Towards a deeper understanding on the influence of career and social networks on Self-initiated expatriates’ intention to stay in their host-country

(1)

Towards a deeper understanding on the influence of

career and social networks on Self-initiated expatriates’

intention to stay in their host-country

Written by OLIVIER Christophe

MSc, Advanced International Business and Management (Dual Award)

Master’s Thesis

Total Word count: 14853 (excluding tables and appendices)

December, 2020

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

(2)

Abstract:

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to investigate the career and social networks of Self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) on their intention to stay in their respective host-country.

Methodology – Semi-structured interviews with 8 SIEs from distinct home- and host-country with different professions, and working and living in diverse geographical locations were conducted, to investigate the power and influence of SIEs’ career and social networks on their intention to stay in their host-country.

Results – the results reveal that: interviewed SIEs sought like-minded people the most: similar age, fields, interests and international experiences. Social networks granted emotional support while career networks provided references and opportunities. Significant and diverse international experiences led to better adjustments curves. Social networks influenced SIEs to stay in their host-country: SIEs’ life-stage (e.g. age and career level) influence intention to stay in the host-country.

Originality/value – Based upon the findings of this exploratory study, multiple propositions are suggested indicating the nature and features of SIEs networks along with their contributions. This dissertation helps comprehend the impact of SIEs’ networks in the host-country.

(3)

I. Introduction

The 21st century saw a significant rise of careers expanding beyond national and regional frontiers (quoted in Doherty et al., 2013). Indeed, more than 240 million citizens lived in a country where they weren’t born in 2015 (quoted in Cilvjak, 2019). Amongst these individuals opting for an international career, a large segment can be identified as Self-Initiated Expatriates (SIEs) in the international labour market (Vaiman et al., 2015). For the purpose of this dissertation, the term “self-initiated expatriates” is defined as individuals driven by a desire to travel and adventure, who move abroad without organizational support and have full freedom regarding the host-country relocation, which reflects prior work in the field (Inkson et al, 1997; Cao et al, 2013; Al Ariss and Ozbilgin, 2010; Doherty and Dickmann, 2013; Froese, 2012; Inkson and Myers 2003). As SIEs choose to relocate and work overseas (Froese and Peltokorpi, 2013) for a temporary period (Cerdin and Selmer, 2013); the development of a network for support is essential (Osman-Gani and Rockstuhl, 2008; Cao et al, 2013). SIEs social network is expected to have a substantial effect on their relocation process, career growth, adjustments abroad and emotional support (Osman-Gani and Rockstuhl, 2008). Career network possibly illustrate how SIEs find a job overseas and get more job opportunities (Cerdin and Selmer, 2014) and are sources of career information (Seibert et al., 2001). More research is required to understand how powerful and influential both social and career networks are on the intention to stay in the host-country for SIEs; Little is known regarding the outcomes of the network developed by SIEs on their intention and length to stay abroad; Future research should also further capture the objectives and benefits SIEs have in building such networks (Richardson and McKenna, 2014; Pinto and Araujo, 2015).

(5)

This study will not only advance scholars’ understanding of the richness in networks and ties from Self-Initiated Expatriates but also how these connections influence the intention to stay in the host-country which has implications across all areas of the migrants’ life (i.e. career, family, satisfaction etc.) Since most studies have investigated the antecedents of cross-cultural adjustments and networks (e.g. Cao; Hirschi and Deller 2013, Cunningham and Viyajakumar 2016; Froese 2012), and few the outcomes (or implications) of these two variables (Pinto and Araujo, 2015). This thesis will bring along further knowledge to the field of self-initiated expatriates. From a practical perspective, SIEs are viewed as valuable source of human capitals for business entities across the globe. They are usually highly educated, driven for an international career along with solid career motivations and goals (Doherty et al., 2011) Recruiting and training SIEs cost a substantial amount of money, and even more so whenever the expatriates leave the country and the organization. The cost tied to productivity and replacing the employee can be extremely high (Hussain and Deery, 2018). Since SIEs are known for their worldwide mobility, they become not easy to keep within an organization as their level of commitment is also usually low (Doherty et al., 2013). Therefore, it is a topic of relevance to understand why and how SIEs choose to stay in the host-country or repatriate with respect to the expatriates’ networks and cross-cultural adjustment as this have major implications for both the business organizations and the individuals. Precisely, this thesis will attempt to answer the following question:

RQ: How influential and powerful is the career and social networks for SIEs with respect to their cross-cultural adjustment and intention to stay in the host-country?

This paper begins by reviewing the literature on the three fields of interests aforementioned. Further, the study carries on with the methodology process along with its descriptions the main findings and discussion section. To conclude, the author will discuss the results and future area of research in order to improve our understanding and knowledge on this field.

(6)

(7)

II. Literature of Review:

This literature of review evaluates contributions in three core areas, namely, SIEs networks, SIEs cross-cultural adjustments and SIEs intention to stay in the host-country. Each of which are developed below.

The networks and social ties:

A network is characterized as “the pattern of ties linking a defined set of persons or social actors (Seibert et al., 2001, p. 220). “SIEs receive social support and draw satisfactory interaction adjustment from social interactions with fellow nationals or other foreigners” (Froese, 2012, p. 1108). However, expatriates tend to rely on a narrow and limited support network in the host-country. Since expatriates’ involvement is usually fairly minimal in their host society, their networks are mainly composed of co-nationals (Adams et al., 2015). In line with this finding, Cao and colleagues (2012) found that self-initiated expatriates’ engaging with a considerable network of host-country nationals can better leverage their networks, which widen their career horizons, gain more insights and opportunities, in turn, increasing their job satisfaction. However, SIEs should not only rely on co-nationals when developing their networks. Indeed, a network that solely involve fellow citizens proved to be disadvantageous for expatriate success (quoted in Tanova and Ajayi, 2016). As Kilduff and Brass (2010) mention, a network takes place and becomes valuable for those willing and capable to utilize it. The essential element in developing networks and ties lie the expatriate’ motivations to move abroad as this ultimately shape his career goals (Richardson & McKenna, 2014). While motivation is acknowledged in the literature as a crucial component to develop a solid network for expatriates, perhaps networks “necessity” as to “go further” professionally and personally could also be an area worth digging into? This would also have implications about the networks’ ”authenticity.”

(8)

professional life by improving their learning opportunities. Third, regardless of the expatriates’ drivers (i.e. thirst for adventure, learning) to relocate, developing a network acted as a conduit which pushed their desire to expatriate. Even though the paper by Richardson and McKenna (2014) brought forth further knowledge on the development of networks literature, there are still some gaps within this literature. More specifically, Pinto and Araujo (2015) highlight that previous research have displayed evidence in the relationships between social capital and networks and expatriates debut (e.g. Brewster et al., 2008; Dickmann et al., 2018). These studies amongst others fail to address how SIEs’ networks are influential/powerful (Pinto and Araujo, 2015).

This dissertation find its roots in previous work done by Pinto and Araujo (2015) who sampled 13 Portuguese SIEs deploying semi-structured interviews which aimed at investigating the composition, roles and diversity conducted by SIE’s social networks. Pinto and Araujo (2015) study uncovered four key findings. First, forming connections with locals was mostly driven by Portuguese SIEs incentive to find support. Second, SIEs connected with a range of diverse host-individuals in order to get different kinds of supports. Third, as the expatriate stayed longer in the host-country, the host networks granted emotional and informational assistance. Fourth, the extensive recurrence of these interactions with locals’ further prolonged SIEs host-networks. Despite these findings, more research is needed regarding the development of ties and networks (Pinto and Araujo, 2015). In addition, little information is known about how SIEs networks and connections assist relocation choice and length of stay (Pinto and Araujo, 2015). Additionally, these two scholars realized that extensively developing social bonds with host-individuals refrained SIEs to connect with people outside work. This creates further avenues to explore, more specifically, what are the social connections SIEs aim at pursuing and building and the purpose of these contacts (Pinto and Araujo, 2015). Moreover, since SIEs are usually self-directed, future studies should explore which contacts are seen as predisposed and skilled to provide support (Pinto and Araujo, 2015). Oher academics such as Richardson and McKenna (2014) proposed further areas of research regarding how OSIEs sustain and build networks throughout their expatriation and the potential advantages these networks may bring.

(9)

intention to stay but work and general adjustments had no influence. One of the main limitation of this study is that this paper did not consider how expatriates previous international experience could influence adjustments (Tanova and Ajavi, 2016). Altogether, these findings could have several implications. As Interactions are an inherent part of career and social networks performed by employees abroad, this could affect the intention to stay or leave?

SIEs ability to cross-culturally adjust in a foreign country

(10)

foreign cultures. While many factors can be attributed to effectively adapt in a host-country, namely, international experience, advanced cross-cultural training, individual- and job-level factors, geographic interests (e.g. Froese 2012; Froese and Pelotokorpi, 2013; Cao, Hirschi, Deller, 2013). Other factors could explain how and why SIEs adapt more successfully to new environments. For instance, the expatriates’ home-country (i.e. demographics, economic development) and host-country (i.e. specific country features) may influence the SIEs’ cross-cultural adjustments (Cao et al., 2013).

Also, adjusting to a new host-country is influenced by family ties and networks’ the expatriates is prone to develop (Richardson & McKenna, 2014). However, the available literature on cross-cultural relies essentially on the antecedents of adjustments, whereas the implications are fairly limited (Tharenou and Caulfield, 2010). For instance, Bhaskar-Shrinivas and colleagues (2005) researched the antecedents of expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustments by conducting a meta-analysis of 66 organizational expatriate studies and indicated that spouse and family adjustment were the most dominant factors predicting expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustments. Only a few scholars have investigated the impacts of cross-cultural adjustment. Amongst them, Cao and colleagues’ (2013) explored the consequences on low/high levels of adjustments. They studied the mediating effect of cross-cultural adjustment on expatriates’ intention to stay in the host-country. They found that “a protean career attitude has an indirect positive effect on intention to stay in the host-country mediated through higher cross-cultural adjustment.” (p. 61)

(11)

and experiences, in turn, influencing expatriates’ adjustments. Further research should interview expatriates from a wider a spectrum of jobs (Froese, 2012). Moreover, SIEs “not only have to cope with the cross-cultural complexities, but also need to adjust to a new job at an unknown company” (Peltokorpi and Froese, 2009, p. 1102).

Wu and Bodigerel-Koehler (2013) in their study found that social initiative affects one’s “potential” to adjust to new environments which is based on individual characteristics rather than acquired via specific training or on-the-job experience. Also, some demographics factors such as gender and age influence the segment “work adjustment” more than the other aspects of the expatriate adjustment (Wu and Bodigerel-Koehler, 2013). Indeed, western women expatriates in Hong Kong showed greater levels of adjustment (i.e. interaction and work) than men (Selmer and Leung 2003). Worth mentioning, it was found that cross-cultural adjustment is a significant predictor of job satisfaction and performance with the chosen-country (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005).

Lastly, the available literature has demonstrated that career capital and cross-cultural adjustment are intertwined (Andren et al., 2017; Dickmann et al., 2016).

SIEs intent to stay in the host-country or repatriate

(12)

was positively associated with repatriation whereas career instrumentality (i.e. career opportunities and salary) was negatively related to intention to repatriate. While different authors drew mixed conclusions, one reason explaining such outcomes can lie in the samples utilized. Indeed, Tharenou and Caulfied (2010) sampled 546 Australians SIEs moving to culturally close countries (i.e. England, Canada, US), this resulted in restrictions on the extent by which self-initiated expatriates could experience cultural differences. Additionally, the same two scholars expressed that shocks influence the expatriates’ decision to stay or leave. Shocks may occur anytime whether in a professional or personal setting and can be expected or unexpected (Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010). Thus, intention to repatriate and discontentment may take place whether the shock is positive (e.g. wedding in the expatriates’ home-land) or negative (taking care of aging-parents). In addition, poorly rooted expatriates in the host-country is associated with stronger intent to leave because the sacrifices are not critical (i.e. community and professional) (Tharenou and Caulfield, 2010). In short, whenever the sacrifices outweigh the benefits, the expatriates display behaviours of repatriation. This duality seems to also be linked with the adjustments of the SIEs. Indeed, a well-adjusted SIE have a higher likelihood to obtain more resources whether emotionally, cognitively or interpersonally and to apply those to personal objectives (i.e. career development or life satisfaction) (Cao et al., 2013). This would then raise their satisfaction with the host-country and ultimately affect their decisions to stay (Cao et al., 2013). Conversely, low levels of adjustments in the host-country might influence SIEs intention to stay or leave (Cao et al., 2013). However, the shortage of the impact of career satisfaction, but the predominant role of shocks put forward the need to identify which other factors could lead to repatriation (Tharenou and Caulfield, 2010).

(13)

on the intent to stay in the host-country, others find that there are still missing pieces within the literature. For instance, Cilvjak (2019) investigated the settlement decisions of Serbian SIEs in the United States where he interviewed 10 expatriates. The author found five key themes explaining Serbian SIEs decisions to settle: “cultural fabric, let-downs, deprivation, abundance and transnationalism” (p. 61). Transnationalism referred to family and networks connections. However, the present literature falls short in describing how expatriates’ decisions are made whether they stay or leave their host-country based upon their adjustments to the host-country (Berry et al., 2011) and what is the fundamental reasoning behind these decisional outcomes. Therefore, further studies should aim at capturing the uniqueness of SIEs’ decision-making (Glassock and Fee, 2015).

(14)

III. Methodology:

The philosophical assumption behind this study relies on the two dimensions’, namely ontology and methodology. Ontology since there is not a single answer to a particular problematic, instead, the researcher remains extremely open regarding the respondents’ experiences, insights and opinions. Also, it will be methodological as this study relies on an inductive approach aiming at formulating a thorough understanding on this thesis’ topic (Saurabh, 2019). Indeed, the analysis will be data-driven where codes and themes will solely originate from the primary data collected through interviews, from which the whole data-set will be analysed. The author will not try to fit in the data discovered onto a pre-existing theory or framework, instead he will attempt to discover new potential links and understanding on the topic of research.

This dissertation will deploy an exploratory qualitative research design. The research aim is to develop a better understanding of how social and career networks influence SIEs intent ion to stay in the host-country, as such, this research question remains fairly board as the so-called “investigation” has not been sufficiently explored. Easwaramoorthy and Zarinpoush (2006) notes that interviews become a relevant tool when gathering detailed information on individual’s viewpoints, opinions and feelings is needed. The data collection method utilized in this dissertation are semi-structured in-depth interviews in order to gather a large pool of data and insights. Interviews would last forty-five minutes to one hour with eight interviewees on a one-to-one setting.

(15)

(16)

Table 1: SIEs demographic table

Case Gender Age Profession Highest Educational

Qualification Work Experiences Home-Country Host-country

Country of location (at time

of interview)

Length of Stay

INT1 M 26 Financial Analyst

Bachelor's degree in International

Finance 3 years Netherlands Hungary, UK, France

UK

(host-country) 3 years

INT2 F 23 Student

Master's degree in International

Law 6 months Germany Netherlands

Germany

(home-country) 6 months

INT3 F 24 Textile Designer Master in Arts and Design 9 months France Japan

France

(home-country) 9 months

INT4 M 25 Financial Analyst Master in Risk Management 1 year Lithuania Switzerland

Switzerland

(host-country) 2.5 years

INT5 F 28 Waitress, Salesperson Bachelor's degree in psychology 2.5 years Taiwan UK

UK

INT6 M 22 Student Bachelor's degree in Neurosciences 6 months Taiwan Germany

Germany

INT7 F 29 Merchandiser Bachelor's degree in Supply Chain 4.5 years Taiwan

Cambodia, China, Singapore, Netherlands Netherlands (host-country) 3.5 years INT8 M 26 Digital Marketing Specialist

Bachelor's degree in International

Finance 2.5 years Netherlands Japan, Columbia

Columbia

(17)

In addition, the interview questionnaires resulted from the data examined in the literature of review (see Appendix 1), which consisted of nine open-ended questions along with sub-questions (Saunders et al., 2019). All sub-sub-questions were not necessarily asked at it was context-specific and based upon the interviewee response to the previous questins. The questions included all facets of the findings on the literature of review along with the research question. The first question was an introduction question to get familiar with the interviewee. The first three questions aimed at understanding how the SIE adapted abroad along with sub-questions related to the expatriates’ intention to stay based upon his adjustment levels. Questions four through seven focused on discovering the social and career network of the self-initiated expatriates. Questions eight and nine mostly emphasized on the motives and factors pushing the SIE to stay abroad, relocate or repatriate. Lastly, the last question supported a broader perspective, by trying to gather more insights on the migrant’s future and the whereabouts. Further details available in Appendix 1.

Before each interview, the interviewer asked his panel to fill in a consent form for the use of personal data to ensure compliance with the applicable General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2016) and Newcastle University Business School regulations. The interviews were conducted via Skype video-call. All interviews were recorded and then transcribed. In total, 114 pages of transcripts and 440 minutes of interviews data were gathered. See table 2 below for details.

Table: 2

Interview details SIEs

Expatriate Interview Duration Medium

1 59 mins Video-Call (Skype)

(18)

Further, the themes will be examined using a semantic approach (quoted in Braun and Clarke, 2006). To keep an accurate visualization of what the different participants have said during the interviews, the research will stick to the plain meaning of the words chosen by the respondents and will not go beyond the surface meaning (Braun and Clarke, 2006). As such, the data items gave life to recurrent patterns. Further, to define the main themes arising from the data-set, the author will utilize the focusing coding approach, in which the most recurring and/or more important codes will elaborate the prominent categories within the body of data (Charmaz, 2006; quoted in Saldana, 2009). This method will lead to developing a thematic map analysis outlining several themes depending on their relevance and whether enough evidence was found to support certain claims.

The author decided to opt for the Initial Coding method. Indeed, the main objective was “to remain open to all possible theoretical directions indicated by the readings of the data” (Charmaz, 2006)” (Saldana, 2009, p. 86). The author approached the coding part using the software Nvivo 12 and identified as many codes as possible while keeping the context of each code for relevance and accuracy. As such, the data has been broken down into small subtracts of information and were carefully reviewed, which revealed similarities and differences (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; quoted in Saldana, 2009). When suitable, the coding method was tailored since detailed coding is not consistently necessary, (Saldana, 2009). As such, sentence-by-sentence or paragraph-by-paragraph coding were also exploited. Therefore, Descriptive Coding was also partly used in conjunction with Initial Coding to ensure a good match between detailed and broad picture of the data-set. As Saldana (2009) points out that different coding methods can be combined when the study calls for it.

(19)

(20)

IV. Findings

Resulting from the eight semi-structured interviews, seven main patterns emerged. The seven parameters which may explain how powerful and influential networks for SIEs are, namely, network features, network strength, developing connections abroad, networking purposes, self-evolvement for SIEs, environment interplay for SIEs, and the settlement decisions for SIEs’ future. See Appendix 5 for a detailed overview of the thematic map.

For clarity purposes, expatriates’ terminology will be referred as “IXP” in the following sections.

First theme: Network features

As the findings of this dissertation unravel, it is important to mention that interviewees did not necessarily opened-up as much when it came to describing their network characteristics. As IXP4 mentions “the career network changes a lot over time”. Rightfully, the network of a person may take various turns depending on the expatriates’ location geographically, the length of stay in the host-country, the age etc. As such, it was sometimes difficult to collect data of the network characteristics. However, there were no issues regarding the other aspects of the self-initiated expatriates network. IXP8 captured this “that’s a tricky question, maybe that’s the network I guess.” As to capture the richness and complexity of the data, multiple codes and themes included the term “network”. It was extremely important to do so as the interviewees related and mentioned the term “network” in different manners. The following section will cover the network characteristics, the career network structure and the social network structure.

Network age and nationalities

(21)

“I think that’s really important because these people kinda go through the same experiences, although, (…) they can change from country to country.”

Another part of the SIEs network included individuals in their early forties. These people usually held managerial positions and above. SIEs generally had only a few connections with individuals holding C-level positions. Overall, the network of most SIEs include around 10 to 15 persons.

The data-set revealed that it was challenging to pinpoint and divide precisely the nationalities of the people in the SIEs network. Most migrants worked in highly diverse multicultural environments with people from different backgrounds and cultures. As such, their network was extremely diversified regarding their country of origin. IXP5 elaborates on this: " you will think people in Chinese supermarket are all Chinese but actually not (…), they actually use Mandarin speaker. from Hong Kong, from Taiwan from, China. With Indian background, British background or other European background people.” IXP4 mentioned that his network includes as many Lithuanians as foreigners but that “it's difficult to say the proportions.”

SIEs also seem to mostly engage with individuals involved in their industry and related to their current positions. For instance, IXP3 engaged with a considerable number of people working in the fashion design market, as they will work and can discuss similar topics of interests and more likely to engage with each other.

“I made a big network when I was in Japan. For example, I met a lot of architects, fashion designer, all about design.” (IXP3)

Career network structure

(22)

this sample involved mostly junior-level workers, they most likely often report to their manager and look up to these people, which create an important link between the employee and the manager.

“once I enter Rush, I actually have the best supervisor, (…) he really pushed me to build my own network” (IXP6)

Three expatriates declared having a mentor in their main network which tremendously helped them, whether to secure a job, get cultural hints in the country of relocation or introduced the expatriate at the working-place. The same expatriates expressed that over-time these people remain important and strong bonds within their network and regularly update each other. This was the case for IXP4: “I was participating in a Big Brothers programme (…) the thing that really helped was, her advice, what to really do when I apply, what to say etc.”

Secondly, the C-level network mainly includes managers, senior leaders and executives. Generally, SIEs had a great experience with people holding these positions even though only four SIEs mentioned having C-level individuals within their network. For instance, IXP1 often had to report to the CFO of Europe and had the opportunity to interact with individuals within this sphere. It becomes easier to look for advice, guidance and be inspired with people possessing “managerial experiences”. IXP7 expressed the importance of these ties: “I remember when I was in Indonesia because (…) the higher-level managers, they were so nice to me, so that’s why I stayed longer than other countries. I think it is very important.”

Social network structure

(23)

“Social Network is based on meeting other moms.” (IXP5)

Over half of the sample indicated that their co-workers represented an important bulk of their social network. For instance, IXP1 stated that “my friends usually, if I am outside of my home-country are usually through work.” Several reasons lead to this phenomenon. SIEs commonly do not have an established network in their country of relocation which makes it harder to find other people to connect with. Also, SIEs spend most of their time at work which leaves little time to socialize. The main denominator seems to be “time”, the more time a migrant spent with a person, the more likely the relationships got closer. This, in turn, led five SIEs to only have a few strong ties in their host-country.

“I worked with people at the company, they became my friends, just because we spent a lot of time together.” (IXP8)

While SIEs responses coincided with each other on the two previous findings, the results also contrasted. IXP4 and IXP7 actively sought co-nationals in their host-country as it was easier to relate to them. IXP7 stated: “First of all, I will search for Taiwanese people.” Whereas IXP3 and IXP8 avoided co-nationals as much as possible. For IXP3, the reason was that she wanted to improve her English and did not want to fall into the comfort of meeting fellow individuals. IXP8 “gave him a boost” to work with other nationalities and to always work in international environments. It seems as some SIEs decide to relocate to “escape” their home-country, thus, the people, whereas others appreciate having fellow members abroad.

Another contrasting finding are towards local people. IXP3 enjoys the few friends she made in Japan, but as the migrant expressed “if you want strong relationship with people, you have to be introduced by Japanese people.” IXP8 appreciates local people friendliness and could make a few friends there. However, the migrant remains careful as to whom to trust and stated that local people represent a small fraction of his social network.

(24)

Perhaps, the most interesting finding is the importance of a “core-person”. Most interviewees seem to have this “core person” from which they heavily rely on and has a big importance as it helped the expat in his life abroad. This person can have the following relationships with the SIE: boss, husband, close friend, family member or direct manager. For instance, IXP3 elaborated with the relationships created with her boss. “She's God! (…) it was kind of the reason I enjoyed Japan, my backbone. (…) She taught me a lot of things. She introduced me to lots of people.” IXP4 related to a close friend that made the experience in Switzerland completely different.

“I was just really happy during that period. We did so much and it helped me to just having someone who I could meet (…), on the weekends (…) it's tough to find one (…) you have to

match (…) have similar interest, (…) there has to be another level, of further relationship where you can just meet every day.” (IXP4)

For IXP5, it was her husband from which she found “her own place” in the host-country and got most of her network through this person. As the migrant, stated: “almost hundred percent (…) of the network is through my husband (…) I didn't marry him, then I will have to go back to Taiwan.”

SIEs seem to particularly value the quality of relationships rather than quantity. They often encounter and interact with a considerable amount of people in the host-country, eventually, they maintain contacts with a “handful of people”. One single person can outweigh almost all other people, which greatly influenced the life and decisions the self-initiated makes, whether to stay, relocate or repatriate.

“this network in the UK, although they are only two people mainly (…) they are still stronger than all of them in Taiwan.” (IXP5)

Second theme: Network strength

(25)

respondents actively engaged in building a network (both socially and professionally). Surprisingly, IXP8 stated: “I would definitely recommend for someone to get a network as big as possible” but also mentioned that his main purpose in relocating to Columbia was to work. Thus, the network would be a bonus rather than essential. On the other hand, IXP5 did not perceive the value of building a network from the beginning. This migrant thought only about staying for a given period in the host-country and did not pursue in developing a network. However, this SIE beliefs changed over-time.

“if you’d have asked the same question four years ago, I wouldn’t, and the reason I’d now is because I actually know that there’s a benefit from building a network.” (IXP5)

The notion of networks having a snowball effect often came out of the interviewees’ responses. One individual, leads to another person, which introduce you to another as IXP6 expressed. Also, an important part of network is interconnected and someone belonging “indirectly” to someone’s network could also help. IXP2 stated: “the more people you get to know, obviously, the more people you get introduced to as well.” IXP1 further emphasized this point: “it is such a small world in a way.” This materializes by means on how to achieve goals or overcome challenges. In fact, seven respondents were able to provide a meaningful case on how someone from their network supported them. Also, worth mentioning, the “network weighted value” pattern emerged. IXP1 and IXP6 raised the idea that “you never know when the network is going to come in handy.” Consequently, it is always worthwhile to develop a network.

Network influence on career and life decisions

Ultimately, all SIEs without exception agreed that their network, either socially- or work-related, shaped and influenced their careers and life decisions. This influence materializes in different ways. For instance, IXP1 would rather stay within General Electric (current company) because of the network made in this company instead of applying somewhere else and, would choose to relocate in a country where his network is already established.

“it is extremely important, (…) starting from scratch within a different organization would be tougher because (…) you have to prove yourself again (…) where I am currently in my career, it makes a lot of sense to stay within GE, specifically because of my network too. Most

(26)

In the same line, IXP3 would relocate to her previous host-country (Japan) because of the environment’s familiarity, the network already established and the connection with her previous manager, which would help her professionally and personally. As she stated: “I know that in japan I can have more opportunities for jobs because I already have a network.”

As the previous three expatriates explained, their career network heavily weighted in their decision to relocate or stay in a particular host-country. The social network is also as important according to IXP4 and IXP5, for different reasons. For example, IXP4 willingly chose to live with several flat mates to keep social interactions flowing outside of work which helped him “stabilize” over the long-term. IXP4 elaborated:

“I was really happy that I lived with people and not alone (…) because I just benefited from all of this common communication between us (…) in the long term, you just don't feel

depressed.”

Related to the “network importance” is the “purposes” of having such ties. All SIEs expressed that a network provides more opportunities. The term “opportunity” in this context, mean more choices available for SIEs whether in their career or social life. IXP1 shed lights on this concept: “have them (network) do something that’d be beneficial for me.” However, these opportunities did not necessarily materialize in a tangible outcome for most SIEs, they view the network more as “assets” that could be beneficial anytime. IXP4 further elaborated: “it’s an intangible thing, I think it’s something more than money, I think it’s worth more (…) You should look at these things like there are invaluable assets.” IXP6 also contributed: “all these connections are like a bonus (…) you cannot totally rely on that.” Whereas others, such as IXP8 defined opportunities by stating that: “network are more like a helpline.”

(27)

definitely depending on the purpose.”. The Netherlands I went there with a specific purpose to finish my internship, and I had further goals outside the Netherlands.” The SIE main goal or driver when relocating and what they valued most overseas will most likely shape the type of network pursued.

SIEs expectation towards their network

The network outcome seems to bring divergent findings. There are two different school of thoughts regarding the notion of “expectations” from the SIEs’ network. While some clearly outlined that they were not expecting anything after they had helped someone, others but fewer, clearly highlighted that they expect something from their network. For example, IXP8 was not expecting “returns”. “I'm not like I give you, I help you with this. And now you have to help me too (…) we're friends.” IXP7 and IXP5 bring more nuances and express that depending on the individual, they will have different expectations.

“it really depends on the person, (…) some people, yes, I expect they could provide me some returns but for some colleagues which is my good friend, I didn’t expect that.” (IXP7)

Interestingly, it appears that the “position” the individual holds in the SIE’s network will influence the degree of expectations this person brings. The higher the person and the more influence, the more expectations, the migrant might have. This information arose from half of the sample. For example, IXP1 explains the different levels of expectations: “when I’m trying to network with senior leaders, for sure because, they usually have hiring power..”

Network outcomes

Another contrasting finding is whether the SIEs would try to develop a network before relocating, some SIEs answered that they would not know how to do so.

“I don’t know how I would build a network while I am not there.” (IXP1)

Although, some SIEs did not share this same view, because it would help the SIE to settle down and grant him some objectives to follow.

(28)

do that by catching up with people. I’ve already did, just on LinkedIn, talk to people who are in real estate, in Mexico.” (IXP8)

Another key outcome from the network is the influence the social network has on a self-initiated expatriate on his intention to stay in the host-country, which is based upon the SIEs’ social network strength. Indeed, four people expressed their views on this topic

“It’d actually strongly depend on my social networking” (IXP2)

The last outcome expressed by half of the SIEs is the personal growth they gained from developing both social and professional bonds whilst abroad. This self-development aspect was acquired from SIE in different ways. For IXP1 it was mostly through his mentor. IXP4 reflected on his experience in South Korea and stated how adapting to different cultural norms changed his personality and views on the world. IXP8 self-awareness and challenges he encountered while working with his peers and launching his business ultimately shaped a better version of himself.

“It has made me who I’m, (…), because I’ve learned, I’ve developed myself a lot.” (IXP8)

Third theme: Developing connections abroad

The developing connections abroad theme englobes two subsidiary themes: “building relationships abroad” and “maintaining network relationships”. The former has a subsequent impact on how and with whom does the Self-Initiated Expatriates create his connection pool, while the latter explains by which means are these connections sustained over-time. Most SIEs reported that a large portion of their connections made abroad was composed of “like-minded” people. They usually share the same interests, fields, age, international experiences and desire to explore different cultures and countries amongst other factors. Different expatriates such as IXP1 and IXP8 expressed that like-minded people are extremely important connections to have. They allow SIEs to further develop themselves both at a personal and professional level. As IXP8 claimed:

(29)

you're learning the same way about the culture, the language. So, all those intentions align really easily, which makes me get along with my colleagues a lot”

Developing connections abroad

The way these relationships seem to spring are through regular chats where SIEs can engage with their connections. Indeed, IXP1 expressed that “relationships are also build, very strongly when you have good chats, like casual but, good chats with the people (…) really helped building relationships”. According to the different SIEs, these conversations should rather be consistent than long as it helps building and shaping relationships. While for some these interactions took place at the office, during lunch break or in-between meetings, as IXP2 reported. For others, the relationships crystallized outside the working environment, usually after work.

“some of them (colleagues) had families (…), they were still not afraid to hang out after work for one hour, two hours and just talk” (IXP4)

Maintaining network relationships

After developing some connections in the host-country, SIEs are confronted with the challenge to maintain such relations. All expatriates expressed their views about how they maintain their connections, and while some findings seem to converge, others are quite distinct. The similar patterns which emerged from the interviews are the extensive usage of social media. IXP7 expressed that she “relies on social network app very much. Especially LinkedIn.” IXP1 and others stated that they relied more on setting up calls and sending personalized note “occasionally” with a purposeful message. For example, IXP1 indicated: “try to reflect on something, or ask for advice or just to stay engage”. IXP8, IXP4 and IXP1 despite their different backgrounds, host-country choices and length of stay, they all expressed that building and maintaining relationships is a tough process because you shall devote time and efforts. It seems that one the reason why SIEs build and maintain relationships during working hours or through social media is due to the time constraint outside of work. This helps to partially fill in a gap mentioned by Pinto and Araujo (2015) that further research should explore the development of ties and networks for SIEs.

(30)

is harder to sustain, IXP4 expressed: “the main people in my career network, over-time, they changed”. SIEs tend to frequently switch companies and countries, thus it makes harder to have strongly rooted relationships. However, IXP5 is the migrant who stayed the longest at the host-country (four years) and reported that around 40% of her connections got stronger over-time. Perhaps, this could be explained by the expatriates’ length of stay. On another note, connections such as friends include broader and deeper subjects of discussion as the conversations are more casual without specifically having a purposes before engaging. Interviewee 8 encapsulates this idea:

“we still have a good time, we chat, and socially it’s very interesting, we stay up to date on the country and on the people, that’s great!” (IXP8)

This does not necessarily mean that SIEs maintain their connections with more people within their social connections, instead, it is more natural and common to interact with friends on social media.

Fourth theme: Networking purposes:

Prior receiving the beneficial impacts from their network, SIEs shall dedicate time, effort and show initiative to develop a network. Indeed, spending time was the main hurdle preventing SIE from developing their desired network. IXP7 stated: “I focused so much time on work. So, I didn't really develop my social network.” Time is not the only constraint, the amount of “efforts” required seemed to also be an important factor. For example, IXP1 learned some Hungarian to feel better integrated with his colleagues and friends. “they see you put in the effort and are more likely to talk back and engage (…) which worked quite well.” IXP6 mentioned the importance of “showing-up” and make your presence known, which comes down to making considerable efforts should the migrant wants to develop connections.

tell people, hey, I want to do this, do you have any connection (…) Maybe people just going to give you a name, and then you can just go on from there.” (IXP6)

(31)

network supported them during their expatriation journey. The support crystallized in different ways whether it stayed within the professional sphere or extended to the SIE’s personal life.

Career network beneficial impacts

IXP2, IXP4, IXP6 and IXP7 referred on how their career network, often-times their direct manager, helped them professionally. IXP2 explained: “they were really great about helping me a lot with any questions I had (…) I could always talk to them about any issues.” The support also materialized in a more practical manner as IXP8 described: “I needed a network to get to know how to work out some stuff, legally, or just that I rent property.” Previous and current SIEs’ colleagues also aided them in their personal life. For instance, IXP3 expressed: “she helped me to set up my bank account and find my accommodation in Japan.” Both expatriate 1 and IXP7 highlighted how their career network provided information on the host-country, and hints to smoothen their arrival process and ease the relocation process overall which caused less stress.

Also, most SIEs mentioned the importance of getting referred to somebody or getting referred by someone, in turn leading SIEs to secure a job abroad. Half of the expatriates got reference letters, which helped them eventually (either to be promoted, get another job or apply to a renowned university.) As IXP7 mentioned: “I become more reliable”, while IXP3 “got introduced” to more people and IXP5 “got another job” as this person’s application had more weight. Moreover, it seems that the SIE’s career network support is not a “one-go” contribution. Instead, it sets the foundation for more opportunities and enhances the SIE overall working experiences. This situation hold true for IXP4. Through his mentor’s help, the migrant secured a one-year contract in Switzerland, followed by an admission at a prestigious university in Switzerland, which led the SIE to further stay in this country. These experiences will eventually appear stronger and more credible upon returning to the job market.

“we would meet like once a month, for two, three hours, (…) she’d say ok, that’s what you should say (…), she’d also ask me some questions and do a short simulation of the interview

(…) that helped me get the job in Switzerland.” (IXP4)

Social network beneficial impacts

(32)

IXP7 expressed: “I can work more healthily.” While IXP5 needed people to understand “her pain”. In the same line, IXP6 developed and indicated that he truly needs emotional support SIE’s life are filled with constant up and downs as there are numerous challenges to cope with. Hence, it is extremely important to “have a chance to talk to someone about how you feel, what you want and guide you through.”

Besides friends, family also played an important role for three expatriates. IXP3 got family support during her relocation process which helped “to settle down”. While the family of IXP2 financially supported the expat throughout the journey. Beyond the emotional support, the social network granted more benefits to the SIE. It is always important to gather information, on life abroad, the cultural differences, what should be done/avoided etc. As IXP7 defined: “I need information from outside, so, I need a social network.” This network influence the SIE overall experience abroad and may consequently influence the migrant decision to stay or leave. Therefore, regardless of the social network support, there is an undeniable strength and influence emanating from this network.

“I feel like friends are really important.” (XPI4)

Five theme: Self-Evolvement for SIEs abroad

Challenges related to self-expatriation

(33)

SIEs reported that finding an accommodation was one of the most challenging part. Some tried to seek an apartment while not being yet physically abroad, while others already were. This aspect also triggered stress for SIEs because it added up to others work-related and unknown factors when settling to a new environment. However, IXP8 already knew someone from his network and managed to find an accommodation through this person which smoothen his relocation process.

SIEs international experiences effects on cross-cultural adjustment

While perhaps, some would argue that the level of international experiences would alter these stress difficulties (quoted in Lee and Sukoco, 2010). It does not always seem to be so. Indeed, Six out of the eight interviewees had significant previous experiences abroad. It most often took form of university exchanges abroad, internships abroad or work experiences overseas. This did not prevent most SIEs to experience cultural shocks whether the host-country was culturally very distant as IXP5 felt, (from Taiwan to the UK) or culturally closer such as IXP4 who travelled from Lithuania to Switzerland. The cultural shock felt by the interviewees varied enormously from person to person. While the Taiwanese migrants were shocked in the differences of work ethic between their home- and host-country in Europe, others were more troubled by cultural cues differences. As IXP4 reported:

“they are a bit more sensitive in Switzerland than in Lithuania. (…) it was a surprise.”

Interestingly, it appears that to reduce or avoid cultural shocks and other related stress-factors, the SIE should have considerable international experiences and not only one or two. Indeed, some authors have mentioned the impact of expatriates’ international experiences on cross-cultural adjustments but did not precisely indicated a “threshold” level where the international experiences become significant and “valuable”. For instance, IXP1, IXP7 and IXP8 have the most multicultural exposure as they each stayed in their host-countries for at least 2.5 years and at minimum in three distinct countries. They are the only respondents who have not experienced cultural shocks despite encountering similar difficulties and challenges than other SIEs.

(34)

While internationally experienced SIE seem to benefit from their stay overseas in various ways, (e.g. Froese 2012; Cilvjak, 2019), they are not immune to all issues. Indeed, the same expatriates along with expatriate 5 reported that it was notably tough to meet new people abroad. IXP8 expressed: “I spent quite some time working. So outside of work, I'm very limited in the people I meet.” This challenge appears to be found anywhere rather than in a particular environment. IXP7, the SIE with the most time spent abroad in most distinct places highlighted: “I have to say it’s quite difficult, no matter in which country.”

Six theme: Environment Interplay for SIEs

This theme is broken down into three subsidiary theme: “power of the environment on the SIE”, “host-country language influence on staying” and “cross-cultural adjustments levels.” The SIEs indicated that the environment in which they evolve has an impact on their relationships, more specifically, with whom they decide to engage and the nature of the relationships. For example, IXP2 connected with fellow interns in her host-country, the Netherlands. Most of the interns did not know anyone prior the internship which “definitely helped us bond with each other.” In the same line, IXP7 and IXP8 mentioned that they did not have much contacts besides the ones from work. Consequently, they developed ties with their co-workers. These connections were sometimes “relationships by default” whereas other times it was a voluntary act to nurture these contacts. As such the environment in which the SIE grows and ends up affect its overall experiences and the type of connection developed.

“I always try to compare it to what if I would meet this person in the Netherlands where I already have my family and my friends and all that stuff. (IXP8)

Host-language importance

(35)

“that was a bit harder to adjust to because of the big language barrier.” While the language barrier affect negatively the expatriates’ adaptation abroad, this can also create further obstacles. Indeed, IXP5 has been in the UK for four years and can communicate in the local language fluently, she used to work at a Mexican restaurant where 95% of her colleagues were Spanish-speakers and could not necessarily communicate in English, as such, she felt excluded and quit this position.

“I found that most of time they just chat and talk in Spanish. So, I couldn’t really blend in with them (…)” (IXP5)

Also, IXP3 encountered a similar situation where the migrant initially thought that Japanese people could fairly easily communicate in English and that speaking Japanese was not required. IXP3 mentioned: “when I arrived in my agency there were like 50 people and just two or three people were speaking a little English (…) when I wanted to speak with a colleague, they were like “Gomenasai” (sorry) I can’t speak English.” Consequently, the important language barrier jeopardized the migrant to stay in Japan.

Whereas the above-mentioned expatriates faced some strong challenges arising from the host-country language differences, others SIEs saw an opportunity to develop their linguistic skills and to learn or practice the host-country language. For instance, IXP4 had learned German in high-school at his home-country, Lithuania, and desired to practice this language. As he stated: “it helped me that I knew some German (...) to just look for the information.” IXP8 had learned some Spanish during his time in Mexico and upon going back to a Spanish-speaking country; Columbia. It was a great opportunity to further develop this skillset which eased the integration process.

“I already spoke the language a bit. (…) you're also more interested to dive into that whole cultural environment, learning with people learn the mentality.” (IXP8)

(36)

“Like that is the biggest advantage.” (IXP7)

The consequences of the knowledge or non-knowledge of a local language for a SIE can take several dimensions as highlighted throughout this section, whether it affects the communication with other people, the work environment or the decision to stay or leave the host-country. Whereas for others it can be turned as an advantage to better integrate into new environments.

Cultural differences

The cultural cues differences impacted the SIEs very differently based upon several factors. More specifically, which cultural cues had the most impact on the expatriates. For instance, IXP5 and IXP7 are both Taiwanese and both expressed the long-working hours as a major hurdle in their home-country and were positively “shocked” by the work ethic in Europe, and this somewhat strongly impacted their intention to stay in their host-country. IXP7 claimed “they work very balanced (…) So, a lot of the time, I think it’s the core difference. And obviously, I prefer to have the balance.” This notion of work-life balance seemed important for these two expatriates. However, IXP1 had the opposite feeling. During his expatriation in France, IXP1 reflected on how the French people approached work with limited working hours per week, arriving late at work, and socializing until late in the evenings. This were not aligned with IXP1 views on work, to the extent where relocating in England instead of France would have been preferred.

“I’m more of a morning person and I function better in this kind of environment (…), if I reflect to the English working culture, I think that suits me simply better” (IXP1)

(37)

SIEs’ partner

Also, the SIE’s partner seemed to not have a homogenous role across the sample. Indeed, IXP2 mentioned that even though her partner was in the same host-country, this did not represent a factor of relocation. “Not at all, because I tried keep that separate. (…) I made that decision actively before applying to jobs that I wouldn't base it on that.” For IXP4, the country of relocation should be somewhat close to South-Germany where her partner resides. While the relocation choice was not solely based upon that, it moderately influenced the SIE on the relocation choice. “it helps when Lea (partner’s name) comes over. It's really good.” Regarding IXP5, the partner had an enormous impact on the SIE’s life. It essentially led the expatriate to stay in the host-country, connected with more people through the partner’s network and felt integrated through him.

“Mainly because of my husband, I find myself actually fit in this country, (…). If he was not here (…) Then I would go back to Taiwan or I would go back to Taiwan and then go to other

countries again.” (IXP5)

Seven theme: Settlement choices for SIEs’ future

The last part of the findings will cover the settlement choices for SIEs, whether it is to stay in the host-country, relocate elsewhere or repatriate. Importantly, some interviewees were contradicting themselves on their decisions, while some were conscious of this, they sometimes said: “this is a tricky question”, “it’s a good question” or “it’s a difficult question.” Thus, the researcher acknowledged their responses but tried to dig deeper in order to understand why and how they could have different views on a topic.

Relocation motivating factors

Initially, all eight SIEs expressed a desire for adventures and challenges as a main motivating factor to relocate. They all explained in their own terms that they enjoyed “going to new places”, discovering new cultures, learning more (i.e. culturally and personally). There was also a notion of challenges and even unusual “things to do” which motivated SIEs to move abroad.

(38)

Regarding the relocation choices from SIEs, 50% mentioned that they would relocate to a place which has an interesting opportunity over their preferred geographic location. Also, most often, the SIEs applied in different locations and eventually relocated where the job was located. For example, IXP1 stated: “I didn’t per se choose the country, I wanted to choose a good company where I was able to gain adequate work experiences.” Interestingly, push/pull factors did not seem to heavily influence the SIE on the country of relocation whereas other authors found otherwise (e.g. Froese 2012; Cilvjak 2019: Tharenou and Caulfield, 2010). Two expatriates mentioned these factors but this was not relevant in their decision-making.

Factors influencing decisions to stay

In the “factors influencing the decision to stay” subsidiary theme, the author noticed several important results. Half of the respondents mentioned “life-quality” in the host-country as being influential. IXP4, IXP5 and IXP7 indicated that their salary was much higher abroad than in their respective home-country. Also, the general quality of life was important, which pushed them to stay longer abroad.

“overall the life quality is still better than I had in Taipei.” (IXP5)

The SIEs “life-stage” was also another essential parameter. The expatriate age and where the migrant stood in his career seemed to greatly impact the migrant’s decision to take “more risks”, to travel more, to relocate, and the type of people belonging to the SIEs’ network. For instance, IXP7 is 29 years old and explained how her network’s perception formerly was: “before I was young, I don't have so many resources. So, I want to have more career network. I want to know more managers.” Also, IXP3 was 22 years-old when she had to had to choose between staying or leaving, and mentioned: “I thought I was too young to stay in japan, (…) the second time I came back.”

SIEs also encountered some “side-effects” as they stayed in the host-country. Three migrants indicated that they lost part of their connections over-time because they became distant with some individuals. Even though the SIEs had met a large amount of people during their sojourn, it became difficult to maintain contacts with everybody. Thereby, their network naturally dropped off.

(39)

Also, the same desire for adventure and challenges as mentioned earlier, led SIEs to relocate again in the future. If another opportunity would arise, they would most likely leave as IXP6 indicated. IXP8 already had a pre-defined plan that it would only stay for a certain amount of time in Columbia before relocating to another country within South America. All expats stayed in their host-country during the whole duration of their working contracts, and some even extended their stay. Many SIEs planned to relocate either to another country or to their “first” country of relocation. However, only IXP7 left her host-country before the “initial due date.” This was caused by a poor adjustment. Indeed, the migrant quit Cambodia because she couldn’t adapt and cope with the Cambodian culture and environments, leading to poor performance at work, leaving IXP7 in a “bad state of mind both physically and mentally.”

Elements leading to SIEs’ repatriation

The last part of the findings aimed at identifying the elements that would lead a SIE to repatriate. Three expatriates mentioned that despite their eagerness to stay in the host-country, they would repatriate if a “shock” happens. Such as, important family issues or health problems. Also, IXP2 expressed: “if my social or working network would have fallen apart, (…), that would make me feel more like I would want to return.” In addition, all SIEs mentioned during the interview that their home-country network (including mostly friends and family) would be the core factor influencing their decision to repatriate.

“that's definitely the hardest thing (…). I definitely miss my family and my friends there.” (IXP6)

Interestingly, over half of the self-initiated expatriates mentioned that they already had a “medium-term” plan before relocating, which includes what they would do in their host-country, the length of stay along-with potential future projects. For example, IXP7 would have stayed in Singapore but she had already in mind to undertake a master’s degree in the Netherlands and was aware that, she would have to leave Singapore eventually. The migrant desired to go back there after completing her studies.

“I want to work in Singapore again. But at that time, I still wanted to explore the new things and the new country. So that's why I went to Netherlands. but if in the future, (…), I will want

(40)

(41)

V. Discussion

The findings of this thesis indicate that both career and social networks are important and powerful in influencing SIEs decision to stay in the host-country. SIEs’ career network provided a huge pool of knowledge, advice and references. Richardson and McKenna (2014) in their study identified that expatriates owning a substantial network in the host-country would provide more references, recommendations and other leads. Nearly all SIEs in this thesis got various assistance from their network. This contribution had a “snowball effect” where a connection led to another, and a reference helped to achieve a goal then another. This finding attempted to fill in a gap expressed by Pinto and Araujo (2015) on how SIEs network assist relocation choice and intention to stay abroad.

Additionally, SIEs described “network” as a “very important” aspect of a migrant life. This importance is characterized by the initial purpose the SIE has to build a network in the first place. However, only half of them actively pursued building a solid network. The main driver for SIEs to relocate was a desire for adventure and challenges. Half expressed that they would prioritize the career opportunity over the host-country choice. The factors influencing SIEs decision to stay lied in the SIE’s life-stage, the life quality in the host-country and based upon the initial SIEs plan prior relocating. The SIE’s life-stage is a new finding which leads to several implications. A SIE around 25 years old, unsettled, and single might be more prone to stay overseas since they do not yet have many “responsibilities”, which allow them to utilize this time-frame to stay for a longer period in their host-country and can take more risks in the beginning of their careers.

P1: The SIEs life-stage (e.g. age and “career level”) will most likely influence his/her decision to stay in their host-country.

(42)

influenced significantly their careers and life decisions, including the company’s choice, the host-country location, the length of stay amongst other factors. Other studies have mentioned that owning a substantial network predicts the level of emotional support and pertinent sources for informational support (e.g. Seibert, 2001; Pinto and Araujo, 2015). The author found matching results along with a new finding that the social networks greatly influenced SIEs intent to stay. SIEs mentioned that their social network provided emotional support and contributed to mental health whereas their career network offered informational support (i.e. finding accommodation, local tips, guidance etc.) This implies that socials networks benefit more SIEs personal life whereas the career network offers more practical support.

P2: SIEs holding a substantial career network in their host-country will be more likely to receive career support (e.g. references) and will benefit from more work-related opportunities.

Regarding locals, Pinto and Araujo (2015) revealed in their paper that SIEs actively formed ties with locals, since they usually grant support, and further extend the SIEs host-network. Makela and colleagues (2012) further elaborated that SIEs display high levels of motivation to establish strong friendships relations and professional bounds with host-individuals. However, this thesis highlighted that SIEs did not rely on locals. The main reason was the language barrier which prevented interaction between the expat and the host-individuals. However, even expatriates with knowledge of the local language did not necessarily trust nor had strong ties with the locals, in fact, they represented a tiny fraction of their networks. These results could vary based upon the country characteristics and how local people react to foreigners along with the host-country spoken language. Also, perhaps, SIEs who knew that would stay for a significant period abroad would seek to develop deeper bonds with locals to facilitate their life overseas.

Towards a deeper understanding on the influence of career and social networks on Self-initiated expatriates’ intention to stay in their host-country