when does cross-cultural motivation enhance … · when does cross-cultural motivation enhance...

21
WHEN DOES CROSS-CULTURAL MOTIVATION ENHANCE EXPATRIATE EFFECTIVENESS? A MULTILEVEL INVESTIGATION OF THE MODERATING ROLES OF SUBSIDIARY SUPPORT AND CULTURAL DISTANCE GILAD CHEN University of Maryland BRADLEY L. KIRKMAN Texas A&M University KWANGHYUN KIM Korea University CRYSTAL I. C. FARH SUBRAHMANIAM TANGIRALA University of Maryland Departing from the emphasis on individual-level stress processes in prior expatriate research, we develop a multilevel model of expatriate “cross-cultural motivation and effectiveness” (motivation and effectiveness pertaining to cross-cultural contexts) that incorporates the influences of foreign subsidiary–level attributes. Analyses of multi- source and multilevel data collected from 556 expatriates in 31 foreign subsidiaries indicated that expatriate cross-cultural motivation was more positively related to work adjustment—and that work adjustment was more likely to mediate the positive relationship between cross-cultural motivation and job performance—when expatri- ates were assigned to foreign subsidiaries characterized by lower levels of subsidiary support and cultural distance. The continuing globalization of the 21st century economy has led work organizations to rely heavily on managerial international assignments to better compete in the global marketplace (Harrison, Shaf- fer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004). However, interna- tional assignments require expatriates to adapt to novel and complex work and nonwork contexts (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Shin, Morge- son, & Campion, 2007), and such challenging as- signments are often associated with low levels of expatriate adjustment (i.e., psychological comfort and familiarity with a new environment) (Black, 1990: 122) and concomitant financial and person- nel costs (Sanchez, Spector, & Cooper, 2000). It is therefore not surprising that a plethora of research has focused on the antecedents of expatriate adjust- ment (for reviews, see Harrison et al. [2004] and Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, and Luk [2005]). However, despite progress, many questions regarding drivers of expatriate effectiveness re- main. According to Harrison et al., the bulk of expatriate theories and research “tend to revolve around the stress of adjustment, and they tend to concentrate exclusively on expatriates themselves, rather than other elements of their social environ- ment” (2004: 236). In other words, the focus of prior expatriate re- search on individual-level and stress-related phe- nomena shows two key limitations. First, stress- focused research has primarily examined factors that reduce the threats inherent in global assign- ments and enhance expatriates’ well-being and ad- justment. However, to more fully understand expa- triates’ effectiveness, it is important to also consider their motivation to proactively pursue in- ternational assignment goals and opportunities. Al- though recent research has begun to explore the role of expatriate motivation (e.g., Harrison & Shaf- This research was supported by a research grant from the Center for Cultural Intelligence, Nanyang Technolog- ical University, Singapore, awarded to Kwanghyun Kim, Bradley L. Kirkman, and Gilad Chen. We thank members of the Personnel and Human Resources Research Group (PHRRG) for providing helpful comments and sugges- tions on this research study. An earlier and abbreviated version of this article was published in the 2009 Acad- emy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. Academy of Management Journal 2010, Vol. 53, No. 5, 1110–1130. 1110 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

Upload: vuongdang

Post on 19-Aug-2019

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

WHEN DOES CROSS-CULTURAL MOTIVATION ENHANCEEXPATRIATE EFFECTIVENESS? A MULTILEVEL

INVESTIGATION OF THE MODERATING ROLES OFSUBSIDIARY SUPPORT AND CULTURAL DISTANCE

GILAD CHENUniversity of Maryland

BRADLEY L. KIRKMANTexas A&M University

KWANGHYUN KIMKorea University

CRYSTAL I. C. FARHSUBRAHMANIAM TANGIRALA

University of Maryland

Departing from the emphasis on individual-level stress processes in prior expatriateresearch, we develop a multilevel model of expatriate “cross-cultural motivation andeffectiveness” (motivation and effectiveness pertaining to cross-cultural contexts) thatincorporates the influences of foreign subsidiary–level attributes. Analyses of multi-source and multilevel data collected from 556 expatriates in 31 foreign subsidiariesindicated that expatriate cross-cultural motivation was more positively related towork adjustment—and that work adjustment was more likely to mediate the positiverelationship between cross-cultural motivation and job performance—when expatri-ates were assigned to foreign subsidiaries characterized by lower levels of subsidiarysupport and cultural distance.

The continuing globalization of the 21st centuryeconomy has led work organizations to rely heavilyon managerial international assignments to bettercompete in the global marketplace (Harrison, Shaf-fer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004). However, interna-tional assignments require expatriates to adapt tonovel and complex work and nonwork contexts(Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Shin, Morge-son, & Campion, 2007), and such challenging as-signments are often associated with low levels ofexpatriate adjustment (i.e., psychological comfortand familiarity with a new environment) (Black,1990: 122) and concomitant financial and person-nel costs (Sanchez, Spector, & Cooper, 2000). It is

therefore not surprising that a plethora of researchhas focused on the antecedents of expatriate adjust-ment (for reviews, see Harrison et al. [2004] andBhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, and Luk[2005]). However, despite progress, many questionsregarding drivers of expatriate effectiveness re-main. According to Harrison et al., the bulk ofexpatriate theories and research “tend to revolvearound the stress of adjustment, and they tend toconcentrate exclusively on expatriates themselves,rather than other elements of their social environ-ment” (2004: 236).

In other words, the focus of prior expatriate re-search on individual-level and stress-related phe-nomena shows two key limitations. First, stress-focused research has primarily examined factorsthat reduce the threats inherent in global assign-ments and enhance expatriates’ well-being and ad-justment. However, to more fully understand expa-triates’ effectiveness, it is important to alsoconsider their motivation to proactively pursue in-ternational assignment goals and opportunities. Al-though recent research has begun to explore therole of expatriate motivation (e.g., Harrison & Shaf-

This research was supported by a research grant fromthe Center for Cultural Intelligence, Nanyang Technolog-ical University, Singapore, awarded to Kwanghyun Kim,Bradley L. Kirkman, and Gilad Chen. We thank membersof the Personnel and Human Resources Research Group(PHRRG) for providing helpful comments and sugges-tions on this research study. An earlier and abbreviatedversion of this article was published in the 2009 Acad-emy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.

� Academy of Management Journal

2010, Vol. 53, No. 5, 1110–1130.

1110

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express

written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

fer, 2005; Wang & Takeuchi, 2007), more research isneeded to clarify whether, how, and when motiva-tion processes contribute to expatriate effectivenessbeyond stress-oriented processes. Second, the indi-vidual-level focus adopted by most prior expatriateresearch has resulted in a limited understanding ofthe complex ways in which person and situationfactors combine to influence expatriate success.Thus, multilevel research can better address ques-tions such as whether different expatriates adaptand perform differently within similar foreign sub-sidiaries,1 and whether subsidiary-level attributesexert unique contextual influences on expatriate-level processes (cf. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Be-cause firms often assign multiple expatriates toeach foreign subsidiary (cf. Kraimer & Wayne,2004), understanding how individual- and subsid-iary-level factors together influence expatriate ef-fectiveness should thus help organizations to bettermanage their expatriate selection and assignmentprocesses. Accordingly, the present research ex-tends prior work by adopting a multilevel, motiva-tion-oriented approach to delineate factors that in-fluence two important indicators of expatriateeffectiveness: work adjustment (i.e., the extent towhich expatriates become psychologically comfort-able handling different aspects of their work assign-ments) and, consequently, job performance duringthe assignments.

Our study contributes to the existing expatriateliterature in three ways. First, our focus on motiva-tion departs from the dominant emphasis on stressand well-being in prior research (Harrison et al.,2004). Although previous expatriate research hasexamined motivational constructs such as workself-efficacy (i.e., belief in task-specific capabilities[Harrison et al., 2004]), there is little research onthe role of motivational processes in interculturalencounters (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Kanfer,Chen, & Pritchard, 2008). Moreover, the limitedamount of research on expatriate motivation to datehas focused on adjustment and attitudinal out-comes (e.g., Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales, 1996).Addressing this gap, we based our conceptualiza-tion of “cross-cultural motivation” (motivation per-taining to cross-cultural contexts) on recent re-search by Ang and colleagues (Ang et al., 2007;Earley & Ang, 2003) and delineate mediating and

moderating mechanisms that explain how andwhen cross-cultural motivation promotes expatri-ate effectiveness.

Second, following trait activation theory (Tett &Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000), we developa cross-level model in which contextual boundaryconditions moderate the extent to which expatriatemotivation promotes expatriate effectiveness. Ac-cording to trait activation theory, a trait is morelikely to be activated—and therefore expressed—in“trait-relevant” situations, which signal to individ-uals that expressing the focal trait is both importantand appropriate (Tett & Burnett, 2003: 502). Thus, atrait is more likely to translate into meaningfuldifferences in work behaviors, and hence perfor-mance, in situations that are more amenable to, andaccepting of, the expression of the trait. Althoughtrait activation theory focuses mainly on personal-ity traits, Tett and Burnett (2003) indicated that thetheory is also applicable to motivational attributesand their resulting motivational expression andthus can serve as a useful framework for delineat-ing contextual moderators of the relationship be-tween expatriate cross-cultural motivation andwork adjustment.

Using trait activation theory as a framework, weexamine the contextual influences on expatriateoutcomes of (1) a foreign subsidiary’s support, de-fined as the extent to which the subsidiary helpsexpatriates adapt to their assignments and providesthem with career and financial support (Kraimer &Wayne, 2004), and (2) the foreign subsidiary’s cul-tural distance, defined as the extent to which theculture of the host country in which the subsidiaryis located is novel or different from expatriates’home countries (Shenkar, 2001). To date, moststudies have examined support and cultural dis-tance as individual-level perceptions of stressors(e.g., Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001; Shaffer &Harrison, 2001). On the one hand, this individual-level focus is reasonable because individuals’ per-ception and appraisal of stressors can exert stronginfluences on stress-related outcomes (Beehr &Newman, 1978; Kasl, 1987). On the other hand,individuals’ perceptions can confound individualattributes (e.g., emotional stability) with situationalattributes of stressors and fail to capture thebroader contextual influences emanating from sit-uational attributes (Bliese & Jex, 2002; Johns, 2006).Although we recognize that other situational vari-ables can also impact expatriate outcomes (cf.Black et al., 1991), drawing on trait activation the-ory, we argue that foreign subsidiary-level supportand cultural distance are especially likely to serveas contextual boundary conditions for individual-level motivational effects, because they capture dif-

1 We use the term “foreign subsidiary” to mean a stan-dalone establishment or branch of a firm located in acountry different from an expatriate’s home country (cf.Osterman, 1994). Since our study examines one foreignsubsidiary per host country, we treat the host countryand foreign subsidiary levels interchangeably.

2010 1111Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

ferent aspects of the complexities and challengesinherent in international assignments.

Finally, we also propose that a multilevel per-spective can help to further explain how motiva-tional and stress processes uniquely contribute toexpatriate effectiveness. From a stress perspective,prior research has shown that individual-level per-ceptions of support and cultural distance are mostlikely to directly relate to expatriate work adjust-ment. In contrast, the new motivation perspectivewe develop here suggests that subsidiary-level sup-port and cultural distance are most likely to serveas boundary conditions that moderate the extent towhich expatriate cross-cultural motivation relatesto work adjustment and performance. Thus, weseek to demonstrate how the motivation perspec-tive we advance contributes to the understandingof expatriate effectiveness above and beyond expla-nations based on stress-related processes.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

In the sections that follow, we delineate a multi-level model of expatriate effectiveness. As shownin Figure 1, we propose that work adjustment me-diates the individual-level relationship betweenexpatriate cross-cultural motivation and job perfor-mance. We also propose that two contextual at-tributes—foreign subsidiary-level support and cul-tural distance—moderate the relationship between

expatriate cross-cultural motivation and work ad-justment. Finally, our model also controls for thedirect relationships of individual-level percep-tions of both support and cultural distance withwork adjustment, which have been theorized andsupported in prior stress-focused expatriate re-search (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005), to teaseout our proposed motivational processes fromstress processes.

Expatriate Effectiveness

Although previous research has focused on mul-tiple indicators of expatriate effectiveness, two ofthe most critical indicators are expatriate work ad-justment and job performance (Harrison et al.,2004; Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Fer-zandi, 2006). These two indicators represent dis-tinct facets of expatriate effectiveness. Specifically,work adjustment captures the extent to which ex-patriates subjectively feel comfortable handling as-signment duties (e.g., facilitating work meetings,negotiating with vendors). By contrast, expatriates’job performance captures the extent to which expa-triates actually carry out their work assignmentsand duties in an effective manner. Arguably, fromthe perspectives of both expatriate and organiza-tion, overall job performance is the most importantand direct measure of expatriate effectiveness.However, as we explain below, work adjustment

FIGURE 1Hypothesized Model

Subsidiary

Support

Cross-Cultural

Motivation

Work

Adjustment Performance

CulturalDistance

H1(+)

H2(+)

H3(–)

H4

(–)Foreign Subsidiary

Level

Expatriate/

Individual Level

• Perceived support • Perceived cultural distance

Job

1112 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

can also serve as an intermediate index of expatri-ate effectiveness, which holds the potential to pro-mote expatriate job performance and, further,mediate the relationship between expatriate cross-cultural motivation and job performance.

Expatriate Cross-Cultural Motivationand Effectiveness

International assignments are quite challengingand require expatriates to devote substantial ef-fort to adapt and perform effectively, in partbecause of the different cultural context of theforeign operation. As such, an expatriate’s moti-vation pertaining to cross-cultural contexts mayplay an important role in adjustment and perfor-mance in an international assignment. Motiva-tion consists of the psychological processes thatdetermine the direction, intensity, and persis-tence of action (Kanfer, 1990), and it involves theprocesses by which individuals marshal personalresources (e.g., skills, time, attention) to chooseand accomplish work-related goals. The workmotivation literature has identified proximal cog-nitive predictors of motivational processes, suchas self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and intrinsic mo-tivation (i.e., interest in a task) (Deci, Connell, &Ryan, 1989). More specifically, employees whoare both more efficacious and intrinsically inter-ested in their tasks are more likely to activelyengage in work-related tasks as well as devotemore effort and time toward task accomplish-ment (Kanfer, 1990; Kanfer et al., 2008).

Drawing on work motivation theories, Earley andAng (2003; Ang et al., 2007) developed the conceptof motivational cultural intelligence, which cap-tures both cross-cultural self-efficacy (i.e., belief inthe ability to be effective in culturally diverse en-vironments) and cross-cultural intrinsic motivation(i.e., intrinsic interest in other cultures). Althoughour conceptualization of cross-cultural motivationfollows this work on motivational cultural intelli-gence, we use the term “cross-cultural motivation”to refer to this construct to be consistent with ourtheoretical focus on motivation, rather than actualcapabilities. Indeed, cognitive theories of motiva-tion (e.g., Bandura, 1997), on which motivationalcultural intelligence is based, have made explicitdistinctions between how people conceive of theirtask environment and perceive their ability to han-dle tasks on the one hand, and actual task-relatedcapabilities on the other.

Ang et al. (2007: 338) proposed that more cross-culturally motivated individuals “direct attentionand energy toward cross-cultural situations basedon intrinsic interest . . . and confidence in their

cross-cultural effectiveness” (2007: 338). That is,the self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation dimen-sions of cross-cultural motivation combine to pro-duce motivational effects in cross-cultural situa-tions. In this regard, our conceptualization ofcross-cultural motivation is similar to that of othermultidimensional motivational constructs (e.g.,psychological empowerment [Spreitzer, 1995]), inwhich related motivational dimensions have beencombined together into “whole” constructs, ratherthan treated separately as their parts, to increaseboth conceptual parsimony and predictive validity.Our conceptualization, drawing from previousmotivation research, implies that individuals’ mo-tivation to pursue challenges in cross-cultural en-vironments are more completely and cogently rep-resented when cross-cultural self-efficacy andintrinsic motivation are considered together.

In line with prior work on self-efficacy (Bandura,1997), intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1989), andmotivational cultural intelligence (Ang et al.,2007), we propose that expatriates with highercross-cultural motivation will be more likely toproactively direct and sustain efforts toward adjust-ing and adapting to their international assignments.For example, expatriates with higher levels ofcross-cultural motivation are more likely to mar-shal the needed personal resources to overcomechallenges likely to arise during the assignmentsand achieve their assignment goals. In addition,because of their greater efficacy and interest inadapting to another culture, cross-culturally moti-vated expatriates are likely more willing to engagein different ways of working in their host countryjob (e.g., getting accustomed to different workhours or adopting different leadership styles). Assuch, we expect expatriate cross-cultural motiva-tion to be positively related to work adjustment ininternational assignments. Although there existsthe possibility that work adjustment also recipro-cally influences subsequent expatriate motivation(e.g., Harrison & Shaffer, 2005), given that cross-cultural motivation is not specific to a particularinternational assignment or any one cultural con-text, it is less likely to be influenced by work ad-justment in a single international assignment. Incontrast, there is evidence that motivational at-tributes similar to cross-cultural motivation thatgeneralize across task settings can positively pro-mote adjustment processes (Chen & Klimoski,2003). Further, there is more specific empirical ev-idence that motivational cultural intelligence pos-itively relates to expatriates’ work adjustment (Anget al., 2007). Thus, we predict:

2010 1113Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

Hypothesis 1. Expatriate cross-cultural motiva-tion positively relates to expatriate workadjustment.

Beyond initial evidence that cross-cultural moti-vation related positively to work adjustment, Anget al. (2007) also found that cross-cultural motiva-tion related positively to job performance. How-ever, prior research has yet to empirically examinethe mediating mechanisms through which expatri-ate cross-cultural motivation might promote expa-triate job performance. Although researchers haveproposed that work adjustment might mediate be-tween expatriate cross-cultural motivation and jobperformance (e.g., Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005;Kim, Kirkman, & Chen, 2008), such mediated rela-tionships have yet to be empirically verified.

According to Black et al. (1991), expatriates ex-perience greater work adjustment when they have aclear understanding of their work roles and are ableto recognize linkages among multifaceted demandsof their international assignments. That is, relativeto expatriates with lower work adjustment, expatri-ates with higher work adjustment have adapted towork-related requirements posed by their interna-tional assignments as well as better learned how tocarry out their assignments more efficiently andeffectively. Further, better-adjusted expatriates aremore likely to perform more effectively, becausethey are more comfortable with various aspects oftheir jobs (Cohen, 1980) and therefore are less fa-tigued and have more personal resources availableto devote to accomplishing work tasks (Harrison &Shaffer, 2005; Shaffer, Harrison, Gilley, & Luk,2001). Thus, work adjustment is likely to be a keyreason why expatriates with higher cross-culturalmotivation perform their jobs more effectively.

Although no study to date has tested whether ornot work adjustment mediates between cross-cul-tural motivation and expatriate job performance,Ang et al. (2007) did find that work adjustment wasmore strongly related to performance than wascross-cultural motivation. In addition, Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis showed thatwork adjustment is one of the most proximal pre-dictors of overall expatriate performance (� � .49).Also, Wang and Takeuchi’s (2007) study of expa-triates in China provides indirect support for ourexpectation that work adjustment mediates be-tween cross-cultural motivation and job perfor-mance in that they showed that work adjustmentmediated between broader motivational traits (i.e.,goal orientations) and expatriates’ job performance.Accordingly, we predict:

Hypothesis 2. Expatriate work adjustment me-diates the positive relationship between expa-

triate cross-cultural motivation and expatriatejob performance.

When Is Cross-Cultural MotivationMost Beneficial?

Hypotheses 1 and 2 serve as a basis for our moreimportant contribution, namely, the delineation ofcross-level contextual moderators of the relation-ship between expatriates’ cross-cultural motivationand their effectiveness—an aspect that has receivedalmost no attention in the expatriate literature todate. In particular, building on trait activation the-ory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000),we posit that certain contextual aspects of foreignsubsidiaries can moderate the extent to which ex-patriate cross-cultural motivation promotes workadjustment, and therefore job performance.

According to Hypotheses 1 and 2, cross-culturalmotivation triggers effort and proactive behaviorsthat enable expatriates to deal effectively with thechallenges inherent in international assignments.However, these hypotheses rest on an assumptionthat (1) substantial effort on the part of expatriates,through which personal resources get allocated, isneeded to overcome assignment challenges, and (2)expatriates have the appropriate resources and ca-pabilities to meet assignment challenges (i.e., theyknow how to behave in a manner consistent withhost country cultural norms). Following trait acti-vation theory, we argue below that subsidiary sup-port and cultural distance represent situations thataffect the extent to which the effort triggered byexpatriate cross-cultural motivation is needed orappropriate, respectively, and hence capture situa-tions that differ in their relevance to the expressionof cross-cultural motivation. Moreover, we proposethat subsidiary support and cultural distance rep-resent different aspects of the challenges interna-tional assignments pose to expatriates and that theeffort triggered by cross-cultural motivation canhelp expatriates overcome some contextual chal-lenges (i.e., low subsidiary support), but not others(i.e., high cultural distance). To more appropriatelycapture the contextual influences proposed in traitactivation theory, we focus on subsidiary supportand cultural distance as foreign subsidiary–levelattributes, as opposed to individual-level percep-tions of these situational variables (cf. Bliese & Jex,2002; Johns, 2006).

Moderating Role of Subsidiary Support

Given the complexity inherent in internationalassignments, it is not surprising that some expatri-ate theories and research have addressed the role of

1114 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

organizational support in expatriate effectiveness(Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Black et al., 1991;Harrison et al., 2004). According to Kraimer andWayne (2004), three dimensions of organizationalsupport are most relevant to expatriate success: (1)adjustment support (i.e., helping expatriates andtheir families adapt in their international assign-ment), (2) career support (i.e., offering career-re-lated guidance), and (3) financial support (i.e., pro-viding monetary incentives and assistance).Kraimer and Wayne (2004) found that individualperceptions of adjustment, career, and financialsupport are directly and positively related to expa-triates’ adjustment and commitment. Accordingly,we conceptualize subsidiary support as a multi-dimensional construct consisting of adjustment,career, and financial support dimensions. Thatis, the three dimensions more fully capture over-all subsidiary support than does each dimensionindividually.

However, we depart from prior research by con-ceptualizing and operationalizing support at thesubsidiary level, as opposed to the individual level,of analysis. This focus on subsidiary-level supportis consistent with previous research showing thatemployee perceptions of organizational supportcan emerge to form organization- (McAllister & Big-ley, 2002) and subsidiary-level (Takeuchi, Chen, &Lepak, 2009) support climate. Employees in thesame subsidiary likely share similar perceptions oforganizational support because they are exposed tocommon management practices that shape percep-tions of support, which often differ across workunits and subsidiaries—even those belonging tothe same organization (Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron,1994; Takeuchi et al., 2009). When expatriatesshare the perception that their subsidiary is sup-portive, they are also more likely to adopt normsthat reinforce mutual support as well as share theexpectation that supporting others in their subsid-iary will be both valued and rewarded by manage-ment (cf. Takeuchi et al., 2009). Thus, a sharedsense of subsidiary support among expatriates maycapture a broad network of “support providers”that includes formal support-related policies, prac-tices, and procedures provided by the organization,as well as more informal support from other expa-triates and local staff. Such a broad network ofsupport can influence expatriate motivation andadjustment processes beyond individual-level per-ceptions of support, which may not necessarily beshared among members of a subsidiary.

Following trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett,2003), we propose that less supportive subsidiariesincrease the salience of trait-relevant cues and rep-resent situations that are more relevant to cross-

cultural motivation because they require expatri-ates to exert greater effort to overcome lack ofsupport from the subsidiary. That is, in line withthe first assumption behind Hypotheses 1 and 2(that the greater amount of effort allocated by moremotivated expatriates is needed for better work ad-justment), we propose that expatriates in an unsup-portive subsidiary must allocate greater effort inorder to adjust. Conversely, expatriates in highlysupportive subsidiaries can adjust more easily, ir-respective of how much effort they put forth.

For example, expatriates in supportive subsidiar-ies receive both formal and informal career- andadjustment-related assistance well into their as-signments, which helps them troubleshoot or evenavoid problems (Kraimer & Wayne, 2004). More-over, expatriates in more supportive subsidiarieshave access to greater financial resources for man-aging work and nonwork problems (e.g., they canhire better local staff, purchase better equipment ormaterials, offset additional personal costs associ-ated with their relocation). Highly supportive con-texts may also reduce the number of cues that sig-nal to the expatriate that adaptation-facilitatingbehaviors and personal effort are necessary. In con-trast, expatriates in less supportive subsidiariesmust exert substantially more personal effort tohandle assignment challenges, as they receive lessassistance from their organization and colleagues.Thus, in effect, higher subsidiary support can sub-stitute for the effort expatriates otherwise wouldhave to exert to adjust more effectively to their jobs.

It is possible that higher levels of subsidiary sup-port can also serve as a stress-buffering mechanism,enabling expatriates to allocate more effort towardaccomplishing job-related tasks (cf. Bacharach,Bamberger, & Doveh, 2008), thus enhancing therelationship between cross-cultural motivation andwork adjustment. However, all expatriates, irre-spective of their level of cross-cultural motivation,may come to realize they need to devote less effortto adjust effectively in more supportive subsidiar-ies. Hence, differences in expatriate cross-culturalmotivation are less likely to matter or lead to re-warding outcomes when foreign subsidiaries aremore supportive. Accordingly, we posit that, byreducing the amount of effort needed for expatri-ates to meet assignment tasks and goals, more sup-portive subsidiaries provide fewer opportunitiesfor the expression of individual differences incross-cultural motivation. Thus, higher levels ofsubsidiary support are likely to attenuate the posi-tive relationship between expatriate cross-culturalmotivation and work adjustment. Although we arenot aware of prior empirical research examiningthe moderating influence of supportive contexts,

2010 1115Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

the theoretical rationale stated above leads us tohypothesize:

Hypothesis 3. Foreign subsidiary support mod-erates the relationship between expatriatecross-cultural motivation and expatriate workadjustment in such a way that cross-culturalmotivation relates more positively to work ad-justment when a foreign subsidiary is less,rather than more, supportive.

Moderating Role of Subsidiary Cultural Distance

Researchers have recognized that foreign subsid-iaries differ in the extent to which they requireexpatriates to adapt to novel cultural environments(Harrison et al., 2004). These differences are cap-tured in what has been termed cultural distance(Shenkar, 2001), a construct that denotes differ-ences between a host and home country in basicaspects of culture, including core values, beliefs,customs, and rituals, as well as legal, political, andeconomic systems (Adler, 2008; Hofstede, 1980).According to models of expatriate adjustment, ad-justment is more challenging when the host coun-try is more culturally distant (Black et al., 1991;Ronen & Shenkar, 1985). In the current study, weconceptualize cultural distance as a foreign subsid-iary–level construct to capture the collective con-sensus of expatriates that the host country in whichtheir subsidiary resides is culturally different fromtheir own home countries.

Collective consensus regarding subsidiary-levelcultural distance can emerge via two mechanisms.First, the unique, idiosyncratic cultural attributesof a host country can make it very distinct fromother countries in the world, causing expatriatesfrom even a disparate set of home countries to agreethat the host country is culturally quite differentfrom their own. For instance, the prevalence ofguanxi in China (Chen & Peng, 2008) might be sounique that most expatriates (irrespective of theirplace of origin) might agree that China is culturallydistinct from their respective home countries. Sec-ond, the composition of the expatriates in the hostcountry might be such that the majority are fromhome countries that are culturally quite distinctfrom the host country (e.g., a majority of expatriatesin a subsidiary located in collectivistic South Koreamight be from individualistic home countries suchas Canada and the U.S.), leading to a shared collec-tive sense of high cultural distance among the ex-patriates in that subsidiary.

This emergent subsidiary-level cultural distancecreated by such potential combinations of facilitat-ing conditions captures the novelty or uniqueness

of a host country’s culture through the collectivelens of the expatriates in a subsidiary. When sub-sidiary-level cultural distance is high, it indicatesnot only that the expatriates in that subsidiary areworking in a culturally novel work environmentthat is inherently difficult for them to comprehend,but also that they lack easy means of learning thenuances of that culturally unique work environ-ment from other expatriates. This is likely becausethose other expatriates are also potentially strug-gling with the cultural novelty of that environment.Thus, we argue that subsidiary-level cultural dis-tance captures the cultural novelty facing an expa-triate more comprehensively than do individualperceptions of cultural distance. That is, given thatindividual perceptions only represent the idiosyn-cratic situation of one expatriate, they might notrepresent the cultural context in the subsidiary inways that subsidiary-level cultural distance does.

Unlike the moderating influence of subsidiarysupport, the moderating influence of cultural dis-tance suggests two competing hypotheses. On theone hand, it is possible that cultural distance am-plifies the relationship between cross-cultural mo-tivation and work adjustment (cf. Ang et al., 2007),because the greater cultural challenges inherent inmore culturally distant subsidiaries require morecross-cultural motivation. This argument is similarto our arguments pertaining to subsidiary support.For instance, more cross-culturally motivated expa-triates would likely work harder to overcome thegreater cultural challenges posed by more cultur-ally distant subsidiaries (e.g., adapt their leader-ship style to fit local cultural norms), which, inturn, would promote adjustment in suchsubsidiaries.

On the other hand, recall that the second as-sumption behind our first hypothesis is that expa-triates have the appropriate personal resourcesneeded to meet assignment challenges, and henceallocating more personal resources toward adjust-ment is beneficial for them. In line with this as-sumption, we submit that expatriates in more cul-turally distant subsidiaries are less likely to possessthe appropriate cultural knowledge and skillsneeded to meet cultural norms and expectations,and, therefore, expatriate cross-cultural motivationmay not be sufficient to overcome the challengesinherent in more culturally distant subsidiaries.That is, cultural distance is more likely to attenu-ate, rather than amplify, the relationship betweenexpatriate cross-cultural motivation and workadjustment.

Specifically, when encountering a more cultur-ally distant situation, expatriates are less likely toknow how to behave in a culturally appropriate

1116 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

manner, and thus the expression of cross-culturalmotivation might not always yield desired results.For example, a highly motivated expatriate from a“lower power distance” culture (i.e., one in whichstatus and hierarchy are considered only moder-ately important), such as the United States, in anardent but misplaced attempt to perform well onthe job, may inadvertently bypass higher-level au-thority when gathering information from and as-signing tasks to local employees. Such actionswould violate cultural norms in subsidiaries lo-cated in a high power distance culture such asBrazil (Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque, & House,2006). In contrast, such behaviors by a similarlymotivated and enthusiastic U.S. American expatri-ate may be seen as highly appropriate—and hencewill be more valued and rewarded—in subsidiarieslocated in other lower power distance culturessuch as Canada. Thus, from a trait activation per-spective (Tett & Burnett, 2003), we argue that thehigher levels of effort allocated by more cross-cul-turally motivated expatriates are less likely to re-sult in culturally appropriate behavior that elicitspositive feedback that promotes higher levels ofwork adjustment in more rather than less culturallydistant subsidiaries. Note that we do not suggestthat cross-cultural motivation becomes detrimentalfor adjustment in more culturally distant subsidiar-ies, but, rather, that it is merely less likely to posi-tively promote adjustment in such subsidiaries.

The expectation that cultural distance attenuatesthe relationship between cross-cultural motivationand work adjustment is also consistent with Kanferand Ackerman’s (1989) resource allocation model,according to which motivational processes involv-ing the regulation of effort in pursuit of goals aremore likely to translate into effective behaviorwhen individuals are performing more familiartasks, as opposed to more novel or less familiartasks. Specifically, the resource allocation modelpostulate is that “trying hard [to perform a task]will not help if the individual does not know howto perform the task” (Yeo & Neal, 2004: 232). Insupport is evidence that motivational interventions(e.g., goal setting) have a greater positive impact onlearning and performance on simpler and more fa-miliar, rather than more complex and less familiar,tasks (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Wood, Mento, &Locke, 1987). Likewise, a comprehensive meta-analysis on the relationship between self-efficacyand work-related performance indicated that self-efficacy has a more positive relationship with sim-pler, rather than more complex, performance tasks(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Thus, cross-culturalmotivation may be less positively related to effec-tive behavior that promotes work adjustment in

more culturally distant subsidiaries, because suchsubsidiaries pose less familiar task requirements onexpatriates, which render the effort triggered bycross-cultural motivation less relevant. Hence, wepredict:

Hypothesis 4. Foreign subsidiary cultural dis-tance moderates the relationship betweenexpatriate cross-cultural motivation and expa-triate work adjustment in such a way thatcross-cultural motivation relates more posi-tively to work adjustment when cultural dis-tance is lower, rather than higher.

Integrative Model

Thus far, we have proposed that (1) expatriatecross-cultural motivation is positively associatedwith job performance via its relationship with workadjustment (Hypotheses 1 and 2) and (2) expatriatecross-cultural motivation is more strongly relatedto work adjustment in foreign subsidiaries charac-terized by lower levels of subsidiary support (Hy-pothesis 3) and cultural distance (Hypothesis 4). Inline with trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett,2003), which positions work behavior as an ante-cedent of job performance, Hypotheses 3 and 4focus on work adjustment (which captures expatri-ates’ subjective evaluation of their work behaviors)as opposed to job performance as the focal out-come. However, by extension, the theorizing be-hind Hypotheses 1–4 also suggests that the indirect(i.e., mediated) effect of cross-cultural motivationon job performance varies as a function of the twocross-level moderators. Specifically, subsidiarysupport and cultural distance, owing to their mod-erating influence on the relationship betweencross-cultural motivation and work adjustment,hold the potential to enhance or diminish the indi-rect effect of cross-cultural motivation on job per-formance (via work adjustment). Thus, to morefully evaluate our theoretical model (Figure 1), wealso examine whether cross-cultural motivation ismore likely to indirectly relate to job performance(via work adjustment) in situations in which therelationship between cross-cultural motivation andwork adjustment is stronger (i.e., when culturaldistance is low and when subsidiary supportis low).

METHODS

Sample and Procedures

Our sample consisted of expatriates from a For-tune 500 U.S.-based multinational company in theenergy industry that dispatches expatriates around

2010 1117Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

the world. Using a company-provided list of allexpatriates who were on assignment at the time ofthe study, we contacted 1,082 expatriates via e-mailand asked them to complete a web-based surveycontaining questions about their attributes and ex-periences with international assignments. The firmalso provided expatriates’ actual 2006 and 2007 jobperformance appraisal ratings. Our study’s surveyswere collected nine months after the 2006 perfor-mance appraisals were completed and threemonths prior to completion of the 2007 perfor-mance appraisals.

Complete data were available from a total of 556expatriates, yielding a response rate of 51 percent.The participating expatriates represented 50 differ-ent nationalities and were located in 31 differentforeign subsidiaries (there was only 1 subsidiaryper 31 different host countries). As shown in Table1, foreign subsidiaries were located in host coun-tries with highly diverse cultures. Additionally, thefirm tended to assign expatriates from similar na-tional cultures into the same foreign subsidiary(e.g., 31 out of 44 expatriates in the Indonesian

subsidiary were from Western and Anglo countries.Specifically, 13 were from the U.S.; 8 were from theU.K.; 4, from Canada; 2, from Australia; 2, fromFrance; 1, from Italy; and 1, from the Netherlands).As noted earlier, this relative similarity in homecountries increases the likelihood that expatriateswould share perceptions of cultural distance. Theaverage expatriate age was 44 years (s.d. � 9 years,range � 23–64 years; 95 percent were male, and 85percent were married. Average assignment tenurewas 2.64 years (s.d. � 2.39 years); 80 percent hadassignment tenure of less than 4 years. Expatriatesheld various managerial positions, such as account-ing manager, product coordinator, and business de-velopment manager. Importantly, interviews weconducted with human resource (HR) managersfrom the firm’s headquarters indicated that localHR departments in each foreign subsidiary had afair amount of autonomy in how they managed andsupported expatriates and their families. In fact,subsidiaries employed company policies pertain-ing to managing and supporting expatriates quitedifferently (e.g., they provided different levels ofassistance with taxes, moving expenses, and careerguidance to expatriates). This characteristic justi-fies our focus on subsidiary-level, as opposed tofirm-level, support.

Measures

Surveys were administered in English, as all ex-patriates employed in this firm were fluent in En-glish and all business was conducted in English.Unless otherwise noted, the measures were ratedon a scale ranging from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5,“strongly agree.” Table 2 shows the correlationsand reliabilities for all variables in the study.

Expatriate cross-cultural motivation. Ang etal.’s (2007) five-item motivational cultural intelli-gence (“CQ”) scale was used to measure expatriatecross-cultural motivation. To verify that this mea-sure captured both the self-efficacy and intrinsicmotivation dimensions of cross-cultural motiva-tion, we asked nine subject matter experts (re-searchers familiar with cross-cultural managementtheories and measurement principles) to sort thefive items into either a self-efficacy or intrinsicmotivation dimension on the basis of a match be-tween items and dimension definition. With 100percent agreement, the experts sorted three itemsinto the self-efficacy category (e.g., “I am confidentthat I can socialize with locals in a culture that isunfamiliar to me”) and two items into the intrinsicmotivation category (e.g., “I enjoy interacting withpeople from different cultures”). In addition, con-firmatory factor analyses (CFAs) indicated that the

TABLE 1Number of Expatriates Assigned to Each Host Country/

Subsidiary Represented in Sample

Country Expatriates

Angola 13

Argentina 8

Azerbaijan 5

Brazil 24

Brunei 4

Canada 8

China 15

Congo 9

Ecuador 13

Egypt 31

England 8

India 12

Indonesia 44

Italy 4

Kazakhstan 12

Kuwait 19

Libya 11

Malaysia 42

Mexico 40

Netherlands 15

Nigeria 16

Norway 9

Oman 10

Qatar 13

Russia 17

Saudi Arabia 40

Singapore 10

Thailand 17

United Arab Emirates 36

United States 32

Venezuela 19

1118 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

two-factor model, in which the two items identifiedby experts as self-efficacy loaded on one factor, andthe three items identified by experts as intrinsicmotivation loaded on a second factor, fit the datawell (�2

df � 4, n � 556 � 45.50, CFI � .98, SRMR �

.04) and significantly better than an alternativemodel in which all five items loaded on a singlefactor (��

2�df � 1, n � 556 � 77.18, p � .01; CFI � .94,

SRMR � .06).Although the content validation and CFAs con-

firmed that the motivational CQ scale captured sep-arate self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation dimen-sions of cross-cultural motivation, as expected (cf.Ang et al., 2007), the two dimensions were highlycorrelated (r � .63, p � .001). Furthermore, eachdimension exhibited similar relationships withoutcomes (these results are available upon request).Also, when entered simultaneously, the two di-mensions exhibited a pattern of results suggestiveof multicollinearity, as some estimates were oppo-site in direction to the respective estimates ob-tained without the other dimension in the model,and the standard errors enlarged (Tabachnik & Fi-dell, 2007). Thus, given these results and our con-

ceptualization of cross-cultural motivation as amultidimensional construct containing both self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation dimensions, weaveraged and aggregated all five motivational CQitems into a single, overall cross-cultural motiva-tion score (� � .85).

Expatriate work adjustment. Expatriates’ workadjustment was measured by Black and Stephens’s(1989) three-item measure. Expatriates were askedto rate how they were adjusting to specific job andsupervisory responsibilities and performance stan-dards and expectations in their current assignment(1 � “poor,” 5 � “excellent”; � � .90).

Expatriate job performance. Expatriate job per-formance was measured by performance appraisalratings from company records. At the end of eachyear, the employees were assessed by their primarymanager in performance areas such as performanceexpectations, development expectations, perfor-mance against position/assignment, technicalskills, and behaviors. We used the overall perfor-mance rating of the company (5 � “superior,” 4 �

“exceeds expectations,” 3 � “met all expectations,”2 � “met most expectations,” and 1 � “did not

TABLE 2Descriptive Statistics and Correlationsa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Age 43.72 8.66

2. Marital statusb 1.13 0.34 �.22*

3. Prior international

experience

4.08 3.42 .35* �.08

4. Assignment

tenure in years

2.64 2.39 .13* �.04 .02

5. Language

proficiency

2.98 1.45 �.05 �.02 �.08 .12* (.98)

6. Openness to

experience

3.63 0.39 �.08 .07 .03 �.03 .08 (.74)

7. Emotional

stability

3.45 0.49 .13* �.01 .09* �.08 .07 .18* (.80)

8. Job performance,

2006

4.40 0.72 �.13* �.01 �.07 .01 .02 .02 .04

9. Perceived support 3.10 0.63 �.09* �.01 �.18* �.02 .20* .01 .05 .06 (.89)

10. Perceived cultural

distance

3.17 1.00 .11* .03 .10* �.06 �.48* �.04 �.09* �.02 �.32* (.91)

11. Cross-cultural

motivation

4.24 0.53 .04 .04 .13* �.01 .09* .31* .27* .10* .09* �.08 (.85)

12. Work adjustment 4.02 0.65 .00 �.04 .03 .06 .13* .29* .35* .06 .13* �.16* .30* (.90)

13. Subsidiary

supportc

3.10 0.21 �.08 �.02 �.08 .03 .25* .01 .06 .05 �.15* .61* .04 .05 (.89)

14. Cultural distancec 3.17 0.61 .08 .04 .08* �.05 �.52* �.08 �.08 �.03 .33* �.27* �.10* �.11* �.45* (.91)

15. Job performance,

2007

4.42 0.63 �.16* .12* �.03 .10* .06 .04 �.01 .22* .09* �.07 .12* .17* .11* �.04

a n � 556, Internal consistency reliability (alpha) estimates are on the diagonal.b 1 � “married,” 2 � “single.”c Subsidiary/country-level means assigned down to individual expatriates.

* p � .05

Two-tailed test.

2010 1119Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

meet expectations”). As noted earlier, we obtainedboth 2006 and 2007 job performance scores. The2006 performance scores were treated as a controlvariable (i.e., prior performance), and the 2007scores were the focal performance outcome in thestudy.2

Subsidiary support. Expatriates completed Krai-mer and Wayne’s (2004) 12-item expatriate-specificperceived organizational support scale, which cap-tures financial support (e.g., “The financial incen-tives and allowances provided to me by the com-pany are good”), career support (e.g., “Thecompany considers my goals when making deci-sions about my career”), and adjustment support(e.g., “The company provides me with many oppor-tunities to ease the transition to the foreign coun-try”). CFAs indicated that the three-factor model(one factor per support dimension) fit the data well(�2

df � 51; n � 556 � 247.39, CFI � .97, SRMR � .06),and significantly better than an alternative modelin which all support items were loaded on a singlefactor (��

2�df � 3; n � 556 � 2,801.85,p � .01; CFI �

.76, SRMR � .14). However, average correlationamong the dimensions was .45 (p � .01), and sub-stantive results were highly similar when the datawere analyzed with each dimension separately.3

Thus, because our focus was on overall subsidiary-level support, we averaged and then aggregated the12 items to form a single subsidiary support score(� � .89. Combining items from the three dimen-sions into an overall score was also consistent withprior research on overall support climate (McAllis-ter & Bigley, 2002; Takeuchi et al., 2009). Bothintermember reliability indexes (ICC1 � .06,ICC2 � .55, F30, 555 � 2.20, p � .05) and interrateragreement (median rwg(j) � .95) provided supportfor aggregating individual support scores to thesubsidiary level.

Cultural distance. In international managementresearch, cultural distance is typically measuredusing the average difference between a home coun-try and a host country on cultural values, such asthose developed in large-scale cultural studies (e.g.,

Hofstede [1980] and the GLOBE project [House,Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004]). How-ever, of the 31 foreign subsidiaries in our study,only 23 were included in either Hofstede or Houseet al. Cultural distance measures of this type havealso been criticized because uniform culturalscores and values are assumed for everyone from aparticular country (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson,2006). Therefore, following the conceptual defini-tion of cultural distance (Shenkar, 2001), we devel-oped a new, more direct measure of cultural dis-tance. Expatriates were asked to rate six itemspertaining to the extent to which various culturalattributes (i.e., religions and rituals, values, beliefs,norms, customs, ways of conducting business [cf.Adler, 2008]) in their host country/foreign subsid-iary were similar to or different from those in theirhome country (1 � “highly similar,” 5 � “not at allsimilar”). We then averaged and aggregated the sixitems using the mean within-subsidiary score toform a foreign subsidiary–level (or host country–level) cultural distance score (� � .91). Intermem-ber reliability strongly supported the aggregation ofscores to the subsidiary level (ICC1 � .34, ICC2 �

.90, F30, 555 � 10.32, p � .05), as did intermemberagreement (median rwg(j) � .86 [cf. Bliese, 2000]).Providing additional validity evidence, factorialanalysis of variance indicated that subsidiary/hostcountry (partial �

2� .41) accounted for nearly

twice as much of the variance in individual cul-tural distance ratings as did expatriates’ homecountry (partial �

2� .23), and that the host country

by home country interaction effect on individualratings was nonsignificant (F136, 555 � 1.22, p �

.05). This analysis suggests that expatriates’ ratingsof cultural distance were based primarily on thehost country they were assigned to, as opposed totheir home country.

Furthermore, using data from 23 countries repre-sented in the GLOBE project, we calculated cul-tural difference scores based on cultural valuesfrom the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004), fol-lowing the procedures developed by Kogut andSingh (1988). This procedure provides a summaryscore of how each pair of countries differs on a setof 11 core cultural values (e.g., assertiveness, futureorientation, power distance, etc.). The subsidiary-level, self-rated cultural distance measure we de-veloped correlated highly with the respectiveGLOBE measure of cultural distance (r � .73, p �

.01), providing additional validity for our measure.We use the cultural distance measure developed forthis study in the analyses because there were 31foreign subsidiaries with available data for thismeasure, compared to only 23 subsidiaries withavailable data for the GLOBE measure. However,

2 The relatively low correlation between the 2006 and2007 performance scores (r � .22, p � .05) was likelybecause 30 percent of the expatriates began their inter-national assignments after the 2006 performanceevaluations.

3 When the three support dimensions were enteredsimultaneously into the models, results were suggestiveof multicollinearity problems, as some parameter esti-mates switched direction and standard errors becamelarger. This further reinforced our decision to combinethe three dimensions into an overall subsidiary supportscore.

1120 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

we also report analyses that replicate findings us-ing the GLOBE cultural distance measure in theResults section.

Controls. We included several control measuresto remove the influences of other variables relatedto outcomes in our model. First, as noted in ourintroduction, we controlled for individual-levelperceptions of support and cultural distance, tomore clearly tease out the distinct levels at whichthese variables operated in our proposed motiva-tion-oriented model, as opposed to prior stress-focused models (cf. Black et al., 1991). Second, wealso controlled for expatriate age because age mayimpact motivation and adaptation (Kanfer & Ack-erman, 2004). Third, we controlled for marital sta-tus, prior international experience (i.e., number ofprevious international work assignments), and as-signment tenure (i.e., years on assignment) becauseprevious studies have shown that work-family con-flict (which is more likely to occur for marriedexpatriates), prior experience, and assignment ten-ure can relate to expatriate adjustment (seeBhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Takeuchi, Tesluk,Yun, & Lepak, 2005). Fourth, we also controlled forexpatriates’ local language skill, using a five-itemself-reported scale developed by Takeuchi et al.(2005), because local language skill has been foundto predict expatriate adjustment and performance(Bhaskar-Shirinivas et al., 2005; Takeuchi et al.,2005).

In addition, we controlled for the personalitytraits of openness to experience and emotionalstability—measured by Goldberg et al.’s (2006)international personality item pool scales— be-cause, relative to other personality traits, thesehave been found to more strongly relate to expa-triates’ work adjustment (Shaffer et al., 2006) andbecause these personality traits have also beenassociated with employee motivation (Chen,Gully, & Eden, 2004). Controlling for openness toexperience and emotional stability thus allowedus to demonstrate that the relationship of expa-triate cross-cultural motivation to work adjust-ment and performance goes above and beyondthose of more general motivational traits. Lastly,expatriates’ job performance in the previous year,which was collected from company records, wascontrolled to help discount the alternative possi-bility that job performance drives expatriatecross-cultural motivation and work adjustment.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

We conducted CFAs in LISREL (Joreskog & Sor-bom, 1993) on the seven measures collected fromexpatriates. To form the measurement models, we

randomly created three parcels of items each forlanguage proficiency, openness to experience, emo-tional stability, cross-cultural motivation, work ad-justment, subsidiary support, and cultural dis-tance. The hypothesized seven-factor measurementmodel fit the data well (�2

df � 168, n � 556 � 342.21,RMSEA � .04, CFI � .98). Relative to the hypoth-esized seven-factor model, a one-factor model inwhich all factors were set to correlate at 1.0 fit thedata significantly (��

2�df � 21, n � 556 � 7,564.01,

p � .05, RMSEA � .25, CFI � .45). These resultsstrongly support the discriminant validity of themeasures collected from expatriates.

Analysis Strategy

Because our data were multilevel, we tested thehypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling(HLM) (Raudenbush, Byrk, & Congdon, 2004). HLMpartitioned the variance of individual-level out-comes into level 1 (i.e., individual-level) and level2 (i.e., subsidiary-level) components and then re-gressed the level 1 variance component on individ-ual-level predictors and the level 2 variance com-ponent on subsidiary-level predictors. We thentested cross-level interactions by regressing level 1slopes (i.e., relationships between level 1 predic-tors and outcomes) onto level 2 predictors. Level 1variables included controls, expatriate cross-cul-tural motivation, work adjustment, and job perfor-mance, and level 2 variables included subsidiary-level support and cultural distance.

We first tested Hypotheses 1 and 2, followingBaron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation procedures,and then tested the hypothesized cross-level inter-action effects (Hypotheses 3 and 4) following Hof-mann, Griffin, and Gavin (2000). In all analyses, wegrand-mean-centered the predictors; however, sim-ilar cross-level interaction results were obtainedwhen we group-mean-centered the level 1 predic-tors (cf. Hofmann et al., 2000). To overcome limi-tations associated with a stepwise approach to test-ing a conceptual model in which there is bothmediation and moderation (cf. Edwards & Lambert,2007), we independently reconfirmed our resultsutilizing an integrative approach in which medi-ated (i.e., Hypotheses 1 and 2) and moderated (i.e.,Hypotheses 3 and 4) relationships in our modelwere examined simultaneously, following the mul-tilevel procedures proposed by Bauer, Preacher,and Gil (2006; see also Bacharach et al., 2008). Thisintegrative approach allowed us to accurately esti-mate how the relative sizes of the indirect effect ofour independent variable on the dependent vari-able via the mediator varied under differing levels

2010 1121Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

of our two moderators. Finally, although it is diffi-cult to estimate precise effect sizes in cross-levelmodels, we report Snijders and Bosker’s (1999) over-all pseudo R2 (�R2) for the models; these estimatesare based on proportional reduction of level 1 andlevel 2 errors owing to predictors in the model.

RESULTS

Hypothesis Tests

Table 3 summarizes the results of HLM analysesfor Hypotheses 1–4. Control variables (includingexpatriates’ age, marital status, prior internationalexperience, assignment tenure, language profi-ciency, openness to experience, emotional stabil-ity, and 2006 job performance) and the individual-and subsidiary-level main effects of both subsidiarysupport and cultural distance were included in allanalyses. We first tested whether expatriate cross-cultural motivation positively related to work ad-justment (Hypothesis 1) and whether work adjust-ment mediated between expatriate cross-cultural

motivation and job performance (Hypothesis 2). Asshown in model 1, individual-level perceptions ofsupport (b � .09, p � .05) and cultural distance(b � �.06, p � .05) significantly related to workadjustment, replicating prior findings from stress-focused expatriate research (Bhaskar-Shrinivas etal., 2005). Still, as shown in model 2, expatriatecross-cultural motivation positively related to workadjustment (b � .21, p � .05), supporting Hypoth-esis 1. Expatriate cross-cultural motivation ac-counted for 1 percent of variance in work adjust-ment above and beyond that accounted for bycontrols (total R2

� .20). Further, expatriate cross-cultural motivation uniquely and positively relatedto job performance (b � .12, p � .05; see model 5),and, when added to the job performance model(model 6), work adjustment positively and signifi-cantly related to job performance (b � .15, p � .05),whereas cross-cultural motivation was no longersignificantly related to job performance (b � .09,n.s.). Thus, in support of Hypothesis 2, work ad-justment fully mediated the relationship between

TABLE 3Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses of Expatriate Work Adjustment and Job Performancea

Variables

Work Adjustment Job Performance

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Level 1 main effectsAge .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) �.01* (.00) �.01* (.00) �.01* (.00)

Marital status �.07 (.08) �.07 (.07) �.07 (.07) .20* (.08) .19* (.08) .20* (.08)

Prior Intl. experience .00 (.01) .00 (.01) .00 (.01) .01 (.01) .01 (.01) .01 (.01)

Assignment tenure in years .02* (.01) .02* (.01) .02* (.01) .03* (.01) .03* (.01) .03* (.01)

Language proficiency .01 (.02) .01 (.02) .01 (.02) .01 (.02) .01 (.02) .00 (.02)

Openness to experience .38* (.06) .31* (.07) .30* (.06) .04 (.07) �.01 (.07) �.05 (.07)

Emotional stability .39* (.05) .35* (.05) .33* (.05) �.01 (.05) �.03 (.06) �.09 (.06)

Job performance, 2006 .03 (.03) .02 (.03) .01 (.03) .17* (.04) .17* (.04) .17* (.04)

Perceived support .09* (.04) .07 (.04) .05 (.04) .05 (.05) .04 (.05) .03 (.05)

Perceived cultural distance �.06* (.03) �.06* (.03) �.06* (.03) �.02 (.04) �.02 (.03) �.01 (.03)

Cross-cultural motivation .21* (.05) .27* (.06) .12* (.05) .09 (.05)

Work adjustment .15* (.04)

Level 2 main effectsSubsidiary support �.09 (.16) �.06 (.16) �.04 (.17) .27 (.15) .28 (.15) .28 (.15)

Cultural distance .01 (.06) .02 (.07) .00 (.07) .04 (.06) .05 (.05) .05 (.06)

Cross-level interactionsCross-cultural motivation �

subsidiary support

�.66* (.23)

Cross-cultural motivation �

cultural distance

�.24* (.06)

Pseudo R2 .19 .20 .22 .09 .10 .11

a n � 556 expatriates (level 1) in 31 host countries/foreign subsidiaries (level 2). Unstandardized estimates (based on grand-mean

centering) are reported, with standard errors in parentheses. Pseudo R2 values estimate the amount of total variance (both level 1 and level

2) in the dependent variable captured by predictors in the model.

* p � .05

Two-tailed test.

1122 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

expatriate cross-cultural motivation and job perfor-mance. Expatriate cross-cultural motivation andwork adjustment explained 2 percent of the vari-ance in job performance above and beyond thataccounted for by controls (total R2

� .11).Our model suggests further that the positive

relationship between expatriate cross-culturalmotivation and work adjustment will be morepositive when subsidiary support is lower (Hy-pothesis 3) and when cultural distance is lower(Hypothesis 4). As shown in Table 3 (model 3),the cross-level effects of the subsidiary supportby expatriate cross-cultural motivation interac-tion (� � �.66, p � .05) and the cultural distanceby expatriate cross-cultural motivation interac-

tion (� � �.24, p � .05) on work adjustment wereboth statistically significant and negative. Thetwo interaction terms accounted for 2 percentadditional variance in work adjustment aboveand beyond that accounted for by controls andcross-cultural motivation (total R2

� .22). Tofurther probe these results, we plotted the inter-action effects using Aiken and West’s (1991) pro-cedures. As shown in Figure 2, expatriate cross-cultural motivation related more positively towork adjustment when subsidiary support waslower (dashed line) rather than higher (solidline), supporting Hypothesis 3. Figure 3 furtherillustrates that expatriate cross-cultural motiva-tion related more positively to work adjustment

FIGURE 2Interaction Effect of Cross-Cultural Motivation by Subsidiary Support on Work Adjustment

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Low Cross-Cultural

Motivation

High Cross-Cultural

Motivation

Adjustment

Low subsidiary support

High subsidiary support

Work

FIGURE 3Interaction Effect of Cross-Cultural Motivation by Cultural Distance on Work Adjustment

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Low Cross-Cultural

Motivation

High Cross-Cultural

Motivation

Adjustment

Low cultural distance

High cultural distance

Work

2010 1123Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

when cultural distance was lower (dashed line)rather than higher (solid line), supportingHypothesis 4.

Tests of the Integrative Model

Thus far, our analysis suggests that (1) cross-cul-tural motivation is positively related to job perfor-mance via its relationship with work adjustment (Hy-potheses 1 and 2) and (2) the relationship betweencross-cultural motivation and work adjustment isstronger in foreign subsidiaries characterized bylower levels of support (Hypothesis 3) and lower cul-tural distance (Hypothesis 4). Taken together, thesefindings suggest that the indirect (i.e., the mediated)effect of cross-cultural motivation on job performancemay vary as a function of the two cross-level moder-ators: subsidiary support and cultural distance. Tomore directly test the level and variance of the indi-rect effect of cross-cultural motivation on job perfor-mance and our overall model more completely, weexamined the direct and indirect effects of expatriatecross-cultural motivation on job performance usingthe simultaneous multilevel regression procedurethat Bauer et al. (2006) adapted for HLM.

Results based on Bauer et al.’s (2006) proceduresindicated that the unconditional indirect effect ofcross-cultural motivation on job performance (viawork adjustment) was .06 (s.e. � .03; 95% confi-dence interval � .005, .108). This indirect effectconstituted 36 percent of the total (direct � indi-rect) effect of cross-cultural motivation on job per-formance (.16; s.e. � .06; 95% confidence inter-val � .035, .275). Although these results providefurther support for Hypothesis 2, in that the aver-age indirect effect of cross-cultural motivation onjob performance via work adjustment was signifi-cant, there was significant variation in this indirecteffect across foreign subsidiaries (variance � .001;p � .05). In accordance with our conceptual model,this variability in the indirect effect was a result ofthe significant between-group variance in the slopeof the relationship between cross-cultural motiva-tion and work adjustment (variance � .06, p � .05)and not of any between-group variance in the slopeof the relationship between work adjustment andjob performance (variance � .02, p � .05).4 Hence,

we proceeded to model cross-level moderators ofthe relationship between cross-cultural motivationand work adjustment.

Addition of the two moderators (i.e., subsidiarysupport and cultural distance) indicated that theindirect effect of cross-cultural motivation on jobperformance through work adjustment signifi-cantly differed as a function of those moderators.That is, the conditional indirect effect was positiveand significant at low levels (�1 s.d.) of both sub-sidiary support (.10, p � .05) and cultural distance(.10, p � .05), but nonsignificant at high levels (�1s.d.) of both subsidiary support (.02, p � .05) andcultural distance (.03, p � .05). In other words, theindirect effect of cross-cultural motivation (viawork adjustment) on job performance was 4.99times stronger at low, rather than high, subsidiarysupport levels, and 3.46 times stronger at low,rather than high, cultural distance levels. Further,with the addition of the two moderators, the resid-ual between-group variance in the slope of the in-dividual-level relationship between cross-culturalmotivation and work adjustment was no longer sig-nificant (variance � .04, p � .05), indicating thatthose two cross-level moderators significantly ac-counted for the between-group variance in that re-lationship and, consequently, for the total varianceof the indirect effect of cross-cultural motivation onjob performance. In sum, this integrative analysis ofboth our mediation and moderation hypothesesprovided additional support for our overall model(Figure 1) and provided specific estimates of theindirect effect of cross-cultural motivation on jobperformance (via work adjustment) at different lev-els of our two cross-level moderators.

Auxiliary Tests

We conducted a few supplementary analyses tofurther strengthen the validity of our findings.First, additional analyses of model 3 (Table 3) con-ducted using the GLOBE-based measure of culturaldistance instead of the cultural distance measuredeveloped for this study (n � 392 expatriates in 23foreign subsidiaries) yielded similar results, show-ing that the unique relationships of the culturaldistance by expatriate cross-cultural motivation in-teraction (� � �.22, p � .05) and the subsidiarysupport by expatriate cross-cultural motivation in-teraction (� � �.82, p � .05) with work adjustmentwere again statistically significant and negative.Thus, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported whendifferent measures of cultural distance were used.

In addition, we also explored whether individu-al-level perceptions of support and cultural dis-tance also moderated the expatriate cross-cultural

4 Additional analyses also showed that foreign sub-sidiary–level support and cultural distance did notsignificantly moderate either the direct cross-culturalmotivation–job performance relationship or the workadjustment–job performance relationship (p � .10),further supporting the positioning of the two modera-tors in our model.

1124 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

motivation–work adjustment relationship by add-ing these two variables as additional moderators inthe level 1 portion of model 3. Results showed thatthe individual-level perceived support by cross-cultural motivation (b � �.07, n.s.) and perceivedcultural distance by cross-cultural motivation (b �

.07, n.s.) interactions did not significantly predictwork adjustment; in contrast, in the same model,the cross-level subsidiary support by cross-culturalmotivation interaction (� � �.54, p � .05) andcultural distance by cross-cultural motivation in-teraction (� � �.29, p � .05) remained significantpredictors of work adjustment. Thus, these resultsstrongly support our expectation that subsidiary-level—but not individual-level—support and cul-tural distance moderate the relationship betweenexpatriate cross-cultural motivation and workadjustment.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we examined the role that expatri-ate cross-cultural motivation plays in expatriate ef-fectiveness, and whether or not the extent to whichcross-cultural motivation contributes to expatriateeffectiveness varies depending on two contextualmoderators, subsidiary support and cultural dis-tance. Supporting our hypotheses, we found thatexpatriate cross-cultural motivation relates to jobperformance through work adjustment, but thatwork adjustment is more likely to mediate the pos-itive relationship between expatriate cross-culturalmotivation and job performance in less supportiveand culturally distant foreign subsidiaries. We nextdiscuss the theoretical and managerial implicationsof our study’s findings.

Theoretical Implications

Our findings contribute to the expatriate andwork motivation literatures in three ways. First,this study enhanced understanding of the functionof expatriate cross-cultural motivation. Extendingprevious expatriate research, we delineated andtested mediating and moderating mechanisms thatexplain how and when expatriate cross-culturalmotivation is more and less likely to promote jobperformance. Although previous research has beensuggestive of work adjustment as a mediator be-tween expatriate motivation and performance(Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Wang & Takeuchi,2007), our multisource and lagged design allowedus to more clearly demonstrate that cross-culturalmotivation predicts expatriate job performancethrough work adjustment, even when more generalmotivational traits (i.e., openness to experience and

emotional stability), perceived stressors (i.e., per-ceptions of support and cultural distance), and pre-vious job performance and international experi-ence are controlled for. Thus, our results advancedbetter understanding of how cross-cultural motiva-tion plays a unique and important role in models ofexpatriate effectiveness.

Second, answering calls for studying the role ofcontext in models of expatriate effectiveness (Har-rison et al., 2004), our findings indicated that sub-sidiary support and cultural distance serve asimportant contextual boundary conditions forcross-cultural motivation effects. Indeed, taking amultilevel approach that explicitly includes therole of contextual influences helped to more fullycapture the inherent complexity typically associ-ated with understanding expatriate job perfor-mance. In line with trait activation theory (Tett &Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000), findingssupported our theorizing that higher levels of sub-sidiary support and cultural distance both captureless relevant situations for the expression of expa-triates’ cross-cultural motivation, albeit for differ-ent reasons. That is, higher subsidiary supportrenders expatriate motivation and effort less neces-sary, whereas higher cultural distance makes expa-triate motivation and effort necessary yet not suffi-cient. Furthermore, our findings suggested that,indeed, subsidiary support and cultural distancecapture distinct aspects of the challenges inherentin international assignments and that cross-culturalmotivation can help expatriates overcome some,but not all, aspects of their international assign-ments. In particular, although higher levels ofcross-cultural motivation contributed to improvedexpatriate effectiveness in general, the findingssupported our theoretical expectations that cross-cultural motivation is more likely to help expatri-ates overcome the challenges inherent in low sub-sidiary support, but not those inherent in highercultural distance.

Findings pertaining to the moderating influenceof cultural distance also supported aspects of Kan-fer and Ackerman’s (1989) resource allocationmodel, which, to date, has been studied almostexclusively in laboratory studies of skill acquisi-tion (e.g., Chen & Mathieu, 2008; DeShon, Brown, &Greenis, 1996; Yeo & Neal, 2004). Extending thevalidity and applicability of this model to the con-text of expatriate effectiveness, we found that cross-cultural motivation related more positively to ex-patriate adjustment in less culturally distantcontexts, where assignments were arguably lesscomplex owing to greater cultural familiarity. Thisextension of the resource allocation model furthersupports our broader contention that studying mo-

2010 1125Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

tivational processes can contribute unique insightsto understanding of expatriate effectiveness.

Finally, our study also promoted better under-standing of how stress- and motivation-related pro-cesses may contribute differently and uniquely toexpatriate effectiveness. In particular, in line withprior stress-focused research, we found that indi-vidual-level perceptions of support and culturaldistance related directly to work adjustment (seeBhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). In contrast, the mo-tivation-related processes we delineated and testedextended this research by showing that foreign sub-sidiary–level support and cultural distance mod-erated the relationship between expatriate cross-cultural motivation and work adjustment.Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the directrelationship between perceived support and workadjustment became nonsignificant after we intro-duced expatriate cross-cultural motivation (seemodels 1 and 2, Table 3), suggesting that workadjustment is based more on expatriates’ cross-cul-tural motivation than on their perceived support.Although these results are preliminary and focusedon only few possible motivational and situationalvariables, they suggest that situational variablesmay operate differently in stress versus motivationprocesses. Furthermore, they suggest that the mul-tilevel motivational processes advanced in thisstudy exceed the variables offered in prior theoriesof expatriate stress and adjustment in contributingto researchers’ understanding of expatriate effec-tiveness. Ultimately, we hope that the multilevelmotivational approach we have advanced in thisresearch will stimulate research that moves beyondan individual-level focus on expatriate well-being(cf. Harrison et al., 2004) toward broader consider-ation of how person and situational factors com-bine to contribute to expatriate performance andsuccess.

Managerial Implications

Our study also offers three insights pertaining topractices directed at enhancing expatriate effective-ness. First, our findings suggest that cross-culturalmotivation can play an important role in promotingexpatriate work adjustment and job performance.Because cross-cultural motivation is a dynamiccompetency that transcends cross-cultural situa-tions and yet is somewhat malleable (Ang et al.,2007), managers may consider developing expatri-ates in cross-cultural motivation prior to their as-signments (e.g., by emphasizing benefits associatedwith international assignments and other global ex-periences), as well as placing more cross-culturallymotivated expatriates in foreign assignments.

A second important managerial implication sug-gested by our study is that cross-cultural motiva-tion is likely to be more beneficial when expatriatesare sent to subsidiaries that are less supportive andless culturally distant. Our finding that higher lev-els of subsidiary support reduced the influence ofexpatriate cross-cultural motivation on work ad-justment—and hence performance—suggests thatenhancing subsidiary support can protect againstlimited expatriate motivation. One approach bywhich organizations can enhance subsidiary sup-port is establishing high-performance work sys-tems, in which human resource management sys-tems (e.g., staffing, training, and compensation)explicitly target the improvement of workforcecompetence, attitudes, and motivation (see Takeu-chi et al., 2009). Other approaches for enhancingsubsidiary support include training local managersto provide better support and mentoring to expatri-ates, as well as assigning new expatriates to expe-rienced mentors.

Although we found that expatriate cross-culturalmotivation was less likely to promote expatriateeffectiveness in more culturally distant subsidiar-ies, it also did not impair effectiveness in suchsubsidiaries. This suggests that, in addition tocross-cultural motivation, other expatriate at-tributes may also be necessary for optimal expatri-ate effectiveness in more culturally distant subsid-iaries. Extrapolating from Kanfer and Ackerman’s(1989) resource allocation model and Ang et al.’s(2007) work on cultural intelligence, perhaps cross-cultural knowledge and skill, in addition to moti-vation, are needed for expatriates to adjust andperform effectively in more culturally distant envi-ronments. However, empirical research is neededto verify this theoretical proposition.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite several strengths, our study has somenotable limitations offering fruitful avenues for fu-ture research. First, despite our multisource andlagged design, we employed an observational (i.e.,survey) design, which precluded any inference ofstrong causality. We also did not track expatriateadjustment and performance over time. Indeed,Harrison et al.’s (2004) review noted a lack oflongitudinal research on expatriates. Modelingexpatriate adjustment and performance over time,beginning with the start of an international assign-ment, could serve as an important extension of ourfindings by shedding more light on possible influ-ences of expatriate motivation and expertise as wellas the social and cultural environment on cross-

1126 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

cultural adaptation processes that likely evolveover time.

A second limitation of our study is that, despiteour assumption that expatriate cross-cultural moti-vation promotes the allocation of more effort toadaptation and performance, we did not actuallymeasure self-regulation of effort in this study. How-ever, in line with more basic research on motiva-tion and self-regulation (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman,1989), findings support our hypothesized contex-tual influences on the utility of expatriate effort.Nonetheless, more process research on the role ofexpatriate self-regulation is needed. Our studycould be extended further by broadening under-standing of likely outcomes of cross-cultural moti-vation including, for example, criteria such as as-signment turnover and expatriates’ interpersonaland citizenship behaviors.

Finally, although our findings pertaining to con-textual influences were promising, additional pow-erful contextual influences on expatriate effective-ness may well reside at various levels of analysis,such as direct interactions with leaders, group cli-mate, or the extent to which expatriates work inculturally diverse teams. In line with our proposedmotivation-oriented, multilevel approach, it wouldbe especially important to identify additional con-textual variables that may enhance expatriate per-formance, either directly or via interactions withexpatriate motivation. Furthermore, although ourmain focus in this study was on identifying condi-tions under which cross-cultural motivation ismore beneficial for expatriate effectiveness, re-searchers should also consider conditions underwhich higher levels of cross-cultural motivationmight actually harm expatriate effectiveness (e.g.,via complacency), such as when expatriates per-form more ambiguous tasks (see Schmidt & De-Shon, 2010). Thus, although our study shows thatthe sociocultural context expatriates are exposed tomatters when it comes to their success, additionalwork is needed to expand understanding of theconfluence of contextual influences that likely im-pact expatriate adaptation and effectiveness.

Conclusion

Departing from the dominant paradigm of expa-triate management research, in which individual-level analysis and stress have been the main foci,we attempted to contribute to the literature by de-lineating and examining factors in expatriates’ con-texts that might affect the extent to which cross-cultural motivation affects work adjustment andperformance. We hope that our unique theoreticalcontributions—that work adjustment helps to ex-

plain the relationship between cross-cultural moti-vation and job performance and that both subsid-iary support and cultural distance attenuate themotivation-adjustment relationship—will stimu-late additional multilevel, motivation-oriented re-search to help better explain the myriad influenceson expatriate adjustment and performance.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. 2008. International dimensions of organi-zational behavior (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Thom-son South-Western.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J.,Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. 2007. Cultural intel-ligence: Its measurement and effects on culturaljudgment and decision making, cultural adaptation,and task performance. Management and Organiza-tion Review, 3: 335–371.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Doveh, E. 2008.Firefighters, critical incidents, and drinking to cope:The adequacy of unit-level performance resources asa source of vulnerability and protection. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93: 155–169.

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

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-medi-ator variable distinction is social psychological re-search: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid-erations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51: 1173–1182.

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Conceptu-alizing and testing random indirect effects and mod-erated mediation in multilevel models: New proce-dures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,11: 142–163.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. 1978. Job stress, employeehealth, and organizational effectiveness: A facetanalysis, model, and literature review. PersonnelPsychology, 31: 665–699.

Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., &Luk, D. M. 2005. Input-based and time-based modelsof international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidenceand theoretical extensions. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 48: 257–281.

Black, J. S. 1990. The relationship of personal character-istics with the adjustment of Japanese expatriatemanagers. Management International Review,30(2): 119–134.

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

2010 1127Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. K. 1989. The influence of thespouse on American expatriate adjustment and in-tent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments.Journal of Management, 15: 529–544.

Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-inde-pendence, and reliability: Implications for data ag-gregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, andmethods in organizations: Foundations, exten-sions, and new directions: 349–381. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. 2002. Incorporating a multilevelperspective into occupational stress research: Theo-retical, methodological, and practical implications.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7:265–276.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. 2004. General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical andempirical distinction between correlated self-evalu-ations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25:375–395.

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. 2003. The impact of expecta-tions on newcomer performance in teams as medi-ated by work characteristics, social exchanges, andempowerment. Academy of Management Journal,46: 591–607.

Chen, G., & Mathieu, J. E. 2008. Goal orientation dispo-sitions and performance trajectories: The roles ofsupplementary and complementary situational in-ducements. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 106: 21–38.

Chen, X.-P., & Peng, S. 2008. Guanxi dynamics: Shifts inthe closeness of ties between Chinese coworkers.Management and Organization Review, 4: 63–80.

Cohen, S. 1980. After effects of stress on human perfor-mance and social behavior: A review of research andtheory. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 82–108.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74: 580–590.

DeShon, R. P., Brown, K. G., & Greenis, J. L. 1996. Doesself-regulation require cognitive resources? Evalua-tion of resource allocation models of goal setting.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 595–608.

Earley P. C., & Ang S. 2003. Cultural intelligence: Indi-vidual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for inte-grating moderation and mediation: A general analyt-ical framework using moderated path analysis. Psy-chological Methods, 12: 1–22.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-culturalapproaches to organizational behavior. In S. T. Fiske,A. E. Kazdin, & D. L. Schacter (Eds.), Annual reviewof psychology, vol. 58: 479–515. Palo Alto, CA: An-nual Reviews.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R.,Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. 2006.The international personality item pool and the fu-ture of public domain personality measures. Journalof Research in Personality, 40: 84–96.

Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A. & Elron, E. 1994. Expatriatemanagers and psychological contract. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 79: 617–626.

Harrison, D. A., & Shaffer, M. A. 2005. Mapping thecriterion space for expatriate success: Task-basedand relationship-based performance, effort and ad-aptation. International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 16: 1454–1474.

Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P.2004. Going places: Roads more and less traveled inresearch on expatriate experiences. In J. Martocchio,H. Liao, & A. Joshi (Eds.), Research in personneland human resources management, vol. 23: 203–252. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.

Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. 1996. Therelationship between cross-cultural adjustment andthe personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 20: 167–188.

Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. 2000.The application of hierarchical linear modeling toorganizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research,and methods in organizations: Foundations, ex-tensions, and new directions: 467–511. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: Interna-tional differences in work related values. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., &Gupta, V. 2004. Leadership, culture, and organiza-tions: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House,R. J. 2006. In the eye of the beholder: Cross-culturallessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academyof Management Perspectives, 20(1): 67–90.

Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organ-izational behavior. Academy of Management Re-view, 31: 386–408.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: Structuralequation modeling with the SIMPLIS commandlanguage. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kanfer, R. 1990. Motivation theory and industrial andorganizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette &L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology (2nd ed.), vol. 1: 75–170. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting PsychologistsPress.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. 1989. Motivation and cog-nitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment in-

1128 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

teraction approach to skill acquisition. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74: 657–690.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. 2004. Aging, adult devel-opment, and work motivation. Academy of Man-agement Review, 29: 440–458.

Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. 2008. Work motiva-tion: Forging new perspectives and directions in thepost-millennium. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D.Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present,and future: 601–632. New York: Routledge.

Kasl, S. V. 1987. Methodologies in stress and health: Pastdifficulties, present dilemmas, future directions. InS. V. Kasl & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Stress and health:Issues in research methodology: 307–318. Chiches-ter, U.K.: Wiley.

Kim, K., Kirkman, B. L., & Chen, G. 2008. Cultural intel-ligence and international assignment effectiveness:A conceptual model and preliminary findings. In L.Van Dyne & S. Ang (Eds.), Handbook of culturalintelligence: Theory, measurement, and applica-tion: 71–90. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. Aquarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A reviewof empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cul-tural value framework. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 37: 285–320.

Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national cultureon the choice of entry mode. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies, 19: 411–432.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevelapproach to theory and research in organizations:Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. InK. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multileveltheory, research, and methods in organizations:Foundations, extensions, and new directions:3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kraimer, M. L., & Wayne, S. J. 2004. An examination ofperceived organizational support as a multinationalconstruct in the context of an expatriate assignment.Journal of Management, 30: 209–237.

Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. 2001.Sources of support and expatriate performance: Themediating role of expatriate adjustment. PersonnelPsychology, 54: 71–99.

McAllister, D. J., & Bigley, G. A. 2002. Work context andthe (re)definition of self: How organizational careinfluences organization-based self esteem. Academyof Management Journal, 45: 894–904.

Osterman, P. 1994. How common is workplace transfor-mation and who adopts it? Industrial and LaborRelations Review, 47: 173–188.

Raudenbush, S. W., Byrk, A. S., & Congdon, R. 2004.HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear mod-eling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific SoftwareInternational.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 1985. Clustering countries on

attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis.Academy of Management Review, 10: 435– 454.

Sanchez, J. I., Spector, P. E., & Cooper, C. L. 2000. Ad-justing to a boundaryless world: Stress and the ex-patriate executive. Academy of Management Exec-utive, 14(2): 96–106.

Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. 2010. The moderatingeffects of performance ambiguity on the relationshipbetween self-efficacy and performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95: 572–581.

Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. 2001. Forgotten partnersof international assignments: Development and testof a model of spouse adjustment. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86: 238–254.

Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M.2001. Struggling for balance amid turbulence on in-ternational assignments: Work-family conflict, sup-port and commitment. Journal of Management, 27:99–121.

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

Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards amore rigorous conceptualization and measurementof cultural differences. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 32: 1–17.

Shin, S. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. 2007. Whatyou do depends on where you are: Understandinghow domestic and expatriate work requirements de-pend upon the cultural context. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies, 38: 64–83.

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. 1999. Multilevel anal-ysis: An introduction to basic and advanced mul-tilevel modeling. London: Sage.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment inthe workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and vali-dation. Academy of Management Journal, 38:1442–1465.

Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. 1998. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 124: 240–261.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 2007. Using multivar-iate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pear-son Education.

Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. 2009. Through thelooking glass of a social system: Cross-level effects ofhigh performance work systems on employees’ atti-tudes. Personnel Psychology, 62: 1–29.

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

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 88: 500–517.

2010 1129Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, and Tangirala

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait rele-vance, trait expression, and cross-situational consis-tency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journalof Research in Personality, 34: 397–423.

Wang, M., & Takeuchi, R. 2007. The role of goal orienta-tion during expatriation: A cross-sectional and lon-gitudinal investigation. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 92: 1437–1445.

Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A. 1987. Taskcomplexity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 416–425.

Yeo, G., & Neal, A. 2004. A multilevel analysis of effort,practice and performance: Effects of ability, consci-entiousness and goal orientation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89: 231–247.

Gilad Chen ([email protected]) is a professorof management and organization at the University ofMaryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. He re-ceived his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychologyfrom George Mason University. His research focuses onwork motivation, adaptation, teams and leadership, withparticular interest in understanding the complex inter-face between individuals and the sociotechnical organi-zational context.

Bradley L. Kirkman ([email protected]) is theJohn E. Pearson Associate Professor of Management inthe Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. Hereceived his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from theKenan-Flagler Business School at the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill. His research interests includeinternational management, global virtual teams, workteam effectiveness, and organizational leadership.

Kwanghyun Kim ([email protected]) is an assistant pro-fessor of management at Korea University BusinessSchool. He received his Ph.D. in management from theMays Business School at Texas A&M University. Hisresearch interests include managing human resourcesglobally, individual performance and team effectiveness,and workforce diversity.

Crystal I. C. Farh ([email protected]) is a doctoralcandidate in organizational behavior at the University ofMaryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. Herresearch interests include managing cross-cultural inter-faces, emotional intelligence, and employee voice andinnovation.

Subrahmaniam Tangirala ([email protected])is an assistant professor of management at the Robert H.Smith School of Business, University of Maryland. Hisresearch interests include employees’ voice, silence, andinformation sharing at work. He received his Ph.D. fromPurdue University.

1130 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal