work, and organization socialization variables on three facets of cross-cultural
adjustment. While there have been numerous calls for studies to test the overall effects of
individual, work, and non-work, and organizational socialization variables on cross-
cultural adjustment (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou ,1991; Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales,
1996), little empirical work has been forthcoming. This objective is important in that its
fulﬁllment will serve to validate and extend previous research while providing a
framework to guide future research and multinational corporations in their management
of global assignments.

The second key objective of this research is to explore the relationship between
organization socialization at the parent company and host company, previously only
speculated in the cross-cultural adjustment literature, and three adjustment dimensions
(work, interaction, and general). Meeting this objective is important in that empirical
evidence to demonstrate the inﬂuence of socialization on cross-cultural adjustment has
tended to lag behind the theoretical conceptualizations of this relationship (Stroh, Dennis,

& Cramer, 1994). This study also aims to provide insights for practitioners regarding

speciﬁc socialization practices both the parent and local organization should be engaged
in, to support the adjustment of expatriates while on their assignments abroad.

The third major objective of this research is to explore the mediating role of
interaction and general adjustment on expatriate non-work satisfaction. Whereas
previous studies have tended to examine either the antecedents (Black, 1990; Black &
Gregersen, 1991a, 19%; Harrison et. al., 1996) or the outcomes (Shaffer & Harrison,
1998; Gregersen & Black, 1992) of cross-cultural adjustment, this study endeavors to do
both. Meeting this objective would serve to extend the literature that has called for
scholars to pay attention to expatriate process mediators (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou,
1991; Caliguiri, Hyland, Joshi, & Bross, 1997). While Caliguiri et. al., (1997) tested the
mediating role of family adjustment on general adjustment, this study aims to
demonstrate that the relationship between spouse-family adjustment and expatriate non-
work satisfaction is mediated by general adjustment. Other possible mediating effects
associated with the integrative model of adjustment are beyond the scope of this study.

Essentially, this study endeavors to answer the following key research questions:

(1) How do individual, work, non-work, and organizational factors differentially

inﬂuence the three empirically recognized facets of cross-cultural adjustment
(work, interaction and general)?

(2) Does organizational socialization at the parent and local company have a

signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the extent to which expatriates adjust abroad?

(3) How does each facet of cross-cultural adjustment (work, interaction, and

general), differentially inﬂuence expatriate attitudes?

(4) Does interaction and general adjustment mediate the relationship between

spouse-family adjustment and expatriate non-work satisfaction?

Hence, in addition to integrating and testing some of the demonstrated precursors
of cross-cultural adjustment in the extant literature, this study aims to test the inﬂuence of
previously theorized, yet unmeasured, variables in cross-cultural adjustment such as
organizational socialization in the parent company and host company. Furthermore, it
aims to extend extant research by exploring the outcomes of cross-cultural adjustment
(Shaffer & Harrison, 1998; Gregersen, 1992) and the mediating role of general

adjustment on expatriate non-work satisfaction.

Definitions of Core Constructs

Cross-cultural adjustment is generally deﬁned as the process of adaptation to
living and working in a foreign culture. It is the perceived degree of psychological
comfort and familiarity a person has with the new host culture (Black, 1988; Black,
Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991 ). Recent conceptualizations of the construct have focused
attention on three speciﬁc facets of cross-cultural adjustment (Black, Mendenhall, &
Oddou, 1991, Gregersen & Stroh, 1997; Shaffer & Harrison, 1998). The ﬁrst facet is
work adjustment that involves the adaptation to new job tasks, work roles, and the new
work environment. The second facet is interaction adjustment that involves the
comfort achieved in interacting with host nationals in both work and non-work situations.
The third facet is general adjustment that involves the overall adaptation to living in the
foreign culture and comprises factors such as housing conditions, health care, and cost of

living.

10

Self-efﬁcacy is deﬁned as "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute
the courses of action required to manage prospective situations" (Bandura, 1997a); an
individual's perception of their capability of attaining speciﬁc goals or task outcomes
(Kanfer, 1991). Learning orientation is an individual's motivation, desire, or readiness
to learn (Porter & Tansky, 1999). Role clarity refers to the level of certainty surrounding
role expectations. Role discretion, in turn, allows individuals to adjust to their work roles
by altering the role to ﬁt them, rather than adapting themselves to the situation. Role
conflict, on the other hand, involves an incompatibility of role demands and conﬂicting
expectations (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991).

Cultural similarity is degree to which the host culture and an expatriate's own
culture are similar. An expatriate is a sojourner who is sent by a multinational parent
company on a temporary work assignment to a host company in a foreign nation (Aycan
& Kanungo, 1997). Spouse-family adjustment is deﬁned as the perceived degree of
psychological comfort and familiarity a spouse or family member has with the new host
culture. Organizational socialization is deﬁned as the process whereby an individual
develops an understanding of the values, expected behaviors, & social knowledge that are
essential for assuming an organizational role and for participating as an organizational
member (Chatman 1991). It can be viewed as the process by which the expatriates' values
and norms become closely aligned with those of the host organization abroad, while
retaining a role and membership in the parent organization in the home country. Job
satisfaction, one of the predicted outcomes of cross-cultural adjustment in this study,
may be deﬁned as the positive emotional state resulting from the overall evaluation of

one’s job (Shaffer & Harrison, 1998). Expatriate non-work satisfaction includes a

positive emotional state toward non-work factors such as living conditions, family
relocation, and modiﬁcations in daily non-work activities abroad. Organizational
commitment can be deﬁned as the process of becoming attached to an organization, and

the state of organizational attachment itself (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986).

Key Research Assumptions
This research is grounded in the following assumptions:

(1) Self-efﬁcacy is a malleable characteristic of individuals that may be enhanced
through past experience and training;

(2) Learning orientation is an identiﬁable tendency and one that can be developed
through systematic training;

(3) An individuals' needs and attitudes are fairly stable and unless an event occurs to
change them or the behaviors they engender, they will remain fairly constant;

(4) Cross-cultural adjustment is a necessary component of performance effectiveness
when operating abroad. When one or more facets of adjustment (work, interaction, or
general) is deﬁcient, some of the consequences may include poor attitudes;

(5) Organization socialization has value, in terms of both the direct beneﬁts it presents to
the overall organization development process, and the positive indirect impact it has

on employee perceptions and attitudes.

12

Organization of Dissertation

This dissertation is comprised of ﬁve chapters. Chapter One, thus far, has
provided an overview of the importance of the topic, the gaps in the cross-cultural
adjustment literature, the purpose and objectives of this research, deﬁnitions of the core
constructs, and the key assumptions underlying this research. Chapter One will ﬁirther
outline the overall organization of the dissertation.

Chapter Two includes a review of the cross-cultural adjustment literature and
presents the theoretical framework upon which the study is built. The purpose of this
Chapter is to present the proposed integrative model of adjustment and provide a general
background to the existing literature that underlies the development of each hypothesis.

Chapter Three details the research methodology including the study sample, the
data collection procedure, the measurement design, and the overall data analysis strategy.

Chapter Four presents the results of the data analyses and a summary of the actual
and hypothesized relationships between the study variables.

Chapter Five provides a discussion of the results of the data analyses and
highlights some of the key limitations and contributions of this study. Implications of the

ﬁndings and recommendations for future research are also offered.

13

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE CROSS-CULTURAL ADJUSTMENT LITERATURE AND

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Chapter Two presents the theoretical framework upon which the study is built and
provides a review of the cross-cultural adjustment literature. The outline of the Chapter
is as follows. First, the proposed integrative model of cross-cultural adjustment will be
presented. Second, a general background to the existing literature will be provided to
substantiate the development of the proposed model and the various hypotheses

associated with it.

Overview of Integrative Model of Cross-cultural Adjustment

Figure 1 represents a proposed integrative model of cross-cultural adjustment.
The model is an extension of Black, Mendenhall & Oddou's (1991) framework of cross-
cultural adjustment and delineates the key variables to be tested in this study. Each block
serves to group the key study constructs and the arrows signify some of the predicted
relationships between these variables. The ﬁrst block comprises individual variables
namely, self-efﬁcacy and learning orientation. The model suggests that these individual
variables inﬂuence three distinct facets of cross-cultural adjustment including work
adjustment, interaction adjustment, and general adjustment. The second block includes
work variables namely, role clarity, role conﬂict, and role discretion. The model

proposes that each of these work variables will inﬂuence cross-cultural adjustment. The

14

third block in the model indicates that non-work variables, including cultural similarity
and spouse-family adjustment, will inﬂuence cross-cultural adjustment. In a fourth
block, the model also suggests that organization socialization, comprising parent and host
company socialization, will relate to each facet of cross-cultural adjustment (work,
interaction, and general). Numerous hypotheses are suggested through this proposed
integrative model. These hypotheses, together with the underlying explanations for their
development, are discussed in the next section. Additionally, the literature associated
with the integrative model of adjustment is described in more detail in the presentation of

the hypotheses, in the section that follows.

Figure 1. Integrative Model of Cross-cultural Adjustment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION
VARIABLES SOCIALIZATION
o Self-efficacy
. Learning 0 Parent company
orientation ' HOSI company
JOB
VARIABPES CROSS- SATISFACTION
a Role clarity CULTURAL
0 Role conﬂict ADJUSTMENT . Job
0 Role discretion
0 Non-work
- Work
NON-WORK 0 Interaction
VARIABLES 0 General
- Sigulfuralaﬁiy EXPATRIATE
. Spouse-family COMMITMENT
adjustment

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

Cross-cultural Adjustment

Despite the fact that expatriate adjustment is a relatively new research
phenomenon, the concept has its roots in the ancient past. Fundamentally, expatriation
involves cross-cultural contact and mobility that is an integral part of the human
experience. With the start of a new and powerful economic era frequently referred to as
the "globalization era", approximately three decades ago, systematic research on
expatriate managers began to gain momentum This era brought about the establishment
of multinational corporations that began to set up subsidiaries in foreign countries. This
trend corresponded with increasing amounts of employees being sent to host subsidiaries
abroad. The growing costs associated with premature and unsuccessful assignments
provided additional impetus for researchers to take an active interest in the study of the
expatriation adjustment phenomenon

The multidimensionality of the cross-cultural adjustment construct is well
recognized in both the acculturation and expatriate literature. The term adaptation, is
more frequently used to describe the process of acculturation that individuals go through
when the stay in the foreign nation is permanent (Berry, 1990). However, cross-cultural
adjustment is a more suitable term for sojourners like expatriates, as they experience a
process of adjustment to a host country in which their stay is only temporary (Aycan,
1997). Cross-cultural adjustment is generally deﬁned as the process of adaptation to
living and working in a foreign culture. It is the perceived degree of psychological
comfort and familiarity a person has with the new host culture (Black, 1988; Black,

Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991).

16

In early studies on adjustment in cross-cultural settings, adjustment was
conceptualized as a unitary construct (Oberg, 1960; Torbiorn, 1982). Researchers tended
to use a single scale to measure expatriate adjustment. Recent conceptualizations of the
construct, however, have focused attention on three speciﬁc facets of cross-cultural
adjustment (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). These facets are depicted in the middle
of the integrative model of cross-cultural adjustment (Figure 1) above. The ﬁrst facet is
work adjustment that involves the adaptation to new job tasks, work roles, and the new
work environment. Work adjustment is aided by similarities in procedures, policies, and
task requirements between the parent company and host subsidiary abroad (Black,
Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999). The second facet is interaction adjustment
that involves the comfort achieved in interacting with host nationals in both work and
non-work situations. Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh (1999) argue that
interaction adjustment is the most difﬁcult of the three facets to achieve, as differences in
mental maps and rules reveal themselves in interactions with host nationals. The third
facet is general adjustment that involves the overall adaptation to living in the foreign
culture (Black, 1988). General adjustment comprises factors affecting daily life such as
living and housing conditions, food, health care, and cost of living (Black & Stevens,
1989). This dimension has traditionally formed the key focus of previous research on
adjustment, and is viewed as more difﬁcult for expatriates to achieve than work
adjustment (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999). Several empirical studies by
Black and his colleagues (Black, 1990; Black & Gregersen, 1991a; Black & Stephens
1989) have supported this multifaceted perspective. However, as McEvoy & Parker

(1995) suggest, "it is important that these results be veriﬁed by independent researchers"

l7

to assure the validity of this approach" (p.99). Parker & McEvoy (1993), in their study of
169 expatriates working in 12 countries, tested the validity of the multidimensionality of
cross-cultural adjustment by subjecting their questionnaire responses to a factor analysis.
The results of their factor analysis identiﬁed three distinct facets of adjustment (work,
interaction, and general), thereby providing additional evidence to support the validity of
this multifaceted perspective.

As cross-cultural adjustment is multifaceted, it follows logically that the various
antecedents to adjustment may have different degrees of impact on each facet of
adjustment (work, interaction, and general). Following from this, it is expected that
speciﬁc job—related variables such as role clarity and role discretion will be associated
with work adjustment and not general adjustment. Similarly, speciﬁc non-work variables
such as spouse-family adjustment and cultural similarity are expected to be related to
general adjustment and not work adjustment. This is because general adjustment
involves adjusting to overall living conditions in the host country (outside of work), and
work adjustment involves expatriates adjusting to their new role in the host company (at

work).

Antecedents to Cross-cultural Adjustment

Much of the cross-cultural adjustment research to date has focused on identifying
and testing the antecedents of expatriate adjustment (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, &
Stroh, 1999; McEvoy & Parker, 1994). Numerous groups of causal factors that inﬂuence
cross-cultural adjustment have been presented. Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou (1991), in

their review of the cross-cultural adjustment literature, proposed four categories of causal

18

variables namely, individual, job, non-work, an organizational. Their theoretical
framework and set of testable propositions form the basis of the integrative model of
cross-cultural adjustment proposed in this study. Figure 1 replicates Black, Mendenhall
& Oddou's (1991) model by using the same categories of cross-cultural adjustment
precursors. While Black et. al.'s (1991) model did not extend beyond this construct,
Figure 1 extends their model to include cross-cultural adjustment outcomes. Speciﬁcally,
the integrative model of cross-cultural adjustment proposed in this study suggests that
expatriate attitudes such as job satisfaction, and non-work satisfaction are outcomes of
cross-cultural adjustment, and that these variables, in turn, inﬂuence expatriate
commitment.

Table 1 below summarizes fourteen key cross—cultural adjustment research
studies. The speciﬁc independent and dependent variables that were tested, in addition to
the main ﬁndings of each study are presented. The Table also highlights various trends in
the cross-cultural adjustment literature. Every study reﬂected is empirical, involving the
collection and analysis of data, as opposed to just theoretical and conceptual treatments of
the constructs. The characteristics of each study sample are presented, together with the
relevant sample sizes, and response rates.

Several points need to be made regarding the variables, sample characteristics,
methods, and outcomes of these studies. Clearly, the majority of the studies reﬂected in
Table 1 mainly focused on the antecedents of cross-cultural adjustment. In examining
the adjustment precursors of the studies presented, variables such as role discretion, role
conﬂict, role clarity, cultural novelty, and family adjustment are the most commonly

tested independent variables. Further, in review of the major ﬁndings pertaining to each

of the studies, evidence to support the signiﬁcant and positive relationship between these
variables and cross-cultural adjustment is clearly reﬂected. The studies by Gregersen &
Stroh (1997), Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer (1994), and Black (1990) offer support for the
relationship between the work role variables and cross-cultural adjustment. Studies by
Caliguiri, Hyland, Joshi, & Bross (1997), Guzzo, Noonen, & Elron (1994), Shaffer &
Harrison (1998), and Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer (1994) provide strong evidence to support
the relationship between family adjustment and cross—cultural adjustment.

As suggested in Table 1, many of the studies in the late 19803 and early 19908
tended to treat demographic variables as direct antecedents of cross-cultural adjustment.
Examples include Black (1988) and Black & Gregersen (1991a, 1991c). In these
particular studies, individual factors contributing to cross-cultural adjustment were
operationalized using single item measures of variables such as previous international
experience, time in the host country, age, and tenure. Noteworthy, however, is the trend
toward treating these demographic variables as control variables in recent years
(Caliguiri, Hyland, Joshi, & Bross, 1997; Harrison, Chadwick & Scales, 1996).

Another notable trend is that ten of the studies presented in Table 1 measured
cross-cultural adjustment as a multidimensional construct. In other words, they measured
work adjustment, interaction adjustment, and general adjustment using distinct
measurement scales. While the study by Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer (1994) represents a
recent exception, they did acknowledge Black et al.'s (1991) three faceted
conceptualization of cross-cultural adjustment. They emphasized that "a more thorough

empirical study would examine all facets of adjustment" (p.182).

20

 

.3338

 

 

335%
me 85:53
eggs
a we? Snags
958m?
55 8.38
.EoEHmEEeo
0338qu
dozoﬁmzam €qu 2
x83éee E8 83 05:8
new .3 33%?“ owﬁo>< douoﬁmuwm
380—an0 dune,» new
20>» mamas me we? was €03.32
BBB??? owe ow80>< ”05686
gasses .35.... age can
we muoobo 23> Acetoeﬁtem W3
2: essence. s3 nae assesses
8 bozumoq ob? foam “meanness mooaotomxo
Baas sausage/t ”30:05. :8ng seam .< .9
£903.38 $3 meocoeméem 5826a 98 63th::
3383:? «83 £388an Q .<
83.585 no now—«9:8 A8: ﬁ nob. £83 .2 cow-Em
woman: 82% a can meets: acetone 5 ”mnemmnwoo “586553
553.? gnaw a. m. :. as seaaaxm meta sauna; unread «a:
83— 13.53.
35.22 as: 83:25 82...; e 35.2
3.5.5 5.2 .8: .x. z «.25. use»: .5333 .5233... 53>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jae—5323 Eye—3.29.0 a: 5.333— .«e baa—new A 033—.

21

 

.38»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.:

83 95:8

ow80><

.850

RH:

.355

a mu:

Serena

man:

.5250

.558 m2 Qua
2: E 3383 2a 0.63 Mug
9 .558? 8&5“? 333
80852qu no $3 mBoEBE ﬂaw—ﬂ...

ﬁrs “inseam—2 among 28
“Emma a was .85 .3333: .m .< Juan
80865.8» bgm wﬁssmdoo 303:0 Q ..<
.9855 8%:va 33.8w a noun—2: €853.23 .38.. :2
man—E5 8 88.2 38:: a 35 2va 3:89 .2 .25.»:
2a 968 no mo 35:0 EoEmmomm< 568 we :2 .m
5:30.59 gamma 203 “S: 8:933“. 3233qu a. $5310
98 momﬁuﬁoﬁﬁo £833 aozw 838$ .95 .53 «aoﬁgmva‘ momﬁuoeoﬂﬁo

«.235 R 62 o: agenm 5302 308335 zaam 3a
85— 13.53
$522 .53 Essa; 3.3.3 a. 35.2
“mam—Er— in: .25 ..\o Z 01—85 .3502 «5.32.3— .5-32—35 56>

 

 

.8233 _ as:

22

 

85338

 

 

335
8:86 38m
48883.3 .988» 3 29—96:
moaagoé was 8.58 2330
scam—~88 ow88>< 85:8 83%
com: 5830 8.88% MEWS—o 83¢
38 28 5:88»? Ga 33 8038.8va
28 8820 38% 20% 88c:
888% .8: Ea 2% was as;
ﬂog sauna owﬁo>< ”38—8025
8m 88862.85 $58.5
38% 98 x83 .522 888.8
53 3 832 5E5 8:383.
328%? 0mg m .3 £30
83 88: E 389: 88228
mgr—32 35m a .8>o 3 x83
88; 48883—8 88%me ~§om§r8§ Maw—claws
mo 88:85 8 88H. 3
Ewe—maﬁa setup—8:: 388388
a 83 $308 38388 Enema—=35 .v— .A .525
acummbaﬂ was on? 3.83 no Q .m .m
«o $.88 830% 830% Q Q £28883 88E. 8w< .uoﬂowﬁw
8: 8985 828d :2: a. 88888: 48283 ”$83085
mag 39 £02 a t. x: $352 33% exams? 933.2 82 .
83— .2853.
355.: as: 833:; 8.3.9 a. 35.2
maﬁa—Fm 5:: goal e\o z «3an 62—82 28—52—86 285-89—5— 58>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aeaaeov n 833—.

23

 

 

 

.580

E 328..

$5

88:82—

.825388 M83 x

8: 8: 88885.88 883.895
88835 Ba 23 :3 mg
888w 8 8282 882 MEI—5%
as, £323.23. :8 84%
32 as??? .38» 3%

833 383$:me we own
883 208.88%?” own.8>< .2
88 .2853? £23 a .2
8 388 .0828 .8589: 135.5
8 a? 883:8 a 33 383 a. .rum 382.80 .2
9588 8588a £38883 880m A. .aemEa—m

.8858me 88:32 .8889 $0858
a as. 88080.38 38.8 1mm a .m.: 823m 383?. 3380 82
8.5—

3:382 ﬁned 833...; 833...; 852:. Q
maﬁa—Fm :82 8.5 .x. z 8335 .2582 2838.8: 28—32—23— ..2:=< 58>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.253 _ as:

24

 

8080.888

 

 

06 00.008
08 808.90
003020..
05 0080.8
0.... .260. 808.8 .
8 80.808. 80.088080
0% 80808800 00300005.
88.88090 80.8.30 $808038.
000.50.. 080% .3 0.300%
3380.00.00 0080980000 ”88800 .
0032.0 .33 00.w0.0~.0>mn.
68800 0.02 $000838
3022.003 :8 £8» 8 -0800 0
.0 808.50... 0w0 0w000>< $000653
0080080 80.58
085.2 .0580. .8080 g
80.80.00 0.0.... 008.08. ”0.03.0500 mug
0.0 00.0.8098 800.8808. 0082.000 .0688... a
0.05 0.0808 0.8080382 0.0.8098 €2.96
80.088030 008003. .0300 00. 0080.00 .m—
3038 30.. 808:... 8.. 005080 a. 005:8... 43.80.... 50...”.— Q :4.
.«o 00.80008 bosom 0... .0 000.0008 ”80.808. a. €08.30 .v— .8807.
0002509 0009808 0% 0 88.800 0.90 .8050 ..< 4— .0850
80.8.0800 000.00: 0300800080." 8.. 000 80888800 ”08080038.
800.80 oz 8 K 0.: mm - 3&8 808505 328.0 33
0.3.
”0505... 3502 .08: 308; 828.3 .255. a.
£02 .005 .x. 7. 0.38.5 .8502 80.82.09 80.82.08.— ._0_==< «80>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A0008. _ as:

25

 

 

 

.2053? 3:5
mo 3862: 0.53 :oumoEEoE
$0386 05 38 6—5: 38:80
33 €253.23 295 £93 305:8 ”4oz
338m .30.» av 83 worn—o 29m
€983.85 85:35 .3 Seesaw:
mo :oﬁmvoa om: owﬂo>< 0.0%
Esme? 388%?
a 83 885:8 .bmﬂozﬁw 8:25
.8330 Bozo; ”8053—5:
3953.8: “a ﬂame: 3:530
mo magnum—VB: ME Boo—w $303 a: a:<
“camaw: .3: a. ”5.8 “880%: mélawﬂuhlo
203 533.532 0:555 05 35:95 a
:8: new 9 v5.53 358563 a»;
a mo 085.5% 05 maﬁa: :o «30> a
a. .3:oﬁ:wmmma 8:98:00 3:26: 20%
3:038:85 a mo :3 aouoémznm
mo 88:: £32358 :2. .0
06»: man? 3:235:38 Eomwoo—om H .3520 d
MaoEomgS: .m.D 26 A9532: ”mam—EH rm.— .4 3:59
£326: 28 E gonna 03:5 ”change .4— .A :25
6038938 pom 3:38: :05 d Eoﬁﬁsmé ngmﬁoaﬂ
a 53 33:3, 82 3 8: ﬁssé: :uEm E80: 3838?: 32
8am
3:332 .93— uo—aat!» 823:5 .aE::—. Q
mas—i: 5a: .8: .\. z 2955 8:02 .5293: 3888...: 35.2 53>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A3233 — 03:3.

26

 

8080888

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 888238
80.83 a was .3188
#88838 :2 .23 .88“
333.2 22> :3 0383
3886 838:3“
mm 0.880. .ouoaamamm mow<
.808u888 d. .wﬁmom “882.588
2 8823.2 8&5 .8 88>
macaw 83m 6880... down
a “09338—0 .wcoM waom 803385qu
8083826.» .830 muao8oo§>c<
.528 .923. ”8880
9 80883me .80 338m 38an
3:038:88 3808800 625598
06 mo ammouom .«o 88>
33> 05 88 .m.D 2.: .8 8238085.”
8388388 888800 £89300 sch
58358.“ .8 898.20 $8833.. 3
03¢ 88E8< moogomawmm glam—wand
3:838 0&5? v7.8 3
new ouamwﬁm Buoﬁwou ”.8802 x30.
.3 8323.8 a. .820 38388 .88 ”but? :86
won 08 803 .8825. .083 8 83835 mgswmng .m £58.82
momEL—Bugﬁo .8qu ...m.D 8 808888800 23H
07.8 .8 nob. .885. mm N2 3353me ~Agram Ectoﬂmuam 3:88 20m 93
85—
,33; 3.33.: is: 828$ 3.8:; .82.. a.
8:2 .25 .\e z 91—an .3592 89—82—2— 2—086;er 85.3 53>

 

 

A9233 m 3.5—.

27

 

.288 $3

 

 

83220
.8: o\.. ﬂ m
83.58
.5328 08:50 0.53
8%» 823088 $3 .83»
$0382— 3 mm?
was 80865.8.” own ow80><
8280 .8088
6083.588 .m.D
x83 v5 203 Rho
88:28on
0288883 803835 83383800
55 8083.8 a. 3%
8 8:88:32 .2588on 82883qu
688% £8885 $296: 3
a 333m 5 8283 2830 gm:—
momﬁbﬁabﬁo 83808 ”388 anal—am
888$ £3 3882 a;
88833 2.3.888 Q hum—888m
go $38 028 88 negotom .ow<
05 mo >5 “E? 620800 x83 528382 .2
8 38.0.88 mo 83830 5:03 a. .5880 .9 $85—92
bwaaommawmm ~23 828828 6088088 Q .m :3... a.—
83 own 8: 8038 3.8682 Emma .8289 383888
38% “£qu 2 8 as 835an 32:3 206893 SE 22
83—
38.5.2 .964: not—at!» 833:5 18.83. am
$53,.— ..Ez .88 .\. 2 2.5.6 2.82 2.02.2.5 238%....— §==< 53>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.9288 _ 3......

28

 

.29: 803

 

 

 

$0.3
4:953?» ﬁne»
x83 8 358 adv own 59863.3
$232.3.me mm? omega 833m
£823: 38: ﬂan» 5.2 5.96:
~33 338885 mo 83:8 8330
625353 owﬁozw $328: was
x83 8 38—2 an ﬁts Q 080: 55
33353? 835098 830885
203 ~96— 5&: 55:00 03M
8333 a... $82 éamsaa
=< .8253va 03%
530838 .maoM £0328?
8 baa c332 95$ 03% gm
$9533.: 538B c558 mo: 533mm
:5 hagomiwmm doHoM 05 E 23%

33 wish .53 a .5833 ﬁg? .m .m
goon» Began—Fa waovm UU< £5 x83 8330 .aoﬁouoho
>5 8 33.8 8: wcom 35%?“ “82:65.84‘ 683896 %

33 083695 .533. ﬂog 390% a. 338.52: :83 .m A. 12.:—

_8om§=8£ 62cm 335530 Bar—398v ”82:63:34. 3:23:62:

9030.5 .933. mm ONN 301% >955 3550 $5395 «33

85— .2253.

3:82 as: 83...; 3.3:; a. 3...:

unﬁt—Fm Ea: :25 x. Z 01—an .3502 2.9153: 26—52—er 53>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55.53 a 03am.

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

030050
0.0.5.00
”0003:0000
00>:
0000000
008 0050
000800.23 038$ 3.00003
00608008 0003 3000
000000 00 008.00 0000000. 30000
3000050me 0003 M0 $3 0003 £08000
00095 3000 03.008 8 08C.
£80 0 200 :3 0:35
000800030 000 .0000» ”800 0—33 00:05m
3805 0002509 03. 0? 02003002 3
80000330.. 3001050 Z 0w80>< ”00880 a;
0>=0w00 .0023. Emaom a
:5 080005 .880 .00< :00 00>
808000.80 0000—. :03 038-05 dd
00. 0000t0ax0 .w00M m00m 000000300 000860.220 A800 0305 8080?.5
0003000 $00806 803008 300000 0% 00308005 00020098 Q .m A. .3005
0003000 0030—00 .0008m 00050900 00050003 3008000860 3006000008
0800me oz .2000 EN an 50005.. 350 0580 8350 0:8
000m
@505 .080 8.809 83.09 .25.... 0
maﬁa-0h £02 «3—H ..\e z 0.08% 00502 «00002—0: 000—002—000— ..0.==< «80>

 

05:80 0 as:

30

 

0—08

 

 

$0.8
.080»
.3. 00»
0w80><
88» 5.2
003 0888
0w80><
808803.80 ”808808
0% 88008.0 0:038
008868 $3
b03808 “00380008
3.88 Mo 0302 ﬂowdm $305:
a. 8385 38m 8330
808805.80 .macM 3:028
a. 920.5: 883 03M
3.82:0 $2028 520,—. $88580
0—8 .8583 0:8 .008M 03M ﬂaw—duals.
88038“ 220 .025 a 2088? 3288 3
288a :83»; RE 5? 0.83 a. 03 3
8:80:58 88M $83 388088 ”80880532 3.5985
05 88088 .8920H 803808 8050885 Eoom .m .n. 4.0a:—
toanam 308 a. .00qu 838098 0303883 ”80868.3. #888
3880 me 0854 .838. mm emu 585$ >0>8m .8050 no 0304 33
83— 02:88:»
38502 .93— 0030tu> :— _aE=0—. Q
mug—.5..— 502 .25 .x. Z 0385 12:02 80.8030: 0.82—0.05 85.3 53>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8083 _ 03:.

31

 

35m

 

 

 

3 3283.:
83.335
3 38—2
bozﬁwo: ﬂow—38
:5 338%? $3 .22:
83 gamma 0.53 $3
#828805 .930»
5% 9 mi. own
835 8 338 owﬂo><
8: ma? x83 £3»
2 38%? ma
935:? Mo 85:3
SS» 8 ESE uwﬂoaw
mo maﬁa—oboe as $3, .383 a.
3.835% 838093 £28883
63:89 wcom QB: 35— 48053 8:55
803 «586%? 533,—. SE8 €083,395. Halal-nag
355m ,3qu £532 ham 8 385 28:68 3
v5 mono—235 .535. Saunas 30203.85
.moEEug £58.50 .UU< ﬁt» was 3 ”:2.ng .m
1383:? Bo? 3.8in “noExEEoo 823 .n. Jon—m an .m
96 oEna&oaov avg—5:82 ﬂown—38 Q 3388 5 each .m Eur—$9.0
8m 9.5838 .wgwam 03.398 88a 9 ”bun—So we:
:33 ESE—om v. 3 5m 58:32. a023m ~58“ch a 08% 38. 33
8.3—
3:332 .95— 83%.!» 835.5» 3:53. am
353,.— saz Em .\. z 2:35 .3502 .8235 .532.er 353. 53>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2523 — 93.9

32

 

.055

 

 

$5.3
.88»
0.? am»
50.55.50 0w80><
555885 .5 .800» 5.2
~80a0w 0.035% 83 05:8
8 5858 5: 039?.
83 0055098 853% .505:
#555585 505508 05550
9530.5 ¢\o~.m 5555
50563.50 ”80% 05550505
_80:0w n.0m5% 0:055 355885 5:05:53.“
30332 5.3 a. 32% 2: 2
505803: 003 $055088 5056.55 55.5 55550
5.05: 0.55:0 $0.8 033m 2505.“
50569.80 001353 a. 5 w5x53 gala—d
530885 .m0m:o% «530885 800» Wag
900.5% 05 8 505 a. 480:0wv .5 5555
8.22 52:85 00< a? 208%.? 53% a.
33 085% waoM meow 588,058 0§aaxm 05305 505 .6 .3305
.5 5555 5550.5. 80g 585% a. £0505 3 0050500950 Q .m .—. 10::—
0.55505 £05m 858098 85.55%8 NV 5% 5.555585
-05 03835 < .555. an own 555:3. $035 8 585 0,530.5 33
0.5—
3:552 .%0m 8350.5 00350.5 555—. a.
$5.05..— 535 .5: .\e 2 0355 .5502 2.0.32.0: 30—50105.— 555< «50>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A9258 ~ 033—.

33

 

 

 

 

 

.285 n:
mm? 0.558
0w80>0
€258.53 0 as» 8
x53 55 0mm 0w80>< 5.555
:5 85056555 505.555 553-505 a.
5.505% 8 5838 $8 a. x53 m555
58558.55me 055 803 555555
a. 505555 85 850550585 «55 553
m5? 505505.55 =< 850% 05:.
£5.55 Manama?
5953.8 .53 .2535
x53 55 5 603 “80,355.:
53 5085:? 020888 5:25:55 8:55
355% 8 585—8 .5 5085550 25305 30525
55585505 50503 5.26: 205 gamma
5 5238 a; as a? £50650 3
8555 0.53.55 588535 850555.545 05M
55 553 85.55 803555 3.50500 802.5500 05% .m .n. .505:—
555555 855 8585950 850555.50 $555855
553 850% 85,—. 5555—. 3 K 500505 >056 55>» 05% «aa—
83—
355.52 6.3— 50.55.53 50355.5 .5553. d
.0505... 5.2 .35 .x. z 258% 52502 .8288 33553.5 .253. 58>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.5583 5 «3.5.

34

 

 

 

 

500500
00.803096
05 50 000955
5030805 05 .208 gal—0g
553 50506800 0503 $93 ag-
bw5obm no .0552.
mm 0050:0950 .5ou0nm50w8 .5530.— 5555
505050505 350305258 003555980 .m d .53.:—
00. 5805098 035?. 0 50>m0000m 0% .A .0302
05 553 58.5 002.6% 600500 00536
5280,3000 005 503m 505 0% 50 00095
503050 00—80% 050505 cm 8 Z am 08050me >0>55m 5oto0mﬂw0m ”005000me $3
0.0%
3.352 .085 335.55 82.5.3 .252... a.
$52.5..— 502 08m— .x. Z 035:5 55502 05055050: 050552.055— ..55540 «30>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.9380 5 03:.

35

Individual Variables in Cross-cultural Adjustment

Individual variables form the ﬁrst category of variables of the integrative model
of cross-cultural adjustment in Figure 1. In the cross-cultural adjustment literature,
numerous individual variables have been conceptually presented as important drivers of
the adjustment process, such as personality (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1995), and self-
efﬁcacy (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). However, as Table 1 illustrates, where the
inﬂuence of individual variables have been empirically tested, they have mainly been
operationalized using single item measures pertaining to factors like pre-departure
training, time spent abroad, and past experience. For example, Black & Gregersen
(1991a), in their study exploring the antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment of 220 US.
expatriate managers assigned to the Paciﬁc Rim, operationalized their individual
variables in terms of previous international experience, hours of training, and time in the
host country. Results of this study, as reﬂected in Table 1, revealed that previous
international work experience was not related to any facet of adjustment. Pre-departure
training was signiﬁcantly related to interaction adjustment but the relationship was
negative. Other examples of studies using single item measures to capture the inﬂuence
of individual variables on adjustment are reﬂected in Table 1 as well, including studies
by Black & Stephens (1989), Black & Gregersen (1991c), and Gregersen & Black

(1990).

Self-Efﬁcacy
Although any number of individual variables may be related to adjustment, a

seemingly important, yet largely ignored item in the cross-cultural adjustment literature

36

includes self-efﬁcacy. In a review article by Mendenhall & Oddou (1985) they
highlighted the importance of self-oriented skills in enhancing adjustment abroad. One
of the key underlying premises they discussed is the ability to deal with foreign
surroundings effectively, even where there is signiﬁcant uncertainty. This notion is
consistent with the idea that Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997a) refers to as self-efﬁcacy.
Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou (1991), in their review of the international adjustment
literature, also pointed to the importance of testing self-efﬁcacy in the international
adjustment literature, given the positive associations between these variables reﬂected in
the domestic adjustment literature (Nicholson, 1984, Saks, 1995).

Self-efﬁcacy is deﬁned as "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute
the courses of action required to manage prospective situations" (Bandura, 1997a); an
individual's perception of their capability of attaining speciﬁc goals or task outcomes
(Kanfer, 1991). These beliefs inﬂuence how people think, feel, and act and have been
shown to contribute signiﬁcantly to human motivation and attainments (Bandura, 1997b).
It is similar in meaning to effort-performance expectancy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992) but
broader in scope (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). Self-efﬁcacy is distinct from self-
esteem in that it is concerned with judgments of personal capability, whereas self-esteem
is concerned with judgments of self worth. People need much more than self-esteem to
do well in given pursuits. Essentially, self-efﬁcacy is an important motivational construct
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992).

Self-efﬁcacy is a construct derived from social cognitive theory that proposes that
behavior, cognitions, and the environment all inﬂuence each other in a dynamic fashion

(Bandura, 1986). It can be likened to Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory in that

37

expectations of ones capability to perform a task depend on an individual's judgments of
how well they will be able to perform in given situations (Bandura, 1997a). Both self-
efﬁcacy and expectancy theories posit that expected performance outcomes depend
heavily on the type of behaviors an individual chooses to execute (Gist & Mitchell,
1992). People act on their beliefs about what they are capable of doing, as well as their
expectations about the likely effects of their actions (Bandura, 1989). In most social,
intellectual, and physical pursuits, those who judge themselves highly efﬁcacious will
expect favorable outcomes, whereas those who expect poor performance will conjure up
negative outcomes (Bandura, 1997a). Self-perceived in-efﬁcacy can therefore nullify the
motivating potential of alluring outcome expectations. Furthermore, where performance
determines outcomes, efﬁcacy beliefs account for most of the variance in expected
outcomes (Bandura, 1997a) and therefore, self—efﬁcacy is often a better predictor of
performance under variable conditions than past performance. Given that many
expatriates have limited experience of working abroad as proxies upon which to base
their future performance in a foreign context, self-efﬁcacy becomes particularly
important as a predictor. This is especially true given that approximately 80% of
expatriates complete assignments in countries in which they have not lived before (Black
& Gregersen, 1991).

A substantial body of research shows that self-efﬁcacy is related to task effort and
performance, resilience in the face of failure, and self control (Bandura, 1986; Gist &
Mitchell, 1992). All these variables are related to the increased possibility of the
attainment of valued outcomes and therefore satisfaction (Judge, Locke, & Durham,

1997). Furthermore, Bandura (1977) argued that self efficacy is theoretically one of the

38

most powerful individual variables that determine persistence in effort. Accordingly,
individuals with higher levels of self efﬁcacy will persist in exhibiting new behaviors that
are being learned, even when those efforts are unsuccessful, for longer than individuals
with less self-efficacy (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). Efficacy beliefs contribute
to motivation in several ways. First, they determine the goals peOple set for themselves.
Second, they establish how much effort people will expend. Third, they determine how
long people will persevere when faced with diﬂiculties. Fourth, they determine people's
resilience to failure (Bandura, 1989). Therefore, those with a strong belief in their
capabilities exert greater effort when they fail to master a challenge. In turn, strong
perseverance contributes to the attainment of goals (Bandura, 1997a). In the context of
stressful life transitions, as in the case of expatriates, self-efﬁcacy may serve as a
personal resource or vulnerability factor (Bandura, 1986).

Self-efﬁcacy beliefs, given their malleability (Gist & Mitchell, 1992) are both
constructors and products of experiences (Bandura, 1997b). Furthermore, people with
perceptions of greater self-efﬁcacy are more likely to have higher performance standards
and goals, have expectations of better performance, have more favorable job attitudes,
and show a greater willingness to exert effort in challenging tasks (Katzell & Thompson,
1990). In the domestic newcomer socialization literature, scholars have found that
newcomers with a secure sense of efﬁcacy learn more and perform better during the
period of socialization than their low-self efﬁcacy counterparts (Saks, 1994, 1995). It is
not surprising then that a perceived sense of in-efficacy has been found to be a major

contributor to occupational transition problems (Bandura, 1997b).

39

In the context of expatriates, the assignees that regard themselves as highly
efﬁcacious are likely to attribute their failures to insuﬂicient effort and will thereby be
driven to persevere. On the other hand, expatriates who regard themselves as in-
efﬁcacious are likely to attribute their failures abroad to low ability. These causal
attributions, in turn, affect motivation. This also implies that high self-efﬁcacious
expatriates are likely to be less dependent on external work conditions than those low in
self-eﬂicacy in the development of retrospective initiative. This is consistent with Speier
& Frese's (1997) assertion that high self-efficacy serves as a shield ﬁom the impact of
low control at work. Previous research has shown that low sense of coping efficacy
leaves people vulnerable to aversive experiences because they tend to regard social
feedback as evaluations of personal value, feel more personally responsible for failure,
tend to worry, and have weak task-speciﬁc competence expectancies (Scheier & Carver,
1982). Similarly, expatriates low in selﬁefﬁcacy are less likely to be motivated to adjust
and persevere in the face of new and unfamiliar environmental challenges.

While conceptual links between self-efﬁcacy and cross-cultural adjustment have
been proposed by scholars like Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou (1991), little empirical
research linking the two constructs has been forthcoming. Further, given Wood &
Bandura's (1989) and Bandura's (1986) conceptualization of self-efﬁcacy as a judgement
of perceived capability for performing a speciﬁc task, it appears that self—efﬁcacy would
relate to work and interaction adjustment as they both have task related components.
Parker & McEvoy (1993) conceptually include self-efﬁcacy as a construct in their model
of expatriate adjustment but they do not test the phenomenon in their subsequent study.

Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales' (1996) study does, however, represent one of the few

40

studies that has empirically demonstrated the link between self-efﬁcacy and Black's
(1988) three faceted approach to cross-cultural adjustment. As reﬂected in Table 1, their
25% response rate yielded a sample of 99 US. military personnel based in Germany.
Results of their study revealed that self-efficacy had a signiﬁcant positive correlation
with work adjustment (r = .29, p = <.Ol), and interaction adjustment (r = .29, p = <.01).
In light of the results of Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales' (1996) study, it appears that the
level of self-efficacy that expatriates bring, and later develop during the course of their
time abroad, contributes to the success of the cross-cultural adjustment process. It would
seem that the greater an expatriate’s belief that they are capable of adjusting cross-
culturally, the longer they are likely to be motivated to persist at attempting to make the
adjustment to living and working abroad. Moreover, within the stressﬁrl process of
adjustment to the host country, self-efficacy will function as a personal resource
protecting expatriates from negative emotions as well as a motivational force that
enhances persistence and mastery of the new situation. Based on this discussion and the

evidence presented above, the following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 1. Self-efﬁcacy will be positively associated with (a) work

adjustment, and (b) interaction adjustment, and (c) not general adjustment.

Learning Orientation
In a recent review article by Porter & Tansky (1999) they proposed the concept of
learning orientation as a valuable dimension for expatriate success. Although this variable

has previously not been tested in the expatriate adjustment literature, Porter & Tansky

41

(1999) argue that a high learning orientation is critical for the success of an expatriate
manager. Their proposition stems ﬁ'om the theory that different people are differentially
receptive to the process of learning and the struggles it entails. This notion appears to be
consistent with Bandura's (1986) distinctions between individuals who possess a task-
diagnostic focus, which relates to learning orientation, versus a self-diagnostic focus that
corresponds to concerns about performance judgement (Bandura, 1986). Their assertions
also derive from the results of a study they conducted using a sample of 102 college
students (Porter & Tansky, 1996). The results of their study showed that when faced
with a situation in which the outcome was unclear, some participants withdrew from
further attempts at the task. Others stayed on task, attempting a new approach based on
the information and feedback they had received. The results suggested that people do
beneﬁt differentially from experience and the extent to which they allow themselves to
learn ﬁ'om their experiences. Their ﬁndings further support the notion that tmderstanding
variations in learning orientation helps to explain why this differential beneﬁt occurs.
Others who support the premise that learning orientation is critical for effectiveness in the
workplace include VandeWalle (1997) and Vandewalle, & Cummings (1997). The
characteristic features of learning orientation that Porter & Tansky (1999) highlight
include a receptiveness to training, openness to feedback, and the potential for self-
management. They assert that expatriates with a high learning orientation would tend to
be attentive to information and feedback that may help them best adjust. When faced
with uncertain and difﬁcult cross-cultural situations, those oriented toward learning will
more likely stay in the situation, attempt to re-ﬁame the task, and consider alternatives

for future behavior than those low in this dimension. These assertions are consistent with

42

other research that has suggested that proactive feedback and information seeking has
been found to be critical for newcomer socialization (Morrison, 1993). Furthermore,
Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney (1997), in their study exploring international executive
potential, found that the learning-oriented dimensions of their instrument, including an
openness to criticism, seeking and using feedback, seeking opportunities to learn, being
cross-culturally adventurous, and ﬂexible, all predict international executive potential.
Clearly, expatriates who possess these characteristics are more likely to display the
adaptability and openness to learn from their experiences abroad, and use their newfound
capabilities to enhance the learning of their co-workers and organization as a whole.
Based on these arguments and the evidence presented above, the following hypothesis is

presented:

Hypothesis 2. Learning orientation will be positively associated with
each facet of adjustment: (a) work adjustment, (b) interaction adjustment,

and (c) general adjustment.

Work Variables in Cross-cultural Adjustment

An ongoing research quest in both the domestic and international adjustment
literature is how to structme the work of a newcomer such that they ﬁnd it more
rewarding and satisfying. Work variables, including role clarity, role discretion, and role
conﬂict, represent the second category of antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment

presented in Figure 1.

43

Hackman and Oldman's (1980) job characteristics theory posits that certain core
job characteristics determine the motivating potential of a given job. These include skill
variety, task identity, task signiﬁcance, autonomy, and feedback. Autonomy and
feedback are particularly relevant to expatriate adjustment in that they both serve to
reduce uncertainty. Following from this, the three job variables that have been shown to
lmve a signiﬁcant impact on job-related uncertainty include role clarity, role discretion,
and role conﬂict (Black, 1990; Black & Gregersen, 1991a). Job feedback enhances role
clarity and diminishes role conﬂict in that it provides the individual with direct and clear
information about their performance effectiveness (Hackman & Oldman, 1980).

Role clarity refers to the level of certainty surrounding role expectations. In the
context of expatriates, lack of clariﬁcation about the expatriate work role not only
increases uncertainty upon arrival in the new host organization, but also engenders
misunderstandings between the parent company and the ermatriate in later stages of the
assignment (Aycan, 1997). Past research has shown that role clarity reduces the amount
of work uncertainty, which, in turn, facilitates adjustment (Black, 1988; Black, 1990).
Black's (1990) study of expatriates assigned to the Paciﬁc Rim, demonstrated that role
clarity was a signiﬁcant predictor of expatriate adjustment. Gregersen & Stroh (1997), in
their study of Finnish repatriates, found role clarity and role discretion to be signiﬁcant
and positive correlates of cross-cultural work adjustment upon repatriation. In addition,
results of Black & Gregersen's (1991a) study of American expatriates in Japan, Korea,
Taiwan and Hong Kong showed signiﬁcant relationships between role clarity and work
adjustment (Beta = .20, p = < .01). Based on this evidence, the following is

hypothesized:

44

Hypothesis 3. Role clarity will be positively related to (a) work adjustment, and

(b) interaction adjustment, and (c) not general adjustment.

Role conﬂict, involves an incompatibility of role demands and conﬂicting
expectations at work (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). Fmthermore, the nature of these
conﬂicting expectations may involve time conﬂicts, and logical or ethical inconsistencies
(Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980) all of which are relevant to the expatriate experience.
Past cross-cultural adjustment research has demonstrated that role conﬂict inhibits
expatriate work adjustment (Black, 1990; Black & Gregersen, 1991a). As reﬂected in
Table 1, Black & Gregersen's (1991a) study showed signiﬁcant negative relationships
between work adjustment and role conﬂict (Beta = -.28, p = < .001). Also, given that
interaction adjustment involves both work and non-work interactions with host nationals,
it is expected tlmt role conﬂict will also negatively inﬂuence interaction adjustment at

work. Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 4. Role conﬂict will be negatively associated with (a) work

adjustment, and (b) interaction adjustment, and (c) not general adjustment.

Role discretion, the third variable in the second category of factors presented in
Figure 1, allows individuals to adjust to their work roles by altering the role to ﬁt them,
rather than adapting themselves to the situation. Nicholson (1984) in his research on
work role transitions in the context of domestic transfers, pointed out that role discretion

results in better adjustment as it allows the newcomer to adapt the work setting to them.

45

Similarly, cross-cultural adjustment theorists have suggested (Black, 1988) and empirical
research has found (Black & Gregersen, 1991a) that individuals in jobs with high role
discretion adjust better cross-culturally. When expatriates are faced with unfamiliar
situations abroad, their established routines break down as uncertainty increases.
Consequently, they attempt to reestablish a sense of control to reduce uncertainty through
behavioral control. Based on the empirical evidence supporting the relationship between
adjustment and role discretion (Black & Gregersen, 1991a), role discretion is likely to
reduce uncertainty through providing the expatriate with greater control over how the job
gets done. Role discretion also provides the expatriate with the ﬂexibility to determine
the way in which work is carried out and, in so doing, enhances the sense of control the
expatriate feels in the new work environment. As reﬂected in Table 1, Black & Gregersen
(1991a) study of 220 US. expatriates in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, revealed
that role discretion was signiﬁcantly related to work adjustment (Beta = .29, p = < .001).

Therefore, the following hypothesis is presented:

Hypothesis 5. Role discretion will be positively related to (a) work adjustment,

and (b) interaction adjustment, and (c) not general adjustment.

Non-work Variables in Cross-cultural Adjustment
The expatriate adjustment literature recognizes the importance of the cultural
characteristics of the host country to which the expatriate is assigned. Most cross-cultural

adjustment research has tended to support the view that the more culturally distant a host

46

culture is from the person's own, the more difﬁcult it is to adjust to that culture (Aryee,
Chay, & Chew, 1996; Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991, Parker & McEvoy, 1993).

Cultural similarity, the ﬁrst non-work factor in this study, is the inverse of
cultural novelty which is deﬁned as the cultural distance between the host culture and a
person’s own culture (Church, 1982). Many regard this as an important factor in
adjustment to cultural change (Berry, 1990; Torbiorn, 1982). Perceived cultural distance
or similarity involves the perceived differences or similarities between home and host
cultures. Aycan (1997) asserts that once expatriates arrive in the country of assignment,
"the ﬁrst thing they are likely to do is to examine the extent to which the new culture is
similar to their own culture" (p.22). Numerous similarities and differences may be
perceived by expatriates from the climate to the pace of life of the host country. Other
cultural differences or similarities may exist in the standards of living, accommodation,
food, and general health facilities. If the perceived differences between the home and host
country are large then uncertainty about how to behave in work and non-work settings is
likely to be intensiﬁed.

Mendenhall & Oddou's (1985) notion of "cultural toughness" and Church's (1982)
concept of "cultural distance" both seek to show that the greater the cultural differences
between the domestic and host countries, the more difﬁcult the assignment will be. This
in turn has implications for the potential willingness of expatriates to accept an
assignment to a culturally dissimilar location. In the domestic relocation literature, for
example, Noe & Barber (1993) found that willingness of employees to accept a relocation
was a function of the speciﬁc destination involved. Aryee, Chay, & Chew (1996)

conducted a similar study exploring the willingness of managerial employees to accept an

47

expatriate assignment based on the cultural similarity or dissimilarity between their home
country and the country of assignment. They reported that respondents were signiﬁcantly
more willing to accept an expatriate assignment in a culturally similar than culturally
dissimilar country. Other empirical studies have tended to support the view that cross-
cultural adjustment is more difﬁcult to achieve with greater cultural novelty (Black,
1990; Black & Stevens, 1989, Parker & McEvoy, 1993). The study by Goa & Gudykunst
(1990), exploring the role of uncertainty reduction in adaptation, revealed a signiﬁcant
and positive relationship between cultural similarity and cultural knowledge, which in
turn, reduced cultural uncertainty. More recently, Mendenhall (1996) has conceptualized
cultural novelty as the degree to which the norms and values of the host culture
signiﬁcantly differ ﬁom those of the expatriate's host culture. This concurs with the
Hofstede's (1980, 1991) views, and empirical demonstrations, that nations differ across a
number of cultural dimensions including power distance, individualism, collectivism,
masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. For example, some of the countries that differ
signiﬁcantly from the cultural values and norms of the US, according to Hofstede
(1991), include Japan, Korea, and Singapore. Australia, Camda, Great Britain,
Netherlands, and New Zealand, were amongst the nations that Hofstede (1991) identiﬁed
as having the most cultural similarities with the US. Clearly, the nationality of the
expatriate becomes salient when we consider vis-a-vis the culture of the host country.

Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis is presented:

Hypothesis 6. Cultural similarity will be positively associated with (a)

interaction adjustment, and (b) general adjustment, and (c) not work adjustment.

48

A second non-work factor that the proposed integrative model in Figure 1
suggests is important to international adjustment, is spouse-family adjustment. Spouse-
family adjustment is deﬁned as the perceived degree of psychological comfort and
familiarity an expatriate's spouse and/or family has with the new host culture. Previous
reviews of the cross-cultural adjustment literature lmve consistently highlighted the
existence of strong links between family adjustment and expatriate adjustment (Black,
Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Harvey 1985; Parker & McEvoy, 1993). Empirical
research has demonstrated that the expatriate family has a profound impact on the success
of an international assignment. Tung's (1981) seminal piece, for example, that explored
the reasons for expatriate premature termination, found that spouses' and expatriates'
inability to adjust to living in the host nation were the two most frequently sited reasons
for failed assignments. Hence, we have long known that the degree of spouse adjustment
in the host country is a major factor in the success of expatriate assignments. Harvey's
(1985) review, a few years later, highlighted that the problem that outweighs all other
reasons for the failure of expatriates to adjust, is family maladjustment. Research by
Tung (1987) provided further evidence to suggest that the number one reason for
expatriate failure was the spouse's inability to adjust. While the expatriate may have
professional contacts through host nationals at work that may ease their work adjustment,
the spouse, on the other hand, is often isolated (Brett, Stroh, & Reilly, 1992). The
spouse's inability to adjust, in turn, inhibits the expatriate's adjustment. This is
exempliﬁed through Black & Stephens' (1989) study that found spouse adjustment to be

highly correlated with expatriate adjustment. Black & Gregersen (1991a) also found a

49

signiﬁcant correlation between spouse adjustment and interaction adjustment (Beta = .29,
p = < .001), and spouse adjustment and general adjustment (Beta = .56, p = < .001).
Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer (1994), in their study of 190 expatriates across ﬁve
multinational corporations, found that a spouse's adjustment to an international relocation
was the strongest predictor of expatriates' adjustment. Stroh, Dennis, Cramer (1994),
however, measured cross-cultural adjustment as a unitary construct (general adjustment).
Nevertheless, the results of their regression analyses did reveal a strong association
between expatriate general adjustment and spouse adjustment (Beta = .40, p = < .01).
More recent studies conﬁrm these ﬁndings. For example, results of Fukuda & Chu's
(1994) study showed that family adjustment is the factor that contributes most to the
failure of expatriate assignments. The researchers assert that expatriates may have the
security and stability offered through the continuation of oﬂice routines and an ongoing
network of colleagues. However, the spouse and children are likely to experience less
stability and experience more sacriﬁces including the disruption of children's education,
and coping with cultural and social unfamiliarity. Spousal employment problems and
adjustment issues related to the new school environment for children, for example, are
potential sources of stress for the expatriate. On the other hand, well-adjusted families
provide a source of social support that serves as a buffer against stress, and thereby
enhances general adjustment. Moreover, Caligiuri, Hyland, Joshi, & Bross's (1998) study
demonstrated that family adjustment mediated the relationship between family
characteristics (support, adaptability, and communication) and the employment
adjustment of a sample of 110 expatriates. They emphasized the fact that a global

assignment, unlike a domestic position, involves the displacement of the entire family

50

and the adjustment of the family members accompanying the expatriate becomes a
critical factor in determining the overall adjustment of the expatriate. The message sent
through the results of these scholarly ﬁndings are mirrored in practitioner journals that
argue that companies are learning that expatriates will fail unless they address employees'
personal and family needs (Solomon, 1994; Swaak, 1995). Based on the evidence

presented above, the following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 7. There will be a positive relationship between spouse-family
adjustment and (a) interaction adjustment, and (b) general adjustment, and (c) not

work adjustment.

Organizational Socialization Variables in Cross-cultural Adjustment

Organizational socialization is the fourth major category of antecedents to cross-
cultural adjustment presented in Figure 1. It is deﬁned as the process whereby an
individual develops an appreciation for the values, expected behaviors, and social
knowledge that are essential for assuming an organizational role and for participating as
an organizational member (Chatman, 1991; Louis, 1980). It is concerned with the
learning content and process by which an individual adjusts to a speciﬁc role in an
organization (Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994). Van Maanen &
Schein (1979) deﬁne it as the process by which individuals learn what behaviors and
perspectives are customary and desirable within the work setting.

Socialization theory and research has found that individuals who seek to

maximize their reinforcement levels attempt to behave in ways deemed appropriate by

51

those with whom they interact. Those who execute the new roles most readily expose
themselves to the possibility of self-concept change in which they adopt attitudes to
support their new behaviors (Lee & Larwood, 1983). Effective socialization, according
to Bird & Mikuda (1989), requires the maintenance of open lines of communication,
consultative decision making, and both formal and informal mechanisms that encourage
after-hour socializing among employees.

Although current socialization research has tended to focus primarily on
newcomer adjustment, socialization theory would describe it as a ongoing, lifelong
process (Chao et. al., 1994), suggesting that ‘oldtimers’ such as expatriates may well
experience situations in ways similar to newcomers in organizations. However, the
international adjustment literature, has tended to neglect the role tlmt organization
socialization plays in expatriate adjustment (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). More
recently, the expatriate adjustment literature has dealt with adjustment through the
reduction of uncertainty (Gregersen & Stroh, 1997) and others have emphasized the need
for expatriates to make sense of their new cultural environments abroad (Mendenhall &
Macomber, 1997). This pursuit of uncertainty reduction and sensemaking is a common
theme in the domestic newcomer socialization literature (Weick, 1995). However, like
other newcomers, expatriates are also likely to experience what Louis (1980) refers to as
"disorientation, foreignness, and a kind of sensory overload," when they arrive in the new
host country (p.230).

Socialization of expatriate managers can be viewed as the process by which the
expatriates' values and norms become closely aligned with those of the host organization

abroad, while retaining a role and membership in the parent organization in the home

52

country. Since the expatriate is only on a temporary assignment in the host company
abroad, and the parent company is fundamentally responsible for the administration of
the process, the expatriate may be socialized in both the host and parent companies. In
other words, expatriates need to develop a dual understanding of the values, expected
behaviors, and social knowledge that are essential for assuming an organizational role
and for participating as an organizational member in both the parent organization and
host organization.

From a social learning perspective (Bandura, 1986), the socialization that occurs
in the host company abroad will facilitate cultural understanding, and subsequently,
facilitate adjustment. Bandura's (1977; 1997) social learning theory would suggest that
through the process of gradual behavior modeling and mentoring during the orientation to
the host company abroad, expatriates not only learn appropriate skills, but also come into
contact with host nationals, and develop a mutual understanding that promotes
adjustment abroad. In support of this, Aycan (1997), in his recent review of expatriate
management, points out the following: "The most important factors that inﬂuence the
expatriate acculturation process are: (1) expatriate attitudes and perceptions, and (2)
socialization and support in the local unit" (p.21).

The socialization literature makes clear distinctions between socialization tactics
(Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Jones, 1986), the stages of socialization (Feldman, 1976;
Louis, 1980), the content of socialization (Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner,
1994), and the eﬂects of socialization (Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Ashford, & Taylor, 1990;
Saks, 1995). Black, Mendenhall & Oddou (1991), in their review of the cross-cultural

adjustment literature, speciﬁcally suggested that the tactics and content of socialization

53

would be associated with expatriate adjustment. Empirical evidence demonstrating
support for these associations have not been forthcoming, however.

The most well-accepted of the ﬁameworks for understanding the tactics of
socialization was offered by Van Maanen & Schein (1979). They asserted that
socialization tactics help shape the kind of member the newly socialized individual will
be. Jones' (1986) study of socialization tactics and newcomers' adjustments to
organizations operationalizes Van Maanen & Schein's (1979) theory of socialization, to
demonstrate the relationship between socialization tactics and reduced newcomer anxiety.

A key component of organizational socialization tactics includes training. Hence,
this variable is important to consider when reviewing the role of socialization in
expatriate adjustment abroad. Cross—cultural training has long been recognized as a
mechanism for enhancing expatriate adjustment (Black & Mendenhall, 1990, Brewster &
Pickard, 1994, Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1982; Tung, 1987). Concomitant with this
recognition, however, is evidence to suggest that mny organizations do not provide
formal training for expatriation (Brewster & Pickard, 1994), or where offered, the
training is usually inadequate (Black & Gregersen, 1991a; Naumann, 1993). Black and
Mendenhall's (1990) review of cross-cultural training effectiveness, offers an extensive
discussion of expatriate training and contend that it reduces culture shock and enhances
adjustment, increases satisfaction, and improves individual performance. However, there
have been inconsistent ﬁndings in recent years pertaining to the relationship between
expatriate adjustment and training. As reported in Table 1, for example, results of Black
& Gregersen's (1991a) study of US. expatriates in the Paciﬁc Rim show that training was

only signiﬁcantly related to interaction adjustment and the relationship was negative.

54

They suggested that this surprising result was a product of inadequate quality of the
training. Further, Black & Gregersen's (1991c) study of US expatriates across four
European nations and four Paciﬁc Rim countries, also found a signiﬁcant but negative
relationship between training and interaction adjustment. Contrary to expectations,
training was not signiﬁcantly related to either work or general adjustment. As reﬂected
in Table 1, only 25% of the respondents in that study had received pre-departure training.
The training that was provided averaged less than four hours in total.

Another theme in the socialization literature that Black, et. al. (1991) suggested is
relevant to expatriate adjustment includes the content of socialization. Chao et. al., (1994)
identiﬁed and developed an instrument measuring six content areas of socialization.
These dimensions include history, language, politics, people, performance proﬁciency,
and organization goals and values. The people dimension, which captures the
involvement of the newcomers in informal networks, appears particularly relevant to
expatriates who need to build relationships with the right people who will teach them
about the host company and local community abroad. Consistent with this, Chatrnan
(1991), in her exploration of the effects of socialization in public accounting ﬁrms, found
that newcomers were more likely to have learned and internalized the key values of their
organization if they had attended social events with insiders. Following this, it is
expected that host company socialization activities, such as informal get-togethers
amongst expatriates and host nationals, will facilitate each facet of cross-cultural
adjustment. Based on the discussion and evidence above, the following hypotheses are

offered:

55

Hypothesis 8: There will be a positive relationship between parent company
socialization and all facets of cross-cultural adjustment: (a) work adjustment, (b)

interaction adjustment, and (c) general adjustment.

Hypothesis 9: There will be a positive relationship between host company
socialization and all facets of cross-cultural adjustment: (a) work adjustment, (b)

interaction adjustment, and (c) general adjustment.

Cross-cultural Adjustment and Expatriate Attitudes

While research measuring the causes of cross-cultural adjustment has been fairly
extensive, empirical work demonstrating the inﬂuence of cross-cultural adjustment on
work-related attitudes been negligible (N aumann, 1993; McEvoy & Parker, 1995; Van
Dyne & Ang, 2000). Given that worker attitudes are created through interaction with
other workers within the context of the work environment (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978),
expatriates are likely to develop attitudes based on the new and multifaceted work
environment in the host nation. Further, with the unique situation created by the foreign
location, not only does the interaction with foreign host nationals engender the
development of attitudes, but also the new job and organizational characteristics that
reﬂect elements of the host country's culture.

Job satisfaction, the ﬁrst adjustment outcome presented in Figure 1, may be
deﬁned as the positive emotional state resulting from the overall evaluation of one’s job
(Shaffer & Harrison, 1998). Non-work satisfaction, the second adjustment outcome

reﬂected in Figure 1, includes a positive emotional state toward non-work factors such as

56

living conditions, family relocation, and modiﬁcations in daily non-work activities
abroad. In a study on relocation attitudes and work adjustment, by Fisher & Shaw (1994)
in the domestic adjustment literature, they demonstrated that satisfaction was an outcome
of adjustment. As highlighted in Table 1, the results of the study by Gomez-Mejia &
Balkin (1987) demonstrated signiﬁcant correlates between expatriate satisfaction and the
impact of the assignment on the respondent's career. As summarized in Table l,
Naumann's (1993) study of 152 expatriates assigned to Asia, found that job
characteristics were signiﬁcant correlates of expatriate job satisfaction, and
organizational characteristics were signiﬁcant correlates of expatriate commitment.
While Naumann (1993) did not measure cross-cultural adjustment, his exploration of
expatriate attitudes and the determinants thereof are noteworthy. Shaffer & Harrison
(1998), in their study of 483 expatriates, demonstrated support for the link between work
adjustment (r = .34, p = < .001), interaction adjustment (r = .19, p = < .001), and job
satisfaction. Shaffer & Harrison, (1998) also demonstrated support for the relationship
between interaction adjustment (r = .33, p = < .001), general adjustment (r = .63, p = <
.001) and non-work satisfaction. Based on these ﬁndings, the following hypotheses are

presented:

Hypothesis 10. Individual job satisfaction will be positively associated with (a)

work adjustment, and (b) interaction adjustment, and (c) not general adjustment.

Hypothesis ll. Non-work satisfaction will be positively related to (a) interaction

adjustment, and (b) general adjustment, and (c) not work adjustment.

57

Organizational commitment, representing the ﬁnal block of the integrative
model of cross-cultural adjustment in Figure 1, can be deﬁned as the process of becoming
attached to an organization, and the state of organizational attachment itself (O'Reilly &
Chatman, 1986). Although a large body of research has examined the antecedents and
correlates of commitment in a single organization, relatively little is known about the
antecedents to expatriate commitment in an international context (Gregersen & Black,
1990)

As reﬂected in Table l, Shaffer & Harrison's (1998) study demonstrated support
for the link between expatriate commitment and job satisfaction, and commitment and
non-work satisfaction. However, they conceptualized commitment in terms of
continuance, normative, and affective commitment (Meyer, Allen, & Smith 1993).
Speciﬁcally, their study revealed that affective commitment was signiﬁcamly related to
job satisfaction (r = .34, p = < .001), and affective eonnnitment and non-work satisfaction
(r = .21, p = < .001). Based on all the evidence presented above, the following hypotheses

are offered:

Hypothesis 12. Organization commitment will be positively associated with job

satisfaction.

Hypothesis 13. Organization commitment will be positively associated with non-

work satisfaction.

58

As illustrated in Table 1, and exempliﬁed through the review of the cross-cultural
adjustment literature above, previous studies have tended to examine either the
antecedents (Black, 1990; Black & Gregersen, 1991a, 19%; Harrison et. aL, 1996) or the
outcomes (Shaffer & Harrison, 1998; Gregersen & Black, 1992) of cross-cultural
adjustment. As Aycan & Kanungo (1997) in their review of the expatriate literature
point out, although a number of efforts have been made to model expatriation (e.g. Black,
Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; McEvoy & Parker, 1995), they "have not paid sufficient
attention to the expatriate process mediators" (p.250). Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou's
(1991) model, for example, did not incorporate any outcomes of expatriate adjustment,
nor did it explore the mediating role of general adjustment on expatriate non-work
attitudes. A recent study of 110 expatriates by Caligiuri, Hyland, Joshi, & Bross (1999)
serves as an exception though. Their study explores the mediating effect of family
adjustment on expatriate adjustment and demonstrates that the relationship between
family characteristics and expatriate adjustment is mediated by family adjustment.
However, their study treated expatriate adjustment as unitary construct and they did not
test the mediating role of expatriate adjustment on work-related attitudes. Building upon
their work, and recognizing that family adjustment is likely to be associated with

expatriate non-work issues, the following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 14. The relationship between spouse-family adjustment and

expatriate non-work satisfaction will be mediated by: (a) interaction adjustment;

and (b) general adjustment, and (c) not work adjustment.

59

In addition to presenting the integrative model of cross-cultural adjustment that
will be tested in this study, Chapter 2 has offered a review of the cross-cultural
adjustment literature to support the development of this integrative model and its
associated hypotheses. Chapter 3, that follows, will describe the research methodology,
the characteristics of the study sample, the data collection procedure, and the

Operationalization of the study variables.

60

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research sample, the data collection procedure, the

measurement design, and the overall data analysis strategy utilized in this study.

Study Sample

The study’s sample comprised 1,084 randomly selected US. citizens registered
with the American Chamber of Commerce (ACC) in Japan, Korea, and the Netherlands.
These nations were selected for several reasons. First, they represent cultural
environments diverse from the US. (Hofstede, 1980) within which expatriates are
working. Second, the ACCs associated with each of these countries were able to identify
and extract US. citizens ﬁ'om their databases that other ACCs representing other nations
were unable to do. Third, all three of these nations represent regions of the globe where
increased U.S. multinational expansion is occurring. A total of 213 questionnaires were
returned; 196 questionnaires were usable, 17 were undeliverable, and 14 e-mail responses
indicated that the recipient was no longer an expatriate. This represented a response rate
of 21%. The response rate is consistent with numerous other studies on expatriate
adjustment (Black, 1990; Black & Gregersen, 1991a & 1991c; Black & Stevens, 1989;
Gregersen & Black, 1990; Harrison, Clmdwick, & Scales, 1996). The relatively short
international rotation for US. multinational and the age of the ACC directories used as a

sample We contribute to response rates that are low (by domestic U.S. standards). Of

61

those randomly selected to receive questionnaires, it was expected that not all recipients
would be expatriates, as ACC membership databases and directories are not always
current, and members do not identify themselves as expatriates when they register.

The subjects comprised 168 senior executive positions (86.6%) ﬁ'om multiple
industries. Of the remaining respondents who identiﬁed their position, 2 (1%) were
consultants, 8 (4.1%) were specialists, and 3 (1.5%) were middle managers. Of the
respondents who identiﬁed their gender, 180 (91 .8%) were males. The average age of
respondents was 44.7 (SD. 8.7) years, and the reported average tenure with the parent
organization was 12.6 (SD. 10.2) years. Of the respondents who reported their marital
status, 170 (86.7%) were nmrried, and 156 (79.6%) of these respondents had their
spouses accompanying them on their assignment abroad. Of the respondents who
reported their number of children, 139 (75%) had one or more children, and 87 (64%) of
these respondents had their children accompanying them on their assignment abroad. As
reﬂected in Table 1, these sample characteristics are fairly consistent with past research.

Of the respondents who reported the number of previous assignments they had
been on including this one, 114 (57%) had previous work experience abroad. For 71
(36.2%) of the respondents, the current assignment was a promotion. The average time
away from the home country for respondents was 4.3 years. Of those who reported their
country of assignment, 117 (59.7%) were assigned to Japan, 48 (24.5%) were assigned to
Korea, and 29 (14.8%) were assigned to the Netherlands. The education completed was
reported as follows: high school, 6 (3.1%); one to two years of college, 2 (l %); four year
college degree, 62 (31.6%); masters degree, 91 (46.4%); and Ph.D., 13 (6.6%). Of those

respondents who reported their ethnic background, 164 (83.7%) were white (non-

62

Hispanic origin), 19 (9.7%) were Asian American, 2 (1%) were African American, 2
(1%) were Hispanic, and 6 (3.1%) reported "Other".

Amongst the subjects who answered the question: "if you had to do it over again,
would you take this assignment? " 170 (86.7%) reported "yes" they would, 16 (8.2%)
reported "no" and 3 (1.5%) reported they were "uncertain" or "both. " Of the respondents
who provided reasons for taking the assignment, 19 (10.1%) reported they would do it
over because of "the learning experience," and 12 (6%) because they found the lifestyle
abroad "gratifying," "fulﬁlling," and "rewarding." Of the respondents who provided
reasons for not taking the assignment again, "loss of contact" 1 (5%), and "lack of
recognition" 1 (.5%) were some of the reasons reported.

Of the respondents who reported how much cross-cultural training they received
prior to their assignment abroad, 129 (65.8%) reported they had received no training
whatsoever, with 41 (18%) reporting they had received a week or less of training. Six
(3%) reported they had received more than 2 weeks of training. Twenty respondents
(10.2%) did not respond to this question.

Additionally, participants were asked: "Knowing what you know now, what
would you do differently in preparing for this assignment?" In response to this question,
12 (6%) reported they would have wanted "cross-cultural training," 46 (21.3%) reported
they would have learned the "language" or had some form of "language preparation."
Examples of other responses included "improved beneﬁts," "better housing," "home
leave, " "family education," and "I should have got married."

Furthermore, participants were also asked: "Knowing what you know now, what

would you do differently in adjusting to the country of assignment?" In response to this

63

question, 26 (18%) reported they would have learned the language or had some form of
language training. Examples of other responses included: "adjust to hours of work,"
"obtain better housing," "socialize more with local nationals," "travel more," and "I
should have bought a motorcycle."

Demographic composition of the respondents of any study is valuable in assessing
the generalizability of the results to other populations. In the case of expatriate managers,
the question becomes whether or not the ﬁndings of this study could generalize to other
population groups experiencing cross-cultural adjustment such as immigrants, military
personnel, or missiomries on assignment abroad. Given that the respondents in this
study are predominantly married (79.6%), male (91.8%), and senior executives (86.6%),
caution should be exercised when generalizing these results to all individuals
experiencing cross-cultural adjustment while living or working in a foreign or host

mtion.

Data Collection Procedure

The data collection eﬁ‘ort involved the administration of structru‘ed survey
questionnaires to a random sample of US. citizens registered with the American
Chamber of Commerce (ACC) in Japan, Korea, and the Netherlands. As much of US.
management theory may be culturally bound (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991), the sample
frame was restricted to US. expatriates on foreign assignments in US. multinational
corporations. The use of only US. expatriates as a sample served to eliminate the

challenge of culturally bound measurement scales. One hundred and eighty four subjects

were randomly selected from the Netherlands, four hundred and ﬁfty ﬁ'om Korea, and
four hundred and ﬁfty from Japan.

Following the guidelines presented by Dillman (1978), questionnaires together
with a cover letter detailing the purpose of the research and the beneﬁts of participating,
were mailed internationally to ACC members on assignment abroad. Participating ACC
members were assured of the complete conﬁdentiality of their survey responses and were
informed that the aggregated results of the study would be available through the
American Chamber of Commerce Executives that endorsed the research. Respondents
were asked to return the questionnaires in pre—paid postage envelopes that accompanied
the mailings. No follow-up surveys were mailed due to the costs associated with

international mailings.

Measurement Design and Operationalization of Variables

Cross-cultural adjustment was operationalized using 14 items developed by
Black (1988). Of the fourteen items, seven items measure general adjustment, four
measure interaction adjustment, and three items measure work adjustment. Respondents
were asked to report the degree of adjustment they felt toward general living conditions
such as housing, food, and cost-of living (general adjustment). Respondents were also
asked questions regarding interacting and speaking with host nationals (interaction
adjustment), and the degree of adjustment they felt toward speciﬁc job responsibilities
and performance standards at work (work adjustment). The scales were anchored with

l = "very unadjusted" and 7 = " very adjusted."

65

Responses on Black's fourteen-item scale were factor analyzed using principle
components extraction and varimax rotation to test the robustness of Black's assertion
that cross-cultural adjustment consists of three conceptually distinct facets (Black, 1988).
Table 2 shows the results of the principle components analysis of the items used in the
cross-cultural adjustment scales. The analysis yielded three scales with eigenvalues
greater than one. These three factors accounted for 64.9% of the variance in the fourteen-
item set. The ﬁrst factor focused on general adjustment and consisted of seven items that
produced a Cronbach's alpha of .80, generally considered acceptable. The second factor
focused on interaction adjustment and yielded a Cronbach alpha of .86. Finally, the third
factor focused on work adjustment, producing a Cronbach alpha of .90. The factor
analysis presented no other factors with eigenvalues of one or greater and therefore
provided support for Black's (1988) three-facet solution.

Individual variables were measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging ﬁom
"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Self-efﬁcacy was operationalized using items
adapted from the self-efﬁcacy scale developed Jones (1986). Respondents were asked to
report the extent to which agreed or disagreed with the following items: " My new
assignment is well within the scope of my abilities," " I do not anticipate any problems in
adjusting to work in the local company," "I feel I am overqualiﬁed for the job I am
doing," "I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my new assignment," "I
feel conﬁdent that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my future colleagues,"
"My past experiences and accomplishments increase my conﬁdence that I will be able to
perform successfully in this organization," "I could have handled a more challenging job

than the one I am doing in the local company," "Professionally speaking, my new

assignment exactly satisﬁes my expectations of myself." This eight-item self efﬁcacy

scale produced a Cronbach alpha of .77 in the reliability analysis of this scale.

Table 2. Factor Analysis of Adjustment Items.

 

 

Adjustment Item General Interaction Work
Living conditions in general .81

Housing conditions .81

Entertainment facilities .66

Cost of living .63

Food .62

Shopping .61

Health-care facilities .40

Socializing with host nationals .86

Interacting with host nationals outside of work .85

Interacting with host nationals in general .83

Speaking with host nationals .71

Speciﬁc job responsibilities .83
Performance standards and expectations .91
Supervisory responsibilities .90
Eigenvalues 3.27 3.21 2.60
Variance explained 23.3% 23.0% 19.0%

 

Note: Only factor loadings greater than .30 are reported.

Learning orientation was measured using items adapted from Porter &Tansky's
(1999) four-item learning orientation scale. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent
to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: " I enjoy challenging
and difficult tasks at work where I'll learn new skills," "I am willing to select a
challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from," "I seek out situations that
might allow me to increase my knowledge or skills," "The opportunity to increase my
present abilities is reason enough to pursue a goal." This four-item measure yielded a

reliability coefﬁcient of .75.

67

Job variables including role clarity, role conﬂict, and role discretion were
measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly

"

agree. Speciﬁcally, role clarity and role conflict was measured using items from
Rizzo, House & Lirtzman’s (1970) scale. To measure factors speciﬁc to the expatriate's
role abroad, respondents were asked to report the extent to which they agreed or disagree
with the following: "I have enough time to complete my work," "I feel certain about how
much authority I have," "I have to do things that should be done differently, " "There is a
lack of policies and guidelines to help me," " I am able to act the same regardless of the
group I am with," "I work under incompatible policies and guidelines," "1 know that I
have divided my time properly," "I receive an assignment without the proper resources to
complete it," "I know what my responsibilities are," "I have to buck a rule or policy in
order to carry out an assignment," "I have to feel my way in performing my duties," " I
feel certain how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion," "1 have just the right
amount of work to do," " I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently,"
"I know exactly what is expected of me," " I receive incompatible requests ﬁ'om two or
more people," "I am uncertain as to how my job is linked to the parent company," "I
have to work under vague directives or orders," "I perform work that suits my values."
Coeﬂicient alpha reliabilities for these scales were .71 for role clarity, and .75 for role
conﬂict.

Role discretion was measured using Black's (1988) scale plus some new items
including: "1 have discretion for deciding what work to do each day, " "I can decide how

tasks should be accomplish ," "I have discretion for deciding who should work on

which tasks," "I have the same amount of discretion to execute my role as I did back at

68

the parent company," "I am free to emphasize certain aspects of the job and to ignore or
delegate others." The reliability analysis performed on this scale produced an acceptable
alpha coefﬁcient of .64.

Non-work variables including spouse-family adjustment was operationalized
using Shaffer & Harrison’s (1998) 3-item measure. Utilizing a 7-point Likert scale
ranging ﬁom "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree," respondents who had a spouse
and/or dependents on assignment with them were asked to indicate the degree to which
they perceived their spouse and/or family member(s) to: " Feel like they belong in the
assigned country," " Feel comfortable in the assigned country," and "Feel at home in the
assigned country." This measure of spouse-family adjustment produced a Cronbach
alpha of .92.

Cultural similarity (the inverse of cultural novelty) was measured using a scale
developed by Black & Stevens (1989). The scale comprised eight items that yielded a
reliability coefﬁcient of .75. Respondents were asked to compare their home country and
the country of assignment using a scale ranging from 1= "very different" to 7 = "very
similar." Items of comparison included: "Everyday customs," "General living
conditions," "Health-care facilities," "Transportation systems," "General living costs,"
"Available quality and types of foods," "Climate," and "General housing conditions."

Organizational socialization was operationalized using items adapted ﬁ'om
Jones' (1986), and Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner's (1994) socialization
scales. Jones' (1986) items focus primarily on the measurement of socialization tactics
employed. Chao et. al.'s (1994) items emphasize the content of socialization. Table 3

presents the results of the principle components analysis of all the socialization items

69

used in this study. The analysis yielded two factors with eigenvalues greater than one.
The ﬁrst factor consisted of ﬁve items with factor loadings greater than .30. This factor
focused on expatriate socialization at the parent company, prior to the expatriate's
assignment abroad. Collectively, these items produced a Cronbach alpha of .68. The
second factor focused on socialization at the host company and yielded a Cronbach's
alpha of .81. Eigenvalues greater than one are reﬂected and suggest that the item-sets do
measure separate constructs. Accordingly, the ﬁve items composing the ﬁrst factor were
combined to create a parent company socialization scale, while the last eight items were
combined to form a host company socialization scale.

Expatriate attitudes were operationalized using job satisfaction, non-work
satisfaction, and commitment measures. Job satisfaction was operationalized using
Hackman & Oldman’s (1975) ﬁve- item scale. Utilizing a 7-point Likert scale, ranging
from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree," respondents were asked to indicate the
extent to which they felt satisﬁed in their jobs. Items included: "Generally speaking, I
am very satisﬁed with this job," "I ﬁequently think of quitting this job," " I am generally
satisﬁed with the kind of work I do in this job," "Most people on this job are very
satisﬁed with the job," "People on this job often think of quitting." This ﬁve-item

measure of job satisfaction produced a Cronbach alpha of .85.

70

Table 3. Factor Analysis of Socialization Items.

 

Socialization Item Factor 1

Factor 2

 

I have been through a set of training experiences

designed to offer the knowledge of skills required

to operate effectively abroad. .76
The parent company puts all expatriates through

the same set of learning experiences. .72
Prior to my departure abroad, I was involved

with other expatriates in training activities. .65
Other expatriates have been instrumental helping

me to understand the assignment requirements. .62
There is a sense of "being in the same boat"

amongst expatriates in this organization. .45
I have been made to feel that my skills and abilities

are very important in the local company.

Almost all my colleagues in the host company have

been supportive of me personally.

I am usually excluded in social get-togethers given by other
people in the host company. (R)

I believe most of my colleagues in the host company like me.

I do not consider any of my colleagues in the host company
my friends. (R)

My colleagues have gone out of their way to help me

adjust to this host company.

I am usually excluded in informal networks or gathering

of people within this host company. (R)

I have had to change my attitudes and values to be

accepted in this host company. (R)

Eigenvalues 3.55
Variance explained 25.3%

.71

.70

.70
.68

.66

.61

.52

2.26
16.2%

 

Note: Only factor loadings greater than .30 are reported.

Non-work satisfaction was measured using items developed by Shaffer &

Harrison ( 1998), based off Guzzo, Noonan, and Elron's (1994) support practices. Utiling

a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "very dissatisﬁed" to "very satisﬁed," respondents

were asked to indicate the extent to which they felt satisﬁed with conditions in the host

71

’1

country with respect to: "Housing," "Home leave, "Personal security," "Heatth-care,"
"Orientation to the community," and "Child-care providers." This six-item measure
yielded an acceptable reliability coefﬁcient of .66.

Organization commitment was operationalized using scales developed and
tested by Gregersen & Black (1990), and Gregersen (1992). To measure commitment,
respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with the
following items: " I feel very little loyalty to my parent company," "I am proud to tell
others that I am part of the parent company," "I talk up my parent company as a great
ﬁrm to work in," "I am proud to tell others that I am part of my host company," "I talk up
this host company to my friends as a great place to work in," "I feel very little loyalty to
my host company." This scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .86.

Demographic and control variables were assessed using speciﬁc survey items
pertaining to the country of assignment, job title, tenure in the parent company (the
month and year the subject started working for the parent company minus the current
date), number of previous assignments ("How many international assignments have you
been on including this one?"), total time on present assignment ("How long have you
been away from your home country on this assignment?"), whether the assignment was a
promotion, cross-cultural training received ("How much cross-cultural training did you
receive prior to this assignment?"), gender (1 = Male, 0 = Female), age (using an open-
ended response format), nnrital status (0= Not married and 1= Married), number of
children (0 = No children, 1 = One or more children), education level (1 = graduate; 0 =

non-graduate; ethnic background (0 = African American, 0 = American Indian, O = Asian

72

American, 0 = Hispanic, 1 = White, 0 = Other). The items pertaining to the measurement

scales used in this study are presented in Appendix A.

Data Analysis Strategy

The ﬁrst step in analyzing the data consisted of performing factor analyses to
check that survey items only loaded on the constructs they were intended to measure, to
provide evidence of construct validity for each scale. The factor analyses utilized the
principle components extraction method and varimax rotation to test the robustness of the
survey measures.

The second step involved the computation and analysis of descriptive statistics,
and internal consistency estimates of reliability. Cronbach alpha reliabilities for all the
variables were computed to determine the reliability of each measure. Correlation
analysis was used to determine the zero-order relationships between all the study
variables.

The third step in analyzing the data was to investigate further the relative strength
of the relationships between the antecedents and each facet of cross-cultural adjustment.
Accordingly, as a global test of the effect of individual, work, non-work variables, and
organizational socialization on cross-cultural adjustment, multiple regression analyses
were performed.

In addition, regression analyses were employed as a test of the mediating effect of
cross-cultural adjustment on expatriate attitudes Baron and Kenny (1986) present a
three-step procedure of regression equations that need to be tested sequentially to

ascertain whether a mediation effect is present. In the ﬁrst step of their procedure, the

73

mediator is regressed on the independent variable. The regression beta weights for the
independent variable must be statistically signiﬁcant for support to be found for the ﬁrst
step of the procedure. The second step they propose involves regressing the dependent
variable on the independent variable. Again, for support to be found, the independent
variable must have a statistically signiﬁcant beta weight. The third step of the procedure
involves regressing the dependent variable on the mediator and the independent variable.
For support to be found, the mediator must be statistically signiﬁcant but the independent
variable should be reduced to insigniﬁcance, thereby supporting the mediation
hypothesis.

Multiple regression analysis was chosen as the analytic technique for testing the
hypotheses for several reasons. First, multiple regression analysis would control for
certain demographic variables that may relate to the adjustment or attitudinal measures
used. For example, previous experience abroad and tenure may be related to each facet
of cross-cultural adjustment and hence the effects of these demographic variables would
need to be controlled for. Additionally, as adjustment occurs over time (Adler, 1986), it
would seem important to control for length of time away from the home country.
Second, given that common method variance is usually manifested as multi-collinearity
among variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983), where for example commitment and
adjustment may be highly interrelated, multiple regression analysis would help control
for the effects of this. Additionally, as some of the hypotheses emphasize the degree to
which certain groups of variables (e.g. work and non-work) separately explain signiﬁcant

amounts of variance in cross-cultural adjustment, block regression techniques were used

74

to provide a statistical test of the incremental variance explained. This information is

tabled, with all the relevant statistical outcomes reﬂected, in Chapter 4 that follows.

75

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter describes the overall results of this study, detailing the inter-
correlations amongst all the study variables, the scale reliabilities, and the results of all

the multiple regression analyses.

Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all the independent and
dependent variables used in this study are presented in Table 4. Alpha reliabilities for the
scale variables are shown in parentheses along the diagonal. As Table 4 reﬂects, ﬁve of
the seven hypothesized antecedents of work adjustment were signiﬁcantly and positively
related. Speciﬁcally, self efﬁcacy (r = .32, p = <.Ol), learning orientation (r = .24, p =
<.Ol), role clarity (r = .49, p = <.Ol), role discretion (r = .46, p = <.Ol), and host
company socialization (r = .37, p = <.01) were related and thereby provide support for
Hypotheses la, 2a, 3a, 5a, and 9a Of the nine hypothesized antecedents of interaction
adjustment, six were signiﬁcame and positively related. In particular, self efﬁcacy (r =
.16, p = <.05), learning orientation (r = .20, p = <.Ol), role clarity (r = .25, p = <.Ol), role
discretion (r = .18, p = <.05), spouse-family adjustment (r = .37, p = <.Ol), and host
company socialization (r = .32, p = <.01) were associated in the predicted direction.
These results therefore provide support for Hypotheses 1b, 2b, 3b, 5b, 7a, and 9b.

Further, four of the ﬁve hypothesized antecedents of general adjustment were signiﬁcant

76

and in the predicted direction, providing support for Hypotheses 2c, 6b, 7b, and 8c.
Speciﬁcally, learning orientation (r = .16, p = <.05), cultural similarity (r = .25, p =
<.Ol), spouse-family adjustment (r = .37, p = <.Ol), and local company socialization (r =
.26, p = <.01) were positively related to general adjustment, as predicted. Moreover, the
correlations between self-efficacy and cross-cultural adjustment conﬁrm past research
that utilized correlational analyses as the primary data analytic tool (Harrison, Chadwick,
and Scales, 1996). Speciﬁcally, the correlation analysis revealed signiﬁcant and positive
relationships between self eﬂicacy and work adjustment (r = .32, p = .01), and interaction
adjustment (r = .16, p = .05), as hypothesized.

Two of the two hypothesized correlates of work satisfaction, were signiﬁcantly
related and in the predicted direction. Speciﬁcally, work adjustment (r = .41, p = <.Ol),
and interaction adjustment (r = .29, p = <.Ol) were related to work satisfaction thereby
supporting Hypotheses 9a and 9b. In addition, both of the hypothesized antecedents of
non-work satisfaction were signiﬁcantly related. In particular, interaction adjustment (r =
.23, p = <.Ol), and general adjustment (r = .50, p = <.Ol) were associated with non-work
satisfaction, providing support for Hypotheses 11a and 11b. Of the two hypothesized
correlates of commitment, job satisfaction (r = .49, p = <.001) was signiﬁcantly related,
providing support for Hypothesis 12. Non-work satisfaction was not signiﬁcantly
associated with commitment. Thus, Hypothesis 13 did not receive support.

Overall, the correlation analysis of the relationships between the constructs in this
study, provide some preliminary support for the relationships between the variables in the

proposed integrative model of cross-cultural adjustment presented in Figure l.

77

Guzmﬁokgv 50. V RI... .5. v R 1. 69 V R...

o2 HZ .682

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.- ..m 2.- 440m. 2. mo. 3.- 42 he. 86 25:55:50 .cm
me. No. new 2. 22. 81 g. 8.2 a . . -
no. :3. we: 42. do: No- ...2. a. new 44 4%
ad. 8.. 42: dc. $0.. a. no. mo; 36 4 14 .n 4 .9550 SN
2.- 02.. 44 .- we. .2. 8. no: NM; awn 43:54.:ng
2.- 42.- no. 2. 2. 5.- 8. 2.2 oddl Hanan—ave Jada ﬂu
mo. 2.- co. 24 no. 8. mo: 3. Nm.m .4 .. . a 1354 .VN
in»: Ho. 5. 2. no. 2. wd... NNA No.m .4 .. . sunﬁsh .MN
8. 0d.- eor *2. we. *2. - mm; ww4m inﬂuenaenm .NN
vor 8.. 2o. 3.- mo. 42.- mo - no.2 an Eta—«Egan:
2.- 42.- 5.- 3. no. ed.- d1 4m. 3w .4 add—3— an
no. 2o. .- cor 24 vdt ﬁv- VNN uni—«:90 0—0 .2
2.- E.- No: 42. 2. we: no. mm. @024 Zia—U £3 .2
3.- vo. mos we. 5. 2.- co.- mo. mNo .. . ..O uni-:5 .2
SEN.- mor mo. 4 *2. 4nd.- wo: on. NN.m Bang—=0; .3
2. 2.- Na. 8. 2. :NN. 2. mm. mm. Zmomuam 2
mo.- 8. *2.- m - 42.- No: we. WV. co. .4 a..- .3
8.- 4mm: .3..er a - A2.- oo.- 3.- wd. we. 4 . 4 no :EEEL .2
mo: oo. 2 now Ho: 8. no. ow. 3. 521:5»: hoe-=5 .2
we. no. 2 .84- 44mm- 5.- mo. mN. me. 4 . 4 He 3:25 .2
mo. wor 44cm. NO. NO. 2. no. v hm. nan .
vor 2. saw. INN. 42. 8.- 42. mod 223 SE .a
a. mo: *2. OH. 8.- 3. nor 0N. mm. ae—EcU .w
- 2 - 2. 2.- 42.- 44mm. nor 3. MN. wEEEH .4 4. -96qu .Nl
- 5.- vor 240. nor 00. Law- mm. .4 h a 4 . 4 .e
-- 2 mo. cor mo. No.02 @042 955,—.
- 444mm. 8. No. 264 no.4 23:4 25H .
-- No. 00.. mad Gd 4 . 4 £5395 .

-- co.- imw. co. 4 . 4 .«e tau—EU .N

-- vm. hm. 03H :2. .—

b e m v m N u dd :32 033:9

 

 

 

 

.83-i!» he meets—230 use £33525 1.36.35 £532 3. 035—.

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gouda-03: Sc. V A~44... .3. V R 44 KG. V R4 02 "2 $32
44mN. cor E... 2.4- NO. 24- 42. 446N- md. Hana—ﬂag-
:4 .3. ad. 8. a. a. a- 8. a. gags-i
442. 2. No: we. mo: 2.- we. mc. nc. acﬂeaunmaam can. .QN
at cm. 42. a a- 84- met do: 34 nag—nag:
40% war ”a 024 42.- at not 2: 2: 333
442... No. Not not No. 24- 42. 2. 8. egg
44cm. No. met 2.- 442- cm: 5. no. No: 3%
24- be... ad. Iv.- 84- 20.- mo.- vor 20: gag-magi
I . Sr 2. 2 . 2 2. 4a. 424.. nor no. 53%
we. 2. No.- we. th cor 2o: Mo. No- gas—al.“-
4 4am. 4- No.- 2 .- do- dﬁ- he. 2. 49 gala—unla-
%- Nor ed4- 2 24 do. no. Ne. car mar «43%
44%: war N1- 8.- war 24- 2. 42. NO. 3%
44ON. 02. a co. Nor Nor cor 2: .8.- gauge:
nhhq mo: 2 .- 8. do. 42: 2. 44NN. 4- g
- 2: var Jb. not won oo. 43. ﬁg
- No. No. 3. no.- no. not and;
- 4N2. 2. 4VNt 44wc- 2o... gag-51%
- vo- mm. 44mm. 4 2m. 3:333
- 4%. co.- 44Hm. gig—Hamlin
r. - 445m. dame-mag:
- 4:. one a
l gnaw-lid...
Jﬁgaaﬂuﬁ
saga—Ha
Hal-«n!
Maﬁa 25H m
3%
gal-4N1
GER-€114-
dﬁ nu vu 2 Nu 2 A: a a g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.5253 4 as:

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gases: :5. vat... .514 4... .3. ve- ea uz .sez

4mm. do. mo. no. 44cm. no: 443. 42. «gage-U45”:

44mm. no. 4mm. 44mm. 44cm. 8: 44mm. 42. gum-2:

.321 use 2 443 E- 443 45 15%

440N. no. 44mm. 44mm. 442. vor 44¢N. 462. 254.33
44Nm. mo... 445m. mo. 4M2. No. eemN. 44¢N. « . .

44mm. 006 2. 42. 443... no: 44cm. 44¢N. 233an

and 4VN. 440” N2. 443*. .4th 442m. 452. 2%

$0.» 402. *0- not 8. mo. MOE gaging:

Ga.» 44wN. 42. nor 44NN. no. 2%

Sn.» 42. mo: 42. Sr 2233

:40; nor 44mm. 44mm. 2%

and VOF 4N2.- «um—Hail

25¢ 424 222

Ann; diam-drug

gal

3.2.ﬂﬂunﬂ “—

nan—.321

2%

23322—3:

Egg-Egg

22¢:

Jj

Jada-Ulla!

2%

Jugs-Eugen:

maﬁa-Hid!

Jada

24%

2222..

«EH Ada n

VN MN 2N QM nu Nu 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dress 4 9:5

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@35589vftévu $.33... 372.632
Ga; 8. 4.5%. Na. 44~N. 44cm. #3
Go; 44MN. 44cm. 44mN. 44hN. 13%
Ana; 44mm. 44mm. 44:. gum:

83 44%.. 44am. wag—nag

Gw¢ 44%. «32%

am; “Hagan—“4%:

g3

«adage—glad:

3%

Egg

3mg]

3,

4%,

ﬁg

nail-dd!

ﬂag:

uj

MOEHUmw .w

JEN—5.55%

£33

3

manna—3

Hagan—i

«EH Add —

an nu ﬂNI wN «and;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A9258 v 035—.

81

Results of Regression Analyses

The Inﬂuence of Independent Variables on the Three Facets of Adjustment

Multiple regression was used to further explore and analyze the hypothesized
relationships between the antecedents and each facet of adjustment (work, interaction,
general). Three separate multiple regressions were conducted in which each of the three
adjustment facets were treated as the independent variable.

First, the relationship between the antecedent variables and work adjustment were
examined to test Hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6c, 7c, 8a, and 9a. Table 5 indicates that
the antecedents of work adjustment together explained a statistically signiﬁcant portion
of the variance (Adjusted R square = .33). Two of the seven hypothesized relationships
were statistically signiﬁcant and in the predicted direction. Speciﬁcally, role clarity (Beta
= .25), and role discretion (Beta = .23) were positively and signiﬁcantly related to work
adjustment. These results provide support for Hypothesis 3a that suggested role clarity
would be positively related to work adjustment, and Hypothesis 5a that predicted a
positive relationship between role discretion and work adjustment. No support was found
for the relationship between work adjustment and self-efﬁcacy, or work adjustment and
learning orientation.

Second, the relationship between the antecedent variables and interaction
adjustment was explored to test Hypotheses lb, 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, 6a, 7a, 8b, and 9b. Table
6 indicates that the antecedents of interaction adjustment together accounted for a
signiﬁcant portion of the variance (Adjusted R square = .33). Two of the hypothesized

relationships were signiﬁcant. Speciﬁcally, spouse-family adjustment (Beta = .38), and

82

socialization at the host company (Beta = .38) were signiﬁcantly related to interaction
adjustment. These results provide strong support for Hypothesis 7a that suggested
spouse-family adjustment will be positively related to interaction adjustment, and
Hypothesis 9b that predicted host company socialization will be positively associated to
interaction adjustment. In this analysis, no support was found for the predicted
relationship between interaction adjustment and parent company socialization.

Third, the relationship between the antecedent variables and general adjustment
were examined to test Hypotheses 1c, 20, 30, 4c, 5c, 6b, 7b, 8c, and 9c. Table 7 indicates
that the antecedents of general adjustment together accounted for a signiﬁcant portion of
the variance (Adjusted R square = .24). Three of the ﬁve hypothesized relationships were
signiﬁcant and in the predicted direction. In particular, spouse-family adjustment (Beta =
.34), cultural similarity (Beta = .25), and host company socialization (Beta = .25) were
signiﬁcantly related to general adjustment. The results of this analysis therefore provides
strong support for Hypothesis 7b that suggested spouse-family adjustment will be
positively related to general adjustment, and Hypothesis 6b that predicted a positive
relationship between cultural similarity and general adjustment. Hypothesis 9c, that
predicted a positive association between host company socialization and general
adjustment, was also supported. In this analysis, no support was found for the predicted
relationship between general adjustment and learning orientation, or general adjustment

and parent company socialization.

83

Table 5. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Work Adjustment.

 

 

Block ﬂ 1 R 1 A R’
Control Variables
Job title .04 .51
Country of assignment .09 1.14
Previous assignments -.02 -. 18
Time away .16 1.94
Tenure .12 1.38
Assignment a promotion -. 13 -1.72
Cross-cultural training -.06 -.65
Age -.03 -.38
Marital status .05 .58
.1 1
Individual Variables
Self Efﬁcacy .02 .25
Learning Orientation .13 1.50
.08“
Work Variables
Role Clarity .25 2.45"
Role Conﬂict .14 1.76
Role Discretion .23 2.32“
.2 1 t t *
Non-work Variables
Cultural Similarity .09 1.17
Spouse-family Adjustment -.02 -.26
.01
Organization Variables
Parent Company Socialization -.07 -.85
Host Company Socialization .13 1.43
.01
Overall R 2 .42
Overall Adjusted R2 .33
Overall F 4.64***

 

*p < .05, ** p < .01, *" p < .001 (two-tailed)

Table 6. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Interaction Adjustment.

 

 

Block ﬂ t R ’ A R“
Control Variables
Job title -.01 -.06
Country of assignment .03 .43
Previous assignments .03 .36
Time away -.01 -.10
Tenure -.22 -2.60**
Assignment a promotion -.15 -1.99*
Cross-cultural training -.11 -1 .20
Age .04 .45
Marital status -.08 -.96
.15"
Individual Variables
Self Efﬁcacy .07 .75
Learning Orientation .10 1.19
.04
Work Variables
Role Clarity .06 .59
Role Conﬂict .14 1.76
Role Discretion .21 2.10“
.04
Non-work Variables
Cultural Similarity -.08 -.97
Spouse-family Adjustment .38 455‘“
. 10*¢#
Organization Variables
Parent Company Socialization -.10 -1.26
Host Company Socialization .38 4.14***
.09###
Overall R 2 .42
Overall Adjusted R2 .33
Overall F 4.70"”

 

*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed)

85

Table 7. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of General Adjustment.

 

 

Block ﬂ t R 3 A R“
Control Variables
Job title .05 .63
Country of assignment .12 1.46
Previous assignments -.13 -1.45
Time away .06 .71
Tenure -.17 -1.87
Assignment a promotion .00 .04
Cross-cultural training -.05 -.46
Age .09 .93
Marital status -. 15 -1.72
.04
Individual Variables
Self Efﬁcacy -. 18 -2.01
Learning Orientation .15 1.74
.02
Work Variables
Role Clarity .14 1.30
Role Conﬂict .07 .84
Role Discretion -. 10 -.98
.08“
Non-work Variables
Cultural Similarity .25 2.98"
Spouse-family Adjustment .34 378*"
. 1 7* t *
Organization Variables
Parent Company Socialization -.04 -.51
Host Company Socialization .25 2.58"
.04*
Overall R 2 .34
Overall Adjusted R2 .24
Overall F 340”“

 

*p < .05, " p < .01, *"p < .001 (two-tailed)

86

The Influence of Adjustment on Expatriate Attitudes

Multiple regression analyses were also conducted to test the relationships between
cross-cultural adjustment facets and expatriate job and non-work satisfaction.

First, the relationship between each facet of adjustment and job satisfaction were
examined to test Hypotheses 10a, 10b, and 10c. The results in Table 8 show that the
predicted antecedents of job satisfaction accounted for a statistically signiﬁcant portion of
the variance (Adjusted R square = .23). Speciﬁcally, work adjustment (Beta = .27), and
interaction adjustment (Beta = .24) were both signiﬁcantly related to job satisfaction and
in the predicted direction. Therefore, the results provide support for Hypothesis 10a that
predicted a positive association between work adjustment and job satisfaction, and
Hypothesis 10b that suggested interaction adjustment would be positively related to job
satisfaction.

Second, the relationships between each facet of adjustment and non-work
satisfaction were explored, to test Hypotheses lla, 11b, and 11c. Table 8 demonstrates
that the antecedents of non-work satisfaction accounted for a signiﬁcant portion of the
variance (Adjusted R square = .26) at the .001 signiﬁcance level. Table 8 also shows that
Hypothesis 11a, predicting interaction adjustment would be associated with non-work
satisfaction, was not supported. However, general adjustment (Beta = .49) was
signiﬁcantly related to non-work satisfaction, providing strong support for Hypothesis
11b.

Third, to test Hypotheses 12 and 13, the relationships between the job satisfaction
and non-work satisfaction, and organization commitment were explored. Hypothesis 12

predicted that organization commitment would be positively related to expatriate job

87

satisfaction. Hypothesis 13 suggested that organization commitment would be positively
related to expatriate non-work satisfaction. Table 9 indicates that the inﬂuence of
satisfaction (job and non-work) on organization commitment explained a signiﬁcant
portion of the variance (Adjusted R square = .20) at the .001 signiﬁcance level. In
particular, job satisfaction (Beta = .40) was strongly related to organization commitment,
thereby supporting Hypothesis 12. Support for Hypothesis 13 was not achieved as the
relationship between non-work satisfaction and organization commitment did not reach

conventional levels of statistical signiﬁcance.

Table 8. Results of Multiple Regression Analyses of Expatriate Satisfaction on

Work, Interaction, and General Adjustment.

 

 

 

Satisfaction

Antecedents Job Non-work

,6 t ﬂ t
Work Adjustment .27 3.16" .14 1.51
Interaction Adjustment .24 2.79M -.03 -.31
General Adjustment .10 1.2 .49 5.43""
R 3 .29 .33
Adjusted R2 .23 .26
F 4.69"" 5.02“"

 

*p < .05, ** p < .01, *"p < .001 (two-tailed)

88

Table 9. Results of Multiple Regression Analyses of Commitment on Job

Satisfaction and Non-work Satisfaction.

 

 

 

Antecedents Commitment
ﬂ t
Job Satisfaction .40 466*"
Non-work Satisfaction -.04 -.49
R 2 .26
Adjusted R2 .20
F 407*"

 

*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed)

The Mediating Inﬂuence of Cross-cultural Adjustment on Expatriate Attitudes
Multiple regression analyses were also conducted to investigate the mdiating
inﬂuence of cross-cultural adjustment on expatriate attitudes. Speciﬁcally, regression
analyses were employed to test whether general and interaction adjustment mediated the
relationship between spouse-family adjustment and expatriate attitudes. Hypothesis 14a
predicted that interaction adjustment would mediate the relationship between spouse-
family adjustment and non-work satisfaction. Hypothesis 14b suggested that general
adjustment would mediate the relationship between spouse-family adjustment and non-

work satisfaction.

89

The Mediating Influence of Interaction Adjustment on N on-work Satisfaction

Using Baron & Kenny's (1986) procedure outlined in the data analysis strategy of
Chapter 3, the relationship between the spouse-family adjustment and non-work
satisfaction was examined to determine if interaction adjustment mediated this
relationship. Table 6 above highlights the ﬁrst step of the procedure in which interaction
adjustment was regressed on the independent variables. The results of this multiple
regression of interaction adjustment on all the proposed antecedents reﬂect a strong and
positive relationship between family-spouse adjustment and interaction adjustment (Beta
= .38, p < .001). Given that mmily-spouse adjustment was signiﬁcantly related to
interaction adjustment, support for step one of Baron & Kenny's (1986) procedure was
provided.

Table 10 provides an indication of the second step of the procedure in which non-
work satisfaction was regressed on the independent variables. Spouse-family adjustment
was found to be signiﬁcantly related to non-work satisfaction (Beta = .21, p < .01),
thereby providing support for step two of Baron & Kenny's (1986) procedure.

Next, Table 11 highlights the third step of the procedure in which non-work
satisfaction was regressed on both the independent variables and the mediator (interaction
adjustment). Neither spouse-family adjustment nor interaction adjustment was found to
be signiﬁcantly related to non-work satisfaction. Therefore support for the third step of
Baron & Kenny's (1986) procedure was not found. Therefore, it could not be deduced
that interaction adjustment mediates the relationship between spouse-family adjustment

and non-work satisfaction, and Hypothesis 14a was not supported. For the mediation

90

hypothesis to be supported, the mediator must be statistically signiﬁcant and the

independent variable should be reduced to insigniﬁcance (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

The Mediating Influence of General Adjustment on Non-Work Satisfaction

Baron & Kenny's (1986) procedure was again followed to test whether general
adjustment mediated the relationship between spouse-family adjustment and non-work
satisfaction, as predicted by Hypothesis 14b.

Table 7 highlights the ﬁrst step of the procedm'e in which general adjustment was
regressed on the independent variables. As reﬂected in Table 7, spouse-family
adjustment was signiﬁcantly related to general adjustment (Beta = .34, p < .001), thereby
providing support for step one of Baron & Kenny's (1986) procedure. The second step of
the procedure in which non-work satisfaction was regressed on the independent variables
is demonstrated in Table 10. The results show a signiﬁcant positive relationship between
spouse-family adjustment and non-work satisfaction (Beta = .21, p < .01) thereby
supporting step two of Baron & Kenny's (1986) procedure.

Table 12 highlights the third step of the procedure in which non-work satisfaction
was regressed on both the independent variables and the mediator (general adjustment).
General adjustment was found to be signiﬁcantly related to non-work satisfaction (Beta
= .39, p < .001), and spouse-family adjustment was no longer signiﬁcantly related to non-
work satisfaction, thereby providing support for step three of Baron & Kenny's (1986)
procedure. Hence, Hypothesis 14b, that suggested that the relationship between spouse-
family adjustment and expatriate non-work satisfaction would be mediated by general

adjustment, was supported.

91

 

Table 10. Regression Analysis Predicting Non-Work Satisfaction.

 

 

Block ﬂ t R ’ A R’
Control Variables
Job title .11 1.36
Country of assignment .12 1.43
Previous assignments .08 .83
Time away .03 .32
Tenure -.09 -l .03
Assignment 3 promotion .13 1.51
Cross-cultural training .14 1.31
Age -.03 -.31
Marital status -.05 -.50
.06
Individual Variables
Self Eﬂicacy -. 15 -1.64
Learning Orientation .20 2.17“
.04
Work Variables
Role Clarity .02 .20
Role Conﬂict .12 1.34
Role Discretion .24 2.30"“
.13"
Non-work Variables
Cultural Similarity .29 350*"
Spouse-family Adjustment .21 2.29“
. l 3 t t *
Organization Variables
Parent Company Socialization -.02 -.25
Host Company Socialization .12 1.21
.01
Overall R 2 .37
Overall Adjusted R2 .27
Overall F 354*"

 

*P < 05’ *‘l‘ p < .01, *‘u‘ p < .001 (two-tailed)

92

Table 11. Regression Analysis of the Mediator (Interaction Adjustment) Predicting

Non-work Satisfaction.

 

 

Block ﬂ 1 R 3 A R3
Control Variables
Job title .12 1.36
Country of assignment .12 1.37
Previous assignments .07 .80
Time away .03 .28
Tenure -.08 -.79
Assignment a promotion .13 1.56
Cross-cultural training .14 1.36
Age -.03 -.35
Marital status -.04 -.45
.06
Individual Variables
Seleﬂicacy -.15 -l .63
Learning Orientation .19 2.023
.04
Work Variables
Role Clarity .01 .12
Role Conﬂict .11 1.22
Role Discretion .26 2.353
. 1 3 * 3
Interaction Adjustment .06 .59
.02
Non-work Variables
Cultural Similarity .29 3.493"
Spouse-family Adjustment .19 1.87
. 1 2* * 4!
Organization Variables
Parent Company Socialization -.01 -.17
Local Company Socialization .10 .92
.01
Overall R 3 .38
Overall Adjusted R2 .26
Overall F 3.32333

 

*p < .05, u p < .01, "*p < .001 (two-tailed)

93

Table 12. Regression Analysis of the Mediator (General Adjustment) Predicting

Non-work Satisfaction.

 

 

Block ,6 t R 3 A R3
Control Variables
Job title .09 1.17
Country of assignment .07 .84
Previous assignments .12 1.41
Time away .02 .25
Tenure -.02 -.24
Assignment 3 promotion .12 1.54
Cross-cultural training .14 1.43
Age -.06 -.64
Marital status .02 .1 8
.06
Individual Variables
Self Efﬁcacy -.08 -.88
Learning Orientation .14 1.56
.04
Work Variables
Role Clarity -.05 -.44
Role Conﬂict .09 1.10
Role Discretion .26 2.64”
.13"
General Adjustment .39 4.333"
.20!!!
Non-work Variables
Cultural Similarity .20 2.5033
Spouse-family Adjustment .07 .83
.043
Organization Variables
Parent Company Socialization .01 .15
Local Company Socialization .03 .36
.00
Overall R 3 .47
Overall Acb'usted R3 .37
Overall F 4.90333

 

*p < .05, *3 p < .01, "*p < .001 (two-tailed)

94

Summary of Hypotheses

Table 13 provides a summary of the hypothesized and actual relationships
between the independent variables and the three facets of cross-cultural adjustment. The
relationships indicated with an asterix are indicative of signiﬁcant relationships between
variables in both the correlation and multiple regression analyses. As reﬂected, ﬁfteen of
the twenty one hypotheses pertaining to the antecedents of cross-cultural adjustment were
supported by the correlation analysis, seven being further supported in the regression
analyses. As Table 13 shows, ﬁve of the seven hypothesized antecedents of work
adjustment were signiﬁcantly related in the correlation analysis, and three were further
supported in the regression analysis. The variables that related most strongly to work
adjustment were role clarity and role discretion.

Of the nine hypothesized antecedents of interaction adjustment, six were
signiﬁcantly and positively related in the correlation analysis, and two were further
supported in the regression analysis. The variables that related most strongly to
interaction adjustment were spouse-family adjustment and local company socialization.

Further, four of the ﬁve hypothesized antecedents of general adjustment were
signiﬁcant and in the predicted direction, and three were supported when subjected to the
regression analysis. The variables that were most strongly associated with general
adjustment were spouse-family adjustment, cultural similarity, and local company

socialization.

95

Table 13. Hypothesized and Actual Relationships between Antecedents and Cross-

cultural Adjustment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Antecedents Cross-cultural Adjustment
Work Interaction General

H A H A H A
Self Eﬂicacy + + + +
Learning Orientation + + + + + +
Role Clarity + +* + +
Role Conﬂict - n - n
Role Discretion + +4 + +
Spouse-family Adjustment + +* + +4
Cultural Similarity + n + +4
Parent Company + n + n + n
Socialization
Local Company + + + +4 + +4
Socialization

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H = hypothesized correlational relationship

A = actual correlational relationship

11 = non-signiﬁcant correlational relationship

+ = signiﬁcant positive correlational relationship

- = signiﬁcant negative correlational relationship

3 = signiﬁcant in both the correlational and multiple regression analyses

96

Table 14. Hypothesized and Actual Relationships between Cross-cultural

Adjustment and Satisfaction.

 

Adjustment Satisfaction

 

Job Non-work

 

H A H A

 

 

 

Work Adjustment + +*
Interaction Adjustment + +* + +
General Adjustment + +4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H = hypothesized correlational relationship

A = actual correlational relationship

11 = non-signiﬁcant correlational relationship

+ = signiﬁcant positive correlational relationship

3' = signiﬁcant in both the correlational and multiple regression analyses

Table 15. Hypothesized and Actual Relationships between Expatriate Satisfaction

and Commitment.

 

 

 

 

Satisfaction Commitment
H A
Job Satisfaction + +3
Non-work Satisfaction + n

 

 

 

 

 

H = hypothesized correlational relationship

A = actual correlational relationship

11 = non-signiﬁcant correlational relationship

+ = signiﬁcant positive correlational relationship

3 = signiﬁcant in both the correlational and multiple regression analyses

97

Table 14 provides a summary of the hypothesized and actual relationships
between each facet of cross-cultural adjustment and job satisfaction, and non-work
satisfaction. As reﬂected, three hypotheses pertaining to the inﬂuence of adjustment on
expatriate satisfaction were supported by the regression analyses. The factors that were
most strongly related to expatriate job satisfaction were work adjustment and interaction
adjustment. General adjustment emerged as the strongest predictor of non-work
satisfaction.

Finally, Table 15 provides a summary of the hypothesized and actual relationships
between work and non-work satisfaction, and expatriate commitment. As reﬂected, the
inﬂuence of job satisfaction on expatriate commitment was demonstrated in regression
analyses.

While this Chapter has described the overall results of this study, Chapter 5, that
follows, will provide a discussion of these research ﬁndings. Chapter 5 will also
highlight some of the main contributions this study makes, in replicating and extending
past research. Implications of these ﬁndings and recommendations for ﬁrture research

will also be offered.

98

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to test the relationships among the variables in
an integrative model of adjustment and to demonstrate the role of previously theorized,
yet unmeasured, variables in cross-cultural adjustment such as socialization in the host
and parent organizations. The study aimed to amalgamate and explore the relationship
between some of the well-established cross-cultural adjustment precursors including
work, non-work, and organizational variables, and each facet of this multidimensional
construct. This research also sought to examine the inﬂuence of each adjustment facet
(work, interaction, and general) on expatriate attitudes. With these objectives in mind,
this chapter discusses the overall results of the research analyses and how they either
conﬁrm or extend extant cross-cultural adjustment research. Implications of these results

are presented and recommendations for future research are oﬁ‘ered.

Replicating and Extending Research on Cross-cultural Adjustment

One of the main ﬁndings of this research is that empirical evidence of the
important role of organizational socialization in the expatriate host company, only
speculated in prior research, has been provided. Speciﬁcally, results of this research
extend previous ﬁndings by demonstrating that expatriates who are better socialized at
the host company abroad are likely to adjust more effectively cross-culturally. While

past research has shown that spouse-family adjustment is the strongest predictor of

99

expatriate interaction and general adjustment (Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer, 1994), this study
reveals that socialization at the host company (R = .38, p = .001) is as strong a predictor
of interaction adjustment as spouse-family adjustment (R = .38, p = .001). Harvey's
(1985) review of the adjustment literature suggested that spouse' inability to adjust is a
problem that far outweighs all other reasons for the failure of expatriates to adjust. This
study shows that socialization at the host company may be as important a determinant as
spouse-family adjustment. This is an important ﬁnding in that it illuminates the strategic
inﬂuence of host company socialization interventions, including social get-togethers and
informal networking with host nationals, in expatriate adjustment abroad. Further, it
conﬁrms previously suggested, yet untested, propositions of the role of socialization in
cross-cultural adjustment (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer,
1994). These results were exempliﬁed in both the correlational and multiple regression
armlyses. No relationship was found between parent company socialization and the three
facets of cross-cultural adjustment. However, in retrospect this is not too surprising as
many of the parent company socialization items measured the extent of pre—departure
training. Only 21% of the study's sample reported they had received any training for the
assignment whatsoever, although the average adjustment levels were fairly high.
Speciﬁcally, on a seven point scale, the work adjustment mean was 6.00; the mean of
interaction adjustment was 5.40; and the general adjustment mean was 5.62, despite low
levels of cross-cultural training, if any.

This study replicated and conﬁrmed past research by Black & Gregersen ( 1991c)
and Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer (1994), by demonstrating that when spouse or family

members on assignment are well adjusted, expatriate adjustment will be strong. The

100

results of this study reveal that spouse-family adjustment (R = .34, p = .001) explains a
signiﬁcant portion of the variance in expatriate general adjustment, thereby conﬁrming
past assertions and empirical demonstrations of the important role of spouse-family
adjustment in expatriate adjustment. This research also conﬁrms previous research by
Black & Gregersen (1991a; 1991c) by demonstrating that cultural similarity predicts
general adjustment.

In replicating the three distinct measures of cross-cultural adjustment (work,
interaction, general), this study provides additional evidence to support Black's (1988)
three-facet approach. The factor analysis showing the multidimensionality of the cross-
cultural adjustment construct is reported in Chapter 3. The results of the analysis suggest
that scholars should be cautious in referring to adjustment as a unitary concept. While
there is some interrelationship between the three facets of adjustment, as reﬂected in
Table 4 of Chapter 4, it is possible for some expatriates to be well adjusted on one
dimension and poorly adjusted on another. Therefore, scholars seeking to test the
antecedents and outcomes of adjustment, are well advised to use a three-faceted
multidimensional approach. Similarly, the results of the factor analysis reported in
Chapter 3 show two distinct socialization dimensions in cross-cultural adjustment. These
ﬁndings suggest that cross-cultural adjustment scholars need to consider both parent
conrpany and host company socialization practices, to more thoroughly capture the
determinants of expatriate success abroad.

This study also conﬁrms previous research by Harrison, Chadwick, and Scales
(1996) demonstrating the role of self—efﬁcacy in cross-cultural adjustment. Speciﬁcally,

the correlation analysis revealed signiﬁcant and positive relationships between self

101

efﬁcacy and work adjustment (r = .32, p = .01), and interaction adjustment (r = .16, p =
.05), as hypothesized. A relationship between self efﬁcacy and general adjustment was
not expected, given that the efﬁcacy measures employed in this study related to the
expatriate's belief in his or her ability to perform particular work-related tasks. In
addition, this study aimed to test Porter & Tansky's (1999) suggestion that "expatriate
success may depend on learning orientation." Results of the correlation analysis of this
study demonstrate that expatriate adjustment to work, interactions with host nationals,
and to general living conditions abroad, is indeed dependent on learning orientation. In
particular, Table 4 highlights the role of learning orientation in work adjustment (r = .24,
p = .01), interaction adjustment (r = .20, p = .01), and general adjustment (r = .16, p =
.05). These ﬁndings suggest that future research should continue to explore the linkages
between individual learning orientation and expatriate success, to ﬁrrther unravel the
potential variance explained by this individual adjustment precursor.

In replicating several aspects of Black (1990) and Black and Gregersen's (1991a)
work, this study conﬁrms that work adjustment is enhanced when expatriates have high
role clarity and high role discretion. The results of this study also provide additional
evidence to suggest that work variables explain the most variance in an expatriate's work
adjustment.

The study's ﬁndings are consistent with the results of research by Shaffer &
Harrison (1998) examining the relationship between each facet of adjustment and
expatriate job satisfaction and non~work satisfaction. The results of the correlation
analysis in Table 4, for example, show positive and signiﬁcant correlations between job

and non-work satisfaction and each facet of adjustment. While Shaffer & Harrison

102

(1998) demonstrated similar correlation coefficients, their regression analyses only
revealed associations between job satisfaction and work adjustment, and non-work
satisfaction and general adjustment. The results of this research, therefore extend the
ﬁndings of Shaffer & Harrison (1998) by demonstrating the signiﬁcant relationship
between not only work adjustment and job satisfaction (R = .41, p = .01), but interaction
adjustment and job satisfaction (R = .29, p = .01) as well. In addition, the regression
analyses revealed a strong relationship between general adjustment and non-work
satisfaction (R = .50, p = .01) which is similar to what Shaffer & Harrison's (1998) study
found (R = .48,p = .001).

While previous research has been fairly extensive in generating and testing factors
that may contribute to expatriate adjustment, and to a lesser extent the outcomes of
expatriate adjustment, the purpose of this research was to dig deeper, to explore the
mediating role of general adjustment in enhancing expatriate attitudes. While research by
Caligiuri, Hyland, Joshi, & Bross (1998) demonstrated that family adjustment mediates
the relationship between family characteristics and general adjustment, this study
provided empirical support for the mediating role of general adjustment on expatriate
non-work satisfaction. In testing this mediating effect, it was also evident that the
practice of relying strictly on direct effects to predict expatriate attitudes may overlook
the important indirect inﬂuences of the non-work precursors through cross-cultural
adjustment. Although a clear mediation effect was not found for interaction adjustment,
the above ﬁnding suggests that without expatriates adjusting generally, non-work
satisfaction will not be forthcoming. This serves as an important contribution in that very

little is known about the mediating role of expatriate adjustment in inﬂuencing expatriate

103

attitudes. In addition, had this study simply focused on the outcomes of work,
interaction, and general adjustment, valuable information pertaining to the role of
organizational socialization, and spouse-family adjustment would not have been
captured. Hence it was important that an integrative model be tested to provide a more

complete picture of the predictor-criterion linkages in cross-cultural adjustment.

Support for the Relationships among the Variables in the Integrative Model of
Cross-cultural Adjustment

Overall, results of this research reveal that the constructs speciﬁed by the
integrative model account for a signiﬁcant portion of the variance in work adjustment (R3
= .42, F = 4.643“), interaction adjustment (R3 = .42, F = 4.703”), and general
adjustment (R3 = .34, F = 3.403‘“), offering support for the validity of the ﬁrst halfof the
proposed integrative model of cross-cultm'al adjustment. The results of this research
provide support for the differential inﬂuence of individual, work, non-work, and
organizational factors on work, interaction, and general adjustment. In particular, the
results of this study show that role clarity and role discretion are strongly related to work
adjustment, while spouse-family adjustment, and socialization content at the best
company are strongly related to interaction adjustment and general adjustment. The
results suggest that spouse-family adjustment, and host company socialization, explained
a larger portion of the variance in overall expatriate adjustment than any of the other
precursors, and therefore these factors have the greatest inﬂuence in enhancing the
adjustment of global assignees. Results also reveal that cultural similarity positively

enhances general adjustment but not work or interaction adjustment. The results

104

demonstrate that each facet of cross-cultural adjustment speciﬁed by the integrative
model account for a signiﬁcant portion of the variance in expatriate job satisfaction (R3 =
.29, F = 4.693") and non-work satisfaction (R3 = .33, F = 5.023") offering support for
the validity of the second half of the proposed model. Speciﬁcally, the results show that
work adjustment and interaction adjustment are signiﬁcantly and positively related to job
satisfaction. This makes intuitive sense, given that both these facets of adjustment have
work-related components. In addition, the results demonstrate that general adjustment is
signiﬁcantly and positively related to non-work satisfaction. Overall, the results of the
regression analyses not only reveal strong relationships among the core constructs, but
also show the robustness of these relationships when controlling for variables such as

position, tenure, number of previous assignments, marital status, and age.

Implications for Multinational Corporations Managing Expatriate Assignments

The results of this research have a number of practical implications for
multinational corporations and their subsidiaries. First, this study reveals that host
company socialization practices, including social get-togethers, and networking activities
with host nationals, are important for the adjustment of expatriates. Speciﬁcally, the
results show that expatriate adjustment to interactions with host nationals, and to general
living conditions including housing, food, child-care, and health facilities are enhanced
with greater socialization at the host company. Further, given the strong associations
between host company socialization processes and each facet of adjustment,
multinationals need to ensure that their host subsidiaries have human resource policies

and practices to support the socialization of their expatriates while abroad. Multinational

105

corporations could also develop and operationalize policies that convey the message that
overseas assignments are important to career development and global organizational
learning in general. Similarly, human resource strategists and policy makers need to
reconsider their investment expenditures in the promotion and development of host
company socialization programs. Typically, the multinational's headquarters in the
expatriate's home country provides and controls the amount of ﬁnancial resources that are
allocated. What multinationals need to reevaluate, is their allocation and distribution of
resources to the host subsidiary, to better socialize expatriates while they are abroad.
These could include funds and time for social ﬁrnctions that assist and promote
networking opportunities between host nationals and expatriates. Expatriates should be
encouraged to strengthen these work-related relationships and networks, and develop
mentoring relationships with host nationals who could serve as cultural interpreters.
Expatriate directories containing contact and other job-relevant information could be
developed to support the establishment of these expatriate networks. In addition to these
more formal socialization mechanisms, expatriates should be encouraged to become
involved in informal educational experiences and social activities so that they are active
in host community activities. Also, social get-togethers provide a vehicle for expatriates
to solicit additional social support. Multinational corporations need to recognize that by
modifying the socialization policies and practices in their subsidiaries abroad, they can
have a strong and positive inﬂuence on their expatriates' adjustment, as this study
suggests. Many corporations, for example, are investing considerable amounts of time
and energy into reorganizing their formal organizational structures to increase the speed

of global decision making, communication, and information ﬂow. However, as Moran &

106

Riesenberger (1994) point out, executives are not paying suﬂ'rcient attention to the
informal networks within their subsidiaries. The results of this study clearly highlight the
importance of doing so.

Feldman & Tompson (1993) suggest a number of activities be conducted to better
socialize global managers. These include providing them with realistic job previews,
technical training, opportunities to learn about international functional areas, and
establishing mentor relationships. Although Feldman & Tompson (1993) primarily focus
on socialization tactics prior to the international assignment, their recommendations
would apply to host company socialization practices as well. The results of this study
also conﬁrm the assertions made by Bird & Mikuda (1989) who emphasize the strategic
importance of global corporations having a resource accumulation orientation that is
reﬂected in their strategic human resource conﬁguration. They argued, for example,
ﬁrms with this orientation strive to not only develop internal labor markets, but "they
engage in intensive socialization of employees" (p.439). The results of this research
formidably support this argument. In addition, considering some of the written
comments by the respondents of this study, at times neither the organization nor the
candidates have a choice with respect to particular assignments or assignees. Often, the
pool of qualiﬁed candidates ﬁ'om which to select the most 'ideal' expatriate is not
available. Effective socialization mechanisms thus become paramount and socialization
at the host company should be given priority. Perhaps individual mentors or personal
trainers could be assigned to each expatriate for training and individual learning to take
on a more personal ﬂame, to better accommodate the cultural complexities associated

with the international experience. As Westwood & Leung (1994) suggest, global

107

organizations should provide effective orientation and substantial in-country monitoring.
Consistent with this is the belief that multinational corporations should seek to embrace
the concept of learning and continuous improvement and should recognize the role that
expatriates can play as "agents of learning" in creating and sustaining the overall
competitiveness of the global ﬁrm (Pfeffer, 1994; Wright, & McMahan, 1992).

Second, the study shows that spouse-family adjustment continues to be an
important factor in the adjustment of expatriates and needs to be managed accordingly.
Given the strength of the ﬁnding that spouse-family adjustment plays such an important
role in expatriate interaction and general adjustment, global corporations must continue to
develop human resource strategies, policies and practices that support expatriate spousal
and family adjustment. For example, as articulated in research by Arthur & Bennett
(1995) and Black & Stephens (1989), spouses and other family members should be
included in cross-cultural training offered by the organization. While expatriates may
have the security and stability offered through the continuation of ofﬁce routines and an
ongoing network of colleagues, their spouse and/or children are likely to experience less
stability and experience more sacriﬁces, and hence may have more difﬁculty coping with
cultural and social unfamiliarity. Speciﬁcally, multinational corporations need to sponsor
and develop family support programs that assist the expatriate's family both prior to and
during the assignment in the host country. As Pellico & Stroh (1997) suggest, spousal
assistance programs should be an integral component of the international assignment.
Speciﬁcally, these programs could include proactive assistance with spousal job searches
and placements. This study clearly shows the pivotal role that spouse-family adjustment

plays in the adjustment of the expatriate. Moreover, as research by Aryee & Chew

108

(1995) revealed, family adjustment is crucial for an international assignee's willingness to
relocate abroad again. Human resource managers should consider the implications of this
for dual-career couples. Speciﬁcally, a dual career policy for global employees may need
to be developed and both the home and host companies need to be educated on the
policy.

Third, this research highlights the importance of assigning expatriates with roles
that are unambiguous and high in discretion in order for them to adjust well to their work
abroad. The results of this study also show that where work and interaction adjustment
are high, job satisfaction is high. Job satisfaction, in turn, is strongly associated with
commitment to the multinational corporation. While this study only showed that job
satisfaction was associated with commitment, it revealed that interaction adjustmwt, that
captures both work and non-work elements of adjustment, was signiﬁcantly related to job
satisfaction (R = .29, p = .01). Furthermore, it showed the non-work variable, spouse-
family adjustment, was signiﬁcantly related to interaction adjustment (R = .38, p = .001).
This suggests that although non-work satisfaction does not inﬂuence expatriate
commitment, both work and non-work interactions with host nationals remain important
elements in job satisfaction. Additionally, recall that two of the items in the job
satisfaction scale measured expatriate attitudes toward quitting the company altogether.
Hence, the importance of promoting work adjustment and interaction adjustment (work
and non-work interactions with host nationals) for the enhancement of job satisfaction
and its associated organizational commitment, cannot be underestimated. Similarly,
international human resource managers could be asked: "What are your working

hypotheses about expatriate adjustment? What factors do you think enhance expatriate

109

satisfaction and commitment? Consider an individual who failed as an expatriate. What
do you think accounted for their failure? What was the outcome for the individual and the
organization? Think of a person who was well adjusted. What do you think caused their
success? Was this individual more committed and satisﬁed? Hence, scholars and
practitioners alike can further explore additional variables that better help us understand
the complex phenomenon of expatriate adjustment.

Finally, in testing the relationships among the variables in the integrative model
of cross-cultural adjustment, this study demonstrated that the model was robust across all
three facets of adjustment, and expatriate attitudes. This serves to provide practitioners
and researchers alike with a comprehensive framework that can be used to guide the
design, development, and substantiation of international human resource interventions
that promote the adjustment of global assignees. Moreover, given that expatriate human
resource activities including selection, training, communication, and socialization are far
more difﬁcult and complex than human resource activities for a domestic position,
multinational corporations need to embrace this reality (Palthe, 2000). Multinational
ﬁrms need to develop programs emphasizing language, culture, and the foreign
environment, with both the expatriate manager and his or her spouse and family in mind.
Without proper family assistance programs, and socialization at the host company,
multinational organizations simply increase the risk of expatriate maladjustment and
failure. Moreover, given the competitiveness of the global economy, such failures can no
longer be afforded by US. organizations wanting to sustain a competitive edge in
markets abroad. In fact, these assignments should be viewed as strategic vehicles to

optimize worldwide knowledge dissemination and learning (Roberts, Kossek, & Ozeki,

110

2000) that is viewed by Moran & Riesenberger (1994) as essential for the prolonged

competitive advantage of any global corporation.

Study Limitations

One limitation of this study is the potential lack of generalizability of this
theoretical framework to other cultural contexts. Although this study examines the cross-
cultural adjustment of US. expatriates in predominantly senior executive positions in
multiple industries, across several nations, future research of this nature could extend this
study to include subjects representing other nationalities.

A second limitation is the fact that the study relies on self-report instruments for
all the variables at one point in time. This may result in issues associated with common
method variance. Noteworthy is the fact that this challenge is endemic in almost all

survey research. According to Black & Gregersen (1991):

Common method variance problems can result when individuals out of their need to
provide consistent information generate responses with systematic correlations because
they have the opportunity to provide information on both the independent and

dependent variables of interest.

The pattern of the correlations among the study variables, however, indicates
that common method variance is probably not a signiﬁcant problem in this study.
Furthermore, the use of survey research provided for the opportunity to explore
variables across widely diverse multinational organizations, allowing for variability

in responses necessary for meaningful analysis.

111

A third limitation is the low response rates associated with conducting
international research. One of the main reasons for this is that international mail is
notoriously unreliable. Another reason stems from the fact that the primary data
sorn'ce, namely the American Chamber of Commerce (ACC) membership directories
and databases, are not always current. Although the ACC Directories are recognized
as one of the best available sources for obtaining information on expatriates across
multiple industries, there may be time lags between member registrations with the
ACC and the printing of the listings in the ACC Directories. An ideal source for
obtaining information on expatriates would be the US. Embassies operating in each
of the applicable host countries. Disclosure of such information on the part of these
Embassies, however, is not legally permitted. These limitations are not unusual for
cross-cultural research and will be alleviated somewhat as additional research
partnerships are established between academic institutions and global corporations in
the future.

A ﬁnal limitation relates to the processual nature of cross-cultural adjustment
and socialization. Given that this research design is cross-sectional, certain elements
of the adjustment and socialization processes may not be ﬁrlly captured. Ideally, to
obtain a richer understanding of how expatriates are socialized and adjust abroad,
this kind of research should be conducted utilizing a longitudinal design where pre-
and post-departme adjustment and socialization processes are measured across at

least two time periods.

112

Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research

This study has both replicated and extended previous research on cross-cultural
adjustment. It has drawn theoretical principles and constructs from research on domestic
adjustment (Fisher & Shaw, 1994; Saks, 1995), international adjustment (Black, et. al.,
1991), international organization behavior (Adler, 1995), and global human resource
management (Derr, & Oddou, 1991; Dowling & Schuler, 1999), and presented results
that serve to augment our understanding of cross-cultural adjustment. In testing the
hypotheses presented, this study suggests avenues for future research and offers
recommendations to human resource professionals in their pursuit of managing a global
workforce more effectively.

Despite the depth of the research results, the fact that not all the variance in cross-
cultural adjustment was explained by the study's constructs suggests the need for
additional variables in the proposed integrative model. Given the strength of the
relationship that was found between socialization at the host company and each facet of
adjustment, it would be valuable if researchers were to ﬁrrther explore the role that the
host company plays in fostering an environment that enhances adjustment. Future
research could, for example, explore the role of host company communication networks
and peer support in enhancing expatriate adjustment abroad. Scholars and practitioners
could beneﬁt from a greater understanding of the organizational strategies and practices
that foster adjustment once the expatriate has arrived in the host country. This is
particularly important, given the processual nature of both adjustment and socialization.
By only focusing on pre-departure practices such as selection, staffmg, and training,

multinational organizations may be missing some of the important criteria associated

113

with ongoing socialization activities at the host company abroad. This ongoing
socialization of expatriates in the host country may in fact be as inﬂuential in determining
expatriate success abroad as other human resource activities that have traditionally been
given more attention at the parent company such as selection and pre-departure training.
Future research could explore the inﬂuence of speciﬁc human resource practices of the
host company, including cross-cultural diversity and family support programs, on
expatriate adjustment. In addition, future research could compare the eﬂ‘ects of
socialization practices in the parent company and host subsidiaries. This would promote
further understanding of the differential role that the host and parent companies play in
the overall adjustment process. It may also provide auxiliary insights as to why so many
expatriates return pre-maturing and why pre-departure training or the socialization tactics
employed by the parent organization is not always adequate enough to ensure expatriate
success abroad. In ﬁrture, it would also be interesting to learn over what period of time
re-socialization takes place across multiple expatriate assignments. Is the long-term
expatriate increasingly adaptable in other assignments or do they readjust with each new
pattern of adjustment? Also, ﬁrture research could investigate the speed and degree to
which individuals ﬁ'om different national cultures are socialized? Future studies could
also explore the receptivity to expatriate assignments from a boundaryless career
perspective (Arthur, 1994). This person-centered career paradigm emphasizes learning
opportunities and self-development. Companies may need to reﬁame international
assignments as necessary for career advancement. Another avenue for future research

could be the role of women in global assignments. Although women have made

114

P's

signiﬁcant progress moving into the executive ranks in domestic US. operations,
mobility does not appear as evident in the international arena (Brewster, 1991).

Some of the limitations highlighted above, suggest areas for future research as
well. First, the fact that the sample was all-American, although speciﬁcally chosen to
eliminate the challenge of culturally bormd measurement scales, may inhibit the
generalizability of this study to other nationalities. Future studies could expand the
sample to include expatriates from other nations as well. Also, the sample comprised
primarily senior executives and hence the obtained results may not be generalizable to
non-managerial international assignees. Second, the study design could not rule out the
effects of common method bias, particularly considering the variables were measured
using self-reports at a single point in time. Hence, future research should seek to employ
longitudinal research designs, using multiple methods.

In addition, future empirical work could explore whether the stage of
development of the organization toward becoming a global corporation enhances
international employee adjustment, and whether the effective management of this
adjustment process serves as a source of a global ﬁrm’s competitive advantage.
Consistent with the view that careers are repositories of knowledge (Arthur, 1994; Bird &
Mikuda, 1989), continued use of temporary international assignments may be essential
for global organizational learning and international competency development.
Consequently, the effective management of the expatriate assignment may provide
signiﬁcant opportunities for learning and skill acquisition that is essential to any global
ﬁrms' competitive advantage. Schneider & Asakawa (1995) argue that many companies

have not been able to beneﬁt from, nor institutionalize, the knowledge gained by their

115

 

expatriates. This therefore provides a worthwhile terrain for ﬁrture research. Scholars
should therefore not only explore the speciﬁc learning orientation of each expatriate but
the degree to which the learning and skill acqu'ned inﬂuences expatriate and
organizational performance. Also, given that strategic international human resource
management is increasingly being recognized as a key to the success of the global
corporation (Dowling, Welch, & Schuler, 1999), future scholars need to operationalize
their outcome variables such that they are linked to objective measures of individual and
organizational performance.

In conclusion, while there is still much to be learned about cross-cultural
adjustment and its determinants and outcomes, this research makes several contributions.
First, it extends past research on cross-cultural adjustment by demonstrating the
important role of host company socialization in enhancing expatriate interaction and
general adjustment, previously unmeasured in cross-cultural adjustment literature. While
past research has shown that spouse-family adjustment is the strongest predictor of
expatriate adjustment (Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer, 1994), this study reveals that
socialization at the local company may be as strong a predictor of expatriate adjustment.
Second, this study conﬁrms past research by providing support for the importance of
spouse-family adjustment on expatriate interaction and general adjustment, and the
inﬂuence of traditional work role factors such as role discretion and role clarity in
expatriate work adjustment. Third, this study extends previous research by providing
empirical evidence to suggest that the relationship between spouse-family adjustment and
expatriate non-work satisfaction is mediated by general adjustment. This is a valuable

contribution in that very little is known about the mediating role of expatriate adjustment

116

rhi

C11

ad

d1

in inﬂuencing expatriate attitudes. Finally, in replicating and extending past research,
this study demonstrates that the constructs speciﬁed by the integrative model of cross-
cultural adjustment account for a signiﬁcant portion of the variance in expatriate
adjustment. This is an important contribution in that it suggests that the integrative
model of cross-cultural adjustment and its associated predictor-criterion linkages can be
used as a conceptual ﬁ'amework to guide ﬁrture research in the cross-cultural adjustment

domain.

117

 

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (1986). “From the Atlantic to the Paciﬁc Century: Cross-Cultural
Management Reviewed.” Journal of Management 12(2): 295-318.

Adler, N. (1995). Competitive frontiers: Cross-cultural management and the 21 st
century. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Pergamon, Great
Britain. 19: 523-537.

Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizational
inquiry. Journal of Ogganizational Behavior 15: 295-306.

Arthur, W., Jr., & Bennett, W., Jr. (1995). The international assignee: The relative
importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Pacholpgy
48:99-114.

Arvey, RD, Bhagat, R S., & Salas, E. (1991). Cross-cultural and cross-national issues
in personnel and human resource management: Where do we go ﬁ'om here? In G.
R. Ferris & KM. Rowland (Eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management 9:367-407. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Aryee, S. & Chay, Y. C., & Chew, J. (1995). An investigation of the willingness of
managerial employees to accept an expatriate assignment. Journal of

Oganizational Behavior 17: 267-283.

Ashford, S. J ., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Understanding individual adaptation: An
integrative approach. In G. R. Ferris & K.M. Rowland (Eds) Research in

Personnel and Human Resource Management 8: 1-41. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Ashforth, B. E. & Saks, A. M. (1995). Work-role transitions: A longitudinal examination

of the Nicholson model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
ngcholpgy 68:157-175.

Aycan, Z. (1997). Acculturation of expatriate managers: A process model of adjustment
and performance. In D. M. Saunders & Z. Aycan (Eds) New Approaches to
Employee Management. 4: 1-40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

118

Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, RN. (1997). Current issues and ﬁrture challenges in expatriation
research. In D. M Saunders & Z. Aycan (Eds) New Approaches to Employee
Management. 4: 245-260. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Baker, J.C., & Invancevich, J.M. (1971). The assignment of American executives

abroad: Systematic, haphazard or chaotic? California Management Review 13
(3):39-44.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theog. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards

and goal setting. In LA. Pervin (Eds). Goal concepts in mmnalijy and social
psychology. New York: Erlbaum: 19-85.

Bandura, A. (1997a). Self-Eﬂicagy: The Experience of Control. New York, N.Y.:
Freeman & Company.

Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-Efficagy in Changing Societies. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge
University Press.

Bartlett, C.A., & Goshal, S. (1989). Managing Across Borders: The Transnational
Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Bartlett, C.A., & Goshal, S. (1990). Matrix of Management: not a structure, a ﬂame of
mind. Harvard Business Review July-August:104-111.

Baron, R M., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical

Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social ngcholpgy. 51 (6): 1173-
1182.

119

Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A
review and directions for ﬁrture research. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in

Personnel and Human Resource Management. 16:149-214. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.

Berry, S. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.) Applied
Cross-Cultural ngchology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bird , C. & Mikuda, M. (1989). Expatriates in their own home: A new twist in the
human resource management strategies of Japanese multinationals. Human
Resource Management 28 (4): 437-453.

Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in
Japan. Journal of International Business Studies 19: 277-294.

Black, J. S. (1990). Locus of control, social support, stress, and adjustment in
international affairs. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 7: 1-29.

Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H.B. (1991a). Antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment for
expatriates on Paciﬁc Rim assignments. Human Relations 44: 497-515.

Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H.B. (1991b). When Yankee comes home: Factors related to
expatriate and spouse repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business
Studies 21:357-381.

Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H.B. (1991c). The other half of the picture: Antecedents of

spouse cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies 22:
461-477.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H.B. (2000). The right way to manage expatriates. In J. E.

Garten (Ed). World View: Global Strat_egies for the New Economy. Harvard
Business School Press. Boston, MA.

120

-IrLMh
.

 

Black, J. S., Gregersen, H.B., Mendenhall, M., & Stroh, L.K. (1999). Globalizing

People Through International Assignments. Addison-Wesley Human Resource
Management Series. Reading, MA.

Black, J. S. & Mendenhall, M. E. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review
and theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review
15: 113-136.

Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M. E. & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of
international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives.

Academy of Management Review 16: 291-317.

Black, J. S., Morrison, A.J., & Gregersen, H.B. (1999). Global Explorers: The Next
Generation of Leaders. Routledge. New York, NY.

Black, J. S. & Stevens, G. K (1989). The inﬂuence of the spouse on American expatriate
adjustment and intent to stay in Paciﬁc Rim overseas assignments. Journal of
Management 15: 529-544.

Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: The organizational
sciences in a global context. Academy of Management Review 16: 262-290.

Brett, J. M., Stroh, L. K, & Reilly, A. H. (1992). Job transfer. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson (Eds) International Review of Industrial and Ogganizational

ngcholpgy 7: 323-362.

Brett, J. M., Stroh, L. K, & Reilly, A. H. (1993). Pulling up roots in the 19908: Who's
willing to relocate? Journal of Organizational Behavior 14: 49-60.

Brewster, C. (1991). The Management of Expatriates. London: Kogan Page.

Brewster, C., & Pickard, J. (1994). Evaluating expatriate training. International Studies
of Management and Ogganization 24 (3):l8-35.

121

Brewster, C. (1995). The paradox of expatriate adjustment. In Jan Selrner (Ed).

Expatriate Management: New Ideas for International Business. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.

Caligiuri, P. M. (1997). Assessing expatriate success: Beyond just "being there". In D.

M. Saunders & Z. Aycan (Eds). New Approaches to Employee Management.
4: 117-140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Caligiuri, P. M., & Day, D. V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical,
contextual, and assignment-speciﬁc performance: A study of cross-national work
performance ratings. Group & Organizational Management 25 (2): 154-174.

Caligiuri, P. M., Hyland, M. M., Joshi, A., & Bross, A. S. (1998). Testing a theoretical
model for examining the relationship between family adjustment and expatriates'
work adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (4): 598-614.

Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994).
Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied
ngchology 79: 730-743.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting ﬁrms. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 459-484.

Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. ngchological Bulletin 9: 540-572.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). A lied Multi le R ression/Correlation Ana sis for
the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Exmrimentation: Design and Anaysis
Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Miﬁlin Company, Boston MA.

Derr, B. C., & Oddou, G. K (1991). Are multinationals adequately preparing future
American leaders for global competition? International Journal of Human

Resource Management 2 (2): 227-244.

122

Deshpande, S. P. & Viswesvaran, C. (1992). Is cross-cultural training of expatriate

managers effective: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 16: 295-310.

De Cieri, H., Dowling, P., & Taylor, R (1991). The psychological impact of expatriate
relocation on partners. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 2: 377-414.

Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and Telephone Survgys: The Total Design Method. New
York: Whiley.

Dinges, N. G., & Baldwin, K. D. (1996). Intercultural competence: A research
perspective. In D. Landis, & R. S. Bhagat. Handbook of Intercultural
Training. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications Inc.

Doctor, K, Tung, R. L, & Von Glinow, M. A. (1991). Future directions for management
theory development. Academy of Management Review 16(2): 362-365.

Dowling, P. J. (1989). Human resource issues in international business. Journal of
International Law and Commerce 13 (2): 255-271.

Dowling, P. J., & Schuler, K S. (1990). International Dimensions of Human Resource
Management. Boston: PWS-Kent.

Dowling, P. J., Welch, D. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1999). International Human Resource

Management: Managing People in a Multinational Context. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western College Publishing.

Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K (1986). Controlled variety: A challenge for human resource
management in the MNC. Human Resource Management 25: 55-71.

Early, P. C. (1987). Intercultural training for managers: A comparison of documentary
and interpersonal methods. Academy of Management Journal 30:685-698.

Engen, J. R. (1995). Coming home. Training 37-40.

123

Feldman, D. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science
Quarterly 21: 433-452.

Feldman, D. (1981). The multiple socialization of organizational members. Academy of
Management Review 6(2): 309-318.

Feldman, D., & Brett, J. M. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new
hires and job changes. Academy of Management Journal 26: 258-272.

Feldman, D., & Tompson, H. B. (1992). Entry shock, culture shock: Socializing the new
breed of global managers. Human Resource Management 31 (4): 345-362.

Fisher, C. D. & Shaw, J. B. (1994). Relocation attitudes and adjustment: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Ogganizational Behavior 15: 209-224.

Flynn, G. (1996). Heck no - We won't go! Personnel Journal: 37-43.

Fukuda, K. J ., & Chu, P. (1994). Wrestling with expatriate family problems: Japanese

experience in East Asia. International Studies of Management & Opganization
24: 36-47.

Gates, S. (1994). The changing global role of the human resources function. Report No.
1062-94-RR, The Conference Board New York

Goa, G. E. & Gudykunst, W. B. (1990). Uncertainty, anxiety, and adaptation.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14:301-317.

Gomez-Mejia, L., & Balkin DB. (1987). The determinants of managerial satisfaction
with the expatriation and repatriation process. Journal of Management

Development 6: 7-17.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1986). Self-efﬁcacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review 12: 472-485.

124

Gregersen, H. & Black, J. S. (1990). A multifaceted approach to expatriate retention in
international assignments. Group and Organizational Studies 15:461-485.

Gregersen, H. B. & Stroh, L. K. (1997). Coming home to the arctic cold: Antecedents to
Finnish expatriate and spouse repatriation adjustment. Personnel ngcholpgy 50:
635-654.

Gudykunst, W. B., Guzley, R. M., & Hammer, M. R. (1996). Designing intercultural
training. In D. Landis, & K S. Bhagat. Handbook of Intercultural Training.
Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications Inc.

Gupta, A. K, & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge ﬂows and the structm'e of control
within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review 16 (4):
768-792.

Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K A., Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the
psychological contract. Journal of Applied ngcholpgy 79: 617-626.

Hackman, J. K & Oldman, G. K (1975). Development of a job diagnostic survey.
Journal of Applied ngchology 60: 159-170.

Hackman, J. R. & Oldman, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesl;ey. Chapter 4: 71-97.

Harrison, J. K, Chadwick, M. & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-
cultural adjustment and the personality variables of self-efﬁcacy and self-
monitoring. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Pergamon, Great
Britain. 20: 167-185.

Harvey, M. G. (1985). The executive family: An overlooked variable in international
assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business 20:84-92.

Harzing, A. W. (1995). The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates. Journal of
International Business Studies 6(2):457-474.

125

 

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Congguences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values. Sage Publications. London, UK.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Coomration and its
Immrtance for Survival. McGraw-Hill International, UK.

House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A
framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior.
Research in Opganizational Behavior 17: 71-114.

Ilgen D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette & L.

Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Ogganizational Psycholpgy.
Second Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press 2:165-207.

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management Journal 29: 262-279.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A, & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Ogganizational
Behavior 19: 151-188. JAI Press Inc.

Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory in industrial/organization psychology. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Omanizational
Pacholpﬂ. Second Edition. San Diego, CA: Psychological Corporation 1:75-
170.

Kealey, D. J. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical
applications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13: 387-428.

Kealey, D. J. (1996). The challenge of international personnel selection. In D. Landis, &
R.S. Bhagat (Eds), Handbook of Intercultural Training. Second Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications Inc.

Kealey, D. J ., & Protheroe (1996). The effectiveness of cross-cultural training for
expatriates: An assessment of the literature on the issue. I_n_ternatiorral____J_t_rma_r_l_9_f
Intercultural Relations. 20 (2):141-165.

126

 

Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy
of Management Review. 14: 150-172.

Landis, D., & Bhagat, KS. (1996). Handbook of Intercultural Training. Second
Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications Inc.

Laurent, A. (1986). The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource
management. Human Resource Management 27 (1): 91-102.

Lee, Y., & Larwood, L. (1983). The socialization of expatriate nmnagers in multinational
ﬁrms. Academy of Management Journal 26(4): 657-665.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering

unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterﬂ 25: 226-
251.

McEvoy, G. M., & Parker, B. (1995). Expatriate adjustment: Causes and consequences.

In Jan Selrner (Ed). Expatriate Management: New Ideas for International
Business. Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut.

Mendenhall, M. E. (1996). The foreign teaching assistant as expatriate manager. In D.
Landis & R S. Bhagat (Eds). Handbook of Intercultural Training. Second
Edition Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.

Mendenhall, M. E, & Macomber, J. H. (1997). Nonlinear dynamics in expatriate
management. In D. M. Saunders & Z. Aycan (Eds). New Approaches to
Employee Management. 4: 63-92. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mendenhall, M. E. & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A
review. Academy of Management Review 10(1): 39-47.

Mendenhall, M. E., Dunbar, E., & Oddou, G. (1987). Expatriate selection, training and
career-pathing: A review and critique. Human Resource Management, 26: 331-
345.

127

 

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal

of Applied ngcholon 78: 538-551.

Moran, K T., & Harris, P. K, Stripp (1993). Developing the Global Cogporation:

Stratggies for Human Resource Professionals Houston: Gulf Publishing
Company.

Moran, K T., & Riesenberger, J. R. (1994). The Global Challenge England, UK.
McGraw—Hill Book Company.

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on
newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied ngchology 78: 173-183.

Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. In

L.L. Cummings and BM. Staw (Ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior 19:
57-149 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Naumann, E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment

among expatriate managers. Group and Ogganization Management. 18 (2):
153-187.

Naylor, J.C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. K (1980). A Theogy of Behavior in
Ogganizations. New York, NY: Academic Press: 23-65.

Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Scieppe

Quarterly 29:172-191.

Noe, R. A., & Barber, A. E. (1993). Willingness to accept mobility opportunities:
Destination makes a difference. Journal of Organizational Behavior 14: 159-
175.

Oberg, K (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environment. Practical
Anthropplgist 7:177-182.

128

 

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality and expatriate job success. In D. M.

Saunders & Z. Aycan (Eds). New Approaches to Employee Management. 4:
63-92. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

O'Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment & psychological
attachment: The effects of compliance, identiﬁcation, & internalization on
prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied ngcholpgy 71(3): 492-499.

Palthe, J. (2000). Globally managing human resources. In E. E. Kossek & R. N. Block
(Eds). Managing Human Resources in the Twenty First Centugy: From Core
Concepts to Strategic Choice. South Western College Publishing, Cincinnati,
OH.

Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. M. (1993). Initial examination of a model of intercultural
adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Pergamon, Great
Britain. 355-379.

Pellico, M.T., & Stroh, L.K. (1997). Spousal assistance programs: An integral component
of the international assignment. In D. M. Saunders & Z. Aycan (Eds). New
Approaches to Employee Management. 4: 227-243. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage through People. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.

Porter, G. & Tansky, J. W. (1996) Learning orientation of employees: Moving toward

organization-based assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly 7
(2): 165-178.

Porter, G. & Tansky, J. W. (1999). Expatriate success may depend on "learning
orientation": Considerations for selection and training. Human Resource
Management 38 (1): 47-60.

Pucik, V. (1992). Globalization and human resource management. In V.Pucik, N.Tichy,

& C. Barnett (Eds). Globalizing Management: Creating and Leading the
Competitive Organization New York: John Wiley and Sons.

129

Puci

R122

Rot

Sal

Sa‘

83

St

81

S.

S.

S.

Pucik, V. & Saba, T. (1999). Selecting and developing the global versus the expatriate
manager: A review of the state-of-the-art. Human Resource Planning 40-54.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzrnan, S. I. (1970). Role conﬂict and ambiguity in
complex organizations. Administrative Science Quartery 2: 150-165

Roberts, K Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (2000). Managing the global workforce:
Challenges and strategies. In M. Mendenhall, G. Oddou (Eds). Readings and

Cases in International Human Resource Management. South Western College
Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

Saks, A. M. (1994). Moderating effects of self-efficacy for the relationship between
training method and anxiety and stress reactions of newcomers. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 15: 639-654.

Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal ﬁeld investigation of the moderating and mediating
effects of self-efﬁcacy on the relationship between training and newcomer
adjustment. Journal of Applied ngcholpgy. 80:211-225.

Salancik, G. R, & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 224-253.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1982). Cognition, affect, and self-regulation. In M. S.
Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.) Affect and Cpgnition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum

Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational Socialization & the profession of management.
Industrial Management Review.

Schneider, S. C., & Asakawa, K. (1995). American and Japanese expatriate adjustment:
A psychoanalytic perspective. Human Relations 48:1109-1127.

Scullion, H. (1994). Staffmg policies and strategic control in British multinationals.
International Studies of Management and Ogganization 24 (3)286-104.

Selrner, J. (1995). Expatriate Management. Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut.

130

 

Selrner, J., Kang, I., & Wright, R. P. (1994). Managerial behavior of expatriate versus
local bosses. International Studies of Management and Organization 24 (3):
48-63.

Shaffer, M. A. & Harrison, D. A. (1998). Expatriates' psychological withdrawal from
international assignments: Work, nonwork, and family inﬂuences. Personnel
ngchology 51: 87-118.

Solomon, OM. (1994). Success abroad depends on more than job skills. Personnel
Journal 73 (4):51-60.

Speier, C. & F rese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efﬁcacy as a mediator and moderator
between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal
ﬁeld study in East Germany. Human Performance 10: 171-192.

Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identiﬁcation of
international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology 8226-29.

Stewart, R. (1982). A model for understanding managerial jobs and behaviors. Academy
of Management Review 7 :7-14.

Stewart, S., & DeLisle, P. (1994). Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of
China. International Studies of Management and Ol'ganization 24 (3): 105-
118.

Stroh, L. K, Dennis L. E., & Cramer, T. C. (1994). Research note: Predictors of

expatriate adjustment. The International Journal of Ogganizational Analysis.
2 : 176-192.

Stone, R. J. (1991). Expatriate selection and failure. Human Resource Planning 14 (1):
9-18.

Swaak, R. A. (1995). Today's expatriate family: Dual careers and other obstacles.
Compensation and Beneﬁts Review January-February.

131

 

Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living Abroad: Personal Adjustment and Personnel Poligy in
Qe Overseas Setting. John Wiley, New York.

Torbiorn, I. (1994). Operative and strategic use of expatriates in new organizations and

market structures. International Studies of Management and Ol'ganization 24
(3): 5-17.

Thomas, K M. (1996). Psychological privilege and ethnocentrism as barriers to cross-
cultural adjustment and effective intercultural interactions. Leadership

Quarterly 7(2): 215-228.

Tung, R. L. (1981). Selecting and training of personnel for overseas assignments.
Columbia Journal of World Business 16(2): 68-78

Tung, KL. (1984). Strategic management of human resources in the multinational
enterprise. Human Resource Management Sunnner: 129-143.

Tung, R. L. (1987). Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizing failure.
Academy of Management Executive 1 (2): 117-126.

Tung, K L. (1998). American expatriates abroad: From neophytes to cosmopolitans.
Journal of World Business 33 (2): 125-144.

Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2000). Human Resource Architecture for Coping with Severe
Labor Shortages: Strategies for Embracing Foreign Workers in Organizations.
Paper presented at National Academy of Management meetings Symposium

entitled: Employment Relationships, Culture and Work Modes Within the
Stratggic Human Resource Architecture. Toronto, Canada.

Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
In B.M. Shaw (Ed.), Research in Ol'ganizational Behavior 1:209-264.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of work domain goal orientation
instrument. Educational and Psycholpgical Measurement 57: 995-1015.

132

 

Vandewalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of inﬂuence of goal orientation on the
feedback-seeking process. Journal of AMed Psychology 82: 390-400.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wagner, J. A. & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1998). Ol'ganizational Behavior: Securing
Competitive Advantage. Third Edition. Upper Saddle Creek, NJ. Prentice-Hall.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Malik, S. D. (1984) Organizational socialization and
group development: Toward an integrative perspective. Academy of
Management Review 9:670-683.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Ogganizations Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Westwood, R. I., & Leung, S. M. (1994). The female expatriate manager experience:
Coping with gender and culture. International Studies of Management and
Organization 24(3): 64-85.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review 14 (3):361-384.

Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human
resource management. Journal of Management 18:295-320.

133

 

APPENDIX

134

APPENDIX A

MEASUREMENT SCALES

 

Self Efficacy

 

Strongly disagree 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Strongly agree

 

(A dapted from Jones, I 986)

1. My new assignment is well within the scope of my abilities.

2. I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to work in the local company.

3. I feel I am overqualiﬁed for the job I am doing.

4. I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my new assignment, all 1 need
now is practical experience in the local company.

5. I feel conﬁdent that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my future
colleagues.

6. My past experiences and accomplishments increase my conﬁdence that I will be able
to perform successﬁrlly in this organization.

7. I could have handled a more challenging job than the one I am doing in the local
company.

8. Professionally speaking, my new assignment exactly satisﬁes my expectations of

myself.

135

(Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales, I 996)

9. When I make my plans, I am certain I can make them work.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
(R)
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

If I can't do a job the ﬁrst time, I keep trying until I can.

When I set important goals for myself, I usually achieve them.
When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick to it until I ﬁnish it.
When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it.

When trying to learn something new, I soon give up if I am not initially successful.

When unexpected problems occur, I can't handle them well. (R)

I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difﬁcult for me. (R)
Failure just makes me try harder.

I feel insecure about my ability to do things. (R)

I am a self-reliant person.

It is difﬁcult for me to make new ﬁiends in the host country. (R)

When I'm trying to become ﬁ'iends with someone in the host country who seems

uninterested at ﬁrst, I don't give up easily.

22.

23.

I handle myself well in social gatherings in the host country.

I have acquired my ﬁiends in the host country through my personal abilities at

making ﬁiends.

136

 

Learning Orientation (adapted from Porter & T ansky, 1999)

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30

I enjoy challenging and difﬁcult tasks at work where I'll learn new skills.

I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from.

I seek out situations that might allow me to increase my knowledge or skills.

The opportunity to increase my present abilities is reason enough to pursue a goal.
I prefer to work on projects where I can prove my ability to others.

I prefer to avoid situations at work where I might perform poorly.

. When given the choice between an easy task I know I can do well and a challenging

task that will provide an opportunity to learn, I will choose the easy task.

31

be

. It is more satisfying to work at things I do well than to struggle with those that might

beyond my abilities.

 

Role Clarity and Role Conﬂict (Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, I970)

 

Strongly disagree 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Strongly agree

 

32

33

34

35

. I have enough time to complete my work.
. I feel certain about how much authority I have.
. I have to do things that should be done differently.

. There is a lack of policies and guidelines to help me. (R)

137

 

 

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

. I have just the right amount of work to do.

I am able to act the same regardless of the group I am with.

I work under incompatible policies and guidelines. (R)

I know that I have divided my time properly.

I receive an assignment without the proper resorn'ces to complete it. (R)
I know what my responsibilities are.

I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. (R)

I have to "feel my way" in performing my duties. (R)

I feel certain how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion.

 

I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently. (R)
I know exactly what is expected of me.

I receive incompatible requests ﬁom two or more people. (R)

I am uncertain as to how my job is linked to the parent company.
I have to work under vague directives or orders. (R)

I perform work that suits my values.

 

138

 

 

Role Discretion (adapted from Black & Gregersen, I 991)

 

Strongly disagree l-2-3-4-5-6-7-Strongly agree

 

51. I have discretion for deciding what work to do each day.

52. I can decide how tasks should be accomplished.

53. I have discretion for deciding who should work on which tasks.

54. I have the same amount of discretion to execute my role as I did back at the parent
company.

55. I am free to emphasize certain aspects of the job and to ignore or delegate others.

 

Organization Socialization

 

Strongly disagree 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Strongly agree

 

(A daptedfrom Jones, I 986)

56. In the six months prior to my departure abroad, I was extensively involved with other
expatriates in training activities.
57. Other expatriates have been instrumental in helping me to understand the

requirements of my assignment abroad.

139

 

 

58. The parent company puts all expatriates through the same set of learning
experiences.

59. Most of my training has been carried out apart ﬁom other expatriates. (R)

60. There is a sense of "being in the same boat" amongst expatriates in this organization.
61. I have been through a set of training experiences that were speciﬁcally designed to
give expatriates a thorough knowledge of skills required to operate effectively abroad.
62. I have been made to feel that my skills and abilities are very important in the local
company.

63. Almost all my colleagues in the host company have been supportive of me
personally.

64. I have had to change my attitudes and values to be accepted in this host company.
(R)

65. My colleagues have gone out of their way to help me adjust to this host company.
(Adapted ﬁom Chao et. al., 1994)

66. I believe most of my colleagues in the host company like me.

67. I am usually excluded in social get-togethers given by other people in the host
company. (R)

68. I am usually excluded in informal networks or gatherings of people within this host
company (R)

69. I do not consider any of my co-workers colleagues in the host company my friends.

(R)

140

 

 

Cultural Similarity (adapted from Black & Stevens, 1 989)

Indicate how similar or diﬂerent the following items are compared to the US.

 

Very different 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Very similar

 

70. Everyday customs that must be followed.
71. General living conditions.

72. Using health-care facilities.

73. Transportation systems used in the country.
74. General living costs.

75. Available quality and types of foods.

76. Climate.

77. General housing conditions.

 

 

Cross-cultural Adjustment (Black, 1988)

 

Very unadjusted 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Very adjusted

 

General Adjustment
78. Living conditions in general

79. Housing conditions

141

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

Food

Shopping

Cost of living

Entertainment/recreation facilities and opportunities

Health-care facilities

Interaction adjustment

85.

Socializing with host nationals

86. Interacting with host nationals in general

87.

88.

Interacting with host nationals outside of work

Speaking with host nationals

Work adjustment

89.

Speciﬁc job responsibilities

90. Performance standards and expectations

9].

Supervisory responsibilities

142

 

 

Spr

 

Spouse-family Adjustment (adapted from Shaﬂer & Harrison, 1 998)

 

Strongly disagree 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Strongly agree

 

Where respondents have spouses accompanying them on the assignment abroad, they
rated the extent to which they perceived their spouse to:

92. Feel like they belong in the assigned country

93. Feel comfortable in the assigned country

94. Feel at home in the assigned country

 

Job Satisfaction (Hackman & Oldman, I975)

 

Strongly disagree 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Strongly agree

 

95. Generally speaking, I am very satisﬁed with this job.

96. I frequently think of quitting this job. (R)

97. I am generally satisﬁed with the kind of work I do in this job.
98. Most people on this job are very satisﬁed with the job.

99. People on this job often think of quitting. (R)

 

143

 

 

 

 

Non-work Satisfaction (Shaﬂer & Harrison, I 998)

 

Very dissatisfied 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Very satisﬁed

 

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

Housing

Home leave

Personal security

Health-care

Orientation to the community
Child-care providers

Counseling services

 

Commitment (Gregersen, I992)

 

Strongly disagree 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Strongly agree

 

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

I feel very little loyalty to my parent company. (R)

I am proud to tell others that I am part of the parent company.
I talk up my parent company as a great ﬁrm to work in.

I am proud to tell others that I am part of my host company.

I talk up this host company to my ﬁiends as a great place to work in.

144

112. I feel very little loyalty to my best company. (R)

 

Demographic Variables

 

Job title? (1 = senior executive, 0 = not senior executive); How many international
assignments have you been on including this one?; Total time on present assignment?;
Cross-cultural training prior to this assignment? (0 = no training, 1 = training); Country
of assignment? (Korea = 0, Netherlands = 0, Japan = 1); Was the assignment a
promotion? (1 = yes, 0 = no); Tenure in parent company (month and year the subject
started working for the parent company); Gender ( l= male, 0= female); Age? ; Marital
status (1 = married, 0 = not married); Number of children? (0 = no children, 1 = one or
more children); Is spouse accompanying you? (1 = yes, 0 = no); If children, are they on
assignment? (1 = yes, 0 = no); Education level (1 = graduate; 0 = non-graduate); Ethnic

Background.

 

145

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

l”'1'11111“lllll'lll'l'l'