The Dimensions of Expatriate Adjustment

• Author: Thomas Hippler,Chris Brewster,Arno Haslberger
• Published date: 01 May 2013
• Date: 01 May 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21531

THE DIMENSIONS OF EXPATRIATE

ADJUSTMENT

ARNO HASLBERGER, CHRIS BREWSTER, AND

THOMAS HIPPLER

A narrow and partial theoretical base has limited current concepts of expatri-

ate adjustment and the research based upon them. This conceptual article

explores one of the less theorized aspects of expatriate adjustment: the fact

that it has multiple dimensions. We conceive of adjustment as a person-

environment relationship that takes place in the three dimensions of cogni-

tions, feelings, and behaviors. Combining these elements takes us one step

closer to a comprehensive and more realistic understanding of the nature of

expatriate adjustment. We include suggestions for future research that follow

from our reconceptualization.

Keywords: international HRM; expatriation; cross-cultural adjustment;

dimensions of adjustment; person-environment fi t

Correspondence to: Arno Haslberger, Department of Management, Webster University Vienna, Berchtoldgasse 1,

1220 Vienna, Austria, Phone: +43(0) 1-26992930, Fax: +43(0)1-2699293-13, E-mail: arnohaslberger24@webster.edu.

Human Resource Management, May–June 2013, Vol. 52, No. 3. Pp. 333–351

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21531

Introduction

After a brief retrenchment, consul-

tants again report an increase in

the number of firms expanding

expatriate assignments (Brookfield,

2011; PricewaterhouseCoopers,

2010). Given the high cost of expatriates,

there is pressure to manage them effectively.

This implies that they should adjust to their

new environment and become proficient

there as quickly as possible. And from the

point of view of expatriates, a foreign assign-

ment is a high-pressure situation: their well-

being requires them to adjust as efficiently as

possible. Hence, a significant strand of the

international human resource management

(IHRM) literature is devoted to the subject of

expatriate adjustment.

Most adjustment research has explored

a range of antecedent variables (Bhaskar-

Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005;

Hechanova, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003) but

has paid inadequate attention to conceptu-

alizing the dependent variable. Expatriate

adjustment has typically been conceived

of as a state along the continuum from

“adjusted” to “not adjusted” regarding three

facets: adjustment to the workplace abroad,

to interacting with host nationals, and to the

general environment (Black, 1988). The three

facets originally stem from a study based on

67 responses. The underlying questionnaire

contained 11 items that were developed

specifically to measure hypothesized fac-

ets conceived with scant recourse to theory.

Following further development (Black &

Stephens, 1989), these three facets formed

the core around which Black, Mendenhall,

and Oddou (1991) developed their “compre-

hensive model of international adjustment.”

334 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2013

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

As a step toward

reconceptualization,

this article

revisits the notion

of expatriate

adjustment and

provides more

comprehensive

theorizing on its

dimensions.

Black et al. (1991) cast their net wide for pos-

sible antecedent variables, drawing on the

organizational socialization, sensemaking,

work-role transition, and domestic reloca-

tion literatures as well as using the limited

expatriate adjustment literature that existed

at the time. Not only do these literatures

point toward a multitude of potentially rel-

evant antecedent variables, but they also

encompass several conceptualizations of

“adjustment.” Yet when integrating these

diverse literatures into their model, Black

et al. (1991) left the nature of the depen-

dent variable (i.e., adjustment)

largely unexplored other than

distinguishing between “mode”

and “degree” and establishing

adjustment as having three fac-

ets. In their previous work, Black

and colleagues had conceptual-

ized adjustment as the degree of

perceived psychological comfort

with the new environment or

specific facets of one’s life abroad

(Black, 1988; Black & Gregersen,

1991; Black & Stephens, 1989)—

that is, exclusively in terms of

subjective well-being.

Black et al.’s 1991 publication,

and the work following it, has

undoubtedly advanced our knowl-

edge. The model and its attendant

instrumentation (see Black & Stephens, 1989)

developed into the default option for expa-

triate adjustment research. Numerous studies

used it as a theoretical underpinning and/or

used the Black and Stephens (1989) question-

naire to operationalize adjustment (among

recent examples are: G. S. Benson & Pattie,

2009; H. F. Chen, 2010; K. Kim & Slocum,

2008; Okpara & Kabongo, 2011; Osman-Gani

& Rockstuhl, 2009; Peltokorpi, 2008; Puck,

Kittler, & Wright, 2008; Selmer, 2006a, 2006b;

Siers, 2007; Takeuchi, Shay, & Li, 2008).

Despite the value of the model to date,

research cannot be advanced much further

by simply adding more replications of a study

that includes factors that are not theoretically

discrete and were developed statistically rather

than theoretically (Hippler, 2000; Stahl &

Caligiuri, 2005; Suutari & Brewster, 1999;

Thomas & Lazarova, 2006). A revised concep-

tualization of the dependent variable is nec-

essary to advance further our understanding

of expatriate adjustment.

As a step toward reconceptualization, this

article revisits the notion of expatriate adjust-

ment and provides more comprehensive the-

orizing on its dimensions. Much of the work

that informed Black et al.’s (1991) thinking

came from outside IHRM and had hardly pre-

viously been accessed by IHRM researchers.

We follow Black et al.’s (1991) lead, casting

our net wide. Our focus is on applying mod-

els from outside IHRM to the specific field

of expatriation. This article extends the con-

cept of different dimensions of adjustment

beyond the “degree of perceived psychologi-

cal comfort.” It concentrates on the structure

of adjustment (i.e., static outcomes).1 The

structural components are related to each

other in time. The dynamics of adjustment

as a process are excluded from this article to

allow us to develop the structural aspects in

sufficient depth.

Adjustment as a Person-Environment

(P-E) Relationship

We position expatriate adjustment within the

wider psychological literature, where adjust-

ment has been conceptualized as person-

environment (P-E) fit, as “the goodness of fit

between the characteristics of the person and

the properties of the environment” (French,

Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974, p. 316). P-E fit mod-

els address the interaction between individ-

ual and environment, both of which must

meet each other’s requirements for the inter-

action to be maintained (Dawis & Lofquist,

1984). The theory distinguishes two types of

fit. The requirements of the individual call for

environmental resources or supplies to be

met. This is known as the needs-supplies fit

(Caplan, 1983). Secondly, the demands-

ability fit (Caplan, 1983) refers to the require-

ments of the environment and the individual’s

ability to meet these.

The management literature has drawn on

P-E fit theory largely in a work context and

investigated issues such as person-vocation,

person-job, person-organization, person-group,