myths,mystiques,and mistakes in overseas...

“Most companies are trying to pursuethird-generation strategies, using second-generation organizations, staffed with first-generation human resources” (ChristopherBartlett 1989).

INTRODUCTION

W ith the ever-acceleratingspeed of change and the ever-

increasing demands placed on globalbusiness, our world is both expandingand shrinking – expanding by promot-ing broader, more extensive contactsamong countries and individuals, andsimultaneously, shrinking throughfaster and easier access to informa-tion and people from different cul-tures around the world. While theseparadoxical forces provide increasedbusiness opportunities, they also cre-ate more occasions for cross-culturalconflict and misunderstanding.Misinformation about internationalbusiness dealings abound and anaura of the exotic and unknown devel-ops among managers unfamiliar withthe global environment. The resultingmyths, mystiques, and mistakes thathave grown up around globalizationand foreign assignments can bedaunting for the individual at bestand detrimental to the company prof-its and reputation at worst.

As the opening quotation for thisarticle from Christopher Bartlett of theHarvard Business School indicates, it isnot easy to be successful in a bound-aryless, networked world, if we insist onmaintaining rigid hierarchical organiza-tional structures designed for the com-mand-and-control management styleof the industrial age, using ill-equipped, uninformed humanresources, better suited for individual,

task-oriented work of the craftsmanage. HR, like most corporate depart-ments, is still largely structured as acentralized, top-down function. And,individuals’ skills and competenciesare still looked upon as sets of unidi-mensional “things” that peopledevelop, “collect” throughout thecourse of their careers, and add to theirrésumés.

Yet these models were appropriatein their time, when capital was thescarce resource and people were seenas interchangeable components onthe assembly line. But today, peoplehave become the scarce resource, andthe information and knowledge resid-ing in the heads of individuals, alongwith how it is connected and trans-ferred across social networks, is thekey to building an organization’s com-petitive advantage. And this isnowhere more important than whenworking on international projects orassignments. The ability for individu-als in a global setting to communicatewell, to understand one anotherclearly, and to work together effec-tively is the key to ultimate success.

Success on global assignments hasbeen difficult to achieve. Numerousstudies have shown that failures ininternational business most oftenresult from the inability of individualswho are working abroad to understandand adapt to the local country’s way ofdoing things. Failure rates on interna-tional assignments of up to 10 percentfor Australian companies, 14 percentfor Japanese companies, and 76 per-cent for U.S. companies have beenreported throughout the literature(Ferraro 2002). While researchers mayquibble over the actual numbers and

how exactly to define failure (Harzing1995), the impact on company growth,profits, morale, and employee reten-tion is clearly enormous.

The reasons for failure are varied.The individual may be unable to adaptto the new physical or cultural environ-ment or lack the linguistic, communica-tive, people or functional/technicalskills required for the position. Theposition definition may be unclear, orthere may be a lack of clarity aroundthe goals/objectives of the assignment.There may not be sufficient supportfrom the family, or the spouse may beunable to adapt to the international sit-uation. The individual may lack thematurity or motivation for foreign workor may have an overly narrow orparochial perspective when working inother cultures.

But when we say “failure,” failureby whose interpretation? How shouldsuccess or failure be evaluated?Inadequate research, lack of empiricaldata, methodological problems, andconflicting interpretations of suc-cess/failure abound in the literature.As with most things, there are manydifferent ways to look at the problem.Did the assignment end early or was itextended? What was the supervisorand/or employee’s subjective evalua-tion? Were the specific objectivesmet? Was there improvement in theorganization’s performance? Was theassignment purely for the develop-ment of the employee, and if so, howdid the employee progress?

And herein lies the challenge forhuman resources in the global digitalage. How do we determine success andmitigate failure in international assign-ments? How do we uncover the skills

Myths, Mystiques, and Mistakes inOverseas Assignments:The Role of Global Mindset inInternational Work1

By Karen V. Beaman, Jeitosa International

November/December 2004 • IHRIM Journal40

IHRIM Journal • November/December 2004 41

FEATURE

and attributes required for success andmove our organizations to an inte-grated, multi-dimensional approach toglobal human resources management?How do we promote, leverage, and dif-fuse a new mindset – a global orienta-tion – to develop more effective inter-national leaders and foster healthierteamwork on global projects?

First, we must dispel the myths,unravel the mystiques, and under-stand the mistakes that have toooften occurred, damaging reputa-tions, derailing business opportuni-ties, and hurting company profits.Most importantly, we need to recog-nize the role of “global mindset” inselecting individuals for interna-tional assignments and in buildingeffective multicultural teams thathave the maximum likelihood forsuccess. Next, we need informationabout what works and what factorsaffect international experiences. Thisarticle provides background informa-tion from the literature on expatri-ates and international assignmentsand then presents the findings from astudy on global mindset with 100international assignees. In closing,we discuss some preliminarythoughts on building a multi-dimen-sional model of the internationalexperience to aid in the selection andmanagement of the next generationof global leaders.

MYTHSLet’s begin by dispelling a few of

the common myths surrounding expa-triate work and overseas assignments.

Myth #1: Any smart employee can be asuccessful expatriate.

Common sense might tell us that,in general, smart people tend to besuccessful people. Yet repeatedly,experience has shown that success inan international setting is much morecomplex – and, in fact, may havenothing to do with being smart at all.The common assumption that ifsomeone is successful in their homeenvironment, they can be successfulanywhere has created many unsuc-cessful expatriates and derailed manyo t h e r w i s e p r o m i s i n g c a r e e r s .Adaptation to different environmentsrequires flexibility and accommoda-

tion skills, as well as a desire to expe-rience new things and a willingness totake risks, which may not necessarilybe the same skills needed to be suc-cessful in the home environment. Infact, international success appears tohave much more to do with an indi-vidual’s emotional quotient (EQ) thanwith their intelligence quotient (IQ).Emotional intelligence, as DanielGoleman describes it, is the ability toeffectively perceive and manage socialrelationships through self-awareness,self-regulation, motivation, empathyand social skills (Goleman 1995).

Myth #2: HR professionals handlingexpatriate administration are effectively man-aging the overseas assignment.

Truth be told, successful expatriatemanagement has much more to dowith effective selection techniques andongoing professional and managementsupport before, during, and after theassignment than with managing theadministrative details such as reloca-tion, training, compensation and taxa-tion. More often than not, internationalassignments are decided by someoneraising their hand, rather than byassessing the individual’s global per-spective, personality characteristicsand personal situation. Once theassignment is made, the expatriate isquickly “forgotten” by corporate HRuntil just before their tour of duty is up.If HR would provide more coaching andmanagement support throughout theassignment, we would see much highersuccess rates. In addition, repatriationservices once the individual returnscould stem the large number of expa-triates who leave their companieswithin two years of returning from aninternational assignment (said to beclose to 80 percent!).

Myth #3: There is one unique trait – a sinequa non – that makes a successful expatriate.

In reality, the propensity of an indi-vidual to adapt and accommodate tonew situations is affected by a multi-tude of factors, including personalattributes and characteristics (e.g.,flexibility, accommodation, motiva-tion, risk-taking, extroversion),learned skills and competencies (e.g.,communication, language abilities),as well as the context and circum-stances of the particular job or func-

tion to be performed (e.g., alignmentwith the organization’s vision, man-agement support, individual’s familysituation and career aspirations). Inorder to select successful expatriatesand build effective global teams, HRmust take a multi-factorial approach,evaluating candidates’ suitability on avariety of different dimensions.

MYSTIQUESPrecisely because the details and

dynamics of international work arenot well known, a mystique has grownup around foreign assignments andabout those who go overseas for work.To demystify the international experi-ence, let’s unveil the truth behindsome of these mystiques.

Mystique #1: International assignmentsare glamorous.

The allure of exotic, foreign travel isenticing and does appear glamorous tothe inexperienced and uninitiated.Indeed, international work can be quitestimulating and certainly eye opening.Yet, for all the excitement it brings, for-eign travel can also bring danger,exhaustion and even alienation.Particularly since 9/11, internationaltravel has become more perilous, wear-ing, and frustrating – schleppingthrough airports, living out of suit-cases, struggling to communicate,dealing with constant strangeness andnewness, working with colleagues whomay question or even undermine thebest of efforts. The expatriate is treatedas “a foreigner” by the locals and as “adeserter” by their home country col-leagues: in the words of A. E. Housman,“I, a stranger and afraid, in a world Inever made.” For all the glamour aninternational assignment brings, thehurdles are considerable and hence notsomething to be taken lightly or under-taken by the faint of heart.

Mystique #2: Foreign cultures areinscrutable.

We are often mystified as to whypeople act the way they do, and this is nowhere more apparent than with people from another culture.“Foreigners” often encounter difficul-ties comprehending the underlyingintentions of people from a differentculture, and thus have trouble puttingtheir actions into the appropriate con-

FEATURE

text. Nevertheless, every culture hasits own internal meanings and ratio-nales, and there are commonalities ofpurpose and practice that are well-nigh universal. Working effectively inanother culture requires the expatri-ate to move beyond the superficialdifferences and understand basicmotivations. Cultivating an ability tosee the world through the eyes of theother culture is vital to success on theinternational stage.

Mystique #3: Hollywood portrayals ofother peoples and cultures are realistic.

Hollywood and the media areclearly responsible for considerablehype and mystique around foreign cul-tures, such as crocodile hunters inAustralia, gun-slinging cowboys inAmerica, vodka-drinking Russians, andFrench and Italian lovers. The fear andapprehension fabricated by this mys-tique create images that all Americanscarry guns and join in daily drag races,that all Germans eat sausages andsauerkraut, and that all Eskimos live inigloos. While certainly there’s sometruth to the portraits promoted byHollywood, we must beware of stereo-typing and realize that cultures areunique and different, yet they are alsomade up of humans with different cus-toms and belief systems – each to bevalued in their own right.

MISTAKESUnfortunately, there have been far

too many egregious mistakes in inter-national encounters, many of whichhave brought financial damage to thecompany and career derailment for theindividual. Failure to understand theinfluence that culture and language canhave on business dealings has led tomiscommunication, misunderstanding,marketing blunders, undermining ofcorporate goals, and even lawsuits.

Mistake #1: If it works well enough here,then it’ll work well anywhere.

Probably the worse mistake inter-national managers can make is toassume that if something works wellin one location, it will automaticallywork well in another location.Mistakes like building a bread factoryin south China (where the people pri-marily eat rice) or offering incentivebonuses where there is a cultural

taboo against paying people extra justfor “doing their job” (considering itbribery) can be costly – financially,socially, professionally and emotion-ally. While not every practice, product,and/or service, needs to be cus-tomized for every different location,each one should be evaluated forappropriateness and applicability inthe new context.

Mistake #2: There’s no need to learnthe local language because “everyone speaksEnglish.”

All too often American, British, andAustralian managers believe thatEnglish is the only language theyneed to know to work internationallybecause English is the “company lan-guage” or the “world language,” soeveryone “should” speak it. Yet, it isonly by learning the local languagethat one can truly understand the cul-ture and hence comprehend the many contextual factors affecting the localbusiness environment. Miscommuni-cations and mistranslations arenumerous – for example, theAmerican airline that advertised its“rendezvous lounges” in its businessclass section, failing to realize that theword rendezvous in Portuguese refersto a room for illicit sexual encounters(Ferraro 2002). While they may some-times be humorous, such stories onlyperpetrate the ignorance and ethno-centrism of expatriates, particularlyAmericans, who fail to even make aneffort to accommodate or understand.Two essentials for effective, two-waycommunications are the motivationto learn the local language and thewillingness to use it. Even withoutattaining competency, the expatriategains the locals’ respect just by mak-ing the effort.

Mistake #3: Fitting into the new placemeans forgetting the old ways.

In contrast to the ethnocentricapproach propagated by mistakes oneand two above, there is the “gonenative” approach, in which the expatri-ate plunges so deeply into the new cul-ture and new way of doing things thatthey leave all the old ways behind –sometimes to the detriment of fulfillingcorporate objectives. Many expatriateassignments are made with the expressintent of carrying out a corporate mis-

sion, such as teaching the locals a newway of doing business or bringing anerrant business unit in line. To be effec-tive it is important for internationalmanagers to balance the sometimescompeting objectives of corporateheadquarters with the needs of thelocal business unit.

BACKGROUNDBefore delving any deeper into this

subject, let’s define what we mean by an“expatriate.” An expatriate is someonewho has been assigned by their com-pany (either willingly or unwillingly) tolive and work outside of their homecountry in another country or culture foran extended, predefined period of time(generally, two to four years). The word“predefined” is key. Expatriates – orinternational assignees – have a fixedtime period for their assignment (whichmay or may not be extended) in con-trast to host country nationals ormigrants (who immigrate permanently)or international business travelers (whovisit the host country only on shortbusiness trips).

The research that has been doneon international assignments andexpatriates is immense, covering aplethora of topics, such as personalitydifferences, cultural differences,national origin, the context or situa-tion of the assignment, the job or rolethe expatriate is assigned to do,global orientation or mindset, andorganizational structure. The follow-ing paragraphs briefly review somefindings from previous research.

PERSONALITYMany studies have stressed the

importance of personality characteris-tics – particularly traits such as flexi-bility and accommodation – as pre-dictors of assimilation and success ina new culture or environment.Caligiuri (2000) has looked at theimportance of the “Big Five” personal-ity characteristics – extroversion,emotional stability, conscientious-ness, openness or intellect, andagreeableness – in determining anindividual’s suitability for interna-tional work. Brinkmann and vanWeerdenburg (2003) developed aMulticultural Personality Question-



FEATURE

naire (MPQ) covering five domainscritical in international work – culturalempathy, flexibility, open-minded-ness, social initiative and emotionalstability. Hoffman (2001) has con-structed a Cultural AdaptabilityInventory (HCAI) covering four keypersonality characteristics (used insubsequent sections of this article):

Intercultural-Liking defines an individ-ual’s degree of openness to other cul-tures and the extent to which theyenjoy cultural differences when itcomes to cuisine, music, art, etc.Individuals with a high degree ofIntercultural-Liking enjoy travelingabroad and meeting people of differentnationalities.

Extroversion defines the degree towhich an individual draws energy frombeing around other people, initiatingconversations with strangers and beingthe center of group attention. Highlyextroverted individuals prefer to avoidsolitude and tend to be easy to readfrom their facial expressions.

Amiability defines the degree towhich an individual is friendly,empathic, and easy to get along with.Highly amiable people are good lis-teners and focus on building closerelationships. They also tend to beoptimists, rarely dwelling on pastupsets or worrying about the future.

Risk-Taking measures the degree towhich an individual trusts their intu-ition and likes to take risks, seeing lifeas an adventure. Individuals with a highdegree of Risk-Taking get bored easilyby routine and structure, and so arecontinually seeking out new opportuni-ties and initiating new projects.

The work of Hoffman and manyothers demonstrate that personalityplays a key role in the internationalwork experience and can significantlyaffect the performance of individualsworking abroad.

CULTURENumerous studies have docu-

mented the integral role that cultureplays in international assignments.Most notable are the works of GeertHofstede (1980, 2001) and FonsTrompenaars (1998) and their manyassociates and followers. Hofstededefines culture as “the collective pro-

gramming of the mind that distin-guishes one group or category of peo-ple from another. This stresses thatculture is (1) a collective, not an indi-vidual attribute, (2) not directly visiblebut manifested in behaviors, and (3)common to some, but not all people”(Hofstede 2001).

Hofstede’s work, based on exten-sive empirical surveys, classifies cul-tures along five major dimensions:

Power Distance defines the extent towhich less powerful members of thegroup accept that power is distributedunequally (such as in the family, inbusiness, in political institutions).The level of power distance in a cul-ture begins in the family based onwhether children are raised to be“obedient followers” or to demon-strate “individual initiative.”

Uncertainty Avoidance defines agroup’s tolerance for ambiguity andthe extent to which people feel com-fortable or uncomfortable in unstruc-tured situations. Uncertainty-avoidingcultures tend to be more emotional,believe in one absolute “Truth,” andattempt to control their environmentby implementing strict laws, rules andsafety measures.

Individualism versus Collectivismdefines the extent to which individu-als are integrated into groups. In col-lectivist societies people are inte-grated into strong, cohesive groups,often extended families. In individual-ist societies, the ties between individ-uals are loose, and people areexpected to look after themselves andtheir own immediate families.

Masculinity versus Femininity refers tothe distribution of emotional rolesbetween the sexes from very assertiveand competitive, typical male values, tomodest and caring, typical female val-ues. “The women in feminine countrieshave the same modest, caring values asthe men; in masculine countries theyare somewhat assertive and competi-tive, but not as much as the men, sothat these countries show a gapbetween men’s values and women’svalues” (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004).

Long-Term versus Short-TermOrientation defines the extent to whicha culture tends to take a shorter orlonger-term view of the world. The val-

ues associated with a long-term ori-entation are thrift and perseverance,whereas those associated with ashort-term orientation are respect fortradition, fulfilling social obligationsand saving face.

The work of Hofstede and otherson culture strongly suggests that suc-cess in international assignments islargely influenced by the degree andtypes of cultural difference betweenthe expatriate’s country of origin andtheir country of destination. The mostrecent studies in this area are uncov-ering how personality characteristicsand culture interact to influence thebehavior of individuals and socialgroups (McCrae 2000, Hofstede &McCrae 2004). Jonkeren (2004, in thisissue of the IHRIM Journal) continuesthis approach by looking at theimpact that culture plays in integrat-ing and managing cross-culturalglobal, virtual teams.

CONTEXTOther studies have indicated that a

critical factor in expatriate success isthe “context” of the international job.The level of difficulty expatriatesencounter is a function of how differentthe new context is from their own. Manythings may take longer, and the oldways of doing things may no longerwork. The expatriate may feel awkwardand lack credibility; people may notunderstand him/her, and he/she maynot understand them. When working inanother culture, “the whats remain thesame, but the hows are different”(McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). Workingas an expatriate presents more thanjust a cognitive, intellectual challenge:it is an “all-out assault” on the identityof the person, forcing the individual totransform their old ways of thinking, aswell as many of their most deeply heldbeliefs and values.

McCall and Hollenbeck (2002) con-tend that global work is difficultbecause it combines complexity fromtwo different dimensions: businesscomplexity with cultural complexity(see Figure 1). As business complexityincreases, managerial abilities mustalso increase. Naturally, it requiresmuch greater management talent tomanage a large number of diverse


FEATURE

functions, products, suppliers, busi-ness units, locations, etc. Likewise, ascultural complexity increases, facilitydealing across cultures must similarlyincrease. The greater the differencebetween geographies, languages, cus-toms, values, habits, etc., the greaterthe skills the individual must possessto effectively work across cultures.Combining these two dimensions –an increase in business complexitywith an increase in cultural complex-ity – creates an intensely complexglobal environment, requiring abroader global mindset (further dis-cussion of global mindset follows insubsequent sections). More highlydeveloped global management abili-ties are needed, as both business andcultural complexity increase.

DUAL IDENTITIESThe work of Sanchez, Spector, &

Cooper (2000) indicates that the suc-cess or failure of an expatriate is a fac-tor of the amount of stress in the envi-ronment. They contend that to reducethe stress in the environment, individ-uals need to develop and maintain“dual identities” – one identity withtheir home culture and a second withthe new local culture (see Figure 2).Individuals who identify strongly withtheir home culture and are unable tomake the transition to the new culturefind themselves in a high stress envi-ronment and may not have the skills ormotivation to deal with the complexbusiness environment they are now in.Individuals who are able to identifywell with both the parent and the local

cultures are considered “bicultural” –able to easily move between the two. Itis these well-adjusted individuals whoexperience the least amount of stressin the international situation and thushave the greatest likelihood for suc-cess on their assignment.

Sanchez et al. present a model to

explain the stages that individuals gothrough in developing this dual iden-tity (see Figure 3). When an expatriatefirst accepts an assignment, they maygo through a period of idealizationabout the foreign environment. Uponarrival they may experience cultureshock and, while still a novice in inter-national work, they may make culturalblunders as they learn and adapt.During this transition, they may rejecteither the foreign culture or theirhome culture, becoming frustratedwith the other’s inability to “under-stand.” Successful expatriates learn to

master the experience, only tobecome disappointed upon repatria-tion – now the disappointment is withthe inability of their former colleaguesto “understand” the “new” mindsetand the change that has taken placewithin the repatriated individual.Whatever the evolution, it is clear

that cultural adaptationand assimilation are

processes and thatindividuals evolvethrough over time inlearning to deal withforeign cultures.

ROLECaligiuri (2002) and

others maintain thatmany internationalassignments have metwith failure due to thelack of a structuredexpatriate selectionprocess. In particular,little attention has

been paid to the role or job functionthat the expatriate is to perform andwhether the individual selected has theskills to perform the required functionin the specific local environment. Jobsdiffer in the extent to which theyrequire intercultural competence; inaddition, the difference between somecultures is greater than it is betweenothers (e.g., French and Italian versusFrench and Japanese).

Caligiuri holds that internationalassignments generally fall in one oftwo dimensions: (1) assignmentsrequiring the need for intercultural

Figure 1. Increasing ContextualComplexity.

Figure 2. Developing Dual Identities.

Figure 3. Evolution of Dual Identities.

Source: Sanchez, Spector, & Cooper, 2000.

Source: Sanchez, Spector, & Cooper, 2000.

Source: McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002.

IHRIM Journal • November/December 2004

FEATURE

competence and (2) assignmentsintended as developmental opportu-nities for the employee. Within thesetwo dimensions, she identifies fourgeneral categories or roles that expa-triates typically fill:

Technical Assignees (e.g., programmers,engineers) are selected purely basedon the need to get a specific technicaljob done. Because they require littlehuman interaction to be successful, theindividual does not need to have exten-sive intercultural skills; in addition,with technical assignments, little focusis placed on professional developmentfor the employee.

Functional or Tactical Assignees (e.g.,sales, marketing, production, andlegal jobs) are also chosen based onthe need to get a specific job done;however, because they tend torequire extensive interaction withpeople in the local country, theseindividuals need to possess a well-developed set of intercultural com-munication skills to be successful.

Development or High-PotentialAssignees are designated based on thedesire to develop a high-potentialemployee, whether or not there is aspecific need to get a specific jobdone or not. Because of the long-term career development focus, con-siderably more intercultural commu-nication skills are required.

Strategic or Executive Assignees (e.g.,integration of an overseas acquisi-tion, standardization of foreign busi-ness operations, general manage-ment role) are usually assignedbased on both the need to get a spe-cific job done and on the develop-mental focus for the executive;hence, they require excellent inter-cultural skills, as well as significantglobal experience.

The different roles that expatriatesare expected to fill have implicationsfor the selection, management, andtraining of the individual before, dur-ing, and after the assignment. Forexample, with functional, developmen-tal, and strategic executive roles, moreemphasis should be placed on select-ing individuals based on personalitycharacteristics (e.g., cultural empathy,flexibility, open-mindedness, sociabil-ity and emotional stability).

GLOBAL MINDSETPrevious work has shown that

international success appears to be afunction of “Global Mindset” – anindividual’s orientation to the interna-tional experience (Guy & Beaman2003, 2004). The model characterizingglobal mindsets is based on Sullivan’s(2001) three-way typology, distin-guishing ethnocentric, polycentricand geocentric orientations (seeFigure 4). Individual mindsets are bestsuited for different types of assign-ments:

Ethnocentric Mindsets take the homecountry as the basis for beliefs andevaluations, holding that one’s ownculture and values are intrinsicallysuperior to those of others, to thepoint even of assuming nationalsuperiority. It might be characterizedby the expression: “the sun never setson the British empire.” This type ofmindset is effective when there is aneed to standardize operationsaround the world or to protect thecompany’s intellectual property.

Polycentric Mindsets areones that adapt well tocultural differences andare effective at bridgingthe gap between homeand host culture and com-pany objectives. The poly-centric mindset entailsaccommodation or assim-ilation with the foreignculture, sometimes evento the extent of “goingnative.” It might be char-acterized by the expres-sion: “when in Rome, doas the Romans.” This typeof mindset is appropriatewhen there is a need for intense focuson the local market or regulatory situa-tion.

Geocentric Mindsets are ones thatseek universals and commonalitiesacross cultures and are effective attying diverse groups together towarda common goal. A geocentric orienta-tion implicitly assumes that a univer-sal set of values govern human inter-action, downplaying the importanceof cultural differences. This mentalitycan best be summed up by thefamous words of John Lennon,

“Imagine all the people sharing all theworld.” This type of mindset is appro-priate for individuals who work at aglobal level, responsible for integrat-ing the ideas and practices of differentbusinesses and functions into a uni-fied approach.

With respect to international workexperiences, like Caligiuri, Sullivan(2001) claims that an individual’sglobal mindset is directly related tohis or her effectiveness depending onthe nature of the job. In his view, eth-nocentric individuals tend to excel inenvironments that call for significantstandardization of methodology ortechnology, while polycentric individ-uals thrive in situations that requireconsiderable sensitivity to local con-ditions, and geocentric individualsexcel in positions that require identi-fying commonalities and integratingdifferent approaches. Sullivan’s line ofthinking concurs with Caligiuri thatthe role or job the individual is to per-form is vital in determining the type ofindividual needed for the assignment.

TRANSNATIONAL LEADERSBartlett and Ghoshal (1989), in their

seminal work on the different types ofstructures found in international busi-ness organizations, suggest that inter-national success is dependent on thefit between the individual’s orientationand the type of organization they workfor. Working in a “Transnational” organi-zation typically requires an ability tobalance multiple perspectives, managecomplexity, and build commitmentthrough a highly networked, widely dis-persed global organization (Beaman &

45

Figure 4. Global Mindsets.

Source: Guy & Beaman 2003, Sullivan 2001, Permutter 1969.


Guy 2003, 2004). They identify four dif-ferent types of leaders that are requiredto successfully manage the global orga-nization:

Business Managers strategize globally,focusing on achieving global efficien-cies, coordinating activities across bor-ders and allocating resources acrossthe world in best manner possible (cf.“Ethnocentrics”).

Country Managers focus on buildinglocal resources, meeting local cus-tomer needs, satisfying host govern-ment requirements, interpreting locallaws and regulations and maintainingmarket position in country (cf.“Polycentrics”).

Functional Managers specialize inspecific functional areas, scanning forinformation worldwide within a func-tional domain, increasing globalknowledge and sharing, cross-polli-nating ideas and championing inno-vations (cf. “Geocentrics”).

Corporate Managers, generally basedat headquarters, focus on finding,developing and deploying talentacross the globe to respond todemands of the transnational envi-ronment (i.e., “Executives”).

While truly transnational organiza-tions need all four types of leaders,organizations at other stages of globaldevelopment will generally have a

stronger need for one type of managerover the others (see Figure 5). Purelydomestic companies need primarilyethnocentrics, while multinationalcompanies need more polycentrics.International and transnational orga-nizations need all three types of man-agers, including the corporate execu-tives to manage the interactionsbetween the others.

GLOBAL MINDSET STUDYIn order to better understand the

dynamics involved in an internationalwork situation and to unravel thethreads that make up the fabric ofglobal leadership, I have been conduct-ing a study, in partnership with Dr.Gregory R. Guy from New YorkUniversity, to evaluate the role thatglobal mindset plays with individualsworking internationally (see Guy &Beaman 2003, 2004). The objective ofthis study is to evaluate how globalmindset may be linked to attitudes,identity, personality, gender, family sit-uation, nationality, linguistic accom-modation, and so on, and hence play arole in the success (or failure) of aninternational assignment.

Study PopulationThe study population currently

comprises 100 individuals workingprimarily in the field of humanresource information systems, as wellas some academics. We targeted indi-

FEATURE

Figure 5. Global Mindset and Organizational Evolution.

Figure 6. Population Demographics.

Source:Adapted from Beaman & Walker 2000, Beaman & Guy 2003.

Source: Guy & Beaman 2003, 2004.


viduals with substantial internationalexperience; consequently, our resultsmust not be construed as representa-tive of the general population, butrather as indicative of an experiencedinternational, primarily hi-tech, popu-lation. Figure 6 shows some basicinformation on the make-up of thesample population and their interna-tional assignments. Half of therespondents are from the UnitedStates, with the rest coming from abroad range of other countries; overhalf of them spent their internationalassignments in Europe, with another20 percent in the Asia/Pacific region.The durations of their internationalassignments range from less than sixmonths to more than five years, andtheir ages show a preponderance ofpeople over 30. Seventy-three percentare male and 27 percent female – asubstantial female representation incomparison with previous studiesthat have shown less than 15 percentfemales in international work (Tung1998). The respondents are fairlyevenly distributed across post-sec-ondary educational levels.

QuestionnaireEach participant was

asked to complete a ques-tionnaire consisting of twoparts – a survey of theindividual’s internationalwork experience and a per-sonality test to assess theindividual’s aptitude forwork in a foreign environ-ment. The survey com-prises 123 questions cov-ering information aboutthe respondents’ ownbackgrounds, their lan-guage abilities (and howthis changed while theyworked abroad), theiremployers, the place andduration of their interna-tional work assignments,their attitudes and orien-tation toward interna-tional experiences, andtheir evaluation of theexperience and its out-come (e.g., impact on theircareer, etc.).

The second part of the question-naire consists of a personality test toassess individuals’ interculturaladaptability and hence probability ofsuccess in an international environ-ment. Of the many availableapproaches to personality assess-ment, we relied on Hoffman’s CulturalAdaptability Inventory (HCAI), devel-oped based on Hoffman’s experienceas a clinical psychologist working withexpatriates in the United States. TheHCAI comprises four subscales: Inter-cultural Liking, Risk-Taking,Amiability, and Extroversion/Introv-ersion. The individuals’ scores onthese subscales are totalled to gen-erate a composite measure thatserves as a general predictor of suit-ability for international work.

The results of the Beaman-Guystudies reveal that there are a num-ber of factors that significantly affectcertain aspects of individual perfor-mance and, hence, the outcome of aninternational assignment. The fol-lowing paragraphs briefly reviewsome of the highlights from theseprevious studies (Guy & Beaman

2003, 2004) and from our ongoingwork.

Findings – Global MindsetWe first looked at Global Mindset

as a factor in the international settingand found a number of key learningsabout how different types of mindsetsreact to the experience (see Figure 7).

Polycentrics. The employees who aremost positively oriented towards theparticular country they went to arethose with a polycentric mindset. Theseindividuals have the most overall inter-national experience (r=.165, p<.05),end up staying the longest in the inter-national job (r=.216, p<.05), show thebest linguistic accommodation (r=.196,p<.05) (evidenced by acquiring orimproving their command of the locallanguage), maintain their languageskills better upon returning home(r=.209, p<.05), and find the overallexperience the most educational(r=.257, p<.005). They demonstrate thestrongest attitude towards the impor-tance of learning the local language(r=.306, p<.005) and hence integrationin the local community.

Geocentrics. The geocen-tric orientation is associ-ated with an overall posi-tive attitude towardsother countries and cul-tures, and a generalizedmindset of multicultural-ism and universality ofvalues. Our geocentricrespondents have consid-erably shorter stays onaverage (r=-.214, p<.05)and tend to find theirexperiences the most frus-trating (r=.318, p<.005).We surmise that this isprobably due to theirintense dedication tointernationalism, which isnot satisfied by a singleinternational locale. Theyalso show the greatestamount of prior languageability (r=.172, p<.05) andare the least likely tomake local friendships(r=-.238, p<.01). Finally,the geocentrics demon-strate the greatest need

FEATURE

Figure 7. Global Mindset Findings.

Significant Coefficients of Correlation. Source: Guy & Beaman 2003 & 2004.


for home country management support(r=.219, p<.05), most likely due to thenature of their positions which requiresconsiderably more integrated linkagesbetween home and local country busi-nesses.

Ethnocentrics. An ethnocentric orien-tation is characteristic of individualswho are most deeply attached to theways of doing things from their homecountry. Not surprisingly, suchrespondents in our survey show thelowest levels of satisfaction with theinternational experience (r=-.171,p<.05) and exhibit the least languageimprovement (r=-.169, p<.01). Theethnocentrics also show the strongestreliance on membership in home pro-fessional organizations (r=.181,p<.05) in direct contrast to the poly-centrics who tend to reject home-based community and professionalassociations (r=-.196, p<.05 and r=-.230, p<.01). The ethnocentrics alsodepend on fewer local friendships (r=-.201, p<.05), probably both because ofa lack of desire and due to theirshorter stays. Interestingly, however,our results also indicate that interna-tional experience tends to reduce eth-nocentrism over time: the longer thetime that has elapsed since the inter-national assignment, the less ethno-centric our respondents appear to be(r=-.347, p<.005). This finding indi-cates that “mindsets are malleable,”based on experience, which doesbroaden the mind, albeit gradually(Guy & Beaman 2003).

Findings – PersonalityAnother perspective revealed by

the Beaman-Guy study can be seen inthe results of the Hoffman CulturalAdaptability Inventory (HCAI) scaleassessing personality traits that favorcultural adaptability (see Figure 8).Higher scores for cultural adaptability(HCAI Total) on the Hoffman scale aresignificantly correlated with amountof experience (r=.194, p<.05), longerstays abroad (r=.213, p<.05), andextended assignments (r=.200,p<.05). Most significantly, we see thatthe Hoffman test does appear to be agood predictor of more successfulexperiences (r=.258, p<.005) – if wecan agree that one valid measure of

success is whether the individual’sassignment was extended or not.

Breaking down the Hoffman scaleinto its subscales, we see severalstrong correlations for Intercultural-Liking and Risk-Taking, indicating thatdesire to interact with other cultures,as well as predisposition to take risks,play key roles in the internationalexperience. Individuals who scorehigh on Risk-Taking tend to find theexperience rewarding (r=.307,p<.005), yet at the same time frustrat-ing (r=.183, p<.05). Most importantly,they tend to be more successful – asmeasured by the number of exten-sions (r=.271, p<.01). They also havemore international experience overall(r=.189, p<.05), tend to stay longerabroad (r=.235, p,>01), and are morelikely to have their assignmentsextended (r=.252, p<.01). Individualsscoring high on the Intercultural-Liking subscale exhibit similar ten-dencies, also valuing the importanceof making local friendships (r=.271,p<.005).

Another interesting finding can beseen in the correlations with theAmiability subscale and languageabilities. While the individuals in our

study show a negative associationwith Amiability and an ability to speakthe local language before leaving ontheir overseas assignment (r=-.165,p<.05), they show the greatestamount of language improvementduring the assignment (r=.207,p<.05). This underscores the fact thatlanguage is an intensely social phe-nomenon and that ability to learnother languages is enhanced throughthe desire to socialize and makefriends in that culture.

Findings – CultureIn order to look at the effect of cul-

ture on the international assignment,we divided the population into twogroups – Americans and non-Americans – and ran a series of two-tailed t-tests to evaluate the differ-ences (see Figure 9). By coincidencethe two groups were evenly divided inthe current population – 50 Americanand 50 non-Americans. The currentsample is not sufficiently largeenough to be able to break downother nationalities, but this is an areawe intend to look at in future work.

Surprisingly to us, the Americansin this study tend to be more geocen-

FEATURE

Figure 8. Personality Findings.

Significant Coefficients of Correlation.


tric than the non-Americans(mean of 7.9 versus 7.4). Wehad expected to see a moreethnocentric predispositionin the Americans; however,we must consider the popula-tion under study: the currentpopulation is not a represen-tative sample of theAmerican public, but rather agroup of experienced humanresources professionals andacademics who have consid-erably more internationalexperience than the averageAmerican. We suspect that,based on America’s dominantpolitical and economic posi-tion on the global stage, thatthe higher geocentric predis-position of the Americans isbecause it takes a higherlevel of geocentricity forAmeri-cans to climb out ofthe “hegemonic gravity well”of their home country and getinvolved in internationalwork (Guy & Beaman 2004).

In evaluating their interna-tional experiences, Ameri-cans rate them more frustrat-ing (mean of 2.7 versus 2.0),but also more rewarding(mean of 4.4 versus 4.0) thanother cultures as a whole.Not surprisingly, linguisti-cally, the rest of the worldsurpasses America on language abil-ity prior to their overseas assignment(mean score of 2.8 versus 1.2) and ontotal number of languages spoken (onaverage 2.7 languages spoken versus2.1). Finally, while non-Americans feelthat local TV/radio is important to asuccessful experience (mean of 4.2versus 3.7), Americans attach muchgreater importance to getting supportfrom their employers at home (meanof 4.2 versus 3.6).

Findings – ContextIn further work being reported on

in this article for the first time, weanalyzed the individual’s positionlevel and job type in order to deter-mine the effect of contextual factorson the international experience.According to Caligiuri and Sullivan

(as discussed earlier), research hasindicated that the level and type ofinternational position that the indi-vidual holds has a strong influenceon success. The general hypothesis isthat the lower the level and the moretechnical the position, the less of animpact cultural differences have onthe individual’s success. This is par-ticularly applicable in the world ofinternational business, where thelower the position, the more likelythe individual is to be doing heads-down technical work, dealing to amuch lesser extent with the culturaldifferences and communication chal-lenges inherent in working acrosscultures.

In order to test this hypothesis, wedivided the individuals in our samplein two different ways. The first subdi-

vision is based on the level ofthe position:

11% are academics (stu-dents and professors),

31% are in staff or linepositions,

34% hold supervisor ormanagement positions; and,

24% are in director orexecutive level positions.

The second subdivision isbased on the type of job, i.e.,on how much external focusand intercultural communi-cation the job requires:

11% are academics (stu-dents and professors),

16% are in technical/development roles,

11% hold in financial/accounting positions,

43% are in functional orproject management roles,

6% are in sales or market-ing roles; and,

13% are in executive gen-eral management roles.

We found several signifi-cant correlations, which canbe seen in Figure 10. First,the higher the level of posi-tion the person holds, themore likely the individual isto have a polycentric mind-set (r=.174, p<.05). That is,for the individuals in oursample, we see more poly-

centrics in the executive and direc-tor-level roles, indicating that expa-triates at this level require a strongidentification with the local cultureand a deep understanding of localmarket conditions. With respect tojob type, we also see a positive cor-relation with being polycentric andthe types of the jobs that requiremore extensive intercultural commu-nication skills (r=.191, p<.05).Similarly, we see a negative correla-tion between job type and the eth-nocentric mindset (r=-.220, p<.05);that is, the more outwardly focusedthe position, the less ethnocentricthe individual is likely to be. As acorollary to this, with respect to per-sonality factors, we find that thehigher the level of position and themore outwardly focused type of job,

FEATURE

Figure 9. Culture Findings.

Significant Differences in Mean Scores. Source: Guy & Beaman 2004.


the more extroverted the individualis likely to be (r=.204 and r=.177,respectively, p<.05).

Several other interesting findingsalso emerge with respect to the jobcontext. The higher the position level,the more educational the individualtends to find the experience (r=.200,p<.05) and the less likely they are tospeak a number of different languages(r=-.224, p<.05), indicating that inter-national work experience provides anexcellent opportunity for the develop-ment of globally alert business leaders.Individuals in jobs requiring more out-ward intercultural contact tend to staylonger on their assignments (r=.178,p<.05), confirming the assumption thatindividuals on technical assignmentsgo overseas for a short duration to geta job done and then return home.

With respect to individual atti-tudes towards the international expe-rience, the results of the Beaman-Guystudy show that the higher the level ofposition, the less likely the individualis to value the importance of makinglocal friendships (r=-.186, p<.05) andmaintaining home country standards(r=-.174, p<.05), and the more likelythey are to value the importance of

the family coming along(r=.203, p<.05) and hav-ing spousal support(r=.379, p<.005).

These findings onposition level and jobtype support Caligiuriand Sullivan’s work impli-cating the relevance ofglobal mindset and per-sonality factors in select-ing the right individualsfor the right types of jobs.

Findings – SituationRegardless of the per-

s o n a l p r o p e n s i t i e saffecting the intercul-tural experience, thereare situational aspectsof every environmentthat impact the assign-ment. Individuals mayhave family ties thatfacilitate or hinder theirperformance in an inter-national setting. The

circumstances surrounding a partic-ular job may also vary: more or lesssupport from home may be avail-able; performance on the job may befacilitated or impeded by the politi-cal or economic circumstances of thehost country, and so on.

In order to analyze theimpact of the family situa-tion on the internationalassignment, we dividedthe sample into threesubgroups: those withfamily who accompaniedthem on the assignment(n=44), those with familywho did not accompanythem (n=32), and thosewith no family (n=24).Using a series of two-tailed t-tests, we systematically analyzedthese three subgroups to uncover the factorsaffecting the internationalexperience. The resultscan be seen in Figure 11.

Individuals with familywho accompanied themon the assignment tendto be the most satisfied:

they score 4.6 (on five-point scale),followed closely by individuals withno family at 4.5. Not surprising, thoseindividuals with family left back hometend to be the least satisfied withtheir experience at 4.1. Consequently,we find that individuals with familywho accompany them stay the longest(3.8), followed by individuals with nofamily back home waiting for them at2.7. Not surprisingly, individuals withfamily left behind stay the shortestamount of time on their assignmentat 2.1 (p<.005) – undoubtedly out ofan eagerness to get back home.Similarly, we also find that individualswith no family members to be cog-nizant of are significantly more willingto take on another foreign assignmentin another country – 1.7 for those withno family versus 1.0 and 1.1 (p<.005)for those individuals with familymembers to consider.

Interestingly, we also find that themost successful individuals are thosewith no family. Without personal con-siderations at home, they presumablyhave fewer distractions and so canfocus solely on their work. Their suc-cess score is 2.6 compared to 2.2 forthose with family who went along and2.0 for those with family who didn’tgo. These findings clearly indicate the

FEATURE

Figure 10. Context Findings.

Figure 11. Situation Findings.

Significant Coefficients of Correlation.

Significant Differences in Mean Scores.


strong impact that the family situa-tion plays on the success, satisfac-tion, and duration of an internationalassignment, as well as on the individ-ual’s desire to return for another tourof duty.

We also find congruent findingswith regard to group identity and par-ticipation in various local, social,civic, and religious organizations, i.e.,local communities of practice.Individuals with family who accom-pany them are significantly morelikely to participate in a larger numberof community organizations, 1.8, thanthose with family who do not accom-pany them, 1.3, followed by thoseindividuals with no family, 0.8.Similarly, individuals with family, boththose with and without accompanyingfamily members, are significantlymore likely to participate in profes-sional and/or academic organizationsthan those individuals with no family,1.4 and 1.5 versus 0.6. We surmisethat this is the case because individu-als with family are probably older andso have more connections. Theyounger people are probably spend-ing their spare time on social activi-ties and personal development rather

than participating in communitygroups (to socialize their children)and professional organizations (tofurther their careers).

In addition, those with family aremore likely to participate in globalprofessional organizations rather thanin local or home country organiza-tions than those with no family (2.3and 1.9 versus 1.3). In contrast, indi-viduals with no family appear to feelthat it is more important to developlocal friendships, 4.8, than those withfamily, 4.5 and 4.4.

TOWARDS A MULTIDIMENSIONALMODEL OF INTERNATIONALEXPERIENCE

The results reported in this articlehave important implications for theselection and development of globallycompetent leaders, and hence, orga-nizational success on the interna-tional stage. The findings from theBeaman-Guy study, as well as manyothers, demonstrate that a multi-fac-torial analysis is required in order tofully interpret the picture of an indi-vidual’s international effectivenessand hence predict global success. Itshould be clear that there is no single

predictor of success in the interna-tional setting, no sine qua non forselecting effective global leaders. Noris it true that any successful leadercan be successful internationally.Rather, to achieve success in interna-tional work requires a conjunction ofmany interdependent factors. Tomove beyond the myths, mystiques,and mistakes and better explain theexpatriate experience requires amulti-factorial approach.

This article has attempted tosketch the basic elements of such anapproach. Figure 12 presents aschematic for a multidimensionalmodel of the international experi-ence. The principle factors affectinginternational success involve aplethora of individual characteristics,cultural facets, contextual features,and situational aspects.

Individual FactorsGlobal Mindset. An individual’s orien-

tation and attitudes regarding interna-tional cultures and experiencesstrongly influence their performance ina global setting. As we’ve seen, differ-ent types of jobs favor different mind-sets: polycentric mindsets are appro-priate for assignments which requireintense local knowledge; ethnocentricmindsets are effective for assignmentsthat require enforcing standards andone common way of doing business;and, geocentric mindsets are ideal forthose positions responsible for seek-ing commonalities and integratingbusiness practices holistically acrossthe globe. “In fact, the ‘best’ globalteams are built by mixing complemen-tary mindsets, because an eclecticgroup of mindsets is at lower risk offailure due to poor fit between the joband the mindset” (Guy & Beaman2003).

Personality. Also as we’ve seen, thereare certain personality characteristicsthat favor successful adaptation to for-eign cultures, such as flexibility andaccommodation, intercultural-likingand empathy, sociability and amiabil-ity. The ability to take risks – or thedesire for adventure – is a personalityfactor positively correlated with reward-ing and successful international experi-ences. Hence, pre-screening candi-

FEATURE

Figure 12. Multidimensional Model of International Experience.


dates for these types of personalitytraits can enhance the success rate ofoverseas assignments.

Cultural FactorsNationality. Cultural differences,

especially the distance between thehome country and local country cul-ture, affect the capacity of expatri-ates to accommodate, adapt, andsucceed in the new environment.Prior language ability and the will-ingness to learn a new language areindications of an individual’s predis-position toward appreciating andvaluing other cultures. Thus, trainingexpatriates to understand these dif-ferences and appreciate them canimprove success in the internationalsetting.

Contextual FactorsPosition and Job. The level of position

and the type of job the individual isexpected to perform present varyingchallenges in the international experi-ence based on the amount of intercul-tural communication and adaptationthat is required. Higher level posi-tions (e.g., directors and general man-agers) and more outwardly focusedjobs (e.g., project management, salesand marketing) require different per-sonality traits and different globalmindsets than heads-down, moreinternally focused jobs (e.g., program-mers, financial analysts, operationsspecialists). Thus, the suitability ofthe individual for the specific positionand job must be taken into considera-tion when making internationalassignments.

Situational FactorsFamily. Some aspects of the expatri-

ate assignment may be beyond control,such as the local business climate,local attitudes towards foreigners, cur-rent events such as political crises,wars, and so on. Others, however, canbe addressed, such as providing ade-quate home management support,maintaining home country contacts,and assuring that the individual’s fam-ily situation is taken into account. Indeveloping global leaders, careful con-sideration must be given to the familysituation, as satisfaction with the expe-

rience and success of the assignmentare tightly intertwined: successful peo-ple tend to be happy; happy peopletend to be successful. Situations inwhich the family is not being appropri-ately cared for can distract the individ-ual’s attention from his/her work andhence encourage an early departure –both with potentially adverse effects onthe organization’s performance and theindividual’s future career opportunities.

CONCLUSIONIn summary, successful interna-

tional management must be sensitiveto the various components of theglobal experience so as to:

• select candidates with theappropriate individual charac-teristics to be successful,matching personality traits andglobal mindset with the goalsof the position;

• manage the acculturationprocess through professionaldevelopment, training, socialintegration, and repatriation;and,

• foster a motivating environ-ment through organizationalalignment, with appropriateprofessional, managerial, andpersonal support for the inter-national employee.

In closing, there is no bettermaxim on selecting and hiring suc-cessful employees – no matter whatthe assignment, whether domestic,international, or intergalactic – thanthese words of Dee Hock, founderand chairman emeritus of VISAInternational:

“Hire and promote first on thebasis of integrity; second, motivation;third, capacity; fourth, understanding;fifth, knowledge; and last and least,experience. Without integrity, motiva-tion is dangerous; without motiva-tion, capacity is impotent; withoutcapacity, understanding is limited;without understanding, knowledge ismeaningless; without knowledge,experience is blind. Experience is easyto provide and quickly put to good

use by people with all the other qual-ities” (Hock 1999).

REFERENCESB a r t l e t t , C h r i s t o p h e r a n d

Sumantra Ghoshal. 1989. Managingacross Borders: The Transnational Solution.Harvard Business School Press.

Beaman, Karen V. and Gregory R.Guy. 2003. “The Efficiency-InnovationModel: Cultivating a TransnationalEnvironment.” IHRIM Journal.November 2003, Vol. VII, No. 6.

Beaman, Karen V. and Alfred J.Walker. 2000. “Globalizing HRIS: TheNew Transnational Model.” IHRIMJournal, October 2000, Vol. IV, No. 4.

Brinkmann, Ursula and Oscar vanWeerdenburg. 2003. “A New Approachto Intercultural Manage-mentTraining: Building Inter-culturalCompetence.” IHRIM Journal.September 2003. Vol. VII, No. 5.

Caligiuri, Paula M. 2002.“Expatriate Selection and Cross-Cultural Training: TechnologicalApplication for Effective GlobalAssignment Management.” IHRIMJournal. September 2002. Vol. VI, No.5.

C a l i g i u r i , P a u l a M . 2 0 0 0 .“ S e l e c t i n g E x p a t r i a t e s f o rPersonal i ty Character is t ics : AModerating Effect of Personality onthe Relationship Between HostNational Contact and Cross-CulturalAdjustment.” Management InternationalReview. Vol. 40, No. 1. pp. 60-80.

Caligiuri, Paula M. 2000. “The BigFive Personality Characteristics asPredictors of Expatriate Success.”Personnel Psychology. Vol. 53. pp. 67-88.

Ferraro, Gary. 2002. The CulturalDimensions of International Business.Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:Prentice Hall.

Goleman, Daniel. 1995. EmotionalIntelligence: Why it Can Matter More than IQ.Bantam Books.

FEATURE


Guy, Gregory R. and Karen V.Beaman. 2004-2005. “Mindset andIdentity in the Globalizing Future.” Toappear in: International Journal for theHumanities. Globalism RMITUniversity, Melbourne, Melbourne,Australia. Vol. 2.

Guy, Gregory R. and Karen V.B e a m a n . 2 0 0 3 - 2 0 0 4 . “ G l o b a lOrientation and SociolinguisticAccommodation as Factors inCultural Assimilation.” To appear in:International Journal for the Humanities.Globalism Institute, RMIT University,Melbourne, Australia. Vol. 1.

Harzing, Anne-Wil. 1995. “ThePersistent Myth of High ExpatriateFailure Rates.” Human ResourceManagement. Vol. 6. May 1995. pp. 457-475.

Hock, Dee. 1999. Birth of theChaordic Age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Hoffman, Edward. 2001.Psychological Testing at Work: How to Use,Interpret and Get the Most Out of the NewestTests in Personality, Learning Styles,Aptitudes, and Interests. McGraw-HillTrade.

Hofstede, Geert and Robert R.McCrae. 2004. “Personality andCulture Revisited: Linking Traits andDimensions of Culture.” To appear in:Cross-Cultural Research.

Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’sConsequences (2nd ed.): Comparing Values,

Behaviors, Institutions and Organizationsacross Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Hofstede, Geert. 1980. CulturesConsequences: International Differences inWork-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications.

Jonkeren, Synco. 2004. “BuildingEffective Multicultural Teams.” IHRIMJournal. November 2004. Vol. VIII, No. 6.

McCrae, R. R. 2000. “TraitPsychology and the Revival ofPersonality and Culture Studies.”American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44, pp.10-31.

McCall, Morgan W. and George P.Hollenbeck. 2002. Developing GlobalExecutives: The Lessons of InternationalExperience. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Moore, Karl. 2003. “Great GlobalManagers.” Across the Board 2, No.24. May/June. New York: The ConferenceBoard.

P e r l m u t t e r, H . 1 9 6 9 . “ T h eTortuous Evolution of the Multina-tional Corporation.” Columbia Journalof World Business, January/February.pp. 9-18.

Sanchez, Juan I., Spector, Paul E., &Cary, Cooper. 2000. “Adapting t o a B o u n d a r y l e s s W o r l d : ADevelopmental Expatriate Model.” TheAcademy of Management Executive. Vol. 14.96-107.

Sullivan, Daniel. 2002. “Managers,Mindsets, and Globalization.” InBoundaryless HR: Human CapitalManagement in the Global Economy, ed.Karen Beaman. Austin, TX: IHRIMPress. 2002: 145-158.

Trompenaars, Fons and CharlesHampden-Turner. 1998. Riding theWaves of Culture: Understanding CulturalDiversity in Global Business. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Tung, R. L. 1998. “AmericanExpatriates Abroad: From Neophytesto Cosmopolitans.” Journal of WorldBusiness, Vol. 33, No. 2. Summer 1998.pp. 124-144.

ENDNOTES1 This article is based on a

presentat ion , “Can any SmartEmployee be a Successful Expat-riate,” given to the InternationalHuman Resource Special InterestGroup, Australian Human ResourceInstitute (AHRI), Sydney, Australia,October 21, 2003.

Karen V. Beaman is the managing part-ner of Jeitosa International, a global businessconsultancy focused on achieving organiza-tional effectiveness through transnationalleadership. She was formerly a division vicepresident for ADP responsible for buildingand leading their professional services acrossEurope and for launching their services inLatin America. She can be reached [email protected].

FEATURE

myths,mystiques,and mistakes in overseas...

Documents