Cultural humility and low ethnocentrism as facilitators of expatriate performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – For decades, expatriate scholars have understood that the individual factors of cultural humility and ethnocentrism and the contextual factors of feedback and support affect expatriates’ outcomes. The study, rooted in the observation that great advice and support are often ignored by expatriates, seeks to uncover why. Based in the humility literature, the authors test whether individual differences interact with support to affect expatriate performance. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The authors surveyed a matched sample of 62 expatriates and their supervisors from one multinational organization. Findings – The study found that expatriates higher in cultural humility benefit more from the support and feedback offered in the host national work environment which, in turn, facilitates better supervisor ratings of performance. The authors also found that expatriates’ ethnocentrism has a direct negative influence on their ratings of performance. Research limitations/implications – The findings in the study are focussed and robust, but tested within a single organization. That said, the authors believe the results have implications for expatriate selection and for ways to manage the host national environment to improve expatriate performance. Originality/value – The study joins the research conversation on how expatriates’ individual differences interact with the environments in which they are placed to affect their success. This study also underscores the importance of humility in the global professional context.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".