how and when is social networking important? comparing european expatriate adjustment in china and...

Journal of International Management 12 (2006) 449–472

How and when is social networking important?Comparing European expatriate adjustment in

China and Turkey

Xiaoyun Wang a,⁎, Dilek Zamantili Nayir b,c

a Department of Business Administration, 686 Drake Center, University of Manitoba,Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 5V4

b Marmara University, Turkeyc Department of Business Administration in German Language, 81610 Anadoluhisari, Istanbul, Turkey

Received 21 November 2003; received in revised form 16 May 2005; accepted 20 February 2006Available online 9 November 2006

Abstract

Social interaction has been demonstrated to be a main predictor of expatriate adjustment. However, theimpact of social interaction on expatriate adjustment may vary for those in different cultures. Contextualfactors, such as geographic proximity and cultural differences between the home country and the hostcountry, may have a significant impact on the expatriate adjustment process. The current paper singles outthe above contextual factors by comparing European expatriates in China and in Turkey. Europeanexpatriates in China (n=61) and Turkey (n=69) were surveyed to explore the different patterns of socialinteractions (personal network and support), and the impact of these on the psychological well-being of thetwo groups. The empirical evidence gathered by the current study will delineate these differences andsimilarities and their impacts on the expatriates' psychological well-being in these two host countries.Crown Copyright © 2006 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Expatriates are employees of business or government organizations sent to another country toa related unit of their mother organization to accomplish a job or an organization-related goal fora limited time period (Aycan and Kanungo, 1997). These employees are expensive for theirmultinational corporations (MNCs) and their success in the overseas assignment will have a

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 204 474 6406; fax: +1 204 474 7545.E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Wang).

1075-4253/$ - see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2006 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.intman.2006.02.014

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2006.02.014

450 X. Wang, D.Z. Nayir / Journal of International Management 12 (2006) 449–472

direct impact on the outcome of the MNC's foreign investment. Unfortunately, this outcome ishighly unpredictable compared to the performance of domestic employees, due to thecomplexity of multiple factors at play in the personal, family, organizational, economic, social,cultural and environmental realms, as well as in the process of cross-cultural adjustment (seereviews by Thomas, 1998; Harrison et al., 2004). Cross-cultural adjustment is a difficultprocess; expatriates' premature return is a continuing problem (Harrison et al., 2004; Harzing,2001a). Nevertheless, MNCs have no choice but to keep sending expatriates overseas in order tofill positions, manage development and control subsidiaries. In fact, the number of expatriateshas actually dramatically increased in the past 20 years (Edstrom and Galbraith, 1977; Harrisonet al., 2004; Harzing, 2001a,b). This challenge has generated a tremendous amount of effortamong scholars and practitioners to investigate the process of expatriate adjustment. In Harrisonet al.'s (2004) recent review article, studies are summarized regarding the importance ofpersonal factors, workplace factors, family/friends factors and environmental factors onexpatriate adjustment. However, as Harrison et al. (2004) indicated, the field of expatriateadjustment is far from being a mature one; many questions remain regarding contextual factors.For example, while many scholars (e.g., Black, 1990; Kraimer et al., 2001; Selmer, 2002;Shaffer and Harrison, 1998) found cultural novelty (the distance between host and homecultures) negatively correlates with expatriate adjustment, other scholars (e.g., Black andGregersen, 1991; Parker and McEvoy, 1993) found the opposite. Moreover, Harrison et al.(2004) call for new avenues of investigation in the field by focusing on social environmentfactors, such as social networks and social support of the expatriate, and psychological factors,such as psychological well-being, topics which they feel are understudied in the expatriateadjustment literature.

The current study follows the inspiration of Harrison et al. (2004) to investigate the socialnetworks and social support of European expatriates and to look at how these social factorsinfluence their psychological well-being. Furthermore, we will explore contextual factors, such asgeographic and cultural distance, of expatriate adjustment by comparing the adjustment patternsof European expatriates in two different countries, Turkey and China, to see how they adjust inthese dissimilar social and cultural environments.

Wherever an expatriate may originate, cross-cultural adjustment is not an easy process andinvolves overcoming cultural shock, uncertainties and differences. At the same time, expatriateadjustment happens in a social context. All social contextual factors, such as local economicconditions, geographic location, local religions, political ideologies and cultural distance, willhave some impact shaping the expatriate adjustment patterns. For example, the adjustment forEuropean expatriates working in nearby European countries could be different from theiradjustment to other countries in other parts of the world. Both moves require adjustment;granted, the former presents more subtle challenges (Suutari and Brewster, 1999).Unfortunately, a very limited number of studies investigate these contextual factors (seeHarrison et al., 2004). We believe that it is important to study the unique patterns of expatriateadjustment in a given country in order to develop useful and tangible guidelines for MNCs toconsider in constructing their strategic international HRM policies. In order to move towardsthis goal, the current study will focus on European expatriate adjustment in Turkey and inChina.

Specifically, the purpose of the current study is to explore: 1) how European expatriates adjustdifferently in Turkey compared to in China; 2) to what extent they form different social networksin Turkey than they do in China; and 3) how these networks and social supports from differentsources facilitate their psychological well-being in these two countries.

451X. Wang, D.Z. Nayir / Journal of International Management 12 (2006) 449–472

1.1. The context

Europe is heterogeneous and embraces many cultural variations among its member countries.Due to the smaller size of its domestic markets, relative to those of North American countries,European MNCs have traditionally put more emphasis on international trade (Scullion andBrewster, 2001). Therefore, they tend to be highly aware of cultural differences and instituterigorous international HRM practices, including selection and training, in their expatriatemanagement (Scullion and Brewster, 2001; Suutari and Brewster, 2001). For example, Suutari andBrewster (2001) found that companies in Finland offered substantial HR support in preparation,communication, performance evaluation and repatriation to help the Finnish expatriates adjust andreadjust to their cross-border assignments. According to Scullion and Brewster (2001), the strengthof these HRM practices in expatriate management explained the empirical findings in the literatureciting that European expatriates experienced less overseas failures than those from other areas(Brewster, 1991; Scullion, 1994; Scullion and Brewster, 2001; Suutari and Brewster, 1999).However, the authors of this study contend that these findings are mostly based on the Europeanexpatriates' adjustment in other European countries, and that their closer proximity may be a factorin the European expatriates' success. The mixed empirical evidence for this claim supports ourquestioning. For example, while it was consistently found that European MNCs paid moreattention to expatriate selection, training and other international HRM practices and that Europeanexpatriates experienced less adjustment difficulties than those from other areas (Brewster, 1991;Scullion, 1994; Scullion and Brewster, 2001; Suutari and Brewster, 2001; Tung, 1984), there wereother studies that found no significant differences in psychological adjustment between Europeanand American expatriates (Selmer, 2001; Wang and Kanungo, 2004). Moreover, Selmer's (2001)study found European expatriates reporting even less interactional adjustment than Americanexpatriates in China, this being consistent with Wang and Kanungo's (2004) study that Europeanexpatriates reported a lesser percentage of local friends in their social networks in China. In sum,there is not enough empirical evidence to form the conclusion that European expatriates are betterprepared for overseas assignments. While they adjust better in other European countries due togeographic proximity, cultural similarities and historical ties, it is hard to conclude that they wouldadjust as well in other areas of the globe. Therefore, in this study we will investigate Europeanexpatriate adjustment outside of Europe and compare their adjustment in two geographically andculturally distinct countries: China and Turkey.

These two countries were selected for comparison due to the high degree of importance andinterest they represent for European MNCs. Fortune Magazine recently published a special issueon “newChina,” naming it as “the world's hottest economy” (Fortune, October 4, 2004). Similarly,the Turkish economy is also growing quickly, and like all the other emerging markets, it isincreasingly attracting investments fromMNCs (Nakata and Sivakumar, 1997; Stokes, 2004). Theparticular similarities and dissimilarities of these two countries will also spotlight the contextualfactors, such as geographic distance and religious beliefs. Regarding their similarities, both Turkeyand China are developing countries in which European MNCs have an interest for the purpose ofinvesting and conducting business. Both have been referred to as “big emerging markets” whichwill generate the majority of economic growth in the 21st century (Aguilar and Singer, 1996).Emerging markets are represented as agrarian economies of dual character, large and rapidlygrowing populations, low per capita income, poor infrastructures, lack of capital, large territoriesand having economic policies aimed at rapid growth (Nakata and Sivakumar, 1997). Both Chineseand Turkish cultures are collectivism-oriented with high power distance (Hofstede, 1980); as well,they place great value on building relationships and connections in business dealings. Both


countries originate from empires that have covered large territories in the past and that have beeninfluenced by different races, religions and a multitude of other folkloric elements.

On the other hand, these two countries are totally different. Confucianism has historicallyinfluencedChinese culture; Turkey is aMuslim country. China is anAsian country; Turkey connectsAsia and Europe. Geographically, while China (especially the Eastern part, where most expatriatesare located) is far away from Europe, Turkey is very close to most European countries. Culturally,China is clustered under the group of “Confucian Asia,”while Turkey is clustered under the group of“Middle East” (Gupta and Hanges, 2004). On Gupta and Hanges' (2004) country clustering map,Turkey, culturally speaking, neighbors Europe, while China is further away (p.190). Politically,although China has changed dramatically toward democracy, it still remains a communist country(The Economist, February 26–March 4th, 2005). Not only is Turkey geographically, politically andculturally close to European countries, but it has also consistently lookedwestward since the 1920's.It joined NATO in 1952 and signed an association agreement with the European Community in1963. As a result, bonds with Europe strengthened. In 1996, the Customs Union Agreement was putinto action giving Turkish manufacturers duty-free and quota-free access to the European Union. In1999, the EuropeanUnion recognized Turkey as a candidate for EUmembership (Stokes, 2004), andin December 2004, the European Council started negotiations with Turkey with respect to fullmembership to the EU (Belke, 2004). The above similarities and differences allow for a control of theeconomic and living conditions of these two cultures and highlight the differences in geography,religion, politics and culture.

2. The expatriate social network and psychological well-being

Bradburn (1969) pointed out that human beings live in an interdependent society and, as such,are not “self-sufficient.”When the individual (i.e., the expatriate) becomes embedded in the socialstructure of the workplace and the local society in which the workplace itself is embedded (i.e.,he/she establishes a social network), he/she accesses social resources/social capital. Social capitalwill bring him/her social benefits, such as social support, to achieve better personal outcomes. Thewell-being of individuals will also be dependent, inevitably, on interpersonal interactions andsocial support (Rook, 1984). When people are embedded in a benevolent network, they will beable to obtain social resources, such as instrumental and emotional support, to cope with dailystress or uncertainty (House, 1981).

For expatriates, being transferred from their home country to a foreign country to carry out anassignment over a long period of time (i.e., for over a year), will pull them out of their benevolentnetwork at home and will throw them into a foreign culture with a lot of uncertainty and unknowncustoms. Naturally, these expatriates will start to establish a new social network and they will seeksupport from the new people around them. However, different expatriates will take differentinitiatives to accomplish this, and local cultures/environments will also shape and determine theformation of this network. In other words, expatriates will form different patterns of networks thatwill influence their adjustment to the host country.

Therefore, expatriate adjustment is defined here as the process by which the expatriateinteracts with the social aspects of the local environment to obtain psychological well-being. Inturn, expatriate psychological well-being will influence his/her further interactions in the localenvironment (Smith, 1992; Turner, 1981). This interactive adjustment process happens within thelocal environment and will be influenced by contextual factors at the cultural, organizational andfamily levels. To investigate this adjustment process in the current study, we focus on the socialfactors' (network and support) impact on European expatriates' psychological well-being, and

Fig. 1. The research model.


investigate how this adjustment process differs in different cultural settings. The specific researchmodel is presented in Fig. 1.

This model indicates that the components of social interaction (the social network and socialsupport) will significantly influence the European expatriates' psychological well-being. Thisimpact will differ for European expatriates in Turkey and in China (the moderating effect ofexpatriate destination). As well, they will establish different social networks and receive differentsocial support.

Psychological well-being is the state in which an individual can function well enoughpsychologically to realize his/her true potential (Ryff, 1995). Culture shock is indicative ofpsychological stress (Oberg, 1960). From reports studying the course of the expatriate overseasadjustment process, one can identify that the experience of stress and uncertainty can be a primarycause of cross-cultural failure (Forster, 1997; Tung, 1981, 1998). Many expatriates withdraw due tostress-related illnesses (Forster, 1997). Several studies have also found that the ability to deal withstress is an important personal factor that influences cross-cultural adjustment (Abe and Wiseman,1983; Black, 1990; Hammer, 1987; Hammer et al., 1978; Mendenhall and Oddou, 1985).

In the following sections we will examine in detail how European expatriates form differentsocial networks in China and in Turkey, whether or not they receive different amounts of supportfrom friends, organizations and spouses, and how these social interactions will influence theexpatriates' psychological well-being.

2.1. Hypotheses

2.1.1. Network characteristicsA social network is the structure of social interactions. It is broadly conceptualized as a finite

set or sets of actors that are connected by one or more specific types of relational ties (Hall andWellman, 1985; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). In this definition, actors could be individualpersons, groups, corporations, nations or other collectivities; a tie is a linkage between a pair of


actors. Structural characteristics of networks are the patterns of ties among actors (Hall andWellman, 1985; Marsden, 1987).

The structural characteristics of networks can be described by size, diversity, closeness andinteraction frequency (Burt, 1983; Campbell et al., 1986;Haines andHurlbert, 1992;Marsden, 1987;House and Kahn, 1985; Marsden and Campbell, 1984). Network size is the number of friends theexpatriate reports in his/her personal network during the cross-border assignment. These friendscould be co-workers or peer expatriates working for other organizations or local nationals inside oroutside of the workplace. Network diversity means social heterogeneity of the expatriate network,i.e., to what extent the network is composed of both local nationals and peer expatriates (culturaldiversity) and to what extent the network is composed of both female and male friends (genderdiversity). Network closeness is the intensity of ties (Marsden and Campbell, 1984), which meanshow close the expatriate feels towards the friends in his/her personal network, and frequencyindicates how often the expatriate contacts these friends within a limited time frame (Wang, 2002).

For European expatriates in China or Turkey, it would be expected that they would formdifferent networks in the local environment. As mentioned previously, China and Turkey are twocountries with both similarities and differences. The differences of these two countries/cultureswill influence the formation of the European expatriates' personal network in the localenvironment (Tung, 1998). Turkey is physically very close to most of the European countries. TheEuropean expatriates in Turkey can visit home easily by train, car or airplane; even, on occasion,for a weekend. Moreover, many expatriates can also travel to their home country for businessdiscussions at headquarters. This proximity allows the European expatriates to feel connected totheir home networks. Therefore, the time and energy they invest in the formation of a network inTurkey could be expected to be less than those who relocate to China. It could be extrapolated thatEuropean expatriates in Turkey would form smaller, less close and less frequent networks thanwould their counterparts in China.

With regards to gender issues, traditional Turkish culture can be characterized as beingdominated by older males (Wasti, 1998), similar to what is found in traditional Chinese culture.Modernization and westernization have occurred in both cultures, and women are increasinglysharing important roles in business and political worlds. Women in Turkey have the mostegalitarian rights in law among Muslim countries (CEDAW, 1997). However, in Turkey, there aremore disparities between men and women in areas such as education, politics and employmentthan that in China. For example, according to the World Bank (2000) report, while there are 45%female employees in the labor force in China, the equivalent number in Turkey is only 38%; whilethere are 22% of total seats in parliament occupied by women in China, there are only 4%occupied by women in Turkey. Moreover, in the Global Leadership Project Study, the Chinesesample scored higher than the Turkish sample on gender egalitarianism. Turkey showed a genderegalitarianism index of only 2.89, giving it a ranking of 56 out of 62 of the countries studied (Pasaet al., 2001), while China showed a higher index of 3.06, ranking it at 48 out of 61 (Fu et al., inpress). This gender disparity in Turkey will hinder cross-gender interactions, especially forforeigners like expatriates. We therefore expect that European expatriates in Turkey will networkwith people of the same gender, unlike expatriates in China who will network with both genders.In other words, European expatriates in China will form a more gender diversified network thanthose in Turkey.

In terms of cultural diversity, the balance between peer expatriates and local nationals asfriends in the personal network was not expected to differ between expatriates in Turkey and inChina. Expatriates in both countries need a culturally diversified network to obtain different typesof social support from different sources (Wang, 2002).


Hypothesis 1a. European expatriates in China will form larger, closer, more gender diversifiedand more frequent social networks than expatriates in Turkey.

Hypothesis 1b. European expatriates in China and in Turkey will show no difference in networkcultural diversity.

2.1.2. SupportSocial interaction with different partners will provide the expatriates with different kinds of

support, including informational, emotional, instrumental and appraisal supports (House, 1981).These forms of support can come from friends, colleagues, a spouse or from the parent company.

Support is when the needed resources are provided (House, 1981; House and Kahn, 1985). Inthis study, support perceived by the expatriate is examined because it is more important ininfluencing individuals' psychological well-being (House, 1981; Tung, 1998). Support can comefrom different sources, such as friends, a spouse or an organization. In the current study we focuson support from these three sources, all of which facilitate expatriate adjustment (Kraimer et al.,2001). It is unquestionable that European expatriates need support from these three sources toadjust to the local environment. However, in Turkey, since it is close to home, the spouses ofEuropean expatriates might feel more connected to their home, as mentioned previously, and theymight experience less difficulty than do those in China. Due to the longstanding historical tiesbetween Turkey and Europe, there are also various German, Austrian, Italian, French andAmerican elementary and high schools in Turkey, where the expatriates' children can mix withothers from their home country. In China and many other countries, on the other hand, eventhough there are “international schools” for the expatriates' children, these schools containmultiple nationalities. In Turkey, there are churches, cultural institutions and even choirsestablished for each and every individual nationality (Italian Church, French Church, GermanProtestant Church, etc.). These factors lead to an assumption that the spouses and families of theexpatriates will more easily adjust to the new environment in Turkey than in China. If one canassume that a happy spouse will provide more support to the expatriate, then one could expect thatEuropean expatriates in Turkey would receive more support from their spouses (Tung, 1998). Interms of support from the parent company, since they have similar HR policies for expatriatesworldwide, organizational support for European expatriates in China and in Turkey is notpresumed to be different. As for support from friends, as mentioned above, since Europeanexpatriates in Turkey are close to home, they might have fewer contacts in the local environment,which might limit their reception of support. Therefore, we expect that they may perceive lesssupport from local friends than might those in China.

Hypothesis 2a. European expatriates in China and Turkey will receive similar amounts ofsupport from parent organizations.

Hypothesis 2b. European expatriates in Turkey will report more spousal support than Europeanexpatriates in China.

Hypothesis 2c. European expatriates in Turkey will report less support from local friends thanEuropean expatriates in China.

2.1.3. Social interactions and psychological well-beingAs mentioned previously, to establish a social network is very important for expatriate

adjustment; a large and diversified network with close and frequent relationships signals settling


and integration (Tung, 1998). At the same time, support from different sources (friends,organization and spouse) plays an important role. Local friends or peer expatriates can provideinformation and insight not available elsewhere (Tung, 1998). Mutual support between theexpatriate and the spouse is critical for the family to settle down in an unknown country. Supportfrom the parent organization gives reassurance that supervisors at home understand the situation inthe local environment, which reduces the expatriate's stress. Overall, the network and support fromdifferent sources will facilitate the expatriate psychological well-being in the foreign assignment.

Hypothesis 3a. The network structural characteristics (size, gender diversity, cultural diversity,closeness and frequency) will positively correlate with European expatriate psychological well-being in both China and Turkey.

Hypothesis 3b. The social support from friends, organization and spouse will positivelycorrelate with European expatriate psychological well-being in both China and Turkey.

In the social network and social support literature, there are many studies that support this main-effect model. With a network structure having large, diversified, close and frequent networkcontacts, the expatriate will know where to obtain different kinds of support and will feel morecertainty and less ambiguity about staying overseas (Caligiuri and Lazarova, 2002; Wang, 2002;Wang and Kanungo, 2004). In domestic literature, it has been demonstrated that large networks areassociated with better mental health (Barrera, 1981; House and Kahn, 1985; Walker et al., 1994). Inexpatriate literature,Wang andKanungo's (2004) studies also confirmed that network characteristicsare significantly linked to the expatriate's psychological well-being. However, the strength of thisrelationship might differ for European expatriates in Turkey than from those in China. Since theformer are closer to home, their previous network remains more accessible than for the latter. Eventhough the latter could use email or phone to contact their home network, the distance and time zonedifferences will hinder communication (Wellman and Wortley, 1990); therefore, the local networkmay become more important. We expect that the relationship between the network andpsychological well-beingwill be stronger for European expatriates in China than for those in Turkey.

Hypothesis 4. The impact of network structural characteristics (size, gender diversity, culturaldiversity, closeness and frequency) on European expatriate psychological well-being will bestronger for expatriates in China than for those in Turkey; in another words, the destination ofexpatriation will moderate the impact of social network on expatriate psychological well-being.

Social support will also significantly influence the European expatriate's psychological well-being. A review article by House et al. (1988) confirms the notion that social support will reducethe negative effects of stress on health. In other words, it will facilitate mental and physicalhealth. Many empirical studies in health care literature already demonstrate the positiveinfluence of social support on mental health (e.g., Barrera, 1981; Procidano and Smith, 1997;Sarason et al., 1983; Umberson et al., 1996; VanderZee et al., 1997). Umberson et al. (1996)analyzed both the 1986 and 1989 “Americans' Changing Lives” surveys with a total sample sizeof 6484 persons. They found that support from friends and relatives had a significant positiveimpact on an individual experiencing depression. Procidano and Smith (1997) also concludedthat perceived social support contributes to self-esteem and general adjustment of individuals atwork, school or in other social organizations. As Mankowski and Wyer (1997) concluded,“People's perceptions of the social support … can have an important impact on their socialadjustment and their ability to cope with stress” (p. 141). In management literature, Nelson and


Quick (1991) conducted a longitudinal study with 91 newcomers from three organizations toexamine the role of social support in newcomer adjustment. They found that the availability ofsocial support was positively related to newcomer psychological well-being. The study byBrenner et al. (1989) with second-year medical students found that the quantity of social supportthose participants received from different sources positively influenced the students' lifesatisfaction.

In expatriate literature, there are also studies on support and expatriate adjustment (e.g., Aycan,1997a,b; Kraimer et al., 2001). For example, Aycan (1997a,b) theorized that social support atorganizational levels would facilitate expatriate adjustment. The empirical evidence suggests thatperceived organizational support has a strong impact on expatriate adjustment and performance,while the impact of spousal support was not confirmed (Kraimer et al., 2001). However, as isevidenced by many other studies, there is a direct link between spousal adjustment and expatriateadjustment. It is logical to assume that spousal support will free the expatriate's mind toconcentrate at work and reduce the stress of adjusting to the new environment. Since spousalsupport and organizational support are not local-environment specific (no matter where theexpatriate locates, they need organizational, spousal and social support, as always), we do notexpect to see any difference in the patterns of its impact on expatriate's psychological well-beingin China compared to that found in Turkey.

Hypothesis 5. Spousal support, organizational support and support from friends will similarlyinfluence European expatriate psychological well-being in both Turkey and China; in anotherwords, the destination of expatriation will not moderate the impact or social support on expatriatepsychological well-being.

2.1.4. Control variablesAs discussed earlier, scholars have identified many important factors that influence the expatriate

cross-cultural adjustment. It is expected here that these factors, such as marital status, gender, careerplans after repatriation, satisfaction regarding compensation, tenure, training and overseasexperience, will also influence European expatriate psychological well-being. Because this studywill focus on social networks and social support, the effects of these factors will be controlled.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and procedure

European expatriates working in four cities in China (Beijing, Shanghai, Dalian and Suzhou)and in three cities in Turkey (Istanbul and periphery, Ankara and Izmir) were sampled. Thesecities were chosen because they are commercialized, and have substantial foreign investments.Istanbul in Turkey is a large commercialized city, comparable to Beijing and Shanghai in China;Ankara and Izmir are medium-sized commercialized cities, similar to Dalian and Suzhou inChina. In terms of size, living conditions and commercialization, we hypothesize that the fourcities in China are comparable to the three cities in Turkey.

The current samples include 69 European expatriates in Turkey and 61 European expatriates inChina. For the Chinese sample, the response rate was 42%; the Turkish sample response rate was35%. We collected data in China and Turkey, respectively, using similar methods to solicitparticipants. Both of us traveled to these cities, using personal contacts, cold calls, and Chambersof Commerce to seek participants for our study. We then personally distributed questionnaires to


those who wished to participate, and we either went back to collect the questionnaires after a weekor they mailed back to the address printed on the questionnaire. Therefore, the response rates werethe number of returned questionnaires relative to the total number of people that were solicited.Rogelberg et al. (2003) study distinguished between ‘active’ nonrespondents and ‘passive’nonrespondents. Active nonrespondents are those who made a conscious decision not to respondand passive nonrespondents were those who would have liked to respond, but could not becauseof circumstances beyond their control. In our study, we consider those who rejected us whensolicited as active nonrespondents. For those who did get the questionnaire but did not completethem, we would consider most of them as passive nonrespondents; they would like to haveparticipated, but did not remember to return them, had no time, or misplaced it. According toRogelberg et al. (2003), the passive nonrespondents and respondents did not differ in jobsatisfaction; however, passive nonrespondents had lower concienciousness and agreeablenessthan the respondents. Even though we measured expatriate adjustment and networkcharacteristics other than job satisfaction, we still believe that there is little nonrespondensebias for the passive nonrespondents. For the active nonrespondents, they were found to beless satisfied, have less concienciousness and agreeableness and, were less open to ex-perience (Rogelberg et al., 2003). Therefore, our active nonrespondents, who rejected ourrequests for participation, may have been less able to adjust to the local culture, or have differentpersonality characteristics that would have affected their adjustment. This nonresponse biasshould be noted.

The descriptive characteristics of these two samples are reported in Table 1. For both samples,the participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing items measuring psychologicalwell-being, social network and social support. The language of the questionnaire was English inChina, and English and German in Turkey. The German version of the questionnaire was back-translated to make sure the items were of equivalent meaning.

Table 1Sample characteristics and descriptive analysis for control variables

European expatriates inChina (N=61)

European expatriates inTurkey (N=69)

Difference χ2(df )

Demographic characteristics Numbers Percentage Numbers Percentage

Gender Male 48 81.4% 62 93.9% 4.67(1)**Female 11 18.6% 4 6.1%

Marriage Single/Divorced 23 39% 15 23.4% 3.48(1)*Married 36 61% 49 76.6%

Tenure Mean 6.26(yr) 11.82(yr) F(1, 118)=11.64****S.D. 7.35 10.02

Compensationsatisfaction

Mean 3.85 (Out of 7) 4.43 (Out of 7) F(1, 122)=8.70***S.D. 1.06 1.13

Career plan No 19 32.8% 29 45.3% 2.01(1)Yes 39 67.2% 35 54.7%

Training beforearrival

No 37 69.8% 51 78.5% 1.15(1)Yes 16 30.2% 14 21.5%

Previous overseasexperience

No 17 37.8% 15 23.1% 2.78(1)*Yes 28 62.2% 50 76.9%

Nationality From 17 Europeancountries

75.4% from Britain,France and Germany

82.6% from Britain,France and Germany

84.20 (17)****

*pb .10, two-tailed. **pb .05, two-tailed. ***pb .01, two-tailed. ****pb .001.

Table 2Exploratory factor analysis

Items for scale and sub-scale Factor1

Factor2

Factor3

Social SupportYour friends, colleagues, and supervisors …

Gave you information about local entertainment activities. .63 .00 .21Listened to you when you needed to talk about your private feelingsduring the overseas assignment.

.64 − .08 .10

Helped you out in a crisis situation at work, even though they had to go outof their way to do so.

.70 − .03 − .06

Would let you know that you did something well at work with local people. .73 .14 .13Gave you information about local customs. .69 .14 .11Are people with whom you can totally be yourself. .49 .10 .28Loaned you or gave you something that you needed at home/work. .72 − .10 .09Told you that what you did does not comply with local customs. .56 .01 .01Gave you information about where you can buy What you need for home/work. .74 .15 .12Were concerned about your well-being in your overseas assignment. .81 .11 .14Helped you out when too many things needed to get done. .77 .07 − .11Made it clear what was expected of you at work. .62 .32 .06Gave you information about how to get things done at your work in the local situation. .74 .14 − .06Could be counted on to console you when you were very upset at work. .78 .01 .08Helped you to take care of your family when you were busy or away. .68 .08 − .09Gave you objective feedback about how you were handling your problems at work. .73 .16 .07Gave you information about how to deal with interpersonal relationshipswith local people.

.79 .06 .09

Helped you feel better when you were very irritable working in the local situation. .73 − .10 .13Gave you tangible help in settling down in the local country. .77 − .03 .05Told you that what you wanted to do at work was right. .70 .19 .05

Organizational supportMy home company values my contribution to its well-being. .21 .69 .05If my home company could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary it would do so. − .07 .36 − .11My home company fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. .00 .65 .06My home company strongly considers my goals and values. .20 .81 .14My home company would ignore any complaint from. − .05 .62 − .02My home company disregards my best interests when it makes decisions that affect me. .07 .69 .06Help is available from my home company when I have a problem. .21 .70 .12My home company really cares about my well-being. .21 .77 .18Even if I did the best job possible, my home company would fail to notice. .05 .68 .13My home company is willing to help me when I need a special favour. − .02 .62 − .02My home company cares about my general satisfaction at work. .21 .77 .09If given the opportunity, my home company would take advantage of me. − .10 .44 − .02My home company shows very little concern for me. − .03 .74 .12My home company cares about my opinions. .15 .75 .14My home company takes pride in my accomplishments at work. .13 .72 .27My home company tries to make my job as interesting as possible. .09 .70 .14

Spousal supportHe/She provides you with encouragement. .13 .08 .79He/She provides you useful information about local customs. .12 .10 .55He/She says things that raise your self-confidence. .17 .11 .85He/She listens to you when you need to talk. .08 .09 .89He/She shows that he/she cares about you as a person. .00 .11 .91He/She understands the way you think and feel about things. − .03 .16 .84He/She provides you with direct help, that is, do or give you things you need. .08 .10 .83

(continued on next page)(continued on next page)


Table 2 (continued)

Items for scale and sub-scale Factor1

Factor2

Factor3

You would talk with him/her when you are upset, nervous, or depressed about something. .09 .04 .81Eigenvalue 12.31 6.78 4.79Proportion of variance accounted for 27.97% 15.41% 10.88

Spousal Support

Table 2 (continued )


3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Network characteristic instrument and data treatmentThe network characteristic measurement for expatriates was developed by Wang (2001) using

Burt's (1998) name generator methodology for network structure instruments. The expatriateparticipants were asked to recall people who had helped them in the previous 6-month period andlisted their names (at least 3 and maximum 15 names). After the generation of names, theparticipants were asked to report other information about each person they had named. Forexample, beside each name, they reported the person's nationality, and evaluated on 4-point scaleshow close they felt to the person (1 — distant; 2 — not close; 3 — close and 4 — intimate) andhow frequently they had contact with the person (1 — more than a month; 2 — monthly; 3 —weekly and 4— daily). Please see the Appendix for the measurement. This also measures networkrelationship and network density. These two variables were not included in the present study.

The network data for each participant was saved in a separate file in order to calculate networkcharacteristic variables. The independent variable network size is simply the number of peoplereported by each expatriate participant. These people named by the participants could be local peopleand/or peer expatriates in the host countries. The variable cultural diversity is defined as the extent towhich an expatriate's network has both local Chinese/Turkish and peer expatriates. Culturaldiversity is calculated by multiplying the respective percentages of local Chinese/Turkish and peerexpatriates in the network. For example, if an expatriate's network size was 10, composed of8 Chinese partners and 2 peer expatriates, this individual's network cultural diversity would be .16(.8* .2). Gender diversity was calculated in the same way by multiplying the respective percentagesof male and female partners in the network. The closeness and frequency of the expatriate networkare the average scores of the expatriate closeness and contact frequency with all partners.

3.2.2. SupportThe scale measuring social support from friends perceived by expatriates was developed based

on several measures to suit the population (Wang, 2001); the reported reliability of this 20-item scaleis .91 inWang's (2001) work. The organizational support scale was developed by Eisenberger et al.(1986); its reported reliability is .97. The spousal support scale was adopted from Vinokur and vanRyn's (1993) study; the reported reliability of this 8-item scale is 0.89. In order to test the validity ofthese support scales, an exploratory factor analysiswas conducted to check the support fromdifferentsources. The results are presented in Table 2. It is clear that items loaded nicely on three sources ofsupport. All loadings are acceptable; therefore, no item was deleted from the following analysis.

3.2.3. Psychological well-beingRyff and Keyes' (1995) 18-item, six-point Likert scale for psychological well-being was

adopted in this study, with a reported reliability of .86 (Wang, 2001).

Table 3Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients and correlations for European expatriates in China (N=61)

M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Control variables1. Gender 1.19 .39 n/a2. Marriage 1.62 .49 n/a − .24*3. Tenure 6.55 7.03 n/a − .17 .27**4. Compensation satisfaction 3.86 1.05 n/a − .30** .32** .22*5. Career plan 1.67 .46 n/a .01 − .16 .02 − .036. Training before arrival 1.30 .43 n/a .16 − .18 .00 .14 .137. Previous overseas

experience1.72 .45 n/a − .37*** .12 − .09 .09 − .05 − .02

8. Nationality 6.13 2.73 n/a .01 − .21* − .02 − .04 .12 .16 .04

Independent variables9. Network size 4.85 3.18 n/a .11 − .05 − .24* − .20 − .09 − .15 .01 − .21*10. Gender diversity .44 .33 n/a .04 − .31** − .35** − .18 .08 .07 − .05 .07 .24*11. Cultural diversity .13 .10 n/a .04 .09 − .05 − .07 − .01 − .22* .12 − .27** .27** − .0612. Closeness 2.75 .59 .90 − .11 − .18 − .01 − .11 .03 − .17 .01 − .03 .03 .05 .0913. Frequency 3.12 .63 .90 − .06 − .11 − .06 − .02 .10 .01 .04 − .16 −.01 −.09 .14 .28**14. Social support 3.43 .83 .92 .18 − .06 − .22* .07 .08 .02 − .12 − .21 .45**** − .02 .13 − .07 .2015. Organizational support 3.80 .83 .92 .04 .04 .04 .32*** − .12 .04 − .04 − .16 − .01 .00 .20 − .29** .03 .2316. Spousal support 4.81 .79 .93 .23* − .13 − .28** − .03 .23* − .19 − .20 − .13 .34*** .28** .19 − .04 .14 .46**** .24*

Dependent variables17. Expatriate psychological

well-being4.58 .61 .86 − .08 .00 − .17 − .12 − .03 − .34*** .10 − .36*** .39**** .04 .29** − .14 .16 .25** .45**** .27**

Note: *pb .10; **pb .05; ***pb .01; ****pb .001.

461X.Wang,

D.Z.Nayir

/Journal

ofInternational

Managem

ent12

(2006)449–472

Table 4Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients and correlations for European expatriates in Turkey (N=69)

M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Control variables1. Gender 1.06 .24 n/a2. Marriage 1.84 .44 n/a −.32***3. Tenure 11.67 9.34 n/a − .07 .154. Compensationsatisfaction

4.41 1.10 n/a − .05 .05 .34***

5. Career plan 1.55 .48 n/a − .15 .00 − .15 − .056. Training before arrival 1.22 .40 n/a − .13 .12 .34*** .17 .117. Previous overseasexperience

1.78 .42 n/a .15 .13 .14 .17 − .07 − .15

8. Nationality 8.72 2.83 n/a − .11 .06 .07 .00 .05 .04 .00

Independent variables9. Network size 5.56 3.12 n/a .05 − .18 .01 − .04 − .12 − .01 .10 .1110. Gender diversity .16 .10 n/a .08 − .02 − .07 − .19 − .11 − .02 − .08 .05 .23**11. Cultural diversity .14 .09 n/a .07 − .19 .05 − .12 .01 .07 − .02 − .13 .29** .0912. Closeness 2.17 .43 .92 .12 .16 .09 − .10 .17 .00 .10 − .05 − .10 .23** .25**13. Frequency 1.61 .45 .91 .10 − .07 .07 .07 − .08 − .12 .13 .08 .07 .08 .21* .1014. Social support 3.74 1.01 .95 − .08 .01 − .20 .01 − .10 .02 − .15 .13 .09 .01 .06 − .21* − .1215. Organizationalsupport

4.20 .78 .91 − .26** .07 .16 .30*** .04 .15 .06 − .03 − .02 − .02 − .03 .07 − .08 .13

16. Spousal support 5.04 .81 .93 − .13 .03 .14 .18 − .07 .26** − .03 − .11 − .01 − .03 .19 − .06 .17 − .02 .16

Dependent variables17. Expatriatepsychologicalwell-being

4.90 .46 .70 .12 − .07 .16 .05 − .02 .08 .02 .00 − .09 − .26** .00 − .03 − .06 .01 .43**** .21*

Note: *pb .10; **pb .05; ***pb .01; ****pb .001.

462X.Wang,

D.Z.Nayir

/Journal

ofInternational

Managem

ent12

(2006)449–472

Table 5Comparison between European expatriates in China and in Turkey on network characteristics (means comparison bycontrolling the effect of control variables)

Variables Destination

Multivariate effect df=(5, 114)

F-value=40.65⁎⁎⁎⁎

Univariate effects Expatriates in China (N=61) Expatriates in Turkey (N=69) FNetworkNetwork size 4.88 5.58 2.49Gender diversity .43 .16 21.10⁎⁎⁎⁎

Cultural diversity .13 .14 3.78⁎⁎

Closeness 2.75 2.16 25.45⁎⁎⁎⁎

Frequency 3.13 1.61 159.71⁎⁎⁎⁎

Note: ⁎⁎pb .05; ⁎⁎⁎⁎pb .001.


3.2.4. Demographic data and other control variablesRespondents were asked to provide demographic data, such as gender and marital status. Other

factors, such as nationality, tenure with parent company and satisfaction with compensation, weremeasured by single-item questions. Data on whether expatriates received training before arrival,whether they have a career plan after the current assignment and whether they had overseasexperience were also collected with single-item questions.

4. Results

Tables 3 and 4 present the descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients and correlations of allvariables for the samples from China and Turkey, respectively. The values presented in thesetables are at the aggregate level; each sample and the reliability coefficient αs are all acceptable.

Hypotheses 1a and b predict that European expatriates in Turkey will form different networksfrom those in China in terms of size, closeness, gender diversity and frequency, but will show nodifferences in cultural diversity. Hypotheses 2a, b, c predict that European expatriates in Turkeyand in China will show differences in perception of spousal support, but not of social andorganizational support. In order to test these hypotheses, multivariate covariance analyses(MANCOVAs) were conducted with all the control variables' effects controlled. The results of the

Table 6Comparison between European expatriates in China and in Turkey on support from different sources (means comparisonby controlling the effect of control variables)

Variables Destination

Multivariate effect df=(3, 116)

F-value=2.82**

Univariate effects Expatriates in China (N=61) Expatriates in Turkey (N=69) FSupportSocial support 3.46 3.74 3.45*Organizational support 3.82 4.22 3.88**Spousal support 4.80 5.04 4.16**

*pb .10; **pb .05.

Table 7Hierarchical regression analyses for determinants of European expatriate psychological well-being (PWB) in China and inTurkeya

Variables Expatriate psychological well-beingin China

Expatriate psychological well-beingin Turkey

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Control variables

Gender − .06 − .12 − .14 .12 .14 .28**Marriage − .09 − .14 − .04 − .06 − .07 − .03Tenure − .14 − .07 − .11 .16 .15 .14Compensation satisfaction − .06 − .04 − .27** .00 − .05 − .16Career plan .04 .04 .09 .01 − .03 .02Training before arrival − .29** − .29** − .28** .05 .05 − .03Previous overseas experience .09 .06 .10 − .01 − .01 − .04Nationality − .34*** − .25** − .24** .01 .04 .06

Independent variablesNetwork characteristicsNetwork size .26** − .06Gender diversity − .02 − .26*Cultural diversity .10 .02Closeness − .30** .01Frequency .16 − .06

SupportSocial support .11 − .02Organizational support .51**** .51****Spousal support .00 .20*Step 2 ΔR2 .26 .16 .24 .05 .08 .26Step 2 ΔF 2.29** 2.52** 8.01**** .36 .95 7.04****Adjusted R2 .15 .26 .39 .06 .07 .17

aStandardized betas are reported. *pb .10, two-tailed. **pb .05, two-tailed. ***pb .01, two-tailed. ****pb .001, two -tailed.


MANCOVAs analyses for network characteristics and supports were reported in Tables 5 and 6,respectively, including means and F values.

The results presented in Table 5 show that European expatriates in China reported closer, moregender diversified and more frequent personal networks than expatriates in Turkey (Mean=2.75vs. 2.16 for closeness, F=25.45, pb .001; Mean= .43 vs. .16 for gender diversity, F=21.10,pb .001; Mean=3.13 vs. 1.61 for frequency, F=159.71, pb .001). However, these two groupsof expatriates did not show differences in network size (Mean=4.88 vs. 5.58, F=2.49, pN .10).Therefore, Hypothesis 1a is partially confirmed. Hypothesis 1b predicts that European expatriatesin China will have no difference in cultural diversity from those in Turkey. The results in Table 5rejected this hypothesis, showing significant difference between these two samples regardingcultural diversity (Mean= .13 vs. .14, F=3.78, pb .05) of their personal network. This findingsuggests that European expatriates' social networks in Turkey have much higher cultural diversity(interacting with expatriates from different cultures).

It was predicted that European expatriates in China and Turkey would receive similar amounts ofsupport from parent organizations (H2a); that those in Turkey would report more spousal support thanthose in China (H2b); and that they would report less support from friends than those in China (H2c).The results presented in Table 6 show that European expatriates in Turkey reported slightly highersupport from friends than those in China (Mean=3.74 vs. 3.46 in Turkey and China, respectively,

Table 8Univariate analyses results of the interactive terms of expatriate psychological well-beinga

Interactive terms F values df

Country X network size 7.15*** 1,116Country X gender diversity 4.32** 1,116Country X cultural diversity 2.58 1,116Country X closeness .48 1,116Country X frequency 1.06 1,116Country X social support 1.56 1,116Country X organizational support .19 1,116Country X spousal support .35 1,116

aAfter controlling gender, marriage, tenure, compensation satisfaction, career plan, training, overseas experience andnationality, and the main effects of independent variables and moderators.Note: **pb .05; ***pb .01.


F=3.45, pb .10). They also reported significantly higher support from the parent organization andspouses (Mean=4.22 vs. 3.82 for organizational support, F=3.88, pb .05; Mean=5.04 vs. 4.80 forspousal support, F=4.16, pb .05). Hypotheses 2a and c are rejected, but Hypothesis 2b is confirmed.

Hypothesis 3a predicts that the social networkwould havemore impact on expatriate psychologicalwell-being in China than in Turkey. Hypothesis 3b predicts that support would have a similar impacton expatriate psychologicalwell-being in bothChina andTurkey. In order to test these two hypotheses,several hierarchical regression analyses are conducted and the results are reported in Table 7.

Model 2s in Table 7 show that network characteristics significantly affect the psychological well-being of expatriates in China (ΔR2= .16, pb .05), but not expatriates in Turkey (ΔR2= .08, pN .10).Hypothesis 3a is confirmed. Specifically, for expatriates in China, networks facilitate the expatriatepsychological well-being. For expatriates in Turkey, those network characteristics have no impact ontheir psychological well-being. Model 3s in Table 7 shows that for European expatriates, both inChina and in Turkey, support from different sources, especially from the parent company, is vitallyimportant for their psychological well-being (ΔR2= .24, pb .001 for expatriates in China, andΔR2= .26, pb .001 for expatriates in Turkey, respectively). Therefore, Hypothesis 3b is confirmed.

Hypothesis 4 predicts that the destination of expatriation will moderate the relationshipbetween social network and psychological well-being, and Hypothesis 5 predicts that this

Fig. 2. The impacts of network size on psychological well-being for European expatriates in Turkey and in China.

Fig. 3. The impacts of network gender diversity on psychological well-being for European expatriates in Turkey and in China.


moderating effect will not be found for the relationship between social support and psychologicalwell-being. In order to test these moderating effects, several univariate analyses of variance(ANCOVA) were conducted to control the covariance of control variables and the main effect ofboth independent and moderating variables. Table 8 reports the F values of the interaction termsof the moderating effects of destination of expatriation (Turkey vs. China).

From Table 8, it is clear that the destination of expatriation interacts with network size andnetwork gender diversity to influence expatriate psychological well-being (F=7.15, pb .01, andF=4.32, pb .05, network size and gender diversity, respectively), but not with other networkcharacteristics. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was partially confirmed. As predicted, the destination ofexpatriation does not interact with different sources of support at all, as shown in Table 8, whichconfirmed Hypothesis 5. The above-mentioned two significant interacting effects were illustratedby Figs. 2 and 3. As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, network size and gender diversity have a much morepositive impact on European expatriates in China than in Turkey.

5. Discussion and conclusion

Social interaction was demonstrated to be a main predictor of expatriate adjustment.Nevertheless, its impact may vary in different cultures. Contextual factors, such as geographiccloseness and cultural differences between the home country and the host country, may playimportant roles in the expatriate adjustment process. The contribution of this paper is to single outthe above contextual factors by comparing European expatriates in China to those in Turkey inorder to explore the different patterns of social interactions (personal network and support) withthe local environment, and to compare the resulting impact on their psychological well-being. Theempirical evidence of the current study shows some differences and similarities in terms of socialinteractions and its impact on expatriate psychological well-being in these two host countries.

The results show that the network patterns between European expatriates in China and inTurkey are similar in terms of network size. European expatriates in Turkey make as many friendsas those in China. While it was expected that European expatriates in Turkey would build smallernetworks than those in China since their proximity would allow then to visit home more often,this was not substantiated in the current study. It is possible that this unexpected finding is dueto the inherent design of this study. In the measurement of social network, there was no


differentiation between the expatriates' friends at work and those outside of work. Even thoughthe European expatriates in Turkey may visit home more often on weekends and may not make asmany friends outside of work, it is possible that they make enough friends at work to equal thenumbers of their counterparts in China.

As expected, European expatriates in China do have closer (and more frequently participatedin) support networks than do those in Turkey. This demonstrates that while expatriates in Turkeywere able to make as many friends as those in China, the former did not develop their network tothe degree of closeness and frequency as did the latter. As is mentioned above, this is explained bythe fact that those in Turkey are closer to their homeland and they might be able to make returnvisits, thus reducing the amount of time spent in Turkey making close friends and attendinggatherings. Another finding, confirming our hypothesis, is that there was lower gender diversityin Turkey. As mentioned previously, even though both Chinese and Turkish cultures scoredrelatively low on gender egalitarianism (Fu et al., in press; Pasa et al., 2001), the Chinese scoredslightly higher than the Turkish. This lower gender egalitarianism may be an obstacle in thedevelopment of friendships or support networks between opposite genders in Turkey. On theother hand, Turkey is a Muslim country and the European expatriates may be cautious whenmaking friends with the opposite gender to avoid offending the local people's religious beliefs.

Surprisingly, European expatriates in Turkey reported a slightly higher cultural diversity intheir networks than did those in China; the establishment of similar diversified networks wasexpected. As stated earlier, when working in a local environment, it is to be expected that onewould have a mixed group of friends consisting of local nationals and peer expatriates from othercultures because all kinds of friends are needed to provide different forms of help and information.This balanced and diversified network is important for the expatriate's adjustment to the localenvironment and job success (Wang and Kanungo, 2004). The slightly higher cultural diversityfound in European expatriates' networks in Turkey was hard to explain. One explanation might bethat the proximity and less frequent nature of their network allows the European expatriates tocontact different kinds of people in Turkey.

In terms of perceived support from friends, parent organizations and spouse, Europeanexpatriates in Turkey reported more than those in China, although the difference was marginalregarding social support. It was unexpected to find that even though the network was less close andless frequent, European expatriates in Turkey still reported slightly higher support from friends.Possibly this is due to fewer communication problems in Turkey where most people speak one ormore European language, thus simplifying and facilitating their interactions with each other. It wasnot a surprise to find that perceived spousal support is higher for the expatriates in Turkey. Ashypothesized, spouses may adjust better in Turkey than in China, since they are close to home andcan visit easily and frequently. Further, the adaptation of the spouse is facilitated by the existenceof the social, cultural and religious institutions in Turkey. The perceived higher support from parentorganizations might also be due to the physical distance. Although parent organizations have thesame policies for expatriates everywhere, those closer to home might have more accessible contact,thus allowing expatriates in Turkey to obtain more support from the parent company.

It was found in the current study that the impact of the personal network on expatriatepsychological well-being is different for European expatriates in Turkey than it is for those in China.As expected, the network patterns in Turkey have no impact on expatriate psychological well-being;on the other hand the network is important for the European expatriates in China to psychologicallyfunction well in the local environment. When expatriates leave their home country to take anoverseas assignment, the previously established network fades away and a new one is needed in thelocal environment in order to feel secure and certain (Wang, 2002; Wang and Kanungo, 2004).


However, this might not be the case for European expatriates in Turkey. Due to the geographicproximity between Turkey and the other European countries, the previous network might not fadeaway asmuch as it would in a move to China. Therefore, the need to re-establish a new local networkin order to feel rootedmay be less urgent.When the home network is not too far away, the expatriatescan retreat back to it, possibly giving them a feeling of a “backup.” For those in China, however, theknowledge that they are far away from home might intensify the need to establish a local network,without which they might feel less certain or secure in the unknown country and culture.

The impact of support on European expatriates' psychological well-being did not differbetween those in China and those in Turkey. For both groups, the parent organizations' supportstands out as the most salient one that significantly facilitated their psychological well-being. It isunderstandable that no matter how far or how close one is to home, organizational support isalways important, as is the need to feel that the supervisor understands one's situation, and thatthey will support efforts to overcome all the various difficulties in the workplace in order to getthings done. Most of the time, expatriates need to perform at the local pace for political, economicand cultural reasons. If the parent company has little awareness of the local context and expectsthe expatriate to perform as he/she did back home, there will be an increase in pressure and stress.This is an example of the importance of organizational support for expatriates everywhere. Evensupport from spouses and friends did not show a significant impact on the expatriate'spsychological well-being; while these were important, as is seen in the literature, when enteredinto the equation alongside of organizational support, their impact was overshadowed.

The implications of the current study are numerous. First of all, it demonstrates that geographicdistance is an important contextual factor that can influence the expatriate social interaction patternsand influence adjustment in the new locale. Secondly, the social interaction pattern may be shaped bythe local culture; in a culture where gender egalitarianism is low, expatriates will adjust their socialinteractions. Thirdly, organizational support is an extremely important factor influencing theexpatriate's psychologicalwell-being; understanding and support fromparent organizations are neededfor all expatriates nomatterwhere they are located. These implications suggest thatMNCs internationalHRM policies and practices should reflect the differences found in the expatriation destinations andstrategically utilize resources to facilitate their employees' adjustment in different countries.

The limitation of the current study is the small sample size of the two groups. This could detractfrom the power of the statistical analyses. For example,with only 36married expatriates inChina and49 in Turkey, there was little power for the analysis of spousal support, which may be one of thereasons that we did not find a significant impact from spousal support on the European expatriate'spsychological well-being. This sample size further limited our ability to analyze the effects of otherfamily factors, such as the number of school age children (only 9 participants in the China sample and15 of the Turkey sample had school-age children). Another limitation of the study is that only twohost cultures were sampled and other contextual factors, such as political and religious affiliation,were not controlled in our analyses. If there were other host countries examined, such as India and U.S.A., more interesting country-level variables might be included. Last but not least, all Europeanexpatriates were put into one group in the current study. Even with the awareness that expatriatesfrom the various European countries may show significantly different patterns in their adjustment tolocal environments, the limited sample size of the current study did not allow us to put them intosubgroups, such as Germanic European, Latin European or Eastern European (Gupta and Hanges,2004). Future studies can investigate adjustment patterns of expatriates with different origins.Despite all of these limitations, the current study is one of the first efforts to do a comparative studyfor groups of expatriates in different countries. Future studies can aim at broader comparisons amongexpatriates from different cultures adjusting in different countries.

Appendix A. Informal Social Network Pattern Measurement

For the past 6 month, you have remembered someone ( friends, colleagues, supervisors) who have given you some support during youroverseas assignment. Please write their initials or nicknames here under “People Named” column. Begin with the person who has helped youthe most, followed by those providing lesser amounts of support (please indicate at least 3 persons, but no more than 15). Indicate each person'sgender, nationality, and his/her relationship to you. Please indicate also how close you are with each person, and how often you have contactwith him/her. The right hand side of this form relates to the relationship among these people. Please indicate whether your friends, colleagues orsupervisors know each other by circling Y for yes and N for no in the following squares as illustrated by the example below.

469X.Wang,

D.Z.Nayir

/Journal

ofInternational

Managem

ent12

(2006)449–472


References

Abe, H., Wiseman, R.L., 1983. A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations 7, 53–67.

Aguilar, L.M., Singer, M.A., 1996. Big emerging markets and U.S. trade. Competitiveness Review 6, 14–30.Aycan, Z., 1997a. Acculturation of expatriate managers: a process model of adjustment and performance. In: Aycan, Z.

(Ed.), Expatriate Management: Theory and Research. Jai Press, Greenwich, Connecticut, pp. 1–40.Aycan, Z., 1997b. Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted phenomenon: individual and organizational level predictors.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 8, 434–456.Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N., 1997. Current issues and future challenges in expatriate management. In: Aycan, Z. (Ed.), New

Approaches to Employee Management. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 245–260.Barrera Jr., M., 1981. Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents. In: Gottlieb, B.H. (Ed.), Social Networks

and Social Support. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 69–96.Belke, A., 2004. Turkey and the EU: on the costs and benefits of integrating a small but dynamic economy. Intereconomics

(Hamburg) 39, 288–292.Black, J.S., 1990. Locus of control, social support, stress and adjustment in international transfers. Asia Pacific Journal of

Management 7, 1–29.Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B., 1991. Antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment for expatriates in Pacific Rim assignments.

Human Relations 44, 497–515.Bradburn, N.M., 1969. The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Aldine Publishing, Chicago.Brenner, G.F., Norvell, N.K., Limacher, M., 1989. Supportive and problematic social interactions: a social network

analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology 17, 831–836.Brewster, C., 1991. The Management of Expatriates. Kogan Page, London.Burt, R.S., 1983. Range. In: Burt, R.S., Minor, M.J. (Eds.), Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction.

Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 176–194.Burt, R.S., 1998. The Social Capital of French and American Managers. Working paper. Graduate School of Business,

University of Chicago.Caligiuri, P., Lazarova, M., 2002. A model for the influence of social interaction and social support on female expatriates'

cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Human Resource Management 13, 761–772.Campbell, K.E., Marsden, P.V., Hurlbert, J.S., 1986. Social resources and socioeconomic status. Social Networks 8,

97–117.CEDAW, 1997.Combined 2nd and 3rd Periodic ‘country report of turkey to the committee on the elimination of discrimination

against women’. Retrieved from http://www.die.gov.tr/cin/women/cedawpr.htm on January 22nd, 2006.Edstrom, A., Galbraith, J.R., 1977. Transfer of managers as a coordination and control strategy in multinational

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 248–263.Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied

Psychology 71, 500–507.Forster, N., 1997. The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates: a reappraisal. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management 8, 414–433.Fu, P.P., Wu, R.X., Yang, Y.K., Ye, J. in press. Chinese culture and leadership in China, In: Chhokar, J., Brodbeck, F.,

House, R. (Eds.), Managerial Cultures of the World: A GLOBE Report of In-Depth Studies of the Cultures of 25Countries. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Gupta, V., Hanges, P., 2004. Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. In: House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M.,Dorfman, P.W., Gupta, V. (Eds.), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. Sage Publications, London, UnitedKingdom, pp. 178–218.

Haines, V., Hurlbert, J., 1992. Network range and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 33, 254–256.Hall, A., Wellman, B., 1985. Social networks and social support. In: Cohen, S., Syme, S.L. (Eds.), Social Support and

Health. Academic, New York, pp. 23–41.Hammer, M.R., 1987. Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: a replication and extension. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations 11, 65–87.Hammer, M.R., Gudykunst, W.B., Wiseman, R.L., 1978. Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: an exploratory study.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 2, 382–393.Harrison, D.A., Shaffer, M.A., Bhaskai-Shrinivas, P., 2004. Going places: roads more and less travelled in research on

expatriate experiences. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 23, 203–252.Harzing, A.W., 2001a. Who's in charge? An empirical study of executive staffing practices in foreign subsidiaries. Human

Resource Management 40, 139–158.

http://www.die.gov.tr/cin/women/cedawpr.htm


Harzing, A.W., 2001b. Of bears, bumble-bees, and spiders: the role of expatriates in controlling foreign subsidiaries.Journal of World Business 36, 366–379.

Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage Publications,Beverly Hills, CA.

House, J.S., 1981. Work Stress and Social Support. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.House, J.S., Kahn, R.L., 1985. Measures and concepts of social support. In: Cohen, S., Syme, S.L. (Eds.), Social Support

and Health. Academic, New York, pp. 83–108.House, J.S., Umberson, D., Landis, K.R., 1988. Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology

14, 293–318.Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J., Jaworski, R.A., 2001. Sources of support and expatriate performance: the mediating role of

expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology 54, 71–99.Mankowski, E.S., Wyer Jr., R.S., 1997. Cognitive causes and consequences of perceived social support. In: Pierce, G.R.,

Lakey, B., Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Social Support and Personality. Plenum Press, NewYork, pp. 141–165.

Marsden, P.V., 1987. Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review 52, 122–131.Marsden, P.V., Campbell, K.E., 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social Forces 63, 483–501.Mendenhall, M.E., Oddou, G., 1985. The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: a review. Academy of Management

Review 10, 39–47.Nakata, C., Sivakumar, K., 1997. Emerging market conditions and their impact on first mover advantages— an integrative

review. International Market Review 14, 461–485.Nelson, D.L., Quick, J.C., 1991. Social support and newcomer adjustment in organizations: attachment theory at work?

Journal of Organizational Behavior 12, 543–554.Oberg, K., 1960. Cultural shock: adjustment of new environments. Practical Anthropology 7, 172–182.Parker, B., McEvoy, G.M., 1993. Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations 17, 355–379.Pasa, S.F., Kabasakal, H., Bodur, M., 2001. Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An

International Review 50, 559–589.Procidano, M.E., Smith, W.W., 1997. Assessing perceived social support: the importance of context. In: Pierce, G.R.,

Lakey, B., Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Social Support and Personality. Plenum Press, NewYork, pp. 93–106.

Rogelberg, S.G., Conway, J.M., Sederburg, M.E., Spitzmüller, C., Aziz, S., Knight, W.E., 2003. Profiling active andpassive nonrespondents to an organizational survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (6), 1104–1114.

Rook, K.S., 1984. The negative side of social interaction: impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 46, 1097–1108.

Ryff, C.D., 1995. Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science 4,99–104.

Ryff, C.D., Keyes, C.L.M., 1995. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 69, 719–727.

Sarason, I.G., Levine, H.M., Basham, R.B., Sarason, B.R., 1983. Assessing social support: the social supportquestionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 127–139.

Scullion, H., 1994. Staffing polices and strategic control in multinationals. International Studies of Management andOrganization 3, 86–104.

Scullion, H., Brewster, C., 2001. The management of expatriates: messages from Europe? Journal of World Business 36,346–365.

Selmer, J., 2001. Adjustment of Western European vs North American expatriate managers in China. Personnel Review30, 6–21.

Selmer, J., 2002. Coping strategies applied by Western vs overseas Chinese business expatriates in China. InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management 13, 19–34.

Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., 1998. The expatriate's psychological withdrawal from international assignments: work,non-work, and family influences. Personnel Psychology 51, 87–118.

Smith, T.S., 1992. Strong Interaction. The University of Chicago Press.Stokes, B., 2004. Turks at the gate. National Journal Washington 36, 3680–3688.Suutari, V., Brewster, C., 1999. International assignments across European borders: no problem? In: Brewster, C., Harris,

H. (Eds.), International HRM: Contemporary Issues in Europe. Routledge, London, pp. 183–202.Suutari, V., Brewster, C., 2001. Expatriate management practices and perceived relevance: evidence from Finnish

expatriates. Personnel Review 30, 554–577.


Thomas, D.C., 1998. The expatriate experience: a critical review and synthesis. Advances in International ComparativeManagement 12, 237–273.

Tung, R.L., 1981. Selecting and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business 16,68–78.

Tung, R.L., 1984. Strategic management of human resources in multinational enterprise. Human Resource Management23, 129–143.

Tung, R.L., 1998. American expatriates abroad: from neophytes to cosmopolitans. Journal of World Business 33 (2),125–144.

Turner, R.J., 1981. Social support as a contingency in psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour22, 357–367.

Umberson, D., Chen, M.D., House, J.S., Hopkins, K., Slaten, E., 1996. The effect of social relationships on psychologicalwell-being: are men and women really so different? American Sociological Review 61, 837–857.

VanderZee, K.I., Buunk, B.P., Sanderman, R., 1997. Social support, locus of control and psychological well-being. Journalof Applied Social Psychology 27, 1842–1859.

Vinokur, A.D., van Ryn, M., 1993. Social support and undermining in close relationships: their independent effects on themental health of unemployed person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 350–359.

Walker, M.E., Wasserman, S., Wellman, B., 1994. Statistical models for social support networks. In: Wasserman, S.,Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.), Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social Behavioral Sciences. Sage,Newbury Park, CA, pp. 53–78.

Wang, X., 2001. Expatriate Social Network, Psychological Well-Being and Performance — A Theoretical Examinationand an Empirical Test, unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University.

Wang, X., 2002. Expatriate adjustment from a social network perspective: theoretical examination and a conceptual model.International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 2, 321–337.

Wang, X., Kanungo, R.N., 2004. Nationality, social network and psychological well-being: expatriates in China.International Journal of Human Resource Management 15, 775–793.

Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, MA.

Wasti, S.A., 1998. Cultural barriers in the transferability of Japanese and American human resource practices to developingcountries: the Turkish case. International Journal of Human Resource Management 9, 608–631.

Wellman, B., Wortley, S., 1990. Different strokes from different folks: community ties and social support. AmericanJournal of Sociology 96, 558–588.

World Bank, (2000). Genderstats — Summary Gender Profile. http://devdata.worldbank.org/genderstats/home.asp.Retrived on January 27th, 2006.

http://devdata.worldbank.org/genderstats/home.asp

how and when is social networking important? comparing european expatriate adjustment in china and...

Documents