1040A Critical Review of Expatriate Adjustment Research .docx

1040
A Critical Review of Expatriate Adjustment
Research Through a Multiple Stakeholder View:
Progress, Emerging Trends, and Prospects
Riki Takeuchi
Hong Kong University of Science & Technology
This article is a critical review of the expatriate adjustment
literature that focuses on studies
that have considered other stakeholders in addition to
expatriates themselves. To highlight cur-
rent knowledge in this area, the most important, implicit
assumptions that scholars seem to have
made and that may have restricted the theoretical and empirical
advancement of the literature
are delineated. By focusing on these assumptions, this article
underscores the importance of
other stakeholders in influencing or being influenced by
expatriates. This article also highlights
three theoretical perspectives as exemplars to extend the
existing literature. By so doing, this
review identifies gaps and stimulates new research directions on
expatriate adjustment.
Keywords: expatriate adjustment review; multiple stakeholder;
host country nationals; spouses;
parent company
You’re an expatriate. You’ve lost touch with the soil. You get

precious. . . .You drink yourself to
death. You become obsessed by sex. You spend all your time
talking, not working.
Ernest Hemingway
1040
Acknowledgments: I appreciate the financial support provided
to the author by the Research Grant Council of
Hong Kong for the School of Business Initiative (SBI) No.
08/09.BM13.
Corresponding author: Riki Takeuchi, Department of
Management, School of Business and Management, Hong Kong
University of Science & Technology, Clear Water Bay,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR
E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Management
Vol. 36 No. 4, July 2010 1040-1064
DOI: 10.1177/0149206309349308
© The Author(s) 2010
Takeuchi / Expatriate Adjustment 1041
As Hemingway noted, there are both positive and negative
consequences to being an expatri-
ate. For expatriate employees working for “business
organizations, who are sent overseas on
a temporary basis to complete a time-based task or accomplish
an organizational goal”
(Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004: 203), the

benefits can include the acquisition
of global management skills, which are highly sought after in
the labor market (cf. Daily,
Certo, & Dalton, 2000). International assignments also play a
central role in building global
and international skills for organizations (cf. Sambharya, 1996).
Expatriate experience at
some time in an employee’s career may even be a necessary
criterion for his or her
advancement to the “executive suites” (Daily et al., 2000). On
the other hand, there can
be a number of negative consequences, including poor
performance due to difficulties in
adjusting to the foreign environment or disillusionment with
parent company support. Thus,
it is considered important to understand why some expatriates
adjust well to foreign environ-
ments while others do not.
As such, an increasing number of studies have been carried out
over the past decades that
have focused on expatriate adjustment (e.g., Caligiuri, Hyland,
Joshi, & Bross, 1998; Kraimer,
Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001; Shaffer & Harrison, 1998; Shaffer,
Harrison, Gregersen, Black, &
Ferzandi, 2006; Van Vianen, De Pater, Kristof-Brown, &
Johnson, 2004), and the accumulated
knowledge in this area has contributed to further understanding
of the antecedents and conse-
quences of expatriate adjustment (e.g., Bhaskar-Shrinivas,
Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005).
Expatriate adjustment refers to the degree of fit or
psychological comfort and familiarity that
individuals feel with different aspects of foreign culture (Black
& Stephens, 1989; Harrison
et al., 2004). Despite these studies, critical issues remain that

need to be addressed for this area
to progress further.
For example, despite the existence of several theoretical (e.g.,
Andreason, 2008; Aycan,
1997a, 1997b; Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Church,
1982; Harrison et al., 2004;
Thomas, 1998) and empirical (e.g., Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.,
2005; Hechanova, Beehr, &
Christiansen, 2003) reviews of expatriate employee cross-
cultural adjustment, a criticism that
can be raised of expatriate adjustment research is that it has
been predominantly “expatri-
ate-centric” and has neglected other “stakeholders” (Freeman,
1984) who can affect and be
affected by expatriates, such as spouses (Caligiuri et al., 1998;
Takeuchi, Yun, & Tesluk,
2002) and host country nationals (HCNs; e.g., Toh & DeNisi,
2003; Vance & Paik, 1995). A
stakeholder refers to “any group or individual who can affect or
is affected by the achieve-
ment of the firm’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984: 25). In the case
of expatriates, primary
stakeholders—those who can affect expatriates or are affected
by them—can include but are
not limited to spouses/family members, parent company, and
host country nationals.
In addition, many studies of expatriate adjustment have either
implicitly or explicitly
adopted the stress perspective in examining the antecedents and
consequences of expatriate
adjustment (Harrison et al., 2004; Kraimer & Wayne, 2004). For
instance, antecedents such
as role ambiguity or role conflict are typically considered as
stressors, which cause stress or

lack of adjustment. Stress or lack of adjustment is in turn
considered to lead to strain or
negative consequences such as lower performance or higher
premature return intentions. In
relation to this, Harrison et al. (2004: 240) called for new
investigations, noting that “research
on expatriate experiences seems to have evolved into reliance
on a comfortable (although
difficult, at least in terms of population access) paradigm and
well-worn road.” Thus,
1042 Journal of Management / July 2010
additional theoretical perspectives may be helpful in examining
various issues associated
with expatriate adjustment that have not yet been fully
investigated.
This review has two primary objectives: first, to draw attention
to the importance of exam-
ining other stakeholders by highlighting the implicit
assumptions utilized in current literature
and providing a critical, focused review of current expatriate
adjustment literature and second,
to discuss the applicability of a particular theoretical
perspective for each of the stakeholders
as exemplars of new, additional theoretical perspectives that
could help extend the current
thinking in this area. More specifically, I will associate work-
family conflict, strategic
human resource management, and social exchange theoretical
perspectives with family,
parent company, and host country national domains,
respectively. In addition, I adopt the

person-interaction perspective as a fourth, overarching
theoretical framework to examine the
expatriate-stakeholder interface. By so doing, I contribute to the
expatriate adjustment litera-
ture theoretically by highlighting new research ideas and
theories that can be used to further
our understanding of expatriate adjustment and its
consequences.
Review of Expatriate Adjustment Studies
Research on expatriate issues has been popular for many years
(e.g., Mendenhall & Oddou,
1985; Newman, Bhatt, & Gutteridge, 1978) but has gained
momentum particularly over the
past couple of decades, due in part to the globalization of the
world business environment and
in part to a concerted effort by several researchers to highlight
the viability of this topic in the
late 1980s to the mid-1990s (e.g., Black, 1988; Gregersen,
1992; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985).
Among the earlier studies, Black et al.’s (1991) adjustment
model “instigated and galvanized
a large body of evidence. It is the most influential and often-
cited theoretical treatment of
expatriate experiences, and it can be considered a context-
specific reflection of the stressor-
stress-strain sequence” (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005: 257).
Here, I focus on sociocultural
or cross-cultural adjustment (e.g., Black & Stephens, 1989;
Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward &
Kennedy, 1993; Ward & Searle, 1991). Black (1988) and Black
and Stephens (1989) differen-
tiated cross-cultural adjustment into three facets: general, work,
and interaction. General
adjustment refers to psychological comfort related to the host

cultural environment (e.g.,
weather, food, and living conditions); work adjustment refers to
psychological comfort related
to different work values, expectations, and standards; and
interactional adjustment refers to
psychological comfort related to different communication styles
in the host culture and to
interpersonal communication with host country nationals.
To date, two meta-analyses on expatriate adjustment (Bhaskar-
Shrinivas et al., 2005;
Hechanova et al., 2003) have appeared in the literature. I will
briefly summarize their find-
ings here. Both studies examine antecedents and consequences
of three (general, work, and
interaction) facets of expatriate adjustment. There are some
differences between these meta-
analyses, which are, of course, to be expected. For instance,
Hechanova et al. (2003)
categorized antecedent variables into four types (individual,
work related, environmental,
and family related), while Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005)
categorized them into five (antic-
ipatory, individual, job, organization, and nonwork). The
variables included in the studies
are also somewhat different. Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.’s meta-
analytic study included a larger
number of studies, given that it is relatively more recent than
Hechanova et al.’s study.
Thus, I will base this summary on their findings mainly,
supplemented by Hechanova

et al.’s study findings.
Of the anticipatory factors, language ability was significantly
and positively related to interaction
but not to general or work adjustment. Previous overseas
experience was positively and signifi-
cantly related to both work and interaction but not to general
adjustment. For individual factors,
self-efficacy was positively related to both work and interaction
adjustments; relational skills were
positively related to all three facets of adjustment. Hechanova
et al. (2003) also found education
level to be positively related to general and work adjustment but
negatively related to interaction
adjustments. For job factors, role clarity and role discretion
were found to be positively related to
all three facets of adjustment; role conflict was negatively
related to work and interaction but not to
general adjustment. Hechanova et al. also found job level to be
negatively related to general and
work adjustment but positively related to interaction
adjustment; organizational tenure was
positively related to work and interaction but not to general
adjustment; months on assignment and
outcome expectancy were positively related to all three facets of
adjustment; and cross-cultural
training was negatively related to all three facets of adjustment.
For the organization factors,
coworker support was positively related to all three facets of
adjustment while logistical support was
positively related to general and interaction but not to work
adjustment. Finally, for nonwork factors,
culture novelty was negatively related to all three facets of
adjustment, while spouse adjustment was
positively related to all three facets of adjustment.

Despite the progress that has been made in the area of expatriate
adjustment, its develop-
ment may have been hampered by some assumptions and/or data
limitations typically
associated with expatriate adjustment studies. I will highlight
these assumptions next, fol-
lowed by the multiple stakeholder and interactionist
perspectives utilized in this review.
Implicit Assumptions
While Black et al.’s (1991) model has helped generate a
sufficiently large number of empirical
studies to allow for meta-analyses (e.g., Bhaskar-Shrinivas et
al., 2005; Hechanova et al., 2003),
it may also, unintentionally, have restricted the focus of
subsequent studies to (a) looking more
exclusively at expatriate employees themselves and variables
associated with them; (b) treating
adjustment as an end to itself, not as a means to an end; (c)
examining only those variables included
in the model; and (d) investigating simple, direct, or linear
relationships among antecedents and
adjustment. For example, while there are certainly a few studies
that have examined the conse-
quences of adjustment, the majority of them only consider
expatriates’ own outcomes.
Consequences that have been investigated to date include work
and nonwork satisfaction (e.g.,
Shaffer & Harrison, 1998; Takeuchi, Yun, & Tesluk, 2002),
organizational commitment (Shay &
Baack, 2006; Takeuchi, Wang, Marinova, & Yao, 2009), early
return intentions/withdrawal cogni-
tions (e.g., Shaffer & Harrison, 1998; Wang & Takeuchi, 2007),
and performance (Caligiuri, 1997;
Kraimer et al., 2001; Kraimer & Wayne, 2004; Shay & Baack,

2006). Nonetheless, the meta-
analysis conducted by Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005) identified
less than a dozen studies that
had included consequences of adjustment. This lack of attention
on the consequences of expatri-
ate adjustment may be in part due to the difficulty of obtaining
additional rating sources who
can evaluate expatriate outcomes because access to an
expatriate sample is already considered
to be very difficult (cf. Harrison et al., 2004). Thus, an attempt
to obtain additional rating sources
adds another layer of complication to such studies.
While I acknowledge this difficulty in terms of population
access, it is important to also
recognize the implicit assumptions of the expatriate adjustment
research as a whole. These
seem to be that (a) the focus should be “exclusively on
expatriates themselves rather than
other elements of their social circumstances: family members,
HCNs, or the rest of the mem-
bers of the foreign operation” (Harrison et al., 2004: 236); (b)
the stress perspective is the
primary, if not the sole, theoretical perspective that should be
used in these studies (Harrison
et al., 2004; Kraimer & Wayne, 2004); and (c) variables relate
to each other in a direct or
linear manner (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Takeuchi, Shay,
& Li, 2008).
This review addresses these assumptions in the following
manner. Regarding the first point,

this review adopts a multiple stakeholder view, as described in
more detail in the following, and
focuses on how expatriate adjustment is affected by and can
affect three key stakeholders: (a)
family (e.g., Caligiuri et al., 1998), (b) host country national
(e.g., Toh & DeNisi, 2003; Vance &
Paik, 1995; Vance, Wholihan, & Paderon, 1993), and (c) parent
organization (e.g., Aycan, 1997a,
1997b; Gong, 2003a, 2003b; Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron, 1994).
While previous studies have
identified and considered these stakeholders, these studies have
not been given much attention in the
literature. Regarding the second point, I either introduce social
exchange and strategic human
resource management perspectives as theoretical perspectives or
reintroduce work-family conflict
perspective as a theoretical perspective as I consider these to be
beneficial to moving the field for-
ward and develop a set of research ideas to illustrate potential
future research directions.
Finally, regarding the last point, this review will explicitly
adopt an interactionist perspec-
tive to highlight the possibility of more complex relationships
between antecedent variables
and expatriate adjustment (and outcomes). Specifically, I adopt
a person-situation interaction
(e.g., Ekehammar, 1974; Pervin, 1989; Terborg, 1981)
perspective as an overarching theo-
retical perspective here and argue that focusing attention on the
interface between
stakeholders and expatriates provides opportunities for new
research on expatriate adjust-
ment. Interactional psychology is an approach to studying and
explaining individual behaviors
by emphasizing the continuous and multitudinous interactions

between person characteristics
and situational characteristics (Terborg, 1981). It has a long
tradition in the management field
in one form or another; therefore, it is surprising that there is a
lack of theoretical and empiri-
cal attention in the existing expatriate studies that adopt this
perspective (see Van Vianen
et al., 2004, for an exception). However, when examining the
multiple interfaces between
expatriates and their stakeholders, the person–situation
interaction perspective seems to pro-
vide the best fit as an overarching theoretical perspective for
identifying new areas of research.
A Multiple Stakeholder View of Expatriate Adjustment
A multiple stakeholder view of expatriate adjustment is adopted
in this review, with the
purpose of highlighting the existence of groups or individuals
who can influence or can be
influenced by expatriates and examining their salience. While a
stakeholder can be any group
or individual that can affect or be affected by an expatriate’s
achievement of the objectives set
forth by an international assignment (cf. Freeman, 1984),
including managerial development or
subsidiary control and coordination (Edstrom & Galbraith,
1977; Shay & Baack, 2004), I argue
here that the primary stakeholders for expatriates include (a)
spouses and family members,
whose inability to adjust to foreign environments has been
noted as one of the most critical
reasons leading to expatriate “failure” (Hays, 1971, 1974); (b)
the parent organization, whose

support can increase expatriates’ adjustment levels and
subsequent performance (Wang &
Takeuchi, 2007); and (c) host country nationals, whose support
can be instrumental in expa-
triates succeeding in their objectives (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.,
2005; Toh & DeNisi, 2007) or
whose resistance can lead to failure (Toh & DeNisi, 2003). In
addition, by highlighting these
stakeholders and expatriates (see Figure 1), I also underscore
the importance of examining
their “interfaces” (or the “interaction” between expatriates and
their stakeholders), which
refers to the overlapping areas between an expatriate and a
stakeholder (e.g., a family member).
This review also highlights the following theoretical
perspectives used in examining each of
three interfaces: work-family conflict (e.g., Edwards &
Rothbard, 1999; Frone, Russell, &
Cooper, 1992) for the expatriate–family member interface,
strategic human resource manage-
ment (e.g., Lepak & Snell, 1999, 2002) for the expatriate–parent
organization interface, and
social exchange theory (e.g., Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960;
Homans, 1958, 1961) for the expatri-
ate–host country national interface. Furthermore, a person–
situation interactionist perspective, as
a fourth perspective, is applied to each of the three interfaces.
By integrating these research
streams that have previously been underutilized in the
expatriate literature, this review will
develop a new, broader framework for understanding expatriate
adjustment.

Existing Stock of Knowledge
Table 1 briefly summarizes the existing published studies that
have examined or incorpo-
rated these multiple stakeholders. In particular, the variables
examined and the causal
Work-Family
Conflict Perspective
Social Exchange
Perspective
Expatriate
Adjustment
Family
Domain
Parent Company
Domain
Strategic Human Resource
Management Perspective
Host Country
National Domain
Figure 1
Multiple Stakeholder View of Expatriate Adjustment

Family
Black (1988): Family adjustment
→ expatriate adjustment
Black and Stephens (1989):
Spouse adjustment →
expatriate adjustment
*Black et al. (1991): Family/
spouse adjustment → expatriate
adjustment
Caligiuri, Hyland, Joshi, and
Bross (1998): Family
adjustment → expatriate
adjustment
aShaffer and Harrison (1998):
Spouse adjustment → expatriate
adjustment; spouse adjustment
→ expatriate nonwork
satisfaction and early return
intention
Caligiuri et al. (1999): Family
support → (female) expatriate
adjustment
aShaffer et al. (1999): Spouse
adjustment → expatriate
adjustment
bKraimer et al. (2001): Spouse
support → expatriate
adjustment

Shaffer and Harrison (2001):
Spouse adjustment ←
Takeuchi, Yun, and Tesluk (2002):
Spouse adjustment ↔
Parent company
*Black, Marshall, and Oddou (1991):
Logistical support → expatriate
adjustment
*Aycan (1997b): MNC structure,
value orientation, life cycle,
strategic planning → expatriate
adjustment
Caligiuri, Joshi, and Lazarova (1999):
POS → (female) expatriate
adjustment
aShaffer, Harrison, and Gilley (1999):
Logistic support → expatriate
adjustment
bKraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski
(2001): POS → expatriate
adjustment; leader-member
exchange (LMX) → task and
contextual performance
bKraimer and Wayne (2004):
Adjustment/POS → expatriate

adjustment, task and contextual
performance; LMX (+) → task and
contextual performance
Palthe (2004): Parent company
socialization → expatriate
adjustment
Waxin (2004): Organizational social
support (+) → expatriate
adjustment
Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005):
Logistic support → expatriate
adjustment
cWang and Takeuchi (2007): POS
(+)→ expatriate adjustment
Host country nationals (HCNs)
Black (1988): Interaction with host
nationals → expatriate adjustment
*Black et al. (1991): Social support
from coworkers and superiors at
foreign subsidiary → expatriate
adjustment
Caligiuri et al. (1999): (Perceived)
positive attitudes toward expatriate
→ (female) expatriate adjustment
aShaffer et al. (1999): Social support
(coworkers) → expatriate
adjustment

Selmer (2001): Social involvement
with HCNs ← expatriate inability
to adjust
Waxin (2004): Supervisory social
support → expatriate adjustment;
coworker social support →
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer,
and Luk (2005): Coworker social
support → expatriate adjustment
Liu and Shaffer (2005): Depth of
relationship → expatriate
adjustment and performance (ns);
HCN interpersonal skills →
expatriate adjustment and
performance; HCN cultural
empathy → expatriate adjustment
and performance
Johnson, Kristof-Brown, Van Vianen,
De Pater, and Klein (2003):
Breadth of relationship and depth
of relationship with HCNs →
expatriate adjustment; number of
HCN contacts → expatriate
adjustment
Shay and Baack (2006): HCN
perceived contextual performance of
expatriates ← expatriate adjustment
Table 1

Brief Review of Expatriates and Primary Stakeholders
(continued)
Family
Palthe (2004): Family adjustment
→ expatriate adjustment
Waxin (2004): Partner social
support → expatriate
adjustment
Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005):
Spouse adjustment →
Herleman, Britt, and Hashima
(2008): Spouse adjustment ←
social support
Parent company
cTakeuchi, Wang, Marinova, and Yao
(2009): Current assignment POS →
expatriate work adjustment; off-
the-job life POS (+) → general
adjustment
Host country nationals (HCNs)
*Toh and DeNisi (2007): Role

information → expatriate
adjustment; social support →
Table 1 (continued)
Notes: *Asterisk denotes those studies that are conceptually
based. The articles are listed according to the year they
were published; studies with the same superscript denote the use
of the same/similar data sets. MNC = multinational
company; POS = perceived organizational support.
relationships implied in these studies are highlighted. As a
sidenote, while many of these
studies examine either one particular facet or multiple facets
(general, work, and interaction)
of adjustment, it is not the purpose of this review to go into
these facets in detail. Family
members, including spouses, are perhaps the most researched
group, possibly due to the fact
that research by Hays (1971, 1974) identified the inability of
spouses to adjust to foreign
environments as the second most crucial reason for expatriates’
“failure.” There are fewer
studies examining the influence of other stakeholders on
expatriates, and even fewer that
investigate the impact of expatriates on other stakeholders. The
next section of this review
will provide a critical evaluation of the existing research on
these primary stakeholders.
Stock of knowledge on family stakeholder group. While the call
to attend to spouse-related
issues is not new (e.g., Harvey, 1985; Hays, 1971, 1974), only
relatively recently have schol-
ars started looking at the power that family members have over

expatriates. As illustrated in
Table 1, the majority of studies have found that spouse/family
adjustment is positively related
to the level of cross-cultural adjustment by expatriates. Some
studies have looked at the rela-
tionships between overall levels of spouse/family and expatriate
adjustment (e.g., Black,
1988; Caligiuri et al., 1998), while others have looked at the
relationship between specific
facets of spouse/family and expatriate adjustment (Black &
Stephens, 1989; Takeuchi et al.,
2002), and still others have looked at a mix (e.g., Palthe, 2004;
Shaffer & Harrison, 1998,
2001; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999).
Other studies have looked at the impact of social support on
expatriates, either the impact
of spouses’ social support in general (Kraimer et al., 2001;
Waxin, 2004) or the impact of
male spouses’ social support on female expatriates (Caligiuri,
Joshi, & Lazarova, 1999).
Here, the findings are equivocal. Caligiuri et al. (1999) found
family support to be positively
related to female expatriates’ overall adjustment level, and
Waxin (2004) found partner
social support to be positively related to expatriates’ interaction
adjustment. Herleman,
Britt, and Hashima (2008) found social support from friends to
be positively related to
spouses’ personal and interaction adjustment. On the other
hand, Kraimer et al. (2001) did

not find a significant relationship between spouse support and
expatriates’ general and work
adjustment.
From this brief and critical review, several observations can be
made. First, previous stud-
ies have tended to be overly restrictive in their focus (i.e., only
a limited number of variables,
typically family/spouse support or adjustment, have been
investigated). Second, these vari-
ables are typically considered to have a linear relationship with
However, given that Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005) found
expatriates to go through a non-
linear adjustment process (resembling a “sideways S” shaped
curve) based on length of stay
in a foreign country, it is more likely the case that the
relationships between antecedents and
adjustment (or, for that matter, adjustment and consequences)
are nonlinearly related
(Mendenhall & Macomber, 1997; Mendenhall, Macomber,
Gregersen, & Cutright, 1998).
Third, many studies that have examined the relationship
between family and expatriate inter-
faces seem either atheoretical or invoke work-family literature
very generally as their
underlying theoretical basis. While the reliance on work-family
literature as a theoretical
basis is understandable given that international assignments
entail critical changes both for
expatriates themselves and family members who accompany
them, placing heavy demands
on their time and resources, these studies typically do not really
delve into the specific
explanatory mechanisms through which family members affect
expatriates (see Caligiuri et

al., 1998, for an exception). In addition, the conflict that arises
from such changes has not
really been examined (see Shaffer, Harrison, Gilley, & Luk,
2001, for an exception). Thus, it
may also be helpful to examine negatively oriented concepts
such as work-family, time-
based, strain-based, and behavior-based conflict (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000). Fourth, very
few studies have examined the influence that expatriates have
on their spouses (see Shaffer
& Harrison, 1998; Takeuchi et al., 2002, for exceptions). Given
that it is more likely that
expatriates and their family members can have a reciprocal
influence on one another
(Takeuchi et al., 2002), a more dynamic, process-oriented study
that investigates the mediat-
ing mechanisms or nonlinear relationships using longitudinal
studies may be critical to move
the expatriate adjustment area forward.
Stock of knowledge on parent company stakeholder group. As
shown in the second column
of Table 1, previous research that examined the expatriate–
parent company interface tended to
investigate the influence of the parent company on expatriate
adjustment, focusing on different
forms of support provided by the organization, including
logistical (Black et al., 1991; Shaffer
et al., 1999; see also meta-analysis by Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.,
2005) and organizational
support (Caligiuri et al., 1999; Kraimer et al., 2001; Kraimer &
Wayne, 2004; Takeuchi et al.,
2009; Wang & Takeuchi, 2007; Waxin, 2004). In general, these
findings indicate that parent
company support (logistical or organizational) relates positively
to expatriate cross-cultural

adjustment (general, work, and interaction). While earlier
studies focused on the overall sup-
port provided by the company (Black et al., 1991; Caligiuri et
al., 1999; Shaffer et al., 1999;
Wang & Takeuchi, 2007), more recent studies have adopted a
multifoci view of organizational
support (parent company and foreign subsidiary: Kraimer et al.,
2001; adjustment, financial,
and career: Kraimer & Wayne, 2004; current assignment and
nonwork: Takeuchi et al., 2009).
Furthermore, based on a social exchange theoretical
perspective, Kraimer et al. (2001) and
Kraimer and Wayne (2004) examined and found leader-member
exchange to be positively
related to expatriate task and contextual performance but not to
There are several summary observations that can be made about
studies that have investi-
gated the expatriate–parent company interface. First, these
studies as a set investigate a
limited number of variables, typically those related to some
types of support provided by
the parent company. Second, and related, many studies that
examined the relationship
between the expatriate and parent company interface appear to
rely heavily on a social
exchange theoretical perspective as the underlying theoretical
basis (e.g., Kraimer &
Wayne, 2004; Takeuchi et al., 2009). However, only perceived
organizational support (or a

variant of it) and leader-member exchange have been examined
in this way. Of course, these
by themselves are by no means critical flaws, but the main point
that I would like to highlight
is the restricted focus of existing studies. Third, these variables
are typically considered to
have a linear relationship with expatriate adjustment (except
Takeuchi et al., 2009). Fourth,
virtually no study has examined the influence that expatriates
have on the parent company.
While expatriate adjustment studies do not typically consider
expatriates as agents for knowl-
edge transfer, either as agents that transfer the parent
company’s knowledge to the foreign
subsidiary or agents for acquiring host country knowledge to be
transferred back to the parent
company (Gong, 2003a, 2003b), it is plausible that expatriates
will be much better equipped
to do so when they have adjusted well to the foreign culture;
therefore, there are different
research questions that can be asked when using a different
theoretical perspective.
Stock of knowledge on host country nationals’ stakeholder
group. Lastly, Table 1 illustrates
that a review of the existing studies that capture the expatriate–
host country national interface
indicates that the majority of studies on host country nationals
consider the influence of HCNs
on expatriates but not vice versa. In these studies, coworker
social support appears to be the
variable that has been considered and studied the most (Black et
al., 1991; Shaffer et al., 2001;
Toh & DeNisi, 2007; Waxin, 2004; see also the meta-analysis
by Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.,
2005). Generally, coworker social support seems to be

positively related to expatriate adjust-
ment, but the referent of coworker support is not always
specified (i.e., coworkers could be
other expatriates, HCNs, or third-country nationals; cf. Shaffer
et al., 1999; Waxin, 2004),
which may be critical when examining the different kinds
(informational vs. socio-emotional)
of support that are being provided. Nonetheless, most of the
studies tend to use a general
measure of social support. Caligiuri et al. (1999) also found that
the positive attitude of
HCNs toward expatriates, as perceived by the expatriates
themselves, was positively related
to (female) expatriates’ overall adjustment.
In addition, there are a couple of studies that examined
variables associated with a social
network perspective (e.g., Johnson, Kristof-Brown, Van Vianen,
De Pater, & Klein, 2003; Liu
& Shaffer, 2005). More specifically, Johnson et al. (2003) found
that the number of HCN
contacts that expatriates had was positively related to both
expatriate work and interaction
adjustment. They also found the breadth of relationships
expatriates had with HCN contacts
was positively related to expatriates’ general adjustment. Liu
and Shaffer (2005) found expa-
triates’ evaluation of the interpersonal skills of host country
nationals to be positively related
to their work and interaction adjustment, while the depth of the
relationship (the strength of

connection with HCNs) was positively related to interaction
adjustment and self-rated expa-
triate performance.
Two critical observations can be made of these studies. First,
again, only a limited set of vari-
ables was investigated. Second, only one study (Shay & Baack,
2004) examined the influence on
expatriate adjustment of HCNs. Specifically, they found
expatriate work adjustment to be posi-
tively related to what they termed “HCN perceived contextual
performance,” which was
represented by HCN supervisor satisfaction, HCN
organizational commitment, and HCN-rated
expatriate effectiveness. Furthermore, only a limited number of
studies have actually obtained
ratings from HCNs; therefore, obtaining responses from
different sources (particularly HCNs)
may be fruitful. Of course, the lack of studies only refers to
published studies that have examined
expatriate adjustment and HCN characteristics, not empirical
studies that have focused on HCNs
themselves (e.g., Selmer & De Leon, 1996). In the next section,
I discuss three theoretical per-
spectives that could further our understanding of these
interfaces.
Exemplars of Theoretical Perspectives
Figure 2 provides an expanded view of the multiple stakeholder
view of expatriate
adjustment noted in Figure 1 with selected variables for each
stakeholder based on the
theoretical perspectives used in this review. Specifically, this
framework highlights some
of each of the stakeholder’s potential antecedents that are likely

to influence expatriate
adjustment (and outcomes associated with them) as well as
some of the consequences
for each stakeholder (e.g., host country nationals). In addition,
the person–situation
interaction perspective is overlaid as an overarching framework
for each of the interfaces.
The dotted lines are used to illustrate the potential interaction
effects between variables
associated with an expatriate and a stakeholder (i.e., expatriate–
family, expatriate–parent
company, and expatriate–host country national interfaces). The
framework is intentionally
fairly general to illustrate potential directions for expatriate
research and to highlight the
significance of interactionist and additional theoretical
perspectives in examining these
interfaces, rather than hypothesizing specific relationships that
may be of limited use for
the specific objectives set forth in this critical review.
Nonetheless, a couple of points should be qualified. First, one
caveat of the proposed frame-
work (Figure 2) is that the variables included in each interface
are not meant to be a comprehensive
list of possible factors that can affect or be affected by
expatriate adjustment (and some of the
consequences associated with expatriates, e.g., their
performance or premature return). Second,
although practical considerations may prevent scholars from
obtaining multiple rating sources at
the same time, the framework does not suggest that only one
interface be examined at a time.
There may be a time in the future when it is not sufficient to
discuss the importance of just one
stakeholder, but this critical review provides a starting point.

Work-family conflict perspective. In organizational behavior
research, the work and family
interface (e.g., work-family conflict) has been an increasingly
popular topic (see meta-analysis
by Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998).
Existing research in this area
has established the existence of work-to-family conflict and
family-to-work conflict as distin-
guishable constructs that should both be considered (Netemeyer,
Boles, & McMurrian, 1996).
Work-to-family conflict occurs when work activities interfere
with family responsibilities,
and family-to-work conflict occurs when family activities
interfere with work responsibilities
(Netemeyer et al., 1996).
There are several theoretical and practical reasons for selecting
the work-family conflict
perspective here. First, this perspective explicitly recognizes
family members, including
spouses, as important stakeholders (cf. Edwards & Rothbard,
2000; Greenhaus & Powell,
2003) that can impact and be influenced by employees (or, in
this case, expatriates). Related
to this, work-family conflict has been applied and shown to be
relevant to the expatriate con-
text (e.g., Shaffer et al., 2001). Second, while the stressor-
stress-strain perspective has been
implicitly applied to expatriate adjustment issues (Harrison et
al., 2004; Kraimer & Wayne,

2004), the potential for conflict arising from these stressors has
not been acknowledged in the
expatriate adjustment literature. Third, the research findings
from work-family conflict can
be useful in opening up new areas of research on expatriate
adjustment.
In essence, work-family conflict arises from interrole conflict,
in which the demands of
the work and family domains collide. As a result, meeting
demands in one domain makes it
Parent Company–Related Antecedents
• Firm strategy
• Firm structure
• Top management beliefs
• Entry mode
• Different HRM systems used for expatriates
Spouse/Family−Related Antecedents
• Family/spouse support
• Family adaptability
• Parental demand (age and number of
children, absence of spouse, elderly care)
• Change in role/career identity
• Family-to-work conflict (mediator)
Host Country National–Related Antecedents
• Supervisory support
• Mentoring behaviors
• Helping
• Host country nationals’ cultural values
Foreign Subsidiary–Related Antecedents
• Subsidiary staffing composition

• A system of HRM practices used at the
foreign subsidiary
• Employment mode used for HCNs
Spouse/Family−Related Consequences
• Marital satisfaction
• Family satisfaction or well-being
• Children’s well-being
• Quality of family life
• Family members’ psychological and
physical symptoms
• Work-to-family conflict (mediator)
Parent Company–Related Consequences
• Knowledge transfer from host country –
such as, product design, distribution know-
how, customer service skills, innovation
• Quality of subsidiary-headquarter relations
Foreign Subsidiary–Related Consequences
• Subsidiary performance (such as, labor
productivity, sales growth, profitability)
• Customer satisfaction
• Market penetration/share
Host Country National–Related Consequences
• Leader member exchange
• Perceived organizational support
• Supervisor satisfaction/job satisfaction
• Affective commitment
Expatriate Adjustment
(and other outcomes)

Expatriate−Related Factors
• Prior international experience
• Decision latitude
• Role stressors
• Expatriate’s cultural values
Figure 2
An integrative, interactionist framework of multiple stakeholder
view of expatriate
Notes: The dotted lines are used to indicate potential for
interaction or moderating effects between a variable
included for a stakeholder and expatriate-related factors. The
dotted box is for a potential extension of this frame-
work. HRM = human resource management.
difficult to meet demands in the other (Edwards & Rothbard,
2000; Greenhaus & Beutell,
1985). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) distinguished between
three forms of work-family con-
flict that occur as the result of this interrole conflict: time-
based conflict (time constraints
limit role involvement), strain-based conflict (strain produced
by role membership), and
behavior-based conflict (when behaviors associated with one
role are incompatible with
another role). Each of the three conflict types may influence
expatriates’ adjustment and
outcomes in different ways. In addition, they can also impact
family members.

This theory suggests that work role requirements cause an
employee to be unable to meet
family responsibilities (i.e., work-to-family conflict). The
employee will then experience dis-
satisfaction and stress that he or she will seek to reduce
(Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Frone,
Russell, & Cooper, 1997). The employee can reduce his or her
work demands, dissatisfaction,
and stress by freeing up time he or she is expected to spend in
the work role in order to meet the
demands of the family role (Koslowsky, 2000; Vistnes, 1997).
This can be done by utilizing
resources normally devoted to work to meet family demands, for
example, arriving late to work
and leaving work early or not coming to work at all. Family-to-
work conflict may cause the
employee to divert attention, time, and resources away from
work, causing his or her perfor-
mance at work to suffer. Family-to-work conflict has been
related to tardiness and absenteeism
(Frone et al., 1992), and these withdrawal behaviors can
negatively influence job performance.
Thus, it can be expected that family/spouse support will likely
reduce the family-to-work con-
flict experienced by expatriates, which in turn will lead to
better outcomes for expatriates (e.g.,
adjustment and performance) because they can expend more
resources on work. In addition,
work-to-family conflict is likely to put a strain on family
members and reduce their well-being
(e.g., marital satisfaction, family well-being). Thus, the work-
family conflict perspective
underscores the need to examine potential conflict that arises
between expatriates and family
members as well as the mediating mechanisms (e.g., work-
family conflict) that link these two

interfaces. The investigation of such mediating mechanisms has
not been developed in the
expatriate adjustment literature thus far and is worth looking
into.
Another insight that can be gained from a work-family conflict
perspective is the recognition
of crossover effects, which refer to the influence that the stress
or strain experienced at work by
one individual has on the stress or strain experienced by one’s
significant other at home, or to the
influence that the stress or strain experienced by the individual
at home has on the stress or strain
experienced by the significant other at work (Westman, 2001).
Again, this demonstrates that vari-
ables associated with expatriates, such as expatriate adjustment,
can have an impact on family
members (and vice versa). While Takeuchi et al. (2002)
explicitly acknowledged and tested the
reciprocal crossover effects between spouse general adjustment
and expatriate general and work
adjustment and found empirical support for such bidirectional
effects, their study was limited by
their use of cross-sectional data. Thus, a longitudinal
investigation of such reciprocal relationships
would be important to tease out the causal relationships between
family members and expatriates.
Furthermore, additional outcomes that may be unique to family
members or spouses include but
are not limited to spouses’ marital satisfaction, children’s well-
being, family satisfaction, quality
of family life, and family members’ psychological and physical
symptoms such as fatigue, dis-
tress, and depression (e.g., Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, &
Shafiro, 2005; Rothausen, 1999;
Williams & Alliger, 1994).

Finally, it is possible that more complex relationships exist
between expatriates and their fam-
ily members. For instance, Takeuchi, Wang, and Marinova
(2005) found an interaction effect
between having a spouse accompanying an expatriate (vs. not
having a spouse accompanying
the expatriate) with children (vs. not with children), such that
expatriates perceived the highest
level of psychological work strain when they were not
accompanied by their spouses but were
accompanied by a child (or children). These results are not
surprising given that the parental
demands placed on expatriate employees in terms of time,
attention, and resources is likely to be
highest in this situation. Combining their findings with
Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.’s (2005) meta-
analytic findings, it is conceivable that family support can act
as a moderator in the relationship
between role stressors (e.g., role ambiguity, role conflict, and
role overload) that expatriates
experience at work and their adjustment levels. While these
moderating effects are speculative,
it nonetheless illustrates the possibility of more complex
relationships between family members
and expatriates. In line with the aforementioned discussion, I
pose the following research ques-
tions to move the area forward:
Research Question 1: What are the specific mechanisms that
link variables associated with family
members to expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and their

outcomes?
Research Question 2: How would expatriate adjustment (and
other outcomes) affect family members?
What are the mechanisms through which this occurs?
Research Question 3a: How would a person–situation
interactionist perspective help conceptualize
and test more complex (but perhaps more realistic) relationships
between antecedents associated
with expatriates and their adjustment (and outcomes)? How
would family members play a role
in moderating such relationships between antecedents and
expatriate adjustment (and other
outcomes)?
Research Question 3b: How would a person–situation
and test more complex (but perhaps more realistic) relationships
between expatriate’s adjust-
ment (and outcomes) and outcomes associated with family
members? Which variables may play
a moderating role in the relationships between expatriate
adjustment and family outcomes?
Work-family conflict perspective suggests that work-to-family
and family-to-work con-
flict can act as mediators (cf. Eby, Casper, Lockwood,
Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). For
instance, O’Driscoll, Ilgen, and Hildreth (1992) found that
family-to-work conflict medi-
ated the relationship between off-job demands and
psychological strain such that greater
off-job demands related to increased family-to-work conflict,
which in turn predicted
higher psychological strain. Thus, this perspective and

associated findings suggest that
parental demands would lead to higher family-to-work conflict,
which in turn lead to lower
levels of expatriate adjustment. In other words, family-to-work
conflict acts as a media-
tor of the relationship between parental demand and expatriate
adjustment. This is one of
the mechanisms that address the first research question noted
previously. When expatriates
are well adjusted, it is likely that they can devote more time on
family activities. Thus,
expatriate adjustment should reduce work-to-family conflict,
which in turn increases the
spouse’s satisfaction with the marriage or the family’s
satisfaction with living in a foreign
country. In other words, work-to-family conflict acts as a
mediator of the relationship
between parental demand and expatriate adjustment, which
addresses the second research
question. Obviously, these are merely a few examples that
illustrate the relationships
between variables associated with family and expatriate. Future
research would serve the
literature well if this critical review is used as a steppingstone
to further develop strong
theoretical linkages between the family and the expatriate.
Strategic human resource management (HRM) perspective.
Strategic HRM is defined as “the
pattern of planned human resource deployments and activities
intended to enable an organiza-

tion to achieve its goals” (Wright & McMahan, 1992: 298). The
basic premise of strategic HRM
is the adoption of a systems perspective where the focus is on
investigating the impact of a
bundle of HR practices (not individual HR practices) on
organizational outcomes and how the
context affects their relationships (e.g., Becker & Huselid,
2006; Wright & McMahan, 1992).
When expatriates are viewed from a strategic HRM perspective,
it helps underscore the impor-
tance of the larger context in which expatriates are embedded.
As Werner’s (2002) review of
international management research illustrates, expatriate
adjustment (and performance) issues
are embedded in the larger context of how multinational
companies (MNCs) manage expatriate
employees; in turn, expatriate management issues are embedded
within multinational compa-
nies’ control of foreign subsidiaries or their human resource
management issues, such as staffing
strategies (Gong, 2003a, 2003b) and subsidiary-headquarter
relations. Thus, a strategic HRM
perspective identifies the implicit assumption that previous
scholars might have held about the
extent of control expatriates have with regard to their
adjustment to the foreign environment as
somewhat tenuous. In other words, while expatriates themselves
do have some degree of control
in adjusting to foreign environments, the environment and
conditions expatriates are put in may
make it more or less difficult for them to adjust. Admittedly,
there are studies that have examined
the relationship between expatriate HR management practices
and expatriates’ attitudes and
behaviors (e.g., Guzzo et al., 1994). However, a strategic HRM
perspective also highlights dif-

ferent types of HR systems that could be used to manage these
employees (e.g., Huselid, 1995;
Lepak & Snell, 2002).
For instance, Taylor, Beechler, and Napier (1996) noted that the
type of international strat-
egy (e.g., multidomestic or global) a firm follows is likely to
affect the human resource
management practices used. In addition, it is likely that firms
pursuing a multidomestic
strategy consider their subsidiaries to be independent units, and
the use of expatriates is
likely to be minimal. When expatriates are sent to foreign
subsidiaries (perhaps for devel-
opmental reasons), their cross-cultural adjustment is likely to be
made more difficult because
the multinational companies do not have the requisite support
structures in place and their
human resource management practices may be applied more
haphazardly. On the other hand,
firms pursuing a global strategy are likely to have more
experience transferring human
resources from the parent company to the subsidiary and vice
versa, and they may have more
support structures and HRM practices in place. This may make
it easier for expatriates to
adjust to foreign environments. For example, an expatriate may
have mentors who have
already gone through the adjustment process in the parent
company and foreign subsidiaries,
or an expatriate may have other expatriate colleagues who are
assigned to the same country
(in the same subsidiary or in a different subsidiary within the
same country). Taylor et al. also
noted that top management beliefs in multinational companies
regarding the applicability of

human resource management practices may affect their human
resource management ori-
entation, and this may also affect the use and management of
expatriate employees.
Furthermore, Aycan (1997b) pointed out the importance of the
parent company context,
including its MNC structure, strategic planning, and
organizational support, as a possible
predictor of expatriate adjustment. Thus, the strategic HRM
perspective underscores the
importance of organizational context on expatriate adjustment
(and other outcomes) but has
not been examined in depth to date.
Another unique aspect of strategic HRM is its focus on
organizational-level outcomes,
which is distinct from a functional (i.e., its focus on a particular
function, e.g., training and
development or performance appraisal) view of HR that
typically focuses on individual atti-
tudes and behaviors. If the majority of expatriates are deployed
as higher level managers, as
indicated by the typical samples used in the literature (cf.
Harrison et al., 2004), it is surpris-
ing, at least from a theoretical standpoint, that previous studies
on expatriate adjustment have
not considered higher level (or organizational-level) outcomes
relevant to the parent company
(and the foreign subsidiary). Werner’s (2002) review of
international management research,
for example, highlights the lack of attention given to such

outcomes. In this regard, outcomes
of importance may include but are not limited to knowledge
transfer from the foreign subsid-
iary to the parent company headquarters regarding more tacit,
procedural types of knowledge
(e.g., product design, distribution know-how, customer service
skills, innovation) that can pro-
vide competitive advantages to the firm (e.g., Gupta &
Govindarajan, 2000; Subramaniam &
Venkatraman, 2001). When expatriates are well adjusted to the
foreign environment, they
should be able to transfer such knowledge more effectively.
Finally, Takeuchi et al. (2008) recently argued for and found
empirical evidence of global
integration pressure exerted by parent companies on foreign
subsidiaries that acts as a mod-
erator of the relationship between expatriates’ decision-making
autonomy and their work
and interaction adjustment levels such that under high global
integration pressure (i.e., more
standardization), the extent of decision autonomy did not affect
the level of cross-cultural
adjustment experienced by expatriates, while the extent of
decision autonomy expatriates
had was positively related to their adjustment levels when
global integration pressure was
low. Their findings illustrate the possibility of a global strategy
moderating the relationship
between expatriate-related factors and expatriate adjustment.
This is also in line with a per-
son-situation interactionist perspective that is adopted in this
review. Examining these poten-
tial moderating effects would be useful in furthering our
understanding of the boundary
conditions in which expatriate-related variables affect

expatriate adjustment (and out-
comes) or how expatriate adjustment (and outcomes) relates to
parent company variables.
Thus, I advance the following:
link variables associated with the par-
ent company to expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and their
outcomes?
other outcomes) affect the outcomes
of interest to the parent company? What are the mechanisms
through which this occurs?
Research Question 6a: How would the parent company play a
role in moderating the relationships
between antecedents and expatriate adjustment (and other
outcomes)?
Research Question 6b: How would a person-situation
interactionist perspective help conceptual-
ize and test more complex (but perhaps more realistic)
relationships between expatriate
adjustment (and outcomes) and outcomes associated with the
parent company? Which vari-
ables may play a moderating role in the relationships between
expatriate adjustment and
parent company outcomes?
A strategic HRM perspective suggests that the impact of an HR
system on performance is

contingent upon the type of strategy used. For instance, Youndt,
Snell, Dean, and Lepak
(1996: 843) found that an HR system focused on human capital
enhancement was related to
multiple dimensions of performance for manufacturing plants,
but this relationship was
contingent on plants using a quality manufacturing strategy with
a focus on “continually
improving manufacturing processes to increase product
reliability and customer satisfaction.”
Similarly, MNCs may use a commitment-based HR system
where its primary goal is to “shape
desired employee behaviors and attitudes by forging
psychological links between organizational
and employee goals” and to “focus on developing committed
employees who can be trusted to
use their discretion to carry out job tasks that are consistent
with organizational goals” (Arthur,
1994: 672; see also Guzzo et al., 1994) for expatriates.
Typically, such an HR system would
be expected to lead to better adjustment (cf. Guzzo et al., 1994).
However, this may also cre-
ate room for more opportunistic behaviors on the part of
expatriates to behave selfishly (cf. Roth
& O’Donnell, 1996). Thus, when MNCs pursue a global
integration strategy, the impact of a
commitment-based HR system on expatriate adjustment may not
be as strong as when MNCs
pursue a multidomestic strategy. In other words, multinational
strategy acts as a moderator of
the relationship between HR system and expatriate adjustment,
which is one idea that
addresses the third research question. This illustrates the
possibility of moderating effects
on the relationships between parent company and expatriate
variables, but I encourage further

theoretical developments regarding the parent company–
expatriate interface.
Social exchange perspective. Another perspective that appears
beneficial to furthering
expatriate research is the social exchange theoretical
perspective (e.g., Guzzo et al., 1994;
Takeuchi et al., 2009). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964;
Gouldner, 1960; Homans, 1961)
proposes that two parties, be it two individuals, two groups, two
organizations, or any com-
bination (e.g., employer–employee, supervisor–subordinate, or
team–individual member),
enter into an exchange relationship where one party perceives
that the other party possesses
something of value that is not merely monetary. Over time, if
the relationship proves mutu-
ally satisfying, each party is expected to contribute more toward
the maintenance and devel-
opment of the relationship. The nature of the contribution is
expected to increase slowly, both
in breadth (the range of possible contributions made by the
parties) and value (the importance
of the contributions to each party), as parties see that their
investments in the relationship are
offset by their returns and they develop trust in the other party’s
intent to reciprocate their own
contributions. Both parties in the exchange are expected to
strive for a balance in the contribu-
tions they make, with balance being judged in terms of the
equity norm as well as from the
parties’ past experience in other social exchanges (Homans,
1961). If one party in a relation-
ship goes beyond the requirements of his or her formal
organizational role to provide “extra”
tangible or intangible contributions to the other party, the

receiving party subsequently feels
obligated to reciprocate by giving back something of greater
value. This component of the
exchange is known as the norm of reciprocity. While the social
exchange theoretical perspec-
tive has not been applied in examining the relationships
between expatriates and host country
nationals, it provides a valuable framework for examining this
interface.
When expatriates are well adjusted to the foreign environment,
it is likely that they can
adopt the appropriate leadership styles for the host environment,
which likely result in host
country nationals perceiving higher supervisory support or
higher leader-member exchange
(e.g., Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Liden & Graen, 1980;
Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe,
2000). As such, host country nationals are more likely to
develop better relationships with
expatriates, which is likely not only to influence the attitudes
and behaviors associated with
the host country nationals, such as supervisory satisfaction
(Shay & Baack, 2004), but also to
affect expatriates’ adjustment and job performance through
reciprocation mechanisms.
For example, when host country nationals perceive that they
have a higher social exchange
relationship with expatriates, they are likely to reciprocate by
providing more support or help-

ing expatriates with their work and nonwork problems. In
addition, host country nationals
may act as mentors to teach expatriates the “ropes” (e.g.,
Feldman & Bolino, 1999). Feldman
and Bolino (1999) found the on-site mentoring provided by host
country nationals to be posi-
tively related to the degree of socialization of expatriates,
which in turn was positively related
to expatriates’ intention to complete assignments. Furthermore,
Kraimer and Wayne (2004)
found the quality of leader-member exchange (perceived by the
expatriates) to be positively
related to the overall adjustment of expatriates. While
longitudinal design is necessary to tease
out the cause and effect (i.e., antecedents and consequences), a
social exchange theoretical
perspective highlights the importance of host country nationals
and how they can affect or can
be affected by expatriates.
Furthermore, I expect some of the variables related to host
country nationals to moderate
(or interact) with expatriate-related factors to affect expatriates’
level of adjustment (and
outcomes). Van Vianen et al. (2004) examined the value
similarities between expatriates’
home culture and those of the host culture (as perceived by the
expatriates) and found self-
transcendent dimensions1 of cultural values to interact with
each other (expatriates’ values and
perceived host country nationals’ values) to affect expatriates’
work and interactional adjust-
ment. This empirical evidence illustrates the possibility of
interaction between expatriate-
related factors and factors associated with host country
nationals, which is also consistent with

a person–situation interactionist perspective; thus, I pose the
following research questions:
link variables associated with host
country nationals to expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and
their outcomes?
other outcomes) affect host country
nationals? What are the mechanisms through which this occurs?
Research Question 9a: How would host country nationals play a
role in moderating the relation-
ships between antecedents and expatriate adjustment (and other
outcomes)?
Research Question 9b: How would a person–situation
and test more complex (but perhaps realistic) relationships
between expatriates adjustment (and
outcomes) and outcomes associated with host country nationals?
Which variables may play a
moderating role in the relationships between expatriate
adjustment and host country national
outcomes?
When expatriates are well adjusted to a foreign country, they
are more likely to be perceived
by the host country nationals as more similar to them, which has
been shown to relate posi-
tively to interpersonal attraction and liking (similarity-
attraction paradigm; Byrne, 1961). For
example, Thomas and Ravlin (1995) found that the cultural
adjustment of Japanese manag-
ers was positively related to perceptions of similarity and

managerial effectiveness by the
American subordinates. Given that similarity has been linked
with leader-member exchange
quality (Bauer & Green, 1996), I expect a positive relationship
between expatriate adjust-
ment and leader-member exchange quality between expatriates
and host country nationals.
Furthermore, Thomas and Ravlin (1995) found that internal
attributions made by the host
country nationals moderated the relationship between similarity
and intentions to associate.
Extending their logic, it may be the case that attributions by
host country nationals of the
expatriates are likely to moderate the relationship between
expatriate adjustment and leader-
member exchange quality (as perceived by host country
nationals). This is one idea that illus-
trates the utility of the fourth research question. Given the
limited space, I cannot develop
theoretical rationale for all possible moderating effects, but I
would encourage further theo-
retical developments regarding the host country national–
expatriate interface.
Discussion
The main objective of this critical review of the expatriate
adjustment literature is to sum-
marize the existing studies that consider the impact of other
stakeholders on expatriate
adjustment and performance. In completing this summary, it is

possible for this review to
also identify inherent, typically unspoken, assumptions
associated with this type of research.
As a result, new research directions that extend and complement
the existing research streams
can be highlighted. The intention of this review however is not
merely to criticize existing
studies, as there are practical limitations associated with
expatriate studies that must be rec-
ognized. For example, many of the assumptions highlighted in
this review likely stem from
difficulties in collecting expatriate and associated data. Given
the relatively low response
rates for expatriate studies using international surveys
(Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.’s [2005]
meta-analysis found an average response rate of 41%),
obtaining a large enough sample size
becomes an even greater issue when attempting to collect
additional source data from other
stakeholders such as spouses or host country nationals. Thus, it
has been natural for scholars
to focus on expatriate employees themselves and examine the
antecedents associated with
them. Similarly, sample size requirement may be one of the
reasons that expatriate managers
from parent companies have been the most commonly accessed
population in expatriate
research (Harrison et al., 2004). Furthermore, to secure enough
variance at the firm level,
researchers may need to secure cooperation from several dozen
multinational firms to exam-
ine the effect of parent company characteristics on expatriates,
which may be difficult to
achieve.
While these difficulties are acknowledged, I maintain that these

difficulties should not pre-
vent advancement in theoretical as well as empirical research
that develops and tests different
research ideas in this area. In addition, expatriate adjustment
and performance is a very com-
plicated phenomenon, and using multiple theoretical
perspectives in an integrative manner
may be necessary to advance its understanding. This is the
primary contribution of the multiple
stakeholder view of expatriate adjustment and performance (see
Figure 1); by underscoring the
importance of multiple stakeholders (not just spouses) who are
likely to have an impact on
expatriates, this theoretical critique redirects the existing
research on expatriate adjustment and
performance. Furthermore, by incorporating multiple theoretical
perspectives that are inte-
gral to examining the impact of different stakeholders on
expatriates’ level of adjustment and
performance, the multiple stakeholder view (see Figure 2) offers
critical insights into new
research directions.
More specifically, multiple interfaces (spouse/family–
expatriate, host country national–
expatriate, and parent company–expatriate) are used to suggest
main as well as interaction
effects between several selected variables that are likely to
affect expatriates’ level of adjust-
ment and performance. Of course, the variables shown are only
a small portion of the
variables that relate to spouse/family, parent company, and host

country nationals that may
be of interest to expatriate scholars. Nonetheless, for the
purposes of this review, these vari-
ables should be sufficient to suggest new avenues for research.
For example, person–situational interaction perspective
suggests that expatriate-related fac-
tors (person) may interact with family-related variables
(situational) to affect an expatriate’s
adjustment and/or performance during an international
assignment. Conversely, spouse-related
factors (person) may also interact with assignment-related
variables (situational) to affect an
expatriate’s adjustment and/or performance during an
international assignment. While this
relates only to the spouse–expatriate interface, there are two
additional interfaces, parent com-
pany–expatriate interface and host country nationals–expatriate
interface, that have not been
thoroughly examined to date. Thus, there are several important
avenues for future research on
expatriation issues.
Managing Expatriate Adjustment Through Multiple Interfaces
One of the critical managerial implications that arise from the
multiple stakeholder view of
expatriate adjustment (and outcomes) is that multinationals
cannot manage expatriate
adjustment (and outcomes) just by focusing on the expatriates
themselves (even when expa-
triates are single). Many scholars have called for the inclusion
of spouses in managing
expatriate adjustment and performance. In addition, Vance et al.
(1993), Vance and Paik
(1995), and Toh and DeNisi (2003) advocated for the inclusion

of host country nationals in
managing expatriate performance. For example, Vance and Paik
(1995: 157) noted that
“there is a surprising lack of attention to the development needs
and potential contributions
of the host country national workforce (HCW) associated with
the expatriate management
assignment.” This opinion was echoed by Toh and DeNisi
(2003: 617), who noted that “exist-
ing IHRM [international HRM] studies have neglected the
HCN’s role in the success of
expatriate assignees, placing the burden largely on the
expatriate.” These perspectives however
are still limited in that only one stakeholder is highlighted. It
may be time to start examining
more than one stakeholder at a time to see if each stakeholder
has an independent as well as
an interactive impact on expatriate employees. Only then will
multinationals begin to under-
stand how to devise intervention programs to help expatriates
(and their families) adjust to
foreign environments, which in turn will facilitate better
outcomes for them.
Additional Future Research Directions
As the multiple stakeholder view of expatriate adjustment and
performance in Figure 1
clearly illustrates, there are additional interfaces and potential
stakeholders that have not been
explored in this research. For example, the possibility of
foreign subsidiary characteristics

affecting expatriate adjustment and/or performance, which is
essentially a cross-level infer-
ence (e.g., James & Williams, 2000), highlights the possibility
that higher level variables may
influence expatriates’ attitudes and behaviors, such as cross-
cultural adjustment and job perfor-
mance. Other extensions not explored in this study are the
additional interfaces between
spouse–host country nationals, spouse–parent company, and
host country nationals–parent
company. Toh and DeNisi (2003) argued that the discrepancy
between the human resources
system implemented for expatriates by the parent company and
the one implemented by the
foreign subsidiary will likely impact expatriate adjustment and
performance. Shaffer and
Harrison (2001) also examined the relationship between spouse
adjustment and host country
national social network characteristics. Studying these
additional interfaces will provide
invaluable insight into the workings of international
assignments.
Conclusions
To conclude, this theoretical critique reviews the literature to
highlight various assump-
tions that are inherent in many, if not the majority, of studies on
expatriates and to underscore
the importance of adopting an innovative, multiple stakeholder
view approach to studies on
expatriate adjustment and performance. In addition, this review
provides an integrative
framework that highlights future research directions that could
complement existing stud-

ies. Although a fully comprehensive review of the expatriate
literature was not provided
here, the review that was done captures the essential elements
of the literature, and the
proposed model provides a new angle on expatriate adjustment
and performance that syn-
thesizes three different research areas. Overall, this review
provides a novel outlook on
expatriate studies that could be used to expand the existing
research streams.
Note
1. This refers to “people’s concern with the welfare of others
(social justice, equality, helpfulness, and loyalty
are exemplary aspects)” (Van Vianen, De Pater, Kristof-Brown,
& Johnson, 2004: 705).
References
*An asterisk indicates that the study was included in the review.
Andreason, A. W. 2008. Expatriate adjustment of spouses and
expatriate managers: An integrative research review.
International Journal of Management, 25: 382-395.
Arthur, J. B. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on
manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 37: 670-687.
Aycan, Z. 1997a. Acculturation of expatriate managers: A
process model of adjustment and performance. In Z.
Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employee management
(Expatriate management: Theory and research: 1-40.
Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Aycan, Z. 1997b. Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted
phenomenon: Individual and organizational level predic-
tors. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8:
434-456.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. 1996. Development of leader-
member-exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 2006. Strategic human resource
management: Where do we go from here? Journal
of Management, 32: 898-925.
*Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk,
D. M. 2005. Input-based and time-based models of
international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical
extensions. Academy of Management Journal,
48: 257-281.
*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., Mendenhall, M., & 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 adjustment and intent
to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of
Management, 15: 529-544.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York:
John Wiley.
Byrne, D. 1961. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62: 713-715.
Caligiuri, P. M. 1997. Assessing expatriate success: Beyond just
“being there.” In Z. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches
to employee management (Expatriate management: Theory and
research): 117-140. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
*Caligiuri, P. M., Hyland, M. A. M., Joshi, A., & Bross, A. S.
1998. Testing a theoretical model for examining the
relationship between family adjustment and expatriates’ work
adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83:
598-614.
*Caligiuri, P. M., Joshi, A., & Lazarova, M. 1999. Factors
influencing the adjustment of women on global assign-
ments. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
10: 163-179.
Church, A. T. 1982. Sojourner adjustment. Psychological
Bulletin, 91: 540-572.
Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D. R. 2000. International
experience in the executive suite: The path to prosper-
ity? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 515-523.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., &
Brinley, A. 2005. Work and family research in IO/OB: Content
analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 66: 124-197.
Edstrom, A., & Galbraith, J. 1977. Transfer of managers as a
coordination and control strategy in MNC organiza-

tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 248-263.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 1999. Work and family stress
and well-being: An examination of person-
environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
77: 85-129.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linking
work and family: Clarifying the relationship between
work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review,
25: 178-199.
Ekehammar, B. 1974. Interactionism in personality from a
historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 81: 1026-1048.
Feldman, D. C., & Bolino, M. C. 1999. The impact of on-site
mentoring on expatriate socialization: A structural
equation modelling approach. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 10: 54-71.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. Boston: Pitman.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. 2007. Work
and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis
of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:
57-80.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. 1992. Antecedents
and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a
mode of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77: 65-78.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. 1997. Relation of
work-family conflict outcomes: A four-year longi-
tudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 70: 325-335.
Gong, Y. 2003a. Subsidiary staffing in multinational
enterprises: Agency, resources, and performance. Academy of
Gong, Y. 2003b. Toward a dynamic process model of staffing
composition and subsidiary outcomes in multinational
enterprises. Journal of Management, 29: 259-280.
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity. American
Sociological Review, 25: 161-178.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources of conflict
between work and family roles. Academy of
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2003. When work and family
collide: Deciding between competing role
demands. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 90: 291-303.
Gregersen, H. B. 1992. Commitment to a parent company and a
local work unit during repatriation. Personnel
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows
within multinational corporations. Strategic Management
Journal, 21: 473-496.
Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. 1994. Expatriate
managers and the psychological contract. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79: 617-626.

Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., Neal, M. B., Sinclair, R. R., &
Shafiro, M. W. 2005. The longitudinal effects of work-
family conflict and positive spillover on depressive symptoms
among dual-earner couples. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 10: 138-154.
Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P. 2004.
Going places: Roads more and less traveled in research
on expatriate experiences. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in
personnel and human resources management:
203-252. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Harvey, M. G. 1985. The executive family: An overlooked
variable in international assignments. Columbia Journal
of World Business, 20: 84-92.
Hays, R. D. 1971. Ascribed behavioral determinants of success-
failure among U.S. expatriate managers. Journal of
International Business Studies, 2: 40-46.
Hays, R. D. 1974. Expatriate selection: Insuring success and
avoiding failure. Journal of International Business
Studies, 5: 25-37.
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.
*Herleman, H. A., Britt, T. W., & Hashima, P. Y. 2008. Ibasho
and the adjustment, satisfaction, and well-being of
expatriate spouses. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 32: 282-299.
Homans, G. C. 1958. Social behaviors as exchange. American

Journal of Sociology, 63: 597-606.
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social behavior. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, and World.
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that bind:
The impact of leader-member exchange, transfor-
mational and transactional leadership, and distance on
predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource
management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate
financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38:
635-672.
James, L. R., & Williams, L. J. 2000. The cross-level operator
in regression, ANCOVA, and contextual analysis.
In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 382-424. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
*Johnson, E. C., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Van Vianen, A. E. M.,
De Pater, I. E., & Klein, M. R. 2003. Expatriate
social ties: Personality antecedents and consequences for
adjustment. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11: 277-288.
Koslowsky, M. A. 2000. New perspective on employee lateness.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49:
390-407.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. 1998. Work-family conflict,
policies, and job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and
directions for organizational behavior-human resources
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 139-149.

*Kraimer, M. L., & Wayne, S. J. 2004. An examination of POS
as a multidimensional construct in the context of
an expatriate assignment. Journal of Management, 30: 209-237.
*Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. 2001. Sources
of support and expatriate performance: The medi-
ating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54:
71-100.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 1999. The human resource
architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation
and development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 31-48.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 2002. Examining the human
resource architecture: The relationships among human
capital, employment, and human resource configurations.
Journal of Management, 28: 517-543.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. 1980. Generalizability of the vertical
dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2000. An
examination of the mediating role of psychological empow-
erment on the relations between the job, interpersonal
relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied
*Liu, X., & Shaffer, M. A. 2005. An investigation of expatriate
adjustment and performance: A social capital per-
spective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
5: 235-254.
Mendenhall, M. E., & Macomber, J. H. 1997. Rethinking the
strategic management of expatriates from a nonlinear

dynamics perspective. In Z. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to
employee management (Expatriate management:
Theory and research): 41-62. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Mendenhall, M. E., Macomber, J. H., Gregersen, H., & Cutright,
M. 1998. Nonlinear dynamics: A new perspective
on IHRM research and practice in the 21st century. Human
Resource Management Review, 8: 5-22.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. 1985. The dimensions of
expatriate acculturation: A review. Academy of Management
Review, 10: 39-47.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. 1996.
Development and validation of work-family and family-
work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 400-
410.
Newman, J., Bhatt, B., & Gutteridge, T. 1978. Determinants of
expatriate effectiveness: A theoretical and empirical
vacuum. Academy of Management Review, 3: 655-661.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. 1992. Time
devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conflict,
and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77:
272-279.
*Palthe, J. 2004. The relative importance of antecedents to
cross-cultural adjustment: Implications for managing a
global workforce. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 28: 37-59.

Pervin, L. A. 1989. Persons, situations, interactions: The history
of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical
models. Academy of Management Review, 14: 350-360.
Roth, K., & O’Donnell, S. 1996. Foreign subsidiary
compensation strategy: An agency theory perspective. Academy
of Management Journal, 39: 678-703.
Rothausen, T. J. 1999. “Family” in organizational research: A
review and comparison of definitions and measures.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 817-836.
Sambharya, R. 1996. Foreign experience of top management
teams and international diversification strategies
of U.S. multinational corporations. Strategic Management
Journal, 17: 739-746.
Searle, W., & Ward, C. 1990. The prediction of psychological
and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural
transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14:
449-464.
*Selmer, J. 2001. Psychological barriers to adjustment and how
they affect coping strategies: Western business
expatriates in China. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12: 151-165.
Selmer, J., & De Leon, C. 1996. Parental cultural control
through organizational acculturation: HCN employees
learning new work values in foreign business subsidiaries.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17: 557-572.
*Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. 1998. Expatriates’
psychological withdrawal from international assignments:
Work, nonwork, and family influences. Personnel Psychology,
51: 87-118.

*Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. 2001. Forgotten partners of
international assignments: Development and test of
a model of spouse adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86: 238-254.
*Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M. 1999.
Dimensions, determinants, and differences in the expatriate
adjustment process. Journal of International Business Studies,
30: 557-581.
*Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M.
2001. Struggling for balance amid turbulence on
international assignments: Work-family conflict, support, and
commitment. Journal of Management, 27: 99-121.
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gregersen, H., Black, J. S., &
Ferzandi, L. A. 2006. You can take it with you:
Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91: 109-125.
Shay, J. P., & Baack, S. 2004. Expatriate assignment,
adjustment and effectiveness: An empirical examination of
the big picture. Journal of International Business Studies, 35:
216-232.
*Shay, J. P., & Baack, S. 2006. An empirical investigation of
the relationships between modes and degree of expatri-
ate adjustment and multiple measures of performance.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6:
275-294.
Subramaniam, M., & Venkatraman, N. 2001. Determinants of
transnational new product development capability:
Testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit
overseas knowledge. Strategic Management Journal,

22: 359-378.
*Takeuchi, R., Shay, J. P., & Li, J. T. 2008. When does decision
autonomy increase expatriates’ adjustment? An
empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 45-60.
Takeuchi, R., Wang, M., & Marinova, S. V. 2005. Antecedents
and consequences of psychological workplace strain
during expatriation: A cross-sectional and longitudinal
investigation. Personnel Psychology, 58: 925-948.
*Takeuchi, R., Wang, M., Marinova, S. V., & Yao, X. 2009.
The role of domain-specific perceived organizational
support during expatriation and their implications for
performance. Organization Science, 20: 621-634.
*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.
Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. 1996. Toward an
integrative model of strategic international human resource
management. Academy of Management Review, 21: 959-985.
Terborg, J. R. 1981. Interactional psychology and research on
human behavior in organizations. Academy of
Thomas, D. C. 1998. The expatriate experience: A critical
review and synthesis. In J. L. C. Cheng & R. B.
Peterson (Eds.), Advances in international comparative

management: 237-273. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Thomas, D. C., & Ravlin, E. C. 1995. Responses of employees
to cultural adaptation by a foreign manager. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80: 133-146.
Toh, S. M., & DeNisi, A. S. 2003. Host country national (HCN)
reactions to expatriate pay policies: A pro-
posed model and some implications. Academy of Management
Review, 28: 606-621.
*Toh, S., & DeNisi, A. S. 2007. Host country nationals as
socializing agent: A social identity approach. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28: 281-301.
Vance, C. M., & Paik, Y. 1995. Host-country workforce training
in support of the expatriate management assignment.
In J. Selmer (Ed.), Expatriate management: New ideas for
international business: 157-171. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Vance, C. M., Wholihan, J. T., & Paderon, E. S. 1993. The
imperative for host country workforce training and
development as part of the expatriate management assignment:
Toward a new research agenda. In J. B. Shaw,
P. S. Kirkbride, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel
and human resources management: 359-373.
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Van Vianen, A. E. M., De Pater, I. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., &
Johnson, E. C. 2004. Fitting in: Surface- and deep-
level cultural differences and expatriates’ adjustment. Academy
of Management Journal, 47: 697-709.
Vistnes, J. P. 1997. Gender differences in days lost from work
due to illness. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,

50: 304-323.
*Wang, M., & Takeuchi, R. 2007. The role of goal orientation
during expatriation: A cross-sectional and longitudi-
nal investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1437-
1445.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. 1993. Psychological and socio-
cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A
comparison of secondary students overseas and at home.
International Journal of Psychology, 28: 129-147.
Ward, C., & Searle, W. 1991. The impact of value discrepancies
and cultural identity on psychological and socio-
cultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 15: 209-225.
*Waxin, M. F. 2004 Expatriates’ interaction adjustment: The
direct and moderator effects of culture of origin.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28: 61-79.
Werner, S. 2002. Recent developments in international
management research: A review of 20 top management
journals. Journal of Management, 28: 277-305.
Westman, M. 2001. Stress and strain crossover. Human
Relations, 54: 557-591.
Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. 1994. Role stressors, mood
spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in
employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 837-
868.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 1992. Theoretical
perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal
of Management, 18: 295-320.

Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., Jr., & Lepak, D. P.
1996. Human resource management, manufacturing
strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 39: 836-866.

1040A Critical Review of Expatriate Adjustment Research .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1040A Critical Review of Expatriate Adjustment Research .docx

Similar to 1040A Critical Review of Expatriate Adjustment Research .docx (20)

More from paynetawnya

More from paynetawnya (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1040A Critical Review of Expatriate Adjustment Research .docx