Chapter 17 — International Dimensions of Talent Management

Chapter 17 opens with eight learning goals, numbered 17.1 through 17.8. They are reproduced verbatim below because Cascio and Aguinis use this exact numbering scheme throughout the book, and instructors sometimes reference goal numbers directly in assignments and quizzes.

1. 17.1 Explain the concept of culture and its implications for talent management.
2. 17.2 Identify various dimensions that help to distinguish cultures.
3. 17.3 Discuss recent theoretical and methodological developments in the study of culture.
4. 17.4 Distinguish translation, conceptual, and metric equivalence when psychological measures are transported across cultures.
5. 17.5 Describe how selection for international assignments differs from that for domestic assignments.
6. 17.6 Specify key areas in which to focus expatriate training.
7. 17.7 Identify key components of an effective performance management system for expatriates.
8. 17.8 Suggest evidence-based actions that organizations can take to reduce turnover among repatriates.

The chapter opens by setting the stage: the demise of communism, the fall of trade barriers, and the rise of networked information have unleashed a revolution in business. Market capitalism now guides every major country on earth. Goods and services flow across borders more freely than ever, vast information networks instantly link nations, companies, and people, and foreign direct investment totals almost US$1.8 trillion, with roughly 55% flowing to and from developed countries (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2017). Globalization is the dominant driving force in the world economy, reshaping societies and politics as it changes lives.

No factor drives this change more than the rise of Internet technologies (Friedman, 2005, 2008, 2016). Mass collaboration through file sharing, blogs, and social networking is making leaps in creativity possible and changing how companies across industries do business. The chapter offers four illustrative examples worth knowing by name, since they function as the chapter's concrete evidence for "globalization is real and accelerating."

As every advanced economy becomes global, a nation's most important competitive asset becomes the skills and cumulative learning of its workforce. Nearly every other factor of production — capital, technology, raw materials, information — is fungible and can be duplicated anywhere in the world at the speed of electronic impulses. The one thing that cannot be freely duplicated is a nation's or company's workforce.

Does this mean cultural nuances become less important as markets globalize? The chapter's answer is emphatic: hardly. Triandis (1998, 2002) frames culture as providing implicit theories of social behavior that act like a "computer program," controlling individual actions. Cultures include unstated assumptions about the way the world is — assumptions that influence thinking, emotions, and actions without people noticing that they do. Because members of a culture share a common system of meaning (Erez, 2011), they believe their ways of thinking are obviously correct and need no discussion. Individuals and companies that ignore these alternative ways of thinking when doing business abroad do so at their peril.

Vertical and Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism

To understand what cultural differences imply concretely, the chapter walks through one typology in depth: Triandis's theory of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism. Vertical cultures accept hierarchy as a given; horizontal cultures accept equality as a given. Individualistic cultures emerge in societies that are complex (many subgroups with different attitudes and beliefs) and loose (few rules and norms about correct behavior in different situations). Collectivism emerges in societies that are simple (individuals agree on beliefs and attitudes) and tight (many rules and norms about correct behavior).

Triandis calls these shared patterns of attitudes, beliefs, norms, and values organized around a theme syndromes, and argues they constitute the parameters of any general theory of how culture influences people. Crossing the individualism–collectivism syndrome with the vertical–horizontal syndrome yields a four-way typology of cultures. Within that typology, Triandis identifies four dimensions that may be universal to individualism and collectivism as constructs.

Culture determines the uniqueness of a human group the same way personality determines the uniqueness of an individual (Hofstede, 2001; Ronen & Shenkar, 2017). The chapter names four organizational areas where vertical/horizontal and individualist/collectivist differences show up in practice: goal setting and reward systems (individual versus team- or organizationwide rewards); communications (gestures, eye contact, and body language in high-context cultures versus precision with words in low-context cultures); performance feedback and assessment practices, where the culture's characteristics interact with the objectives, style, frequency, and assumptions of the feedback process; and training and development, including language training and preparing expatriates to avoid culture shock.

Geert Hofstede, a Dutch researcher, identified five dimensions of cultural variation in values across more than 50 countries and three regions (East Africa, West Africa, and Arab countries). He initially relied on a database of surveys of IBM subsidiary employees in 72 countries, analyzing 116,000 questionnaires completed in 20 languages and matching respondents by occupation, gender, and age at two time periods (1968 and 1972) (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Over subsequent decades he collected additional data from other populations, unrelated to IBM but matched across countries.

Hofstede's five dimensions reflect basic problems every society must cope with, though solutions differ. They were verified empirically, each country can be positioned somewhere between the poles of each dimension, and the dimensions are statistically independent — they occur in all possible combinations. Other researchers have generally confirmed the dimensions (Barkema & Vermuelen, 1997; Gerhart & Fang, 2005; Sondergaard, 1994; Triandis, 2004). The five dimensions, with the chapter's named example countries at each extreme, are reproduced below exactly as Figure 17.1 presents them.

Hofstede's work has drawn critiques (Ailon, 2008; Baskerville, 2003; Eckhardt, 2002; Kitayama, 2002), yet the typology remains remarkably influential in both science and practice (Bhagat, 2002; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006). A comprehensive meta-analysis of almost 600 studies (excluding long-term/short-term orientation, for which too few studies existed), representing more than 200,000 individuals, drew two key conclusions: first, cultural values predict country-level differences best (average meta-correlation of .35) and individual-level differences less well (average meta-correlation of .18); second, the predictive power of cultural values was significantly lower than that of personality traits and demographic characteristics for outcomes like job performance, absenteeism, and turnover, but significantly higher for organizational commitment, citizenship behavior, team-related attitudes, and feedback seeking (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010; Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2012).

Hofstede's real value is providing a set of benchmarks against which other studies can be organized conceptually. The GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness) research project, one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind, categorized countries on nine cultural dimensions: assertiveness, future orientation, gender differentiation, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, performance orientation, and humane orientation (Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012). These nine dimensions overlap substantially with — and in places synthesize — Hofstede's original five, and together they help place current theories of motivation, leadership, and organizational behavior into perspective.

Gelfand et al. (2017) described several key advances in the study of culture since Hofstede's original work, each worth knowing as evidence the field keeps evolving rather than treating Hofstede as the last word.

• "Country" may not be the most appropriate unit of analysis for cross-cultural research (Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2016) — cross-cultural variability can be captured at the state, ethnic/racial, religious, or socioeconomic level instead (Ronen & Shenkar, 2013, 2017).
• There is a shift from static to dynamic views of culture — cultural frame shifting — in which individuals dynamically integrate and dissociate from elements of their culture depending on context (Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002).
• The constructs of cultural intelligence and global identity were developed to explain adaptation to the global work context (Lisak & Erez, 2015; Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011).
• Research has moved beyond simple main effects to examine complex culture-by-context interactions, such as those confronting virtual teams or expatriate and global managers (Gelfand et al., 2013; Nouri et al., 2015).
• Methodologically, researchers now use online panel surveys, test measurement invariance/equivalence, and apply multilevel modeling and nested hierarchical clustering to reveal cultural clusters (Ronen & Shenkar, 2013).

The chapter's summary point: culture — operating at global, national, regional, state, community, industry, organizational, and team levels — clearly affects behavior in organizations. Cross-cultural research helps us understand and leverage similarities and differences in an increasingly globalized and interdependent world.

Psychological measurement and research in applied psychology is increasing in importance worldwide — a 44-year review of the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology confirmed this trend (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008a), as did an earlier review of internationally affiliated authors publishing in Educational and Psychological Measurement and Applied Psychological Measurement (Aguinis, Henle, & Ostroff, 2001). Topics discussed elsewhere in this textbook — computer adaptive testing, item response theory, item analysis, generalizability theory, the multitrait–multimethod matrix — are now studied in many countries. As Gelfand et al. (2017, p. 520) put it, "Cultural differences are increasingly measured rather than assumed, and attention to translations and measurement equivalence, although still somewhat low, is gradually increasing."

Transporting Psychological Measures Across Cultures

Psychological measures developed in one country are often transported to another. Guidelines exist for doing this properly — the International Guidelines on Test Adaptation (Hambleton, Merenda, & Spielberger, 2005; International Test Commission, 2005). The core measurement problem: each culture views life in a unique fashion depending on norms, values, attitudes, and experiences particular to that culture, so comparability of any phenomenon poses a major methodological challenge in international research using surveys, questionnaires, or interviews (Harpaz, 1996).

The chapter defines three types of equivalence a transported measure must establish, in sequence, and this sequence is the direct answer to learning goal 17.4.

1. Translation equivalence — established first, via blind back-translation: one individual translates the measure from the original language into another; a second individual, who has not seen the original, translates it back to the original language; the two versions are then compared and discrepancies resolved.
2. Conceptual equivalence — the attribute being measured has a similar meaning across cultures, producing the same conceptual frame of reference (Brett, Tinsley, Janssens, Barsness, & Lytle, 1997; Cheung, 2008). Example of nonequivalence: "leadership" tends to mean organizational leadership in the United States but political leadership in Asian cultures (House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997); the Western notion of "truth" is irrelevant in Confucian thinking (Adler, Campbell, & Laurent, 1989). Respondents must also interpret response options the same way — "neither disagree nor agree" may signal indifference in one culture and slight agreement in another (Aguinis, Henle, & Ostroff, 2001; Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994).
3. Metric equivalence — statistical associations among dependent and independent variables remain relatively stable whether the measure is used domestically or internationally; correlation matrices and factor structures should also remain similar (Cheung, 2008; Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001).

Tsaousis and Nikolaou (2001) used this approach to demonstrate conceptual and metric equivalence of a five-factor model (FFM) personality measure in Greek. Berry, Sackett, and Wiemann (2007) found no major differences in scale means, standard deviations, criterion-related validities, or admissions of counterproductive work behaviors for integrity tests across five countries. Translation equivalence is necessary but not sufficient — all three forms of equivalence must be established before a measure developed in one culture can be meaningfully used to study similarities and differences in another.

Before proceeding into selection, training, and performance management, the chapter defines four terms used precisely throughout the rest of the discussion.

• Expatriate (or foreign-service employee) — a generic term for anyone working outside their home country with a planned return to that or a third country.
• Home country — the expatriate's country of residence.
• Host country — the country in which the expatriate is working.
• Third-country national — an expatriate who has transferred to another country while working abroad. Example given: a German working for a U.S. firm in Spain is a third-country national.

Thousands of firms operate around the globe, and expatriates staff many, if not most, of their overseas operations. This raises the chapter's next challenge: identifying, early in their careers, individuals with potential for international management.

The executive's job is becoming steadily more international in orientation. An international executive is one whose job has some international scope, whether through an expatriate assignment or through routine interaction with people from other countries (Kraimer, Takeuchi, & Frese, 2014). Given the competitive climate and the trend toward interdependent global operations, early identification of international-management potential is extremely important to a growing number of organizations.

The Prospector Model

Based on a careful literature review identifying both executive competencies and the ability to learn from experience, Spreitzer, McCall, and Mahoney (1997) developed Prospector, a 116-item questionnaire for rating the potential of aspiring international executives. They tested it on 838 lower-, middle-, and senior-level managers from six international firms and 21 countries, including both high-potential managers and solid performers not likely to advance.

Factor analysis produced 14 dimensions, split into two groups. Eight dimensions align with executive competencies from the literature: is insightful, has broad business knowledge, brings out the best in people, acts with integrity, has the courage to take a stand, takes risks, is committed to making a difference, and is sensitive to cultural differences. Six dimensions align with learning themes: seeks opportunities to learn, seeks feedback, uses feedback, is culturally adventurous, is open to criticism, and is flexible.

All 14 dimensions correlated strongly with bosses' general ratings of current performance in both a validation and a cross-validation sample. In 72% of cases, the dimensions also successfully distinguished high-potential managers from solid performers, and bosses rated high-potential managers significantly higher on all 14 dimensions.

Spreitzer et al. (1997) speculated the 14 Prospector dimensions operate through four broad processes that facilitate development of future international executives.

1. Gets organizational attention and investment — risk-taking, commitment to organizational success, courage, and sharp thinking make individuals stand out.
2. Takes or makes more opportunities to learn — reflected in seeks opportunities to learn, is culturally adventurous, and seeks feedback.
3. Is receptive to learning opportunities — reflected in acts with integrity, brings out the best in people, is sensitive to cultural differences, and is open to criticism.
4. Changes as a result of experience — the successful international executive retains current competencies while incorporating those needed for the future business environment.

Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

Cultural competence, termed cultural intelligence (CQ), complements the Prospector dimensions. CQ refers to individuals' belief in their ability to be effective in culturally diverse environments and their interest in other cultures (Ang et al., 2007; Rockstuhl et al., 2011). It captures affective, cognitive, behavioral, and motivational facets — all long considered important aspects of cross-cultural competence (Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010; Kraimer, Bolino, & Mead, 2016).

CQ is positively related to self-rated expatriate performance, mediated by cultural adjustment and communication effectiveness, and the relationship is strongest among individuals with more international work or travel experience (Lee & Sukoco, 2010). The motivational dimension of CQ specifically is positively related to job performance ratings, mediated through expatriate work adjustment — and that mediated relationship is stronger for expatriates in subsidiaries with lower organizational support and in countries more similar to home (lower cultural distance) (Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, & Tangirala, 2010). CQ holds promise as a valid predictor of many indicators of expatriate success (Kraimer et al., 2016).

Staffing systems for international assignees are unique because they predict success in a context (a foreign country) rather than in a specific role (Caligiuri & Büker, 2015; Caligiuri & Paul, 2017). While the need to attract and hire talent is universal, how firms do it is not (Miller & Guo, 2014; Ployhart & Weekley, 2015). Recent reviews indicate the selection process for international managers is, with few exceptions, largely based on their willingness to go, meaning selection often rests solely on technical competence and job knowledge (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012; Collings & Scullion, 2012; Kraimer et al., 2016).

General Mental Ability (GMA)

GMA — broadly, the ability to learn — includes any measure combining several specific aptitudes (e.g., verbal, numerical, spatial relations) (Schmidt, 2002), whether an omnibus test (Wonderlic Personnel Test, Raven's Progressive Matrices) or a battery of specific tests (General Aptitude Test Battery, Differential Aptitude Test).

GMA's validity as a predictor of job and training performance is well established in the U.S. via meta-analyses of hundreds of studies (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Salgado, 2017; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998): .57 for high-complexity jobs (17% of U.S. jobs), .51 for medium-complexity (63%), .38 for low-complexity (20%), and .63 for training success. Meta-analyses show similar results in Europe (Bertua, Anderson, & Salgado, 2005; Hülsheger, Maier, & Stumpp, 2007) and South Korea (Salgado, 2017); validity is lower in Japan, possibly because Japanese performance assessments emphasize citizenship behaviors over task performance more than other cultures do (Salgado, 2017). Cognitive ability tests are used far less in the U.S. than in Europe (Ployhart & Weekley, 2015).

For training performance, operational validities run .50 to .70 and rise with job complexity (Ones et al., 2017) — except in Germany, where Hülsheger et al. (2007) found the reverse, attributed to stratification in the German educational system: people who reach higher education are a preselected group, producing stronger range restriction and lower validities for complex jobs. Bottom line: GMA shows international validity generalization for training and job performance in the U.S. and Europe, making it a robust expatriate-selection predictor there, though more research is needed elsewhere.

Personality Characteristics and Expatriate Success

Personality measures capture stable, consistent patterns of behavior (Ployhart & Weekley, 2015). If success is defined as completing the assignment plus supervisory performance ratings, statistical evidence ties four of the Big Five to expatriate success, each in a distinct way.

An important qualifier is assignment type: relational skills matter for all international assignees but matter more for senior executives who must network with, persuade, and influence host nationals, and less for technical assignees who interact with host nationals mostly around tasks (Caligiuri & Büker, 2015). Because personality is relatively immutable, the chapter recommends a sequence: first select on personality, then offer cross-cultural training — training works best when trainees are already predisposed to succeed (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012).

Other Characteristics Related to Success: Global Mindset and Cultural Agility

Caligiuri and Büker (2015) identified three broad meta-competencies related to expatriate success and usable for selection: global mindset, cultural agility, and cultural intelligence (CQ, already covered above).

Global mindset is the interpretive framework, drawn from experience and culture, that guides how people classify and discriminate events and people to understand what they observe (Tarique, Briscoe, & Schuler, 2016). People with a global mindset are tolerant, flexible, curious, and comfortable with ambiguity; they understand and appreciate local cross-cultural differences while maintaining a global view. A scale by Arora, Jaju, Kefalas, and Perenich (2004) measures it, and the authors claim it is a learned phenomenon usable for either selection or development.

Cultural agility is an individual's ability to adapt and effectively interact with members of different cultures (Caligiuri, 2013; Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012). It has three facets: cultural minimization (upholding an organizationwide standard despite a culturally different local approach — e.g., job safety and health), cultural adaptation (behaving as needed in the local context — e.g., sales strategies), and cultural integration (taking time to create new norms appropriate to the cross-cultural situation, such as multicultural or virtual project teams). The best global leaders display all three and leverage each as needed (Caligiuri, 2013). The Cultural Agility Selection Test (CAST) assesses this construct.

Motivation, Self-Assessment, Language, and Prior Experience

Longitudinal research on 70 expatriates during their first four months found higher cross-cultural motivation and empowerment predicted higher initial work adjustment; managers should sustain this with "stretch" assignments and growth opportunities (Firth et al., 2014). Motivation is hard to assess reliably, but firms should at least screen out candidates who only want a change of scenery — one method is self-assessments (for candidates and spouses) across personality, career issues, and family issues, which double as realistic previews. Only 29% of multinational employers currently use such tools (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2016). Two more characteristics matter: foreign language skills (positively related to expatriate performance and work adjustment, ρ = .19 and .22 respectively; Mol, Born, Willemsen, & Van der Molen, 2005; Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005) and prior international experience, which predicts better adjustment to new assignments.

Organizations continue to struggle with expatriate selection and adaptation. Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, and Bolino (2012) note we know little about the nature of international work itself — job analysis, the basic building block of all talent-management activities, is often overlooked in expatriate selection. As Kraimer et al. (2016) ask, if organizations don't understand the typical demands of international work, is it any surprise their staffing practices fall short?

Cross-cultural training (CCT) refers to formal programs designed to prepare people of one culture to interact effectively in another culture, or with people from different cultures (Reiche, Lee, & Quintanilla, 2015; Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). These programs typically target cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies (Littrell, Salas, Hess, Paley, & Riedel, 2006). Fully 81% of multinationals provide at least one day of cross-cultural preparation, open to all family members — but 76% make it optional (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2012).

To survive, cope, and succeed, expatriates need training in three areas: the culture, the language, and practical day-to-day matters (Dowling, Festing, & Engle, 2013). Women accounted for 25% of expatriates in 2016 (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2016) and need training specifically on host-national norms, values, and traditions regarding women, and on handling challenging situations they may face as women (Caligiuri & Cascio, 2000; Harris, 2006; Napier & Taylor, 2002).

Adaptability — Its Eight Dimensions

Adaptability is a key characteristic of successful international managers. Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) identified eight empirical dimensions of adaptability.

• Handling emergencies or crisis situations
• Handling work stress
• Solving problems creatively
• Dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations
• Learning work tasks, technologies, and procedures
• Demonstrating interpersonal adaptability
• Demonstrating cultural adaptability
• Demonstrating physically oriented adaptability

The practical implication: an effective way to train for adaptability is to expose trainees to situations resembling what they will face on assignment, which both enhances transfer of training and matches how adaptive performance itself is built — through experience in similar situations.

Designing CCT — Needs Assessment First

As with any training program, needs assessment should precede CCT, incorporating three key elements: the expatriate's needs, customization of design and content, and overall program quality (Littrell et al., 2006). Assess strengths and weaknesses in interpersonal, cognitive, and self-maintenance skills, plus spousal and family needs, then customize. CCT should be designed and delivered by experts on both the destination country (e.g., host-country nationals) and the expatriation process itself (Reiche et al., 2015; Littrell et al., 2006). Build in an evaluation component covering both overseas performance and a critique of the training itself.

The Cultural Assimilator Method

CCT usually includes an awareness/orientation component (helping trainees recognize their own cultural values, frameworks, and customs) and a behavioral component (practicing culturally appropriate behaviors) (Brislin & Bhawuk, 1999; Landis & Bhagat, 1996; Thomas & Fitzsimmons, 2008). Within the behavioral component, the cultural assimilator has emerged as one of the most valid CCT tools (Triandis, 1994) — a programmed learning technique developed by Fiedler, Mitchell, and Triandis (1971).

It works through 35–100 critical incidents focused on cultural differences. Trainees are presented alternative behavioral options and must select one; depending on the choice, the text directs them to a page explaining why the choice was correct or incorrect, and if incorrect, they must reread and choose again. Computer-assisted versions are growing in popularity (Reiche et al., 2015).

Harrison (1992) compared a Japanese culture assimilator, behavior-modeling training, a combination of both, and no training in a field experiment with 65 U.S. government employees. The combined-methods group showed significantly higher role-play performance and significantly higher learning gains than either the single-method or no-training groups — evidence favoring programs that combine cognitive and experiential elements. Most applications target a specific culture (e.g., Greece, Iran, Thailand, Honduras, Turkey), but general culture-assimilator training also exists (Triandis, Kurowski, & Gelfand, 1994); Cushner and Brislin (1996) developed more than 100 general critical incidents, with initial research supporting its efficacy (Kraiger, 2003).

Does CCT Work? The Meta-Analytic Evidence

Morris and Robie (2001) meta-analyzed CCT's effects across 16 adjustment studies and 25 job-performance studies: mean correlation of .12 (p < .05) with adjustment and .23 (p < .05) with performance, with substantial variability suggesting moderators exist. Littrell et al. (2006), reviewing 25 years (1980–2005) of CCT research across 29 conceptual reviews and 16 empirical studies, concluded CCT is effective and identified moderators including timing (predeparture, during, postassignment), family issues, job attributes, and home–host cultural differences. Lievens, Harris, Van Keer, and Bisqueret (2003) reported correlations of .38 and .45 between CCT and supervisor ratings and language proficiency, respectively.

Training should occur both before departure and after arrival, since in-country developmental experiences incorporate issues from the assignee's actual lived experience (Littrell et al., 2006; Reiche et al., 2015). Formal mentoring by host-country nationals also demonstrates organizational support and improves language skills and interaction effectiveness (Carraher, Sullivan, & Crocitto, 2008; Kraimer et al., 2016) — though a multilevel study (Gentry, Weber, & Sadri, 2008) found performance orientation (the extent to which a culture rewards performance improvement and excellence) significantly moderates the career-mentoring-to-performance relationship.

Finally, CCT rigor and breadth should scale with a firm's stage of globalization. Firms tend to evolve from domestic (exporters) to international (multidomestic) to multinational to global, and in some cases to transnational (Dowling et al., 2013; Tarique et al., 2016). The further a firm moves from the export stage, the more rigorous and broad its CCT should be; at the multinational and global stages, managers must also socialize host-country managers into the firm's corporate culture, intensifying the need for rigorous training.

Performance management is just as important internationally as domestically — the difference is implementation difficulty (Tarique et al., 2016). At its most basic level, it refers to the evaluation and continuous improvement of individual or team performance (Cascio, 2012a). Before addressing what changes internationally, the chapter restates five universal principles that apply in any context (Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2012).

1. Ensure job descriptions are congruent with organizational goals.
2. Provide adequate training to raters and ratees.
3. Measure behavior and results at both individual and collective (team, departmental) levels.
4. When delivering feedback, focus on an employee's strengths.
5. Allocate rewards that are meaningful to employees.

Some observers argue performance management systems are simply "broken" (Pulakos & O'Leary, 2011). A 20-year review of 64 articles on international performance management found that whatever problems exist domestically are worse when the same systems are exported to different contexts and cultures (Claus & Briscoe, 2009).

Four Constraints on International Goal Achievement

Dowling et al. (2013) name four broad constraints on achieving goals internationally.

1. Differences in local accounting rules or labor laws can make it hard to compare relative subsidiary manager performance across countries.
2. In turbulent international environments, long-term objectives need to stay flexible.
3. Separation by time and distance can make it hard for systems to account for country-specific factors.
4. Market development in foreign subsidiaries is generally slower and harder than at home, so expatriates need more time to achieve results.

Several factors affect expatriate managers' actual job performance (Engle, Dowling, & Festing, 2008; Oddou & Mendenhall, 2000; Varma et al., 2015): technical knowledge (95% of expatriates believe it crucial), personal/family cultural adjustment, and supervisor–subordinate interpersonal factors. Cautionary example: an expatriate construction-firm expert sent to India ignored local work customs, became an object of hatred and distrust, and delayed the project more than six months (Oddou & Mendenhall, 2000) — proof technical expertise alone is not sufficient. Headquarters support (spousal job-search help, children's education) and host-country environment (development stage, physical demands, joint venture versus wholly owned subsidiary) also shape performance (Hippler, 2015).

Performance Criteria — Sinangil and Ones's Ten Dimensions

A thorough review led Sinangil and Ones (2001) to propose a working model of expatriate job performance with ten dimensions.

• Establishment and maintenance of business contacts
• Technical performance (task performance)
• Productivity (volume of work produced)
• Ability to work with others
• Communication and persuasion
• Effort and initiative
• Personal discipline
• Interpersonal relations
• Management and supervision
• Overall job performance (composite of the preceding dimensions)

These dimensions are often intangible and difficult to measure with typical appraisal methods, which is why expatriate performance criteria fall into three broad categories (Cascio, 2012a; Dowling et al., 2013).

Implementing performance appraisal internationally should follow four steps: first determine the appraisal's purpose (development versus administrative decisions); second, set standards against quantifiable assignments, tasks, or objectives whenever possible; third, allow more time to achieve results abroad than is customary domestically; fourth, keep objectives flexible and responsive to market and environmental conditions (Cascio, 2011, 2012a; Engle et al., 2008).

Who Should Assess Expatriate Performance?

Host-country managers can factor in contextual criteria but may carry culture-bound biases that block a broader organizational view. Home-country managers show the reverse pattern: they can place performance in organizational context but may miss contextual criteria. The expatriate's own self-evaluation matters too, for balance and to credit their insight into domestic–foreign interdependencies. A review of 36 empirical studies (2003–2012) found more than half relied only on self-evaluation, with the rest drawing on supervisors or host-country nationals (Siligren, 2014). The chapter's conclusion: multiple perspectives help, but whoever appraises must be knowledgeable and well trained, exactly as in the domestic environment.

Performance Feedback Across Cultures

In individualistic cultures (United States, Great Britain, Australia), a popular first-level supervisory training topic is how to conduct appraisal interviews — communicating "bad news" well is considered a key managerial skill. In collectivist societies (Korea, Guatemala, Taiwan), discussing performance openly clashes with norms of harmony, and the subordinate may experience it as an unacceptable loss of face. Such societies rely on more subtle, indirect feedback channels, such as withdrawing a normal favor or communicating concerns through a mutually trusted intermediary (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

Little research exists on feedback in intercultural settings, though one study found Japanese managers provide implicit, informal feedback — a pattern that is slowly changing (Barton, 2016). The chapter flags this as an area needing deeper research. Upon an expatriate's return, a formal debriefing should address ways to improve the overall expatriate-management process — the first step into repatriation.

Four decades of research on repatriation show it is often associated with unmet expectations, feelings of being undervalued, and career-related concerns — sources of dissatisfaction linked to higher repatriate turnover (Kraimer, Shaffer, Harrison, & Ren, 2012; Lazarova, 2015). At the same time, almost all studies find respondents saw their international assignments as intrinsically rewarding, a source of personal development, and a potential springboard for future advancement, even at another company (Kraimer et al., 2016).

Financially, repatriates lose foreign-service premiums (children's education, maid service, clubs) and face inflation's effect on home purchases. Having grown accustomed to foreign ways, they often find home-country customs strange or annoying on reentry — a "reverse culture shock" that can be more challenging than the original culture shock of going overseas (Andors, 2010; Schumpeter, 2015c). Companies can mitigate this by (a) having champions back home look after repatriates' interests, (b) paying as much attention to "reboarding" repatriates as to onboarding new hires, and (c) helping repatriates disseminate what they learned abroad (Schumpeter, 2015c).

Planning

Expatriation and repatriation should be examined as parts of an integrated whole, not unrelated career events (Tarique et al., 2016) — but this happens less than half the time (48%). Among the remaining expatriates, 55% held repatriation discussions fewer than six months before assignment completion (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2016). Improving this requires defining a clear strategic purpose for the move before the assignment begins, drawn from three possible purposes: executive development, coordination and control between headquarters and foreign operations, and transfer of information and technology.

Career Management

Career management is the number-one issue for expatriates (Andors, 2010). Companies that want to retain this talent must give them reasons to stay beyond financial rewards, by leveraging their international experience in appropriately challenging roles.

Research on 111 expatriates from 23 countries who had returned home within the previous year found a mixed picture: compared to their expatriate assignments, 16% considered their new role a demotion, 57% a lateral move, and 27% a promotion. A promotion upon repatriation signals that the organization values international experience and strengthens repatriates' belief that the company met its training and development commitments — both of which relate positively to career satisfaction and intent to stay (Kraimer et al., 2012; Kraimer, Shaffer, & Bolino, 2009).

Compensation

Losing the accustomed monthly foreign-service premium is a severe financial shock. Some firms replace it with a onetime "mobility premium" (e.g., three months' pay) for each move — overseas, back home, or to another overseas post. Some also provide low-cost loans or other financial assistance so expatriates can re-enter their hometown housing market at a level at least equivalent to what they left. Financial counseling for repatriates also carries a psychological benefit: it demonstrates the company's willingness to help with the financial disruption of uprooting a family again (Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Shaffer et al., 2012).

Cascio and Aguinis close every chapter with an "Evidence-Based Implications for Practice" list — a distilled set of practitioner takeaways. For Chapter 17, the list functions as the chapter's own executive summary.

• Globalization and the rise of the Internet are perhaps the most important developments of our time. Societies are more interconnected than ever, but this does not mean cultural nuances across countries and regions will become less important — they change at a glacial pace.
• Studying country- or regional-level behavioral differences matters because it lets us put current theories of motivation, leadership, and organizational behavior into perspective.
• Early identification of international-management potential, together with cultural competence, will become more critical as the world interconnects further. Sound measures of key executive competencies and of the affective, cognitive, behavioral, and motivational aspects of cross-cultural competence already exist and should be used more often.
• Research demonstrates the international validity of general mental ability and personality dimensions for predicting job and training success, as well as expatriate adjustment and job performance.
• Expatriates need training in three areas — the culture, the language, and practical day-to-day matters. Many cross-cultural training methods work, but needs assessment should always precede training, incorporating the expatriate's needs, customization of design and content, and overall program quality.
• When implementing performance management internationally: (a) determine the purpose of the assignment; (b) set standards against quantifiable outcomes, tasks, or objectives; (c) allow more time to achieve results abroad than is customary domestically; and (d) keep objectives flexible and responsive to market and environmental conditions.
• Treat expatriation and repatriation as parts of an integrated whole, not unrelated events in an individual's career.

Chapter 17 ends with ten discussion questions. Below, each is paired with a concise model answer grounded directly in the chapter's content — useful both for self-testing and as a starting point if any of these questions resurface in a graded discussion or quiz.

1. How does the theory of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism help to deepen our understanding of cultural differences?

Triandis's typology crosses vertical (hierarchy accepted) versus horizontal (equality accepted) with individualist (complex, loose societies) versus collectivist (simple, tight societies), yielding four distinct culture types rather than one individualism-versus-collectivism axis. It further specifies four dimensions — definition of self, structure of goals, norms versus attitudes, relatedness versus rationality — that explain exactly how individualists and collectivists differ in daily behavior. This moves understanding past a vague label like "collectivist" toward specific, testable predictions about how people define themselves, set goals, and weigh relationships against rational calculation.

2. Explain Hofstede's five dimensions that describe differences across countries. Identify countries that are high (low) on each dimension.

Hofstede's five dimensions: power distance (acceptance of inequality — high in Malaysia and Guatemala, low in Austria and Denmark), uncertainty avoidance (comfort with unstructured situations — high in Greece and Japan, low in Singapore and the U.S.), individualism (personal versus group goals — highest in the U.S., lowest in Guatemala and Ecuador), masculinity (ego versus social goals — highest in Japan and Venezuela, lowest in Sweden and the Netherlands), and long-term versus short-term orientation (delayed gratification — longest-term in China and Taiwan, most short-term in Pakistan and the Philippines, with the U.S. also relatively short-term).

3. Four broad processes seem to facilitate the development of future international executives (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Explain why each is relevant.

The four processes are: getting organizational attention and investment (risk-takers with commitment and sharp thinking get noticed); taking or making more opportunities to learn (seeking feedback and cultural adventure build the needed experience base); being receptive to learning opportunities (integrity and openness to criticism let a person actually absorb feedback); and changing as a result of experience (retaining useful competencies while adding new ones). Each is relevant because international executive development is cumulative — an individual must first be noticed, then seek the right experiences, then be equipped to learn from them, and finally show real behavioral change over time.

4. You have been asked to develop a selection program for expatriates to Vietnam. Based on research results in the applied psychology literature, what would you propose?

Following Caligiuri and Büker's (2015) three-step sequence: first, give candidates a realistic preview of the Vietnam assignment; second, have candidates and their families complete self-selection instruments covering personality, career, and family fit; third, apply traditional assessments — GMA, Big Five personality measures, biographical data, and structured interviews — to candidates who pass the first two stages. Add screens for cultural intelligence, global mindset, and cultural agility, plus any Vietnamese-language proficiency or prior Southeast Asia experience, since both predict better adjustment.

5. What roles do self-assessment tools and realistic previews play in international assignments?

Self-assessment tools let candidates and spouses evaluate their own fit across personality, career, and family issues before committing to an assignment. Because they surface honest information about the posting's actual demands, they double as realistic previews, helping candidates make informed decisions and self-select out if the fit is poor. Despite their value, only 29% of multinational employers currently use them (Brookfield Global Relocation Services, 2016) — a significant missed opportunity.

6. Why are multiple perspectives particularly valuable when assessing expatriate performance?

Host-country managers can weigh contextual criteria but may carry culture-bound biases that obscure the broader organizational picture; home-country managers place performance in organizational context but may miss on-the-ground factors; and the expatriate's own self-evaluation adds insight into domestic–foreign interdependencies that neither external party may see. No single perspective captures the full picture, so combining supervisor, host-national, and self-evaluations produces a more balanced appraisal, provided each rater is knowledgeable and well trained.

7. What might be some reasons why job analysis is often overlooked in the context of expatriate selection and adaptation?

Organizations simply know too little about the nature of international work itself to analyze it properly — assignments are often treated as a variant of a domestic role rather than a distinct job with its own demands (adaptability, cross-cultural interaction, family disruption). Selection also defaults to "willingness to go" and technical competence, which sidesteps the harder work of defining what the job actually requires abroad, so job analysis gets skipped for simpler, faster criteria.

8. What might an effective performance management program for expatriates look like?

It would apply the five universal principles (congruent job descriptions, rater/ratee training, individual- and team-level measurement, strengths-focused feedback, meaningful rewards) while adapting to international constraints — more time to achieve results, flexible objectives, and awareness of local accounting/labor-law differences. It would combine objective, subjective, and contextual criteria rather than financial metrics alone, draw on multiple raters, and stay sensitive to local feedback norms — direct in individualistic cultures, more indirect in collectivist ones.

9. Adaptability is a key feature of successful international managers. How does adaptability manifest itself, and how would you train prospective expatriates to be more adaptable?

Adaptability manifests across eight dimensions (Pulakos et al., 2000): handling emergencies, handling work stress, solving problems creatively, dealing with uncertainty, learning new tasks/technologies, and interpersonal, cultural, and physical adaptability. The most effective training is experiential — exposing trainees to situations resembling what they'll face abroad, such as cultural-assimilator critical incidents — since this enhances transfer and mirrors how adaptive performance is naturally built: through practice, not passive classroom instruction alone.

10. Your boss asks you for advice on how to reduce the attrition rate of repatriates. How would you respond?

Treat expatriation and repatriation as one integrated career process from the start — define a clear strategic purpose for the assignment before the person leaves, and hold repatriation-planning discussions well more than six months before return. On return, prioritize career management by placing repatriates in roles that visibly value their international experience, since a promotion (not a lateral move or demotion) signals the organization keeps its development commitments. Finally, address the financial shock through mobility premiums and financial counseling, and treat "reboarding" as seriously as onboarding, with mentors to counter reverse culture shock.

Every bolded or explicitly defined term in Chapter 17, in one line each, in the order the chapter introduces them.

A single table capturing the chapter's core frameworks and most quotable facts — everything you need to answer a cold-call question about Chapter 17 without re-reading it.