Expatriate Adjustment: A Review of Concepts, Drivers, and Consequences

Abstract

Expatriate adjustment has recurrently been linked to predicting the performance of individuals, in that the better the foreign adjustment achieved, the more successfully they will perform (Takeuchi, Wang, & Marinova, Personnel Psychology, 58(4): 925–948, 2005). By reviewing empirical research on expatriate adjustment, we produce a comprehensive overview, expounding the antecedents, dimensions, and effects of expatriate adjustment. More explicitly, the multidimensionality of expatriate adjustment is elucidated, which is structured according to three dimensions, the adjustment to the general environment, adjustment to the work situation, and adjustment to interacting with host nationals. All dimensions are further explained according to individual, work-related, and non-work environmental factors. Moreover, we construct a framework for each of these dimensions, subsuming the findings as examined in prior empirical research.

North American Perspective

Expatriate Adjustment: A Review of Concepts, Drivers, and Consequences

• Garry Oddou 

1. California State University, San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA

   Garry Oddou

Puck, Holtbrügge, and Raupp have created a typology of expatriate research related to the three most accepted facets of adjustment: adjustment to the general environment, to the work context, and to the social context (interaction adjustment). The typology is very useful in that it helps us understand what variables have been shown to be related to one or more of these adjustment contexts. This is a necessary and very helpful step in order to better understand where our field is and where we need to go with future research.

The authors mention that the bulk of this research on expatriate adjustment is from the USA, which was especially true in the 1990s. Fortunately, good European and Asian researchers have added significantly to this body of knowledge to enable us to have a more holistic view of expatriate adjustment and its generalizability. Moreover, this has ended any real debate whether adjustment is a unitary phenomenon or a multifaceted one.

I will first make some comments about some points the authors raise about the findings that could be valuable for the typology development. The reason this is important is because the typology is based on common findings. When the findings have contradictions, it is important to try to unearth why the contradictions exist in order to determine whether anything conclusive can be drawn. The second part of my comments will pertain to the typology, itself, the authors have created.

The authors mention the contradiction in findings about whether previous international experience is positively or negatively related to general living adjustment, which might be explained by methodological differences, sample differences, and so on. There are many factors that could relate to the relationship between previous international experience and general adjustment—cultural similarity or divergence, personality type of the expatriate, previous family adjustment experience, differences in organizational support, and so forth.

Similarly, the mixed findings in cultural novelty and adjustment are complex and certainly more research needs to be done to hone in on that relationship. For example, it could be that expatriates who seek or accept such assignments are already predisposed toward adjusting because of competencies or attitudes that are different from those where the expatriate might prefer closer cultural similarity. The authors also include recent research on SIEs. This is important as it has helped us move toward differentiating SIEs versus AEs (assigned expatriates) and how they might be similar or different in the adjustment cause-effect relationship. The field is just really beginning to understand the different types of expatriates, even within categories. However, we need to go further. There are many types of SIEs. There are also many motivations that differentiate but also are similar between SIEs and AEs. The factors that relate to adjustment are not yet conclusive—whether it is the parallel motivation for each to go, the organizational support or lack of it, the more immediate career implications for the assigned versus the SIE, and so on. The field needs to be careful to not equate expatriates sent by their company as non-self-initiated and assume research findings are solely a result of this categorization. The fact is that we know relatively little about how often an expatriate in a firm initiates the interest versus the expatriate is approached by the firm. In addition, just because the expatriate is approached by the firm first does not mean the expatriate is not already predisposed toward going. Further, there are many motivations for self-initiation and the field is not developed well enough yet to differentiate among those motivations. One self-initiated expatriate could be for the adventure; another could be to get away from an unattractive situation in the domestic office; another could be because the spouse wants to go and the concern is separation. Also, these motivations could be different for expatriates from different cultural backgrounds. Hence, this is definitely a good starting point for future research.

Still, there are also clear differences in organizational ties, support, and potential career-related implications and so it is helpful that the authors include this research.

The main contribution of this chapter is the typologizing of expatriate adjustment research, which is crucial to guide future research. So this chapter can be seen as an important first step to advance our understanding. However, more research is needed to elaborate on explaining the mechanisms related to previously considered factors (for example, expatriate family issues and size of location where the expatriate is assigned) as those are often over-simplistically subsumed as “environmental factors”.

Another avenue to advance our understanding is to use additional ways of categorizing such factors (for example, home and host organizational factors for those related to expatriate position characteristics, local or home organizational support and adjustment, etc.).

In summary, the authors have made an important contribution here in providing some synthesis and macro-level perspective on research related to expatriate adjustment. It will surely guide further research and help the field understand where it has been, where it is, and where it needs to go. Continually making more refinements on the typology will be another important step in furthering the quest for understanding of this important phenomenon.