Who is able to complete this assignment?

Cited:

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2019).  Applied psychology in talent management  (8th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.vitalsource.com

Chapter 17

17 INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF TALENT MANAGEMENT

Wayne F. Cascio, Herman Aguinis

Learning Goals

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to do the following:

· 17.1 Explain the concept of culture and its implications for talent management

· 17.2 Identify various dimensions that help to distinguish cultures

· 17.3 Discuss recent theoretical and methodological developments in the study of culture

· 17.4 Distinguish translation, conceptual, and metric equivalence when psychological measures are transported across cultures

· 17.5 Describe how selection for international assignments differs from that for domestic assignments

· 17.6 Specify key areas in which to focus expatriate training

· 17.7 Identify key components of an effective performance management system for expatriates

· 17.8 Suggest evidence-based actions that organizations can take to reduce turnover among repatriates

The behavioral implications of globalization can be addressed from a variety of perspectives, but space constraints allow us to focus only on five of them: identification of potential for international management and cultural competence, selection for international assignments, cross-cultural training and development, performance management, and repatriation. The many other worthy issues to explore include work motivation across cultures (Firth, Chen, Kirkman, & Kim, 2014; Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007), leadership (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House, 2008; House, Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2014; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), decision making in multinational teams (Erez, 2011; Yuki, Maddux, Brewer, & Takemura, 2005), and international career management (Dickmann, 2015; Peiperl & Jonsen, 2007). Let’s begin by considering factors that are driving 21st-century capitalism. Then we address the central role that the concept of culture plays in interactions among people from different parts of the world.

Capitalism in the 21st Century

The demise of communism, the fall of trade barriers, and the rise of networked information have unleashed a revolution in business. Market capitalism guides every major country on earth. Goods and services flow across borders more freely than ever; vast information networks instantly link nations, companies, and people; and foreign direct investment now totals almost US$1.8 trillion, with approximately 55% coming from and going to developed countries (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2017). Globalization is the dominant driving force in the world economy, reshaping societies and politics as it changes lives.

Many factors are driving change, but none is more important than the rise of Internet technologies (Friedman, 2005, 2008, 2016; Internet growth statistics, 2017). The Internet, as it continues to develop, has certainly changed the ways that people live and work. At the same time, mass collaboration through file sharing, blogs, and social networking services is making leaps in creativity possible, and it is changing the ways companies in a variety of industries do business (Wheeler, 2014; Wingfield, 2016). Consider the following examples:

· Research and development: Procter & Gamble uses outside scientific networks to generate 35% of new products from outside the company, up from 20% three years ago. That has helped boost sales per R&D person by 40%.

· Software development: By coordinating their efforts online, programmers worldwide volunteer on more than 180,000 open-source projects, such as Linux, thereby challenging traditional software.

· Telecommunications: More than 500 million people use Skype software to share computer-processing power and bandwidth, allowing them to call each other for free over the Internet. That has cut revenues sharply at traditional telecom providers.

· Retail: Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer, with $136 billion in sales in 2016, has created a sustainable alternative to retail stores. More broadly, cross-border e-commerce is projected to grow to $627 billion in sales by 2022. (Garcia, 2017)

Globalization and Culture

As every advanced economy becomes global, a nation’s most important competitive asset becomes the skills and cumulative learning of its workforce. Globalization, almost by definition, makes this true. Virtually all developed countries can design, produce, and distribute goods and services equally well and equally fast. Every factor of production other than workforce skills can be duplicated anywhere in the world. Capital moves freely across international boundaries, seeking the lowest costs. State-of-the-art factories can be erected anywhere. The latest technologies move from computers in one nation, up to satellites parked in space, and back down to computers in another nation—all at the speed of electronic impulses. It is all fungible—capital, technology, raw materials, information—all except for one thing, the most critical part, the one element that is unique about a nation or a company: its workforce.

Does this imply that cultural nuances in different countries and regions of the world will become less important? Hardly. To put this issue into perspective, let’s consider the concept of culture.

Triandis (1998, 2002) emphasizes that culture provides implicit theories of social behavior that act like a “computer program,” controlling the actions of individuals. He notes that cultures include unstated assumptions, the way the world is. These assumptions influence thinking, emotions, and actions without people noticing that they do. Because they share a common system of meaning (Erez, 2011), members of cultures believe that their ways of thinking are obviously correct and need not be discussed. Individuals and companies that seek to do business in countries outside their own ignore these alternative ways of thinking and acting at their peril. Scholars define the term culture in many different ways, and it operates on multiple levels—individual, organizational, and national (Gelfand et al., 2007; Gelfand, Aycan, Erez, & Leung, 2017; Gelfand, Leslie, & Fehr, 2008; House et al., 2004; Ronen & Shenkar, 2017). For ease of exposition, we focus on national-level culture in the discussion that follows. To understand what cultural differences imply, consider one typology, the theory of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism.

Vertical and Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism

Triandis (1998) notes that vertical cultures accept hierarchy as a given, whereas horizontal cultures accept equality as a given. Individualistic cultures emerge in societies that are complex (many subgroups with different attitudes and beliefs) and loose (relatively few rules and norms about what is correct behavior in different types of situations). Collectivism emerges in societies that are simple (individuals agree on beliefs and attitudes) and tight (many rules and norms about what is correct behavior in different types of situations).

Triandis argues that these syndromes (shared patterns of attitudes, beliefs, norms, and values organized around a theme) constitute the parameters of any general theory about the way culture influences people. Crossing the cultural syndromes of individualism and collectivism with the cultural syndromes of vertical and horizontal relationships yields a typology of four kinds of cultures. Additional culture-specific attributes define different kinds of individualism or collectivism. According to Triandis, the following four may be the universal dimensions of these constructs:

· Definition of the self: Individualists define the self as autonomous and independent from groups, whereas collectivists define the self as interdependent with others.

· Structure of goals: Individualists prioritize personal goals, whereas collectivists prioritize in-group goals.

· Emphasis on norms versus attitudes: Individualists emphasize attitudes, personal needs, perceived rights, and contracts as determinants of social behavior, whereas collectivists emphasize norms, duties, and obligations.

· Emphasis on relatedness versus rationality—Individualists emphasize rationality (carefully computing the costs and benefits of relationships), whereas collectivists emphasize relatedness (giving priority to relationships and taking into account the needs of others).

Culture determines the uniqueness of a human group in the same way that personality determines the uniqueness of an individual (Hofstede, 2001; Ronen & Shenkar, 2017). There are many implications and patterns of variation of these important differences with respect to organizational issues and globalization. Two of them are goal setting and reward systems (individual versus team- or organizationwide) and communications (gestures, eye contact, and body language in high-context cultures versus precision with words in low-context cultures). Two others are performance feedback and assessment practices. With respect to performance feedback, the characteristics of the culture (vertical/horizontal or individual/collectivist) interact with the objectives, style, frequency, and inherent assumptions of the performance feedback process (Cascio, 2012a; Varela & Premaux, 2008; Varma, Budhwar, & McCusker, 2015). With respect to assessment practices, different cultures prefer different approaches, and there is the possibility of variation in validity across cultures.

Finally, there are implications for training and development. These include, for example, language training for expatriates, along with training to avoid the culture shock experienced by individuals in a foreign land whose customs and culture differ from one’s own (Cascio, 1998; Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). In short, culture affects the ways we think, feel, and act.

Country-Level Cultural Differences

Geert Hofstede, a Dutch researcher, identified five dimensions of cultural variation in values in more than 50 countries and three regions (East Africa, West Africa, and Arab countries). Initially, he relied on a database of surveys covering, among other things, the values of employees of subsidiaries of IBM in 72 countries (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). He analyzed 116,000 questionnaires, completed in 20 languages, matching respondents by occupation, gender, and age at different time periods (1968 and 1972). Over the next several decades, he collected additional data from other populations, unrelated to IBM, but matched across countries. Hofstede’s five dimensions reflect basic problems that any society has to cope with, but for which solutions differ. They are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and long-term versus short-term orientation (see Figure 17.1). These five dimensions were verified empirically, and each country could be positioned somewhere between their poles. The dimensions are statistically independent and occur in all possible combinations. Other researchers generally have confirmed these dimensions (Barkema & Vermuelen, 1997; Gerhart & Fang, 2005; Sondergaard, 1994; Triandis, 2004).

Figure 17.1 The Five Dimensions That Hofstede (2001) Identified in Assessing Cultural Differences Across Countries

Power distance refers to (a) the extent to which members of an organization accept inequality and (b) whether they perceive much distance between those with power (e.g., top management) and those with little power (e.g., rank-and-file workers). Hofstede found the top power-distance countries to be Malaysia, Guatemala, and the Philippines; the bottom ones were Austria, Israel, and Denmark.

Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which a culture programs its members to feel either comfortable or uncomfortable in unstructured situations (those that are novel, unknown, surprising, different from usual). Countries that score high on this dimension (e.g., Greece, Portugal, Belgium, and Japan) tend to rely more on rules and rituals to make the future more predictable. Those that score low (e.g., Singapore, Denmark, Sweden, and Hong Kong) tend to be more pragmatic. The United States scores low on this dimension.

Individualism reflects the extent to which people emphasize personal or group goals. If they live in nuclear families that allow them to “do their own thing,” individualism flourishes. However, if they live with extended families or tribes that control their behavior, collectivism—the essence of which is giving preference to in-group over individual goals—is more likely (Triandis, 1998). The most individualistic countries are the United States and the other English-speaking countries. The most collectivist countries are Guatemala, Ecuador, and Panama.

Hofstede’s fourth dimension, masculinity, is found in societies that differentiate very strongly by gender. Femininity is characteristic of cultures where sex-role distinctions are minimal. Masculine cultures tend to emphasize ego goals—the centrality of work, careers, and money. Feminine cultures, by contrast, tend to emphasize social goals—quality of life, helping others, and relationships. Hofstede found the most masculine cultures to be Japan, Austria, and Venezuela, whereas the most feminine were Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands.

Finally, long-term versus short-term orientation refers to the extent to which a culture programs its members to accept delayed gratification of their material, social, and emotional needs. Countries scoring highest in long-term orientation include China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan; Pakistan, Nigeria, and the Philippines score at the opposite end. Americans tend to be relatively short-term oriented.

There have been a number of critiques of Hofstede’s work (Ailon, 2008; Baskerville, 2003; Eckhardt, 2002; Kitayama, 2002), yet his typology remains remarkably influential (Bhagat, 2002; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006), both in science (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemelmeier, 2002; Schmimmack, Oishi, & Diener, 2005) as well as in practice (Bing, 2004). In a comprehensive meta-analysis of almost 600 studies based on Hofstede’s cultural-value dimensions (except for long-term versus short-term orientation, for which there were too few studies), representing more than 200,000 individuals, researchers drew the following conclusions: First, cultural values predict country-level differences best (average meta-correlation of 0.35), and individual-level differences less well (average meta-correlation of 0.18). Second, the predictive power of the cultural values was significantly lower for personality traits and demographic characteristics for certain outcomes (job performance, absenteeism, turnover), but it was significantly higher for others (organizational commitment, citizenship behavior, team-related attitudes, and feedback seeking) (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010; Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2012).

Hofstede’s work is valuable because it provides a set of benchmarks against which other studies can be organized conceptually. For example, the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) research project (one of the most comprehensive studies yet) categorized countries on nine cultural dimensions: assertiveness, future orientation, gender differentiation, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, performance orientation, and humane orientation (Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012). Those dimensions reveal much overlap, even synthesizing, of the factors reported by Hofstede. They help us to understand and place into perspective current theories of motivation, leadership, and organizational behavior.

Theoretical and Methodological Developments in the Study of Culture

Gelfand et al. (2017) described several key advances in the study of culture, among them:

· “Country” may not be the most appropriate unit of analysis for cross-cultural research (Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2016). Cross-cultural variability can be captured at the state, ethnic/racial, religious, or socioeconomic levels (Ronen & Shenkar, 2013, 2017).

· Relatedly, there is a shift from static to dynamic views of culture, so-called cultural frame shifting, in which individuals can dynamically integrate and dissociate from elements of their culture (Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002).

· The constructs of cultural intelligence and global identity were developed to help explain adaptation to the global work context (Lisak & Erez, 2015; Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011).

· Research has moved beyond main effects to examine complex culture-by-context interactions (Gelfand et al., 2013; Nouri et al., 2015), such as those that confront virtual teams or expatriate and global managers.

· Methodologically, researchers are conducting online surveys using panel data, testing measurement invariance or equivalence, and using multilevel modeling and nested hierarchical clustering to reveal cultural clusters (Ronen & Shenkar, 2013). As an example of the latter, consider the 11 global clusters described by Ronen and Shenkar (2017): Arab, Aegean, Latin American, East European, Latin European, Nordic, Germanic, Sub-Saharan African, Anglo, Confucian, and South Asian.

Culture—global, national, regional, state, community, industry, organizational, and team levels—clearly affects behavior in organizations. Cross-cultural research helps us understand and leverage similarities and differences in our globalized and interdependent world. Now let’s consider an emerging topic—the globalization of psychological measurement.

The Globalization of Psychological Measurement

Psychological measurement and research in applied psychology is increasing in importance worldwide, as a 44-year review of published articles in the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology revealed (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008a). A similar conclusion emerged in an earlier review of all articles written by authors with affiliations outside of the United States in the journals Educational and Psychological Measurement and Applied Psychological Measurement from January 1995 to December 1999 (Aguinis, Henle, & Ostroff, 2001). Many of the topics discussed in this book, such as computer adaptive testing, item response theory, item analysis, generalizability theory, and the multitrait–multimethod matrix, are currently being studied in several countries. As Gelfand et al. (2017) noted, “Cultural differences are increasingly measured rather than assumed, and attention to translations and measurement equivalence, although still somewhat low, is gradually increasing” (p. 520). To those topics, we now turn.

Transporting Psychological Measures Across Cultures

Psychological measures are often developed in one country and then transported to another. Guidelines for doing this—International Guidelines on Test Adaptation (Hambleton, Merenda, & Spielberger, 2005; International Test Commission, 2005)—are available. From a measurement perspective, the problem is that each culture views life in a unique fashion depending on the norms, values, attitudes, and experiences particular to that specific culture. Thus, the comparability of any phenomenon can pose a major methodological problem in international research that uses, for example, surveys, questionnaires, or interviews (Harpaz, 1996).

The first step in transferring a measure to another culture is establishing translation equivalence (Aguinis, Henle, & Ostroff, 2001). Blind back-translation assesses the equivalence of the wording of a measure that has been translated into a different language. The process begins when an individual translates the measure from the original language to another. 

Then a second individual, who has not seen the original measure, translates it back to the original language. Finally, the second version of the measure is compared with the original, and discrepancies are discussed and resolved.

Translation equivalence is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for ensuring transferability to another culture. The measure must also demonstrate two other types of equivalence. The first is conceptual equivalence—that is, the attribute being measured has a similar meaning across cultures (Brett, Tinsley, Janssens, Barsness, & Lytle, 1997). Measures must produce the same conceptual frame of reference in different cultures, which means that different cultures are defining an attribute in the same way (Cheung, 2008). The construct of leadership offers an example of nonequivalence, for it tends to refer to organizational leadership in the United States and to political leadership in Asian cultures (House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997). As another example, consider that the Western notion of “truth” is irrelevant in Confucian thinking (Adler, Campbell, & Laurent, 1989). Respondents also must interpret response options in the same way (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994). For example, “neither disagree nor agree” may be interpreted as indifference in one culture and as slight agreement in another (Aguinis, Henle, & Ostroff, 2001). Ensuring that constructs are comparable when testing for between-group differences is critical in cross-cultural research (Cascio, 2012b).

Finally, metric equivalence requires that statistical associations among dependent and independent variables remain relatively stable, regardless of whether a measure is used domestically or internationally (see  Chapter 5 ). Correlation matrices and factor structures should also remain similar (Cheung, 2008; Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001). This was the approach taken by Tsaousis and Nikolaou (2001) in demonstrating the conceptual and metric equivalence of a measure of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality in the Greek language. With respect to integrity tests, Berry, Sackett, and Wiemann (2007) reported no major differences in scale means, standard deviations, criterion-related validities, or admissions of counterproductive work behaviors across five countries.

In summary, before measures developed in one culture can be used in another, it is important to establish translation, conceptual, and metric equivalence. Doing so will enhance the ability of a study to provide a meaningful understanding of cross-cultural similarities and differences.

Terminology

Before proceeding further, let’s introduce four terms that we use in subsequent sections of the chapter:

· An expatriate or foreign-service employee is a generic term applied to anyone working outside her or his home country with a planned return to that or a third country.

· Home country is the expatriate’s country of residence.

· Host country is the country in which the expatriate is working.

· A third-country national is an expatriate who has transferred to another country while working abroad. A German working for a U.S. firm in Spain is a third-country national.

Thousands of firms have operations in countries around the globe. Expatriates staff many, if not most, such overseas operations. An important challenge, therefore, is to identify individuals early on in their careers who have potential for international management. This is the subject of the next section.

Identification of Potential for International Management and Cultural Competence

In today’s global economy, it is no exaggeration to say that the work of the executive is becoming more international in orientation. An international executive is one who is in a job with some international scope, whether in an expatriate assignment or in a job that involves interacting with people from other countries (Kraimer, Takeuchi, & Frese, 2014). Given the current competitive climate and the trends suggesting ever more interdependent global operations in the future, early identification of individuals with potential for international management is extremely important to a growing number of organizations.

On the basis of a careful literature review that identified both executive competencies and the ability to learn from experience, Spreitzer, McCall, and Mahoney (1997) developed a 116-item questionnaire, termed Prospector, for rating the potential of aspiring international executives. They tested it with a sample of 838 lower-, middle-, and senior-level managers from six international firms and 21 countries. The sample included both managers who had high potential and managers who were solid performers but not likely to advance. Eight factor-analytically derived dimensions appeared consistent with the executive competencies identified in the literature review: is insightful (assesses aspects of cognitive and analytic ability), has broad business knowledge, brings out the best in people (assesses interpersonal skills), acts with integrity, has the courage to take a stand, takes risks, is committed to making a difference, and is sensitive to cultural differences. Six of the dimensions appeared more consistent with the learning themes identified in the literature review: seeks opportunities to learn, seeks feedback, uses feedback, is culturally adventurous, is open to criticism, and is flexible.

In terms of validity, all 14 dimensions were correlated strongly with the boss’s general rating of current performance in two samples—a validation sample and a cross-validation sample. In 72% of the cases, the 14 dimensions also successfully distinguished managers identified by their companies as high potential from those identified as solid-performing managers. Notably, bosses rated the high-potential managers significantly higher than the solid-performing managers on all 14 dimensions.

What do these results imply for the development of future international executives? Spreitzer et al. (1997) speculated that the 14 Prospector dimensions operate through four broad processes to facilitate the development of future international executives:

· Gets organizational attention and investment. Individuals who have a propensity for risk taking, a passion for or commitment to seeing the organization succeed, the courage to go against the grain, and a keen mind are likely to stand out in the organization.

· Takes or makes more opportunities to learn. Three of the dimensions appear to reflect the sense of adventure required to break with the status quo: seeks opportunities to learn, is culturally adventurous, and seeks feedback.

· Is receptive to learning opportunities. This process is reflected in the following dimensions: acts with integrity (i.e., taking responsibility for one’s own actions is a prerequisite for learning from them), brings out the best in people, is sensitive to cultural differences, and is open to criticism (i.e., receptiveness and lack of defensiveness are essential in order to hear the feedback that others are willing to share).

· Changes as a result of experience. The successful international executive recognizes the need to retain current competencies but also to incorporate the competencies required for the future business environment.

These four processes provide a starting point for the creation of a theoretical framework that specifies how current executive competencies, coupled with the ability to learn from experience and the right kind of developmental experiences, may facilitate the development of successful international executives.

The concept of cultural competence, termed cultural intelligence (CQ), complements the dimensions identified by Spreitzer et al. (1997). CQ refers to individuals’ belief in their ability to be effective in culturally diverse environments and their interests in other cultures (Ang et al., 2007; Rockstuhl et al., 2011). CQ captures affective, cognitive, behavioral, and motivational facets, all of which have long been considered important aspects of cross-cultural competence (Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010; Kraimer, Bolino, & Mead, 2016).

CQ is positively related to expatriate performance (self-rated), mediated by cultural adjustment, and communication effectiveness. These relationships are strongest among individuals with more international work or travel experience (Lee & Sukoco, 2010). As for the motivational dimension of CQ, it is positively related to job performance ratings, mediated through expatriate work adjustment (Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, & Tangirala, 2010). The mediated relationship was stronger for expatriates in subsidiaries that provided lower levels of organizational support and in countries more similar to their home countries (lower cultural distance). CQ holds promise as a valid predictor of many indicators of expatriate success (Kraimer et al., 2016). The next section considers some other valid predictors of success, in the context of selection for international assignments.

Selection for International Assignments

Staffing systems for international assignees are unique because their focus is on predicting success in a given context (a foreign country) rather than in a specific role (such as bank manager or brand manager) (Caligiuri & Büker, 2015; Caligiuri & Paul, 2017). Although the need to attract and hire talented employees is universal, how firms do that is not (Miller & Guo, 2014; Ployhart & Weekley, 2015). Recent reviews indicate that the selection process for international managers is, with few exceptions, largely based on their willingness to go (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012; Kraimer et al., 2016). As a result, the selection of people for overseas assignments often is based solely on their technical competence and job knowledge (Collings & Scullion, 2012). This is a mistake; technical competence per se has nothing to do with one’s ability to adapt to a new environment, to deal effectively with foreign coworkers, or to perceive—and if necessary, imitate—foreign behavioral norms (Evans, Pucik, & Bjorkman, 2011). Research has demonstrated, however, that a variety of personal characteristics predict success in international assignments, as the next three sections show.

As Chapters 12–14 indicated, there is a large and well-developed literature on selection instruments for domestic assignments. However, as Hough and Oswald (2000) noted, “validities of domestic selection instruments may not generalize to international sites, because different predictor and criterion constructs may be relevant, or, if the constructs are the same, the behavioral indicators may differ” (p. 649). Keep this in mind as you consider various factors that determine success in an international assignment. Let’s begin with general mental ability.

General Mental Ability

Given the increasingly global scope of the science and practice of I/O psychology, it is important to determine if research findings from the United States generalize to other continents, countries, and cultures. One such construct is that of general mental ability (GMA), which may be defined broadly as the ability to learn. It includes any measure that combines two, three, or more specific aptitudes or any measure that includes a variety of items that measure specific abilities (e.g., verbal, numerical, spatial relations) (Schmidt, 2002). Thus, GMA may be measured using an omnibus test (e.g., the Wonderlic Personnel Test, Raven’s Progressive Matrices) or using specific tests combined into a battery (e.g., the General Aptitude Test Battery, Differential Aptitude Test).

The validity of GMA as a predictor of job performance, as well as performance in training, is well established in the United States on the basis of meta-analyses of hundreds of studies (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Salgado, 2017; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). The estimated validity of GMA for predicting supervisory ratings of job performance is .57 for high-complexity jobs (17% of U.S. jobs), .51 for medium-complexity jobs (63% of U.S. jobs), and .38 for low-complexity jobs (20% of U.S. jobs). The estimated validity of GMA as a predictor of training success is .63. Validity may be somewhat higher or lower for different jobs or occupational groups. Meta-analyses reveal similar results in European countries (Bertua, Anderson, & Salgado, 2005; Hülsheger, Maier, & Stumpp, 2007; Ones et al., 2017; Salgado et al., 2003) and also in South Korea (Salgado, 2017). The validity of GMA is lower in Japan (Salgado, 2017), possibly because assessments of job performance in Japan often emphasize aspects of performance other than task performance, such as citizenship behaviors, more strongly than in other cultures.

The use of cognitive ability tests differs dramatically across cultures. They are used substantially less in the United States than in European countries (Ployhart & Weekley, 2015; Salgado & Anderson, 2002).

With respect to the ability of GMA measures to predict performance in training, a comprehensive review of the meta-analytic evidence (Ones et al., 2017) revealed operational validities (those corrected for sampling error and attenuation due to criterion unreliability) in the range of .50 to .70. Validities generalize across jobs, organizations, and settings (e.g., military and civilian organizations). As with the prediction of job performance, validities are moderated by job complexity. The higher the complexity, the higher the validity of GMA to predict training performance. In Germany, however, Hülsheger et al. (2007) reported the opposite result, namely, the lower the skill level, the higher the operational validity. They attributed such results to the stratification of the German educational system. That is, people who receive higher education, and thereby qualification for highly complex jobs, are clearly a preselected group. As a result, range restriction is stronger and validities are lower for jobs of higher complexity than they are for jobs of lower complexity.

In summary, these results indicate that there is international validity generalization for GMA as a predictor of performance in training and on the job in the United States and in Europe. GMA tests are, therefore, robust predictors for expatriate assignments across these two regions, although additional research is needed in other cultural regions. Beyond GMA, other factors are important determinants of success in an overseas assignment. A key consideration is the candidate’s personality.

Personality Characteristics and Expatriate Success

Personality measures capture stable or consistent patterns of behavior (Ployhart & Weekley, 2015). If an organization defines success in terms of the completion of the expatriate assignment and the supervisory ratings of performance on the assignment, statistical evidence indicates that three personality characteristics are related to ability to complete the assignment. These are extroversion and agreeableness (which facilitate interacting and making social alliances with host nationals and other expatriates) and emotional stability. Conscientiousness is a general work ethic that supervisors “see” in their subordinates, and this affects their performance ratings (meta-correlations of .23 to .31). Expatriate assignments require a great deal of persistence, thoroughness, and responsibility—all of which conscientious people possess and use (Caligiuri, 2000). Finally, openness, the extent to which an individual is creative, curious, and has broad interests, is positively related to cross-cultural adjustment. In short, each of these Big Five personality characteristics relates to international assignee success in a unique way and should be included as part of the staffing process (Caligiuri & Paul, 2017; Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006).

An important qualifier, however, is the type of international assignment in question. For example, relational skills might be important for all international assignees but higher for more senior executives who must network with, persuade, and influence host nationals in order to be successful. Relational skills might be less important for technical assignees, who may interact with host nationals mostly around tasks involving computer systems or equipment (Caligiuri & Büker, 2015).

Because personality characteristics are relatively immutable, organizations should think of selection (on the basis of personality) as the precursor to cross-cultural training: First identify expatriate candidates with the requisite personality characteristics and then offer cross-cultural training to those candidates (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012). This sequence is reasonable because cross-cultural training may be effective only when trainees are predisposed to success in the first place. Cross-cultural training is described in a later section.

Other Characteristics Related to Success in International Assignments

Based on a thorough review of the research literature, Caligiuri and Büker (2015) identified three broad meta-competencies that are related to success as an international assignee and that, by extension, can be used for expatriate selection. They are global mindset, cultural agility, and cultural intelligence. We discuss only the first two here, since we discussed cultural intelligence earlier in the chapter.

People’s mindsets are the interpretive frameworks that come from their experiences and cultures that guide how they classify and discriminate events and people in ways that help them understand what they observe and perceive (Tarique, Briscoe, & Schuler, 2016). People with a global mindset know how to live and work across cultures. They are tolerant, flexible curious, and able to deal with ambiguity. They understand and appreciate local, cross-cultural differences and variations while maintaining a global view at the same time (Tarique et al., 2016). A scale developed by Arora, Jaju, Kefalas, and Perenich (2004) may be used to measure the construct of a global mindset, which the authors claim is a learned phenomenon. Hence it can be used for either selection or development.

The cultural agility construct refers to an individual’s ability to adapt and effectively interact with members from different cultures (Caligiuri, 2013; Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012). It includes three facets: cultural minimization (the ability to uphold an organizationwide standard when faced with a culturally different approach, e.g., with respect to job safety and health); cultural adaptation (the ability to behave as needed in the local context, e.g., sales strategies); and cultural integration (the ability to take the time necessary to create new norms, appropriate for the cross-cultural situation at hand, such as multicultural project teams or virtual teams). According to Caligiuri (2013), the best global leaders display all three of these characteristics and are able to leverage each one when needed. The Cultural Agility Selection Test (CAST) is available to assess this construct (Caligiuri, 2013).

What about motivation to succeed in an overseas assignment? Longitudinal research with 70 expatriates during their first four months of assignment revealed that those with higher levels of cross-cultural motivation and empowerment demonstrated higher initial levels of work adjustment. To maintain those levels of adjustment, managers should emphasize opportunities for personal achievement and growth, such as high levels of responsibility, or “stretch” assignments that serve as stepping stones for promotion (Firth et al., 2014). Although motivation is often difficult to assess reliably, firms should at least try to eliminate from consideration those who are only looking to get out of their own country for a change of scenery. One way to do that is to have candidates (and their spouses) complete self-assessments, to gauge their fit with the personality and lifestyle requirements of the international assignment.

Effective self-assessment tools enable candidates to evaluate themselves on three dimensions: (1) personality and individual characteristics, (2) career issues, and (3) family issues. Self-selection instruments also act as realistic previews of assignments (see Chapter 11). They can help employees make informed and realistic decisions about global assignments (Caligiuri & Büker, 2015). Unfortunately, only 29% of multinational employers use such tools with candidates for international assignments (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2016).

Two other characteristics also deserve mention, namely, foreign language skills and prior international experience. Language skills are often important prerequisites for expatriates to communicate with local people, thereby connecting headquarters and subsidiaries (Harzing, Köster, & Magner, 2011; Harzing & Pudelko, 2013). A meta-analysis by Mol, Born, Willemsen, and Van der Molen (2005) reported positive relationships between language skills and expatriate performance and another by Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk (2005) reported positive relationships between language skills and expatriate work adjustment (ρ = .19 and .22, respectively). As for prior international experience, research demonstrates that individuals who have lived, worked, or even traveled to other cultures tend to adjust better to internal assignments (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005, Spreitzer et al., 1997; Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun, & Lepak, 2005).

Caligiuri and Büker (2015) suggested a three-step, sequential approach to selecting international assignees: (1) Begin with a realistic preview to create honest, realistic expectations about the assignment; (2) use self-selection instruments to help each candidate decide whether an international assignment fits his or her personal situation, family situation, and career stage; and (3) use traditional assessments with candidates who are technically capable of performing the assignments in question (e.g., GMA, personality, biographical data, structured interviews).

Organizations continue to struggle with expatriate selection and adaptation. Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, and Bolino (2012) noted that we know little about the nature of international work itself. Job analysis (see Chapter 9) is considered the basic building block for all other talent-management activities, yet it is often overlooked in the context of expatriate selection and adaptation. As Kraimer et al. (2016) asked, if we don’t know much about the typical job responsibilities and demands of international work, is it any surprise that organizations are demanding more effective staffing practices?

Once individuals are selected for international assignments, their training and professional development become key concerns. We consider those topics in the next section.

Cross-Cultural Training

Many organizations send their employees to other countries to conduct business. To maximize the employees’ effectiveness, companies often provide opportunities for cross-cultural training (CCT) prior to departure. CCTrefers to formal programs designed to prepare persons of one culture to interact effectively in another culture or to interact more effectively with persons from different cultures (Reiche, Lee, & Quintanilla, 2015; Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). Such programs typically focus on cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies (Littrell, Salas, Hess, Paley, & Riedel, 2006). Fully 81% of multinationals provide cross-cultural preparation of at least one day’s duration, and all family members are eligible to participate. Unfortunately, however, 76% make it optional (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2012).

To survive, cope, and succeed, expatriates need training in three areas: the culture, the language, and practical day-to-day matters (Dowling, Festing, & Engle, 2013). Females accounted for 25% of expatriates in 2016 (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2016). Female expatriates need training on the norms, values, and traditions that host nationals possess about women and also on how to deal with challenging situations they may face as women (Caligiuri & Cascio, 2000; Harris, 2006; Napier & Taylor, 2002).

A key characteristic of successful international managers is adaptability. Empirical research has revealed eight dimensions of adaptability: handling emergencies or crisis situations; handling work stress; solving problems creatively; dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations; learning work tasks, technologies, and procedures; demonstrating interpersonal adaptability; demonstrating cultural adaptability; and demonstrating physically oriented adaptability (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). This implies that an effective way to train employees to adapt is to expose them to situations like the ones they will encounter in their assignments that require adaptation. Such a strategy has two benefits: (1) It enhances transfer of training, and (2) it is consistent with the idea that adaptive performance is enhanced by gaining experience in similar situations.

As is true of any training program, needs assessment should precede training in order to incorporate the three key elements of CCT: the expatriate’s needs, customization of design and content, and overall program quality (Littrell et al., 2006). To identify the expatriate’s needs, assess strengths and weaknesses with respect to interpersonal, cognitive, and self-maintenance skills, along with spousal and family needs. Customization can then proceed to meet the identified needs. In addition, CCT should be designed and delivered by individuals regarded as experts on the destination country (such as host-country nationals) as well as on the expatriation process (Reiche et al., 2015; Littrell et al., 2006). Finally, build in an evaluation component that addresses both performance in the overseas assignment, as well as a critique of training in preparing the expatriate and his or her family for the foreign assignment.

CCT usually includes several components. One is awareness or orientation—helping trainees to become aware of their own cultural values, frameworks, and customs. Another component is behavioral—providing opportunities for trainees to learn and practice behaviors that are appropriate to the culture in question (Brislin & Bhawuk, 1999; Landis & Bhagat, 1996; Thomas & Fitzsimmons, 2008). Within this framework, the cultural assimilator method has emerged as one of the most valid tools for CCT (Triandis, 1994). The cultural assimilator is a programmed learning technique developed by Fiedler, Mitchell, and Triandis (1971). It uses 35–100 critical incidents that focus on cultural differences. Trainees are then presented with alternative behavioral options, and they must select one of them. Depending on the response chosen, the text directs trainees to a specific page and provides an explanation of why the choice was correct or incorrect. If the response was incorrect, trainees must reread the material and choose again. Computer-assisted applications of cultural assimilators are growing in popularity (Reiche et al., 2015).

Harrison (1992) compared the effectiveness of a Japanese culture assimilator, behavior-modeling training, a combination of the two methods, and no training at all in a field experiment involving 65 U.S. government employees. Participants receiving the combination of methods displayed significantly higher performance on a role-play task (evaluated in terms of behavior) than the no-training control group and significantly higher gains in learning than either those who received a single method or those in the no-training control group. These results suggest the need for both a cognitive- and an experiential-based program in cross-cultural management training (see also Reiche et al., 2015), although it would be valuable to replicate the experiment using a larger sample of trainees.

Although most applications of the cultural assimilator focus on a specific culture—for example, Greece, Iran, Thailand, Honduras, or Turkey (e.g., Gazur, 1994)—it is also possible to provide general culture training in a culture-assimilator format. Such training applies to any culture (Triandis, Kurowski, & Gelfand, 1994). For example, Cushner and Brislin (1996) developed more than 100 critical incidents based on a general model of competencies valuable in cross-cultural interactions. Initial research supports the efficacy of this type of training (Kraiger, 2003).

Quantitative as well as qualitative reviews of research on CCT have found that it has a positive impact on an individual’s development of skills, on his or her adjustment to the cross-cultural situation, and on his or her managerial effectiveness (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012; Kraimer et al., 2016). For example, Morris & Robie (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of CCT on expatriate performance and adjustment. They included 16 studies that investigated adjustment and 25 studies that investigated job performance as the focal dependent variable. The mean correlation for the relationship between training and adjustment was .12 (p < .05), and the correlation for the relationship between training and performance was .23 (p < .05). However, there was substantial variability in the distribution of effect sizes, suggesting that potential moderators existed.

Subsequently, Littrell et al. (2006) conducted a qualitative review of 25 years (1980–2005) of research addressing the effectiveness of CCT in preparing managers for an international assignment. The researchers examined 29 conceptual reviews and 16 empirical studies. Overall, they concluded that CCT is effective at enhancing the expatriate’s success on overseas assignments. They also identified many variables that moderate the effects of training, including its timing (e.g., predeparture, while on assignment, and postassignment), family issues (e.g., spouse’s adjustment), attributes of the job (e.g., job discretion), and cultural differences between the home country and the assignment country.

In another study, Lievens, Harris, Van Keer, and Bisqueret (2003) reported correlations of .38 and .45, respectively, between CCT and both supervisor ratings and language proficiency. Evidence also indicates that training should take place prior to departure (information about local living conditions and the cross-cultural adjustment process), as well as after arrival in the new location (learning how to learn in the new environment) (Littrell et al., 2006). In-country developmental experiences have the advantage of incorporating issues and concerns prompted by the assignee’s actual experiences (Reiche et al., 2015).

Formal mentoring for expatriates by host-country nationals also demonstrates organizational support, and it can help to improve both language skills and the ability to interact effectively (Carraher, Sullivan, & Crocitto, 2008; Kraimer et al., 2016). Indeed, a multilevel, cross-cultural study of mentoring (Gentry, Weber, & Sadri, 2008) found that managers who are rated by their direct reports as engaging in career-related mentoring behaviors are perceived as better performers by their bosses. However, the societal-culture dimension of performance orientation was a significant cross-level moderator of the career-related mentoring–performance relationship. Performance orientation refers to the extent to which a society or culture encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence (House et al., 2004; House et al., 2014).

With respect to language training, experts note that even easier languages, such as Spanish, require 150 classroom hours to reach a minimal level of proficiency. Minimal proficiency means being able to exchange greetings, get directions, shop, and order food in a restaurant, for example. That level of proficiency in a difficult language, such as Chinese, requires 350 classroom hours (Tyler, 2004). What we do not know is the optimal level of language proficiency, given all of the related the costs and benefits (Reiche et al., 2015).

A final issue deserves mention, namely, the relationship between the stage of globalization of a firm and CCT rigor and breadth. Firms tend to evolve from domestic (exporters) to international (or multidomestic) to multinational to global, and, in some cases, to transnational (Dowling et al., 2013; Tarique et al., 2016). In general, the more a firm moves away from the export stage of development, the more rigorous the training should be, including its breadth of content. At the multinational and global stages, managers need to be able to socialize host-country managers into the firm’s corporate culture and other firm-specific practices. This added managerial responsibility intensifies the need for rigorous training.

Performance Management

Performance management is just as important in the international context as it is in domestic operations. The major difference is that implementation is much more difficult in the international arena (Tarique et al., 2016). Although we covered performance management extensively in Chapter 5, the special considerations associated with international assignments require that we address it here as well. At its most basic level, performance management in the international context refers to the evaluation and continuous improvement of individual or team performance (Cascio, 2012a).

Before we discuss differences between domestic and international performance management, consider five universal principles (Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2012): (1) ensure that job descriptions are congruent with organizational goals; (2) provide adequate training to raters and ratees; (3) measure behavior and results at individual and collective (team, departmental) levels; (4) when delivering feedback, focus on an employee’s strengths; and (5) allocate rewards that are meaningful to employees.

Some observers have argued that performance management systems are “broken” (Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011). Evidence from a 20-year review of 64 articles published in the academic literature on international performance management indicates that although that may be the case domestically, the situation is even worse when the same systems are used in contexts and cultures outside the home countries where they were developed (Claus & Briscoe, 2009).

Consider four broad constraints on the achievement of goals in the international context (Dowling et al., 2013). First, from the perspective of home-country executives, differences in local accounting rules or labor laws may make it difficult to compare the relative performance of managers of subsidiaries in different countries. Second, in turbulent international environments, long-term objectives need to be flexible. Third, separation by time and distance may make it difficult for performance management systems to take account of country-specific factors. Fourth, market development in foreign subsidiaries is generally slower and more difficult than at home. Hence, expatriates need more time to achieve results.

At the same time, a number of factors affect the actual level of job performance of expatriate managers (Engle, Dowling, & Festing, 2008; Oddou & Mendenhall, 2000; Varma et al., 2015). These include technical knowledge (95% of expatriates believe it to be crucial for job success), personal (and family) adjustment to the culture, and interpersonal factors (relationships between supervisors and subordinates). Although technical knowledge is important, the expatriate who is an expert in his or her field but who ignores cultural variables such as procedures and customs that are important to job performance will likely be ineffective. This was the case with an expatriate of a construction firm who was sent to India. Unintentionally, he ignored local work customs and became an object of hatred and distrust. The project was delayed more than six months because of his behavior (Oddou & Mendenhall, 2000).

The degree of support from headquarters (benefits and services, including job-search help for the spouse and financial support for his or her children’s education) also affects an expatriate’s job performance. Finally, characteristics of the host-country environment have a powerful impact—its stage of economic development, its physical demands on the expatriate (heat, humidity, cold), and the type of business operation (e.g., international joint venture versus wholly owned subsidiary) (Hippler, 2015).  Figure 17.2  summarizes these factors.

Figure 17.2 Factors That Affect the Performance of Expatriates

Performance Criteria

A thorough review of research in the area of performance criteria led Sinangil and Ones (2001) to propose the following working model of the dimensions of expatriate job performance:

· Establishment and maintenance of business contacts—identification, development, and use of such contacts to achieve goals

· Technical performance—that is, task performance

· Productivity—volume of work the expatriate produces

· Ability to work with others—proficiency in working with and assisting others in the organization

· Communication and persuasion—oral and written proficiency in gathering and transmitting information; persuading others

· Effort and initiative—dedication to one’s job; amount of effort expended in striving to do a good job

· Personal discipline—avoidance of counterproductive behaviors at work

· Interpersonal relations—the degree to which the expatriate facilitates team performance and supports others in the organization and unit

· Management and supervision—proficiency in the coordination of different roles in the organization

· Overall job performance—composite of the preceding dimensions of expatriate job performance

These dimensions reflect intangibles that are often difficult to measure—and usually are not measured—using typical performance-assessment methods. They also suggest that performance criteria for expatriates fall into three broad categories (Cascio, 2012a; Dowling et al., 2013): objective criteria, subjective criteria, and contextual criteria.

Objective criteria include measures such as gross revenues, market share, and return on investment. There are several potential problems with these measures. First, all financial figures generally are subject to the problem of currency conversion, and currency fluctuations may make accurate assessment of financial contribution difficult. Second, host governments may place restrictions on the repatriation of profits and also on currency conversion. Third, financial measures ignore the ways that results are obtained. That is, they ignore the behaviors used to generate the results. Especially when political or work environments are unstable (e.g., frequent strikes), such behaviors are critical. These shortcomings suggest that additional criteria should be used to provide a deeper, fuller understanding of expatriate performance. Such criteria include subjective and contextual criteria.

Subjective criteria include judgments, usually by local executives, of factors such as the expatriate’s leadership style and interpersonal skills. Although local management tends to appraise the expatriate’s performance from its own cultural frame of reference, such an evaluation is usually perceived as more accurate than that from the home office (Oddou & Mendenhall, 2000). Subjective criteria can be used to complement objective criteria and take into account areas that are difficult to quantify, such as integrity, customer orientation, and teamwork. Depending on the culture, however, factors such as demographic similarity, interpersonal liking, and the need to protect and support members of one’s in-group can clearly affect subjective assessments (Varma et al., 2015).

Contextual criteria take into consideration factors that result from the situation in which performance occurs. They include organizational citizenship behaviors (helping and cooperating with others, working with enthusiasm, volunteering for activities, being flexible and open to change), as well as indicators of cross-cultural skill development (e.g., language, host culture, communication, networking) (Piekkari, 2006).

When implementing performance appraisal internationally, therefore, first determine the purpose of the appraisal (professional development versus administrative decision making). Second, whenever possible, set standards of performance against quantifiable assignments, tasks, or objectives. Third, allow more time to achieve results abroad than is customary in the domestic market. Fourth, keep the objectives flexible and responsive to potential market and environmental conditions (Cascio, 2011, 2012a; Engle et al., 2008).

Who Should Assess Expatriate Performance?

Earlier we noted that host-country managers can take contextual criteria into account in assessing an expatriate’s job performance, but they may have culture-bound biases that prevent them from putting the expatriate’s performance into a broader organizational context. The reverse is true of home-country managers. They may not be able to take contextual criteria into account, but they can put the expatriate’s performance into a broader organizational context. What about the expatriate’s own self-evaluation? It is important to take his or her insights into account in order to provide a balanced perspective and to give him or her credit for relevant insights into the interdependencies among domestic and foreign operations.

How does this process work in practice? One review of 36 empirical studies conducted between 2003 and 2012 found that more than half relied only on the expatriate’s self-evaluation, while the remainder relied on assessments of performance from supervisors or host-country nationals (Siligren, 2014). Clearly, multiple perspectives are helpful, but as in the domestic environment, be sure that whoever does the appraisal is knowledgeable of the employee’s performance and is well trained.

Performance Feedback

In individualistic cultures, such as the United States, Great Britain, and Australia, a popular topic in first-level supervisory training programs is how to conduct appraisal interviews. Indeed, the ability to conduct performance appraisal interviews well and the ability to communicate “bad news” are considered key skills for a successful manager in such cultures. By contrast, in collectivist societies, such as Korea, Guatemala, and Taiwan, discussing a person’s performance openly with him or her is likely to clash head-on with the society’s norm of harmony, and the subordinate may view it as an unacceptable loss of face. Such societies have more subtle, indirect ways of communicating feedback, as by withdrawing a normal favor or communicating concerns verbally via a mutually trusted intermediary (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

We covered the process of delivering feedback in the domestic context in  Chapter 5 . The important point here is that it is crucial to be sensitive to local customs with respect to the process used to communicate feedback (Cascio, 2012a). Little research has been done on feedback in intercultural settings, although one study found that Japanese managers provide implicit and informal feedback, but that is slowly changing (Barton, 2016). This is obviously an area that researchers and practitioners need to understand more deeply.

Upon the expatriate’s return from an overseas assignment, have a formal debriefing with him or her. Key topics to address are ways to improve the overall expatriate-management process. This is the first step in repatriation, the topic we discuss next.

Repatriation

Four decades of research on repatriation demonstrate that repatriation is often associated with unmet expectations, feelings of being undervalued, and concerns about one’s career. These sources of dissatisfaction are associated with higher turnover among repatriates (Kraimer, Shaffer, Harrison, & Ren, 2012; Lazarova, 2015). At the same time, almost all studies provided evidence that respondents saw their international assignments as intrinsically rewarding, a source of personal development, and a potential source of future advancement with another company (Kraimer et al., 2016).

Financially, repatriates face the loss of foreign-service premiums (e.g., for children’s education, maid service, clubs) and the effect of inflation on home purchases. Having become accustomed to foreign ways, upon reentry they often find home-country customs strange or, at the extreme, annoying. Such “reverse culture shock” may be more challenging than the culture shock experienced when going overseas (Andors, 2010; Schumpeter, 2015c). To mitigate these challenges, companies can (a) have champions back home who look after their interests, (b) pay as much attention to “reboarding” repatriates as they do to onboarding new employees, and (c) find ways to help repatriates disseminate what they have learned abroad (Schumpeter, 2015c). Key issues fall into three areas: planning, career management, and compensation.

Planning

Both the expatriation assignment and the repatriation move should be examined as parts of an integrated whole—not as unrelated events in an individual’s career (Tarique et al., 2016). Unfortunately, this occurs less than half the time (48%). For the remainder of expatriates, 55% held repatriation discussions fewer than six months before the completion of their assignments (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2016). To improve this process, it is necessary to define a clear strategic purpose for the move. Prior to the assignment, the firm should define one or more of the three primary purposes for sending a particular expatriate abroad: executive development, coordination and control between headquarters and foreign operations, and transfer of information and technology. Research shows that, unless there is a planned purpose in repatriation, the investment of as much as $1 million to send an expatriate overseas is likely to be squandered completely because turnover among repatriates may be 30% or more within the first year back in their home countries, compared with about 13% for all turnover (Kraimer et al., 2012). That said, estimates of repatriate turnover vary widely (Lazarova, 2015).

Returning expatriates need a crash course on how to live in their homelands again. PricewaterhouseCoopers holds cocktail parties at which returning staff can meet each other, and it provides them with mentors to help them fit back in. The objective is to reduce the uncertainties and fear that often accompany the repatriation process (Schumpeter, 2015c).

Career Management

Career management is the number one issue for expatriates (Andors, 2010). Companies that want to retain this key talent need to give them a reason to stay beyond the financial rewards. Companies need to leverage expatriates’ international experience in appropriate and challenging roles.

Unfortunately, research with 111 expatriates from 23 countries who returned to their home countries within the previous year tells a different story. Compared to their expatriate job assignments, 16% of the repatriates were in a job that they considered a demotion, 57% were in a job considered a lateral move, and 27% were in a job considered a promotion. Receiving a promotion upon repatriation, however, signaled that the organization values international experience, and it contributed to repatriates’ beliefs that the organization met their expectations regarding training and career development. These two perceptions, in turn, related positively to career satisfaction and to intentions to stay (Kraimer et al., 2012; Kraimer, Shaffer, & Bolino, 2009).

Compensation

The loss of a monthly premium to which the expatriate has been accustomed is a severe shock financially, whatever the rationale. To overcome this problem, some firms have replaced the monthly foreign-service premium with a onetime “mobility premium” (e.g., three months’ pay) for each move—overseas, back home, or to another overseas assignment. A few firms also provide low-cost loans or other financial assistance so that expatriates can get back into their hometown housing markets at a level at least equivalent to what they left. Finally, there is a strong need for financial counseling for repatriates. Such counseling has the psychological advantage of demonstrating to repatriates that the company is willing to help with the financial problems that they may encounter in uprooting their families once again to bring them home (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Shaffer et al., 2012).

In the next and final chapter, we consider emerging ethical issues. We begin by considering the nature of ethics, employee privacy, and fair information practice in the information age.

Evidence-Based Implications for Practice

· Globalization and the rise of the Internet are perhaps the most important developments in our time. Societies are becoming more interconnected than ever before, but this does not imply that cultural nuances in different countries and regions of the world will become less important. They change at a glacial pace.

· The study of country- or regional-level differences in behavior is important because it allows us to put current theories of motivation, leadership, and organizational behavior into perspective.

· Early identification of potential for international management, together with cultural competence, will become more critical, as the world becomes more interconnected. Sound measurements of key executive competencies, as well as affective, cognitive, behavioral, and motivational aspects of cross-cultural competence, are available and should be used more often.

· Research has demonstrated the international validity of general mental ability and personality dimensions in the prediction of job and training success, as well as in predicting the adjustment and job performance of expatriates.

· Expatriates need training in three areas: the culture, the language, and practical day-to-day matters. A variety of cross-cultural training methods have proven effective, but as is true of any training program, needs assessment should precede training in order to incorporate three key elements: the expatriate’s needs, customization of design and content, and overall program quality.

· When implementing performance management internationally, (a) determine the purpose of the assignment; (b) set standards of performance against quantifiable outcomes, tasks, or objectives; (c) allow more time to achieve results abroad than is customary in the domestic market; and (d) keep the objectives flexible and responsive to potential market and environmental conditions

· Treat expatriation and repatriation as parts of an integrated whole—not as unrelated events in an individual’s career.