career and international assignment fit: toward an integrative model of success

Human Resource Management,Human Resource Management, January–February 2009, Vol. 48, No. 1, Pp. 5– 25

© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20264

CAREER AND INTERNATIONAL

ASSIGNMENT FIT: TOWARD

AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF

SUCCESS

J E A N - L U C C E R D I N A N D M A R I E L E PA R G N E U X

This article examines how the fi t between career and international assignment is likely to affect the success of the international assignment (IA) at its various stages. We propose an integrative model of IA success that encompasses three stages: pre-expatriation, expatriation, and repatriation. The main objective of this article is to contribute to the understanding of how individuals’ career characteristics infl uence IA success during expatriation and repatriation. In our model, IA success is considered from both the individual and organizational perspective. In addition to drawing on the theory of fi t to examine IA success during the expatriation and repatriation stages, we also use human capital and signal theory to examine the relationship between expatriation success and repatriation success. The propositions of our conceptual research provide practical and theoretical implications. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: career, international assignment success, expatriation, repatriation

Research on expatriation primarily addresses the success of interna-tional assignments (IAs) through international adjustment (e.g., Bhas-kar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, &

Luk, 2005; Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). This research has led to a better un-derstanding of the factors that influence in-ternational adjustment and job performance. Variables linked to individuals’ careers gener-ally are not included among the determinants of international adjustment, however. In other words, previous research has addressed individuals’ success during international as-signments without taking into consideration

individual differences in terms of career. Our perspective of fit between career and inter-national assignment sheds new light on IA success.

Following the work of Feldman and Tho-mas (1992), research on careers in a global context has developed, but without precise guidelines (Cerdin & Bird, 2008). There is an evident lack of conceptual research that links career theory and IA success. In their conception of IA success, Yan, Zhu, and Hall (2002) take into account the expatriation and repatriation stages, as well as the indi-vidual and organizational benefi ts. Drawing on this work, recent research has examined

Correspondence to: Jean-Luc Cerdin, ESSEC Business School, Management Department, Avenue Bernard Hirsch—B.P. 105, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, France, Phone: (+33) 1 34 43 30 25, Fax: (+33) 1 34 43 36 90, E-mail: [email protected]

6 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

IA success from both the individual and or-ganizational perspective but has concen-trated on the repatriation stage alone (e.g., Kraimer & Shaffer, 2004; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007). Studies centered on IA success have been carried out at the organizational level, examining in particular how organizational strategies, policies, and practices affect suc-cess (Baruch & Altman, 2002), and/or at the individual level, examining such issues as how personality and/or perception of or-

ganizational support affect an in-dividual’s success (e.g., Kraimer & Shaffer, 2004; Lazarova & Ca-ligiuri, 2001; O’Sullivan, 2002). Despite the considerable contri-butions of these studies to the fi eld of international assignment and, in particular, to the fi eld of repatriation, with few exceptions (e.g., Baruch & Altman, 2002) they rarely consider IA suc-cess at its different stages. Today, the literature on IA success overemphasizes the repatriation stage while neglecting to inte-grate the other stages of an inter-national assignment—that is, the stage before expatriation and ex-patriation itself.

The purpose of this article is to provide an integrative model of IA success by using career-linked theories. Our model takes into account three stages of an international assignment—pre-expatriation, expatriation, and

repatriation—and also proposes a double perspective of success: at the individual and organizational levels. It is designed only for international assignments in the context of a multinational company, where an individ-ual is transferred to a foreign subsidiary for several years before returning to the parent company. This traditional international as-signment encompasses an expatriation stage, which usually lasts two or three years, and a repatriation stage, which normally does not last more than two years and usually corre-sponds to the fi rst job held by individuals upon return. At the heart of this research is

the desire to understand how individuals’ career characteristics infl uence IA success during expatriation and repatriation.

Studying the individual career character-istics that may determine the success of an international assignment has become neces-sary because of the evolution of employee relations and careers. Employee relations in-creasingly are moving toward transactional exchanges between parties and, consequently, the individual is becoming more of an actor in his or her career. As a result, careers are now more open and diverse and less dependent on the employer (Baruch, 2003). This larger autonomy is refl ected in the evolution of careers, with the emergence of boundaryless careers (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996) and prote-an careers (Hall, 1996). The essential contribu-tion of this article is to propose a conceptual career model aimed at individuals and their organizations to help them better understand career-linked success factors at the different stages of an international assignment.

To justify the individual and organiza-tional success criteria used in our model, we begin with a brief review of the literature on IA success. We then examine the link be-tween individuals’ career characteristics and these success criteria. We base our model on the theory of fi t—that is, the congruence be-tween individuals’ career characteristics and international assignment characteristics. This theory of fi t also leads us to study the link between individuals’ career decisions before expatriation and IA success during expatria-tion. Finally, we examine the link between success during the expatriation stage and success during the repatriation stage, and end with theoretical and practical contribu-tions and implications.

The Elements of International Assignment Success

The criteria proposed by the literature for measuring IA success are multiple and heterogeneous. Therefore, we propose to re-defi ne them in coherence with both emerg-ing career theories and the results of the most recent research on international assign-ments. Yan et al. (2002) and other researchers

Our model takes

into account

three stages of

an international

assignment—

pre-expatriation,

expatriation, and

repatriation—and

also proposes a

double perspective

of success: at

the individual and

organizational

levels.

Career and International Assignment Fit: Toward an Integrative Model of Success 7


have recognized that the individual’s defi ni-tion of IA success can be different from that of the organization (Kraimer & Shaffer, 2004; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Suutari & Brews-ter, 2003). In our model we retain IA success from both the individual and organizational perspective during both expatriation and re-patriation, but in such a way as to combine criteria that are scattered throughout the ca-reer or international assignment literature. International assignment success is more complex than what the literature usually proposes. Individual success during expatria-tion and repatriation encompasses what we call career success, job success, and develop-ment success. We also propose to measure IA success at the organizational level during ex-patriation and repatriation by performance (which consists in the achievement of key or-ganizational objectives and the accomplish-ment of organizational tasks), the transfer of expertise, network and relationship building, and retention of employees.

Career Success

Studies on careers suggest taking into ac-count objective as well as subjective meas-ures, as they “refl ect not only conventional standards of success, but also feelings of suc-cess relative to an individual’s own goals and expectations” (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001, p. 220). Career success lies at the center of individuals’ concerns during each stage of the international assignment—before, during, and after expatriation (Tung, 1988). In our model, we retain career satisfaction, promotion, and pay increase as measures of individual career success, during both ex-patriation and repatriation. This approach is consistent with the literature on career success in the domestic context (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001).

Job Success

Job success during the expatriation and re-patriation stages can be defi ned by the cri-terion of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is “an affective attitudinal response to the work

environment” (Lankau & Scandura, 2002, p. 781). For Feldman and Tompson (1993), “a positive general job satisfaction is an im-portant indicator of adjustment to new jobs.” (p. 509). Individuals must adjust to new jobs during expatriation as well as during repatri-ation. Thus, we consider job success to be a criterion of individual success during both expatriation and repatriation.

Development Success

The success criterion of marketa-bility during the repatriation stage echoes the criterion of the acqui-sition of international knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) during the expatriation stage. Accord-ing to Baruch (2001), “the way to gain employability depends on the ability of people to acquire competencies that are required in the labor market” (p. 545). Indi-viduals must maintain their value in both the internal and external labor market through transfer-able skills (Eby, Butts, & Lock-wood, 2003; Sullivan, Carden, & Martin, 1998). International KSA acquisition and marketability are indispensable in the context of new careers, which are character-ized by diminished job security and transactional relationships between employers and employ-ees (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Eby et al., 2003). As a result, we consider intenational KSA ac-quisition to be an essential indicator of ex-patriation success and marketability to be an essential indicator of repatriation success.

Finally, network and relationship build-ing can be considered an essential criterion of individual success. Expatriation allows in-dividuals to develop a network of contacts around the world (e.g., Caligiuri & Di San-to, 2001; Stahl & Cerdin, 2004). Networks help individuals perform at work (Green-haus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990) and develop their skills through shared experi-ence (Schein, 1996). In a domestic context,

In our model we

retain IA success

from both the

individual and

organizational

perspective during

both expatriation

and repatriation, but

in such a way as

to combine criteria

that are scattered

throughout

the career or

international

assignment

literature.



network building is considered a key factor in achieving individual career objectives (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Achieving their career objectives is a concern for indi-viduals not only during expatriation but also during repatriation. Thus, network and rela-tionship building should be a criterion for individual success during the expatriation and repatriation stages.

Organizational Success

Performance is an important cri-terion for IA success from the org-anizational perspective (Caligiuri,1997; Harzing & Christensen, 2004; Porter & Tansky, 1999). In our model, we use two criteria for the expatriation stage: the achieve-ment of key organizational objec-tives (Porter & Tansky, 1999; Yan et al., 2002) and the accomplish-ment of organizational tasks (Yan et al., 2002). Porter and Tansky (1999) consider that organization-al success can be defi ned in terms of the expatriate achieving certain specifi ed goals, such as fi nancial goals or quality objectives. These two criteria also can be applied to the repatriation stage. Organiza-tional success upon repatriation could be defi ned in terms of the repatriate achieving certain speci-fi ed objectives and accomplishing certain organizational tasks, such as implementing a process or reducing the length of a marketing cycle, as a result of the transfer of experience to the home organiza-

tion upon repatriation. The transfer of expertise can be seen as a

generic term to measure the contribution of individuals during their international assign-ment. The transfer of expertise is one of the main reasons organizations expatriate employ-ees (e.g., Hocking, Brown, & Harzing, 2004). During their international assignment, indi-viduals may transfer expertise to foreign sub-sidiaries and also transfer the expertise they have gained during the international assign-

ment back to the home organization (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007). The transfer of expertise repre-sents an essential source of competitiveness for multinational companies, as does a network of international contacts (Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001) during both the expatriation and repatriation stages.

The literature on the repatriation stage of an international assignment strong-ly emphasizes the problems linked to the high rate of turnover recorded in the months following repatriation (e.g., Black, 1992; Bossard & Peterson, 2005; Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001; Suutari & Brewster, 2003). The retention of repatriates is an essential criterion of organizational success at the repatriation stage. Retention of expatriates during their expatriation also should be a cri-terion of organizational success, as departure would signify a loss for the organization in terms of the cost of the expatriation and the organization’s investment in the expatriates’ KSAs.

All the IA success criteria explained above are combined into an integrated mod-el that attempts to provide a comprehensive and multidimensional defi nition of IA suc-cess. Our research model (Figure 1) proposes that IA success is explained by career vari-ables before, during, and after expatriation. Based on the theory of fi t, we propose that (1) before expatriation, career decision vari-ables have an impact on IA success and (2) during expatriation and repatriation career characteristics have an impact on IA suc-cess. Our model also proposes that expatria-tion success has an impact on repatriation success.

The Career Decision-Expatriation Fit

The decision whether to accept an expatria-tion can have a signifi cant impact on an indi-vidual’s career. In our model, we propose that there is a link between the pre- expatriation stage and expatriation itself in that the ele-ments of this decision will have an impact on IA success during expatriation. Indeed, we propose that the congruence between certain elements of the decision and expatriation

The relationships

between motives

and IA success as

defined in this article

have not yet been

empirically tested

or theoretically

explained. We

propose that a

perspective of fit

between motivation

to go abroad

and international

assignment provides

such a theoretical

explanation.



characteristics will result in IA success. We retain in our model two elements of the deci-sion to accept an expatriation: (1) motivation to go abroad and (2) free choice to accept the expatriation. As the motivation to go abroad and free choice to accept the expatriation are elements of this decision, and as the de-cision to accept an expatriation can have a signifi cant impact on an individual’s career, we place these elements under the term “career decision” in our model.

The Motivation to Go Abroad

Research on individuals’ motives to go abroad in the context of a traditional expa-triation fi nds both positive and negative mo-tives (Torbiörn, 1976). Positive motives can

arise from an individual’s willingness to gain new personal and/or professional experiences. Examples of such positive mo-tives are “personal challenge” and “profes-sional development” (Stahl & Cerdin, 2004; Stahl, Miller, & Tung, 2002). Negative mo-tives can arise from an individual’s dissat-isfaction with prevailing home conditions, limited career possibilities within the par-ent company, and desire to escape personal problems. An example of such a negative motive is the “desire to escape from some-thing rather than to search for something positive” (Borg, 1988).

The relationships between motives and IA success as defi ned in this article have not yet been empirically tested or theoretically explained. We propose that a perspective

FIGURE 1. An Integrative Model of International Assignment Success

IA success is explained by career variables before, during, and after expatriation. Based on the theory of fi t, we propose that (1) before expatriation, career decision variables have an impact on IA success, and (2) during expatriation and repatriation career characteristics have an impact on IA success. Expatriation success also has an impact on repatriation success.



of fi t between motivation to go abroad and international assignment provides such a theoretical explanation. Expatriation often entails challenges and offers the expatri-ates the opportunity to develop personally and professionally (Tung, 1998). Therefore, there is a high probability of congruence between positive motives (such as person-al challenge or professional development) and the characteristics of expatriation, which is likely to be favorable to indi-vidual and organizational success during

expatriation. According to Phatak (1989),

running away from problems ex-perienced in the home country presumably does not bode well for future success in the host country, and many human re-sources managers and experts agree (Copeland & Griggs, 1988). A perspective of fi t theoretically supports this assertion. The pur-pose of an international assign-ment is not to solve individuals’ problems (Cerdin & Dubouloy, 2004). If individuals accept an in-ternational assignment for “the wrong reasons”—for example, to run away from problems—these problems may compound any challenges they face in the host country. There is a high prob-ability of incongruence between “negative” motives and expatria-tion characteristics, which is not likely to be favorable to individual success or organizational success

during expatriation.

Proposition 1: IA success during the expatriation stage, from both the individual and organi-zational perspective, is more likely when the motivation to go abroad is positive rather than negative.

Free Choice to Accept the Expatriation

This decision element refers to the degree to which individuals can choose to

accept an expatriation. In a study of 118 expatriates, Feldman and Thomas (1992) found that free choice to accept the expatria-tion and some expatriation outcomes, such as intrinsic motivation, are related, though not significantly. A more recent study of 268 expatriates (Bolino & Feldman, 2000) showed that underemployment was higher among expatriates who did not freely choose to ac-cept the overseas assignment. In a study of 230 expatriates, Kraimer and Wayne (2004) also found a relationship between free choice and expatriate adjustment. To our knowl-edge, no studies have justified this relation-ship on a theoretical basis. We propose that a perspective of fit between free choice to accept the expatriation and international as-signment characteristics provides a theoreti-cal explanation for the relationship between free choice to accept the expatriation and IA success.

According to image theory (Beach, 1990), three “images” defi ne the individual in the decision-making process. Beach (1990), de-fi nes these images as “the cognitive structures that summarize the decision maker’s knowl-edge about what must be accomplished and why, about how it is to be done, and about the results of efforts to do it” (p. 6). From this per-spective, expatriation could be a “candidate” for a compatibility test between expatriation characteristics and individuals’ principles, goals, or plans. For example, the question “Is it worth it?” is often part of the compat-ibility test for individuals. Individuals have a set of images for different domains of their lives—namely, work, family, friends, leisure, and religion (Beach, 1990). They may con-sider these fi ve domains of their lives when deciding whether to accept an expatriation. If individuals conclude that the expatriation is “not worth it,” they are likely to turn it down. In other words, they will not consider accept-ing the expatriation, as it may not be congru-ent with the images they have for their life domains. This is the action they will take if they are given a choice by the organization. On the contrary, if they are not free to choose, they are likely to accept an expatriation that will not be congruent with the images they have for their life domains. Expatriation will

In our model of IA

success we build

on career theory

and the theory of

fit, and we retain

four career-linked

variables to explain

IA success: career

anchors, a careerist

orientation, a

protean career

attitude, and a

boundaryless career

attitude.



be endured, but there is a high probability that its characteristics will not be congruent with individuals’ reasons behind the decision to accept it. This incongruence is not likely to be favorable to individual and organizational success during the expatriation stage.

Proposition 2: IA success during the expatria-tion stage, from both the individual and organizational perspective, is more likely to occur when expatriation is a result of the individual’s free choice.

The Career-International Assignment Fit

Individual career characteristics correspond to an individual’s internal career. It has be-come necessary to study these characteris-tics in the context where individuals’ values, beliefs, and aspirations have become just as important as the succession of jobs they hold (Suutari & Taka, 2004). In the context of glo-bal careers, we defi ne the career- international assignment fi t as the congruence between certain individual career characteristics and international assignment characteristics. We propose that this congruence between individuals’ career characteristics and the characteristics of an international assign-ment contributes to determining IA success.

In our model of IA success we build on ca-reer theory and the theory of fi t, and we re-tain four career-linked variables to explain IA success: career anchors, a careerist orientation, a protean career attitude, and a boundaryless career attitude. Arthur and Rousseau (1996) found that a large majority of studies over-look the internal aspects of career. Our mod-el focuses on four variables that characterize internal career. As a boundary condition for inclusion in our model, the variables consid-ered must stem directly from career theory, with career intrinsically embedded in each of them.

Career Anchors and IA Success

The theory of career anchors proposes that individuals have a long-term preference regarding their work and their work environ-

ment (Schein, 1996). A career anchor has three components: (1) self-perceived talent and abilities, (2) self-perceived motives and needs, and (3) self-perceived concept attitudes and values (Schein, 1990). The theory of career anchors concentrates on the individual’s in-ternal career (Suutari & Taka, 2004). The con-gruence between individuals’ career anchors and their work environment helps determine whether they will succeed at work—in terms of job performance or job satisfaction—or if they will experience diffi culties at work, such as anxiety or tension (Feldman & Bolino, 1996; Schein, 1990; Suutari & Taka, 2004). Vari-ous constraints can lead individu-als to work in environments that do not correspond to their career anchor. These include economic constraints and their own inaccu-rate evaluation of the job.

Schein (1990) identifi es eight career anchors: technical/functio-nal competence, managerial com-petence, security and stability, entrepreneurial creativity, autono-my and independence, dedication to a cause, pure challenge, and lifestyle. Suutari and Taka (2004) propose a new career anchor, the internationalism anchor, to be added to Schein’s typology.

Most of the research on ca-reer anchors is carried out in a national context. We propose that the notion of fi t should be applied to individuals regardless of the con-text, be it national or international. When individuals achieve congruence between their career anchors and their international work environment, the international as-signment is more likely to be a success from both the individual and organizational per-spective. Certain career anchors, therefore, should be favorable to IA success, while others will create diffi culties for individuals during their international assignment. From a sample of 22 expatriate managers, Suutari and Taka (2004) found that of Schein’s eight career anchors, the most common anchors of individuals with global careers were pure

When individuals

achieve congruence

between their

career anchors and

their international

work environment,

the international

assignment is

more likely to be

a success from

both the individual

and organizational

perspective.



challenge and managerial competence. They also identifi ed the internationalism anchor as being one of the most dominant among the expatriate managers’ career anchors.

Individuals anchored by technical/functional competence wish to progress in jobs that correspond to their technical or functional abilities (Schein, 1990). These in-dividuals have a strong tendency to concen-trate on the technical aspects of their jobs and, thus, may fail to take into account the cultural aspect of their expatriation. The in-

congruence between their anchor and the international environ-ment may diminish the likelihood of IA success during expatriation. Several studies report that skills acquired by individuals during expatriation are not fully utilized by organizations during repa-triation (e.g., Baruch, Steele, & Quantrill, 2002; Berthoin Antal, 2001; Stroh, Gregersen, & Black, 2000). This career anchor is also characterized by the absence of de-sire for change in the type of work performed (Feldman & Bolino, 1996). This may lead to incongru-ence between the technical/func-tional competence anchor and the repatriation environment, as these individuals have a strong desire to have their technical ex-pertise recognized and do not feel comfortable with change. There-fore, this anchor is not likely to be favorable to IA success during the repatriation stage.

The managerial competence anchor characterizes individuals

who are interested in problem solving and in bringing people together to achieve common goals (Schein, 1990). Individuals anchored by managerial competence are comfortable with uncertainty, which is a major charac-teristic of expatriation (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). Thus, they are likely to succeed in the international environment during their expatriation. Likewise, these individu-als are likely to fi nd congruence between their anchor and the environment they fi nd

upon repatriation, which also holds uncer-tainty and new problems to be solved. There-fore, this anchor is likely to be favorable to IA success during both the expatriation and repatriation stage.

Individuals anchored by security and stability dislike change and seek security in their career and a lasting relationship with their employer (Schein, 1990). These indi-viduals avoid uncertain situations and, thus, are not likely to succeed in the uncertain en-vironment they will encounter during expa-triation or repatriation. Therefore, they are not likely to fi nd congruence between their anchor and these uncertain environments. This anchor is not likely to be favorable to IA success during the stages of expatriation or repatriation.

Individuals anchored by entrepreneurial creativity are motivated by creation and managing their own projects (Schein, 1990). Working in the international environment during expatriation and in the new envi-ronment they will fi nd upon repatriation requires adopting an entrepreneurial attitude that corresponds to the creativity anchor. Therefore, this anchor is likely to be favora-ble to IA success during both the expatriation and repatriation stages.

Freedom within their job, especially the freedom to work at their own pace, is essen-tial for individuals anchored by autonomy and independence (Schein, 1990). The inter-national environment offers more autonomy than the national environment (Dunbar, 1992). Therefore, the autonomy anchor is likely to be favorable to IA success during the expatriation stage because of the congruence between this anchor and the expatriation en-vironment. However, individuals anchored by autonomy and independence are not like-ly to fi nd congruence between their anchor and the new environment they enter upon repatriation. Professionally, repatriation en-tails returning home to a job characterized by less autonomy than the one held during expatriation (e.g., Harvey, 1989; MacDonald & Arthur, 2005; Selmer, 1999; Van der Velde, Bossink, & Jansen, 2005). Therefore, this an-chor is not likely to be favorable to IA success during the repatriation stage.

Since individuals’

jobs during

expatriation usually

entail uncertainty

and careerist-

oriented individuals

tend to focus

on the negative

aspects of their

jobs, there is likely

to be incongruence

between a careerist

orientation and

the international

environment.



Individuals anchored by dedication to a cause wish to work in an environment that fi ts their values more than their skills. They wish to somehow improve the world, par-ticularly by helping others (Schein, 1990). There are few opportunities for serving a cause in the context of a multinational com-pany, not only during expatriation but also upon return. Due to this incongruence, the dedication to a cause anchor is not likely to be favorable to IA success during the expa-triation or repatriation stage.

The pure challenge anchor character-izes individuals who like to solve diffi cult problems and who see their career in terms of daily combat or competition in which winning is everything (Schein, 1990). This anchor is in congruence with the environ-ment found during both expatriation and repatriation, as both environments offer challenges and problems to be solved. This anchor, thus, is likely to be favorable to IA success during both expatriation and repa-triation.

Individuals anchored by lifestyle try to achieve a balance between their personal and professional lives (Schein, 1990). Both expa-triation and repatriation may disrupt this balance and make it more diffi cult for indi-viduals to integrate their needs and those of their family with their career. Because of the incongruence between this career anchor and both the expatriation and repatriation envi-ronment, the lifestyle anchor is not likely to be favorable to IA success during the stages of expatriation or repatriation.

The internationalism anchor character-izes individuals who wish to work in an in-ternational environment. These individuals are particularly attracted by new experiences through which they can explore new coun-tries and cultures (Suutari & Taka, 2004). By defi nition, congruence is maximal between the international environment and this career anchor and, thus, the internationalism anchor is likely to be favorable to IA success during expatriation. Individuals anchored by inter-nationalism, however, are not likely to fi nd congruence between their career anchor and their new environment upon return, which will have lost its international dimension. This

anchor, therefore, is not likely to be favorable to IA success during the repatriation stage.

Proposition 3a: IA success during the expatria-tion stage, from both the individual and the organizational perspective, is more likely when individuals are anchored by manage-rial competence, creativity, autonomy, pure challenge, or internationalism rather than technical competence, security, dedication to a cause, or lifestyle.

Proposition 3b: IA success at the repatriation stage, from both the individual and organiza-tional perspective, is more likely when individuals are anchored by managerial competence, creativ-ity, or pure challenge rather than technical competence, security, autonomy, dedication to a cause, lifestyle, or internationalism.

Careerist Orientation and IA Success

For Chay and Aryee (1999), hav-ing a careerist orientation has implications for individual work attitudes. Careerist-oriented indi-viduals perceive an incompatibil-ity between the organization’s objectives and their own objec-tives and, as a result, feel that they have to take care of their own career. Feldman and Weitz (1991) suggested that a careerist orientation negatively affects individuals’ work attitudes, as these individuals tend to focus on the negative aspects of their current jobs and on any potential difficulties for future career advancement. Careerist-ori-ented individuals believe that it is necessary to rely on social relationships or to engage in deceptive behavior to progress in their careers. Therefore, these individuals gener-ally pursue career advancement through means that are not based on performance or skills (Feldman & Weitz, 1991).

Careerist-oriented individuals may be attracted to expatriation, as they tend to

A protean career

is characterized

by the ability to be

adaptive in terms

of performance

and learning

demands, high

job involvement,

and professional

commitment (Hall,

1996; Lazarova &

Tarique, 2005), which

expatriation requires

of individuals.



perceive it as a prerequisite for career advance-ment within a multinational company and associate it with promotion and/or pay in-creases. However, there is a gap between this perception before expatriation and the reality found during expatriation. Careerist- oriented individuals may be particularly worried that the saying “out of sight, out of mind” will ap-ply to them, which is a common feeling dur-

ing expatriation (e.g., Bonache, 2005; Carpenter et al., 2001; Suu-tari & Brewster, 2003). While their motivation to go abroad can be centered on career advancement, during their expatriation they may become concerned that it will jeopardize their actual opportuni-ties for future career development. Their expatriation may result in dissatisfaction with their internal career. Moreover, the repatriation stage of an international assign-ment is usually characterized by uncertainty in terms of career. As these individuals tend to focus on the negative, they may become dissatisfi ed with their internal ca-reer during repatriation. There-fore, a careerist orientation is not likely to be favorable to internal career success in terms of career satisfaction during expatriation or repatriation. Despite worries concerning career advancement, a careerist orientation is likely to be favorable to external career success during both expatriation and repatriation, as international assignments can give individuals opportunities for promotion and pay increases upon expatriation and/or upon repatriation, and

careerist-oriented individuals have a higher rate of promotion and pay increases than non-careerist-oriented individuals (Feldman & Weitz, 1991).

Since individuals’ jobs during expa-triation usually entail uncertainty and careerist-oriented individuals tend to fo-cus on the negative aspects of their jobs, there is likely to be incongruence between a

careerist orientation and the international environment. Therefore, having a careerist orientation is not likely to be favorable to job success in terms of job satisfaction during expatriation or repatriation.

Since careerist-oriented individuals gen-erally pursue career advancement through means that are not based on performance or skills, a careerist orientation is not likely to be favorable to development success in terms of international KSA acquisition during ex-patriation. Careerist-oriented individuals behave in a self-promoting way, cultivating the appearance of being successful (Feldman & Weitz, 1991), which is likely to be favora-ble to development success upon return in terms of marketability. A careerist orienta-tion is likely to be favorable to development success in terms of network and relationship building during expatriation, as networks are particularly crucial in careerist-oriented indi-viduals’ search for promotion, and expatria-tion offers them the opportunity to expand these networks abroad. Individuals often re-turn home to jobs that are not well defi ned and, thus, may fi nd themselves in a period of fl ux. Careerist-oriented individuals may take advantage of this uncertain period to develop their network of contacts at home to advance their careers. Therefore, there is likely to be congruence between a careerist orientation and this characteristic of repatriation, which is likely to be favorable to development suc-cess in terms of network and relationship building during repatriation.

Since careerist-oriented individuals are concerned with their own interests, they are likely to take actions that serve their own career advancement and are not likely to be concerned with giving their best to their jobs or to the organization (Aryee & Chen, 2004). They cultivate the appearance of being successful, but they do not perceive effective performance as a means for career advancement (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). Therefore, this attitude may not be in con-gruence with the organization’s objectives in terms of performance during expatriation or repatriation. Careerist-oriented individu-als also are unlikely to consider the transfer of expertise a priority during expatriation or

During both

expatriation and

repatriation, an

international

assignment

constitutes new

experiences and

new situations

for individuals.

Individuals who

are characterized

by a boundaryless

career attitude are

generally energized

by such new

experiences and

situations. (Briscoe,

et al., 2006).



repatriation. But even though they favor their personal interest in expanding networks and building relationships for their own sake, organizations can benefi t from this attitude during both expatriation and repatriation. To cultivate the appearance of being successful, careerist-oriented individuals are likely to help their organization indirectly in network and relationship building. Finally, careerist-oriented individuals may leave the organiza-tion during their expatriation or upon return if a better opportunity for career advance-ment presents itself. A careerist orientation is not likely to be in congruence with organi-zational objectives during expatriation or repatriation and, therefore, is not likely to be favorable to organizational success during expatriation or repatriation.

Proposition 4a: The more individuals are career-ist-oriented, the greater the likelihood of external career success and development success in terms of network and relationship building and marketability, but the lesser the likelihood of internal career success, job success, and development success in terms of international KSA acquisition during expa-triation and repatriation.

Proposition 4b: The more individuals are careerist-oriented, the greater the likelihood of organizational success in terms of network and relationship building, but the lesser the likelihood of organizational success in terms of performance, transfer of expertise, and retention of employees during expatriation and repatriation.

Protean Career Attitude and IA Success

The protean career attitude has two compo-nents: a values-driven attitude, in which in-dividuals’ internal values guide their careers and provide the measure of individual career success, and a self-directed attitude, which is associated with the ability to adapt in terms of performance and learning demands ( Briscoe & Hall, 2006; Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006). By defi nition, this attitude is likely to be fa-vorable to internal career success in terms of

career satisfaction during expatriation and repatriation. Briscoe et al. (2006) show that a protean career attitude correlates to a proac-tive personality and openness to experience. It leads individuals to be proactive in follow-ing their values (Briscoe et al., 2006) during the stages of both expatriation and repatria-tion. As individuals navigate their own career based on their personal priorities and not their organization’s pri-orities, they may anticipate how expatriation and repatriation will affect their career. As a result, this proactivity is likely to be favora-ble to career satisfaction, since it can lead to congruence between career characteristics and interna-tional assignment characteristics.

Expatriation requires continu-ous learning, adaptability, and fl ex-ibility, which are characteristics of a protean career ( Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). Therefore, the protean career atti-tude is likely to be favorable to job success in terms of job satisfaction and development success in terms of international KSA acquisition during expatriation. Furthermore, it is likely to be favorable to net-work and relationship building, since proactive individ-uals are more likely to establish extensive networks (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007). Therefore, these individu-als are likely to be in congruence with their environment during ex-patriation. Following the same line of reasoning as that of job success and development success during expatriation, the protean career at-titude also is likely to be favorable to job success and development success during repatriation.

A protean career is characterized by the ability to be adaptive in terms of perform-ance and learning demands, high job in-volvement, and professional commitment (Hall, 1996; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005), which expatriation requires of individuals. Expa-triation offers individuals the opportunity

On the whole, does

expatriation success

lead to repatriation

success? To

examine this link,

we utilized human

capital theory and

signal theory, which

limits us to focusing

on the link between

development

success during

expatriation and

repatriation and

the link between

external career

success during

expatriation and

repatriation.



to acquire additional skills and knowledge. Professional commitment may increase per-formance by increasing the likelihood that individuals will acquire additional skills and knowledge (Lee, Carswell, & Allen, 2000). Therefore, the congruence between protean career attitude and expatriation requirements is likely to be favorable to performance dur-ing expatriation. However, protean careers also are characterized by low organizational commitment (Hall, 1996; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). Therefore, the protean career attitude is not likely to be favorable to organizational suc-cess in terms of transfer of expertise, retention of employees, and network and relationship

building during the expatriation and repatriation stages.

Proposition 5a: The more individuals are characterized by a protean career attitude, the greater the likelihood of internal career success, job success, and development success during expatriation and repatriation.

Proposition 5b: The more individuals are characterized by a protean career attitude, the greater the likelihood of organizational success in terms of performance but the lesser the like-lihood of organizational success in terms of transfer of expertise, reten-tion of employees, and network and relationship building during the stagesof expatriation and repatriation.

Boundaryless Career Attitude and IA Success

Some scholars view protean and bounda-ryless careers as similar, while others con-sider them somewhat different (Granrose & Baccili, 2006). On the basis of three em-pirical studies, Briscoe et al. (2006) showed that the protean and boundaryless career attitude scales measure distinct yet related constructs. Protean career attitudes focus on self-directed career management and val-ues-driven predispositions, while boundary-less career attitudes focus on a boundaryless mind-set and a preference for organizational

mobility (Briscoe et al., 2006). Sullivan and Arthur (2006) distinguished two types of mobility in the context of boundaryless ca-reer—(1) physical mobility, which involves the transition across boundaries, and (2) psychological mobility, which is the indi-viduals’ perception of their capacity to make this transition—whereas in the context of protean career, Hall (2002) emphasized psychological mobility. Above all, an inter-national assignment entails a physical tran-sition within an organization—for example, a transition from headquarters to a foreign subsidiary, or vice versa.

During both expatriation and repatria-tion, an international assignment constitutes new experiences and new situations for in-dividuals. Individuals who are characterized by a boundaryless career attitude are gener-ally energized by such new experiences and situations (Briscoe et al., 2006). Compared to individuals who are not characterized by this attitude, these individuals would have more of a desire to acquire knowledge and skills, to develop their network of contacts, and to maintain a permanent state of employabil-ity (Bird, 1994; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). In general, an international assignment can facilitate the achievement of these goals (Ca-ligiuri & Di Santo, 2001; Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2001; Selmer, 1999). The congruence between a boundaryless career attitude and interna-tional assignment characteristics is likely to be favorable to internal career success in terms of career satisfaction and to job success and development success during both expatria-tion and repatriation.

International assignments entail crossing national, organizational, and several other boundaries. Individuals with boundaryless career attitudes are likely to feel comfortable crossing boundaries and experiencing new situations, such as expatriation and repatria-tion. Therefore, the congruence between a boundaryless career attitude and the novel-ty of the situation offered by an IA is likely to be favorable to performance. However, compared to other individuals, individuals characterized by a boundaryless career at-titude are generally less willing to transfer their expertise and the networks that they

As organizations

may find it difficult

to measure the

skills developed by

individuals during

expatriation, they

are more likely

to rely on ability

signals in their

selection practices.



cess and repatriation success. Nonetheless, Bolino (2007) proposes a framework of re-patriate career success that establishes a link between performance during expatriation and intraorganizational career success upon repatriation. On the whole, does expatria-tion success lead to repatriation success? To examine this link, we utilized human capital theory and signal theory, which limits us to focusing on the link between development success during expatriation and repatriation and the link between external career success during expatriation and repatriation.

According to human capital theory ( Becker, 1964), individuals invest in their human capital to improve their KSAs and, therefore, their future careers. Expatriation can allow individu-als to invest in these KSAs and in their network of contacts. Expa-triation success depends, in part, on the success of this investment, which is likely to lead to repatria-tion success in terms of market-ability and network and relation-ship building. Contrary to what the individualistic career model of human capital theory would suggest, individuals are not in complete control of their ca-reers. Individuals’ careers also are shaped by structural elements, such as organizational human resource planning ( Rosenbaum, 1989). In the individualistic ap-proach, individuals are the prin-cipal agents in their own career advancement, while in the structural ap-proach individuals’ careers are structured by the characteristics of the internal labor mar-ket and organizational policies.

Rosenbaum (1989) incorporates struc-tural features into an individualistic model, which he calls the tournament model. Tour-naments are “systems for selecting the most talented individuals by a series of progres-sively more selective competitions” (p. 336). Rosenbaum (1989), argues that “managers have insuffi cient information about em-ployees’ abilities, and they supplement their information by using structural indicators

Organizations should

help individuals

become aware of

the characteristics

of their own career

and the implications

that these

characteristics may

have for the success

of their international

assignment.

have built (Bird, 1994; Lazarova & Tarique, 2005). This unwillingness can have negative consequences for the organization, which is likely to view IA success as partly dependent on the transfer of expertise and network and relationship building. Furthermore, this ca-reer attitude is not likely to be favorable to the retention of employees since, by defi ni-tion, individuals characterized by a bounda-ryless career attitude are willing to work for multiple organizations during their careers. The lack of congruence between a bounda-ryless career attitude and international as-signment characteristics is not likely to be favorable to organizational success in terms of transfer of expertise, network and rela-tionship building, or retention of employees during expatriation and repatriation.

Proposition 6a: The more individuals are char-acterized by a boundaryless career attitude, the greater the likelihood of internal career success, job success, and development success during expatriation and repatriation.

Proposition 6b: The more individuals are char-acterized by a boundaryless career attitude, the greater the likelihood of organizational success in terms of performance but the less-er the likelihood of organizational success in terms of transfer of expertise, retention of employees, and network and relationship building during expatriation and repatriation.

The Link Between Expatriation Success and Repatriation Success

Recent research on international assign-ments shows that individuals are generally satisfi ed with their expatriation but are con-sistently dissatisfi ed with the management of their repatriation (e.g., Stahl & Cerdin, 2004; Suutari & Brewster, 2003; Tung, 1998). These studies propose that individuals consider expatriation as an opportunity for personal development and career advancement, even if this advancement means leaving their or-ganization upon return. We have found no empirical study, however, that establishes a clear relationship between expatriation suc-



Contributions and Implications of the Research

In this article we propose an integrative model of IA success by advancing a perspec-tive of fit between career and international assignment. A key contribution is the inte-gration of individuals’ career decision (before expatriation) and career characteristics (dur-ing both expatriation and repatriation) into our understanding of IA success. Another contribution of this article is to propose a relationship between expatriation success and repatriation success, which has been overlooked in the literature on international assignments to this point.

On a more practical level, our research raises implications that are directly relevant to human resource practitioners and indi-viduals who may be considering an inter-national assignment as part of their career. Although previous work has suggested that “expatriates can be active participants in their own adjustment processes” (Feldman & Thomas, 1992, p. 290), the effect of free choice on IA success has largely been over-looked, with a few exceptions (e.g., Bolino & Feldman, 2000; Kraimer & Wayne, 2004). Organizations should ensure that individuals are given freedom of choice regarding the ac-ceptance of an international assignment. Or-ganizations should not place undue pressure on individuals by implying that an interna-tional assignment is compulsory for their career advancement within the organization. The inclusion of a mobility clause in the con-tract of employment, which enables organi-zations to call upon employees to work at any of their sites, also should be avoided, as it may hamper IA success. Individuals should be encouraged to select their own interna-tional assignments and should be allowed to turn down an international assignment that would not be congruent with the per-sonal and professional domains of their lives. The motivation to go abroad also should be carefully examined during the screening of candidates for expatriation to detect motives that might not bode well for IA success.

It behooves both individuals and organi-zations to carefully examine the fi t between

Now that a

conceptual model

of IA success has

been presented, the

next stage would

be to implement the

constructs and test

the model.

of ability, called signals of ability” (p. 332). For example, past promotions may be abil-ity signals for future promotion. The tour-nament metaphor is useful in explaining career success during the repatriation stage from the perspective of the external career ( Peltonen, 1997). Individuals’ performance and the skills that they acquire during the expatriation stage are not likely to have more than a small infl uence in the tournament, as they are more diffi cult for the organization to assess than ability signals.

For Peltonen (1997), expatriation may mean that individuals temporarily leave the tournament but return to the same tournament upon their repatriation. We, however, consider expatriation as a stage in the tournament, as it is taken into account

by organizational HR planning in the context of new careers, such as boundaryless careers and, therefore, also will be taken into account in the organiza-tion’s selection practices. As or-ganizations may fi nd it diffi cult to measure the skills developed by individuals during expatria-tion, they are more likely to rely on ability signals in their selec-tion practices. External career success (promotion and pay in-crease) during expatriation sends ability signals that are likely to be favorable to individuals’ ad-

vancement and pay increase upon repatria-tion. In other words, individuals who have the most success in terms of promotion and pay increase during their expatriation are more likely to be promoted and/or to receive a raise upon repatriation.

Proposition 7a: The greater the individual suc-cess in terms of development success dur-ing the expatriation stage, the greater the individual success in terms of development success during the repatriation stage.

Proposition 7b: The greater the individual success in terms of external career success during the expatriation stage, the greater the individual success in terms of external career success during the repatriation stage.



Research Limitations and Directions for Future Studies

This research has a number of limitations that should be highlighted. First, the vari-ables related to career decision and career characteristics that we retained in our model are constrained by our theoretical approach. In our model, we adopted a perspective of fi t between career and international assignment and, therefore, did not integrate individual variables (such as demographics), environ-mental variables (such as available employ-ment opportunities), or organizational vari-ables (such as organizational repatriation management) as found in the theoretical framework on repatriation proposed by La-zarova and Cerdin (2007). The fact that we did not integrate other variables does not imply that they do not have an impact on IA success. Some studies have examined the relationship between personality variables and certain aspects of IA success (e.g., Caligiuri, 2000; Huang Chi, & Lawler, 2005; Shaf-fer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006). Other individual differences, such as gender, race, and education, also can be impor-tant determinants of individual career success (Ng, Eby, Sorenson, & Feldman, 2005). These individual differences also may be relevant to IA success. In our model, however, we only included career variables that are related to the theoretical framework of the article.

Second, with regard to the career an-chor variable, we separately examined the impact of each career anchor on IA success, which remains in line with Schein’s career anchor theory, allowing for each individual to be characterized by one dominant an-chor (Schein, 1978). Some empirical studies do focus only on the dominant career an-chor (Danziger & Valency, 2006; Erdogmus, 2004; Hudson & Inkson, 2006). Feldman and Bolino (1996), however, emphasized that Schein’s (1978) own empirical fi ndings con-tradict the occurrence of a dominant career anchor. Although they recognized that the

Future studies also

should consider how

the individual career

characteristics

retained in our

model may

interrelate or

interact.

career characteristics and the characteristics of both expatriation and repatriation. For instance, organizations may mitigate the challenges of an expatriation by tailoring organizational support to individual career characteristics. Organizations should help individuals become aware of the characteris-tics of their own career and the implications that these characteristics may have for the success of their international assignment. For example, online assessment tools could be provided to help individuals gauge their ca-reer characteristics. This would enable them to measure the potential fi t between these career characteristics and IA characteristics. Although certain personal and professional constraints can lead individuals to accept an expatriation even if it is not in congruence with their career anchors, mere awareness of this incongruence could help them minimize its negative effect.

Finally, individuals and organizations should be aware of how success during expa-triation leads to success during repatriation. From the perspective of new careers, such as boundaryless ones, KSAs may be critical to this relationship. From the organizational perspective, selection practices should not be limited to structural ability signals, but also should take into account competency (KSA) signals. Although the importance of assign-ing repatriates to jobs that allow them to use the skills developed during expatriation has been mentioned in previous works (Osland, 2000; Selmer, 1998), our research suggests that if organizations wish to take advantage of the skills developed by individuals during their expatriation, they should implement tools for evaluating these KSAs. This should contribute to repatriation success from the organizational perspective. In addition, our research suggests that individuals also should be encouraged to identify the skills they have developed during their expatriation so as to better market them upon return, which should contribute to repatriation success from the individual perspective. Naturally, when and if the propositions we have put forward receive empirical support in future research, the above recommendations will acquire even more practical use.



if individuals fail in their assignment dur-ing expatriation, the organization may not want to retain them (e.g., Bolino, 2007) and may dismiss them upon repatriation or even during expatriation. This would not be con-sidered expatriation or repatriation failure from the organizational perspective. Because of other circumstances, such as mergers and acquisitions, individuals may no longer be needed in the organization upon return, even if the expatriation has been a success. An important agenda for future research would be to shed further light on the relation-ships between expatriation and repatriation success from both the individual and organizational perspective.

The contributions and limitations of the research lead to a number of potential-ly fertile opportunities for future research. Now that a conceptual model of IA success has been presented, the next stage would be to implement the constructs and test the model. Fortunately, some of the pre-liminary work has already been done, as measures have already been developed for most of the concepts in our model. For ex-ample, measures of protean and boundary-less career attitudes have been developed by Briscoe et al. (2006). Except for the in-ternationalism anchor, measures of career anchors have been developed by Schein (1990). Feldman and Weitz (1991) devel-oped a measure of careerist orientation. Concerning IA success, career satisfaction can be measured with the scales proposed by Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990). Marketability can be assessed using the scales developed by Eby et al. (2003). Organizational success in terms of perform-ance and transfer of expertise, however, is more diffi cult to measure. To fi nd empirical support for our model, more accurate meas-ures of organizational success will have to be developed.

The context of our model is that of a traditional international assignment and, thus, we integrate its three stages: pre-expatriation, expatriation, and repatriation. A longitudinal study following individuals during all three stages is the most promis-ing empirical route. It would be necessary to

Individuals should

be encouraged

to select their

own international

assignments and

should be allowed

to turn down

an international

assignment that

would not be

congruent with

the personal

and professional

domains of their

lives.

majority of individuals hold only one career anchor, they suggested that individuals may have primary and secondary career anchors. Some empirical studies seem to provide evi-dence of multiple dominant anchors (Ituma & Simpson, 2007; Ramakrishna & Potosky, 2003; Suutari & Taka, 2004). Future empiri-cal work on the relationship between career anchors and IA success should examine pos-sible combinations of career anchors and the interactions among them.

Third, the success criteria included in our model are not exempt from critique. Our list of success cri-teria should not be considered unique or so exhaustive that it excludes all other criteria. The choice of success criteria is always a delicate endeavor. Ac-cording to Nicholson and de Waal-Andrews (2005), any list is open to debate, which is particularly true with subjective criteria where one construct may shade another.

Finally, our model utilizes the theory of fi t to explain the relationship between career vari-ables and IA success. It was not possible, however, to establish a link between certain career characteristics and certain suc-cess criteria. Furthermore, this theory is not relevant in exam-ining the relationship between expatriation and repatriation success, for which we propose to use human capital and signal theory. In keeping with these two theories, it was not possi-ble to establish a link between,

for example, expatriation success and re-patriation success from the organizational perspective. This link would be particularly interesting to consider in further research. In our model, retention of repatriates is considered a criterion for organizational success during repatriation. However, some turnover upon repatriation may be func-tional and desired by the organization (Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2001; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Yan et al., 2002). For example,



individuals are more likely to succeed in terms of an external rather than an inter-nal career. Some authors suggest that there is an interdependence between the two ca-reer perspectives (e.g., Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Hall & Chandler, 2005). The interrelations between our model’s various IA success criteria should be thor-oughly studied in the future. Other tradi-tional criteria for gauging the success of international assignments, such as cultural adjustment in the individual perspective, also may be in re-lation to our career variables in future studies.

Our model is designed for ex-patriates who return to their home country after an international assignment. We recognize that there are other types of interna-tional assignments, notably those that entail moving from country to country, which future studies should address. Nevertheless, the propositions developed in our model could be transferable, with some adjustment, to other types of international assignment, such as self-initiated expatriation or in-patriation. Here, we examine the fi t between career decision and characteristics and the principal characteristics of international assignments. Our model could be adapted and tested for different types of international assign-ments and in different cultural contexts. For now, our conceptual research should help individuals and organizations gauge the fi t between career and international assign-ment, which could help them achieve IA success.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank three anonymous review-ers and Guest Editor Yehuda Baruch for their ex-cellent comments and guidance. We are also grateful to Michael Arthur for his advice on career issues.

From the

organizational

perspective,

selection practices

should not be

limited to structural

ability signals,

but also should

take into account

competency (KSA)

signals.

test our model regularly, as the circumstanc-es of both expatriation and repatriation may change over time. For example, repatriation may be considered a failure if an organiza-tion is unable to offer individuals a promo-tion upon repatriation. However, if this promotion is obtained six months after their return, repatriation may then be considered a success. As career characteristics also may change over time, a longitudinal study also should monitor these characteristics during expatriation and repatriation. From the per-spective of a traditional career, career anchors are considered to remain constant, but from the perspective of a boundaryless career, they can change over time.

Future studies also should consider how the individual career characteristics retained in our model may interrelate or interact. For example, Feldman and Weitz (1991) suggested that individuals anchored by managerial competence would more like-ly be careerist-oriented than other groups of employees. As we mentioned earlier, Briscoe et al. (2006) considered the protean and boundaryless career attitudes as inde-pendent yet related constructs. Boundary-less career attitudes also could be correlated with the internationalism career anchor, as both these constructs involve crossing boundaries. A boundaryless career attitude, however, implies crossing several kinds of boundaries, while an internationalism ca-reer anchor entails crossing only geograph-ical boundaries. Testing the variables and their proposed relationships would help to verify and refi ne the model. Considering the interrelations among its various con-structs, this is particularly crucial. Further studies should examine the interactions between individual career characteristics and personality variables, and determine whether these variables independently affect IA success.

IA success in our model is a complex and multidimensional concept. An expatri-ate may succeed according to one criterion and underachieve or even fail according to another. For example, careerist-oriented



REFERENCES

Arthur , M. B. , Khapova , S. N. , & Wilderom , C.P.M . ( 2005 ). Career success in a boundaryless career world . Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 177 – 202 .

Arthur , M. B. , & Rousseau , D. M . ( 1996 ). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organi-zational era . New York: Oxford University Press .

Aryee , S. , & Chen , Z. X . ( 2004 ). Countering the trend towards careerist orientation in the age of down-sizing: Test of a social exchange model . Journal of Business Research , 57 , 321 – 328 .

Baruch , Y . ( 2001 ). Employability: A substitute for loyalty? Human Resource Management Interna-tional , 4 , 543 – 566 .

Baruch , Y . ( 2003 ). Career systems in transition: A nor-mative model for organizational career practices . Personnel Review , 32 , 231 – 251 .

Baruch , Y. , & Altman , Y . ( 2002 ). Expatriation and repa-triation in MNCs: A taxonomy . Human Resource Management , 41 , 239 – 259 .

Baruch , Y. , Steele , D. J. , & Quantrill , G. A . ( 2002 ). Management of expatriation and repatriation for novice global players . International Journal of Manpower , 23 , 659 – 674 .

Beach , L. R . ( 1990 ). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts . Chichester, UK: Wiley .

Becker , G . ( 1964 ). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to educa-tion . New York: Columbia University Press .

Berthoin Antal , A . ( 2001 ). Expatriates’ contributions to organizational learning . Journal of General Man-agement , 26 ( 4 ), 62– 84 .

Bhaskar-Shrinivas , P. , Harrison , D. A. , Shaffer , M. A. , & Luk , D. M . ( 2005 ). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions . Academy of Management Journal , 48 , 257 – 281 .

Bird , A . ( 1994 ). Careers as repositories of knowledge: A new perspective on boundaryless careers . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 15 , 325 – 344 .

Black , J. S . ( 1992 ). Coming home: The relationship of expatriate expectations with repatriation adjust-ment and job performance . Human Relations , 45 , 177 – 192 .

Black , J. S. , & Mendenhall , M . ( 1990 ). Cross-cultural train-ing effectiveness: A review and theoretical framework for future research . Academy of Management Review , 15 , 113 – 136 .

Black , J. S. , Mendenhall , M. , & Oddou , G. R . ( 1991 ). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives . Academy of Management Review , 16 , 291 – 317 .

Bolino , M. C . ( 2007 ). Expatriate assignments and intra-organizational career success: Implications for individuals and organizations . Journal of International Business Studies , 38 , 819– 835 .

Bolino , M. C. , & Feldman , D. C . ( 2000 ). The anteced-ents and consequences of underemployment among expatriates . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21 , 889 – 911 .

Bonache , J . ( 2005 ). Job satisfaction among expatriates, repatriates and domestic employees: The perceived impact of international assignments on work-related variables . Personnel Review , 34 ( 1 ), 110 – 124 .

Borg , M . ( 1988 ). International transfers of managers in multinational corporations. Studia Oeconomiae Negotorium, 27 . Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis .

Bossard , A. B. , & Peterson , R. B . ( 2005 ). The repatriate experience as seen by American expatriates . Journal of World Business , 40 ( 1 ), 9 – 28 .

Briscoe , J. P. , & Hall , D. T . ( 2006 ). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69 ( 1 ), 4 – 18 .

JEAN-LUC CERDIN is a professor of human resource management at ESSEC Business School, Paris, France. He holds a PhD from Toulouse University (France) and an MSc from the London School of Economics. Recently, he served as a visiting professor at Rutgers University and the University of Missouri–St. Louis. He has also been a visit-ing scholar at Wharton. His research interests include expatriate management, career management, and international human resource management.

MARIE LE PARGNEUX is a doctoral candidate in management at the Université de Corse in France. Her research focuses on expatriation, repatriation, and careers.



Briscoe , J. P. , Hall , D. T. , & DeMuth , R. F . ( 2006 ). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69 ( 1 ), 30– 47 .

Caligiuri , P . ( 1997 ). Assessing expatriates success: Beyond just “being there.” In D. M. Saunders & Z. Aycan (Eds.), New approaches to employee management, Special issue on expatriate manage-ment: Theory and research ( Vol. 4 , pp. 117 – 140 ). Greenwich, CT : JAI Press .

Caligiuri , P . ( 2000 ). The big fi ve personality characteris-tics as predictors of expatriates desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance . Personnel Psychology , 53 ( 1 ), 67 – 88 .

Caligiuri , P. , & Di Santo , V . ( 2001 ). Global competence: What is it, and can it be developed through global assignments? Human Resource Planning , 24 ( 3 ), 27 – 35 .

Caligiuri , P. , & Lazarova , M . ( 2001 ). Strategic repatriation policies to enhance global leadership development . In M. E. Mendenhall , T. M. Kuhlmann , & G. K. Stahl (Eds.), Developing global business leaders: Policies, processes, and innovations (pp. 243 – 256 ). Westport, CT : Quorum Books .

Carpenter , M. A. , Sanders , W. G. , & Gregersen , H. B . ( 2001 ). Bundling human capital with organizational context: The impact of international assignment ex-perience on multinational fi rm performance and CEO pay . Academy of Management Journal , 44 , 493 – 511 .

Cerdin , J.-L. , & Bird , A . ( 2008 ). Careers in a global context . In M. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of research in international human resources (pp. 207 – 227 ). London : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .

Cerdin , J.-L. , & Dubouloy , M . ( 2004 ). Expatriation as a maturation opportunity: A psychoanalytical approach based on “copy and paste .” Human Rela-tions , 57 , 957– 981 .

Chay , Y. M. , & Aryee , S . ( 1999 ). Potential moderating infl u-ence of career growth opportunities on careerist ori-entation and work attitudes: Evidence of the protean career era in Singapore . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20 , 613– 623 .

Copeland , L. , & Griggs , L . ( 1988 ). The internationable employee . Management Review , 77 ( 4 ), 52 - 53 .

Danziger , N. , & Valency , R . ( 2006 ). Career anchors: Distri-bution and impact on job satisfaction, the Israeli case . Career Development International , 11 , 293 – 303 .

Dunbar , E . ( 1992 ). Adjustment and satisfaction of expatriate U.S. personnel . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 16 ( 1 ), 1 – 16 .

Eby , L. T. , Butts , M. , & Lockwood , A . ( 2003 ). Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless career . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24 , 689 – 709 .

Erdogmus , N . ( 2004 ). Career orientations of salaried professionals: The case of Turkey . Career Develop-ment International , 9 , 153 – 175 .

Feldman , D. C. , & Bolino , M. C . ( 1996 ). Careers within careers: Reconceptualizing the nature of career anchors and their consequences . Human Resource Management Review , 6 ( 2 ), 89 – 112 .

Feldman , D. C. , & Thomas , D. C . ( 1992 ). Career management issues facing expatriates . Journal of International Business Studies , 23 , 271– 293 .

Feldman , D. C. , & Tompson , H. B . ( 1993 ). Expatriation, repatriation, domestic geographical relocation: An empirical investigation of adjustment to new job assignments . Journal of International Business Studies , 24 , 507 – 529 .

Feldman , D. C. , & Weitz , B. A . ( 1991 ). From the invisible hand to the gladhand: Understanding a careerist orientation to work . Human Resource Manage-ment , 30 , 237– 257 .

Granrose , C. S. , & Baccili , P. A . ( 2006 ). Do psycho-logical contracts include boundaryless or protean careers? Career Development International , 11 , 163 – 182 .

Greenhaus , J. H. , Parasuraman , S. , & Wormley , W. M . ( 1990 ). Effects of race on organizational experience, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes . Academy of Management Journal , 33 ( 1 ), 64 – 86 .

Hall , D. T . ( 1996 ). The protean careers of the 21st century . Academy of Management Executive , 10 ( 4 ), 8 – 16 .

Hall , D. T . ( 2002 ). Careers in and out of organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Hall , D. T. , & Chandler , D. E . ( 2005 ). Psychological success: When the career is a calling . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 155 – 176 .

Harvey , M . ( 1989 ). Repatriation of corporate execu-tives: An empirical study . Journal of International Business Studies , 20 , 131– 144 .

Harzing , A.-W. , & Christensen , C . ( 2004 ). Expatriate failure: Time to abandon the concept? Career De-velopment International , 9 , 616– 626 .

Hocking , J. B. , Brown , M. , & Harzing , A.-W . ( 2004 ). A knowledge-transfer perspective of strategic assignment purposes and their path-dependent outcomes . International Journal of Human Resource Management , 15 , 565 – 572 .

Huang , T.-J. , Chi , S.-C. , & Lawler , J. J . ( 2005 ). The relation-ship between expatriates’ personality traits and their adjustment to international assignments . Interna-tional Journal of Human Resource Management , 16 , 1656 – 1670 .



Hudson , S. , & Inkson , K . ( 2006 ). Volunteer overseas development workers: The hero’s adventure and personal transformation . Career Development International , 11 , 304– 320 .

Ituma , A. , & Simpson , R . ( 2007 ). Moving beyond Schein’s typology: Individual career anchors in the context of Nigeria . Personnel Review , 36 , 978 – 995 .

Kraimer , M. L. , & Shaffer , M . ( 2004 ). Examining repa-triation success from a career perspective. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Academy of Manage-ment Meeting , New Orleans, LA .

Kraimer , M. L. , & Wayne , S. J . ( 2004 ). An examination of perceived organizational support as a multidi-mensional construct in the context of an expatriate assignment . Journal of Management , 30 , 209 – 237 .

Lankau , M. J. , & Scandura , T. A . ( 2002 ). An investiga-tion of personal learning in mentoring relation-ships: Content, antecedents, and consequences . Academy of Management Journal , 45 , 779– 790 .

Lazarova , M. , & Caligiuri , P . ( 2001 ). Retaining repatriates: The role of organizational support practices . Journal of World Business , 36 , 389 – 401 .

Lazarova , M. , & Cerdin , J.-L . ( 2007 ). Revisiting repa-triation concerns: Organizational support vs. career and contextual infl uences . Journal of International Business Studies , 38 , 404– 429 .

Lazarova , M. , & Tarique , I . ( 2005 ). Knowledge transfer upon repatriation . Journal of World Business , 40 , 361 – 373 .

Lee , K. , Carswell , J. J. , & Allen , N. J . ( 2000 ). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment: Relations with person- and work-related variables . Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 799 – 811 .

MacDonald , S. , & Arthur , N . ( 2005 ). Connecting career management to repatriation adjustment . Career Development International , 10 , 145– 158 .

Ng , T. W. , Eby , L. T. , Sorenson , K. L. , & Feldman , D. C . ( 2005 ). Predictors of objective and subjective ca-reer success: A meta-analysis . Personnel Psychol-ogy , 58 , 367 – 408 .

Nicholson , N. , & de Waal-Andrews , W . ( 2005 ). Playing to win: Biological imperatives, self-regulation and tradeoffs in the game of career success . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 137 – 154 .

Osland , J. S . ( 2000 ). The journey inward: Expatriate hero tales and paradoxes . Human Resource Man-agement , 39 , 227 – 238 .

O’Sullivan , S. L . ( 2002 ). The protean approach to managing repatriation transitions . International Journal of Manpower , 23 , 597– 616 .

Peltonen , T . ( 1997 ). Facing the rankings from the past: A tournament perspective on repatriate career mobility . International Journal of Human Resource Management , 8 , 106– 123 .

Phatak , A. V . ( 1989 ). International dimensions of management ( 2nd ed. ). Boston: PWS-Kent .

Porter , G. , & Tansky , J. W . ( 1999 ). Expatriate success may depend on a “learning orientation” : Consider-ations for selection and training . Human Resource Management , 38 , 47– 60 .

Ramakrishna , H. , & Potosky , D . ( 2003 ). Conceptualiza-tion and exploration of composite career anchors: An analysis of information systems personnel . Human Resource Development Quarterly , 14 , 199– 214 .

Rosenbaum , J. E . ( 1989 ). Organization career systems and employee misperceptions . In M. B. Arthur , D. T. Hall , & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 329– 354 ). New York : Cambridge Univer-sity Press .

Schein , E. H . ( 1978 ). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs . Reading, UK: Addison-Wesley .

Schein , E. H . ( 1990 ). Career anchors: Discovering your real values . San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company .

Schein , E. H . ( 1996 ). Career anchors revisited: Implica-tions for career development in the 21st century . Academy of Management Executive , 10 ( 4 ), 80– 88 .

Seibert , K. M. , Kraimer , M. L. , & Crant , J. M . ( 2001 ). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success . Personnel Psychology , 54 , 845 – 874 .

Seibert , K. M. , Kraimer , M. L. , & Liden , R. C . ( 2001 ). A social capital theory of career success . Academy of Management Journal , 44 , 219– 237 .

Selmer , J . ( 1998 ). Expatriation: Corporate policy, personal intentions and international adjustment . International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment , 9 , 996– 1007 .

Selmer , J . ( 1999 ). Career issues and international adjustment of business expatriates . Career Development International , 4 ( 2 ), 77 – 87 .

Shaffer , M. A. , Harrison , D. A. , Gregersen , H. , Black , J. S. , & Ferzandi , L.A . ( 2006 ). You can take it with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness . Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 ( 1 ), 109 – 125 .

Stahl , G. K. , & Cerdin , J.-L . ( 2004 ). Global careers in French and German multinational corporations . Journal of Management Development , 23 , 885– 902 .



Stahl , G. K. , Miller , E. L. , & Tung , R. L . ( 2002 ). Toward the boundaryless career: A closer look at expatriate career concept and the perceived implications of an international assignment . Journal of World Business , 37 , 216– 227 .

Stroh , L. K. , Gregersen , H. B. , & Black , J. S . ( 2000 ). Triumphs and tragedies: Expectations and commitments upon repatriation . International Journal of Human Resource Management , 11 , 681– 697 .

Sullivan , S. E. , & Arthur , M. B . ( 2006 ). The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: Examining physical and psychological mobility . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69 ( 1 ), 19– 29 .

Sullivan , S. E. , Carden , W. A. , & Martin , D. F . ( 1998 ). Careers in the next millennium: Directions for future research . Human Resource Management Review , 8 , 165 – 186 .

Suutari , V. , & Brewster , C . ( 2003 ). Repatriation: Empirical evidence from a longitudinal study of careers and expectations among Finnish expatriates . International Journal of Human Resource Management , 14 , 1132 – 1152 .

Suutari , V. , & Taka , M . ( 2004 ). Career anchors of managers with global careers . Journal of Management Development , 23 , 833 – 847 .

Torbiörn , I . ( 1976 ). Att leva utomlands—En studie av utlandssvenskars anpassning, trivsel och levnadsvanor [Living abroad—A study of the adjustment of Swedish overseas personnel]. Stockholm: SNS.

Tung , R. L . ( 1988 ). Career issues in international assignments . Academy of Management Executive , 2(3), 241 – 244 .

Tung , R. L . ( 1998 ). American expatriates abroad: From neophytes to cosmopolitans . Journal of World Business , 33 , 125– 144 .

Van der Velde , M. E. G. , Bossink , C. J. H. , & Jansen , P. G. W . ( 2005 ). Gender differences in the determi-nants of the willingness to accept an international assignment . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 66 , 81 – 103 .

Yan , A. , Zhu , G. , & Hall , D. T . ( 2002 ). International assignments for career building: A model of agency relationships and psychological contracts . Academy of Management Review , 27 , 373– 391 .

career and international assignment fit: toward an integrative model of success

Documents