Expatriate Job Performance and Adjustment: Role of Individual and Organizational Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expatriate literature has highlighted many individual and organizational factors which effect expatriate job performance and adjustment but the role of some individual and organizational factors is still not clear and/or has been ignored by past researchers. For example, the role of direct and indirect support has not been well conceptualized in past studies. In addition, only a few studies have explained the importance of self-efficacy, cultural sensitivity and social networking in the related expatriate literature.Furthermore,the role of previous international experience has conflicting results in past research.The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical grounding and highlight the importance of those individual and organizational factors which have been ignored by past researchers.In this regard, researchers have reviewed journals/articles from different databases, books, and magazines.This paper proposes a comprehensive framework based on the gaps in the literature and suggests propositions.The proposed conceptual framework provides a theoretical grounding for individual and organizational factors that includes individual factors (self efficacy,previous international experience, cultural sensitivity, and social network) and organizational factors (direct and indirect support). This paper suggests that expatriate adjustment (work, general,and interaction adjustment) mediates the relationship between individual factors (self-efficacy, previous international experience, cultural sensitivity, and social network), organizational factors (direct and indirect support),and expatriate job performance (rated by peer and supervisor). The proposed framework is developed based on past theoretical and empirical studies in order to cover the gap and contribute to the body of knowledge in the field of the literature. Based on the proposed framework, this paper invites researchers to empirically test the suggested propositions in order to further strengthen and develop understanding about individual and organizational factors as predictors of expatriate adjustment and job performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".