18. Oct. 06, 16:39
2. review of research: expatriate staffing
Even though it is widely acknowledged that a systematic assessment in recruiting employees does already half the job, there are hardly any systematic selection procedures for finding the right expatriate. Ones and Sinangil rely on numbers from the Human Resource Institute (1998) stating that 92% of companies select expatriates because of managerial recommondations. Over 50% would not use any structured procedures and around 10% would not apply any screening at all.
Ones and Sinangil imagine two reasons for this:
Based on Adler (1991) the United States Peace Corps was actually the first institution who would select their candidates for overseas assignments by personality tests and panel interviews. Unfortunately they give this system up due to research revealing a "less than stellar record in predicting success". Nowadays the results of these studies are seen questionable which Ones and Sinangil will review when they talk about criterion related-validities.
In the 1970s the United States armed service used the Navy Overseas Adjustment Scale to evaluate service people (but not technical staff). The Canadian International Development Agency also developed standardized instrument to select employees. Nevertheless, relying on Tung (1981) "only 5% of companies surveyed formally assessed interpersonal competence and relational abilities". Mumford (1983) is quoted "'People are selected for overseas assignment based on technical skills, availability and other factors, but not on their ability to get along overseas. Even in the world of diplomacy, people are not sent overseas because they are adaptable, empathic, preserving, patient and courteous...' (p.95)."
As mentioned before research was not really helping to establish systematic assessment structures. Ones and Viswesvaran (1998) get back to an earlier overview of what scholars found as important personality trait for expatriates. Copeland & Griggs (1988), for example, suggested "breadth" as an important characteristic. This would include "hardness like water" or "positive regard for others". Brislin (1981), for example, speaks of strong personality, "including self-esteem, integrity, security, loyalty, courage and self-concept" while Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) call for character traits such as "communication competence (which included respect, nonjudgementalness, empathy, self-orientedness)". Ones and Sinangil criticize these outcomes because they only consider aspects of personality but don't get "to the personality roots of these proposed predictors."
[p.427]
Instead they propose to sort the proposed predictors into the so-called Big Five dimensions of personality (on which I just took a quick glance in wikipedia while I prefered the German version, I really am not a psychologist...).
Ones and Sinangil suggest the following traits to potentially predict overseas behavior. They apperrantly result out of ratings done by expatriates themselves, host country nationals and out of traditional criterion-related validity studies [Peace Corps]).
Ones and Sinangil then go over to analyze criterion-related validities. As far as I understand it the purpose of these validity-studies is to check if the assumptions where right.
As mentioned before the validity-studies in the 1960s had shown the selection system of the Peace Corp to be superfluous. There seem to be no success-predicting character traits (the authors rely on Harris, 1973, 1975). Analyzing these earlier studies, predictor-related, methodological, and criterion problems come up. No standards had been established to define different personality variables. Then not enough samples had been taken to meet statistical standards. The results were conducted with measurement and analysis problems. On top of that the studies were carried through with the Peace Corps for which volunteers were sent abroad, which is quite a different group of people with other purposes than businesses and their staff on an expatriate assignment.
Recent criterion-related validity studies draw quite a different picture of personality traits predicting expatriate's possible success or failure. The purpose of these studies is to determine which character traits effect which aspects of the expatriate's life abroad.
Sinangil and Ones (1998), for example, measured the dependability facet of consciousness according to the Prudence Scale of Hogan Personality Inventory. The results showed it to be a poor predictor for expatriate job performance but a valid predictor of overseas counterproductive behaviors.
Reviewing several results of these researches, Ones and Sinangil call on decision makers to not base their expatriate selection merely on technical skills: "There is ampel evidence that ability, knowledge and skills are valid predictors of performance in any performance domain (e.g., Kuncel, Hezlett & Ones, 2001; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992; Viswesvaran & Ones, in press) and for the complex environment that expatriates operate in, we see cognitive ability and technical skills as crucial determinants of overseas job performance."
[p.428/429]
I started reading a thesis on predictors concerning German expatriate, so I will get into this in a little more detail later. And while I trust in these personality-based predictors, I still wonder about the Wechselwirkungen with training..... thus: which influence does training have on personality and hence behavior in the foreign culture?
back to the table of content
back to definition "expatriate"
further to expatriate training
Ones and Sinangil imagine two reasons for this:
- expatriates are mostly recruited from within the organization. Thus being send on an expatriate mission is seen as a placement decision.
- research on which variables would lead a successful mission was very inconsistent in results. That made it difficult to put theory into practice.
Based on Adler (1991) the United States Peace Corps was actually the first institution who would select their candidates for overseas assignments by personality tests and panel interviews. Unfortunately they give this system up due to research revealing a "less than stellar record in predicting success". Nowadays the results of these studies are seen questionable which Ones and Sinangil will review when they talk about criterion related-validities.
In the 1970s the United States armed service used the Navy Overseas Adjustment Scale to evaluate service people (but not technical staff). The Canadian International Development Agency also developed standardized instrument to select employees. Nevertheless, relying on Tung (1981) "only 5% of companies surveyed formally assessed interpersonal competence and relational abilities". Mumford (1983) is quoted "'People are selected for overseas assignment based on technical skills, availability and other factors, but not on their ability to get along overseas. Even in the world of diplomacy, people are not sent overseas because they are adaptable, empathic, preserving, patient and courteous...' (p.95)."
As mentioned before research was not really helping to establish systematic assessment structures. Ones and Viswesvaran (1998) get back to an earlier overview of what scholars found as important personality trait for expatriates. Copeland & Griggs (1988), for example, suggested "breadth" as an important characteristic. This would include "hardness like water" or "positive regard for others". Brislin (1981), for example, speaks of strong personality, "including self-esteem, integrity, security, loyalty, courage and self-concept" while Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) call for character traits such as "communication competence (which included respect, nonjudgementalness, empathy, self-orientedness)". Ones and Sinangil criticize these outcomes because they only consider aspects of personality but don't get "to the personality roots of these proposed predictors."
[p.427]
Instead they propose to sort the proposed predictors into the so-called Big Five dimensions of personality (on which I just took a quick glance in wikipedia while I prefered the German version, I really am not a psychologist...).
Ones and Sinangil suggest the following traits to potentially predict overseas behavior. They apperrantly result out of ratings done by expatriates themselves, host country nationals and out of traditional criterion-related validity studies [Peace Corps]).
- tolerance (Miller, 1972)
- interpersonal cultural sensivity (Byrnes, 1966)
- open-mindedness
- sensitivity to power (Ezekiel, 1968)
- authoritarianism/dogmatism (Smith, 1966)
- family situation
- flexibility/adaptability
- job knowledge and motivation
- relational skills
- extra-cultural openness
Ones and Sinangil then go over to analyze criterion-related validities. As far as I understand it the purpose of these validity-studies is to check if the assumptions where right.
As mentioned before the validity-studies in the 1960s had shown the selection system of the Peace Corp to be superfluous. There seem to be no success-predicting character traits (the authors rely on Harris, 1973, 1975). Analyzing these earlier studies, predictor-related, methodological, and criterion problems come up. No standards had been established to define different personality variables. Then not enough samples had been taken to meet statistical standards. The results were conducted with measurement and analysis problems. On top of that the studies were carried through with the Peace Corps for which volunteers were sent abroad, which is quite a different group of people with other purposes than businesses and their staff on an expatriate assignment.
Recent criterion-related validity studies draw quite a different picture of personality traits predicting expatriate's possible success or failure. The purpose of these studies is to determine which character traits effect which aspects of the expatriate's life abroad.
Sinangil and Ones (1998), for example, measured the dependability facet of consciousness according to the Prudence Scale of Hogan Personality Inventory. The results showed it to be a poor predictor for expatriate job performance but a valid predictor of overseas counterproductive behaviors.
Reviewing several results of these researches, Ones and Sinangil call on decision makers to not base their expatriate selection merely on technical skills: "There is ampel evidence that ability, knowledge and skills are valid predictors of performance in any performance domain (e.g., Kuncel, Hezlett & Ones, 2001; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992; Viswesvaran & Ones, in press) and for the complex environment that expatriates operate in, we see cognitive ability and technical skills as crucial determinants of overseas job performance."
[p.428/429]
I started reading a thesis on predictors concerning German expatriate, so I will get into this in a little more detail later. And while I trust in these personality-based predictors, I still wonder about the Wechselwirkungen with training..... thus: which influence does training have on personality and hence behavior in the foreign culture?
back to the table of content
back to definition "expatriate"
further to expatriate training
