The relationship between life-domain interactions and the well-being of internationally mobile employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the relations between the life-domain interactions (i.e. interactions between the personal and professional lives) of internationally mobile employees (IMEs) and their well-being and to examine whether these links are different for assigned expatriates (AEs) and self-initiated expatriates (SIEs). Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire data were collected from 284 IMEs including 182 SIEs, and 102 AEs. Two measures of IMEs’ well-being were used: subjective, namely satisfaction with life, and psychological well-being (PWB), which refers to self-acceptance, personal growth, and reaching for life goals. Life-domain interactions were measured from a conflict and an enrichment perspective, each in two directions: Work Life → Personal Life (WL → PL) and Personal Life → Work Life (PL → WL). Findings Regression analyses confirm that IMEs’ life-domain conflicts (WL → PL and PL → WL) have an adverse impact on their subjective and PWB, IMEs’ life-domain enrichments account for their subjective well-being over and above what is explained by their life-domain conflicts, the relationship between WL → PL conflicts and subjective well-being is more negative among SIEs than among AEs. Practical implications This study underscores the need for both employers and IMEs to take action not only to reduce conflicts but also to promote enrichments between their personal and their professional lives. It is of particular importance to reduce the WL → PL conflict of SIEs, often left to fend for themselves, because it has a significant negative impact on their subjective well-being. Originality/value This study innovates in using conservation of resources theory and recent theoretical work linking this theory with the interplay between personal and professional lives to understanding SIEs’ and AEs’ well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".