Expatriate Managers: Powerful Or Powerless?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation will focus on expatriate managers for whom successful cross-cultural adjustment is imperative in overall effectiveness during overseas postings. Unfortunately, employers often blame the individual when assignments fail rather than taking responsibility themselves (Deresky 2002; Hodgetts & Luthans 2006; Swaak 1995; Tung 1987). A study of Canadians employed in international non-government organizations in Indonesia will be presented. This research focussed on describing the lived experience of these managers using their own words. Written descriptions were analyzed/synthesized using Giorgi’s descriptive phenomenological method (Giorgi 1975; 1985; Giorgi & Giorgi 2003). One of the research findings was the paradoxical feelings of powerfulness/powerlessness as experienced by the participants. Intriguingly, the expatriate manager’s position as foreigner (readily identified through ‘observable differences’), brings power and status, but also feelings of being powerless in certain situations. At the same time, awareness of one’s ‘minority status’ in combination with the large cultural differences between Canadians and Indonesians provides a potent and challenging lived experience for the expatriates (Mendenhall & Wiley 1994). The new knowledge uncovered may result in alterations of present international human resource management practices and strategies in relation to expatriation, thereby improving the performance of expatriates and organizations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".