elucidating the positive side of the work-family interface on international ... · 2014-10-30 ·...

ELUCIDATING THE POSITIVE SIDE OF THEWORK-FAMILY INTERFACE ON

INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS: A MODEL OFEXPATRIATE WORK AND FAMILY

PERFORMANCE

MILA LAZAROVASimon Fraser University

MINA WESTMANTel Aviv University

MARGARET A. SHAFFERUniversity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Drawing on both Job Demands-Resources theory and contagion theory, we conceptu-alize cognitive, affective, and conative influences on expatriate work role and familyrole performance. We clarify expatriate adjustment by expanding the concept tocapture family role adjustment and by mapping relationships among the forms ofadjustment. We also highlight the mediating role of engagement for understandingthe influence of adjustment on role performance, and we consider spillover acrosswork and family contexts and crossover between expatriates and partners.

International assignments are a catalyst forchange in both the family and work lives ofexpatriates. This is especially true for the ma-jority of expatriates who are married or in acommitted relationship (Copeland & Norell,2002; Harvey, 1985; Tung, 1987, 1999). Before theassignment both partners have full lives inter-twined with those of relatives, friends, col-leagues, and community contacts. Upon arrivingin the new country, however, they only haveeach other and, for some, their children. It is notuncommon that both partners work and sharehousehold responsibilities before a postingabroad (Harvey, 1995; Harvey & Wiese, 1998a;Reynolds & Bennett, 1991). The assignment oftendisturbs this balance as the expatriate becomesthe sole earner and provider for the family andthe expatriate partner becomes a householdcaretaker and a stay-at-home parent, having notonly lost a job but also forgone a career, finan-cial independence, and extended family sup-port. Partners, even those not employed beforethe move, find themselves faced with new tasksand expectations (e.g., Linehan & Scullion, 2001;

Pellico & Stroh, 1997; Punnett, 1997; Reynolds &Bennett, 1991; Riusala & Suutari, 2000).

In cases where the expatriate couple has chil-dren, additional challenges arise, such as thechildren’s anguish and uncertainty related toidentity formation, breakup of friendships, anddisruption of schooling (Borstorff, Harris, Feild,& Giles, 1997; De Leon & McPartlin, 1995; Harvey,1985). Meanwhile, the expatriate is often bur-dened by more job responsibilities or excessivetravel and has less time to spend with familymembers (Shaffer & Harrison, 2001; Tung, 1986).Consequently, in addition to facing the chal-lenges of new work colleagues and contexts,expatriates need to adjust to new family rolesand responsibilities, including the changing dy-namics of relationships within the family unit(Caligiuri, Hyland, Joshi, & Bross, 1998; Harris,2002; Van der Zee, Ali, & Salome, 2005).

Further, in international assignments bound-aries between the work and home contexts be-come more permeable (Caligiuri & Lazarova,2005). Not only do organizations assume moreresponsibility for the expatriate family but fam-ily members are often more dependent on eachother for support and companionship (Caligiuriet al., 1998; Copeland & Norell, 2002). From anAll authors contributed equally to this manuscript.

� Academy of Management Review2010, Vol. 35, No. 1, 93–117.

93Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

identity theory perspective (see Stryker & Burke,2000), this enhanced permeability strengthensthe salience of the expatriate’s identity as anemployee and as a partner/parent. According toThoits (1991), salient roles provide the strongestmeaning or purpose. The more meaning that isderived from a role, the greater the behavioralguidance that ultimately leads to the enactmentof behaviors associated with the role. Thus, forexpatriates, performance related to both thework and family roles is important.

In this paper we contend that experienceswithin both the work and family contexts con-tribute to “expatriate success” and expand tra-ditional conceptualizations of expatriate adjust-ment and performance to include both work roleand family role forms. In addition to expandingthe content of adjustment and performance, wealso explicitly consider the relationship be-tween adjustment and performance in both thework and family domains. Dating back to earlyexpatriation research, adjustment has been as-sumed to be a critical antecedent of perfor-mance. So pervasive is this assumption thatsome authors use adjustment as a proxy for per-formance, without much elaboration on the the-oretical grounds regarding the exact nature ofthe relationship between the two constructs (fora review see Thomas & Lazarova, 2006). As aconsequence, in only a limited body of literaturehave scholars empirically examined the rela-tionship between adjustment and performance.Recent meta-analyses (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Har-rison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Hechanova, Beehr, &Christiansen, 2003) have concluded that the re-lationship typically ranges from nonexistent towhat can only be considered moderate, suggest-ing that it may be mediated by other constructs.We propose that the motivational construct ofengagement (Kahn, 1990) plays an interveningrole in this process. That is, well-adjusted expa-triates will have more energy that they can in-vest in fulfilling their work and family role ex-pectations.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify theprocess by which expatriates perform their rolesas employees and as spouses/partners. Specifi-cally, our model examines the work-family in-terface that underpins both work role and familyrole performance on assignment. In developingour model we integrate the domestic work-family literature and the expatriate literature to

(1) provide a theoretically grounded conceptual-ization of cognitive, affective, and conative in-fluences on expatriate behaviors in the workand family contexts; (2) clarify the concept ofadjustment to capture family role adjustmentand to map the relationships among context-specific dimensions of adjustment; (3) highlightthe critical mediating role of engagement forunderstanding role performance; and (4) con-sider spillover effects from the family to thework contexts and crossover effects between ex-patriates and partners.

Because of the complexity of integrating dualroles (i.e., work and family) and dual actors (i.e.,expatriate and partner), we consciously choseseveral delimiters that allowed us to managemore effectively the development and presenta-tion of the model. The first delimiter involves ourunit of analysis. We focus on the experiences ofindividual expatriates and partners, althoughwe recognize that the model could easily beexpanded to one with a multilevel (e.g., familycohesion or dyadic communication) perspective.A second delimiter is that our model is bestapplied to what can be called a “traditional”expatriate situation—an extended internationalposting that requires physical relocation andresidence in the foreign country where one ofthe partners (the expatriate) works and the otheris unemployed. Our emphasis is on the expatri-ate as the focal target of investigation. Althoughwe take into consideration issues associatedwith changes in the partner’s life, we do notexplicitly develop a model for partners. Such amodel would parallel the one we propose forexpatriates, but some constructs may not be rel-evant, depending on the employment status andthe relocation status of the partners. A third de-limiter is that our inclusion of partners accom-panying the expatriate on assignment restrictsthe relevance of the model to intact families. Wenote here that, for simplicity of presentation, werefer to two committed partners as a family andwe use the term partner to refer to both spousesand significant others. Those who are not with apartner on the assignment, either because theyare not in a committed relationship or becausethey are separated geographically, are likely tohave different experiences. That is not to say,however, that some aspects of the model are notrelevant to them.

94 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

A MODEL OF EXPATRIATE PERFORMANCE

We construe expatriate performance as a four-stage process consisting of cognitive, affective,conative, and behavioral components. Using ab-stract constructs, Figure 1 presents a simplifiedversion of our proposed model of expatriate per-formance. In this section we briefly present def-initions of our key constructs and provide thetheoretical bases for our framework. In subse-quent sections we describe the stages of theexpatriate performance model, elaborating onthe specific constructs of interest and the com-plex relationships among them.

Model Components

Cognition is the process of acquiring knowl-edge and understanding about an event or ex-perience (Huitt, 1999). In our model it refers to theconditions describing circumstances of the in-ternational assignment and is represented bythe demands and resources associated with theindividual as well as various features of theassignment, including the job, the family, andthe foreign environment in general. Demandshave been formally defined as stressors, such asphysical, psychological, social, or situationalconditions that require sustained physical ormental effort and are therefore associated withcertain physiological and psychological costs(Karasek, 1979). In contrast, resources refer tophysical, psychological, social, or situationalconditions that are functional in achievinggoals, reducing demands, and/or stimulating

personal growth and development (Bakker & De-merouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Affect is the emotional response to an individ-ual’s cognitions (Huitt, 1999). We conceptualize itthrough expatriate adjustment that has beenmost commonly defined as the “degree of a per-son’s psychological comfort with various as-pects of a new setting” (Black & Gregersen,1991a: 498). We include three forms of adjust-ment in line with the most salient contexts of theexpatriate experience: foreign culture, work,and family.

Conation is the striving element of motivationand connects cognitions and affect to behavior(Bandura, 1997; Huitt, 1999). In our model it isrepresented by the motivational constructs ofwork role and family role engagement. Engage-ment is a broad concept that encompasses highinvolvement, energy, and self-presence in vari-ous roles (Sonnentag, 2003). We adopt Kahn’sdefinition of engagement as the willing employ-ment and expression of oneself in a particularrole and the investment of one’s physical, emo-tional, and cognitive energies in role perfor-mance (Kahn, 1990).

As depicted in Figure 1, our main focus is onexplaining the ultimate behavioral component,which we construe in terms of role performancein the work and family domains. According toecological systems theory, both work and familyare microsystems that entail patterns of activi-ties and roles (Voydanoff, 2007). We broadly de-fine performance in terms of an array of behav-

FIGURE 1Model of Core Constructs

2010 95Lazarova, Westman, and Shaffer

iors that reflect participation in a particular role(Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998). Just as workrole performance refers to the attainment ofwork-related obligations and expectations, fam-ily role performance refers to the attainment offamily-related obligations and expectations(Voydanoff, 2007).

Theoretical Bases for the Model

To explain the inputs to expatriate perfor-mance, we draw on two main theoretical frame-works. Our overreaching theory is provided bythe Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (De-merouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001;Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Salanova, 2006),which we integrate with key propositions fromcontagion theory. The JD-R model provides aparsimonious and integrative theory that ex-plains psychological health impairment (orburnout) in terms of job demands and motiva-tion (or work engagement) in terms of job re-sources. This model is an extension of earlierwork conceptualizing job strain as the result of adisturbance of the equilibrium between the de-mands to which employees are exposed and theresources they have at their disposal. For exam-ple, the demand-control model (Karasek, 1979)indicates that strain is caused by a combinationof high job demands and low decision latitude.The effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist,1966) proposes that strain is caused by the im-balance between effort (extrinsic job demandsand intrinsic motivation to meet these demands)and rewards (resources such as salary and es-teem). In contrast with this earlier work, the JD-Rmodel considers both negative and positive out-comes and recognizes that demands and re-sources may be unique to certain situations.

First introduced in the study of burnout, inrecent years the JD-R model has been applied tothe study of the work-family interface and togain a better understanding of how job charac-teristics are linked to performance (Bakker, De-merouti, & Verbeke, 2004). The key rationalebehind such investigations has been that envi-ronments characterized by many resources andfewer demands are likely to foster readiness todedicate one’s efforts and abilities to one’s task(Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2007).The JD-R model has direct implications for twocritical components of our model. First, in theexpatriation context the demands-resources

classification can be particularly useful in pro-viding a systematic examination of the variousconditions describing the circumstances of theinternational assignment, as discussed in thesubsequent section. Second, based on theschema of relationships proposed by the JD-Rmodel, we argue that a motivational componentneeds to be included as a link between adjust-ment and performance.

Another key feature of our proposed frame-work has to do with previously unexamined as-pects of the work-family interface that are likelyto affect performance. Kanter (1977) claimed thatwork and home are the most important domainsin a person’s life and that experiences in the twodomains are interconnected. To capture this dy-namic interplay between contexts (i.e., work andfamily) and actors (i.e., expatriate and partner),we consider the contagion processes of spilloverand crossover. Spillover theory conceives of aprocess by which affect, attitudes, and behaviorcarry over from one role to another for the sameindividual (Crouter, 1984; Piotrkowski, 1989; Ze-deck, 1992). Spillover is used to describe thetransference of moods, skills, values, and be-haviors from one role to another (Carlson, Kac-mar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006). The crossovermodel adds another level of complexity by con-sidering this interplay between individuals.Crossover occurs when the experiences of onemember of a dyad are transferred to anothermember; as with spillover, these experiencesmay be either positive or negative (Westman,2001). Thus, spillover is an intraindividual con-tagion process that occurs across contexts, andcrossover is a dyadic, interindividual contagionprocess that occurs within or across contexts butgenerates similar reactions in another individ-ual (Westman, 2001).

PROPOSED RELATIONSHIPS

In this section we provide further specificityregarding our key constructs and consider thedynamic interplay between expatriates andpartners and between work and family contextson international assignments. Insofar as our fo-cus is on understanding expatriate perfor-mance, we begin with a consideration of thisconstruct. As noted earlier, our model includesboth work role and family role performance,with role performance referring to the participa-tion in a role and the attainment of obligations


and expectations stemming from that particularrole (Voydanoff, 2007; Welbourne et al., 1998).Our conceptualization of dual forms of perfor-mance is consistent with existing efforts to ex-pand the domain of individual performance ingeneral and expatriate performance in particu-lar. Historically, organizational researchershave primarily emphasized employee task per-formance. However, during the last two decades,theory about performance has evolved to in-clude contextual (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993)and role-based (Welbourne et al., 1998) forms.Similarly, expatriate researchers have concep-tualized expatriate performance in terms of taskand contextual forms, as well as in terms ofdeveloping and maintaining relationships withhost country nationals (e.g., Arthur & Bennett,1997; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen, 1989;Tung, 1981).

Expanding the criterion space to include fam-ily role performance, we draw on the sociologyliterature and marriage/family literature. Re-searchers in these areas have conceptualizedfamily role performance in various forms, includ-ing performance of household chores (Anderson &Robson, 2006; Devreux, 2007; Gupta, 2006), paren-tal or child care activities (Devreux, 2007; Gor-man & Kmec, 2007), quality of partner and par-ent-child interactions (Carlson & McLanahan,2006), and family functioning, such as familycohesion, flexibility, and communication (Olson,1993). Participation performance within the workcontext includes both task and contextual per-formance. Similarly, performance within thehome/family includes task (e.g., completinghousehold chores) and contextual (e.g., helpingfamily members) forms of performance (Voy-danoff, 2007). Performance in the family domainis especially relevant to expatriates. In additionto facing the challenges of new work conditionsand culture, expatriates need to adjust to newfamily roles and responsibilities, including thechanging dynamics of relationships within thefamily.

The proposed influences on performance aredepicted in Figure 2. In the text we offer generalpropositions that portray expatriate perfor-mance as a sequential process involving cogni-tive, affective, and conative stages. While ourpurpose is to put forward an overreaching theo-retical framework that elucidates the relation-ships within and between these stages, in addi-tion to our general propositions we outline

specific hypotheses in Table 1. These hypothe-ses are more explicit statements of the generalpropositions and can be used to test the pro-posed framework. A core assumption of ourmodel is that conative (i.e., engagement) ele-ments are mediators in the proposed process.

Cognition Stage

We construe cognitions as distal influencesthat indirectly determine expatriate perfor-mance in work and family contexts through theireffect on expatriate affect and conation. Al-though cognitions refer to the perceptions andinterpretations of what is occurring, they arebased on objective reality (Hobfoll, 2002). Asnoted above, for expatriates, cognitive influ-ences include demands and resources that rep-resent conditions of the international assign-ment. In this section we first describe thecontent of these demands and resources andthen detail their complex relationships with ad-justment and engagement.

The content of demands and resources. Ourblueprint of the cognitive stage is provided byresearch on adjustment antecedents (notably,but not exclusively, work by Black and col-leagues; Black, 1990; Black & Gregersen, 1991a,b;Black & Mendenhall, 1991; Mendenhall & Oddou,1985; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999; Shaffer,Harrison, Luk, & Gilley, 1999; Takeuchi, Yun, &Tesluk, 2002; Ward & Kennedy, 1999, 2001). Theliterature offers a plethora of adjustment predic-tors that can be loosely classified in severalgroups (for recent reviews see Bhaskar-Shrini-vas et al., 2005; Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004; Hechanova et al., 2003): generalattributes of the local host environment; per-sonal attributes of the expatriate; work at-tributes, including characteristics of the largerorganization, the job, and the assignment; andfamily attributes. To reduce the complexity re-flected in current research, we use the frame-work provided by the JD-R model (e.g., Bakker &Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, de Jonge,Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001) to classify these at-tributes as general, personal, work, and familydemands or resources (see Table 2). Attributesassociated with negative expatriate experi-ences are considered demands; those associ-ated with positive experiences are consideredresources.


The influence of demands and resources onadjustment and engagement. Applying the JD-Rmodel not only allows us to make sense of themultitude of individual and contextual predic-tors but also provides a theoretical groundingfor the relationship between these predictorsand performance, via their influence on adjust-ment and engagement. According to the JD-Rmodel, demands deplete employees’ energy, ul-timately culminating in strain or negative affect.For example, Bakker et al. (2004) found strongevidence that work pressure and emotional de-mands predicted the exhaustion component ofburnout (see also Demerouti, Bakker, Nachrei-ner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Hakanen, Bakker, &Schaufeli, 2006; Llorens et al., 2006). Applyingthis to the case of expatriation, we anticipatethat excessive demands, emanating from thework or family domains as well as from thegeneral foreign environment, will have an ad-verse impact on expatriate and partner affect.For example, expatriates and partners who

are overwhelmed by the novelty of the foreignculture, have ethnocentric attitudes, and haveextensive work or family demands will havedifficulty adjusting (Shaffer & Harrison, 2001;Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999). If these de-mands are not offset by appropriate resources,they may be especially detrimental to the ad-justment of the expatriate and his or her partner.

Proposition 1: Demands are nega-tively related to adjustment.

From a JD-R perspective, resources either con-tribute to expatriate adjustment directly or indi-rectly by buffering the effects of demands onadjustment (see Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema,2005). In contrast to the energy-depleting role ofdemands, resources trigger a process that en-ables individuals to achieve their goals, leadingdirectly to positive affective outcomes such asorganizational commitment (Schaufeli & Bakker,2004). For example, employees with positiveself-evaluations (a personal resource) are more

FIGURE 2A Model of the Work-Family Interface on International Assignments


TABLE 1General Propositions and Specific Hypotheses Following the Model

Propositions Hypotheses

Proposition 1: Demands are negativelyrelated to adjustment.

1a: Personal and family demands are negatively related to expatriatefamily role adjustment.

1b: Personal and family demands are negatively related to partnerfamily role adjustment.

1c: Personal and general demands are negatively related toexpatriate cultural adjustment.

1d: Personal and general demands are negatively related to partnercultural adjustment.

1e: Personal and work demands are negatively related to expatriatework role adjustment.

Proposition 2: Resources are positivelyrelated to adjustment and mitigate the

2a,b: Personal and family resources are positively related to familyrole adjustment of (a) expatriates and (b) partners.

negative relationship between demandsand adjustment.

2c,d: Personal and family resources moderate the negativerelationship between family demands and family role adjustmentof (c) expatriates and (d) partners.

2e,f: Personal and general resources are positively related to culturaladjustment of (e) expatriates and (f) partners.

2g,h: Personal and general resources moderate the negativerelationship between general demands and cultural adjustment of(g) expatriates and (h) partners.

2i: Personal and work resources are positively related to expatriatework role adjustment.

2j: Personal and work resources moderate the negative relationshipbetween work demands and expatriate work role adjustment.

Proposition 3: Resources are positivelyrelated to engagement.

3a: Personal and family resources are positively related to expatriatefamily role engagement.

3b: Personal and work resources are positively related to expatriatework role engagement.

Proposition 4: Cultural adjustment ispositively related to work role and family

4a,b: Expatriate cultural adjustment spills over to expatriate (a)family role adjustment and (b) work role adjustment.

role adjustment, with spillover occurringacross contexts and crossover occurring

4c,d: Expatriate family role adjustment spills over to (c) expatriatework role adjustment and (d) vice versa.

between expatriates and partners. 4e: Partner cultural adjustment spills over to expatriate family roleadjustment.

4f,g: Expatriate cultural adjustment crosses over to (f) partner culturaladjustment and (g) vice versa.

4h,i: Expatriate family role adjustment crosses over to (h) partnerfamily role adjustment and (i) vice versa.

4j: Expatriate cultural adjustment crosses over to partner family roleadjustment.

4k,l: Partner cultural adjustment crosses over to (k) expatriate familyrole adjustment and (l) expatriate work role adjustment.

Proposition 5: Adjustment and engagementare positively related, both within and

5a: There is a positive relationship between expatriate work roleadjustment and expatriate work role engagement.

across work and family contexts. 5b: There is a positive relationship between expatriate family roleadjustment and expatriate family role engagement.

5c: Expatriate work role adjustment spills over to expatriate familyrole engagement.

5d: Expatriate family role adjustment spills over to expatriate workrole engagement.

5e: Partner family role adjustment crosses over to expatriate workrole engagement.

5f: Partner family role adjustment crosses over to expatriate familyrole engagement.

Proposition 6: There is a spillover betweenwork role and family role engagement.

6a,b: Expatriate work role engagement spills over to (a) expatriatefamily role engagement and (b) vice versa.

Proposition 7: Engagement has a positiveeffect on performance and mediates the

7a: Expatriate work role engagement is positively related toexpatriate work role performance.

relationship between adjustment andperformance.

7b: Expatriate family role engagement is positively related toexpatriate family role performance.

7c: Expatriate work and family role engagement mediate the effectsof work and family role adjustment on expatriate work and familyrole performance.


TABLE 2Expatriate Demands and Resources

Attributes Demand Resource

General attributesComparable standard of living in host location XUrban location of assignment XComparable quality of living conditions XAvailability of domestic help (driver, gardener, household help) XCulture toughness/novelty/distance X

Personal attributesDemographic characteristics

Gender (Male) XMarital status (Married) XNumber and ages of children XEducation XIncome XTenure XOrganizational level/position XNumber of previous assignments X

Individual differencesSelf-efficacy XFlexibility/adaptability XOpenness XEmpathy XTolerance for ambiguity XEmotional sensitivity XPositive affectivity XExtroversion XSelf-monitoring XOptimism XEmotional resilience XExternal locus of control XEthnocentrism XCareer salience/career proactivity X

Knowledge, skills, abilitiesPredeparture knowledge XHost country language ability XRelational skills XCoping/stress management skills XWillingness to go on assignment XWillingness to relocate to culturally dissimilar countries X

Work attributesOrganizational factors

Cross-cultural training XLogistical support and relocation assistance XParent company perceived organizational support XLarge organizational size XSupportive organizational culture X

Job (assignment) factorsSenior position level on assignment XGenerous assignment compensation package (including cost of living adjustments) XLength of assignment XCommunication with head office XHost location perceived organizational support XCompany support on assignment location (e.g., spouse job-seeking assistance,

schooling for children)X

Social support from/interaction with host country nationals XSocial support from/interaction with other expatriates XSupervisor support XLeader-member exchange X

(Continued)


likely to strive to fulfill goals and, in the process,to experience greater job satisfaction (Judge,Bono, & Locke, 2000). According to the JD-Rmodel, resources also function to offset the ad-verse effects of demands. In other words, indi-viduals can draw on resources to buffer the ad-verse effects of demanding conditions (Bakker,Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2005).

Within the expatriate context, resources havebeen shown to have both direct and moderatinginfluences on adjustment. For example, per-ceived organizational support and supervisorsupport positively contribute to expatriate ad-justment (Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron, 1994; Kraimer,Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001; Shaffer, Harrison, &Gilley, 1999). Such support may also play abuffering role, alleviating the negative im-pact of work overload on adjustment (Shaffer,Harrison, & Gilley, 1999). Indeed, social supportand other resources play a key role in moderat-ing stressor-strain relationships (Cranford, 2004;Hobfoll, 2002). In particular, given the ubiquitousnature of personal resources (e.g., personalityand interpersonal skills), they will likely be in-

volved in numerous direct and moderating rela-tionships as detailed in Table 1 and illustratedin Figure 2.

Proposition 2: Resources are positivelyrelated to adjustment and mitigate thenegative relationship between de-mands and adjustment.

Resources can also stimulate employee moti-vation to participate fully in one’s various rolesand dedicate one’s efforts and abilities to a par-ticular task (Llorens et al., 2006). Indeed, in re-cent research scholars have been amassing ev-idence for the positive relationship betweenresources and engagement (Christian & Slaugh-ter, 2007; Hakanen et al., 2006; Salanova, Agut, &Peiro, 2005). The idea that resources can in-crease levels of engagement is consistent with avariety of theoretical approaches focusing onthe motivational role of job resources. One ap-proach is Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) jobcharacteristics theory, which considers the mo-tivational potential of a job as a function ofvarious work resources, such as job signifi-

TABLE 2(Continued)

Attributes Demand Resource

Role clarity XRole discretion/autonomy XRole conflict XRole ambiguity XRole overload XDemands for frequent travel XRegional responsibility XHigh work pressure XUnfavorable physical environment XEmotionally demanding interactions with clients X

Family attributesAdjusted accompanying spouse XSpouse/partner support XSpouse/partner satisfaction XRelationship satisfaction XFamily communication XPartner willingness to go/partner attitude to host location XDual-career couple XLoss of partner career/job/income XFamily responsibilities (including child care and/or elderly care responsibilities in

country of assignment or home country)X

Notes: This list of attributes considers the most commonly used factors in expatriate research but is not exhaustive.Attributes associated in the literature with negative expatriate experiences are listed as demands; those associated withpositive expatriate experiences are listed as resources. Table entries are based on frameworks proposed by Aycan (1997b),Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou (1991), Parker and McEvoy (1993), Shaffer, Harrison, and Gilley (1999), Ward and Kennedy (1994),and recent meta-analyses by Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005) and Hechanova et al. (2003).


cance, job identity, skill utilization, job autono-my/perceived control, job significance, and jobfeedback. Another relevant theoretical frame-work is the conservation of resources theory(Hobfoll, 1989), according to which resourceslead to the acquisition of new resources, withaccumulated resources motivating employees toinvest those resources in improving their perfor-mance (see also Hobfoll, 2002).

Numerous studies based on the JD-R modelhave demonstrated that work resources, such asfeedback, job control, supervisory support, so-cial climate, participation, job security, and per-ceived management quality, predict work roleengagement (e.g., see Bakker et al., 2004; Demer-outi, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Ha-kanen et al., 2006; Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruoko-lainen, 2007). Personal resources, such asindividual differences (e.g., extraversion or self-efficacy beliefs; Langelaan, van Doornen, Bak-ker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Salanova, Bakker, &Llorens, 2006), have also been found to predictwork role engagement. We anticipate that com-parable family resources (e.g., spouse support,family communication) as well as personal re-sources (e.g., optimism, tolerance for ambiguity)will induce expatriates to become more en-gaged in their family roles.

Proposition 3: Resources are positivelyrelated to engagement.

Affect Stage

This stage of the model is represented by ad-justment, which is the central affective constructin the expatriate literature. In line with this lit-erature, we conceptualize adjustment as a mul-tidimensional set of affective responses (Shaf-fer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999) to demands andresources emanating from the family and workcontexts and the foreign environment. However,we critically examine past research and arguefor a revised conceptualization of the dimen-sionality of adjustment. We then map relation-ships among the revised facets of this construct,specifying both crossover and spillover effects.Finally, we consider the influence of adjustmenton engagement.

The content of adjustment. Grounded in thestress literature, the definition and conceptual-ization of adjustment most widely adopted inexpatriate research was suggested by Black and

colleagues (Black, 1988; Black & Gregersen,1991a,b; Black & Stephens, 1989). According tothem, expatriate in-country adjustment com-prises three aspects: adjustment to various cul-tural factors (such as living conditions and localfood), adjustment to interactions with host coun-try nationals, and adjustment to the assign-ment’s work responsibilities. Further, spouseadjustment includes cultural and interaction ad-justment. In nearly two decades of research,scholars have accumulated sizable, though notentirely internally consistent, evidence for thefact that adjustment is a multifaceted construct(i.e., work, interaction, and cultural/general), aswell as evidence for specific links between ad-justment facets and their antecedents and out-comes (e.g., Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Har-rison et al., 2004; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley,1999; Thomas, 1998). All in all, the model hasheld up well under empirical scrutiny and hasbeen extremely useful in unraveling many as-pects of the expatriate adjustment experience.

While the idea of multidimensionality of theadjustment construct has been widely embracedby researchers, concerns have been raisedabout the theoretical basis of the specific facetsof Black et al.’s model (Hippler, 2000; see alsoSuutari & Brewster, 1998, and Thomas & Laz-arova, 2006). Furthermore, a large number of re-searchers have used the model selectively,choosing to test some of its propositions at theexpense of others. Some authors (Kraimer et al.,2001; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999) haveadopted all three facets, but the majority havefocused on the cultural and work facets, espe-cially in research that combines work on expa-triation and work-family balance (Aycan,1997a,b; Caligiuri et al., 1998; Takeuchi, Tesluk,Yun, & Lepak, 2005; Takeuchi, Wang, & Mari-nova, 2005; Takeuchi et al., 2002). According tothese researchers, there are two broad contextsto which expatriates need to adjust: work andnonwork (Takeuchi, Wang, & Marinova, 2005).

Whereas cultural adjustment is primarily non-work related, and work adjustment is work re-lated, interaction adjustment spans the workand the nonwork environments (Shaffer & Har-rison, 1998). Interactions with host country na-tionals are implicit in both—and necessary forboth. As measured by the Black scale (1988,1990), the dimension of interaction adjustment isambiguous since it refers to interactions withhost country nationals both within the work-


place and within the general environment. Inaddition to what appears to be a conceptualredundancy, recent empirical research that uti-lizes the three dimensions has reported veryhigh levels of association between interactionadjustment and cultural adjustment (Cerdin,1999; Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005). To better clarifythe content and nuances of adjustment facetsand to avoid such redundancy, we draw on roletheory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) to suggest that inter-action adjustment be subsumed under the re-spective contexts where social interactions oc-cur. That is, interactions with host countrynationals within the work context can be incor-porated within the work adjustment construct,and interactions with host country nationals inthe nonwork environment fall into cultural ad-justment.

Research has also suggested that existingmodels of adjustment (Aycan, 1997b; Black, Men-denhall, & Oddou, 1991; Parker & McEvoy, 1993;Searle & Ward, 1990) may fail to account for allaspects of adjustment. In a study of the adjust-ment of expatriate spouses, Shaffer and Harri-son (2001) discuss “personal” adjustment, whichthey define as “identity reformation.” Attach-ments and routines established in one’s homecountry are broken, personal and social rolesare redefined, and relationships are viewed dif-ferently. Similarly, Mohr and Klein (2004) talkabout “role adjustment”—the adjustment to thesubstantial change in their roles. Similar senti-ments are echoed in anecdotal accounts of theexpatriate experience. In one example an authordescribes her overnight identity transformationfrom a journalist with a promising televisioncareer to “a single parent without dating privi-leges” (Pascoe, 2003). Although in past researchscholars have discussed these issues primarilywith respect to the nonworking partner, we be-lieve the same arguments are applicable in thecase of the expatriate whose identity as a part-ner/parent also undergoes major changes. Insum, we expand the concept of adjustment toinclude a new facet—family role adjustment—toaccount for changes within the family contextfor both partners.

Relationships among the forms of adjustment.Having (re)defined adjustment in terms of com-fort within specific contexts, we draw on theo-retical perspectives from spillover research tomap the relationships among the three facets ofcultural adjustment, work role adjustment, and

family role adjustment. Whereas most spilloverstudies have investigated job and marital satis-faction (Judge & Ilies, 2004; Williams & Alliger,1994), some expatriate studies have examinedthe spillover of adjustment. Takeuchi et al. (2002)found that expatriates’ cultural adjustmentspilled over to their work context and affectedjob satisfaction. Specifically, expatriates’ cul-tural adjustment and work adjustment were pos-itively related to job satisfaction. Similarly, Vander Zee et al. (2005) found negative spillover ofexpatriates’ home demands to their work roles.Given this support for the spillover of affectacross salient contexts, we anticipate that expa-triate adjustment within one context will affectother contexts. In particular, we expect the moregeneral construct of cultural adjustment to influ-ence the more specific work role and family roleforms of adjustment. This ordering of affectivereactions is consistent with Aycan’s (1997a)model of work adjustment. Specifically, if expa-triates are culturally adjusted, their positivefeelings will spill over to the family and to theirwork. Similarly, if expatriates are well adjustedto their work, one can expect a spillover of ad-justment to their family context; if they experi-ence family role adjustment, it will spill over tothe work context, thus creating a positive spiral(Hobfoll, 1989).

In addition to spillover effects within the af-fective space, we also contend that expatriatesand partners will experience crossover effectsof adjustment to various contexts. Within theexpatriate literature some researchers have ex-amined positive crossover between expatriatesand spouses. Caligiuri et al. (1998) found thatspouses’ family cross-cultural adjustment posi-tively influenced expatriates’ overall cross-cultural adjustment. Similarly, Shaffer and Har-rison (1998) found a crossover of satisfactionbetween expatriates and spouses. Specifically,they found that spouses’ overall satisfactionwith the foreign environment was positively re-lated to expatriates’ nonwork satisfaction. In thesame vein, Van der Zee et al. (2005) found cross-over of stressors from the expatriate to thespouse’s subjective well-being and crossover ofexpatriates’ emotional distress to their spouse’sdistress. Likewise, Black and Stephens (1989)found that a spouse’s general adjustment waspositively related to all forms of the expatriate’sadjustment.


Insofar as international relocation causes lossof support from extended family and friends,expatriates and accompanying family membersbecome more dependent on one another. This isa precondition for strong crossover since fre-quent interactions and good relationships arethe basis for crossover (Westman, 2001). How-ever, researchers have tended to investigateonly unidirectional crossover from spouses toexpatriates, ignoring the possibility of bidirec-tional crossover. To the best of our knowledge,Takeuchi et al. (2002) were the first to look forbidirectional crossover of adjustment. Moreover,they suggested that there is a possibility of bothnegative and positive synergy between spousesand expatriates in terms of the cross-culturaladjustment process. Accordingly, the failure ofone partner to adjust affects the other’s adjust-ment, causing a downward spiral of losses thatcan result in premature termination of the as-signment. Although Takeuchi et al. (2002) sug-gested that the potential exists for synergy be-tween spouses and expatriates, they did notelaborate on how this process occurs. Possibly,expatriates find the features of the job challeng-ing and therefore adjust quickly, experiencegrowth, and hence affect their partners’ culturaladjustment. From this perspective there is thepotential for positive synergy between partnersand expatriates as the adjustment of one part-ner crosses over to the other. To that end, recentresearch has provided evidence of crossover ofsatisfaction and happiness between spouses(Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005; Powst-havee, 2007; Prince, Manolis, & Minetor, 2007).Consequently, we offer the following proposi-tion, with specific relationships detailed in Ta-ble 1 and illustrated in Figure 2.

Proposition 4: Cultural adjustment ispositively related to work role andfamily role adjustment, with spilloveroccurring across contexts and cross-over occurring between expatriatesand partners.

The influence of adjustment on engagement.As previously noted, adjustment is the degree ofcomfort with various aspects of the assignment.Engagement refers to willingly employing andexpressing oneself in a particular role and in-volves the investment of one’s energies in roleperformance. We argue here that adjustment isan affective psychological state that enables ex-

patriates to put more effort into their roles bothas employees and as partners, so they becomemore engaged in their work and family roles.

Adjustment implies that the individual hasovercome such symptoms as stress, anxiety,irritability, and helplessness normally associ-ated with the transition to a new environment(Church, 1982; Oberg, 1960) and is experiencinga sense of psychological and emotional well-being (Searle & Ward, 1990). By definition, anengaged individual is one who is attentive, con-nected, integrated, and focused and who chan-nels his or her personal energies in physical,cognitive, and emotional labors (Kahn, 1992). Tobe fully attentive one has to be open to othersand free from anxiety. To be connected one hasto be able to experience empathy toward others,make oneself available to people or tasks, andbe a part of a mutuality of connections. To beintegrated one has to experience a sense ofwholeness in a situation. To be focused one hasto stay within the boundaries of one’s respectiverole, situation, and/or relationship (Kahn, 1992).Individuals who are not adjusted are highly un-likely to be able to experience any of thesestates. In contrast, adjustment allows expatri-ates to achieve attentiveness, a sense of connec-tion, integration, and focus by diminishing (orcompletely freeing them from) stress, eliminat-ing distractions, and giving them the energythey need to employ and express themselves intheir roles as workers and family members.

Kahn’s model of engagement (Kahn, 1990,1992) provides further support for our argument.The model posits that three conditions are nec-essary for an individual to become engaged:psychological meaningfulness, psychologicalsafety, and psychological availability. Achiev-ing all three can be facilitated by adjustment.

Psychological meaningfulness refers to ele-ments that create incentives or disincentives forinvestment of the self. It is present when anindividual feels worthwhile, valued, and valu-able and feels able to give and receive fromengaging in a role. Expatriates who are not ad-justed are still uncertain about how to interpretand respond to their new environment. Thus, itis highly unlikely that they can experiencemeaningful participation in their roles.

Psychological safety involves the sense of be-ing able to show and employ oneself withoutfear of negative consequences to self-image orstatus. Individuals who feel psychological


safety feel that situations are trustworthy, se-cure, predictable, and clear in terms of behav-ioral consequences. Expatriates who are not ad-justed are unsure of the appropriate ways tobehave in the foreign environment and lack asense of security and/or predictability. Any ac-tion (or inaction) that clashes with the appro-priate norms may lead to potentially negativeconsequences. In other words, low levels of ad-justment will likely be reflected by decreasedperceptions of psychological safety.

Psychological availability refers to possess-ing the physical, emotional, and psychologicalresources necessary for investing oneself in roleperformances. Psychological availability is as-sociated with minimum distractions, confidencein one’s abilities and status, and certainty aboutone’s fit with the social systems that allow moreroom for investment of self in role performances.Only expatriates that are well adjusted will feelthey have sufficient available resources. Poorlyadjusted expatriates will need to conserve re-sources to help them achieve an acceptablelevel of comfort with the foreign environment,thus reducing the sense of psychological avail-ability that is necessary for role engagement.

The influence of adjustment on engagement isconsistent with Kahn’s idea that psychologicalstates mediate the relationship between the en-vironment and engagement (Kahn, 1990, 1992).Related to this, he notes that psychological pres-ence in a role (an important attribute of engage-ment) is a function of how people experiencethemselves and their situations (Kahn, 1992). Ad-ditional support for our proposition is providedby new developments in motivation theory,which suggest that affective experiences have acritical role in determining motivation (e.g., Seo,Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). A recent review main-tains that evidence for the importance of affectis increasing (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Similarly,Huitt (1999) points out that affect is an essentialelement for the energizing component ofconation. Based on these perspectives, we positthat adjusted expatriates are emotionallyequipped to effectively engage in all their lifedomains. Given that both adjustment and en-gagement occur within specific contexts such aswork and family, we propose a direct relation-ship between adjustment and engagementwithin one’s work and family roles.

Based on contagion theory, we also expectpositive spillover of adjustment to engagement

from one context to another (work to family andfamily to work) and crossover across contextsbetween partners. Spillover occurs when expa-triates who are adjusted to their new work roleshave more time and energy to put into the familycontext. Similarly, family role adjustment re-duces the uncertainties emanating from thefamily context and enables expatriates to be-come more absorbed in their work roles. This isconsistent with Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006)work-family enrichment model that posits thatexperiences in one role improve the quality oflife in another role. We also expect a crossovereffect to occur between the partner’s family roleadjustment and the expatriate’s family role en-gagement (for a review see Westman, 2001). Inthis case partners who experience high familyrole adjustment will provide a comfort zone forthe expatriate, and, thus, the partner’s familyrole adjustment will cross over to the expatriateand affect his or her work role and family roleengagement.

Proposition 5: Adjustment and en-gagement are positively related, bothwithin and across work and familycontexts.

Conation Stage

As noted above, conation is the striving ele-ment of motivation, and it connects cognitionand affect to the behavioral (i.e., performance)stage (Huitt, 1999). This stage of our model isrepresented by engagement. After discussingthe content of this construct, we consider recip-rocal influences between work role and familyrole forms of engagement, as well as the directand mediating influences of engagement onperformance.

The content of engagement. As previouslynoted, in this paper we adopt Kahn’s earlierdefinition (Kahn, 1990), according to which en-gagement refers to willingly employing andexpressing oneself in a particular role, and itinvolves the investment of one’s physical, emo-tional, and cognitive energies into role perfor-mance. We do so for several reasons. Kahn’slandmark model is the first to apply the conceptof engagement to the world of work (Avery,McKay, & Wilson, 2007), and it is at the core ofmuch subsequent engagement research (Chris-tian & Slaughter, 2007; Rothbard, 2001; Schaufeli,


Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). Mostimportant, Kahn’s definition emphasizes the mo-tivational component of engagement; as such, itbest represents a conative component of themind (Huitt, 1999).

Reciprocal influences of engagement. Consis-tent with our emphasis on both the family andwork contexts, we consider here two correspond-ing forms of engagement: work role and familyrole. From a spillover perspective (Salanova etal., 2005), we contend that work role and familyrole engagement will have reciprocal spillovereffects. Determining whether spillover will bepositive or negative, however, is problematic.The extensive body of work-life balance litera-ture contains a myriad of theoretical perspec-tives that can support a positive, a negative, or anonexistent relationship between the two formsof engagement (Bailyn, 1993; Barnett & Hyde,2001; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Fredriksen-Goldsen & Scharlach, 2001; Lambert, 1990; Para-suraman & Greenhaus, 1997; Randall, 1988;Rothbard, 2001; Zedeck, 1992).

While a detailed review of the literature is be-yond the scope of this paper, we present the twocentral perspectives in the field. By far the moredominant argument in the literature, the conflict/depletion perspective implies an inverse rela-tionship between work role and family role en-gagement. Given the (assumed) inherent andinevitable trade-offs between the family andwork domains, high engagement in one role willnecessarily be associated with lower engage-ment in the other role (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell,1985; Hochschild, 1997). Less prevalent but gain-ing increasing popularity, the facilitation/enrichment perspective suggests that a positivespillover is possible (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000;Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Marks, 1977; Rothbard,2001). In line with tenets of positive psychology(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), the argu-ment centers on the possibility that engagementin one context (e.g., family) can generate feel-ings of well-being that may spill over to theother context (e.g., work). For example, expatri-ates who are energized by and dedicated to (i.e.,engaged in) the family role can obtain morepersonal resources to allocate to the work role.Similarly, those who are engaged in the workrole will likely have more energy and commit-ment to the family role.

Perhaps not surprisingly, empirical evidenceregarding the spillover between the two forms of

engagement is mixed. Most notably, Rothbard(2001) found support for both depletion (negativespillover) and enrichment (positive spillover) be-tween work role and family role engagement ina single study. She further examined the impactof a person’s positive or negative emotional re-sponse to a role and the importance of gender asa moderator. In light of existing research, ourmodel will be incomplete if we fail to acknowl-edge that a spillover between work role andfamily role engagement exists. However, giventhe focus of our paper (building a process modelof expatriate performance), we are wary of veer-ing too far off course by examining all possibleinfluences on the apparently complex relation-ship between the two constructs. Thus, we putforward a spillover proposition without specify-ing whether the relationship will be positive ornegative.

Proposition 6: There is a spillover be-tween work role and family role en-gagement.

The direct and mediating roles of engage-ment. As depicted in Figure 2, engagement hasa direct effect on performance. This is consistentwith the JD-R perspective whereby engagementis a proximal antecedent of performance (Bakker& Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2004; Salanova& Schaufeli, 2008). Recent studies based on theJD-R model have indeed indicated that work en-gagement is positively related to performance(for an overview see Demerouti & Bakker, 2006).Related research has also shown that engagedworkers exhibit personal initiative, proactivebehavior, and learning motivation (Schaufeli &Salanova, 2007; Sonnentag, 2003). Kahn’s modelalso explicitly suggests that engagement is animportant ingredient for effective role perfor-mance (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Kahn maintains thatthe extent to which organization members are“psychologically present” and, thus, personallyaccessible at work shapes their productivity(Kahn, 1992).

Studies have linked job engagement with aspectrum of performance-related behaviors, in-cluding task performance (Hakanen et al., 2006),performance rated by a supervisor (Rich, 2007;Rich & LePine, 2007; Rothbard & Wilk, 2007), com-mitment (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008),and organizational citizenship behavior (Rich,2007; Rich & LePine, 2007). Schaufeli and Sal-anova (2007) recently summarized the positive


outcomes of work engagement in terms of posi-tive job-related attitudes, good physical andmental health, extrarole behavior and perfor-mance, satisfaction with the job, commitmentand tendency to remain in the organization, bet-ter performance, and loyalty to customers.Based on these theoretical arguments and grow-ing empirical evidence, we anticipate that ex-patriate work role engagement will have a di-rect effect on expatriate work role performance.Similarly, family role engagement will have adirect effect on expatriate family role perfor-mance. Although no empirical studies have ex-plored the latter relationship, the same theoret-ical argument holds: psychological presence inthe family role is likely to lead to effective fam-ily role performance (Kahn, 1990).

In addition to positing a direct effect of en-gagement on performance, we also maintainthat engagement plays an intervening role inthe relationship between adjustment and perfor-mance. The expatriate literature has tradition-ally assumed that increased performance is adirect outcome of cross-cultural adjustment.However, a careful review of research to datereveals that the evidence for such an associa-tion is far from established. Not all studies havefound support for a positive link between adjust-ment and performance, and interpreting exist-ing research is complicated by conceptualiza-tion and measurement issues—notably, theconceptual overlap between many “expatriateeffectiveness” measures and facets of adjust-ment (Thomas & Lazarova, 2006). In line withresults from two meta-analyses that concludethat adjustment exhibits stronger relationshipswith attitudinal variables such as job satisfac-tion rather than with performance (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Hechanova et al., 2003),Thomas and Lazarova (2006) encourage futureresearch to consider the possibility that the ad-justment-performance link is not direct but ismediated by other constructs.

As discussed in previous sections, evidenceexists to suggest that adjustment is positivelyrelated to engagement and engagement is pos-itively related to role performance. Based on thisevidence, and drawing on the cognition-affect-conation-behavior framework (Bagozzi, 1992;Huitt, 1999) and the JD-R model (Bakker & Geurts,2004; Bakker et al., 2004), we propose that therelationship between adjustment and perfor-mance is mediated by engagement. According

to Bagozzi (1992), attitudinal researchers havenot been successful in predicting behavior be-cause they have omitted the construct ofconation. Engagement represents this missingconative or motivational link that allows expa-triates to transfer the positive state of adjust-ment into successful performance. Further, fol-lowing the logic of the JD-R model, resourceslead to positive emotions such as happinessand enthusiasm, better physical and psycho-logical health, and the ability to create andmobilize more resources. Consequently, em-ployees become engaged in their roles, and en-gagement, in turn, contributes to effective roleperformance.

Applying this logic to the expatriate context,because adjusted expatriates enjoy an overallsense of well-being, better health, and moreconfidence in their ability to live and work in aforeign environment, they are able to invest timeand physical, emotional, and cognitive energy(i.e., to engage) in their work and family roles.The allocation of effort to these roles contributesto effective performance in both domains. Thesearguments are consistent with general theoriesof work motivation (e.g., Vroom’s VIE theory[1964]; see also Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980)that construe motivation as a process triggeredby a need (in the case of expatriation, the needto adapt), which then activates the drive toachieve a goal (Luthans, 1998). Adjustment pro-vides expatriates with the volition to engage inwork and family role activities; the result of thisis the fulfillment of expected role behaviors.Thus, we predict that expatriates’ adjustmenthas a direct impact on their engagement in spe-cific day-to-day work and family activities. En-gagement, in turn, contributes to expatriates’ joband family performance.

Proposition 7: Engagement has a pos-itive effect on performance and medi-ates the relationship between adjust-ment and performance.

DISCUSSION

In this paper we consider how the dynamicinterplay of work and family influences behav-iors of expatriates in their roles as employees(i.e., work role performance) and as partners (i.e.,family role performance). We offer a theoreti-cally grounded framework of the expatriate ex-


perience across four stages—cognitive, affec-tive, conative, and behavioral—and we proposea motivational process that links demands andresources to work role and family role perfor-mance via adjustment and engagement. Withthe work-family interface as the core of ourmodel, we explicitly recognize the importance ofmultiple actors (expatriates and partners) andmultiple contexts (family and work).

We believe that we offer several importantcontributions that can enhance expatriate man-agement theory and practice. First, we offer amodel that takes into consideration the complexrelationships and interdependencies of the workand family domains on international assign-ments. While extant research has acknowl-edged the importance of the expatriate family(Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Black & Gre-gersen, 1991b; Black & Stephens, 1989; Hammer,Hart, & Rogan, 1998; Harvey & Wiese, 1998b;Konopaske, Robie, & Ivancevich, 2005; Punnett,1997; Shaffer & Harrison, 1998), by and large ithas not provided a comprehensive theoreticalexplication of how the work and family spheresinteract and how the interplay between the twoaffects expatriates and their families. Assign-ments are frequently portrayed as disruptiveand demanding on the expatriate family, andthe expatriate partner in particular. Indeed,partner inability to adjust is often invoked as thecentral reason for assignment failure. However,research has also pointed out that expatriateswith accompanying partners tend to adjust bet-ter (Thomas, 1998). In order to align such discor-dant findings, we consider not only spillover inthe case of the expatriate but also crossoverbetween partners (Bolger, Delongis, Kessler, &Wethington, 1989; Westman, 2001), as well aspotentially positive interactions leading to opti-mal functioning of all family members (Sheldon& King, 2001). In constructing our model wetake a balanced view of the role of the expa-triate partner. Expatriates and partners influ-ence each other via a crossover process, andthese influences could be but are not inher-ently negative—positive synergy is equallylikely. Partner adjustment affects not only expa-triate adjustment but can also cross over to ex-patriate engagement in both the work and thefamily contexts. Thus, it can have a broader andpotentially more positive influence that hasbeen largely ignored in past studies.

Second, we focus on performance in both workand family contexts. Reviews of the broaderwork-family research have concluded that themajority of work-family studies center on work-related outcomes (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton,2000; Glass & Finley, 2002). This has promptedrecommendations that researchers consider de-pendent variables relevant for a broader groupof stakeholders, particularly family processesand family functioning (Glass & Finley, 2002).This is especially relevant in the context of ex-patriate assignments, where a family may beuprooted for the sake of the expatriate job, thusblurring to some extent the boundary betweenwork and family. Accordingly, we propose amodel including dual performance outcomes toprovide a better reflection of the web of complexrelationships connecting the work and familydomains.

Third, we examine the process through whichadjustment, arguably the most studied constructin expatriate research, affects performance. Incontrast to much research in the field, we placeadjustment in a more distal role in the perfor-mance process and discuss the intervening roleof engagement. Specifically, we posit that ad-justment leads to increased performance bygenerating the motivational state of engage-ment that then facilitates performance withinthe work and the family domains (see Proposi-tions 5 and 7 and related hypotheses in Table 1).A focus on engagement is in line with emergingtrends in positive psychology (Greenhaus &Powell, 2006). Expatriate research has tradition-ally originated from the stressor-stress-strainperspective (e.g., Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005;Black & Gregersen, 1991a; Harrison et al., 2004;see also Shaffer & Harrison, 1998, and Shaffer,Harrison, & Gilley, 1999); drawing on the JD-Rmodel (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), we go beyonda stress-based framework and propose a moti-vational process whereby conditions on the as-signment influence performance through theirimpact on both adjustment and engagement.

Finally, we revisit research on adjustment toaddress adaptation to changing family roles, tomap relationships among the forms of adjust-ment, and to offer a systematic way to groupadjustment antecedents. Drawing on role the-ory, we propose a new facet of adjustment (i.e.,family role adjustment) and argue that this isrelevant to both expatriates and their partners.Our revised tripartite conceptualization of ad-


justment, comprising cultural, work role, andfamily role forms, offers two contributions to ex-patriate adjustment theory. The first refers to themapping of relationships among the adjustmentforms. Having proposed that the more generalform of cultural adjustment is predictive of themore specific forms of work role and family roleadjustment, we explicitly recognize the com-plexities of the adjustment process (see Propo-sition 4 and related hypotheses in Table 1). Thisis in contrast to much of the extant adjustmentliterature (for an exception see Aycan, 1997b).Our second contribution is applying the JD-Rmodel to classify the broad array of demandsand resources that may be relevant to expatriateand partner adjustment. Although we recognizethat the demands and resources listed in Table2 are not exhaustive, the JD-R model provides auseful framework to systematize the variouspredictors of adjustment.

Implications for Research and Management

In conceptualizing the interdependencies ofthe work and family domains on internationalassignments, we identify several issues thatprovide a roadmap for future research. One is-sue that deserves further attention has to dowith the JD-R framework. While we rely heavilyon this framework, our model does not follow itexactly. According to the JD-R, demands predictburnout (a stress-related response) and re-sources predict engagement. These relation-ships are direct, with resources also moderatingthe link between demands and burnout.

Our model departs from the JD-R in two ways.First, the stress-related response of adjustmentis predicted by both demands and resources.Second, our model implies that engagement islinked to demands through adjustment. In addi-tion to the fact that these additional links arestrongly implied by the literature on expatria-tion, accumulating empirical evidence based onthe JD-R theory suggests that more complex re-lationships among the key constructs may beoccurring. Notably, in support of our first addi-tional link (between resources and adjustment),studies have shown that cross-relationships (be-tween resources and burnout) are not uncom-mon (Christian & Slaughter, 2007; Hakanen etal., 2006; Llorens et al., 2006). In support of oursecond additional link (adjustment as a media-tor of the relationship between demands and

engagement), researchers have found evidencefor mediation processes in the relationships be-tween demands and resources on one end andburnout and engagement on the other (e.g., Ha-kanen et al., 2006). Furthermore, burnout andengagement have consistently been found to bemoderately to highly negatively correlated (e.g.,Bakker, van Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006; Bakkeret al., 2004; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). In thiscontext we feel that sufficient justification existsto include additional links in our model. In termsof broader research implications, in future stud-ies researchers may want to subject the JD-Rframework to a more critical examination andconsider the viability of more complex relation-ships than those proposed by the JD-R model.

A second issue for future research has to dowith time. Although we do not explicitly incor-porate time in our model, we recognize its po-tential importance in the process. One exampleis that many of the demands and resourceschange during expatriation. One of the majorassumptions of Hobfoll’s (2002) conservation ofresources theory is that different resources rein-force each other in the sense that possession ofresources leads to possession of other resources.Resources are said to “co-travel in resource car-avans” (Hobfoll, 2002: 318); key resources facili-tate the development and use of other resources.Drawing on these ideas, it is possible that, overtime, resources enhance each other both withinand across the work and the family domainsand create a resource gain spiral. For example,an expatriate who possesses positive affectivitymay be able to learn the host country languagefaster. In combination, these two factors mayhelp facilitate the formation of social relation-ships with host country nationals on and off thejob. In the same vein, there is a change in thedemands in the various stages of the assign-ment.

Another example of the potential relevance oftime has to do with reverse causal relationships.For the sake of parsimony we do not includesuch relationships in our model. However, inline with Fredrickson’s (1998) “broaden-and-build” framework, not only do resources contrib-ute to increased engagement and performancebut increased engagement and performancealso contribute to the accumulation of addi-tional resources (see also Bakker & Demerouti,2007, and Salanova et al., 2006). An alternativepossibility also can be considered. Whereas


positive outcomes are likely to lead to more re-sources, they may also contribute to additionaldemands. For example, if the expatriate has ex-cellent job performance, he or she may be givenmore tasks to accomplish, and this may ulti-mately result in increased role overload. Theseexamples underscore the importance of longitu-dinal studies with specific measurements be-fore, at the beginning, in the middle, and at theend of the assignment.

A third issue that deserves future researchattention is the relationship between work roleengagement and family role engagement. Ac-cording to the facilitation perspective of thework-family interface, engagement in one rolewill spill over into another role (Greenhaus &Powell, 2006; Rothbard, 2001). Such thinking is inline with positive psychology (Seligman, Steen,Park, & Peterson, 2005; Sheldon & King, 2001).However, depletion theories (Edwards & Roth-bard, 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) of theeffect of multiple-role obligations suggest thatthere is a limited amount of energy people pos-sess. Thus, engagement in some roles may comeat the expense of engagement in other roles(Rothbard, 2001). Greenhaus and Powell (2006)suggest that, according to the enrichmentmodel, role accumulation can provide more ex-tensive resources to be applied to the otherroles, as well as time constraints that produceconflict. Research has yet to examine the condi-tions under which role accumulation promotesenrichment to a greater versus lesser extentthan it promotes conflict (Byron, 2005). One via-ble possibility is drawing on identity theory andconsidering role salience, role centrality, or roleinvolvement as moderators of the relationships(Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Greenhaus, Parasura-man, & Collins, 2001; Lobel, 1991; Rothbard,2001). Thus, individuals for whom both the workrole and the family role are salient may experi-ence a positive spillover between engagementin the two spheres, whereas those for whom oneof the roles is more salient than the other mayexperience enhanced engagement in one rolethat leads to diminished engagement in anotherrole. Personality variables may also play an in-teractive role in this process.

A final avenue for future research involvesgender. Throughout the paper we discuss expa-triates and their partners, but we do not considerthe possible effects of gender on their experi-ences, beyond acknowledging gender as a pre-

dictor of adjustment, in line with existing re-search (see Table 2). The general work-familyresearch has not established consistent genderdifferences in the work-family interface (Nelson& Burke, 2000). Expatriate research, however,has suggested that the experiences of femaleexpatriates can be somewhat different, espe-cially in terms of adjustment (Caligiuri & Laz-arova, 2002; Caligiuri & Tung, 1999; Linehan &Walsh, 2000; Westwood & Leung, 1994). Specifi-cally, the argument that female expatriates mayhave a harder time regarding adjustment ap-pears to have gained a lot of currency, but find-ings are by no means consistent (e.g., comparefindings in Caligiuri & Tung, 1999, and Tung,2004).

Further, while the same demands and re-sources are relevant for both male and femaleexpatriates, it is likely that they do not experi-ence the same levels of these demands and re-sources. For example, women are more likely toexperience demands such as dual-career chal-lenges, owing to the lower willingness of theirpartners to put their careers on hold and accom-pany them on assignment, and greater familialresponsibilities (Elron & Kark, 2000; Harris, 1993;Linehan & Walsh, 2000; Taylor & Napier, 1996).Also, female expatriates may have more limitedaccess to such resources as company support orsocial support from host country nationals, par-ticularly in environments with more traditionalgender role ideologies (e.g., Adler, 1984; Izraeli,Banai, & Zeira, 1980; Taylor & Napier, 1996).

Although we believe that our proposed modelwill apply for both genders, we encourage futureresearch that examines this question empiri-cally. In addition to the impact of gender onadjustment and engagement, an important is-sue to investigate is whether the strength ofsome of the relationships proposed by the modeldiffers for men and women—that is, whethergender acts as a moderator. For example, it ispossible that the strength of the relationshipbetween partner adjustment (cultural, familyrole) and expatriate adjustment (cultural, familyrole) is stronger for women than men. Similarly,the link between expatriate family role adjust-ment and expatriate work role adjustment maybe stronger, with the reverse relationship beingweaker for female expatriates compared tomale expatriates. Other relationships that maybe moderated by gender are those that involvespillover from expatriate adjustment in one role


to expatriate engagement in another role andthe spillover between expatriate family role en-gagement and work role engagement.

While our model focuses on expatriate expe-riences, it could easily be modified to clarify theexperiences of the trailing partner or to considernontraditional types of assignments. Becausemost partners do not hold a job in the foreigncountry, a parallel model for them will probablyfocus only on family role performance. In con-structing a model for partners, it is important toconsider experiences that may be unique to thepartner. For example, the transition from paidemployment (before the move) to unemploymentcould represent a demand for the partner.

As we noted earlier, our model is best appliedto an expatriate couple when the expatriate isaccompanied by his or her partner on assign-ment. However, parts of the model will bebroadly applicable to other types of assign-ments. For example, one can consider a long-term assignment in which the expatriate is notaccompanied by family members. The expatri-ate will have to adjust to different types of de-mands, such as the changed role of the “absent”partner and/or parent. On the other hand, thepartner will also experience a change in thefamily role brought about by the necessity oftaking over all domestic responsibilities or as-suming the responsibilities of the absent parentin cases where child care is involved. The part-ner’s adjustment to a redefined family role islikely to play into the expatriate experience.Similar arguments can be made about expatri-ates on short-term or frequent traveler assign-ments. The demands and resources will be dif-ferent, but the basic logic of our model can beapplied to these varied situations, and a seriesof related models may be proposed to describethe work-family interface and its link to perfor-mance in various assignment types.

Before the model is theoretically refined orextended by future research, its veracity must betested empirically. Given its complexity, we rec-ognize the challenges involved, especially intesting the model in its entirety. However, re-searchers could focus on various parts of themodel, such as clarifying the dimensionality ofadjustment; assessing the mediating role of en-gagement; examining the spillover and cross-over effects of adjustment, engagement, andperformance for expatriates and their partners;and specifying the content of work and family

performance. One of the strengths of the modelis that the work-family interface is conceived ofas a process that occurs across cognitive, affec-tive, conative, and behavioral stages. Assessingthis process can be done by focusing on just twoor three stages, but it does require longitudinalresearch. This is especially challenging withsuch a mobile population. Our inclusion of spill-over and crossover effects involving maritalpartners also requires collection of data fromboth partners. Obtaining data from work col-leagues or other family members would alsohelp to mitigate potential problems with com-mon method variance and would provide a morecomprehensive and accurate picture of the ex-periences of expatriates and their partners.

Our model portends several implications formanagement practice. For years organizationshave been aware that families contribute to ex-patriate success; however, this has not trans-lated into consistent consideration of family fac-tors and adequate support for families onassignment (e.g., GMAC, 2008). Our researchhighlights a familiar theme but provides a bet-ter understanding of the complex processeswithin the expatriate family unit. It is importantfor organizations to be aware of the crossoverbetween partners and the spiraling that occurs.To that end, expatriates and their partnersshould be forewarned about changes in familyroles brought about by the assignment. We alsoemphasize the important role of resources pro-vided by organizations since they not only con-tribute to enhanced adjustment and engage-ment but also mitigate the negative effect ofdemands on adjustment. Finally, increased at-tention to expatriate engagement above and be-yond adjustment is also warranted.

Conclusion

International assignments entail uncertaintyand stress—but they also offer the promise ofnew opportunities and challenges. In elucidat-ing the process whereby work and family inter-twine and result in effective performance inboth contexts, we envision expatriates and theirpartners as individuals who have access to awealth of personal, work, and family resourcesthat help them respond effectively to the de-mands entailed in the move to a foreign envi-ronment. The resultant adjustment of the expa-triate and his or her partner to their new roles


and responsibilities is a source of motivation forthe expatriate. Energized to enact both familyand work roles, the expatriate experience culmi-nates in the achievement of goals in the contextof both work and family. We believe our pro-posed model and related hypotheses provide animportant foundation for future work in thisarea, and we hope that it will open up newavenues for expatriate and work-family inter-face research and will inform managementpractice.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. 1984. Expecting international success: Femalemanagers overseas. Columbia Journal of World Busi-ness, 19(3): 79–85.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. 2000.Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict:A review and agenda for future research. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 5: 278–308.

Anderson, G., & Robson, K. 2006. Male adolescents’ contribu-tions to household labor as predictors of later-life par-ticipation in housework. Journal of Men’s Studies, 14:1–12.

Arthur, W., Jr., & Bennett, W., Jr. 1997. A comparative test ofalternative models of international assignee job perfor-mance. In Z. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employeemanagement, vol. 4: 141–172. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. 2007. Engaging theaging workforce: The relationship between perceivedage similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and em-ployee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:1542–1556.

Aycan, Z. 1997a. Acculturation of expatriate managers: Aprocess model of adjustment and performance. InZ. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employee manage-ment, vol. 4: 1–40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Aycan, Z. 1997b. Expatriate adjustment as a multifacetedphenomenon: Individual and organizational level pre-dictors. International Journal of Human Resource Man-agement, 8: 434–456.

Bagozzi, R. P. 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, inten-tions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55:178–204.

Bailyn, L. 1993. Breaking the mold: Women, men and time inthe new corporate world. New York: Free Press.

Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. 2005. The crossoverof burnout and work engagement among working cou-ples. Human Relations, 58: 661–689.

Bakker, A., & Geurts, S. A. E. 2004. Toward a dual-processmodel of work-home interference. Work and Occupa-tions, 31: 345–366.

Bakker, A., van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M. C. 2006. Cross-over of burnout and engagement in work teams. Workand Occupations, 33: 464–489.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. 2007. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 22: 309–328.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. 2005. Jobresources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10: 170–180.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. 2004. Using the JobDemands-Resources model to predict burnout and per-formance. Human Resource Management, 43: 83–104.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NewYork: Freeman.

Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. 2001. Women, men, work, andfamily: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist,56: 781–796.

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

Black, J. S. 1988. Work role transitions: A study of Americanexpatriate managers in Japan. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 19: 277–294.

Black, J. S. 1990. Factors related to the adjustment of Japa-nese expatriate managers in America. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 28: 417–427.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. 1991a. Antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment for expatriates in Pacific Rim as-signments. Human Relations, 44: 497–515.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. 1991b. The other half of thepicture: Antecedents of spouse cross-cultural adjust-ment. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 461–477.

Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. 1991. Toward acomprehensive model of international adjustment: Anintegration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Acad-emy of Management Review, 16: 291–317.

Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. E. 1991. The U-curve adjustmenthypothesis revisited: A review and theoretical frame-work. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 225–247.

Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. K. 1989. The influence of thespouse on American expatriate adjustment and intent tostay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal ofManagement, 15: 529–544.

Bolger, N., Delongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. 1989.The contagion of stress across multiple roles. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 51: 175–183.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the crite-rion domain to include elements of contextual perfor-mance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnelselection: 71–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Borstorff, P. C., Harris, S. G., Feild, H. S., & Giles, W. F. 1997.Who’ll go? A review of factors associated with employeewillingness to work overseas. Human Resource Plan-ning, 20(3): 29–40.


Byron, K. 2005. A meta-analytic review of work-family con-flict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior,67: 169–198.

Caligiuri, P. M., Hyland, M. A. M., Joshi, A., & Bross, A. S. 1998.Testing a theoretical model for examining the relation-ship between family adjustment and expatriates’ workadjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 598–614.

Caligiuri, P. M., & Lazarova, M. 2002. A model for the influ-ence of social interaction and social support on femaleexpatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment. InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, 13: 761–772.

Caligiuri, P. M., & Lazarova, M. 2005. Expatriate assignmentsand work-family conflict. In S. A. Y. Poelmans (Ed.), In-ternational research in work and family: 121–146. Mah-wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Caligiuri, P. M., & Tung, R. L. 1999. Comparing the success ofmale and female expatriates from a US-based multina-tional company. International Journal of Human Re-source Management, 10: 763–782.

Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. 2000. Work-family conflict inthe organization: Do life role values make a difference?Journal of Management, 26: 1031–1054.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G.2006. Measuring the positive side of the work-familyinterface: Development and validation of a work-familyenrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68:131–164.

Carlson, M. J., & McLanahan, S. S. 2006. Strengthening un-married families: Could enhancing couple relationshipsalso improve parenting? Social Service Review, 80: 297–321.

Cerdin, J.-L. 1999. International adjustment of French expa-triate managers. DR 99028, Paris, Essec Research Center.

Christian, M. S., & Slaughter, J. E. 2007. Work engagement: Ameta-analytic review and directions for research in anemerging area. Academy of Management Proceedings:1–6.

Church, A. T. 1982. Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bul-letin, 91: 540–572.

Copeland, A. P., & Norell, S. K. 2002. Spousal adjustment oninternational assignments: The role of social support.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26: 255–272.

Cranford, J. A. 2004. Stress-buffering or stress-exacerbation?Social support and social undermining as moderators ofthe relationship between perceived stress and depres-sive symptoms among married people. Personal Rela-tionships, 11: 23–40.

Crouter, A. 1984. Spillover from family to work: The neglectedside of the work-family interface. Human Relations, 37:425–442.

De Leon, C. T., & McPartlin, D. 1995. Adjustment of expatriatechildren. In J. Selmer (Ed.), Expatriate management: Newideas for international business: 197–214. Westport, CT:Quorum.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.

2001. The Job Demands-Resources model of burnout.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 499–512.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. 2005. Spillover andcrossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction amongdual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67:266–289.

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. 2006. Employee well-being andjob performance: Where we stand and where we shouldgo. In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Occupationalhealth psychology: European perspectives on research,education and practice, vol. 1: 83–111. Maia, Portugal:ISMAI Publications.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., de Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., &Schaufeli, W. B. 2001. Burnout and engagement at workas a function of demands and control. ScandinavianJournal of Work, Environment & Health, 27(4): 279–286.

Devreux, A. M. 2007. ”New fatherhood” in practice: Domesticand parental work performed by men in France and inthe Netherlands. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,38: 87–103.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linkingwork and family: Clarifying the relationship betweenwork and family constructs. Academy of ManagementReview, 25: 178–199.

Elron, E., & Kark, R. 2000. Women managers and interna-tional assignments: Some recommendations for bridg-ing the gap. In M. Mendenhall & G. Oddou (Eds.), Read-ings and cases in international human resourcemanagement: 144–154. Toronto: South-Western Publish-ing.

Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions?Review of General Psychology, 2: 300–319.

Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., & Scharlach, A. W. 2001. Familiesand work: New directions in the twenty first century.New York: Oxford University Press.

Glass, J. L., & Finley, A. 2002. Coverage and effectiveness offamily-responsive workplace policies. Human ResourceManagement Review, 12: 313–337.

GMAC. 2008. Global relocation trends 2008 survey report.Woodridge, IL: GMAC Global Relocation Services.

Gorman, E. H., & Kmec, J. A. 2007. We (have to) try harder:Gender and required work effort in Britain and theUnited States. Gender & Society, 21: 828–856.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources of conflictbetween work and family roles. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 10: 76–88.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. 2001.Career involvement and family involvement as moder-ators of relationships between work family conflict andwithdrawal form a profession. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 6: 91–100.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and familyare allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academyof Management Review, 31: 72–92.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. 2000. Reconceptualizing thework-family interface: An ecological perspective on thecorrelates of positive and negative spillover between


work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 5: 111–126.

Gupta, S. 2006. The consequences of maternal employmentduring men’s childhood for their adult housework per-formance. Gender & Society, 20: 60–86.

Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. 1994. Expatriatemanagement and the psychological contract. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79: 617–626.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Read-ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. 2006. Burnout andwork engagement among teachers. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 43: 495–513.

Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. 2008. The JobDemands-Resources model: A three-year cross-laggedstudy of burnout, depression, commitment, and workengagement. Work & Stress, 22: 224–241.

Hammer, M. R., Hart, W., & Rogan, R. 1998. Can you go homeagain? An analysis of the repatriation of corporate man-agers and spouses. Management International Review,38: 67–86.

Harris, H. 1993. Women in international management: Op-portunity or threat? Women in Management Review, 8(5):9–14.

Harris, H. 2002. Think international manager, think male:Why are women not selected for international manage-ment assignments? Thunderbird International BusinessReview, 44: 175–203.

Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P. 2004.Going places: Roads more and less traveled in researchon expatriate experiences. Research in Personnel andHuman Resource Management, 23: 199–247.

Harvey, M. 1995. The impact of dual-career families on inter-national relocations. Human Resource Management Re-view, 5: 223–244.

Harvey, M., & Wiese, D. 1998a. Global dual-career couplementoring: A phase model approach. Human ResourcePlanning, 21(2): 33–48.

Harvey, M., & Wiese, D. 1998b. The dual-career couple: Fe-male expatriates and male trailing spouses. Thunder-bird International Business Review, 40: 359–388.

Harvey, M. G. 1985. The executive family: An overlookedvariable in international assignments. Columbia Jour-nal of World Business, 19(1): 84–92.

Hechanova, R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. 2003. An-tecedents and consequences of employees’ adjustmentto overseas assignment: A meta-analytic review. Ap-plied Psychology: An International Review, 52: 213–236.

Hippler, T. 2000. European assignments: International orquasi-domestic? Journal of European Industrial Train-ing, 24: 491–504.

Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attemptat conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44:513–524.

Hobfoll, S. E. 2002. Social and psychological resources andadaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6: 307–324.

Hochschild, A. R. 1997. The time bind. New York: Metropoli-tan Books.

Huitt, W. 1999. Conation as an important factor of mind.Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Val-dosta State University. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/conation.html, accessed October 17,2006.

Izraeli, D. N., Banai, M., & Zeira, Y. 1980. Women executives inMNC subsidiaries. California Management Review,23(1): 53–63.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. 2000. Personality andjob satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteris-tics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 237–249.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. 2004. Affect and job satisfaction: Astudy of their relationship at work and at home. Journalof Applied Psychology, 89: 661–673.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal en-gagement and disengagement at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33: 692–724.

Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence atwork. Human Relations, 45: 321–349.

Kanter, R. M. 1977. Work and family in the United States: Acritical review and agenda for research and policy. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Karasek, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude andmental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 24: 285–307.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organi-zations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Konopaske, R., Robie, C., & Ivancevich, J. M. 2005. A prelim-inary model of spouse influence on managerial globalassignment willingness. International Journal of HumanResource Management, 16: 405–426.

Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. 2001. Sources ofsupport and expatriate performance: The mediating roleof expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54:71–99.

Lambert, S. J. 1990. Processes linking work and family: Acritical review and research agenda. Human Relations,43: 239–257.

Langelaan, S., van Doornen, L. J. P., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli,W. B. 2006. Burnout and work enagement: Do individualdifferences make a difference? Personality and Individ-ual Differences, 40: 521–532.

Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. 2005. Work motivation theoryand research at the dawn of the twenty-first century.Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 485–516.

Linehan, M., & Scullion, H. 2001. An empirical study of work-family conflict in international assignments: The expe-riences of female expatriates in Europe. ManagementDevelopment Journal of Singapore, 10(1): 1–9.

Linehan, M., & Walsh, J. 2000. Work-family conflict and thesenior female international manager. British Journal ofManagement, 11(Supplement): S49–S58.

Llorens, S., Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. 2006.Tetsing the robustness of the Job Demands-Resources


model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13:378–391.

Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. 2007.Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefsand engagement exist? Computers and Human Behav-ior, 23: 825–841.

Lobel, S. A. 1991. Allocation of investment in work and familyroles: Alternative theories and implications for research.Academy of Management Review, 16: 507–521.

Luthans, F. 1998. Organizational behavior (8th ed.). Boston:Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Marks, S. R. 1977. Multiple roles and role strain: Some noteson human energy, time and commitment. AmericanSociological Review, 42: 921–936.

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. 2007. Job de-mands and resources as antecedents of work engage-ment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behav-ior, 7: 149–171.

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. 1985. The dimensions of expa-triate acculturation: A review. Academy of ManagementReview, 10: 39–47.

Mohr, A. T., & Klein, S. 2004. Exploring the adjustment ofAmerican expatriate spouses in Germany. InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, 15: 1189–1206.

Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. T., & Ilgen, D. R. 1980. A theory ofbehavior in organizations. San Diego: Academic Press.

Nelson, D. L., & Burke, R. 2000. Women executives: Health,stress, and success. Academy of Management Execu-tive, 14(2): 107–121.

Oberg, K. 1960. Cultural shock: Adjustment to new culturalenvironments. Practical Anthropology, 7: 177–182.

Olson, D. 1993. Circumplex model of marital and familysystems: Assessing family functioning. In E. Walsh (Ed.),Normal family processes (2nd ed.): 104–137. New York:Guilford Press.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. 1997. Personality determi-nants in the prediction of aspects of expatriate job suc-cess. In Z. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employeemanagement, vol. 4: 63–92. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. 1997. Integrating workand family: Challenges and choices for a changingworld. Westport, CT, & London: Quorum.

Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. M. 1993. Initial examination of amodel of intercultural adjustment. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 17: 355–379.

Pascoe, R. 2003. A movable marriage. North Vancouver, BC:Expatriate Press.

Pellico, M. T., & Stroh, L. K. 1997. Spousal assistance pro-grams: An integral component of the international as-signment. In Z. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to em-ployee management, vol. 4: 227–243. Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Piotrkowski, C. 1989. Work and the family system: A natural-istic study of the working-class and lower-middle-classfamilies. New York: Free Press.

Powsthavee, N. 2007. Do we transmit our long-term happi-ness? Longitudinal evidence of life-satisfaction cross-over within marriage. Working paper, Institute of Edu-cation, University of London, London.

Prince, M., Manolis, C., & Minetor, R. 2007. Life satisfactioncrossover among couples. In R. J. Estes (Ed.), Advancingquality of life in a turbulent world: 191–208. New York:Springer.

Punnett, B. J. 1997. Towards effective management of expa-triate spouses. Journal of World Business, 32: 243–257.

Randall, D. M. 1988. Multiple roles and organizational com-mitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9: 309–317.

Reynolds, C., & Bennett, R. 1991. The career couple chal-lenge. Personnel Journal, 70: 46–49.

Rich, B. L. 2007. Job engagement: Construct validation andrelationships with job satisfaction, job involvement, andintrinsic motivation. Dissertation Abstracts InternationalSection A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 67: 3066.

Rich, B. L., & LePine, J. A. 2007. Job engagement: Constructvalidation and relationship with job satisfaction, jobinvolvement, and intrinsic motivation. Paper presentedat the 22nd annual SIOP Conference, New York.

Riusala, K., & Suutari, V. 2000. Expatriation and careers:Perspectives of expatriates and spouses. Career Devel-opment International, 5: 81–90.

Ronen, S. 1989. Training the international assignee. In I. L.Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organiza-tions: 417–453. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamicsof engagement in work and family roles. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46: 655–684.

Rothbard, N. P., & Wilk, S. L. 2007. In the eye of the beholder:The relationship between employee and supervisor per-ceptions of engagement and their effect on performance.Paper presented at the 22nd annual SIOP Conference,New York.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. 2005. Linking organiza-tional resources and work engagement to employeeperformance and customer loyalty: The mediation ofservice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1217–1227.

Salanova, M., Bakker, A., & Llorens, S. 2006. Flow at work:Evidence for an upward spiral of personal and organi-zational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7: 1–22.

Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. 2008. A cross-national study ofwork engagement as a mediator between job resourcesand proactive behavior. International Journal of HumanResource Management, 19: 116–131.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. 2004. Job demands, jobresources, and their relationship with burnout and en-gagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 25: 293–315.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. 2007. Efficacy or inefficacy,that’s the question: Burnout and work engagement, andtheir relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stressand Coping, 20: 177–196.


Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker,A. B. 2002. The measurement of engagement and burn-out: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Hap-piness Studies, 3: 71–92.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. 1990. The prediction of psychologicaland sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural tran-sitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,14: 449–464.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positivepsychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55:5–14.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. 2005.Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation ofinterventions. American Psychologist, 60: 410–421.

Seo, M.-G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. 2004. The role ofaffective experience in work motivation. Academy ofManagement Review, 29: 423–439.

Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. 1998. Expatriates’ psycholog-ical withdrawal from international assignments: Work,nonwork, and family influences. Personnel Psychology,51: 87–118.

Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. 2001. Forgotten partners ofinternational assignments: Development and test of amodel of spouse adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 86: 238–254.

Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M. 1999. Dimen-sions, determinants, and differences in the expatriateadjustment process. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 30: 557–581.

Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Luk, D., & Gilley, K. M. 1999.Spouse adjustment to international assignments: Directdeterminants and the moderating effects of coping strat-egies. Paper presented at the 14th annual EmploymentResearch Unit Conference, Cardiff Business School, Uni-versity of Cardiff, UK.

Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. 2001. Why positive psychology isnecessary? American Psychologist, 56: 216–217.

Siegrist, J. 1966. Adverse health effects of high effort–lowreward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 1: 27–41.

Sonnentag, S. 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proac-tive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 518–528.

Stahl, G., & Caligiuri, P. 2005. The effectiveness of expatriatecoping strategies: The moderating role of cultural dis-tance, position level, and time on the international as-signment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 603–615.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. 2000. The past, present, and future ofidentity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63: 284–297.

Suutari, V., & Brewster, C. 1998. The adaptation of expatri-ates in Europe: Evidence from Finnish companies. Per-sonnel Review, 27: 89–103.

Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S., & Lepak, D. P. 2005. Anintegrative view of international experience. Academyof Management Journal, 48: 85–100.

Takeuchi, R., Wang, M., & Marinova, S. V. 2005. Antecedentsand consequences of psychological workplace strainduring expatriation: A cross-sectional and longitudinalinvestigation. Personnel Psychology, 58: 925–948.

Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Tesluk, P. E. 2002. An examination ofcrossover and spillover effects of spousal and expatriatecross-cultural adjustment on expatriate outcomes. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 87: 655–666.

Taylor, S., & Napier, N. 1996. Working in Japan: Lessons fromwomen expatriates. Sloan Management Review, 37(3):76–84.

Thoits, P. A. 1991. On merging identity theory and stressresearch. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54: 101–112.

Thomas, D. C. 1998. The expatriate experience: A criticalreview and synthesis. Advances in International Com-parative Management, 12: 237–273.

Thomas, D. C., & Lazarova, M. B. 2006. Expatriate adjustmentand performance: A critical review. In G. Stahl &I. Bjorkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in internationalhuman resource management: 247–264. Northampton,MA: Edward Elgar.

Tung, R. L. 1981. Selection and training of personnel foroverseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Busi-ness, 16(1): 68–78.

Tung, R. L. 1986. Corporate executives and their families inChina: The need for cross-cultural understanding inbusiness. Columbia Journal of World Business, 21(2):21–25.

Tung, R. L. 1987. Expatriate assignments: Enhancing successand minimizing failure. Academy of Management Exec-utive, 1(2): 117–126.

Tung, R. L. 1999. Expatriates and their families abroad. InW. A. Oechsler & J. Engelhard (Eds.), International man-agement: Effects of global challenges on competition,corporate strategies and labor markets: 468–477. Wies-baden: Gabler Verlag.

Tung, R. L. 2004. Female expatriates: A model for globalleaders. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3): 243–253.

Van der Zee, K. I., Ali, A. J., & Salome, E. 2005. Role interfer-ence and subjective well-being among expatriate fam-ilies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-chology, 14: 239–262.

Voydanoff, P. 2007. Work, family, and community: Exploringinterconnection. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work motivation. New York: Wiley.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. 1994. Acculturation strategies, psy-chological adjustment, and sociocultural competenceduring cross-cultural transitions. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 18: 329–343.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. 1999. The measurement of sociocul-tural adaptation. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 23: 659–677.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. 2001. Coping with cross-cultural


transition. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32: 632–642.

Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. 1998. The role-basedperformance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-basedmeasure. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 540–555.

Westman, M. 2001. Stress and strain crossover. Human Re-lations, 54: 557–591.

Westwood, R. I., & Leung, S. M. 1994. The female expatriatemanager experience: Coping with gender and culture.

International Studies of Management & Organization,24(3): 64–85.

Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. 1994. Role stressors, moodspillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in em-ployed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37:837–868.

Zedeck, S. 1992. Introduction: Exploring the domain of work/family concerns. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families, andorganizations: 1–32. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mila Lazarova ([email protected]) is an associate professor of international business in theFaculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University. She received her Ph.D.from Rutgers University. Her research interests include expatriation, comparativeHRM, boundaryless careers, and work/life balance.

Mina Westman ([email protected]) is a professor of organizational behavior inthe Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University. She received her Ph.D. from Tel AvivUniversity. Her research interests include job stress, work-family interchange, and theimpact of short business trips and expatriation on the individual, the family, and theorganization.

Margaret A. Shaffer ([email protected]) is the Richard C. Notebaert DistinguishedChair of International Business and Global Studies in the Sheldon B. Lubar School ofBusiness, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. She received her Ph.D. from the Uni-versity of Texas at Arlington. Her research interests include international manage-ment, life balance, and expatriation.


Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

elucidating the positive side of the work-family interface on international ... · 2014-10-30 ·...

Documents