WORK ROLE TRANSITIONS:A STUDYOF AMERICAN

EXPATRIATEMANAGERSIN JAPAN

J. StewartBlack*
University of California, Irvine
Abstract. Throughoutthe course of a career, an individualmust
make numerous role transitions, instigated through such events
as overseas transfers, domestic transfers, promotions, company
reorganizations, and inter-companyjob changes. This paper
examines the relationshipsbetween several variables and work
role transition in the case of an overseas assignmentto Japan.
Role ambiguityand role discretionwere found to influencework
adjustment,while predepartureknowledge,associationwith local
nationals, and family's adjustmentwere found to correlatewith
general adjustmentof Americanexpatriatemanagersin Japan.

Althoughthe topics of roles and role adjustmenthave been investigatedfor

severalyears,onlyrecentlyhasa theoryof workroletransitions beenpresented
[Nicholson1984]. Workrole transitionscan be instigatedthroughoverseas
transfers,domestictransfers,promotions,companyreorganizations, andinter-
companyjob changes.This studyinvestigateswork role transitionsbrought
on by foreignassignments.This particulartype of work role transitionwas
selectedbecausethe growinginternationalization
of businessrequiresincreasing
amountsof interactionbetweencompaniesand businesspeople of different
countriesandcultures.To implementthis internationalization,oftennationals
of one countryare sent to subsidiariesin foreigncountries.Studies[Baker
andIvancevich1971; Tung1981] have foundthatbetween20 to 40%of the
expatriatemanagers(EXM)do not successfullymakethe transitionandreturn
early. Thesefiguresbecomelargerif one includesthe "brownouts"[Lanier
1979] or thosewho may not returnearlybutperformat a decreasedcapacity
by not being able to adjustadequatelyto theirnew work roles. In addition,
of EXMssentto Japanin the past, one source[Seward1975]foundthat90%
of the EXMs were significantlyless successfulin Japanthan they were in
theirpreviousassignmentin their home countries.Anothersource [Adams
andKobayashi1969] foundthat80%of the EXMsin Japanwere considered
failuresby theirheadquarters.Theseproblemsare significantto corporations
becausethe associatedcosts arehigh, rangingfrom$50,000 to $150,000 per

* J. StewartBlackis currentlya Ph.D. studentat the Universityof California,Irvine,

in the GraduateSchool of Management.While there, he was awardeda Regent's
Fellowshipfor 1985-1986.He receivedhis B.S. andMasterof Organizational Behavior
degreesfromBrighamYoungUniversity,wherehe graduated withUniversityHonors
andDistinction,respectively.
Received:July 1987;Revised:October& December1987;Accepted:December1987.

277

Palgrave Macmillan Journals

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to
Journal of International Business Studies
www.jstor.org
278 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SUMMER 1988

personif the EXM returnsfrom the international assignmentearly (Harris

1979). Forcompanieswith hundredsof expatriates,the totalcosts can easily
reachseveralmilliondollars.Giventhe importanceof suchassignments,it is
usefulto tryto gainanunderstanding of howthesetypesof workroletransitions
aremadeandwhatfactorsinfluencetheirsuccessandfailure.
Thisstudybeginswithanexamination of therelevanttheoreticalandempirical
literature.Based on this material,severalhypothesesare presentedand the
resultsof a surveyof Americanexpatriatemanagersmakingtransitions to their
overseas assignmentsin Japanare presented.Finally, the theoreticaland
managerialimplicationsare explored.

DIMENSIONSOF ADJUSTMENTIN WORK ROLETRANSITIONS

Adjustmentto the new work role can be viewed as havingthree primary
dimensions:degree,mode, and facet. Each of these dimensionsare briefly
discussed.

Degree of Adjustment
Degreeof adjustment canbe viewedas botha subjectiveandobjectiveconcept.
Subjectively,it is the degreeof comfortthe incumbentfeels in the new role
and the degreeto which he or she feels adjustedto the role requirements.
Objectively,it is the degree to which the person has masteredthe role
requirementsand is able to demonstratethat adjustmentvia his or her
performance. In the past, scholarshavelargelyreliedon self-reportresponses
to measuredegreeof felt adjustment [Torbion1982]orto measureotherdegree
indicatorssuch as time to proficiency[PinderandSchroeder1987].
In the case of managerssent on foreignassignments,degreeof adjustment
has been measuredthroughself-reportsof adjustment to the new countryand
culture[Gullahornand Gullahorn1962; Abe and Wiseman1983; Torbion
1982]. An importantaspectof the degreeof adjustment to the cultureis the
stage of adjustment.Scholars[Lysgaad1955; Oberg1960; Torbion1982]
have arguedthatadjustmentoccurredin fourphasesoften referredto as the
U-curve.The first phaseoccursduringthe first few weeks afterarrival.At
this time the new arrivalis fascinatedwith the new and differentaspectsof
theforeigncultureandcountry.Somehavereferredto thisas the"honeymoon
stage." Torbion[1982] addsthatduringthe initialstage, the personhas not
had sufficienttime andexperiencein the new countryto discoverthatmany
of his or her past habitsandbehaviorsare inappropriate in the new culture.
Thislackof negativefeedbackandthenewnessof theforeignculturecombine
to producethe honeymooneffect.
Oncethenewcomerbeginsto copeseriouslywiththerealconditions of everyday
life, the secondstage begins. This stage is characterized by frustrationand
hostilitytowardthe host countryand its people. This is becausethe person
discoversthather or his past behaviorsare inappropriate in the new culture
but as yet has not learnedwhatto substitutein theirstead[Torbion1982]. In
general,cultureshock occursat the transitionbetweenstage two and three
WORK ROLE TRANSITIONS 279

when the personhas receivedthe maximumamountof negativefeedbackbut

as yet has very little idea as to whatthe appropriatebehaviorsare.
The thirdstage begins as the individualacquiressome languageskills and
abilityto move aroundon his or herown. In the thirdstagethe personbegins
to learnnotonlyhowto "get around"butalsosomenew appropriate behaviors.
By the third stage the individualalso has developedsome proficiencyin
performingthe new set of behaviors.
In the fourthstage, the individual'sadjustment is generallycompleteandthe
incremental degreeof adjustment is minimal.In thisstage,the individualnow
knowsandcanproperlyperformthe necessarybehaviorsto functioneffectively
andwithoutanxietydue to culturaldifferences.

Modeof Adjustment
Mode of adjustmentinvolvesthe mannerin which the individualadjuststo
the new role. Severalscholars[DawisandLofquist1984; FeldmanandBrett
1983;Nicholson1984;VanMaanenandSchein1979]haveessentiallyargued
thattheindividuals canadjustby alteringthenewroleto matchbetterthemselves
or by alteringtheir own attitudesand behaviorsto match betterthe role
expectations.Nicholson[1984]expandsthesetwo dimensionsinto a fourcell
matrix,whichincludesallthecombinations of thetwobasicmodesof adjustment.
The first mode of adjustmentNicholsoncalls replication.When confronted
with a new work role, a personusing this adjustmentstrategywould make
few adjustments in his or heridentityor behaviorsin orderto fit into the new
role. Also, the personwouldmakefew changesin the role. The secondmode
of adjustment is termedabsorption.Whenconfronted witha newrole, a person
using this adjustmentstrategywould makevery few if any modificationsin
the role andwouldinsteadmodifyhis or herown behaviorandattitudesto fit
the role requirements. The thirdmodeof adjustment is termeddetermination.
Accordingto Nicholson, this mode of adjustmentrepresentsthose instances
in which the incumbent'sadjustmentto the demandsof the role transition
leaves the personrelativelyunaffectedbut altersthe new role. The fourth
mode of transitionis termedexploration.This mode of transitionrepresents
thosecases in whichthe personmakesadjustments in his or herselfandin the
new role.

Facet of Adjustment
Althoughtheprimaryfocus of the literatureon workrole adjustment concerns
adjustment to the "workrole," in the case of overseastransfers,anotherfacet
of adjustmentinvolves the manager'sadjustmentto the new customs and
cultureof the host country[Hawesand Kealey 1981; Ross 1985; Torbion
1982]. Even in the case of domestictransfers,thereexists some theoretical
andempiricalsupportfor the inclusionof adjustment to outsideworkfactors
as anotherfacetof adjustment[Feldman1976].Thus,it seemsthatat a minimum
there are at least two facets of adjustment:work adjustmentand general
adjustment.
280 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SUMMER 1988

FACTORS HYPOTHESIZED TO INFLUENCE ADJUSTMENT

Becausemuchof thetheoreticalwritingon workroletransitions
is fairlyrecent
(for example,see Nicholson1984), much of the empiricalliteraturein the
nextsectionhasbeenapproached fromsomewhatof an atheoretical
perspective.
However,using the theoreticalframeworksof Nicholson[1984], Dawis &
Lofquist[1984]andFeldman[1976],the empiricalliterature
hasbeenorganized
into two broadcategories:adjustmentinhibitingand adjustmentfacilitating
factors.Thesearethensubdividedintothreesubcategories:individualfactors,
job-relatedfactors,andoutsidefactors.

Adjustment Facilitating Individual Factors

Severalindividualfactorshavebeen hypothesizedandfoundto be important
in expatriates'adjustment to new workroles duringoverseasassignments.In
formulatingthe hypothesesfor this cross-sectionalstudy, individualfactors
werenot included.Theywereexcludedbecausetheoretically it is just as likely
thatadjustmentcauseschangesin theindividual as it is thatindividual differences
influenceadjustment. Althoughstudieshavefoundcorrelations betweenvarious
individualfactorsand adjustment,a longitudinaldesignwouldbe neededto
providea meaningfulcontributionto understanding the causal relationship
betweenanyof theindividual variablesidentifiedandadjustment. Consequently,
theyarenotdiscussedin detail(fora reviewsee Mendenhall andOddou1985).
A summaryof theindividualfactorsthatseemto facilitateadjustment includes
(1) theindividual'sdesireto adjust[Brim1966;Cogswell1968;Howard1974;
Mortimerand Simmons 1978; Tung 1981], (2) technicalor managerial
competence[Bardoand Bardo 1980; Brim 1966; Harris1973; Hawes and
Kealey 1981; Hays 1971; Tung 1981], (3) a person'ssocial relationskills
orientation[AbeandWiseman1983;Hammer,Gudykunst andWiseman1978;
Harris1973; HawesandKealey1981; Hays 1971; Louis, PosnerandPowell
1983; Ratiu1983; Ross 1985], (4) an individual'stolerancefor ambiguityor
"openmindedness"[Detweiler1975;Gudykunst; WisemanandHammer1977;
Kahn 1964; Ratiu 1983; Ruben 1976; Ruben and Kealey 1979], (5) an
individual'sself-confidence[Kahn1964; Fisher1982; andJones 1986], (6)
met expectations[Dunnette,Arvey, and Banas 1973; Feldman1976; Ilgen
1975; Toffler 1981], and (7) reinforcementsubstitution[Bren and David,
1971; David 1976; Mumford1975; Tung1981].

Adjustment Inhibiting Job Factors

Several job-relatedfactors have been found to increasethe uncertainty,
unfamiliarity,unpredictability, of the new workrole and
or uncontrollability
consequently These
inhibitthe adjustment. includerole novelty,roleambiguity,
role conflict,androle overload.
Role noveltyreallyinvolvesthe differencebetweenthe pastrole andthe new
one. Role novelty essentiallyincreasesthe degreeof unfamiliaritywith the
new role, which likely decreasesthe degree of predictability.Pinderand
Schroeder[1987]havefoundthe greaterthe difference,the longerit takesthe
WORK ROLE TRANSITIONS 281

personto reacha levelof proficiencyaftera domestictransfer.Otherresearchers

have founda similarrelationshipbetweenrole noveltyand adjustment[Burr
1972; George 1980; Minklerand Biller 1979; Pinderand Schroeder1987;
SarbinandAllen 1968].
Hl: Thehigherthe role novelty,the lowerthe adjustmentto work
responsibilities.
Mostmajorrole transitionshave some associatedrole ambiguity.The greater
the role ambiguity,the less the individualis able to predictthe outcomeof
variousbehaviorsandthe less the individualis able to utilizepast successful
or determineappropriate new behaviors.Severalstudieshavefoundthehigher
the associatedambiguity,the moredifficultthe transition[Harvey1982;Misa
andFabricatore1979; PinderandSchroeder1987].
H2: Thegreaterthe role ambiguity,the less the degreeof adjustmentto the
specificjob responsibilities.
Additionally,often individualsin new roles experienceconflictingsignals
aboutwhat is expectedof them. Whenan individualexperiencesconflicting
messagesaboutexpectedbehaviors,he or she is less ableto determinewhich
messagesto ignoreandwhich to follow and therebyexecutethe appropriate
behaviors.Not surprisingly, researchershavefoundthe greaterthe roleconflict,
the greaterthe difficultyof the role transition(Kahnet al. 1964).
H3: Thegreaterthe role conflict,the less the degreeof adjustmentto the
specificjob responsibilities.
If managershavetoo manydemandsplaceduponthem,theywill be less able
to respondadequatelyto thedemands.Thus,roleoverloadwill havea negative
influenceonworkroleadjustment. Roleoverloadhasbeenfoundto be negatively
associatedwith successfulrole transitions[Kahn1964; Karasek1979; Tung
1982].
H4: Thegreaterthe role overload,the less the degreeof adjustmentto the
specificjob responsibilities.
AdjustmentFacilitatingJob Factors
In additionto job factorsthatincreaseuncertainty,severaljob-relatedfactors
have the potentialfor reducingit and facilitatingadjustment.These include
the role discretion,previoustransfers,andpre-departure knowledge.
Nicholson[1984] alongwith Dawis and Lofquist[1984] includesthe notion
thatthe greaterthe roleflexibilityor role discretion,the easierthe adjustment.
Somestudieshavefoundthatrolediscretionenablesindividualsto moreeasily
utilize successfulpast behaviorsin the new role by havingthe freedomto
modifythe role to fit theirabilitiesandhabitsandthusmakesthe role more
familiar,predictable,andcontrollableandmakethe transitioneasier[Karasek
1979; Kahnet al. 1964].
H5: Thegreaterthe increasein role discretion,thegreaterthe adjustment.
Inthecaseof domesticorinternational transfersandtheresultingroletransitions,
individualswith previoustransferexperiencesmightbe able to extrapolate
282 BUSINESSSTUDIES,SUMMER1988
JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL

fromthesetransfersandthusbe morefamiliarwithaspectsof thenew situation

and be betterat predictingwhat to expect with the transfer[Louis 1980].
Despite the theoreticalappealof this variable,it has yet to be supported
empirically[PinderandDas 1979; PinderandSchroeder1987].

H6: Thegreater the previous overseas work experience, the greater the
adjustment.
Becausepre-departure knowledgehasthepotentialof providingthe individual
with informationaboutthe impendingtransition,it can reducethe uncertainty
by increasingthe predictabilityof the new situationas well as by increasing
at least the individual'santicipatoryfamiliarity.The fact that a majorityof
firmsdo not provideany trainingto facilitatepre-departure knowledgeof the
targetcountryperhapsindicatesthattheybelieveit doesnotfacilitateadjustment
[BakerandIvancevich1971; Tung 1981]. Some empiricalworksupportsthe
assertionthatpre-departure knowledgedoesfacilitateadjustment [Tung1984].

H7: The more knowledge the manager has about the target country of the
overseas assignmentprior to departure, the better will be the manager's
adjustment.

AdjustmentFacilitatingOutsideFactors
When the work role transitionrequiresa majorchangefor the individual's
family, the family's abilityto adjustto the changeshas a significantimpact
on the individual'stransitionat work. Especiallyin the case of overseas
assignments,an individual'sfamily'sinabilityto adjustis the biggestreason
for the individual'sinabilityto make the transition[Hays 1971; Misa and
Fabricatore1979; Torbion1982; Tung 1981; Tung 1982]. However,it is
possible that the causal directionis revised. It is possible that the EXM's
adjustmenthas an influenceon the family's adjustment.Consequently,only
a correlationhypothesiscan be made.

H8: Thefamily's general adjustmentwill be positively correlated with the

expatriate's adjustment.
Becauseassociation withhostnationalscanprovidecuesconcerning appropriate
behaviorin the new situation,greaterassociationwith host nationalswould
reducenoveltyandpositivelyaffectadjustment.However,greaterassociation
withhostnationalswill notnecessarilyprovideinformation of how to perform
Thus,while associationwith hostnationalslikely
specificjob responsibilities.
will be associatedwith generaladjustment,it likely is not associatedwith
workadjustment.Unfortunately, in a non-longitudinalstudy,it is impossible
to determinewhetherthegreaterinteraction with host leadsto greater
nationals
adjustmentor whethergreateradjustment leads to increasedassociationwith
hostnationals.Thus,only a correlation hypothesiscanbe made.Nevertheless,
thissourceof noveltyreduction hasbeenunder-addressedandis worthexamining
context.
even in a correlation
WORKROLETRANSITIONS 283

H9: Interaction with host nationals will be positively correlated with

general adjustment.

METHODOLOGY

Sample
The samplefor this studywas drawnfrom those Americansregisteredwith
the AmericanChamberof Commercein Japan.Althoughthis registryis not
exhaustive,the directorycontainsover 1,400 namesand representsvirtually
all Americancompaniesoperatingin Japan.A sampleof 195 individualswas
randomlydrawnby selecting every seventh individualin the alphabetized
listing.
Of the 195 questionnairessent, 77 were returnedfor a responserateof 40%.
Sixty-sevenof the returnedquestionnaires were usable. Given that limited
fundspreventedthe sendingof followuplettersor questionnaires, theresponse
ratewas typical[Dillman1978].The respondents represented 25 of 33 different
industriesand were an adequaterepresentation of the sample. All of the
respondentswere male and 80%were married.On averagethe respondents
were46 yearsold andhadbeenin the firmfor 14.5 years.In addition,33.8%
of the respondentsheld top managementpositions,49.2% were department
heads, 15.4%were middlemanagers,and 1.5%were technicalspecialists.

Definitionand Operationalization
of Variables
As discussedearlier,two methodscanbe utilizedto measureadjustment.The
first is the individual'sassessmentof how comfortableor adjustedhe or she
feels. The secondis an independent measureof the individual'sadjustment or
performance.Becauseresponseratesto mailedquestionnaires which ask for
an independentmeasureof adjustmentsuch as supervisorratingare usually
unacceptably low [Dillman1978]andlackof resourcesprohibitedmoredirect
methodsof obtaininganindependent measureof adjustment suchas supervisor
evaluation,only self-reportedadjustment was measured.
For expatriatemanagers,it is hypothesizedthat there are three facets of
adjustment. It seems,expatriate
managers adjustto (1)workroles,(2) interacting
with host nationals(Japanesenationalsin this study), and (3) the general
cultureand everydaylife. An eleven-itemscale was developedto measure
thesethreefacetsof adjustment. Thesix itemsmeasuring adjustmentto everyday
life were basedon the scalesdevelopedby Torbion[1982]. To measurework
adjustment,respondentswere askedto indicatethe degreeof adjustment they
felt with theirjob and responsibilities,with interactingwith Japanesepeers
andsubordinates. (Adjustmentto Japanesesuperiorswas not includedbecause
preliminary interviewssuggestedthatvery few Americanexpatriatemanagers
hadJapanesesuperiors.)To measureadjustmentto interactingwith Japanese
in general,respondentswere askedto indicatetheirdegreeof adjustmentto
workingwithJapaneseoutsidetheircompanyandto interacting withJapanese
in general,everydaysituations.
284 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SUMMER 1988

TABLE 1
Factor Analysis of Adjustment

ITEM General Interaction Work

General living .90
Transportation .76
Food .75
Shopping .65
Weather .57
Entertainment .55
Workingwith
Japanese outside .89
Interactingwith
Japanese general .38 .84
Job responsibility .77
Japanese co-workers .37 .47 .63
Japanese subordinate .32 .61
Only loadings greaterthan .30 are reported.

The eleven-itemscalewas factoranalyzedusinga principalcomponentfactor

analysisprocedurewitha varimaxrotationof factors.It was hypothesizedthat
therewere threefactorswithintheseeleven items, andthreefactorsemerged
with eigenvaluesgreaterthanone (see Table1). Thesethreefactorsexplained
62.9%of the variancein the eleven-itemset.
All the items in Factor1 loadedstrongly(above.50) on the first factorand
below .30 on the othertwo factors.A reliabilitytest of these six items in
Factor1 producedan alphaof .80, which is generallyconsideredacceptable
(ChurchillandPeter1984).Thisfirstfactorof adjustment includedadjustment
to generalliving conditions,transportationsystem,food, shopping,weather,
andentertainment andwas termedgeneraladjustment or adjustment to general
and
living conditions everyday life.
The two itemsof workingwith Japaneseoutsidethe companyandinteracting
with Japanesein generalloadedvery stronglyon the secondfactor(above
.80). Theitemsin thissecondfactorhada relativelyhighreliabilitycoefficient
(alpha= .83). The factoressentiallyinvolvedadjustment to interacting with
Japanese.
The threeremainingitems of adjustmentto interactingwith Japanesepeers
andwith Japanesesubordinates,andto job responsibilities loadedon Factor
3. However,thesethreeitemshadan unacceptably low reliabilitycoefficient
(alpha= .30). The itemsof interacting with Japanesepeersandsubordinates
hadcomplexloadings.Theyloaded above.30 on thesecondfactor(interacting
with Japanese)and above .60 on the thirdfactor(adjustment to work). The
item of adjustmentto job responsibilitiesloadednegativelyon the first and
secondfactorandstrongly(.77) on the thirdfactor.The primarycomponent
of thethirdfactorseemedto be adjustment to workresponsibilities.Removing
the items of adjustmentto interactingwith Japanesepeers and subordinates
fromthe thirdfactorleft a one-itemmeasureof adjustment to work.
This procedureproducedthreefactorsor facets of adjustment.The first two
factors(adjustment to generalconditions,and adjustment to interactingwith
WORKROLETRANSITIONS 285

Japanesein general)were very clear and strong;however, the two factors

weresignificantly correlated (.47,p < .01). Therefore,
theywerenotconsidered
to be independentfacetsof adjustment.The eightitemsrelatingto these two
factorswerecombinedto forma scaleof generaladjustment (alpha= .83) The
thirdfactor(adjustment to job responsibilities)
was conceptuallydifferentfrom
andnot significantlyrelatedto the factorof generaladjustment (see Table3).
Role noveltywas definedas the degreeto which the expectedpatternsof
behaviorsin the new role were differentfromthose of past roles. Based on
Stewart's[1982] categoriesof managerialdemandsand constraints,eleven
itemswere usedto measurerole novelty.Respondentswere askedto indicate
how similaror differenteach of the items was comparedto their previous
domesticassignment.A factoranalysisof these eleven items producedfour
factorsthataccountedfor 66.9%of thevariancein the eleven-itemset. Factor
1 involvedthe noveltyof performancestandards,degreeof involvementin
workunit, andoutsideworkresponsibilities.The secondfactorinvolvedthe
noveltyof the type of people in the work unit, the legal and governmental
regulations,andemployeesresistanceto change.Thethirdfactorconsistedof
the noveltyof bureaucratic proceduresand mandatorymeetings.The fourth
factorconsistedof noveltyof workrelations,resourcelimitations,andtechnical
limitations.Althoughthefactoranalysisproducedfourfactorsof rolenovelty,
thefourfactorswerehighlyintercorrelated r = .50, p < .001).
(approximately
Consequently,all eleven itemswere combinedinto one scale of role novelty
whichhad an acceptablereliability(alpha= .78).
Role ambiguitywas definedin termsof the existenceor clarityof behavioral
requirements [Rizzo,HouseandLirtzman1970]. Thescalefor measuringrole
ambiguitywas takenfromRizzo, HouseandLirtzman[1970],whichhasbeen
used in othersimilarstudies[Jones1986], becauseof the objectivewording
of the items (for example, "clear, plannedgoals exist for my job"). The
reliabilityof this scale was adequate(alpha= .76).
Role conflictis the congruency-incongruency or compatibility-incompatibility
in the requirements of the role, wherecongruencyor compatibilityis judged
relativeto a set of standards or conditions whichimpingeuponroleperformance.
Thisscalewas also takenfromRizzo, HouseandLirtzman[1970]. Thisscale
hadmoderatelyhighreliability(alpha= .82).
Roleoverloadwas definedas the excessivedemandsplacedupontheoccupant
of a particular role.Thescaleformeasuringroleoverloadwas basedon Kahn's
[1964] descriptionof role overloadand includedthreeitems: (1) excessive
workload, (2) excessivetime demands,and(3) insufficienttimeto complete
work. Thesethreeitemshadadequatereliability(alpha= .81).
Role discretionwas defined as the individual'sopportunitiesto alter the
componentsandrelationships of role demands.As a meansof approximating
this variableand assessingits impacton work role adjustment,respondents
were askedon a one-item,Likert-typescalewhetherthe degreeof autonomy
theycurrentlyhadwas moreor less thanthatwhichtheyhadin theirprevious
assignment.
286 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SUMMER 1988

TABLE 2
Factor Analysis of Family Adjustment

Item Factor 1 Factor 2

Schools .92
Transportation .66 .44
Shopping .82
Weather .43
Interacting w/Japanese .87
Entertainment .79
Only loadings greater than .30 are reported.

Respondentsindicatedon a five-pointLikertscale the degreeof knowledge

they had of Japan(language,culture,customs,politicalsystem, etc.) before
thetransfer.A factoranalysisof thisfive-itemscalewasconducted andproduced
one factorwithmoderately highloadings(above.80). Theinter-itemreliability
of this scale of knowledgebeforedeparture was very high (alpha= .91).
Previousinternational transferswere operationalized as the numberof years
the respondenthadworkedin overseasor foreignassignments.

Outside Factors

The outsidefactormeasuredin this studywas family adjustment.Using a

Likert-typescale, respondents were askedto ratetheirfamily'sadjustment to
schools, transportationsystem, shopping,weather,interactingwith Japanese
in general,andentertainment. A factoranalysisof theseitemsproducedtwo
factors(see Table2). The firstfactorconsistedof adjustment to schoolsand
the transportation
system and had an unacceptablylow (.40). The
reliability
secondfactorincludedadjustmentto shopping,weather,entertainment, and
interactingwithJapanesein generalandhadan adequatereliabilitycoefficient
(.75). Thus, only the items in the second factorwere used as the scale of
measuringfamilyadjustment.
Associationwith host nationalswas operationalized as the percentof time
duringworkandnon-workhoursthatthe expatriatemanagerspentwith host
nationals.

RESULTS
Adjustment Inhibiting Job Factors

Hypotheses1 through4 predictedthatrolenovelty,roleambiguity,roleconflict,

and role overloadwould have a negativeimpacton work adjustment.The
formulationof these hypothesesassumesthatthese fourjob factorswill not
have any significantrelationshipwith generaladjustment.This assumption
was supportedby the data (see Table3). To test the influenceof thesejob
factorson workadjustment,a multipleregressionwas runby regressingwork
adjustmenton role novelty,role ambiguity,role conflict,androle overload.
Althoughthe independent variablesaccountedfor a significantamountof the
WORKROLETRANSITIONS 287

C\j 0

o "t

0 l- CC)
oC)0

oC) Co
C\!

CC)
O~~~~~~~~~~~~ cr) 0,
.0
0~~~~~ 0)

aCY ) \L
.X~~~~~~~~~~C
00 ? ?? 0\ 0

S
< ~0 00 0 0

C\j~~~~~~\
0 LO

0 C?) CO
O I) tL ) 0
JU) nt a~OCY)C\] C0 ) 0 0

- k

LO
o O- 0,\ C\) C0 0

>
C~~~~~)
0 ~~00
_s
CY)C] Y
C \ ICY) '- LO) C

UCY) 9 O 9 1
C\ L ) CYO CY)
U) ,- a o C 0
CY? C) CO C\)

0~~
CO IO)
co C(O.
N-00 CO
-0 t)
O)O) 0
C1) 0' NIC)
cO
. .O c C\
C ~
CY O. ) C'
CM CO O
C? CY? ~~~~~~CY?J
C'J C\

co
CC\ LO
No C\]
L -(o
o ')t cy r.0\
c oC)N
o o rl LO
r o r- LOYC\I)
CY CY) C) 0 C\CY co
O CY)
(00 N- CY)(OC\OO0\]" C\O 0- 0 0
C/) C\? C\ )

C 4- C\] rl C\] LO - C\ LOf C\i~~~~~N

) O C1)6 cO C\]C
(1 CO - LO D CD) o0 0 0 co O CD O
CD
( s6 C\i 4 CY)'
CY54 CY5 CD cy L6 o6

(1 ( ) t 0 c

4> Z3 -4 (D0 cm
??????o
?o 10
CrLD. CD o C C 3 L -0
CM
0)0)0)
??
E CM
99~E

C\] li t6 6 r<c6 & 6 C\'

288 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SUMMER 1988

TABLE 4
Results of Multiple Regression Adjustment Facilitating Job Factors

IndependentVariables Betas Values for t

PreviousOverseas Experience .33 2.86*
Pre-departureKnowledge -.31 -2.69*
Role Discretion .31 2.62*
R square = .27; F = 7.14; p < .001; Dependent Variable:WorkAdjustment
* p <.01

IndependentVariables Betas Values for t

PreviousOverseas Experience .18 1.50
Pre-departureKnowledge .38 3.14*
Role Discretion -.01 -.07
R square = .15; F = 3.29; p<.05; Dependent Variable:GeneralAdjustment
*p<.01

variance in work adjustment(R square = .19, F = 2.94, p < .05), only role
(beta.44, p < .005).
ambiguityhada significantimpacton workadjustment

Adjustment Facilitating Job Factors

Hypotheses 5 through7 predictedthatrolediscretion,

previousoverseastransfers,
andpre-departure knowledgewouldfacilitateadjustment.In general,it remained
an empiricalquestionas to whetherthe threefactorswould have a positive
influenceon bothfacetsof adjustment.To test the impactof thesevariables
on adjustment, two separatemultipleregressionequationswere conducted.In
the first equation,work adjustmentwas regressedon role discretion,pre-
departureknowledge, and previouswork experience.These three factors
explaineda significantamountof the variancein workadjustment (see Table
4). As predictedbothrole discretionandpreviousoverseasworkexperience
had a significantand positive impacton work adjustment.However,pre-
departure knowledgehada significantandnegativeimpacton workadjustment.
This unexpectedfindingis discussedlater.
The second regressionequationexaminedthe impactof these same three
independentvariableson generaladjustment.Again the three independent
variablesaccounted portionof thevariancein generaladjustment
fora significant
(see Table 4). However,in the case of this facet of adjustment,only pre-
departure knowledgehada significantimpact.

Adjustment Facilitating Outside Factors

Hypotheses8 and9 asserteda positivecorrelation betweenfamily'sadjustment,
withhostnationalsandtheEXM'sadjustment.
association Althoughresearchers
[Hays 1971; Tung 1981] have foundthe family'sinabilityto adjustas well
as the EXM'sinabilityto adjustwere relatedto earlyreturns,it remainedan
empiricalquestionof howfamilyadjustment relatedto differentfacetsof EXM
adjustment.In testingthesehypotheses,only correlational analysiswas used.
Theoreticallyit is just as likely thatadjustmentof the EXM leads to family
WORK ROLE TRANSITIONS 289

adjustmentas the reverse.Likewise, it is equallypossible that adjustment

leads to greaterassociationwith host nationalsor thatassociationwith host
nationalsfacilitatesadjustment.Torbion[1982] has arguedthatboth family
adjustment andassociationwith host nationalsleadsto adjustment; however,
neitherthe designof his studynorthis studyprovidethe meansof testingthe
causalrelationship.Hypothesis8 assertedthatassociationwith host nationals
duringworkandnon-workhourswouldbe positivelycorrelated withadjustment.
Timespentwithhostnationalsduringworkandnon-workhourswas positively,
andsignificantlycorrelatedwithgeneraladjustment (see Table3) butnotwith
work adjustment.Likewise, hypothesis9 predictedthat family adjustment
would be positivelycorrelatedwith EXM adjustment.Family'sadjustment
was positivelyandsignificantlycorrelatedwith generaladjustment (.85, p <
.001) but not with workadjustment.

DISCUSSION
The resultsof this studylend some supportto the theoreticalargumentthat
thereare at least two distinctfacets of adjustment.This is furthersupported
by thefactthatworkadjustment is relatedto roleambiguityandrolediscretion,
while generaladjustment is relatedto pre-departure knowledge,to association
with host nationals,andto family'sadjustment. This studyindicatesthatpast
practicesof thinking and measuringadjustmentparticularlyin overseas
assignmentas a genericor unitaryphenomenonperhapsmasksthe different
impactsof variableson adjustment.Muchmoreresearchneedsto takeplace
to examinethevariousdimensionsof theworkroles, relatedoutsiderolesand
the adjustment process.
This studyfoundno relationshipbetweenrole noveltyandwork adjustment.
In theirstudyof domestictransfers,Pinderand Schroeder[1987] did find a
relationshipbetweenrole noveltyand self-reported time to proficiency.Two
methodologicalconsiderations may accountfor the differentfindings.First,
Pinderand Schroedermeasuredwork adjustmentby askingrespondentsto
indicatehow manymonthsafterthe transferit tookthemto becomeeffective
in theirjob. Thisstudyaskedrespondents to indicatethe degreeof adjustment
they felt concerningtheirjob responsibilities.Second,Pinderand Schroeder
used a one-itemmeasureof role novelty("overallhow similaris yourcurrent
job to the one beforethe transfer").This studyused an eleven-itemscale to
measurerole novelty.It may be thatwhen askedto raterole noveltyoverall
managersincorporateaspects and weightingsnot includedin the multiple
measure.The natureof the work role transitionsmay also be an important
explanation.It may be thatin an international transferso muchis novel (the
job, the people, the culture,etc.) thatthe impactof role noveltyis diluted.
Futurestudiesmightaddressbothrole noveltyandculturenoveltyto test this
possibility.In addition,futurestudiesmightrely less on subjectivemeasures
of role novelty. Possiblemethodcovariationproblemscould be reducedin
futurestudiesby usingobjectiveproxiesof rolenoveltysuchas actualchanges
in functionalarea(for examplemovingfromsales to production).
290 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SUMMER 1988

In additionto limitationsconcerningconclusionsaboutrole novelty, some

limitationsexistregardingconclusionsaboutroleambiguityas well. Although
effortwas madeto use objectivelywordeditemsto measurerole ambiguity,
the relationshipfoundbetweenrole ambiguityandworkadjustment mightbe
the resultof methodcovariation.However,items relatingto role ambiguity
and work adjustmentwere placed in separatepartsof the questionnaire in
orderto reducethis limitation.In summary,of the adjustment inhibitingjob
factors,only role ambiguitywas significantlyrelatedto workadjustment,and
thoughstepswere takento reducemethodcovariationproblems,this finding
shouldbe viewedwith some caution.
Concerning adjustment jobfactors,as hypothesized,
facilitating previousoverseas
workexperienceandrolediscretion wererelatedto workadjustment. However,
neitherwererelatedto generaladjustment. Thelackof significantrelationship
betweenpreviousoverseasworkexperienceandgeneraladjustment conditions
and to interactingwith host nationalsperhapssuggeststhatmanyaspectsof
overseasassignments arenotreadilygeneralizable fromone overseasassignment
to anotheror thatEXMsarenot ableto transferor extrapolate theirlearnings
concerningadjustment in one countryto another.
Pre-departure knowledge did have the expected significantand positive
relationshipwith generaladjustment, butit hadan unexpectedsignificantand
withworkadjustment.
negativerelationship Recentfollow-upinterviewssuggest
one possibleexplanationfor this unexpectedrelationship.SeveralEXMsin
Japansuggestedthat even though they believed pre-departure knowledge
facilitatedworkadjustment,thosethathadpre-departure knowledgeconcerning
the countryandculturewouldreporta lowerlevel of workadjustment because
theywere moreawareof the culturalelementsin thejob responsibilities than
thosewho had a low level of pre-departure knowledge.In otherwords,they
suggestedthat those with little knowledgecould not ignore and had to be
awareof thenegativeimpactof lackof knowledgeon generaladjustment (i.e.,
living in Japanand interactingwith Japanese),but becausecertainelements
of thejob were similarto thosein the U.S., theycouldpay attentionto more
familiaraspectsand ignoreor just not be awareof those aspectsin which
culturehadan impactonjob responsibilities. Consequently,theywouldreport
higherlevels of workadjustment thanthosemademoreawarebecauseof their
pre-departure knowledge.
Althoughnot investigatedat the time, anotherpossibleexplanationfor the
positiverelationship betweenpre-departureknowledgeandgeneraladjustment
and the negative relationshipbetween pre-departure knowledgeand work
adjustment is thatthepre-departureknowledgewas moreaccurateandrelevant
to living in Japanand was less accurateand relevantto workingin Japan.
This possibilitywould suggestthat futureresearchmightexplorethe exact
contentof the pre-departure knowledgeEXMs have to determinerelevant
informationconcerningliving in Japanversusworkingin Japan.Since this
studysuggeststhatadjustment to livingversusworkingin Japanis different,
it may be thatsome pre-departure knowledgefacilitatesadjustment
to living
WORKROLETRANSITIONS 291

in Japanwhileotherpre-departure knowledgefacilitatesadjustment
to working
in Japan.
In termsof adjustment facilitatingoutsidefactors,generalsupportwas found
for the hypothesesthatfamilyadjustmentandassociationwith host nationals
were correlatedwith EXMgeneraladjustment.A non-significant relationship
was foundbetweenthesetwovariablesandEXMworkadjustment. As argued
earlier,it is unlikelythatassociationwith host nationalswouldprovidecues
to facilitateworkadjustment or thatworkadjustment wouldleadone to associate
morewith hostnationals.However,an explanationfor the lackof correlation
betweenfamilyadjustmentand EXMwork adjustmentis not as obvious. It
may be thatthe significantcorrelationbetweenfamilyadjustmentandEXM
generaladjustmentconditionsand interactingwith host nationalsis due to
theirsimilarnature-adjustment to weather,shopping,interpersonal
interactions,
etc. Thelackof a significantcorrelation betweenfamilyadjustment andEXM
work adjustmentmay be becausethe natureof work adjustmentis different
fromgeneraladjustment. Therefore,evenif thefamilydoesnotadjustto living
in the foreigncountry,the EXMcan still adjustto thejob becauseit to some
degreeis similarto responsibilitiesheld priorto the transferand therefore
independent of its currentforeigncontext.
However,an important limitationshouldbe noted.TheEXMsgave the scores
for the adjustmentof theirfamilies. Even thoughitems referringto family
adjustmentwere placed in a separateportionof the questionnaireto avoid
responseset bias, the associationbetweenEXMgeneraladjustment conditions
andto interactingwith host nationalsmaybe a functionof responseset bias.
Futureresearchmighttest thisby obtainingfamilyself-reportsandcomparing
themwith EXMreportsto see if EXMreportsof the family'sadjustment are
similarto thoseprovidedby the familymembers(primarilythe spouse).
In considering thefindingsandsuggestionsof thisstudy,two samplingproblems
shouldbe considered.Becauseof the logisticsof updatingthe largeregistry
fromwhich this samplewas drawn,only those individualsthathad been in
the countrymorethansix to eightmonthswere listed in the directory.Thus,
thefirstsix monthsof adjustment werenotdirectlymeasured.Thisis important
becauserespondents indicatedthatthe low pointfor theiradjustment occurred
approximately six monthsaftertheirarrival.If thosewho hadtroublemaking
the transitionsreturnedto the U.S. at this averagelow point,thenthe sample
would be overly representedby relativelyadjustedmanagers.Second, even
thoughthe directoryhad multiplenames for a given company,the names
listedfor a given companywere not exhaustive,andthe nameslistedtended
to be the higherlevel executives.Thus,the sample,while representing a large
numberof companiesand industries,was overlyrepresented by higherlevel
executivesand may not be generalizableto lower level expatriatessuch as
technicalspecialists.
In conclusion, it seems firms might facilitate internationaltransfersand
adjustments by providingoverlaptimebetweenthe returning managerandthe
new replacementas well as providingclearjob descriptionsin orderto reduce
292 JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESSSTUDIES,SUMMER1988

role ambiguity.Also, firmsnot providingtrainingto facilitatepre-departure

knowledgeof the countryandculturemightfacilitateadjustment by changing
this practice,especiallyif the manageris expectedto regularlyinteractwith
host nationals.Severalresearchissues have been mentioned,but it seems
particularlyimportantto investigatethe causal relationshipbetweenfamily
adjustment andEXMadjustment andbetweenassociationwith host nationals
and EXM adjustment.The increasedinternationalization of businessmakes
themorepreciseunderstanding of allthedimensions
of adjustment
to international
transfersincreasinglyimportant.

APPENDIX

Respondentswere askedto indicateon a scale from1 to 7 (1= Not Adjusted

At All; 7 = VeryWell Adjusted)the degreeto whichthey areadjustedor not
on the followingelevenitems.
1. How adjustedareyou to yourjob andresponsibilities?
2. How adjustedareyou to workingwith Japaneseco-workers?
3. How adjustedareyou to the transportationsystemin Japan?
4. How adjustedareyou to workingwithJapaneseoutsideyourcompany?
5. How adjustedareyou to the food in Japan?
6. How adjustedareyou to the weatherin Japan?
7. How adjustedareyou to interactingwith Japanesein general?
8. How adjustedareyou to shoppingin Japan?
9. How adjustedareyou to supervisingJapanesesubordinates?
10. How adjustedareyou to generallyliving in Japan?
11. How adjustedareyou to the entertainment availablein Japan?

RREFERENCES
Abe, H. & R.L. Wiseman.1983.A cross-cultural
confirmation effectiveness.International
of intercultural
Journal of InterculturalRelations, 7:53-68.
Adams,T.E. & N. Kobayashi.1969. Theworldof Japanesebusiness.Tokyo:KodanshaInternational.
1971.Theassignment
Baker,J.C. & J.M.Ivancevich. of American abroad:
executives Systematic,
haphazard,
or chaotic? CaliforniaManagementReview, 13:39-44.
Bardo,J.W. & D.J. Bardo.1980. Dimensionsof adjustment
of Americansettlersin Melbourne,
Australia.
MultivariateExperimentalClinical Research, 5:23-28.
Brein,M. & K.H. David.1971. Intercultural
communication of thesojourner.
andadjustment Psychology
Bulletin, 76:215-30.
Brim,O.G. 1966. Socializationthroughthe life cycle, In O.G. Brim& S. Wheeler,eds., Socialization
after childhood: Two essays, 1-45. New York: Wiley.
A reformulation
Burr,W.R. 1972.Roletransitions: of theory.JournalofMariage andtheFamily,34:407-
16.
Churchill,G.A. & J.P. Peter.1984. Researchdesigneffectson the reliabilityof ratingscales:A meta
analysis. Journal of MarketingResearch, 21:360-75.
Processof socialization.SocialInquiry,13:417-
of the paraplegic:
Cogswell,B.E. 1967. Rehabilitation
40.
WORK ROLE TRANSITIONS 293

David,K.H. 1976. The use of sociallearningtheoryin preventingintercultural adjustment problems.In

P. Pederson,W.J. Lonner& J. Draguns,eds., Counsellingacrosscultures, 123-37. Honolulu,Hi.:
Universityof HawaiiPress.
Dawis, R.V. & L.H. Lofquist.1984.A psychologicaltheoryof workadjustment.Minneapolis,Minn.:
Universityof MinnesotaPress.
Detweiler,R. 1975. On inferringthe intentionsof a personfromanothercountry.Journalof Personality,
43:591-611.
Dillman,D.A. 1978.Mailandtelephonesurveys.New York:Wiley.
Dunnette,M.D., R.D. Arvey& P.A. Banas.1973. Whydo theyleave?Personnel,50:25-39.
Feldman,D. 1976. A contingencytheoryof socialization. Administrative ScienceQuarterly,21:433-452.
& J.M. Brett.1983. Copingwith new jobs: A comparative studyof new hiresandjob changers.
Academyof Management Journal,26:258-72.
Fisher,C.D. 1982. Identifyingtheoutcomesof socialization: Twostudies.TechnicalReportNo. TRONR-
8. CollegeStation,Tex.: TexasA & M University.
George,L. 1980.Roletransitionin laterlife. Belmont,Calif.:Wadsworth.
Gudykunst, W.B., M.R. Hammer& R.L. Wiseman.1977.An analysisof an integrated approach to cross-
culturaltraining.InternationalJournalof Intercultural Relations,1:99-110.
Gullahorn, J.R. & J.E. Gullahorn.1962.An extensionof theu-curvehypothesis.Journalof SocialIssues,
3:33-47.
Hammer,M.R., W.B. Gudykunst & R.L. Wiseman.1978. Dimensionsof intercultural effectiveness:An
exploratory study.International Journalof Intercultural Relations,2:382-93.
Harris,J.G. 1973. A scienceof the southpacific:Analysisof the character structure of the PeaceCorps
volunteer.AnnualPsychologist,28:232-47.
Harris,P. 1979. Theunhappyworldof the expatriate. InternationalManagement, July:49-50.
Harvey,M.C. 1982. The otherside of the foreignassignment;dealingwith the repatriation problem.
Columbia Journalof WorldBusiness,17:53-59.
Hawes,F. & D.J. Kealey.1981.An empiricalstudyof Canadian technicalassistance.International Journal
of InterculturalRelations,5:239-58.
Hays, R.D. 1971. Ascribedbehavioraldeterminates of success-failureamongU.S. expatriatemanagers.
Journalof International BusinessStudies,2:40-46.
Howard,C.G. 1974. A modelfor the designof a selectionprogramfor multinational executives.Public
PersonnelManagement, March:138-45.
Ilgen,D.R. 1975.Thepsychological impactof realisticjob previews.TechnicalReportNo. 2, Department
of Psychological Science,PurdueUniversity.
Jones, G.R. 1986. Socializationtactics, self-efficacy,and newcomers'adjustment to the organization.
Academyof Management Journal,2:262-79.
Kahn,R.L., D.M. Wolfe, R.P. Quinn& J.D. Snoek.1964. Organizational stress. New York:Wiley.
Karasek,R. 1979. Job demands,job decisionlatitude,andmentalstrain:Implications for job redesign.
Administrative ScienceQuarterly,2:215-308.
Lanier,A.R. 1979. Selectingandpreparing personnelfor overseastransfers.PersonnelJournal,58:160-
63.
Louis, M.R. 1980. Surpriseand sense making:What newcomersexperiencein enteringunfamiliar
organizationalsettings.Administrative ScienceQuarterly,25:226-51.
, B. Posner & G. Powell. 1983. The availabilityandhelpfulnessof socialization practices.Personal
Psychology,36:857-66.
Lysgaard,S. 1955. Adjustment in a foreignsociety:NorwegianFullbrightgranteesvisitingthe United
States.International SocialScienceBulletin,7:45-105.
Mendenhall, M. & G. Oddou1985. The dimensionsof expatriate acculturation.
Academyof Management
Review,10:39-47.
Minkler,M. & R.P. Biller.1979. Roleshock.HumanRelations,32:125-40.
Misa,K.F. & J.M. Fabricatore. 1979. Returnon investmentof overseaspersonnel.FinancialExecutive,
April:42X-6.
294 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SUMMER 1988

Mortimer,J.T. & R.C. Simmons.1978.Adultsocialization. AnnualReviewof Sociology,4:421-54.

Mumford,S.J. 1975. Overseasadjustmentas measuredby mixedstandardscales. Paperpresentedat
WesternPsychologyAssociation,Sacramento.
Administrative
Nicholson,N. 1984. A theoryof workroletransitions. ScienceQuarterly,29:172-91.
Oberg,K. 1960. Cultureshock:Adjustment to newculturalenvironment. 7:177-
PracticalAnthropologist,
82.
Pinder,C.C. & H. Das. 1979. Personneltransfersandemployeedevelopment.In K.M. Roland& G. R.
Ferris,eds, Researchin personnelandhumanresourcemanagement, 2:187-218.Greenwich,Conn.:
JAIPress.
& K.G. Schroeder. 1987. Time to proficiency following transfers.Academyof ManagementJournal,
30:336-53.
A comparison
Ratiu,I. 1983.Thinkinginternationally: of howinternationalexecutiveslearn.International
Studyof Management and Organizations,
13:139-50.
Rizzo, J.R., R.J. House& S.I. Lirtzman.1970. Role conflictandambiguityin complexorganizations.
Administrative ScienceQuarterly,2:150-63.
Ross, C.W. 1985. Americansabroad.Unpublished FieldingInstitute.
dissertation,
Ruben,I. 1967. The reductionof prejudicethroughlab training.Journalof AppliedBehavioralScience,
3:29-50.
& D.J. Kealey. 1979. Behavioralassessmentof communication competencyandthe predictionof
cross-culturaladaptation.InternationalJournal of InterculturalRelations, 3:15-47.
Sarbin,T.R. & V.L. Allen. 1968. Roletheory.In G. LindzeyandA. Aronson,eds., Handbook of social
psychology,488-567. Reading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley.
Seward,J. 1975. SpeakingtheJapanesebusinesslanguage.EuropeanBusiness,Winter,40-47.
Stewart,R. 1982. Choicesfor themanager.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
roledevelopment:
Toffler,B.L. 1981.Occupational Thechanging of outcomesfortheindividual.
determinants
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,26:396-418.
Torbion,,I. 1982.Livingabroad.New York:Wiley.
Tung,R. 1981. Selectingandtrainingof personnelfor overseasassignments.
ColumbiaJournalof World
Business,16:68-78.
. 1982.Selectingandtrainingprocedures
of U.S., European,andJapanesemultinational
corporations.
CaliforniaManagementReview, 25:57-71.
1984.Keyto Japan'seconomicstrength:Humanpower. Lexington,Mass.:LexingtonBooks.
Van Maanen,J. & E. Schein.1979. Towarda theoryof organizational
socialization.In B. Staw, ed.,
Researchin organizational
behavior,1:209-64. Greenwich,Conn.:JAIPress.