Expatriate work role engagement and the work–family interface: A conditional crossover and spillover perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How intertwined are expatriates with their families? And what makes some expatriates better than others at leveraging positive or compensating for negative influences from their family life? Drawing on conservation of resources, crossover and spillover theories, we examine when partner family role adjustment influences expatriates’ family experiences, and how and when these experiences translate into expatriate work role engagement. Using data from 105 expatriate–partner dyads at two time points, we establish the key personal resource of general self-efficacy as a boundary condition for crossover and spillover. We find that expatriates with high self-efficacy experience no crossover between partner family role adjustment and expatriate family role adjustment, and positive spillover between their family role engagement and their work role engagement. By contrast, expatriates with low self-efficacy experience strong crossover between partner family role adjustment and expatriate family role adjustment, and negative spillover between their family role engagement and work role engagement. Our results suggest that the way in which the family domain influences expatriate work role engagement depends on general self-efficacy. We contribute to conservation of resources, crossover and spillover theories, and the work–family interface during expatriation. Our results also pinpoint organizational interventions to improve expatriates’ work role engagement.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".