Expatriate Assignments: Understanding the Skill, Ability ...

Purdue UniversityPurdue e-Pubs

Purdue CIBER Working Papers Krannert Graduate School of Management

1-1-2003

Expatriate Assignments: Understanding the Skill,Ability, Personality, and Behavioral Requirementsof Working AbroadShung J. ShinTexas A&M University

Frederick P. MorgesonMichigan State University

Michael A. CampionPurdue University

Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ciberwp

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] foradditional information.

Shin, Shung J.; Morgeson, Frederick P.; and Campion, Michael A., "Expatriate Assignments: Understanding the Skill, Ability,Personality, and Behavioral Requirements of Working Abroad" (2003). Purdue CIBER Working Papers. Paper 20.http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ciberwp/20

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu?utm_source=docs.lib.purdue.edu%2Fciberwp%2F20&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ciberwp?utm_source=docs.lib.purdue.edu%2Fciberwp%2F20&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/kran?utm_source=docs.lib.purdue.edu%2Fciberwp%2F20&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ciberwp?utm_source=docs.lib.purdue.edu%2Fciberwp%2F20&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

•

PURDUE-

CIBER

a Center for Tnrernarional · Businesses Education and Research

·--~-

ExpatriateAsslgnments: pnderstanding th~'Sldll, J\lfllity, Per:sti'riality,.~' · · · and. Behavioral Requirements,of.·'wor,~ng A:bto·~a"·· · '·' · "'

Purdue Cniversin·

Kr~tnncrr Building . ~0.1 \\7. St~lte Street

--- --r'

ShungJlie Shin,,/ · Texas A~ Univfirsity

. ';;'·,,._,-.~:-;-~· .. -~_/_:~~~-" -~-- ~ \ _ _,,.

Frederl~k P .1\i~rgeson Mic~iganStapi University

1\fichadA. Campion . ' J'tm!~f ·l)JJ,iversity, .. ·.

•, .

2003-002 . '.:.--

;,:_

\\-'est Ltbyerte,-1?\ 4!907-205<-) (76)) ·i96-Cl779 fax { 765) "i94-l)(1-'1N

:_'-;

--;-

:-~- -_

.. -.. -:.-.--- -. ·• .. ,__

:..:..·- -.·

Expatriate Assignments

Running Head: EXPATRIATE WORKER AND BEHAVIORAL REQUIREMENTS

Expatriate Assignments: Understanding the Skill, Ability, Personality, and Behavioral Requirements of Working Abroad

Shung Jae Shin Department of Management

Lowry Mays College and Graduate School of Business Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-4221 Tel: (979) 845-0926 Fax: (979) 845-9641

e-mail: [email protected]

Frederick P. Morgeson The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management

Michigan State University N475 North Business Complex East Lansing, Ml 48824-1122

Tel: (517) 432-3520 Fax: (517) 432-1111


Michael A. Campion Purdue University

Krannert Graduate School of Management West Lafayette, IN 4 7907-1310

Tel: (765) 494-5909 Fax: (765) 494-9658


Expatriate Assignments 2


It is often assumed that adjustment to the local working environment is essential for

expatriate assignments. As such, it is surprising there is little empirical research identifying how

skill, ability, and personality requirements might differ between expatriate and domestic jobs and

how cultural values are related to expatriate behaviors. In a large sample of professionals (N =

1,312) working in comparable jobs in 156 different countries, we found higher social and

perceptual skill requirements in expatriate jobs. In two sub-samples (n = 420 and 468), we found

that expatriate jobs also have higher reasoning ability and adjustment and achievement

orientation personality requirements than domestic jobs. We also found that expatriate behavioral

requirements vary in theoretically meaningful ways with the host country's culture.



Economic globalization and the need to operate in locations around the world has become

a fact of organizational life. Typically, international operations of U.S. organizations are staffed

by a mix of employees from the host country and expatriates from the U.S. Such expatriate

assignments pose unique challenges for U.S. workers because of differences in such things as

language, cultural values, and expectations. These differences likely influence the manner in

which work is done and the underlying capabilities needed for success. Although scholars have

implicitly recognized these differences and the importance of preparing U.S. workers for foreign

assignments (Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Tung, 1981), there is still

a high failure rate for expatriate assignments (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999;

Swaak, 1995; Tung, 1982). This is particularly problematic given the costs of expatriate failure,

both in terms of individual career outcomes as well as direct fmancial costs to the organization

(Adler, 1983; Black et al., 1999; Tung, 1987).

Expatriate failure usually results from failure to adapt to the new and unfamiliar working

environment (Aycan & Kanungo, 1997). There are at least three explanations for expatriates'

adaptation failures (Aycan, 1997). First, in the pre-departure stage, organizations prepare their

assignees for expatriate work. If expatriate jobs have a different profile of skill, ability, and

personality requirements than domestic jobs due to the differences in working context and

attention is not given to the differences, expatriates are likely to have unsuccessful assignments.

Unfortunately, there is little systematic empirical research that describes how these requirements

may differ between domestic and international assignments.

Second, in the post-arrival stage, when expatriate workers interact with host country

nationals (HCNs), some behaviors may be more culturally appropriate than others. That is, to


adjust to and perform expatriate work, expatriates have to engage in culturally appropriate

behaviors. If an expatriate fails to behave in culturally appropriate ways, his or her effectiveness

is likely to be reduced. By engaging in culturally appropriate behaviors, expatriates better adapt

to the new working environments. Third, organizations have a tendency to emphasize the

technical requirements of work to the exclusion of the social requirements when conducting

expatriate training. This may result in a focus on performing the work itself when adapting to the

social and cultural aspects of the work environment may be essential to successful expatriate

assignments (Dunbar, 1992; Tung, 1987). This is particularly critical in cultures that place great

importance on the social and interpersonal elements of the workplace.

To begin to examine these issues, we first investigate how skill, ability, and personality

requirements differ between domestic and international work. Second, we explore behavioral

requirements in expatriate assignments by describing and examining the relationship between

behavioral requirements and host nations' culture. By systematically examining how skill, ability,

and personality requirements differ between domestic and international assignments and how

cultural values relate to expatriate behavioral requirements, we extend the expatriate literature in

two important ways.

First, this research represents the first attempt to empirically describe how requirements

differ between domestic and international work. Although some have suggested that cross

cultural skills, abilities, and personality characteristics are important for expatriate adjustment

(e.g., Black, 1990; Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Tung, 1987), few

studies actually measure these worker requirements and then match them to a comparable

domestic sample. Second, by examining whether expatriate behavioral requirements are related

to the host nation's cultural values, this study empirically tests one of the basic hypotheses of

expatriate adjustment. That is, the bulk of the expatriate literature has assumed that expatriates


are required to adjust their behaviors to be congruent with the host culture (Brewster, 1995).

However, there have been no empirical studies that actually test whether behavioral requirements

systematically vary with cultural values. We provide an empirical test of the relationship

between work behavior and culture.

How Expatriate Worker Requirements Might Differ from Domestic Worker Requirements

Researchers have argued that inadequate adjustment to the new culture is a primary cause

of high expatriate failure rates and low work performance (Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001;

McEvoy & Parker, 1995). Toward that end, much of the expatriate literature has focused on the

factors that impact adjustment, such as expatriates' personality (Caligiuri, 2000; Ones &

Viswesvaran, 1997, 1999), previous overseas experience (Black, 1988), pre-departure training

(Black & Mendenhall, 1990), and non-work factors (Black & Stephens, 1989; Takeuchi, Yun, &

Tesluk., 2002). Yet there have been few empirical studies examining the underlying skill, ability,

and personality requirements needed in expatriate work in order to adjust to culturally different

situations (Hechanova, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003).

Scholars have suggested that expatriate work has different skill, ability, and personality

requirements than domestic work because of the need to adapt to differences in culture. In

particular, in reviewing the cross-culture adjustment literature, Black and Mendenhall (1990) and

Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) suggest there are three critical dimensions for expatriate

adjustment: (I) the relationship dimension, (2) the perceptual dimension, and (3) the self

dimension. The relationship dimension refers to skills related to the fostering of relationships

with host nationals. For successful expatriate adjustment, developing good relationships with

HCNs is essential (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Hechanova et al., 2003). By maintaining proper

relatiunships with HCNs, expatriate workers are able to interact with them appropriately, to

overcome their problems, and to perform assignments effectively. Abe and Wiseman (1983)


provided evidence for the importance of establishing close relationships with HCNs in successful

expatriate adjustment. In addition, Cui, van den Berg, and Jiang (1998) found significant

relationships between communication competence, cultural empathy, social interaction, and

cross-cultural adaptation. Arvey, Bhagat, and Salas ( 1991) suggested that relationship

dimensions such as cultural empathy and interpersonal skills become important when dealing

with cultural differences. Finally, in a meta-analytic review, Hechanova et al. (2003) found that

better interpersonal skills were associated with greater adjustment to the general environment.

Although these studies do not compare skill requirements between expatriate and

domestic workers, they do imply that expatriates need to have strong social skills so they can

successfully adapt to the local culture and work through any cultural differences. This facilitates

their adjustment to the new culture and promotes positive relationships with HCNs. Given the

importance of social interaction and relationship development for cross-cultural adjustment,

expatriate work will have higher social skill requirements than domestic work.

Hypothesis 1: Expatriate work will have higher social skill requirements than U.S. domestic work.

Mendenhall and Oddou's (1985) perception dimension refers to skills related to the

correct attribution and interpretation of host nationals' behaviors. Difficulties may arise when·

expatriates interact with HCNs who have different culturally based behaviors and beliefs.

Because expatriates' interpretations ofHCNs' behavior are based on their own cultural beliefs,

incorrect attributions or interpretations are likely to be made about HCNs' behaviors (Bochner,

1982). Furthermore, to reduce uncertainty in interpersonal relationships in an intercultural

context, it is very important for expatriates to properly interpret HCNs' behaviors (Oddou &

Mendenhall, 1984). For instance, Speitzer, McCall, and Mahoney (1997) showed that sensitivity

to cultural differences was significantly related to job performance. Also, Yiu and Saner (2000)

suggested that perceptual characteristics of expatriate managers might influence their adaptation


to new settings. In sum, perceptual skill is a basic skill that enables individuals to better

understand and interpret HCNs' behavior and cultural differences. Although this does not imply

any direct understanding of cultural differences, it does provide the basis for learning about those

cultural differences once in an international setting. In other words, expatriate workers need

perceptual skills to correctly interpret HCNs' behavior so they can reduce uncertainty in

interpersonal relations, interact efficiently with HCNs, and perform their jobs effectively. Thus,

expatriate work will have higher perceptual skill requirements than domestic work because of

culturally different contexts of international work.

Hypothesis 2: Expatriate work will have higher perceptual skill requirements than U.S. domestic work.

Mendenhall and Oddou's (1985) self-dimension refers to the characteristics related to

self-confidence and tolerance of stress, which are closely related to individuals' ability and

personality. This includes confidence in one's ability to deal effectively with foreigners and new

surroundings (Black et al., 1999) as well as resistance to stress that results from uncertainty and

anxiety about unfamiliar situations (Chao & Sun, 1997; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985). For

example, using a longitudinal design, Anderzen and Arnetz ( 1999) showed that expatriates

experienced increased psychosocial stress as compared with controls.

The stress literature has identified cognitive abilities as particularly important in the stress

coping process (Payne, 1994). For example, a number of studies have found a positive

relationship between cognitive failure (failures of memory, reasoning, and perception in

everyday life) and stress vulnerability (Mahoney, Dalby, & King, 1998; Matthews & Wells,

1988). In addition, it has been shown that problem-solving ability is negatively related to stress

level (Fraser & Tucker, 1997; Priester & Clum, 1993). In a similar vein, uncertainty can be

caused by an individual's inability to adequately structure or categorize information (Bunder,

1962). In turn, such perceived uncertainty may lead to intolerance of anomalies and incongruities


and a strong need for explanation of cause-and-effect-relationships (Bonaiuto, Biasi, Giannini,

Bonaiuto, & Bartoli, 1992). Thus, these kinds of reasoning abilities would be a particularly

important set of cognitive abilities for expatriate work. This suggests that expatriate work will

have higher reasoning ability requirements than domestic work because of the stress, uncertainty,

and anxiety associated with unfamiliar situations.

Hypothesis 3: Expatriate work will have higher reasoning ability requirements than U.S. domestic work.

In terms of personality, Caligiuri (2000) found that extroversion, agreeableness, and

emotional stability were negatively related to the expatriates' desire to terminate their

assignments. Ones and Viswesvaran (1999) found that conscientiousness was perceived as the

most important personality factor for expatriate success. In addition to these broad personality

factors, Harrison, Chadwick, and Scales (1996) found that expatriates high in self-efficacy and

self-monitoring displayed greater adjustment. Arthur and Bennett ( 1995) found that flexibility

and motivation ranked second and third in importance for expatriate success after family

situation. Finally, Aycan (1997) argued that such things as willingness and commitment might

make the adjustment less difficult.

This personality research suggests that successful expatriates need to be well adjusted and

highly motivated individuals. Given the higher levels of stress and uncertainty associated with

working abroad, expatriate work involves greater adjustment-related personality requirements

than domestic work. This would include such things as self-control, stress tolerance, and

flexibility. In addition, to overcome the temptation ofleaving their expatriate assignment early

due to the difficulties associated with working in an unfamiliar and stressful environment,

expatriate work has higher achievement-orientation personality requirements. Otherwise, they

might simply give up when faced with adjusting to a difficult work environment. Thus, because


of the degree of persistence needed when working abroad, expatriate work has more achievement

orientation requirements, such as effort, persistence in the face of obstacles, and initiative.

Hypothesis 4: Expatriate work will have greater adjustment and achievement orientation personality requirements than U.S. domestic work.

Relationships between Cultural Values and Behavioral Requirements

In addition to differences in skill, ability, and personality requirements, expatriate work is

also likely to have different behavioral requirements. This is due to the fact that cultural values

are likely to influence the appropriateness of different work behaviors. For example, Vance and

Paik (2002) found that workforces from different countries had different perceptions of

behaviors positively and negatively affecting work performance.

A variety of cross-cultural leadership studies have investigated the interaction between

managerial behavior and cultural values (Bass, 1997; Dorfman, 1996; Dorfman et al., 1997; Jung

& Avolio, 1999; Smith, Peterson, Misumi, and Bond, 1992). This research has tended to examine

the generalizability ofleadership behaviors across cultures, however, rather than focusing on the

relationship between expatriate behavior and cultural values. Put another way, this research has

focused on the consistency of managerial behaviors across cultural contexts, whereas the focus

of the present research is on how expatriate behaviors might vary along with the cultural context.

Another body of research has examined how cultural differences influence leadership

prototypes (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Gerstner & Day, 1994). For example, Gerstner and Day

(1994) asked international and American students enrolled in graduate programs to rate 59

attributes relevant to leadership. They found considerable differences in perceptions of business

leader characteristics among members of the 8 countries sampled, thus supporting the idea that

there are relationships between culture and leader traits. Den Hartog et al. ( 1999) tested whether

there are culture-specific or generalizable implicit leadership theories. With data from middle-

level managers from 60 countries, they found that perceptions of several leadership attributes

Expatriate Assignments I 0

were different among the countries. Although these studies focused on leadership prototypes and

not actual behavior, it does suggest that different behaviors would be expected to occur naturally

in societies that have different cultural values because these values reflect how the society

operates (Hofstede, 1993 ).

The mechanisms through which expatriate workers are influenced by cultural values can

be explained from both value/belief theory of culture (Hofstede, 1980; House, Wright, & Aditya,

1997) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) perspectives. According to the value theory of

culture (Hofstede, 1980, 1993), cultural values impact individual values, and individuals'

behaviors depend on the cultural values to which they are exposed. To fit in and perform their

assignment effectively, expatriates will need to behave in ways that are consistent with

prevailing cultural values. This is particularly important because expatriates typically work with

a large number ofHCNs (such as supervising a large group of employees) and working well with

these HCNs is often essential to job success (Black, 1988; Gregersen & Black, 1990).

In addition, social learning theory suggests that individuals learn from experience, and

future behaviors are guided by the consequences of past behavior (Bandura, 1977). For example,

Weiss (1977) showed how other people in the social context conditioned, in part, first-level

supervisors' work behavior. This suggests that expatriates could learn culturally appropriate and

inappropriate behaviors by observing HCNs' culturally successful behaviors. In fact, this may be

one of the most important influences on behavior given the oftentimes-extensive interaction

between expatriates and HCNs. This experience can serve to shape behavior over time, thereby

altering work behavior to be congruent with the prevailing cultural values. In other words, as

they socially learn and develop cognitive maps appropriate to the local cultural values, expatriate

behaviors will tend to follow the values emphasized by the HCNs.

Expatriate Assignments II

Given the potential influence of culture on expatriate behavior, it is important to outline

exactly how specific values affect work behavior. Perhaps the most commonly investigated

cultural value is individualism-collectivism (Earley, 1989, 1993; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal,

Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Individualism-collectivism is the degree to which people define

themselves as individuals or as members of groups (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis eta!., 1988).

Individualist cultures assume the importance of 'personal and family life' and the unimportance

of 'cooperative colleagues' and 'good working relations' (Singh, 1990). Cultures high in

individualism tend to emphasize calculative involvement with companies, loose ties between co-

workers, self-orientation, autonomy, individual initiative, and achievement (Hofstede, 1980). On

the other hand, collectivist cultures emphasize interdependence, group embeddedness, in-group

harmony, and personalized relationships (Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000). This suggests

that individualistic cultures will emphasize more self-oriented behaviors, whereas collectivistic

cultures will focus on behaviors centered on interpersonal relationships. Consequently,

expatriates working in countries high in collectivism will focus more on relationship

development with others, and show more relationship-oriented behaviors such as coordinating

team members, encouraging and building mutual trust, respect, and cooperation among team

members, and coaching and developing others.

Hypothesis 5: Expatriates working in countries high in collectivism will focus more on relationship-oriented behaviors than those in countries high in individualism.

Another cultural dimension likely to impact expatriate behavioral requirements is

masculinity-femininity (Hofstede, 1980). Femininity emphasizes affiliation and social

relationships and concerns for people and quality oflife, whereas masculinity assumes the

dominant values in society are assertiveness, acquisition, advancement, recognition, and less

caring for others or people. That is, masculine society's dominant values are performance,

material success, and assertiveness, whereas the dominant values in feminine societies are


quality of environment, interpersonal relationships, and concern for others (Hofstede, 1984;

Peterson et al., 1995). In particular, people in high-femininity cultures tend to be much more

concerned about working environments and caring for coworkers. This suggests that expatriates

working in countries high in femininity will engage in more communication and interactions

with others and perform more interaction-related activities.

Hypothesis 6: Expatriates working in countries high in femininity will focus more on interaction-related behaviors than those working in countries high in masculinity.

Another cultural dimension likely to be related to expatriate behavioral requirements is

power distance. Power distance is "the extent to which the less powerful members of

organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally" (Hofstede,

1988, p. 10). Power inequality is more accepted in countries high in power distance than those

low in power distance (Hofstede, 200 I). With 180 managers in 5 countries, Pavett and Morris

(1995) found a negative relationship between power distance and worker participation. In

addition, Nasierowski and Mikula (1998) suggest that close supervision is more accepted (or

tolerated) by subordinates in countries high in power distance than those low in power distance.

This suggests that HCNs in cultures high in power distance would expect greater administrative

behavior, which would include managing and directing activities, general administrative

activities, and monitoring and controlling resources. Therefore, in countries high in power

distance, expatriates are likely to engage in more administrative behavior.

Hypothesis 7: Expatriates working in countries high in power distance will focus more on administrative behaviors than those working in countries low in power distance.

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of I ,312 mid-career professional employees in an international

agency of the United States Government. The respondents had all been on at least one expatriate


assignment, as well as working domestically. Many of the respondents have been on multiple

expatriate assignments, with the majority of the sample having a similar amount of expatriate

experience (given their similar career stage). These employees were generalists who were

working in five different career specialties in 156 different countries, including the United States.

These specialties involve working with the U.S. and foreign public, government officials, and

members of the business community to fulfill the mission of the U.S. government. These five

specialties can be thought of as five distinctly different jobs, with unique tasks and duties (one of

the career specialties is a generalist combination of the other four). The distribution of

individuals in the different career specialties was similar across domestic and international jobs.

Employees received questionnaires asking about the skill, ability, personality and

behavioral requirements of work. All respondents received skill and behavioral requirement

surveys (as described below). Because of survey length concerns, a subset of this group also

received either the ability or personality requirements surveys. Useable surveys were returned by

64% of the employees. Although some aspects of these jobs might vary from location to location,

they have common job descriptions in the agency's operations manual. As such, the jobs held by

these individuals (within a career specialty) are functionally equivalent.

Measures

Two different measurement sources were used. For the measurement of expatriate skill,

ability, and personality, and behavioral requirements we used survey data collected from the

employees. For the survey, job analysis consultants along with organizational representatives and

subject matter experts chose to use skill, ability, work style, and generalized work activity

surveys from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). O*NET was developed for the

Department of Labor as a comprehensive job analysis system designed to replace the Dictionary

of Occupational Titles (Peterson et al., 200 I). It contains a variety of domains that describe the


world of work and were designed to be applicable to all jobs. The scales used in the present

research were selected from O*NET because they appropriately operationalize the hypotheses

developed earlier. The scales used were identical to the scales outlined in Peterson, Mumford,

Borman, Jeanneret, and Fleishman (1999) except where noted. For the measurement of cultural

values, we used Hofstede's (1988) 47 national and 3 regional cultures' relative indexes. Three of

the original 53 national indexes had no sample and were excluded.

Tasks Performed. In order to determine whether domestic and international jobs were the

same, information on the tasks performed was collected for each career specialty. This resulted

in five distinct career specialty task surveys. These surveys have to be considered separately

because the tasks across career specialties are different. A task level comparison enables a direct

assessment of the similarity of domestic and international jobs. Each survey contained between

42-52 different task dimensions, with between 3-26 tasks per dimension. This resulted in surveys

that ranged from between 246-319 individual ratings on the time spent performing the tasks.

Incumbents were instructed to rate the time spent performing the tasks in his or her current

position on a 5-point response scale, where I = much less time than most tasks and 5 = much

more time than most duties. The reliability estimate averages for the five career specialties

ranged from .84 to .91.

Skill Requirements. The I ,312 mid-career workers rated the level of skills required in the

job on 7-point Likert-type scales. Behavioral anchors were provided for the high, medium, and

low points of the scale. For example, the anchors for active listening are, "presiding as judge in a

comvlex legal disagreement" (high), "answering inquiries regarding credit references" (medium),

and "taking customers' orders" (low). Social skills are defined as the skills needed for

developing and maintaining good interpersonal relationship;. The social skill measure was

comprised of five related skills: Coordination (adjusting actions in relation to others' actions),


persuasion (persuading others to approach things differently), negotiation (bringing others

together and trying to reconcile differences), instructing (teaching others how to do something),

and service orientation (actively looking for ways to help people). Internal consistency reliability

was .77. Perceptual skills are defined as the skills for correctly perceiving reasons and causes of

other's behavior in order to make correct attributions. The perceptual skill measure was

comprised of three related skills: Active listening (listening to what other people are saying and

asking questions as appropriate), monitoring (assessing how well one is doing when learning or

doing something), and social perceptiveness (being aware of others' reactions and understanding

why they react the way they do). This measure was created by taking the social perceptiveness

item from the social skills domain, and the active listening and monitoring items from the

process skills domain. Internal consistency reliability was .69.

Ability Requirements. The level of reasoning abilities required in the job was rated by 420

employees on 7-point Likert-type scales. Behavioral anchors were provided for the high and low

points of the scale. For example, anchors for inductive reasoning are, "diagnosing a disease using

the results of many different lab tests" (high), and "determining clothing to wear on the basis of

the weather report" (low). Reasoning ability is defined as an individual capability for making

assumptions, interpreting, and making sense of situations or causal relationships. The reasoning

ability measure was composed of seven related abilities: fluency of ideas (coming up with a

number of ideas about a given topic), originality (coming up with unusual and clever ideas),

problem sensitivity (recognizing there is a problem), deductive reasoning (applying general rules

to specific problems to come up with logical answers), inductive reasoning (combining separate

pieces of information to form general conclusion), information ordering (following a given rule

in order to arrange things in a certain order), and categol) flexibility (the ability to generate rules


so that each rule tells how to group a set ofthings in a different way). Internal consistency

reliability was .85.

Personality Requirements. The level of personality characteristics required in the job was

rated by 468 employees on?,point Likert,type scales. Behavioral anchors were provided for the

high, medium, and low points of the scale. For example, anchors for stress tolerance are, "the job

requires being extremely calm and tolerant of stress imposed by other people or by

circumstances" (high), "the job requires being moderately calm and tolerant of stress imposed by

other people or by circumstances" (medium), and "this job does not involve much stress" (low).

Adjustment is defined as being calm, composed, and rational even when confronted with

unfamiliar and stressful situations (Borman, Kubisiak, & Schneider, 1999). The adjustment

measure consisted of three related personality requirements: self,control (maintaining

composure, keeping emotion, controlling anger, and avoiding aggressive behavior), stress

tolerance (dealing with high stress situations), and flexibility (being open to change). Internal

consistency reliability was . 78. Achievement orientation is defmed as valuing working hard,

persisting in the face of obstacles, and wanting to get ahead (Borman et al., 1999). The

achievement orientation measure was composed of three related characteristics:

achievement/effort (maintaining challenging goals and exerting effort), persistence (persistence

in the face of obstacles on the job), and initiative (wiiiing to take on job responsibilities and

challenges). Internal consistency reliability' was .82.

Behavioral Requirements. The 1,312 employees rated the frequency of their work

behaviors on a ?"point scale that asks, "How often is this activity performed on this job?" Scale

anchors ranged from "hourly or more often" to "once per year or less." The frequency of work

behavior reflects the kinds of behaviors required in the job. The relationship,oriented behavior

measure was comprised of five related items: coordinating teams (coordinating members of a

Expatriate Assignments I 7

work group to accomplish tasks), developing and building teams (encouraging and building

mutual trust, respect, and cooperation among team members), teaching others (identifying

educational needs and teaching others), coaching and developing others (identifying

development needs of others and coaching or otherwise helping others to improve their

knowledge or skills), and providing consultation and advice to others. Internal consistency

reliability was .80.

The interaction-related behavior measure was comprised of eight related activities:

Interpreting the meaning of information for others, communicating with supervisors, peers, or

subordinates, communicating with persons outside the organization, establishing and maintaining

interpersonal relationships, assisting .and caring for others, selling or influencing others,

resolving conflicts and negotiating with others, and performing for or working directly with the

public. Internal consistency reliability was .82. The administrative behavior measure was

composed of three activities: managing (providing guidance, direction and motivation to

subordinates), performing administrative activities, and monitoring and controlling resources.

The administrative behavior measure was the same as reported in Peterson et a!. (I 999), except

for the addition of "managing" and the exclusion of "staffing organizational units." We included

the managing item from the relationship-oriented behavior measure because it concerned

providing instructions and monitoring the behavior of subordinates. We did not include the

staffmg behavior item because this is not something that most respondents in this sample

perform and it is not a day-to-day administrative activity as the other items in this scale are.

Internal consistency reliability was .66.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses. Given the intercorrelations among the skill, personality,

and behavioral requirement measures (see Tublt I), a series of confirmatory factor analyses

(CFAs) were conducted to examine discriminant validity. These analyses were conducted


separately for each type of measure (e.g., skill, personality, and work behavior) because different

subsets of respondents provided the measures. We developed a series of !-factor, 2-factor, and 3-

factor models standing in nested sequence (depending on the hypothesized factor structure of the

measures) and conducted chi-square difference tests to test which model better fit the data

(Kelloway, 1998; Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990).

We found that the hypothesized factor structures provided a better fit to the data than any

reduced model. For example, a 2-factor (social and perceptual) model of skill requirements

provided a better fit than a !-factor model (X2d;ffeconce0) = 105.03). A 2-factor (achievement

orientation and adjustment) personality requirements model provided better fit than a !-factor

model (ld;ffmnce(l) = 36.05). Finally, a 3-factor (relationship-oriented, interaction-related, and

administrative) work behavior model provided a better fit than a 2-factor model (combining

relationship-oriented behavior and interaction-related behavior; x' d;m,ronce( I) = 181.51) and a !

factor model (after constraining all interfactor correlations to equali.O; lMreconce(3) = 210.27).

Notwithstanding the intercorrelations among the measures, these CFAs indicate that the

measures should not be combined. The full results of the CF As are available on request.

Cultural Values. Hofstede's (1980, 1988) dimensions for work values are probably the

most frequently used in cross-cultural studies (Dorfman et al., 1997; Gerstner & Day, 1994;

Ron en & Shenkar, 1985). Although there has been a great deal of debate about these measures

(see Hofstede, 2002; Spector & Cooper, 2002), they have shown acceptable validity and have

been empirically supported and widely used (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Elangovan, 1995;

Hofstede, 1980; Peterson et al., 1995; Shackleton & Ali, 1990). Furthermore, several previous

studies have supported the use of Hofstede's cultural index (Merritt, 2000; Smith, Dugan,

Peterson, & Leung, 1998). We employed national scores for Hofstede's (1988) cultural

dimensions as proxies for cultural influence on expatriate behaviors. Each dimension indicates


the extent to which certain values characterize a culture. If a nation is high in individualism,

masculinity, or power distance, the national scores for individualism-collectivism, masculinity

femininity, or power distance are high.

Analysis Strategy. To test Hypothesis I, 2, 3, and 4, we conducted analyses of covariance

(ANCOVAs) to examine mean differences between domestic and intemationaljobs. These

hypotheses are tested at the individual level. Because the work requirements might depend on

career specialty (and there are five different career specialties in this organization), we included

career specialty as a covariate. As mentioned, all jobs were at the same level (mid-career

workers). To test the relationships between cultural values and expatriate behavior, we examined

the correlations of national cultures' index with scores of the three behavior scales. To get the

scale measures, we aggregated the measures of the respondents to the nation level, and then to

Hofstede's index level. The measures of national averages in the region of East Africa, West

Africa, and Arab countries were aggregated into each region to be matched to Hofstede's

regional indexes (Hofstede, 1988).

Because the work behaviors were aggregated, it is necessary to provide empirical

justification for the aggregation (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). To do so, we estimated both

interrater reliability (via the intraclass correlation; JCC(2); Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) and interrater

agreement (rwg; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). The interrater reliability estimates represent the

reliability of the mean rating of the work behaviors within a given nation compared to other

nations. The interrater reliabilities were as follows: Relationship-oriented behavior, .60;

interaction-related behavior, .32; and administrative behavior, .65. All the interrater reliability

estimates were statistically significant at the p < .05 level (within a one-way analysis of variance

with nation as the grouping variable).


Interrater agreement reflects the absolute level of agreement across raters and thus

assesses the extent to which raters within a given nation make similar mean-level ratings. This

differs from interrater reliability estimates in that it does not depend upon the amount of between

nation variance. The median interrater agreement estimates were as follows (similar results were

obtained with mean estimates): Relationship-oriented behavior, .90; Interaction-related

behavior, .93; and administrative behavior, .77.

Although the interrater reliability of interaction-related behavior was lower than we

would have preferred, this measure evidenced good interrater agreement. In fact, as a group these

levels of interrater reliability and agreement meet or exceed the levels of reliability and

agreement found in previous research that has dealt with aggregation issues (Campion, Medsker,

& Higgs, 1993). In addition, it is consistent with common rules of thumb about the levels of

interrater reliability needed to justifY aggregation (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993).

In the ANCOVAs at the individual level (n's range from 420 to 1,312), statistical power

was more than 99% to detect an eta2 = .04 (medium effect size) and 66% to 97% for an eti =.OJ

(small effect size;p < .01, two-tail; Cohen, 1977). In the correlational analyses at the culture

level (n = 50), statistical power was 81% to detect an r = .30 (medium effect size) and 55% for

an r = .20 (p < .I 0, one-tail; Cohen, 1977). Because of the modest power to detect correlations in

the .20-.30 range and to balance Type I and Type II errors in the correlational analyses, we

interpreted significance levels up top< .I 0.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Potential Differences in Domestic and International Jobs. Even though the domestic and

international jobs shared commor, job descriptions, it is still possible that the tasks performed in

the United States differed from those performed in international jobs. Because some of our


hypotheses involve comparing domestic to international jobs, it is necessary to show that the jobs

are largely the same. This is essential because if the tasks performed in the job are the same, any

observed differences could be attributed to differences in cultural context. Using the task survey

data described earlier, we examined differences in tasks between domestic and international jobs.

To do this, we conducted a number of analyses on this task data to determine whether

there were differences in time-spent ratings across the different tasks. It should be noted that

examining differences at the task level represents the strongest possible test for differences

because it occurs at the finest-grained level of analysis possible (i.e., the task level). To

summarize these analyses, an average of only 13% of the task scales were significantly different

across the 5 different career specialties. The fact that, on average, 87% of the tasks are the same

suggests the jobs are more similar than different. Another way to examine the magnitude of the

difference is to examine the mean differences of those found to be significantly different. The

average mean difference was .24. Thus, even when differences are found, they tend to be

relatively small in magnitude, especially when compared to the average standard deviation of the

task measures, which was .83.

Finally, we examined whether the tasks found to differ between domestic and

international jobs are actually related to skill, ability, and personality requirement ratings. If the

task ratings are unrelated to these requirement ratings, then differences in tasks are not

responsible for differences in requirements. Only 22% of the possible correlations between tasks

and worker requirements were significant (p < .05). Thus, of the 13% of the tasks that showed a

significant difference, only 22% of them are significantly correlated with the worker

requirements. In addition, the average correlation of the task scales that were significantly

different between the domestic and the international jobs with the job requirements is just .14.


In total, these results suggest that, (I) there were relatively few task differences, (2) when

found, differences were small in magnitude, (3) most of the tasks that were different were

umelated to the worker requirements, and (4) the relationships between the tasks and the worker

requirements were small in magnitude. This suggests that differences in tasks are not responsible

for differences in skill, ability, and personality requirements.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics and correlations between all the variables are reported in Table I.

Means for the worker and behavioral requirements range between 4.05 and 5.86 (on a 7-point

scale). Standard deviations range between .81 and 1.12. The skills and the abilities are highly

related, and relationship-oriented behavior and interaction-related behavior are also highly

related. Finally, adjustment, and achievement orientation are moderately related to the skills and

abilities, but less related to the behavioral requirements. The strong relationship between

individualism-collectivism and power distance is a spurious one. Hofstede's research (1984) has

shown this is due to the relationship of both dimensions to national wealth.

Differences in Worker Requirements between Expatriate and Domestic Jobs

The first four hypotheses concern whether expatriate jobs have higher social and

perceptual skill, reasoning ability, adjustment, and achievement orientation requirements than

domestic jobs. Table 2 shows means, standard deviations and the results of AN CO VAs for these

requirements by job location (domestic vs. international job), controlling for career specialty.

Hypothesis I suggested that expatriates have higher social skill requirements than

domestic workers because their social skills are important for cross-cultural adjustment. We

found that international jobs had significantly higher social skill requirements than domestic jobs

(mean difference= .30). Closer inspection of the individual skills indicated that service

orientation (mean difference= .51) and instructing (mean difference= .41) evidenced the largest


differences. The other social skills showed smaller differences (although still significant)

between international and domestic jobs. These results support the hypothesis that expatriate

work has higher social skill requirements than domestic work.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that expatriate work requires higher perceptual skill requirements

so expatriates can better understand HCNs' behaviors. We found that expatriate work had

significantly higher perceptual skill requirements than domestic work (mean difference= .37).

An examination of the individual skill items indicates that the largest differences were in social

perceptiveness (mean difference= .49), with active listening and monitoring showing smaller,

but still significant, differences. These results support the hypothesis that expatriate work has

higher perceptual skill requirements than domestic work.

Hypothesis 3 suggested that expatriate work requires higher levels of reasoning ability

than domestic work because expatriate work entails more uncertainty due to cultural

unfamiliarity. We found that expatriate work had significantly higher reasoning ability

requirements than domestic work (mean difference= .30). Among the individual items,

originality showed the largest differences (mean difference= .39), with problem sensitivity,

inductive reasoning, information ordering, and fluency of ideas showing smaller, but still

significant, differences. These results support the hypothesis that expatriate work has higher

reasoning ability requirements than domestic work.

Hypothesis 4 suggested that expatriate work has a higher level of adjustment and

achievement orientation personality requirements than domestic work because it facilitates

adaptation to foreign assignments. We found that expatriate work had significantly higher

adjustment personality requirements than domestic work (mean difference= .36). An

examination of the individual scale items indicates that the largest difference was in self-control

(mean difference= .52). In addition, we found that expatriate work required significantly higher


achievement orientation than domestic work (mean difference= .35). As expected, the three

individual items showed significant differences between international and domestic work (mean

differences between .27 - .40). These results support the hypothesis that expatriate work has

higher adjustment and achievement orientation personality requirements than domestic work.

Supplemental Analyses. In making comparisons between domestic and international work,

we have dichotomized the nation-level data. In so doing, it is possible that some important

information about differences between nations has been lost. This would serve to reduce the

amount of variance explained by the dichotomized variable. Because of this, we have conducted

several supplemental analyses to examine nation- and region-level differences. These analyses

were conducted on the social and perceptual skills only, because this was the only worker

requirement data available across the entire sample.

The first supplemental analysis examines the amount of variance explained by nation

level differences. This is the most fme-grained analysis of culture differences in skill

requirements, and will yield an upper estimate on the amount of variance attributable to national

culture. The regression analyses showed that when examining social and perceptual skills at the

nation level of analysis (utilizing a series of dummy variable codes for nation; Cohen & Cohen,

1 983), significantly more variance was explained than was explained in the domestic and

international analyses previously conducted (L'l.R2 = .15,p < .05, and !J.R2 = .17,p < .OJ). The

change in R-squared reflects the increase in R-squared when dummy variables for nations were

entered after the career specialty dummy variables. Although virtually every country showed

higher skill requirements than the U.S., some countries were particularly high. For example, the

mean difference for social and perceptual skill requirements between Kuwait and the U.S. was

.92 and .79, re.;pectively. The mean difference was even higher between Bulgaria and the U.S.,

with differences of 1.24 and 1.19 for social and perceptual skill requirements, respectively.


These differences are much greater than those found with the domestic versus international

dichotomy (cf. Table 2).

One of the problems with the nation-level analyses, however, is the sheer number of

comparisons that must be made. This complexity makes it difficult to interpret any differences

that are found. As such, it may be useful to investigate an intermediate level of analysis.

Fortunately, Ronen and Shenkar (1985) have grouped nations into relatively homogeneous

regions. In addition to those regions, we added several regions (e.g., Africa, Eastern Europe,

Russia, China, an Caribbean) that were not included at their study. Using these region codes, we

conducted another set of regression analyses. As expected, the amount of variance explained by

region was smaller than that explained by nation (L1R2 = .05,p <.OJ, and L1R2

= .06,p <.OJ for

social and perceptual skills, respectively), but it was greater than that explained by the domestic

versus international dichotomy (cf. Table 2). In particular, working in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria,

Hungary, and Poland) and Nordic (Denmark, Netherlands, and Sweden) regions required much

higher levels of social and perceptual skills than working in U.S. The mean difference for social

and perceptual skill requirements between Eastern Europe and the U.S. was .58 and .59, and

between Nordic and the U.S. was .61 and .58, respectively.

Relationships between Cultural Values and Expatriate Behavioral Requirements

Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 concern the relationship between cultural values and expatriate

behavioral requirements. Table 3 reports the number of respondents in each nation or region

(using Hofstede's (1988) groupings). The average number of respondents per nation was 19 if

the U.S. is included, II if the U.S. is not included. Table 4 provides correlations between the

cultural and work behavior measures.

Hypothesis 5 suggested that expatriates working in nations high in collectivism would

focus more on behaviors related to relationship development because collectivism emphasizes


interpersonal relationships. In the individualism-collectivism scale, lower scale values indicate a

more collectivistic culture, and negative correlations indicate support for the hypothesis. We

found a significant negative correlation between individualism-collectivism and relationship

oriented behavior (r = -.36,p < .OJ). Except for one individual item (providing consultation and

advice to others), all items were significantly related, with correlations ranging from -.25 to -.39.

Based on these findings, it appears that expatriates working in countries high in collectivism

engage in more relationship-oriented behaviors.

Hypothesis 6 suggested that host nations' masculine cultures would be negatively related

to expatriates' interacting with others. The correlation between interaction-related behavior scale

and masculinity-femininity was not significant (r = -.12). However, the sign of correlation was

negative, as expected, and two of the individual items (communicating with persons outside the

organization, and performing for or working directly with the public) were significant (r = -.20, p

< .I 0). Overall, the hypothesis regarding masculinity-femininity received little support.

Hypothesis 7 suggested that host nations' cultures high in power distance would be

positively related to expatriates' administrative behavior. We found a significant positive

correlation between the administrative scale and power distance (r = .22, p < .I 0). Both

performing administrative activities (r = .26,p < .05) and monitoring and controlling resources (r

= .24,p < .05) were significant. Managing was not significant (r = .14). Therefore, Hypothesis 7

was largely supported.

Discussion

The results for comparisons between domestic and expatriate work reveal that expatriate

work had higher social and perceptual skill, reasoning ability, and adjustment and achievement

orientation personality requirements than domestic work. In addition, expatriates working in

countries high in collectivism tended to engage in more relationship-oriented behaviors than


those working in countries high in individualism and that expatriates working in countries high

in power distance were more likely to engage in various administrative behaviors.

Several methodological strengths increase our confidence in these findings. First, the

study was conducted in one large, multi-national organization. This eliminates the potentially

confounding effects that organizational factors might have on the results (Hofstede, 1980).

Second, common method variance cannot be responsible for the results because two different

sources of data were used: A survey for the measure of worker requirements and Hofstede's

indexes for the measures of cultural values. Finally, the data set is large (N= I ,312) and

comprehensive (156 countries), therebyproviding adequate variance in study measures.

There are a number of implications for the literature. Several studies have argued for the

relationship between various worker requirements and expatriate adjustment (Abe & Wiseman,

1983; Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Arvey eta!., 1991; Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Caligiuri, 2000;

Cui eta!., 1998; Harrison eta!., 1996; Mendenhall and Oddou, 1985; Ones & Viswesvaran,

1999). Few studies have actually measured these requirements and then matched them to a

comparable group working domestically. In other words, although previous research has found

relationships between skill, ability, and personality characteristics and expatriates' adjustment or

performance, it has not been able to establish whether those characteristics are more important

for expatriate workers, in part, because these characteristics are likely to be important for

domestic workers as well. By empirically testing differences in requirements between domestic

and international work of the same type in the same organization, we can conclude these skill,

ability, and personality requirements are greater for expatriate than domestic workers. Thus, our

findings imply that expatriate jobs have higher worker requirements to better adapt to (or adjust

themselves to) the new and unfamiliar cultural settings.


Also, drawing from both value/belief theory of culture and social learning theory, this

study suggests that expatriates may adjust their behavior to the host culture (Brewster, 1995;

Hofstede, 1993 ). In other words, by showing that expatriate behavioral requirements vary with

the host nations' cultural values, this study encourages future research to investigate the process

through which expatriates adjust themselves to the host nation's culture. This study, with the

measures defined at a broad level and the large number of respondents working in !56 different

countries, provides some evidence on the influence of cultural differences on expatriates'

requirements and behaviors.

The results of this study have several practical implications for both pre-departure and

post-departure stages of expatriation. U.S. multinational companies have been criticized for

neglecting the role of cultural adjustment in selection and training (Black, Mendenhall, &

Oddou, 1991). This may be due to a lack of knowledge of what skills, abilities and personality

traits to emphasize in expatriate selection and training (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Oddou, 1991).

For example, if an expatriate has high levels of social and perceptual skills then he or she will

better adjust to the culturally unfamiliar working environment because of skill in building social

relationships and correctly perceiving and attributing the causes of HCN behavior. With a high

level of reasoning ability, expatriates will be better able to deal with uncertainties and stress

caused by cultm:al unfamiliarity. Furthermore, expatriates high on adjustment or achievement

orientation will be more tolerant of or motivated to tolerate the uncertainty or discomfort

produced by being in unfamiliar cultures. By recognizing the skill, ability, and personality

requirements of expatriate work, multi-national organizations can design and implement better

selection and training tools for expatriates in the pre-departure stage.

In addition, by considering the relationships between cultural values and work behaviors

in the post-departure stage, organizations may be able to select or train expatriates so they can


adjust themselves to the host culture more quickly, have closer relationships with HCNs, and

perform more effectively. For example, if an organization needs to send expatriates to Eastern

Asian countries where HCNs emphasize interpersonal relationships, it should consider sending

individuals who are prone to engage in relationship-oriented behaviors, or, at the very least,

emphasize the importance of these behaviors when interacting with HCNs. Furthermore, the idea

that certain sets of behaviors should be learned for a certain cultural value may be very useful for

post-arrival training, which is often behaviorally-based (Selmer, Torbiom, & de Leon, 1998;

Selmer, 2001). Thus, by studying the relationships between cultural values and desirable

expatriate behaviors, organizations can select and train expatriates more appropriately for

different cultures.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study used Hofstede's measures of cultural values, which are the most

comprehensive, publicly available measures. Notwithstanding the strengths noted earlier,

legitimate concerns have been raised about Hofstede's measures, including a lack of

exhaustiveness, adequacy of the sample of nations, generalizability, possible historical changes,

and some validity problems (Schwartz, 1994; Spector, Cooper, & Sparks, 2001).

Notwithstanding these concerns, there have been several studies indicating that Hofstede's

cultural index has an acceptable level of predictive validity (Hofstede, 200 I; Smith et al., I 998).

Future research should directly measure cultural values held by HCNs, which may provide more

accurate information about cultural dimensions. This is likely to produce stronger relationships

than those obtained in our study.

It should also be acknowledged that we had relatively modest effect sizes, particularly in

terms of differences in domestic and international jobs. As we noted, in dichotomizing tht

nation-level data, we likely Jose some information about differences between the nations. Future


research can take a more fine-grained approach by investigating other potential factors (e.g.,

specific differences in religion, social, and political systems) that may be responsible for

differences in expatriate work. It is also important to keep in mind that one of the primary

purposes of this research is to empirically test whether differences in skill, ability, and

personality requirements exist between domestic and international assignments due to the

general unfamiliarity with foreign working environments, which would include cultural values,

language and religion differences, and a host of other differences. We view our study as an initial

attempt to demonstrate that these differences exist, given that no existing research has

empirically compared domestic/international differences with comparable groups. Clearly,

additional research directly examining more proximal reasons for the differences will help us

better understand why certain countries have higher skill, ability, and personality requirements.

In addition, because these data were cross-sectional in nature, it is impossible to

determine whether expatriate behavior is influenced by culture, or whether certain types of

individuals are assigned to countries with a certain set of cultural values that suit their behavioral

style. The fact that the organization studied does not have an assessment and placement system

centered on behavioral style suggests that this latter explanation is unlikely. It might be possible,

however, that certain types of individuals self-select into expatriate roles. Research is clearly

needed on this issue.

Finally, we did not examine the process by which host nations' culture influences

expatriates' behavior. Although the present study does not allow us to directly investigate the

adjustment process, our findings do suggest some of the worker requirements needed for

expatriates' adaptive job performance. To better understand how the host culture influences

expatriates' behavior, it would be important to examine the interaction process between

expatriates and HCNs and how cultural values are enacted (Dubin, 1978).


References

Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of

intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-68.

Adler, N.J. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend.

Academy of Management Review, 8, 226-232.

Anderzen, I., & Arnetz, B. B. ( 1999). Psychophysiological reactions to international

adjustment: Results from a controlled, longitudinal study. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics,

68(2), 67-75.

Arthur, Jr., W., & Bennett, Jr., W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative

importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48. 99-114.

Arvey, R. D., Bhagat, R. S., & Salas, E. (1991). Cross-cultural and cross-national issues

in personnel and human resource management: Where do we go from here? Research in

Personnel and Human Resource Management, 9, 367-407.

Aycan, Z. (1997). Acculturation of expatriate managers: A process model of adjustment

and performance. In A. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employee management (Vol. 4, pp. 1-

40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R.N. (1997). Current issues and future challenges in expatriate

management and performance. In A. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employee management

(Vol. 4, pp. 245-260). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social/earning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformationalleadership paradigrn

transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

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). The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of

Japanese expatriate managers. Management international Review, 30, 119-134.

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

people through international assignment. Addison-Wesley.

Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. E. ( 1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review

and a 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., & Stephens, G. K. (1989). The influence of the spouse on American

expatriate adjustroent in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of Management, 15, 529-

544.

Bochner, S. (1982). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction. New York:

Pergamon Press.

Bonaiuto, P., Biasi, V., Giannini, A.M., Bonaiuto, M., & Bartoli, G. (1992). Stress,

comfort, and self-appraisal: A panoramic investigation of the dynamics of cognitive processes. In

D. G. Forgays, T. Sosnowski, et al. (Eds.), Anxiety: Recent developments in cognitive,

psychophysiological, and health research (pp. 75-1 07). Washington, DC: Hemisphere

Publishing Corp.

Borman, W. C., Kubisiak, U. C., & Schneider, R. J. (1999). Work styles. InN. G.

Peterson, M.D. Mnmford, W. C. Borman, P.R. Jeanneret, & A. F. Edwin (Eds.), An

oc:cupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET (pp. 213-226).

Washington, DC: APA.


Brewster, C. (1995). Effective expatriate training. In J. Selmer (Ed.), Expatriate

Management: New ideas for international business (pp. 57-72). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Bunder, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of

Personality, 30, 29-51.

Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of

expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel

Psychology, 53, 67-88.

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group

characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel


Chao, G. T., & Sun, Y. J. (1997). Training needs for expatriate adjustment in the People's

Republic of China. In A. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employee management (Vol. 4, pp.

207-226). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Clugston, M., Howell, J.P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict

multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5-30.

Cohen, J. ( 1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (Rev. ed. ). New

York: Academic Press.

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P.(l983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences (2nd ed. ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cui, G., van den Berg, S., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Cross-cultural adaptation and ethnic

communication: Two structural equation models. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 9, 69-85.

Den Hartog, D. N., & GLOBE members. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally

generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational

leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219-256.


Dorfman, P. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership. In J. Punnitt & 0.

Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research (pp. 267-349). Cambridge,

MA: Blackwell.

Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J.P. (1988). Dimensions of national cultures and effective

leadership patterns. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127-150.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J.P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997).

Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective

leadership process across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 233-274.

Dunbar, E. (1992). Adjustment and satisfaction of expatriate U.S. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 16, 1-16.

Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: The Free Press.

Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States

and the People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of

collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 3 6, 319-348.

Elangovan, A. R. (1995). Managerial conflict intervention in organizations: Traversing

the cultural mosaic. International Journal of Conflict Management, 6, 124-146.

Fraser, K. P., & Tucker, C. M. (1997). Individuation, stress, and problem-solving abilities

of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 461-467.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison ofleadership prototypes.

Leadership Quarterly, 5, 121-134.

Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1990). A multifaceted approach to expatriate retention

in international assignments. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 461-485.


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, 20, 167-188.

Hechanova, R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N.D. (2003). Antecedents and

consequences of employees' adjustment to overseas assignment: A meta-analytic review.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52,213-236.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related

beliefs. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of

Management Review, 9, 389-398.

Hofstede, G. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth.

Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4-21.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints on management theories. Academy of

Management Executive, 7, 81-94.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,

and organizations across nations (2nd ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2002). The pitfalls of cross-national survey research: A reply to the article

by Spector et al. on the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 170-173.

House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R.N. (1997). Cross-culture research on

organizational leadership. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New Perspectives in International

Industrial Organizational Psychology (pp. 535-625). San Francisco: New Lexington.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater

reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.


Jung, D. 1., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects ofleadership style and followers' cultural

orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management

Journal, 42. 208-218.

Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LJSRELfor structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Kraimer, M., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate

performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54, 71-99.

Mahoney, A.M., Dalhy, J. T., & King, M. C. (1998). Cognitive failure and stress.

Psychological Reports, 82, 1432-1434.

Matthews, G., & Wells, A. (1988). Relationships between anxiety, self-consciousness,

and cognitive failure. Cognition and Emotion, 2(2), 123-132.

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

In J. Selmer (Ed.), Expatriate management: New ideas for international business (pp. 97-114).

Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A

review. Academy of Management Review, 10, 39-4 7.

Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede's dimensions replicate? Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 283-301.

Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs:

Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24,

249-265.

Nasierowski, W., & Mikula, B. (1998). Culture dimensions of Polish managers:

Hofstede's indices. Organization Studies, 19, 495-509.

Expatriate Assignments 3 7

Netemeyer, R., Johnston, M., &Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role

ambiguity in a structural equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7 5, 148-157.

Oddou, G. (1991). Managing your expatriates: What successful firms do. Human

Resource Planning, 14, 301-308.

Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. E. (1984). Person perception in cross-cultural settings: A

review of cross-cultural and related literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8,

77-96.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determinants in the prediction of

aspects of expatriate job success. In A. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employee management

(Vol. 4, pp. 63-92). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1999). Relative importance of personality dimensions

for expatriate selection: Apolicy capturing study. Human Performance, 12, 275-294.

Ostroff, C., & Schmitt, N. (1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and

efficiency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 1345-1361.

Pavett, C., & Morris, T. (1995). Management styles within a multinational corporation: A

five-country comparative study. Human Relations, 48, 1171-1191.

Payne, R. (1994). Individual differences in the study of occupational stress. In C. L.

Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 209-232).

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M.D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P.R., & Edwin, A. F.

(1999). An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET.

Washington, DC: APA.

Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M.D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P.R., Fleishman, E. A.,

Campion, M.A., Levin, K. Y., Mayfield, M.S., Morgeson, F. P., Pearlman, K., Gowing, M. K.,


Lancaster, A., & Dye, D. (2001). Understanding work using the occupational information

network (O*NET): Implications for practice and research. Personnel Psychology, 54, 451-492.

Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N.

G., Jesuino, J. C., D'Amorim, M., Francois, P. H., Hofinann, K., Koopman, P. L., Leung, K.,

Lim, T. K., Mortazavi, S., Munene, J., Radford, M., Ropo, A., Savage, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, T.

N., Sorenson, R., Viedge, C. {1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study.

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429-452.

Priester, M. J., & Clum, G. A. (1993). Perceived problem-solving ability as a predictor of

depression, hopelessness, and suicide ideation in a college population. Journal of Counseling


Ronen, S., & Shenkar, 0. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A

review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, I 0, 435-454.

Schwartz, S. J. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of

values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, eta!. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and

applications. Cross-cultural research and methodology series (Vol. 18, pp. 85-119). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Selmer, J. (200 I). The preference for predeparture or postarrival cross-cultural training:

An exploratory approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 50-58.

Selmer, J., Torbiom, I., de Leon, C. T. (1998). Sequential cross-cultural training for

expatriate business managers: Predeparture and post-arrival. international Journal of Human

Resource Management, 9, 831-840.

Shackleton, V. J., & Ali, A. H. (1990). Work-related values of managers: A test of

Hofstede model. Journal of Cross-cultural Psy-.::hology, 21, 109-118.


Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater

reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.

Singh, J.P. (1990). Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organization

Studies, 11, 75-101.

Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., Peterson, M. F., & Leung, K. (1998). Individualism:

Collectivism and the handling of disagreement. A 23 country study.International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 22, 351-367.

Smith, P. B., Peterson, M., Misumi, J., & Bond, M. (1992). A cross-cultural test of the

Japanese PM leadership theory. Applied Psychology, 41, 5-19.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L. (2002). The pitfalls of poor psychometric properties: A

rejoinder to Hofstede's reply to us. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 174-178.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., Bussing, A., Dewe, P. et al. (2001).

An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module

1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 50, 269-281.

Speitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J.D. (1997). Early identification of

international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6-29.

Swaak, R. A. 1995. Expatriate failure: Too many, too much cost, too little planning.

Compensation and Benefits Review, 27, 47-55.

Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Tesluk, P. E. (2002). An examination of crossover and spillover

effects of spousal and expatriate cross-cultural adjustment on expatriate outcomes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 655-666.


Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).

Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

Tung, R. L. (1981). Selection and training of personnel of overseas assignments.

Columbia Journal of World Business, 15, 68-78.

Tung, R. L. (1982). Selection and training procedures of U.S., European, and Japanese

multinationals. California Management Review, 25, 57-71.

Tung, R. L. (1987). Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizing failure.

Academy of Management Executive, 1, 117-126.

Vance, C. M., & Paik, Y. (2002). One size fits all in expatriate pre-departure training?

Comparing the host country voices of Mexican, Indonesian and US workers. Journal of

Management Development, 21, 557-571.

Yiu, L., & Saner, R. (2000). Determining the impact of cognitive styles on the

effectiveness of global managers: Propositions for further research. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 11, 319-324.

Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling

in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 19, 89-

105.


Table I

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Worker Requirements, Behavioral Requirements, and Cultural Values

Variable N Meana SDa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II Meanb SDb

I. Social skills 1,310 4.97 .91 - .05 -.11 -.05 5.11 .33

2. Perceptual skills 1,312 5.40 .85 .72** .03 -.12 -.07 5.54 .30

3. Reasoning ability 420 4.89 .88 .69** .67** - -.11 -.19 -.04 4.99 .39

4. Adjustment 468 5.86 1.00 .46** .43** - - .00 .08 -.01 5.97 .59

5. Achievement orientation 468 5.84 1.01 .57** .54** .61 ** -.09 -.01 .04 6.03 .52

6. Relationship-oriented behavior 1,301 4.05 .94 .43** .33** .32** .36** .31 ** - -.36** -.17 .24* 4.26 .38

7. Interaction-related behavior 1,310 4.63 .81 .27** .28** .22** .26** .24** .59** - -.17 -.12 .09 4.77 .32

8. Administrative behavior 1,290 4.51 1.12 .27** .18* .16** .21** .14** .56** .37** -.18 .II .22 4.75 .51

9. Individualism-collectivism 50 - - .05 -.68** 43.98 25.78

I 0. Masculinity-femininity 50 - - - .07 49.44 18.57

11. Power distance 50 - - 56.50 22.41

'Individual-level. b Nation-level. * p < .05 (one-tailed).** p < .01 (one-tailed).

Note. Individual-level correlations below the diagonal. Nation-level correlations above the diagonal.


Table 2

Mean Differences and Standard Deviations for Domestic and International Jobs Controlling for Career Specialty

Variable N Domestic International F df Eta Mean (SD} Mean (SD} Sguared

Social Skills 1,310 4.76 (0.94) 5.06 (0.88) 37.39** I, 1,307 .028 Coordination 1,297 5.09 (1.24) 5.37 (1.16) 21.99** I, 1,294 .017 Persuasion 1,301 5.27 (1.25) 5.48 (1.13) 20.51 ** 1, 1,298 .016 Negotiation 1,294 4.99 (1.29) 5.17 (1.21) 18.16** 1, 1,291 .014 Instructing 1,240 3.91 (1.20) 4.32 (1.07) 26.34** 1, 1,237 .021 Service Orientation 1,244 4.50 (1.36) 5.01 (1.30) 31.15** 1, 1,241 .025

Perceptual Skills 1,312 5.14 (0.91) 5.51 (0.79) 61.48** 1, 1,309 .045 Active Listening 1,307 5.75 (0.95) 6.03 (0.87) 31.63** 1, 1,304 .024 Monitoring 1,289 4.62 (1.09) 4.97 (1.08) 32.95** 1, 1,286 .025 Social Perceptiveness 1,301 5.06 (1.22) 5.55 (1.08) 57.80** I, 1,298 .043

Reasoning Ability 420 4.70 (0.92) 5.00 (0.85) 8.74** I, 417 .021 Fluency ofldeas 410 4.76 (1.28) 5.05 (1.21) 4.36* 1 , 407 .Oll Originality 420 4.54 (1.30) 4.92 (1.10) 7.81** I, 417 .019 Problem Sensitivity 419 5.04 (1.25) 5.43 (1.09) 7.26** I, 416 .017 Deductive Reasoning 417 5.10 (1.08) 5.35 (0.98) 3.63 I, 414 .009 Inductive Reasoning 418 4.99 (1.29) 5.35 (1.10) 6.59* I, 415 .016 Information Ordering 400 4.29 (1.29) 4.60 (1.23) 4.78* I, 397 .012 Category Flexibility 352 4.19 (1.38) 4.29 (1.21) 0.43 I, 349 .001

Adjustment 468 5.61 (1.04) 5.97 (0.96) 16.15** I, 465 .034 Self-control 466 5.44 (1.38) 5.96 (1.18) 21.18** 1, 463 .044 Stress Tolerance 468 5.66 (1.15) 6.01 (1.11) 12.52** I, 465 .025 Flexibility 467 5.75 (1.25) 5.95 (1.12) 3.61 I, 464 .008

Achievement orientation 468 5.59 (1.13) 5.94 (0.94) 16.22** 1, 465 .034 Achievement/effort 466 5.42 (1.28) 5.76 (1.15) 15.16** I, 463 .032 Persistence 468 5.74 (1.14) 6.01 (0.99) 9.60** I, 465 .020 Initiative 468 5.65 (1.45) 6.05 (1.12) 11.66** I, 465 .025

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


Table 3

Number of Respondents per Nation

Nation Number of ResEondents Nation Number ofResEondents Argentina 5 Malaysia 6

Australia 14 Mexico 31 Austria 5 Netherlands 4

Belgium 16 New Zealand 2

Brazil 12 Norway 5

Canada 28 Pakistan 6

Colombia 5 Panama 5

Costa Rica 3 Peru 8

Denmark 4 Philippines 13 Ecuador 5 Portugal 4

England 14 Singapore 6

Finland 3 South Africa 10

France II Spain 15

Germany 25 Sweden 7

Greece 9 Switzerland 17

Guatemala 9 Taiwan 7

Hong Kong 5 Thailand 12

India 13 Turkey 15

Indonesia 7 Uruguay 4

Ireland 4 u.s. 398

Israel 15 Venezuela 2

Italy 21 Yugoslavia 4

Jamaica 2 Arab 80

Japan 28 West Africa 7

Korea 9 East Africa 8

Note. This table includes only the 50 nations and regions into which work behavior measures were aggregated. Only these nations and regions could be matched with Hofstede's (1988) cultural index.


Table 4

Correlations between Cultural Values and Behavioral Requirements

Cultural Values

Managerial Behaviors Individualism- Masculinity- Power Collectivism Femininity Distance

Relationship-oriented Behavior -.36** -.17 .24* Coordinating teams -.39** -.19t .33** Developing and building teams -.33** -.04 .16 Teaching others -.29* -.26* .14 Coaching and developing others -.25* -.19t .21 t Providing consultation and advice to others -.10 .03 .11

Interaction-related Behavior -.17 -.12 .09 Interpreting the meaning of information -.17 -.16 .17 Communicating with supervisors, peers, or subordinates -.01 .03 -.03 Communicating with persons outside the organization .04 -.20t -.17 Establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships -.10 .04 .11 Assisting and caring for others -.22t .02 .14 Selling or influencing others .01 -.02 .10 Resolving conflicts and negotiating with others -.25* -.09 .04 Performing for or working directly with the public -.29* -.2ot .II

Administrative Behavior -.18 .11 .22t Managing -.02 .08 .14 Performing administrative activities -.28* .08 .26* Monitoring and controlling resources -.zot .12 .24*

t p < .10 (one-tailed).* p < .05 (one-tailed).** p < .01 (one-tailed).

n=50.

Expatriate Assignments: Understanding the Skill, Ability ...

Documents

Transcript of Expatriate Assignments: Understanding the Skill, Ability ...