The path to adjustment : an exploration of the effects of own initiative, autonomous motivation and problem-focused coping on expatriate adjustment

(1)

The path to adjustment.

An exploration of the effects of own initiative,

autonomous motivation and problem-focused

coping on expatriate adjustment.

Master Thesis by

Anna Christova

(0578274)

Work and Organisational Psychologie

Under supervision of

Mrs. prof. dr. A. E. M. Van Vianen

Second Assessor

Mrs. dr. M. van den Heuvel

24 August, 2015

(2)

2

A B S T R A C T

The goal of this study was to define the differences in the process of cross-cultural adjustment between Corporate and Self-Initiated expatriates, as well as prove initiative to be a novel differentiation criterion between both groups. The relationship between own initiative, autonomous motivation, problem-focused coping and cross-cultural adjustment among expatriates was investigated. 115 mostly highly self-initiated expatriates from various countries completed an online questionnaire. Results have shown a relation between autonomous motivation and adjustment. There was not enough ground for accepting initiative as a distinguishing factor, due to the proactive nature of the sample. Implications and suggestions for further research were provided.

(3)

3

INTRODUCTION

Cross-cultural adjustment

Expatriates are a growing workforce of people who move abroad for professional reasons. As organisations apply more global working models, they also attract a more global and internationally oriented workforce. With a strong tendency towards a knowledge society, expatriates are viewed as exporters and importers of knowledge which may be unavailable on the local market. Therefore employers send employees abroad to foreign offices and other employees jump to the occasion to take it upon themselves to expatriate, all to fill up international staffing gaps.

Upon expatriation, in addition to strains on job performance in the new working environment, expatriates are often found struggling with cross-cultural adjustment to their new overall environment. Cross-cultural adjustment is the process of making a new environment one’s own and minimizing the culture shock which occurs as a result of the move. The ultimate goal is to maximize psychological comfort, effective performance and overall well-being one has within the new environment (Black 1988).

Previous research has identified four facets of cross-cultural adjustment to which people adjust differently: General, interaction, work and psychological adjustment. General Adjustment concerns adjustment to the general environment of the person, e.g. climate, health care, food. Interaction adjustment concerns the adjustment to interacting with host country nationals (HCN). Work adjustment concerns adjustment to work related matters such as performance and working culture (Black, 1990). Psychological adjustment refers to satisfaction and general well-being (Selmer, 1999). General, interaction and work adjustment are socio-cultural adjustment facets, while psychological adjustment stands on its own and will not be discussed further.

(4)

4

Since the costs for an unsuccessful expatriation are very high on a personal as well as organisational level, knowledge of factors influencing successful cross-cultural adjustment is becoming more important because the latter facilitates good job performance (Black, Mendenhall & Oddou, 1991). Expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment to the new environment is important for four reasons (Aycan 1997).

First, assigning an expatriate is an energy and money draining process. When an expatriate is unable to adjust and problems persist, they can lead to severe negative consequences – premature repatriation being one of them, which is a costly situation (Brown, 2008). Second, premature repatriation can damage the reputation of and faith in the (mother)company as well as the self-esteem of the employee. (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985). Third, an unsuccessful expatriation can decrease the employee’s commitment to the company and job performance upon repatriation (Naumann, 1993; Adler, 1981, both mentioned in Aycan, 1997). Finally, premature repatriation can negatively impact other employees’ decision to accept an expatriation assignment (Stroh, 1995, mentioned in Aycan 1997).

Expanding knowledge of the psychological mechanisms underlying cross-cultural adjustment among expatriates can therefore be helpful in the effective recruitment and sending abroad of expatriate employees.

Self-Initiated and Corporate Expatriates

While previously most people who worked abroad were sent by their parent organisations to offices abroad in order to fill positions and develop managers and the organisation (Edström & Galbraith, 1977), the initiative to work abroad has shifted from the organisation to the individual worker. The former are thus called Organisational or Corporate Expatriates (CEs) and the ones who expatriate at their own initiative are called Self-Initiated Expatriates (SIEs). Expatriate’s personal initiative to seek employment abroad is a concept that has not yet been widely studied in its own right (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009). Personal

(5)

5

initiative is a behaviour that makes people take an active and self-starting approach to completing a goal.

Other than initiative, there are many differences in their reasons to move between SIEs and CEs: SIEs seek out more cultural opportunity, travel opportunity (Thorn, 2009), desire for adventure (Selmer & Lauring, 2010; Richardson & Mallon, 2005), life change, perceived value of international experience (Richardson & Mallon, 2005), to battle disadvantages (especially relevant for female SIEs) (Tharenou, 2010), and for financial reasons (Selmer & Lauring, 2010) to name a few.

However, another difference is that SIEs often face structural barriers in how they are treated compared with CEs in the host countries. Difficulty to obtain work and visa permits causes career constraints (Al Ariss & Özbilgin, 2010). Unmatching jobs (Inkson & Myers, 2003) and discrediting of education and previous working experience leads to the underutilization of skills (Carr, Inkson & Thorn, 2005). Perceived underemployment, which is

linked to a lack of job-autonomy, job suitability and a poor psychological contract fit, has been found to negatively impact the work attitude and job and career satisfaction (Lee, 2005). Finally SIEs are often rewarded with lower salaries and fewer promotions (Fang, Zikic & Novicevic, 2009).

This may suggest that it is more difficult for SIEs than for CEs to establish cross-cultural adjustment. Yet, according to some scholars SIEs represent a group which enforces a more self-sufficient means of personal enrichment and organisational development than CEs. Despite before mentioned setbacks, SIEs have even been found to have higher levels of general and interaction adjustment (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009). SIEs appeared to be better adjusted to interactions with their HCN in Japan than CEs for example. Also their general adjustment was slightly better.

(6)

6

This leads to questioning whether the above described barriers do in fact interfere with the SIE’s cross-cultural adjustment and, more importantly, what the underlying processes of cross-cultural adjustment in expatriates are.

Research goals

The first goal to mention is to examine the relation between expatriates’ initiative to move abroad and their cross-cultural adjustment. Autonomous power to make a choice enhances effort and task performance (Patall, Cooper & Robinson, 2008). An important difference between SIEs and CEs, is that SIEs made the decision to move abroad themselves, thus having more autonomous decision power, whereas CEs made this decision less voluntarily, having less autonomous decision power. Due to this lack of initiative CEs may be less inclined to undertake the necessary steps of cross-cultural adjustment than SIEs.

The second goal is to explain this using motivation and coping. The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a motivation theory which distinguishes between types of

motivation as opposed to amount of motivation. It distinguishes between Intrinsic motivation

and Extrinsic motivation. According to SDT, intrinsically motivated people engage in an activity because they are interested in it or it is personally valuable to them. Extrinsically motivated people engage in an activity because of the possible outcome of it – so not for the activity in itself. However, SDT also proposes that extrinsically motivated activities can be internalised, which makes them personally valuable. When an outcome of an extrinsically motivated activity is internalised more, the person engaging in the activity will be more intrinsically motivated. Coping is one such activity an individual engages in to reduce personal stress factors (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980) and is known to further the cross-cultural adjustment by enabling expatriates to do so (Feldman & Thomas, 1992).

(7)

7 Figure 1. Theoretical framework

If people feel they engaged in an activity (such as expatriating) out of own initiative, they are more likely to internalise the outcomes. If they feel pressured or forced they are less likely to internalise the outcomes. Higher levels of initiative thus lead to more internalised motivation to adjust (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Furthermore, the relationship between perceived choice and motivation has been found to be influenced by the perceived value of the outcome (Koen, Klehe & Van Vianen, 2014). Thus SIEs, who made the choice to expatriate themselves, are likely to be highly motivated to actively engage in activities that further their cross-cultural adjustment because they are likely to value the adjustment outcome, whereas CEs are likely less motivated to do so.

With the barriers previously discussed, it is also imperative that the expatriate manages within their stressful new environment. Coping is the tool which is used to alleviate stress. There are many different coping strategies. Therefore the relation between coping and cross-cultural adjustment will also be investigated.

(8)

8

In summary, this study will investigate the relationships between initiative, motivation and coping and expatriate adjustment, as shown in Figure 1. The aim is to attempt to create a predictive framework for professionals which can aid in advising whether to relocate current employees or hire SIEs who are available, as well as to provide a new distinguishing criterion to set SIEs and CEs apart from on another by, in the form of own initiative.

Initiative and adjustment

Inkson and colleagues (Inkson, Arthur, Pringle & Berry, 1997) make a distinction between organisation-sent and self-initiated expats. This distinction, however, does not specify those expats who have merely hinted at their own initiative, but for example were left to await the company’s decision to send them abroad. Other authors have limited their study to managers, again based on outcomes with little or no regard for the extent and amount of personal control and initiative (Banai & Harry, 2004). Finally and with the least regard for initiative, researchers have based the distinction on whether the employment contract was domestically held or foreign (Froese & Peltokorpi, 2009). More substantive classifications have been made based on the SIE’s personal profile (i.e. age, background and motivation to leave), however without mentioning the implications of this knowledge (Suutari & Brewster, 2000).

Even if expatriates are classified into different categories, this does not necessarily say anything about actual differences among them on their level of initiative. The first focal point of this study is the level of initiative an individual felt they had in their decision to expatriate. To a certain degree CEs may also have had some say in whether or not to move abroad. Therefore, it is considered more accurate to ask expatriates themselves about their experienced level of control and initiative when making the decision, as opposed to asking other people to draw up different criteria and list expatriates according to those.

(9)

9

Initiative is a fundamental part of Action Control Theory (Jaramillo, Locander, Spector & Harris, 2013). This theory states that a personal action orientation which prompts individuals to be proactive, is related to successful goal-oriented behaviour and outcomes. Initiative is conceptualised as a work behaviour which defines as self-starting and proactively overcoming barriers to achieve a set goal (Frese & Fay, 2001). Individuals with a high level of initiative have been found to have a long-term focus, are more effective at solving problems than individuals with a lower level of initiative, and proactively try to find alternative ways to reach their goals (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996).

Furthermore, previous research has shown that in a new or ambiguous (Folkman, 1984) situation people with an internal locus of control (LoC) (believing that they themselves have control over a situation) are more likely to interpret the situation as controllable than people with an external locus of control (believing that they themselves have little or no control over a situation) (Rotter, 1966, Archer, 1979, Black, 1990). In a performance-focused context people with an internal LoC have also been known to perceive less stress and show more task-centered behaviours (Anderson, 1977), indicating that LoC affects how individuals approach situations. Furthermore, people with an internal locus of control show more positive healthy behaviours and less anxiety on a day to day basis, even on bad days (Ryon & Gleason, 2014). Expats with an internal LoC specifically have been found to report less work stress and thus better work adjustment (Black, 1990).

This suggests an interplay between initiative and LoC whereby LoC represents the personality trait and initiative represents a behavioural trait. This study starts off by building on this knowledge and investigating the relationship between own initiative and cross-cultural adjustment. Therefore the first hypothesis is as follows:

H1: Perceived own initiative to pursue a job abroad is positively related to cross-cultural adjustment in the host country.

(10)

10

Motivation and adjustment

Motivation is a well-studied subject in organisational psychology, but over the years the focus has shifted from a drive theory perspective to that of the Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT distinguishes between types of motivation as opposed to amount of motivation. The traditional categories of Amotivation, Extrinsic motivation, and Intrinsic motivation are still enforced, but divided into two rough categories: autonomous and controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008; Gagné & Deci, 2005). This is depicted in Figure 2. Autonomous motivation refers to acting with a sense of volition, self-endorsement and perceived choice. Controlled motivation refers to acting from a sense of pressure and force, or acting in order to obtain reward or avoid punishment. While other motivation theories propose that behaviour has psychological need satisfaction as purpose, SDT poses that the conscious intention is the action itself, not necessarily the satisfaction of needs.

Autonomous motivation

Autonomous motivation consists of intrinsic motivation (the inherently autonomous motivation) as well as integrated types of extrinsic motivation that are strictly speaking not intrinsic. Within these extrinsic motivation categories the behavioural categories Integrated Regulation and Identified Regulation have been identified. Integrated Regulation entails coherence among goals, values and regulations. The behaviour is externally regulated, but in the expatriate’s case would mean that they have integrated the value of cross-cultural adjustment to be able to successfully adjust to the new environment because they feel this is part of their identity as an expatriate and is part of what an expatriate is supposed to do. In the case of Identified Regulation we move slightly further along the continuum and regress further into extrinsically motivated behaviour. However, Identified Regulation is still considered moderately autonomous because it concerns being able to identify with the goal of the intended behaviour. In the expatriates’ case this would mean that the expatriate is motivated to adjust efficiently because they find the goal of cross-cultural adjustment important in order

(11)

11

to perform well in the new environment. They realize that for this, a certain degree of adjustment is simply required.

Controlled motivation

Controlled motivation is the extrinsic motivation that is evoked and controlled by external factors and not from within a person. In the case of the expatriate this could be summarized by the expatriate choosing to take action to facilitate their cross-cultural adjustment because they value some sort of extrinsic reward which will be the result of this. For example, if successful adjustment facilitates job performance, this will perhaps lead to a pay raise. Here the cross-cultural adjustment is merely a stepping stone towards another goal and therefore extrinsically motivated. This is externally controlled motivation.

Controlled motivation consists of external regulation and introjected regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Satisfaction comes from the extrinsic consequences of engaging in the activity. In Introjected Regulation the behaviour does not come from one’s own initiative, but under control. Thus the task is taken in, but not accepted as one’s own. If the control element goes away, the behaviour pertains driven by contingent self-esteem (for people in order to feel worthy) and ego-involvement (in order to support fragile egos). In the expatriates’ case this would result in a sense of duty to feel motivated to adjust. Finally, External Regulation is the fully controlled source of behaviour in which the behaviour stops when a person is no longer controlled. The motivation for behaviour is not supported by internal factors within a person, but solely regulated by external factors such as rewards. In this case people engage in a certain behaviour only with the intention of obtaining a desired outcome or avoiding an undesired one. In the expatriates’ case this would result in adjusting only to gain some desired outcome, such as being able to fit in.

(12)

12 Figure 2.Self-Determination Theory continuum (Gagné & Deci, 2005)

Autonomous and controlled motivation lead to different behavioural outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Autonomous motivation has been found to be related to better psychological health, more effective performance, greater long-term persistence and more prosocial behaviours. If SIEs are more autonomously motivated, it may be argued that the before mentioned disadvantage at which they might find themselves on the job market is undeserved. In order for people to become autonomously motivated, basic needs of Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness must be met. Satisfaction or thwarting of these psychological needs is related to whether behaviour is guided by autonomous or controlled motivation. The rewards gained from extrinsically motivated behaviours are substitutes for need satisfaction which is not truly met (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008). Therefore, extrinsically motivated actions lead to inferior outcomes in different domains.

Is a person who is more autonomously motivated better able to effectively move towards full cross-cultural adjustment? Autonomous goals result in better goal attainment,

(13)

13

which twirls back to more autonomous goal setting and thus results in greater well-being (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). This has the potential to lead to a positive spiral of autonomous motivation and desired outcomes (Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011). When the motivation to adjust is autonomous (note: not high or necessarily intrinsic but specifically autonomous!), host country interactions increase, leading to an increased general and interaction adjustment (Selmer, 1999). This leads to the second hypothesis.

H2 Autonomous motivation to adjust is positively related to cross-cultural

adjustment in the host country.

Initiative and Motivation

Own initiative and autonomous motivation have shown to be positively related to performance outcomes, well-being and cross-cultural adjustment outcomes (Black, 1990; Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh & Tangirala, 2010; Deci, Ryan, Gagné, Leone, Usunov & Kornazheva, 2010; Ryon & Gleason, 2014; Wang, Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). The question that arises is how does the perceived level of own initiative an expat has taken, relate to their motivation in the cross-cultural adjustment process?

Among other things, SIEs and CEs differ on the amount of initiative they had in the decision to expatriate. Clearly SIEs walk a path they chose and initiated for themselves. Previous studies on initiative and motivation mainly focused on other relationships between the two constructs. For example, initiative has been treated as a moderator between intrinsic motivation and adaptive selling (Jaramillo, Locander, Spector & Harris, 2013). For this study however, initiative is seen as the starting point of the process of expatriating.

Initiative has been linked to motivation in different ways (Frese & Faye, 2001). Due to the changing nature of work and jobs, employees have to rely on themselves more and more. The same goes for SIEs, who’s environments change as well. The role of initiative on

(14)

14

motivation becomes more important as personal responsibilities increase. This leads to the third hypothesis:

H3: Perceived own initiative to pursue a job abroad is positively related to autonomous motivation to adjust.

Motivation and coping

Based on the previous, it is possible to say that control over the decision to expatriate and motivation are important facilitators of an expatriate’s cross-cultural adjustment. But is it possible to say that once required levels or forms of both constructs are reached, the adjustment process is complete? Will the structural and personal difficulties in the expatriate’s new environment resolve once they are autonomously motivated? No they will not and this is where the process of coping comes into play. In order to be able to deal with the often stressful new situations in the host country, and to help them adapt, expatriates need to discover and adopt new coping strategies from those which helped back home (Sanchez, Spector & Cooper, 2000).

Coping is the behavioural and cognitive attempts to gain control over a stressful situation, to tolerate this or to lessen conflicts between internal and external demands and expectations (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus, 1993). The goal of coping with stress is to control or change the relation between the person and their environment as well as the regulation of stressful emotions.

Cognitive theory of stress and coping

The cognitive theory of stress and coping (Folkman, Lazarus, Dinkel-Schetter, DeLongis & Gruen, 1986) replaces the trait-oriented approaches’ emphasis from personality traits towards a context-orientation. Coping takes place in two steps: cognitive appraisal of and the actual coping with stressful situations. Cognitive appraisal is the process where an individual assesses whether and how a situation affects their well-being (Folkman, 1984). First

(15)

15

an evaluation takes place of whether the situation will have negative consequences or form a threat or challenge (primary appraisal). Primary appraisals are influenced by general attitudes. In the case of a potentially threatening situation, the second step becomes assessing what the options are to control the damage (secondary appraisal). Although this theory is a general theory of stress and coping, the stressful character of situations in which expatriates find themselves makes it also applicable to them (Sanchez, Spector & Cooper, 2000). In a primary appraisal the expatriate evaluates the new environment by identifying the sources of stress. During secondary appraisal it becomes clear that the old repertoire of coping strategies is insufficient, which leads to the next step: coping. The expatriate searches for new, better fitting strategies.

Coping strategies are roughly divided into two categories: emotion-focused and problem-focused coping. There are also specific strategies which fall outside the realms of these categories, such as unconscious strategies (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987), but the focus of this study lies in the emotion and problem-focused strategies.

Emotion-focused coping strategies

Emotion-focused coping refers to the handling of emotions which are evoked by stressful situations (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). It is mainly applied in situations which concern the physical health or mental well-being of a person. In these situations generally people do not believe they can influence or control them and should thus be accepted as they are. Therefore the focus is not on the actual problem, but on the effect of the stressful situation on the person’s emotions. Psychological withdrawal, substance abuse, fantasizing about going back, or positive comparison (the searching for positive similarities between the host country and the home country) are examples of emotion-focused coping (Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005).

(16)

16

Problem-focused coping strategies

Problem-focused coping refers to the proactively pursuing of solutions to problems which are caused by stressful situations (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). It is mainly used in work-related situations that a person does believe to be able to gain control of. The goal of a problem-focused coping strategy is to (re)gain control of the relation between the person and their environment. The focus lies on the source and cause of the stressful situation more than on the emotions which this situation evokes. Examples of problem-focused coping are taking initiative to gain control, seek help to perform a difficult task, make plans or actively working on relationships with others (e.g. host country nationals) (Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005).

Sometimes emotion-focused and problem-focused coping interfere with one another (Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005). For example when an enforced emotion-focused strategy prevents the person from seeking out a problem-focused strategy. This may be caused by psychological withdrawal, whereby the person deprives themselves the opportunity to seek out help from a host country national for example. However, despite the potential of the strategies interfering with each other, a combination of adoption of both has been found to be the most effective in overcoming culture shock (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Denial of the situation could for example be detrimental in work-related environments, but very helpful if a person is experiencing physical pain. The effectiveness of and choice for these options depends on the person trying to cope - that is: their personality (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007), the context or situation (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987) and the available resources to help a person cope (Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005; Selmer, 1999, 2001).

Coping effectively requires effort.. Autonomous motivation yields more effective coping and exertion of effort in athletes (Mouratidis & Michou, 2011), as well as more use of problem-focused strategies (Anderson, 1977). Since problem-focused coping is all about taking (back) control over a stressful situation, and thus more effective, the expectation is that

(17)

17

it is influenced by autonomous motivation more than emotion-focused coping is. Hence the fourth hypothesis is:

H4: Autonomous motivation to adjust is positively related to the adoption of problem-focused coping strategies

Coping and adjustment

One third of expatriates (33,7%) take 6-12 months to adjust to the host country (Tung, 1998). In order for an expatriate to adjust successfully, they need competence and adaptability (Avril & Magnini, 2007). Getting adjusted to a new situation requires effort. Of course people can get used to a new situation and thus adjust, but the stress factors in said situation are likely to pertain through the habituation. This is where coping comes in. As mentioned, the different strategies have different outcomes and different points of focus. But overall for expatriates the ultimate goal of coping is cross-cultural adjustment (Black, 1990).

According to the coping framework as applied to expatriates, they are able to use a large repertoire of coping strategies to regulate stressful emotions and take control over stressful situations as proactive agents of change, rather than being passive agents over whom events just unfold (Feldman & Tompson, 1993). Coping theory suggests that coping strategies are not inherently successful or unsuccessful, but that their success is dependent on context (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The possible different functions of and interplay between both categories of coping strategies have been discussed above.

However, other research has clearly pointed out that problem-focused coping is in fact more effective for expatriates than emotion-focused coping (Feldman & Thomas, 1992; Tung, 1998; Selmer, 1999; Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005). Taken together these studies provide evidence that problem-focused coping strategies are beneficial for a person’s wellbeing, performance and cross-cultural adjustment, whereas emotion-focused coping strategies are less effective. Based on existing literature the next hypothesis is formulated as such:

(18)

18

H5: Adoption of problem-focused coping strategies is positively related to cross-cultural adjustment in the host country

Mediation of motivation and coping

At this point the main goal of this study must be discussed and the dots connected. The first contribution of this study to existing literature is the way the distinction between SIEs and CEs is established. The aim is to make this a self-perceived continuum, rather than an imposed status, by applying own initiative to expatriate as the distinctive criterion. Taking control over one’s own initiative enables individuals to take more proactive steps in dealing with stressors and leads to more positive outcomes than extrinsic control (Black, 1990). The distinction between expatriates as such has not been made for long and research has shown that it is a grey area in which many different criteria have been used to place expatriates in either one or another category (e.g. Harrison, Shaffer and Bhaskar-Shrinivas (2004) who actually distinguished 4 types of CEs alone). This study aims to break free from the rigidness of these black and white categories to be able to include all expatriates, thus gaining a more detailed insight in their adjustment process.

Key point in this process is the choosing of a coping strategy in order to be able to deal with host country stressors. Motivation to adjust is important in this step to cross-cultural adjustment, because motivation drives behaviour.

Own initiative to expatriate, should lead to better overall cross-cultural adjustment. The underlying mechanisms are motivation and coping. Specifically: an autonomous decision to expatriate, relates to autonomous motivation to make it work, relates to efficient problem-focused coping strategies, relates to successful cross-cultural adjustment. And if all this goes well, the expatriate’s overall well-being is maintained and with that also their on-the-job performance (Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, Tangirala, 2010). This assumption-set leads to the following sixth and final hypothesis:

(19)

19

H6: The relation between the own initiative to pursue a job abroad and adjustment to the host country is mediated by the autonomous motivation to adjust and the adoption of problem-focused coping strategies

METHOD Sample

The sample of 115 expatriates for this study was collected through personal and professional networks using social media, i.e. specific groups on Facebook and LinkedIn with a focus on expatriates. Thus a broad range of expatriates of different nationalities and in different countries was included. Expatriates were selected and recruited as higher level professionals and not seasonal labour workers. Also travellers and immigrants for other reasons than work were excluded from participation. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The response ratio was 100% and no ground has been found to exclude participants. The questionnaire was administered at 1 time. This report presents a cross-sectional study.

The participants were 40% male and 60% female. The average age was 36,36 years old (SD = 10,37). 28 different nationalities were reported of which 44,3% Dutch, 30,6% other

European nationalities (including British, Spanish, German and French) and 25,1% other non-European nationalities (including American, Russian and Australian). Average reported period on expatriation was 5,47 (SD = 6,69) years.

Participants reported currently being expatriated in 17 different host countries, of which 47 persons (40,9%) in various cities in The Netherlands, 26 persons (22,7%) in various cities in The United Arab Emirates, 26 persons (22,7%) in other European countries and 16 persons (13,7%) in other countries in the world.

(20)

20

Although not all participants fit the criterion for having had higher education, the participants who hadn’t, did report occupying higher level positions and were therefore not excluded from analyses.

Measures

Scales. All scales were constructed to measure participants’ personal attitudes towards the researched aspects of their expatriation. The introductions to all questions were formulated to state this clearly.

Dependent variable

Expatriate Adjustment was assessed using an Adjustment Scale adapted from Black and Stephens (1989). Sixteen items were used to measure on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all adjusted) to 5 (very much adjusted) the degree to which participants felt adjusted to three different domains: Work adjustment (example item: “My working hours”),

general adjustment (example item: “Living conditions in general”), and interaction adjustment

(example item: “Speaking with host nationals”). Cronbach’s α was .85 for all items combined and

the scale is treated as one overall measure of cross-cultural adjustment.

Independent variables

Own Initiative was measured to be able to assign participants to either the SIE group or the CE group based on their answers. The scale was self-developed for the purpose of this particular study, since other studies have mostly used alternative criteria to distinguish between SIE’s and CE’s (Suutari & Brewster; 2000; Froese & Peltokorpi, 2009; Banai & Harry, 2004). Cronbach’s α was .78. The scale consisted of 7 items measuring the degree to which the participant felt it was their own initiative to expatriate on a 5-point Likert scale, among which:

“It was my own initiative to move abroad for work” and “Others told me I should move abroad for work”.

(21)

21

Motivation for Adjustment was measured with an adapted scale from Koen, Klehe and Van Vianen (2014, in press). Cronbach’s α was .75. The scale was designed to reflect the 4 types of motivation along the continuum of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; 2008): External, introjected, identified and intrinsic motivation. The 13 items were rephrased to measure motivation for adjustment, therefore “finding reemployment” was replaced with appropriate versions of “adjusting to the new environment”. The question asked was: “Why do you want to adjust to your new environment in your host country?”. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Examples of the items are: “I need the money”(external motivation), “Otherwise I would feel guilty” (introjected motivation), “I consider adjusting personally important to me” (identified motivation) and “I enjoy finding my way in my new environment” (intrinsic motivation). The Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) was calculated to assure that participants’ scores accurately reflect their place on the motivation continuum as proposed by Ryan and Deci (2000). To calculate the RAI each item was assigned a weight. The external motivation items were assigned a weight of -2, the introjected motivation items were assigned a weight of -1, the identified motivation items were assigned a weight of +1 and the intrinsic motivation items were assigned a weight of +2. The scores were then multiplied by their assigned weight and ultimately added up to form the final score. Negative values represent a dominance of controlled motivation, whereas positive values represent a dominance of autonomous motivation. For the total sample the RAI parameters were as follows: M = 10.54, SD = 9.55, with values ranging from -15 to 35. The

RAI has been frequently used before in SDT research (e.g. Chirkov, Ryan & Willness, 2005 on foreign student motivation), but is relatively rare in expatriate adjustment literature.

Coping was assessed using a modified version of the Ways of Coping Scale (Revised) (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis & Gruen, 1986). It consisted of 25 items in total, divided into two subscales with 13 items for Emotion-focused coping (α = .82) and 12

(22)

22

situation or period during your expatriation in which you experienced an amount of stress. Think of the ways you coped with this situation or during this period. Please indicate to what extent you used or think you would be likely to use the mentioned coping tool in the situation you have just thought of.” The usage of the

coping strategies was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not used) to 5 (used a great deal). An example of an emotion-focused strategy is “I criticized or lectured myself” and of a

problem-focused strategy: “I made a plan of action and followed it”. Control variables

Control variables were age, gender, marital status, education level, duration of expatriation and host country language proficiency. In addition to this Perceived Cultural Distance (to control for adjustment to the environment) and Locus of Control (to control for the personality trait) are used. The latter scales are discussed below.

Perceived Cultural Distance is a predictor of cross-cultural adjustment, therefore the greater the distance, the more adjustment is needed and the smaller the distance the lesser adjustment is needed (Deemes & Geeraert, 2014). It was assessed with a self-constructed scale (α = .84) which measured the extent to which a person perceived five given factors in their

new environment to be similar to or different from these factors in their home country. The five factors were Social Interaction, Food and Eating, Values and Beliefs, Communication and General Living Environment. These items were extracted from Deemes and Geeraert (2014). The question asked was: “To what extent do you perceive the following aspects as similar or different to those in your home country? Please indicate by sliding the arrow along the line.” The sliding scales ranged

from 0 (indicating “not at all similar”) to 100 (indicating “very similar”).

Locus of Control (LoC) was assessed using a modified version of Rotter’s (1966) scale (α = .62). Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with the 10 items presented (4 for Internal and 6 for External LoC) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”. An example of an Internal LoC item is: “A job is what you make of it” and of an External LoC item: “Life is mostly a gamble anyway”.

(23)

23

Analyses

Hypotheses 1 through 5 were analysed with linear regression using IBM SPSS 24. For Hypothesis 6 the macro PROCESS, developed by Hayes (2012) was used to perform mediation analysis.

Correlations

Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics for and correlations between all variables. This showed that age is negatively correlated with gender, r(113) = -.16, p = .04, which shows that

the women in the sample were younger than then men on average, and positively correlated with duration of expatriation, r (113) = .49, p = .00, , family situation, r(113) = .41, p = .00,

social media usage r(113) = .37, p = .00, own initiative, r(113) = .17, p = .03, and autonomous

motivation (RAI), r(113) = .17, p = .04. This means that as age increased, so did the duration

of expatriation, social media usage, own initiative and autonomous motivation to adjust, compared to younger participants. Also older participants were less likely to be single.

Duration of expatriation was correlated with language proficiency r(113) = .18, p = .03,

family situation, r(113) = .34, p = .00, social media usage, r(113) = .22, p = .01, and

cross-cultural adjustment, r(113) = .35, p = .00. Not surprisingly, people who were abroad for longer

had better proficiency in their host country language, were more likely to have a family, used more social media and were overall more adjusted to the new environment.

Language proficiency was correlated with perceived cultural distance, r(1130 = .21, p =

.02, which means that people who perceived the culture of their host country as more similar to their own, also reported a higher proficiency in the host country language.

Family situation was correlated with social media usage, r(113) = .22, p = .01, which

means that people with families reported using social media more than people without families did.

(24)

24

Social media usage was correlated with emotion-focused coping, r(113) = .16, p = .04,

as well as problem-focused coping, r(113) = .16, p = .05. People who used more social media

used emotion- and problem-focused coping strategies to cope with stress.

Level of education was negatively correlated with cross-cultural adjustment, r(113) =

-.23, p = .01. This means that people who were higher educated, felt they had adjusted to the

new environment more than people who were lower educated.

Internal locus of control (LoC) was correlated with own initiative, r(113) = .25, p = .01

as well as autonomous motivation (RAI), r (113) = .21, p = .01. Internal LoC is a huge drive

for human behaviour, therefore it is not surprising that it is positively related to own initiative and autonomous motivation. People with an internal LoC are known to perceive situations as more controllable (Black, 1990), which is necessary for initiating actions and being motivated to reach goals. Internal LoC also correlated with cross-cultural adjustment, r (113) = .34, p =

.00, which is in line with expectations on a secondary level, as people with a high internal LoC report feeling more adjusted. It also correlated negatively with emotion-focused coping, r

(113) = -.33, p = .00, which shows that people with a more internal LoC use less coping

strategies which are not aimed at solving their problems directly.

In preparation of linear regression analysis, correlations between dependent and outcome variables have also been checked. Own initiative was correlated with autonomous motivation (RAI), r (113) = .20, p = .02, and with problem-focused coping, r (113) = .16, p =

.05, which both are likely to support a proactive approach to adjustment. Surprisingly, and contrary to expectations, there was no correlation between own initiative and cross-cultural adjustment.

Autonomous motivation (RAI) was correlated negatively with emotion-focused coping, r (113) = -.33, p = .00, and positively with cross-cultural adjustment, r (113) = .19, p =

.02. The negative correlation implies that people who are more autonomously motivated to adjust, use less emotion-focused coping strategies. The positive correlation is a good indicator

(25)

25

of the impact of autonomous motivation on the ultimate goal. People who are more autonomously motivated to adjust, also feel more adjusted than people who are less autonomously motivated.

Emotion-focused coping was positively correlated with problem-focused coping, r

(113) = .20, p = .02, which shows that both coping strategy categories are enforced when a

person is undergoing a stressful situation. Emotion-focused coping correlated negatively with cross-cultural adjustment, r (113) = -.16, p = .05. This shows that people who use more

(26)

(27)

(28)

28

focused coping feel they are less adjusted, than people who do not use this type of coping as much.

Finally, problem-focused coping was correlated with cross-cultural adjustment, r (113)

= .22, p = .01. This means that people who use more problem-focused coping feel they are

more adjusted than people who use problem-focused coping less. This is directly in line with the fifth proposed hypothesis.

Control Variables

The identified control variables are age, duration of expatriation, social media usage, education, locus of control and perceived cultural distance. These variables will be included in the further analyses.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1 stated that a higher degree of own initiative to expatriate would be positively related to the expatriate’s cross-cultural adjustment. A hierarchical regression was conducted to test whether own initiative and the covariates were related to cross-cultural adjustment. The covariates were entered at step 1, the independent variable own initiative was entered at step 2.

The results are summarised in Table 2 and showed significant relations for duration of expatriation (p = .02), LoC (p = .00), highest education (p = .08) and perceived cultural

distance (p = .04). When controlling for these variables, own initiative did not explain

additional variance (∆R² = .00). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected.

Table 2.

(29)

29 Adjustment R R² ∆R² B SE β Step 11 _.51 _.26 Age .00 .01 .04 Duration of Expatriation .02 .01 .25**

Social Media Usage -.05 .05 -.09

Highest Education -.11 .06 -.16*

Locus of Control .34 .10 .27***

Perceived Cultural Distance .01 .00 .17**

Step 22 _.52 _.27 _.00

Age .00 .01 .04

Duration of Expatriation .02 .01 .25**

Locus of Control .33 .10 .27**

Own Initiative .05 .07 .05

* p <.10; ** p <.05; *** p <.01

1 _{F(6,108) = 6.423,}_{p = .000,}2_{F(7,107) = 5.529,}_{p = .000}

Hypothesis 2 stated that a higher degree of autonomous motivation to adjust would be positively related to expatriate’s cross-cultural adjustment. A hierarchical regression was conducted to test whether autonomous motivation and the covariates were related to cross-cultural adjustment. The covariates were entered at step 1, the independent variable autonomous motivation was entered at step 2.

The results are summarised in Table 3 and showed significant relations for duration of expatriation (p = .02), LoC (p = .00), and perceived cultural distance (p = .03). When

(30)

30

controlling for these variables, autonomous motivation did explain additional variance (∆R² = .02). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was accepted (p = .09).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Relationship between Autonomous Motivation and Cross-cultural Adjustment

R R² ∆R² B SE β

Step 11 _.51 _.26

Age .00 .01 .04

Step 22 _.53 _.28 _.02*

Age .00 .01 .02

Highest Education -.10 .06 -.13

Autonomous Motivation .01 .01 .15*

* p <.10; ** p <.05; *** p <.01

1 _{F(6,108) = 6.423,}_{p = .000,}2_{F(7,107) = 6.040,}_{p = .000}

Hypothesis 3 stated that a higher degree of own initiative to expatriate would be positively related to autonomous motivation to adjust. A hierarchical regression was

(31)

31

conducted to test whether own initiative and the covariates were related to autonomous motivation. The covariates were entered at step 1, the independent variable own initiative was entered at step 2.

The results are summarised in Table 4 and showed significant results for LoC (p =

.06). When controlling for this variable, own initiative did not explain additional variance (∆R² = .02). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was rejected.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Relationship between Own Initiative and Autonomous Motivation

Step 11 _.29 _.08

Age .15 .11 .16

Duration of Expatriation -.07 .17 -.05

Highest Education -1.61 1.13 -.14

Locus of Control 3.79 1.89 .19**

Perceived Cultural Distance -.05 .04 -.11

Step 22 _.31 _.10 _.02

Age .14 .11 .15

Duration of Expatriation -.08 .17 -.05

Highest Education -1.65 1.13 -.14

Locus of Control 3.60 1.89 .18*

Own Initiative 1.75 1.33 .12

(32)

32 1 _{F(6,108) = 1.658,}_{p = .138,}2_{F(7,107) = 1.677,}_{p = .122}

Hypothesis 4 stated that a higher degree of autonomous motivation to adjust would be positively related to usage of problem-focused coping strategies. A hierarchical regression was conducted to test whether autonomous motivation and the covariates were related to problem-focused coping. The covariates were entered at step 1, the independent variable autonomous motivation was entered at step 2.

The results are summarised in Table 5 and did not show any significant results (∆R² = .00). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was rejected.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Relationship between Autonomous Motivation and Problem-Focused Coping

Step 11 _.29 _.09

Age -.00 .01 -.06

Duration of Expatriation .02 .01 .18

Social Media Usage .06 .07 .08

Highest Education -.10 .08 -.12

Locus of Control .22 .13 .16*

Step 22 _.29 _.09 _.00

Age -.00 .01 -.07

Duration of Expatriation .02 .01 .18

Social Media Usage .06 .07 .08

(33)

33

Locus of Control .22 .14 .15

Autonomous Motivation .00 .01 .02

* p <.10; ** p <.05; *** p <.01

1 _{F(6,108) = 1.693,}_{p = .129,}2_{F(7,107) = 1.443,}_{p = .196}

Hypothesis 5 stated that a higher degree of usage of problem-focused coping strategies would be positively related to the expatriate’s cross-cultural adjustment. A hierarchical regression was conducted to test whether problem-focused coping and the covariates were related to cross-cultural adjustment. The covariates were entered at step 1, the independent variable problem-focused coping was entered at step 2.

The results are summarised in Table 6 and showed significant results for duration of expatriation (p = .05) and LoC (p = .05). When controlling for these variables,

problem-focused coping did not explain additional variance (∆R² = .02). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was rejected.

Table 6.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Relationship between Problem-Focused Coping and Cross-Cultural Adjustment

Step 11 _.36 _.13

Age .00 .01 .01

Highest Education .01 .08 .01

(34)

34

Perceived Cultural Distance .00 .00 .08

Step 22 _.38 _.15 _.02

Age .00 .01 .01

Duration of Expatriation .02 .01 .23*

Perceived Cultural Distance .00 .00 .09 Problem-Focused Coping .14 .10 .13

* p <.10; ** p <.05; *** p <.01

1 _{F(6,105) = 2.665,}_{p = .019,}2_{F(7,104) = 2.577,}_{p = .017}

Hypothesis 6 stated that the relation between initiative to expatriate and the expatriate’s cross-cultural adjustment is mediated by the autonomous motivation to adjust (RAI) and by the usage of problem-focused coping strategies. Since there was no significant relation between own initiative to adjust and cross-cultural adjustment, Hypothesis 6 is rejected.

The significance of this effect was tested using bootstrapping procedures. Indirect effects were computed for each of 10,000 bootstrapped samples and the 95% confidence interval was computed by determining the indirect effects at the 2.5th_{and 97.5}th_percentiles.

Table 7 lists the summarised results of the hierarchical regression analysis, with addition of the independent variable emotion-focused coping, and showed a significant result for duration of expatriation (p = .05) and LoC (p = .09). When controlling for this variable, the independent

variables own initiative, autonomous motivation and problem-focused coping did not explain additional variance (∆R² = .04).

(35)

35

Table 7.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the Total Set of Control and Independent Variables and Cross-Cultural Adjustment

Step 11 _.36 _.13

Age .00 .01 .01

Locus of Control .30 .14 .20**

Step 22 _.41 _.17 _.04

Age .00 .01 -.01

Own Initiative .02 .10 .01 Autonomous Motivation .01 .01 .16 Emotion-Focused Coping .05 .11 .05 Problem-Focused Coping .12 .11 .11 * p <.10; ** p <.05; *** p <.01 1 _{F(6,105) = 2.665,}_{p = .019,}2_{F(7,104) = 2.253,}_{p = .024}

(36)

36

DISCUSSION

Expatiates are a growing work force on the job market. They have traditionally emerged in response to the internationalisation of the business world as employees who were sent abroad to offices abroad. However, in the recent years the trend has shifted from employees being sent off as Corporate Expatriates (CEs), to people taking it upon themselves to seek out matching employment abroad as Self-Initiated Expatriates (SIEs). In order for these expatriates to perform successfully (both on a professional level and on a personal level) in their host country, it is important that they are feel adjustment to their new environment.

Adjustment Process

The first goal of this study was to investigate the psychological process underlying cross-cultural adjustment among expatriates. The relation of initiative to expatriate, autonomous motivation to adjust and the usage of problem-focused coping strategies was examined. The second goal was to use initiative to expatriate as a criterion for distinguishing between Corporate Expatriates (CEs) and SIEs. Where previous studies mainly provided rigid black-and-white distinction criteria, this study opted for a continuum of degree of own initiative to expatriate instead.

The results of this study only supported the expected relation between the autonomous motivation to adjust and cross-cultural adjustment. People who were autonomously motivated to adjust, also felt that they were better adjusted, than people with a more controlled motivation.. This is in line with previous findings that autonomous motivation results in more positive outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001; Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011). Autonomous motivation is known to be related to better psychological health, more effective performance, greater long-term persistence and more prosocial behaviours (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

(37)

37

Own Initiative to Expatriate as a Distinguishing Criterion

The second goal of this study was to provide a new criterion to distinguish between SIEs and CEs. This is important, because SIEs and CEs differ vastly in their motives for expatriation. Perhaps the primary differences which was expected was the difference in degree of own initiative. SIEs taking it upon themselves to move abroad are expected to feel having taken much more own initiative than CEs who are sent out abroad. Unfortunately this expectation remains unsolved because the vast majority (113) of the researched sample of the 115 expatriates reported having expatriated at own initiative, and reported a very high degree of own initiative, making it impossible to compare results. Nevertheless, even without being able to compare results, this study does show that SIEs do feel very well adjusted to their new environments. In line with Action Control Theory, a person who takes initiative to pursue a goal, also pertains once the goal is accomplished (Jaramillo, Locander, Spector & Harris, 2013).

What is interesting however, that in a fairly large voluntary sample so many people reported a high own initiative in their expatriation decision. Although the results do not directly reflect the formulated hypothesis, they do reflect a before noticed trend: the growth of the population of SIEs, as previously reported by different studies (e.g. Froese, 2012).

Unfortunately this study failed to significantly distinguish between SIEs and CEs based on their self-perceived level of own initiative in their expatriation process. Whether this is due to initiative being an inaccurate predictor in itself unfortunately remains unclear at this point due to the sample being highly proactive. Further research is recommended, using a more heterogeneous group of expatriates and specifically creating two distinct groups.

Another explanation might be proneness to exaggerate their displayed level of own initiative. There is a grey area in localizing the decision to expatriate: when the expatriate-to-be informs the manager that they would be willing to move abroad and then waits to be sent away. The ambiguity of such a situation might lead people with an internal locus of control to

(38)

38

believe they are in control of the situation and that they have taken the initiative to be sent abroad (Rotter, 1966; Archer, 1979; Black, 1990). Mentally healthy people have been found to exaggerate their perceptions of control (Taylor & Brown, 1988). This could imply that the expatriates in this sample exaggerated their own initiative because they felt that they were in fact in control over the decision to expatriate. For future research into this matter it is therefore very important to not only rely on respondents’ self-reported level of own initiative, but to also check this with their managers – if at all possible. This will obtain a more objective point of view and source of information.

Limitations

The results of this study have not shown support for the expected relations between own initiative or problem-focused coping and adjustment. Possible explanations for the findings regarding initiative have been discussed. Possible explanations regarding problem-focused coping will be offered below.

Problem-focused coping strategies have already proven their worth and effectiveness for adjustment of expatriates in many previous studies (Feldman & Thomas, 1992; Tung, 1998; Selmer, 1999; Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005). They have been found to be beneficial for one’s wellbeing and performance moreover. Yet, this relation has not been confirmed by the results.

A possible explanation is that the majority of respondents had families living with them, be it a spouse and/or children. This could leave a large part of the suggested coping strategies unused. The results have not shown an overly dominance for usage of problem-focused coping strategies in favour of emotion-focused strategies. Both were reported roughly equally and not extensively used. This leads to two inferences: in the first place one might infer that people with families cope in completely different ways. More research on the influence of presence of expatriates’ families is required. In the second place the results point towards the suggestion that SIEs in fact do not necessarily use more problem-focused coping strategies than emotion-focused

(39)

39

strategies, but both equally and interchangeably. More insight into how the distribution of emotion- versus problem focused usage is established is required. Recommended is to use a more elaborate and comprehensive list of coping strategies.

Furthermore, reported social media usage among expatriates was quite high, so it is plausible that most people use it, regardless of preferred coping styles. To add social media usage to a list of coping strategies would require determining its placing first. The advice would be to place it there where people indicate using it more for: either emotional support or instrumental support.

Finally the relations between own initiative and autonomous motivation, and between autonomous motivation and problem-focused coping were also not supported by the results. The possible explanations for results concerning initiative have been discussed. However in addition to that, it is worth mentioning that another possible explanation is that expatriates’ taking initiative to move may be considered also as a behavioural expression of the interplay between LoC and motivation to explore new territories. Recommended is to more strictly select a sample of CEs, SIEs and locals who have started a new job not more than 6 months ago, and ask them about how they feel motivated to adjust to their new (working) environment. This can potentially prevent a strongly homogeneous group and give better insights in to the relation between the two constructs.

The lack of evidence for a relation between autonomous motivation and problem-focused coping is a highly unexpected result that also strongly contradicts previous findings in the motivation and coping literature. Autonomous motivation is known to enhance usage of effective coping strategies (Mouratidis & Michou, 2011; Anderson, 1977). The lack of diversity in initiative among respondents and the small numbers of reported usage of any coping

strategy, are suspected to have led to this outcome. Therefore, the suggestion for further research is that these factors are addressed primarily, and then the list of strategies is expanded.

(40)

40

Closing words

Some hypothesis-related remarks have been mentioned above, however there are a few more remarks regarding the study design to be made.

First, the conceptualisation of Corporate versus Self-Initiated expatriates is as complicated as has been described in the theory section. There is a large grey area between the two, which this study intended to cover. The matter of taking initiative in the expatriation process remains interesting and unresolved. Is taking own initiative telling your boss that someday maybe if the opportunity presents itself you might want to move to an office abroad, or is taking initiative quitting your job and packing a bag and moving all your knowledge to another country without having any job security at all? Answering this question is the first step towards defining a distinguishing criterion.

Second, this study was intentionally based on participants’ personal perceptions of their situation and status of adjustment. This has made this study a very subjective overview of expatriates’ attitudes towards mainly themselves.

Third, a very strong factor in this study was the duration of stay abroad. This factor had a strong relation with cross-cultural adjustment. The longer one stays, the more they adjust, whether they want to and work for it or not. And if someone does not adjust, they are likely to leave sooner. Since this is such an open door, the recommendation for further research has excluded this factor.

Fourth, a factor that has received less attention than anticipated is perceived cultural distance. This factor was added at a later stage to control the underlying background of perceptions of adjustment. Perceived cultural distance was measured with a very short questionnaire, due to which perhaps much information was lost causing the silencing of the factor. For future research it is recommended that perceived cultural distance receives a more prominent role in the measurement of cross-cultural adjustment.

(41)

41

So even though the Corporate Expatriate is a reliable and well-known source as employee to move to offices abroad, the Self-Initiated Expatriate is also a recommended option to look out for when performing a selection and recruitment procedure for an open position. The determination in their goalsetting is both impressive and admirable, as they often take great risks in their pursuit of work and experience abroad.

They realize that having successful international experience has the potential to not only further their careers, but also contributes to their psychological enrichment. Therefore they are likely to push harder to succeed in all domains of their new environment, including work.

A final word of advice is therefore to not disregard (locally available) expatriates who have entered your applicant pool without being currently tied to an organisation and appreciate the guts they have shown by initiating an expatriation. One never knows when these guts will do something amazing for your business.

(42)

42

REFERENCES

Al Ariss, A., & Özbilgin, M. (2010). Understanding initiated expatriates: Career experiences of lebanese self-initiated expatriates in France. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52(4), 275-285.

Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 337-348.

Anderson, C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviours, and performance in a stress setting: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 446-451.

Archer, R. P. (1979). Relationships between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43(6),

617-626.

Avril, A. B., & MAgnini, V. P. (2007). A holistic approach to expatriate success. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(1), 53-64.

Aycan, Z. (1997). Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted phenomenon: individual and organizational level predictors. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(4), 434-456.

Banai, M., & Harry, W. (2004). Boundaryless global careers: The international itinerants. International Studies of Management & Organization, 34(3), 96-120.

Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2), 277-294.

Black, J. S. (1990). Locus of control, social support, stress, and adjustment in international transfers. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 7(1), 1-29.

Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Towards a comprehensive model of international adjustment: an integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 291-317.

Brown, R. J. (2008). Dominant stressors on expatriate couples during international assignments. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(6), 1018-1034.

Carr, S. C., Inkson, K., & Thorn, K. (2005). From global careers to talent flow: Reinterpreting ‘brain drain’.

(43)

43

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kim, K., Farh, C. I. C., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When does cross-cultural motivation enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multilevel investigation of the moderating roles of subsidiary support and cultural distance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1110-1130.

Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080-1107.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychology Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942.

Demes, K. A., & Geeraert, N. (2014). Measures matter: Scales for adaptation, cultural distance and acculturation orientation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 91-109.

Edström, A., & Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Transfer of managers as a coordination and control strategy in multinational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2), 248-263.

Fang, T., Zikic, J., & Novicevic, M. M. (2009). Career success of immigrant professionals: Stock and flow of their career capital. International Journal of Manpower, 30(5), 472-488.

Feldman, D. C., & Thomas, D. C. (1992). Career management issues facing expatriates. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 271-193.

Feldman, D. C., & Tompson, H. B. (1993). Expatriation, repatriation, and domestic geographic relocation: An empirical investigation of adjustment to new job assignments. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(3),

507-529.

Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 839-852.