Expatriate Employee Work Experiences
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table 1 |
|||||||
Mean Scores for Expatriate Experiences in the Workplace |
|||||||
Performance |
Equity |
Satisfaction |
Co-workers |
Autonomy |
Task Challenge |
Conscientiousness |
|
Mean |
4.89 |
5.07 |
4.41 |
5.29 |
4.72 |
4.62 |
4.86 |
SEM |
0.15 |
0.17 |
0.09 |
0.19 |
0.11 |
0.15 |
0.16 |
|
|||||||
Table 2 |
||||||||
Mean Score for National Experiences in the Workplace |
||||||||
Performance |
Equity |
Satisfaction |
Co-workers |
Autonomy |
Task Challenge |
Conscientiousness |
||
Mean |
4.96 |
5.1 |
4.37 |
5.23 |
4.51 |
4.15 |
4.6 |
|
SEM |
0.17 |
0.21 |
0.16 |
0.23 |
0.16 |
0.18 |
0.17 |
|
Performance differences were apparent between expatriates and national employees. The latter self-reported significantly higher performance scores as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3

There is also a relationship between self-reported performance and job satisfaction (F(40) = 4.53, p <. 05) All variables were significantly related to job satisfaction. Conscientiousness was more important to expatriates but not on a significant level (t(55) = 1.87, p < .06). Challenging work environments were preferred by expatriates compared to national employees (t(55) = 2.33, p<.05).
Table 3 |
|||||||||
Correlations between variables and their corresponding p values |
|||||||||
Equity |
Satisfaction |
Co-workers |
Autonomy |
Task Challenge |
Conscientiousness |
||||
Performance |
r =.652, p < .001 |
r =.685, p<.001 |
r =.697, p<.001 |
r =.402, p<.001 |
r =.586, p<.001 |
r =.613, p<.001 |
|||
Equity |
r =.620, p<.001 |
r =.347, p<.05 |
r =.350, p<.05 |
||||||
Satisfaction |
r =.368, p<.05 |
r =.579, p<.001 |
|||||||
Co-workers |
r =.816, p<.001 |
r =.640, p<.001 |
r =.368, p<.05 |
r =.527, p<.001 |
|||||
Task Challenge |
r =.393, p<.001 |
||||||||
Conscientiousness |
r =.375, p<.05 |
r =.487, p<.001 |
r =.399, p<.001 |
r =.391, p<.001 |
|||||
There were significant differences in preferences between two variables when expatriates and nationals were required to choose between them. Expatriates preferred equity over task challenge (Χ 2 (1) = 9.53, p< .05). Nationals also preferred equity over task challenge (Χ 2 (1) = 5.33, p< .05). Both expatriates and nationals placed more importance upon co-worker relationships than autonomy (Χ 2 (1) = 4.26, p< .05). When tested as separate groups, neither showed a significant preference for co-worker relations versus autonomy. National employees showed a preference for easier jobs versus jobs where they were treated more equitably (Χ 2 (1) = 8.07, p< .05). Expatriates placed more importance upon co-worker relationships than challenging tasks (Χ 2 (1) = 7.26, p< .05). National employees also preferred positive co-worker relations versus challenging tasks (Χ 2 (1) = 6.23, p< .05). Expatriates preferred challenging jobs to jobs with more security (Χ 2 (1) = 10.7, p< .05). Nationals reflected the same preference (Χ 2 (1) = 3.77, p< .05). Both expatriates and nationals preferred a more satisfying job to a more secure job, respectively (Χ 2 (1) = 4.55, p< .05), (Χ 2 (1) = 7.14, p< .05).
Previous research cites large disparities between national and expatriate work environment preferences and treatment. Our results did not reveal any significant disparities between the groups. The similar mean scores for all the variables tested reflected this finding. This is shown in the small difference found between groups in performance ratings. Both groups were closely related in self-reported job satisfaction. This could be due to cohort effects in our expatriate test group, since the majority of participants were in the 20-29 age brackets and attending college. Perhaps job satisfaction is not much of a concern for them right now. They may perceive it differently than other expatriate groups, and they may not work as often because they are in school. These same reasons can be stated for the small difference in performance scores. There is the additional possibility that, since these participants were attending college, this could have assisted in the acculturation process, thus lowering performance disparities. The conscientiousness variable was found to be higher (though not significantly) among the expatriate group, perhaps more aware of their social status as expatriates and perceiving additional challenges to complete work successfully. Lack of a significant difference here could be due to the modest effect size and lower power due to a smaller number of participants than originally sought. All the variables correlated to some extent and were predictive of one another. This multi-linearity reflects the importance of all these variables upon one another and upon overall job performance and satisfaction. The preferences for one variable over another, when forced to choose between two answers, was the same whether groups were tested together as one population or separately with expatriates forming the test group and nationals forming the control group. This similarity contrasts with prior research reflecting different priorities between expatriate and national employees. These findings were consistent when respondents from Canada and the United States were combined. This could be due to the aforementioned cohort effects of the test group, because they were all attending college and possibly more acculturated than other expatriate groups. Both groups preferred equity over task challenge. Co-worker relationships were more important than autonomy. Nationals also cited co-worker relationships as being more important than challenging tasks. There was no significant preference for this among the expatriate group. Challenging tasks were more important than job security. Perhaps this was due to a lack of employment security in other countries as well or, perhaps younger workers do not expect job security as much as older generations. Both groups preferred a job with overall satisfaction and less autonomy than one with more autonomy and less overall satisfaction. This indicates autonomy is not as important as other job components to most expatriate and national employees alike.
Limitations
There is no way to verify that participants met the requirements of the study apart from their self-report. The number of participants and the effect size were modest, and so we must question the generalizability of these findings. Cohort effects were apparent: a majority of participants were in a particular age bracket and most attended college. This could have biased the results. The same constructs should be tested with a tool other than JDS. Some research reflects overly positive performance scores when self-reports were administered (Strauss, 2005).
Implications
The preference for challenging jobs could be indicative of the personality type of people enrolled in college. Perhaps people in college prefer a challenge, need more challenging tasks to hold their attention due to the mental rigors of college work and critical thinking skills, are not focused on a solid career yet and do not hold as many specific job preferences while going to school, or still reside with family and do not work. All of these possibilities should be questioned and studied. Other studies show acculturation issues and performance discrepancies within expatriate populations working in the USA (Martocchio, 2004 & Aycan, 1997). There are consulting programs specifically constructed to deal with acculturation issues. Are these groups working to alleviate an issue that is non-existent or misdiagnosed? We are reluctant to say “yes,” but should try understanding why our findings were so different from previous research. We should test the perceptions and self-reports of expatriates working in this country briefly compared to those that have been here over longer time increments to find any trends in acculturation and perceptions over time. Does being a college student help you acculturate quicker to work environments? What are the social and economic implications of this? These questions require additional research.
Adler, N.J. 1997. International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.) Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.
Copeland, L., L. Griggs. 1985. Going International. New York: Random House.
Davis, S. L., S. Finney. (2003, April). Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Edwards, J., R. Caplan, R. Van Harrison. (1998). Person-environment fit theory. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress: 28-67. Oxford, England: University Press.
Gelade, G. & M. Ivery; The Impact of Human Resource Management and Work Climate on Organizational Performance. Personnel Psychology. 2003, Vol. 53, 383-404.
Hackman, R. J., G. R. Oldham. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975, 60(2): 159-170.
Kelley, C., J. Meyers. (1999). The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory. In S. Fowler & M. Mumford (Eds.), Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training Methods: Vol. 2: 53-70. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
Kirkman, B.L., D. L. Shapiro. The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review. 1997, 22: 730-757.
Martocchio, J. J. Going places: Roads more and less traveled in research on expatriate experiences. Research in personnel and human resources management. 2004, 23: 199-247.
Strauss, Judy P. Multi-source perspectives of self-esteem, performance ratings, and source agreement. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2005, 20(6): 464-482.
Tung, R. 1982. Selection and training procedures of U. S., European, and Japanese multinationals. California Management Review. 1982, 25(1): 57-72.
Vianen, A., A. Kristoff-Brown; Fitting in: Surface and Deep-Level Cultural Differences and Expatriates’ Adjustment. Academy of Management Journal. 2004, Vol. 47 (5), 697-709.
Aycan, Z. (1997). Acculturation of expatriate managers: A process model of adjustment and performance. In Z. Aycan (Ed), New approaches to employee, Vol. 4: Expatriate management: Theory and research. Montreal, Canada: JAI Press.
|