Unpacking differences in psychological contracts of organizational and self-initiated expatriates

Abstract

Purpose Global staffing has remained a main focus within the field of international human resource management (IHRM) since the 1970s. However, research in the psychological contract (PC) of expatriates is limited. The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences in PC breach and violation for organisational expatriates and self-initiated expatriates (SIEs). Design/methodology/approach A survey questionnaire was developed covering 52 organisational expatriates and 119 SIEs from 35 countries/regions working in China. Four follow-up focus group interviews including four organisational expatriates and 12 SIEs were conducted to further explain the findings of the survey. Findings The findings indicate that organisational expatriates experience significantly lower levels of PC breach and violation than SIEs. Three broad thematic areas arose from the triangulation of focus group interviews, including uncertainties in functioning of contracts, differences in job securities and career development opportunities, and cultural differences. Practical implications Employers should give a comprehensive orientation and cultural training to meet the needs of SIEs. Moreover, long-term career advancement paths should also be provided to SIEs to alleviate their vulnerability and insecurities working abroad. Originality/value The study contributes to the scholarship of self-initiated expatriation and PCs and give implications to IHRM strategies.

Social Support and Life‐Domain Interactions among Assigned and Self‐Initiated Expatriates

“…This study investigates differences between assigned expatriates (AEs), who are sent overseas by their home employer on a temporary basis to complete an international assignment, and self‐initiated expatriates (SIEs), who instigate their own relocation in a country of their choice to pursue cultural, personal, and career development opportunities, often with no definite time frame in mind (Doherty et al ., ; Andresen et al ., ). For years, and still today, many authors have called for the distinction between SIEs and AEs (e.g., Zhang and Rienties, ). Prior studies have shown that these two groups of IMEs are different along various dimensions (Shaffer et al ., ; Dickmann et al ., ) that might be grouped under three aspects: demographic characteristics, motivational drivers, and social support.…”

“…Workers with a rare expertise may be more likely to move to other countries offering better living and working conditions. In addition, compared to AEs, while SIEs have more choices of destinations, better interactions with locals, a longer foreign stay given their more successful adjustment from a cultural perspective, they receive less generous compensation arrangements and experience lower job satisfaction and a higher level of psychological contract breach and violation (Shaffer et al ., ; De Araujo et al ., ; Zhang and Rienties, ).…”

How do low-status expatriates deal with crises? Stress, external support and personal coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…In line with previous studies (Peltokorpi and Froese, 2009; Richardson and Mallon, 2005; Zhang and Rienties, 2017), we made use of personal contacts, intermediaries and snowball sampling methods to collect data from LSEs and different policy actors across Germany. Of particular interest were sectors employing large numbers of LSEs, including healthcare, elderly care, food production and metal industries (Morse, 2015).…”

Beyond nationality

“…But, if we consider the needs of multi-directional knowledge flows in MNEs, staffing options with experiences in different nations may be more relevant, as they may bring social networks that enable such knowledge flows across borders. Indeed, staffing options with various international experiences have been acknowledged in more recent literature, such as inpatriation(Collings et al, 2010), SIEs(Andresen et al, 2013;Richardson and McKenna, 2014;Vaiman and Haslberger, 2013;Zhang and Rienties, 2017), global careerists…”

“…But, if we consider the needs of multi-directional knowledge flows in MNEs, staffing options with experiences in different nations may be more relevant, as they may bring social networks that enable such knowledge flows across borders. Indeed, staffing options with various international experiences have been acknowledged in more recent literature, such as inpatriation (Collings et al, 2010), SIEs (Andresen et al, 2013;Richardson and McKenna, 2014;Vaiman and Haslberger, 2013;Zhang and Rienties, 2017), global careerists (Georgakakis et al, 2016), regional specialists (Sparrow et al, 2017). As these alternative staffing options have been studied separately without being integrated into subsidiary staffing research, it seems useful to develop a conceptual framework based on certain common dimensions in order to analyze and evaluate both traditional and alternative staffing options comprehensively.…”