The Impact of Host-Country Supervisor Participation in Cross-Cultural Training on Expatriate Subordinate Outcomes

Abstract

Using signaling theory (Spence, 1973) and leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau et al., 1975), this study examines the effects of the participation of both host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates in the same cross-cultural training on expatriate subordinates’ outcomes abroad. We propose that host-country supervisor participation in training sends a favorable signal and improves the quality of the host-country supervisor–expatriate subordinate relationship and interactions, thereby leading to improved expatriate subordinate outcomes. Host-country supervisor and expatriate subordinate dyads from a variety of countries took part in a web-based cross-cultural training before or shortly after arriving in the United States. Results indicate that the participation of both host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates in the same cross-cultural training significantly impacts expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and job performance and that these benefits are conferred through increased LMX quality. The recognition and implementation of cross-cultural training is critical for organizations to evolve, compete, and succeed in a global context. This study is one of the first to empirically examine the role that providing both host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates the same cross-cultural training can have in improving expatriates’ work-related outcomes. It is also one of the first to examine the role of LMX theory in these outcomes.

Keywords

cross-cultural training LMX diversity global work leader–follower dyads

Over the last few decades, the workforce has become more global, multicultural, and diverse (Learnit, 2022; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). A large portion of this increasingly diverse workforce (57 million; see Ireland, 2021) is comprised of expatriates, who we define throughout this paper as “legally working individuals who reside temporarily in a country of which they are not a citizen to accomplish a career-related goal, being relocated abroad either by an organization, by self-initiation or directly employed within the host country” (McNulty & Brewster, 2017, p. 21). Unfortunately, the data on expatriate assignments has shown that between 42% and 70% of such assignments fail due to a great number of reasons (e.g., cultural shock, isolation, domestic issues, other troubles in settling into a different environment; see Hsieh et al., 1999; Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM], 2020). There is a shocking cost associated with expatriate failure, with estimates for each failure ranging between $200,000 and $1.2 million lost by expatriates and organizations (see Burgess, 2016; FIDI Global Alliance, 2016).

Not surprisingly, then, demand has continued to skyrocket for effective training programs that improve cross-cultural communications and understanding (see Chebium, 2015; SHRM, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic only expedited this growth with employers’ realization that virtual workplaces could transcend physical boundaries, usually without decreasing worker productivity (LeClerc, 2023), and with employees’ increased interest in working in international destinations (Brown, 2020; Urquhart, 2022). These facts make it clear—cross-cultural training is critical (LeClerc, 2023). In fact, the cross-cultural training market is expected to increase by $1.45 billion from 2020 to 2025 (PR Newswire, 2022). Equally important is learning what makes such training maximally effective, especially in light of the fact that organizations and expatriates still seem to be grappling with many of the same challenges now as they were 20 years ago. This study focuses on just this.

To explore the factors influencing expatriate success, we draw from and extend signaling theory (Connelly et al., 2011; Spence, 1973) by applying it to the context of host-country supervisor-expatriate subordinate relationships. Most of the literature has focused on what organizations can do to signal their messages and values to outside stakeholders (e.g., Bradley et al., 2023; Corrington et al., 2022). Only a small amount of work has applied signaling theory to relationships between individuals within organizations, and even this work has been limited to relationships between managers and those who are external to their own organization (e.g., customers; Kharouf et al., 2020). We propose that signaling theory can also be used to examine two individuals who are both internal to an organization, such as host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates. Host-country supervisors who engage in cross-cultural training may send signals of support to their expatriate subordinates that not only do they believe in the principles and advantages of such training but also that they are open to working in ways that maximize the experiences for their expatriate subordinates. Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau et al., 1975) further explains this potential strengthening of the relationship through host-country supervisors’ participation in training, and we examine this—with respect to cross-cultural training, specifically—in this study.

Our research contributes to the literature in three primary ways. First, we identify and explore a strategy that organizations might adopt to potentially increase the effectiveness of cross-cultural training on expatriate subordinate success (i.e., cross-cultural adjustment and job performance)—host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training. Plenty of work has demonstrated that training expatriates leads to better outcomes on their international assignments (e.g., Chenyang, 2022; Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992; Gai et al., 2021; Jochems, 2019; Morris & Robie, 2001); however, there is increasing popularity in the belief that the commitment to improving cross-cultural competence should not be reserved for just entry-level personnel but that CEOs and managers alike should also engage in this commitment (Chebium, 2015). What better way to commit than to have host-country supervisors of expatriate subordinates also receive cross-cultural training? This study is the first, to our knowledge, that examines whether training the host-country supervisors—who are not traveling expatriates themselves—of expatriate subordinates makes a difference.

To be clear, a large number of researchers have investigated factors that contribute to expatriate success (e.g., Carraher et al., 2008; Kossek et al., 2017), including the effects of expatriate supervisors completing cross-cultural training. Indeed, just 2 years ago, Gabrenya and Glazer (2022) reviewed the past 50 years of cross-cultural psychology, concluding that hundreds of studies have addressed cross-cultural training or education. Some of these studies have focused on didactic cross-cultural training (e.g., Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000; Korhone, 2004); others have focused on experiential cross-cultural training (e.g., Arshavskaya, 2018; Basadur et al., 2002; Brendel et al., 2016; Froese et al., 2021; Jin, 2015; Sanchez-Burks et al., 2007; Santoro, 2014; Shah-Gordon, 2016; Sizoo & Serrie, 2004; Tomcho & Foels, 2002); and still others have focused on a didactic-experiential mixed model of cross-cultural training (e.g., Altshuler et al., 2003; Harris et al., 2008). There is also a large body of work that has been done specifically looking at the effects that expatriate supervisors completing cross-cultural training have on various outcomes for themselves (the travelers). For example, Waxin and Panaccio (2005) found that, for supervisors expatriating to India, cross-cultural training accelerated their adjustment and that prior international experience and cultural distance moderated the effectiveness of this cross-cultural training. In fact, the topic of cross-cultural training has been studied so extensively that five meta-analyses have been conducted on cross-cultural training in the last 35 years—Deshpande and Viswesvaran (1992), Morris and Robie (2001), Littrell et al. (2006), Sit et al. (2017), and Chenyang (2022).

The primary difference between our study and prior studies of cross-cultural training is that most prior studies examine the effects that supervisors engaging in cross-cultural training have on the supervisors who are themselves expatriate travelers. What our study contributes that is different from this paradigm is that we are interested in the effect that having host-country supervisors—who are not themselves expatriate travelers—complete cross-cultural training has on their expatriate subordinates. At first, this may seem like a nuanced distinction, but we believe it is novel and theoretically and practically significant.

Second, our research contributes to the literature on LMX theory (Day & Miscenko, 2015) by examining the role of LMX quality in conferring the benefits of host-country supervisors’ participation in cross-cultural training on their expatriate subordinates’ work- and life-related outcomes once they arrive in their host country (in this study, the United States). A resurgence of research has recently focused on LMX theory, with the editors of a special volume (see Fein & Tziner, 2022) stating that “[little] is known about the effects of cultural and demographic parameters on leader–member interrelations, and their impact on job performance” (p. 1). The current research on LMX begins to fill that void. In addition to contributing to the literature on LMX theory, this study has important implications for the research fields of organizational training, diversity, and inclusion, cross-cultural differences, and job performance.

Third, the current research utilizes several methodological strategies that are sorely needed in research on the impact of cross-cultural training. We specifically address the dearth of research on cross-cultural training that is (a) not from a single data source and (b) without longitudinal assessment of the effects (i.e., cross-sectional; see Gohi et al., 2022). This study avoids these pitfalls that characterize much of the cross-cultural training literature by (a) collecting data from both host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates, and (b) measuring effects at both the time of the training as well as 4 weeks after the training.

Cross-Cultural Training, Expatriate Adjustment, and Job Performance

In the last half a century, a substantial body of research has accumulated on cross-cultural training, which is a formalized approach to developing trainees’ intercultural skills. Possessing the skills necessary to cope with and appreciate cultural differences among others has been found to lead to a variety of positive outcomes, one of which is enhanced adjustment to a new culture. Cross-cultural adjustment is considered an adaptation process for living in a new cultural environment and is defined as the degree to which people are psychologically comfortable and capable of managing cultural challenges in an unfamiliar setting (Black & Mendenhall, 1991; Hou et al., 2018; Puck et al., 2008). Cross-cultural adjustment is typically conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that includes three components: (a) adjustment to (comfort and proficiency with) interacting with host-country nationals (Taveggia & Gibboney, 2001), (b) adjustment to the work role, and (c) adjustment to general living conditions (e.g., housing, cost of living, food, and health care; Chenyang, 2022; Han et al., 2022; Harari et al., 2018; Hippler et al., 2014). Although these three sub-facets of adjustment were designed to tap into different aspects of the cross-cultural experience, there is substantial overlap in terms of other individual and organizational constructs with which they are positively correlated (e.g., previous overseas experience, self-efficacy, organizational logistical support). While some cross-cultural studies take a specific approach to each facet of adjustment (e.g., Chenyang, 2022; Jochems, 2019), others take a more general approach to studying adjustment (e.g., Chenyang, 2022; Salgado & Bastida, 2017). Across levels of specificity, research has consistently shown that cross-cultural training positively impacts cross-cultural adjustment (e.g., Chenyang, 2022; Gai et al., 2021; Jochems, 2019; Kempf & Holtbrügge, 2020; Phanphairoj & Piromsombat, 2019).

In addition to cross-cultural adjustment, a second beneficial outcome of cross-cultural training that prior research has found is improved job performance. Expatriate job performance is often considered the ultimate criterion in the prediction and training of expatriate effectiveness (e.g., Mol et al., 2005). In this study, we adopt Janssen and Van Yperen’s (2004) definition of in-role job performance as “actions specified and required by an employee’s job description and thus mandated, appraised, and rewarded by the employing organization” (pp. 369–370). This is a simple and straightforward definition; however, in-role job performance is a critical outcome to measure for organizations, as these sets of expectations and procedures make individual employee work behavior predictable so that fundamental and essential organizational tasks can be planned, coordinated, and measured in order to meet organizational objectives. Since job performance began receiving research attention, it has been shown that the proficiency with which employees perform their work activities and work roles is an important individual source of variation in job performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994).

A review of the meta-analyses that have been conducted on cross-cultural training in the past 35 years reveals that cross-cultural training has a strong positive impact on job performance. For example, Deshpande and Viswesvaran’s (1992) meta-analysis found a mean validity of .35 for job performance; Morris and Robie (2001) found a mean validity coefficient of .26; Sit et al. (2017) found a mean effect size, d, of 1.95; and Chenyang (2022) found a mean effect size, r, of 0.36 for supervisor-rated job performance. In sum, cross-cultural training appears to have a pronounced effect on job performance. Given the empirical support for the cross-cultural training-job performance relationship and the importance of job performance as a bottom-line criterion, we include expatriate job performance as the second outcome variable in this study.

An underlying assumption driving much of the expatriate literature is that adjustment will “spill over” to job performance (Shaffer & Harrison, 1998). Adjustment is the feeling of comfort with interacting and living in a new culture and provides the basis for adaptation to a new work and living environment. The relationship between adjustment and performance may be similar to the “spillover effect” found in the work-life literature (Takeuchi et al., 2002; Wayne et al., 2022). Intuitively, high levels of adjustment are a necessary precondition to high levels of job performance.

Support for the relationship between expatriate adjustment and performance has been equivocal. Kraimer and Wayne’s (2004) study of expatriates and their supervisors from three U.S.-based Fortune 500 companies found no relationship between adjustment and their measure of task performance. However, Parker and McEvoy (1993) found a positive relationship between work adjustment and job performance and a negative relationship between general adjustment and job performance. In another study, Caligiuri (1997) asked expatriates to rate themselves on the three facets of adjustment (i.e., relational adjustment, work adjustment, general adjustment) in addition to technical, contextual, and expatriate-specific job performance. The expatriates’ colleagues and supervisors were also asked to complete an evaluation of their performance on these dimensions. Caligiuri (1997) found a positive relationship between general adjustment and the contextual and expatriate-specific dimensions of self-reported job performance but no relationship between general adjustment and self-reported technical job performance. No relationships between adjustment and performance were found for the peer-rated and supervisor-rated job performance. Perhaps the amorphous definition of performance is driving this unclear pattern of results.

Although previous studies on the relationship between adjustment and job performance have been equivocal, we expect these two concepts to be related based on theories of psychological stress. Individuals who are poorly adjusted are more likely to experience psychological stress, which is likely to be detrimental to their job performance (Cohen, 1980). Indeed, Motowidlo and colleagues (1986) found occupational stress to be negatively related to job performance. In their study of expatriates and their supervisors at major Fortune 500 companies, Kraimer et al. (2001) found a distinct relationship between work adjustment and task performance. Specifically, they found that expatriates who reported being well-adjusted to work were rated as higher performers on task dimensions by their supervisors than those who reported lower adjustment to work. They also found a positive correlation between interaction adjustment and expatriate contextual performance. Again, in this study, we similarly expect expatriate cross-cultural adjustment to be correlated with job performance. Furthermore, based on the strong expected relation between the two constructs, we expect the mechanism through which host-country supervisor participation in training impacts cross-cultural adjustment to be the same one through which it impacts expatriate job performance—LMX quality.

Theory and Hypotheses

The decisions that organizational managers make—and the actions that they take—can communicate important information about their qualities and priorities. This process is core to signaling theory, which posits that when organizational actors have access to privileged information—such as their own true characteristics and intentions—they may engage in behaviors to signal this information to others (Connelly et al., 2011). Thus, managers can convey information about their values, priorities, and objectives through their actions (Connelly et al., 2011), and employees can interpret such actions as symbolic of these aspects of their managers (Bergh et al., 2019; Stiglitz, 2002). In the sections that follow, we draw from the literatures on both signaling theory (Celani & Singh, 2011; Connelly et al., 2011; Spence, 1973) and LMX theory (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen, 1976; Graen et al., 1982; Graen & Cashman, 1975) to outline the theoretical reasons why host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training might improve expatriate subordinate cross-cultural adjustment and job performance.

More than 50 years ago, researchers noted the need to develop and provide training for host-country managers before or shortly after the expatriate subordinate arrives (Adler et al., 1986). Landis and Bhagat (1996) note that the primary reinforcer of intercultural behavior is the host-country counterpart. Yet, the effect of providing cross-cultural training to those in the host-country office who work with expatriates has largely been ignored in the literature. A handful of research studies has examined the effects of manager participation in cross-cultural training; however, the outcomes examined in these studies are directly related to the managers themselves—not their subordinates (e.g., Celaya & Swift, 2006; Morris & Robie, 2001; Waxin & Panaccio, 2005). No known research to date has examined the effect of providing the same cross-cultural training to both expatriates and their host-country supervisors on cross-cultural adjustment and job performance for expatriate subordinates.

In addition to filling this gap in the cross-cultural training literature, there is another reason that we anticipate that when a host-country supervisor participates in cross-cultural training, their expatriate subordinate will directly benefit. This is because not only will we examine how training of the host-country supervisor affects expatriate subordinate outcomes, but we are interested in examining the impact of having host-country supervisors take the exact same training as do the expatriate subordinates. By having both members of the dyad engage in the same training, there is less susceptibility to misinterpretations about what training actually is, what it is intended to achieve, and about important performance-related metrics. That is, engaging in the same training clearly articulates a resounding and unified message about what cultural competence is—a general knowledge of culture, subdimensions of culture (e.g., individualism/collectivism, power distance, time, locus of control), the potential impact culture can have, and an understanding of how members of different cultures may differentially perceive/think/behave differently based on their cultures. This increased knowledge should confer a direct effect on expatriates’ cultural adjustment and job performance because it clarifies cultural constructs and what is helpful for expatriates to do their job successfully. Similarly, this common language and training also reduces ambiguities and misunderstandings that may exist when two sets of differentially focused training is given to host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates. In sum, we predict that:

Hypothesis 1: Host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training will be related positively to expatriate subordinates’ cross-cultural adjustment (H1a) and job performance (H1b).

Given that host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates have taken the same training and been exposed to the same content, it is likely that this similar experience and the common language and understanding gained in the session may provide greater understanding and a deepening relationship beyond the cross-cultural training context. That is, the shared training experience may generally increase dyadic communication about training and nontraining content, create an enhanced desire to understand and engage with each other, and foster deeper and more meaningful interactions. In addition, the host-country supervisor’s increased and aligned cross-cultural knowledge should enable them to interact, communicate, and work with their new expatriate subordinate—who likely has a different cultural background than the host-country supervisor—more effectively.

One theory that best explains why there are ultimate benefits to training both members of the host-country supervisor-expatriate subordinate dyad is LMX theory, which is “the foremost dyadic theory in the leadership literature” (Erdogan & Bauer, 2014, p. 407). The theory centers on the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources between leaders and members of organizations. Stated simply, leaders tend to exhibit more closeness, friendliness, inclusivity, and communication with some subordinates, whereas with other subordinates, they tend to have lower-quality relationships that are limited to the employee and the leader’s job description. Thus, LMX theory’s primary purpose is to assess the leader–follower relationship.

Given the empirically documented importance of the relationship between leaders and followers, we expect that the effect of host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training will be mediated by subordinate perceptions of the quality of the two-way relationship between themselves and their host-country supervisor, or what is otherwise referred to as the LMX (Li et al., 2010; Z. Zhang et al., 2012). Because LMX provides a useful conceptualization of the interaction between host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates, we rely upon this theory in this study. LMX theory maintains that “high-quality exchanges are characterized by trust, liking, and mutual respect, and the nature of the relationship quality has implications for job-related well-being and effectiveness of employees” (Bauer & Erdogan, 2015). In addition, previous studies on LMX have found that, in high-quality LMX relationships, supervisors positively influence subordinates’ attitudes and job performance (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Martin et al., 2016). Although no studies have examined the effectiveness of cross-cultural training programs for host-country supervisors—who are not themselves traveling abroad—of expatriate subordinates, we expect that host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training will strengthen the quality of the host-country supervisor-expatriate subordinate relationship (i.e., the quality of LMX) in a number of ways.

First, we believe that host-country supervisors’ participation in the cross-cultural training will assist and promote the development of their cross-cultural relational skills and competence, which will allow them to interact with and support their expatriate subordinates more effectively. That is, the cross-cultural training should give host-country supervisors a better holistic understanding of their expatriate subordinates, including their background, their social norms, their language barriers and communication styles, the insecurities and challenges they may be facing, and their motivations (e.g., see Atzor et al., 2024).

Second, beyond the content of the training, the simple act of participating in the cross-cultural training may demonstrate to expatriates that their host-country supervisor cares enough to learn more about them, is aware of their cross-cultural relocation, and is invested in their wellbeing once they arrive in the host country (in this case, the United States). This idea is based on signaling theory, which is foundationally concerned with reducing information asymmetry between two parties (Spence, 1973, 2002). Since 1990, but especially in the last 20 years, management scholars have applied signaling theory to many organizational dynamics, including CEOs signaling firm quality to potential investors through financial statements (Y. Zhang & Wiersema, 2009), organizations signaling their social values to stakeholders through diverse board representation (Miller & Triana, 2009), and recruiters signaling expectations to job applicants (Suazo et al., 2009). Signaling theory consists of four elements: signaler, signals, receiver, and feedback (Connelly et al., 2011; Taj, 2016). Signalers are typically management “insiders” (e.g., executives, directors, managers); signals are indicators (e.g., press releases, board diversity, research and development results) of privileged information about individuals, products, services, and the organization generally (e.g., reputation, financial performance, organizational values); receivers are those who are unaware of the “insider information” before being signaled to (e.g., individuals, investors, employees; Bae et al., 2018; Connelly et al., 2011); and feedback is the information that signalers expect to attain from receivers to confirm that their signals have been interpreted accurately (e.g., input from staff members; Srivastava, 2001; Taj, 2016). In the current research, we extend signaling theory to apply specifically to host-country supervisors of expatriate subordinates as signalers, expatriate subordinates as receivers, and host-country supervisors’ participation in cross-cultural training as the signal that managers intend to improve LMX quality.

Third, host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates may be learning, through their training, the same sort of language and have similar experiences that they can talk with each other about. It is the training itself that can create a common experience. Sharing this common experience, then, should create empathy between host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates. Having shared experiences has been shown to increase liking and trust (Pinel et al., 2006). Trust and liking are, of course, key tenets of high-quality LMX. Based on these reasons, we believe that the act of host-country supervisors engaging in cross-cultural training will increase trust, liking, and respect—critical components of high-quality LMX—between expatriate subordinates and their host-country supervisors. Prior research has also found evidence that supports the existence of positive relationships between LMX quality and both adjustment and job performance. That is, host-country supervisors often play a crucial part in both assisting expatriates’ adaptation to local social and organizational settings (Costigan et al., 2011) and providing motivation for expatriates to engage in their work and organizations, as they often are the ones who collaborate and interact most directly with expatriates on a day-to-day basis both inside and outside the office (Benson & Pattie, 2009). As a result, the trust and liking that result from this support likely provides a sense of protection and security that facilitates expatriates’ adjustment and job performance (Palthe, 2004). In line with previous empirical support of the relation between quality of LMX and subordinate job performance (Martin et al., 2016), increasing the quality of the host-country supervisor-expatriate subordinate relationship is anticipated to positively impact expatriate subordinates’ adjustment to the host country, as well as their job performance (Kraimer et al., 2001; Kraimer & Wayne, 2004). That is, we anticipate (Figure 1):

Hypothesis 2: Quality of LMX will act as a mediator between host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training and expatriate subordinates’ cross-cultural adjustment (H2a) and job performance (H2b).

Figure 1.

Proposed Mediation Model: The Effect of Host-Country Supervisor Participation in Cross-Cultural Training on Expatriate Subordinate Cross-Cultural Adjustment and Job Performance Through LMX Quality

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through the Association for International Practical Training (AIPT), an organization that provides a variety of services for professionals who have been hired by various U.S. companies to complete an on-the-job training assignment for up to 18 months. These individuals are called “expatriate trainees” by AIPT, but in this article, we will refer to them as “expatriate subordinates.” The expatriate subordinates came from a variety of countries and are professionally diverse, with the majority working in the engineering, science, hospitality, and tourism industries. Only expatriate subordinates that had assignments in the United States for over 3 months were eligible to participate in the study. The recruitment strategy focused on recruiting host-country supervisor-expatriate subordinate dyads by contacting the expatriate subordinates. A recruitment flier was sent to the expatriate subordinates prior to departure for the United States, or shortly after they had arrived. Expatriate subordinates who had been working in the United States for fewer than 2 months were contacted by either mail or email to request their participation. Participation in the study was voluntary, but the participants were given the opportunity to win a $100 prepaid Visa debit card.

Recruitment emails with the link to an initial online survey were emailed to approximately 1,400 expatriate subordinates from 52 different companies and 532 host-country supervisors. A total of 99 dyads resulted from matching together the surveys completed by the expatriate subordinate and their host-country supervisor.

This study’s sample represents individuals from six different continents. The average age of the expatriate subordinate was 27 years, and the average age of the host-country supervisors was 41 years. A total of 78.4% of the host-country supervisor respondents and 62.5% of the expatriate subordinate respondents were men. Of the entire sample, 58.9% were Caucasian, 28.2% were Asian, 9.8% were Hispanic or were from Latin America, and 0.6% were Black. In terms of the highest education level of the expatriate subordinates, 9.2% had only a high school diploma, 21.8% were currently enrolled in a university, 34.5% had a bachelor’s degree, 23% had a master’s degree, and 11% had a PhD The average length of time the expatriate subordinates expected to work in the United States was 14 months. In terms of the highest education level of the host-country supervisors, 2.7% had only a high school diploma, 6.8% were currently enrolled in a university, 41.9% had a bachelor’s degree, 20.3% had a master’s degree, and 28.4% had a PhD.

Design

The design of this study was a two-group one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the between-subjects factor being host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training (training/no training). The major variables were expatriate subordinate adjustment, supervisor-rated expatriate subordinate job performance, and quality of LMX, which were measured longitudinally 4 weeks after training.

Materials

A web-based cross-cultural training course was designed for the purpose of this study, incorporating content from the Peace Corps, the Intercultural Press, and other resources listed on the conclusion page of the training (a copy of the training is included in Supplementary Materials, which are available at https://osf.io/b7vzg/?view_only=505dc052db774d85bf591e01513ccecc). The course focused on the key components of culture and cross-cultural communication and began with a short explication of the objectives of the training. The objectives were as follows: (a) increase cultural awareness by understanding key cultural dimensions and how cultural differences might manifest in everyday life; (b) demonstrate how assumptions and values can impact interactions with people from different cultural backgrounds; (c) provide tools for effective communication in a cross-cultural context; and (d) assess the immediate and longer-term outcomes associated with the training.

A culture-general, cognitive-based, didactic framework was used to develop the training modules. We chose not to use a behavioral or experiential design for practical reasons and because the use of overlearning might improve reproduction but inhibit generalization (see Russ-Eft et al., 1997). A culture assimilator, which consists of a real-life scenario describing a perplexing cross-cultural interaction (critical incident) between an individual and a group of people, was used as part of the training (developed by Brislin, 1986). The effectiveness of culture assimilators has been repeatedly established in previous studies (Landis & Bhagat, 1996; see also Tolbert & McLean, 1996). In the training developed for this study, the short vignette was followed by a series of questions asking the trainee to reflect on the scenario and think about the source of the misunderstanding. After being given time to reflect, trainees were presented with four or five alternatives to choose from in deciding what the best way was to approach the situation. After they made a decision, they received feedback about their answer and suggestions for avoiding future misunderstandings. In effect, trainees made attributions and compared these to the ones provided at the end of the incident. After completing the assimilator, trainees should have gained an understanding of how assumptions can be misleading in cross-cultural situations.

While the cultural assimilator addressed the first two training objectives, the training also covered cultural differences in verbal and nonverbal communication to address the third training objective. This module presented information regarding cross-cultural differences in nonverbal forms of communication (e.g., silence, turn-taking, eye contact, space and touching, and gestures). The training presented ways in which methods of communication might be altered to be better aligned with a different culture. By the conclusion of the training, trainees should be able to identify cultural differences in communication, recognize when cultural differences may be causing communication problems, and make proper adjustments based on cultural differences in communication styles. In line with Doo’s (2005) suggestions for the design of online interpersonal skills training, multiple self-assessment opportunities were embedded in the training program. These self-assessment opportunities gave trainees the opportunity to test themselves on their comprehension of the information presented.

The conclusion section of the training stated that the course contains material from what the authors considered to be the most reputable and evidence-based sources, while acknowledging that there are many other useful—and warning that there are also dubious—sources of information available online. To direct trainees to additional country-specific and other cross-cultural information that the authors considered reputable and evidence-based, the training provided links to several additional websites and citations of several cross-cultural books.

Procedure

A recruitment email containing links to the first online survey was sent to the expatriate subordinates. The survey contained measures of demographics and background, personality variables, and pre-training cultural competence. The wording used in the survey was simplified for participants whose first language was not English. In accordance with AIPT’s guidelines, all trainees had to take and pass the TOEFL exam, thus, ability to read the survey was not predicted to cause any psychometric problems. Participants provided their email addresses to match their responses to subsequent and their host-country supervisor’s surveys.

After completing the first survey, all expatriate subordinates were sent a second email with a link to the cross-cultural training website. The host-country supervisor-expatriate subordinate dyads were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. If they were in Condition 1, both the host-country supervisor and the expatriate subordinate were sent a request via email to participate in the cross-cultural training (and host-country). If they were in Condition 2, only the expatriate subordinate received an email with a link to the cross-cultural training website. Expatriate subordinates were told that their host-country supervisors might also be taking a training course and would be filling out some evaluations of the subordinates. In addition, all supervisors knew that their subordinates were taking the training. The web-based training consisted of three modules and was expected to take each participant approximately 30 minutes to complete. After finishing the training, the participants completed the same cultural competence measure as in the pre-training survey. The spacing between the pretests and posttests ensured that the pretest would not act as a primer for the content of the posttest. Participants completed the web-based training within 2 weeks of receiving the study link.

The second major survey was emailed to the expatriate subordinates and their host-country supervisors 1 month after the training. This survey assessed adjustment (interaction, work, and general), quality of LMX, and job performance. The timing of the posttraining measurement was driven primarily by the constraint of the project timetable; however, research shows that 4 weeks is a sufficient amount of time between the training and evaluation measures to determine the longitudinal effects of training (May & Kahnweiler, 2000).

In the posttraining survey, host-country supervisors completed an evaluation of their expatriate subordinate’s job performance and a demographics questionnaire. Host-country supervisors were not asked to complete an assessment of their expatriate subordinate’s adjustment to the culture because adjustment can only be measured by self-report. The expatriate subordinate was emailed a survey in which they were asked to give their perception of LMX and to evaluate their adjustment. After the completion of the study, a drawing was made to award a single participant with a $100 prepaid Visa debit card. Finally, debriefing emails were sent to all participants after the completion of the data collection.

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, scale scores were created for each of the measures by averaging the composite items for each scale. All variables were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Demographics

Participants provided demographic information about their gender, age, race, and whether they had participated in a cross-cultural training prior to this study.

Cross-Cultural Adjustment

To measure expatriates’ adjustment, we used Black and Stephens’ (1989) 14-item scale, slightly adapted by revising the wording to be appropriate for the purposes of this study. As the most frequently validated and used measurement to assess expatriate’s sociocultural adjustment, it is designed to measure three facets: (a) three items assessing interaction adjustment (sample item: “How adjusted are you to interacting with Americans outside of work?”; Cronbach’s alpha = .72), (b) four items assessing work adjustment (sample item: “How adjusted are you to your specific job responsibilities?”; Cronbach’s alpha = .86), and (c) seven items assessing general adjustment (sample item: “How adjusted are you to your living conditions in general?”; Cronbach’s alpha = .75). Expatriates indicated how well-adjusted they are to their new location in the United States on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all adjusted”) to 5 (“Fully adjusted”). As is commonly done in research on cross-cultural adjustment (e.g., Salgado & Bastida, 2017), the three subscales were combined to create an overall composite measure of cross-cultural adjustment that had high internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .86.

Job Performance

Host-country supervisors of the expatriate subordinates responded to a six-item scale developed by Janssen and Van Yperen (2004), adapted slightly to reflect the perspective of the supervisor. Sample items from this scale include, “This trainee fulfills all responsibilities required by the job” and “This trainee is an excellent worker overall.” Supervisors indicated their agreement with each statement on a scale ranging from 1 (“Disagree”) to 5 (“Agree”). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .88.

Leader-Member Exchange

Expatriate subordinates responded to the seven-item LMX-7 scale used by Scandura and Graen (1984) to measure the LMX quality of their relationship with their host-country supervisor. An example item on this scale includes asking participants to respond on a scale anchored by 1 (“Ineffective”) and 5 (“Effective”) to “How would you characterize your working relationship with your supervisor?” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .82.

Results

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the main variables and the zero-order correlations among these variables across participants in the sample. As outlined previously, Hypothesis 1 predicted that host-country supervisor participation in the cross-cultural training would be positively related to expatriate subordinates’ cross-cultural adjustment (H1a) and job performance (H1b). Hierarchical linear regressions were used to test these hypotheses (Table 2). Consistent with Hypotheses 1a and 1b and controlling for expatriate subordinates’ gender, race, age, and prior participation in cross-cultural training, host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training predicted cross-cultural adjustment, F(5, 91) = 3.55, p = .01, R² = .16, and job performance, F(5, 84) = 2.34, p < .001, R² = .22.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations for Study Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Gender^a	1.36	0.48
2. Race^b	1.52	0.50	−.18
3. Age	27.24	5.77	−.14	.01
4. Prior participation in training^c	1.94	0.42	−.09	−.14	.00
5. LMX	4.08	0.59	−.13	.15	.12	.17
6. Cross-cultural adjustment	3.81	0.57	.20*	−.23*	−.16	.18	.48**
7. Supervisor-rated job performance	4.29	0.76	−.23*	.16	−.16	−.10	.36**	.19

Note. N = 98. Control variables gender, age, race, and prior participation in training represent expatriate subordinates only.

1 = Male and 2 = Female. ^b1 = White/Caucasian and 2 = Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, other.^c1 = Had not participated in training before and 2 = Had participated in training before study.

p < .05, 2-tailed. **p < .01, 2-tailed.

Table 2.

Regression Models for Expatriate Subordinate Cross-Cultural Performance and Job Performance.

Outcome variable	Corrected R²	Model	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	p	95% confidence interval for B
Outcome variable	Corrected R²	Model	B	SE B	β	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound
Cross-cultural adjustment	.12	(Constant)	3.52	.47		7.44	<.001	2.58	4.46
		Gender	0.19	.12	.16	1.55	.13	−0.05	0.42
		Race	−0.08	.05	−.16	−1.56	.12	−0.18	0.02
		Age	−0.01	.01	−.12	−1.27	.21	−0.03	0.01
		Prior participation in training	0.21	.13	.16	1.62	.11	−0.05	0.48
		Supervisor participation in training	0.22	.11	.19	1.99	.05	0.00	0.44
Job performance	.18	(Constant)	5.56	.64		8.68	<.001	4.28	6.83
		Gender	−0.42	.16	−.26	−2.59	.01	−0.73	−0.10
		Race	0.07	.07	.10	1.03	.31	−0.07	0.21
		Age	−0.02	.01	−.17	−1.78	.08	−0.05	0.00
		Prior participation in training	−0.25	.18	−0.13	−1.36	.18	−0.61	0.12
		Supervisor participation in training	0.52	.15	.34	3.53	<.001	0.23	0.82

Hypothesis 2 predicted that the quality of LMX would act as a mediator between host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training and expatriate subordinates’ cross-cultural adjustment (H2a) and job performance (H2b). To examine this hypothesis, mediation analyses were performed using the SPSS PROCESS macro with bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (n = 10,000; model 4; Hayes, 2013), with host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training as the predictor variable; LMX as the mediator; expatriate subordinates’ gender, race, age, and prior participation in cross-cultural training as covariates; and expatriate subordinates’ cross-cultural adjustment and job performance as the outcome variables. Figure 2 presents the path analytic results. The mediation analyses confirmed that, controlling for expatriate subordinates’ gender, race, age, and prior participation in cross-cultural training, the indirect effect of host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training via LMX was significant for both cross-cultural adjustment (indirect effect = 0.15, SE = 0.07, 95% CI: [0.02, 0.28]) and job performance (indirect effect = 0.12, SE = 0.06, 95% CI: [0.01, 0.26]). The mediational paths suggest that expatriate subordinates whose host-country supervisors participated in cross-cultural training rated their LMX as significantly higher-quality, which in turn was associated with greater cross-cultural adjustment and job performance for the expatriate subordinates. Thus, LMX fully mediated the positive relationships between host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training and its effect on expatriate subordinates’ cross-cultural adjustment and job performance, which supports Hypotheses 2a and 2b.

Figure 2.

The Effect of Host-Country Supervisor Participation in Cross-Cultural Training on Expatriate Subordinate Cross-Cultural Adjustment and Job Performance Through LMX Quality

Discussion

The primary goal of this study was to extend research on cross-cultural training by examining the impact that training host-country supervisors (who are not themselves traveling expatriates)—in addition to training to expatriate subordinates—might have on expatriate subordinates’ cross-cultural adjustment and job performance. We also explored whether this relationship was mediated by LMX quality. Our novel results provide some of the first evidence showing the favorable impact that having host-country supervisors complete cross-cultural training has on improving the outcomes that expatriate subordinates experience. The majority of prior research on supervisors and cross-cultural training has focused on supervisors who are themselves expatriate travelers; however, our research is the first to show that the expatriate subordinates experience improved cross-cultural adjustment and job performance in their host country (in this study, the United States) if their host-country supervisor also participated in cross-cultural training. That is, the dyadic involvement of both host-country supervisor and subordinate expatriate in cross-cultural training makes a beneficial difference.

Our results also explain why having host-country supervisors, in addition to expatriate subordinates, complete cross-cultural training is effective for expatriate outcomes; namely, LMX quality mediates the relationship between host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training and expatriate subordinates’ cross-cultural adjustment and job performance. The fact that host-country supervisors’ participation in training influenced LMX relationship quality, which in turn influenced expatriate subordinates’ adjustment and job performance, suggests that researchers should continue to examine LMX theory to test and understand the boundaries of its influence on job-related outcomes. Although it might be the case that individuals can enhance LMX relationships through other organizational measures (e.g., leadership training, mentoring, direct focus on leader/follower relationships), we believe that this study’s identification of cross-cultural training, specifically, as a foundation for enhancing job performance through LMX suggests an added utility to continuing cross-cultural training research and application. Moreover, our results show that it is not just through LMX quality that positive expatriate outcomes are achieved; that is, the participation of host-country supervisors in cross-cultural training has a direct effect on expatriate outcomes, too. Our findings that host-country supervisors’ participation in cross-cultural training related both directly to expatriate subordinates’ adjustment and job performance outcomes, and that these relationships were fully mediated by LMX quality, are noteworthy, given that many studies show only modest relationships between expatriate training and outcomes (e.g., Chenyang, 2022). It seems to be the case that requiring host-country supervisors to complete cross-cultural training is an underutilized strategy for producing critically desirable outcomes. These results are particularly encouraging, given that we also relied upon an online, non-organization-specific, and relatively brief cross-cultural training program.

Theoretical Implications

The training that expatriate subordinates and their host-country supervisors or colleagues receive should be well-designed and based on current cross-cultural theory. In a recent paper, Gohi et al. (2022) indicated that, despite an explosion in the last two decades of research on the influence of cross-cultural training on expatriates’ global assignments, much remains to be studied, more theory is needed, and a better understanding is needed as to why certain aspects of training work. This study contributes to the theoretical dialogue on cross-cultural training in a number of important ways. To begin, our results call into question the previously narrow ways in which the effects of cross-cultural training have been assumed to work. Previously, cross-cultural training outcomes focused on training the expatriates; indeed, studies have shown that such cross-cultural training leads to increases in expatriates’ adjustment and job performance (see Chenyang, 2022; Gai et al., 2021; Jochems, 2019). Rather than just use cross-cultural training of expatriates themselves to influence expatriate outcomes, this study shows that there are different routes to enhancing expatriate outcomes, and one of these routes is by placing efforts directly on the host-country supervisors of expatriate subordinates. The results of this study support the conclusion that social support in the workplace has an impact on the success of expatriate adjustment.

In addition, the current results support LMX theory, which suggests that stronger relationships between leaders and subordinates often yield better outcomes. The current results extend this work into the cross-cultural training domain and reveal that the effects that host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training have on expatriate subordinate adjustment and job performance are mediated by the quality of the LMX. No studies to date have taken an LMX approach to the study of cross-cultural training, and little, if any, research has been conducted on joint supervisor-subordinate training in general. What is it about LMX theory that confers benefits for expatriate subordinates’ adjustment and job performance? Although this is not specifically measured in this study, we think the LMX relationship is improved because training the host-country supervisors may lead supervisors to pay more attention to, gain a greater understanding of and compassion toward, and/or better personalize the relationship that they have with their expatriate subordinates. What our research shows is that cross-cultural training is certainly strengthening the LMX relationship, and that this strengthening leads to better life- and work-related outcomes for expatriate subordinates. Of note is that this LMX-enhancing intervention is one that did not require many resources (indeed, the current methodology used a short online training program) but that had immense payoffs. To be sure, our results show that when organizations train host-country supervisors, it leads to an enhanced quality of the relationship between the host-country supervisor and expatriate subordinate, and ultimately, better expatriate subordinate outcomes.

Future Directions for Research

The current results spark a number of topics that are ripe for future research, one of which is to better elucidate the specific roles that signaling and LMX theories play in evoking the outcomes that we observed in this study. While we think signaling theory helps explain the results, we did not take any direct measures of the specific effects of signaling. In addition, future research should explore what other “signals” managers might be able to send to their subordinates to communicate their intention to increase LMX quality with them. Future research might also expand on examining the power that training the host-country supervisors holds. For instance, it would be helpful to know how widespread the results on expatriate subordinate outcomes are (i.e., Do they generalize to other variables beyond adjustment and job performance? Does the impact last beyond 4 weeks?). We hope that future researchers will examine the longer-term longitudinal effects, as well as the boundary conditions of the effect of host-country supervisor participation in cross-cultural training studied here.

There are several avenues for future research that, if examined, would enhance our understanding of LMX theory. For instance, research might address whether there is something particular about the gains in LMX quality that emerged from shared cross-cultural training or if organizations could simply focus on increasing LMX quality through any sort of host-country supervisor-expatriate subordinate training (e.g., leadership training) or interactions (e.g., increased time spent together). It is likely that there are many other ways to increase LMX quality, but the current research suggests that LMX quality has certainly increased from the training that we provided. Future research might focus on elucidating exactly why increasing LMX is successful in the overlooked and underutilized tool of cross-cultural training.

Relatedly, one may wonder whether the mechanism through which our particular cross-cultural training impacts expatriate subordinate outcomes is different from the mechanism through which other cross-cultural training (e.g., used in prior research) does so. The conclusion of our findings is not that there is something necessarily unique about our host-country supervisor training. What is unique about our findings is that (a) both the host-country supervisor and the expatriate subordinate completed the same training, and (b) our mediation analysis shows that LMX quality is the mechanism through which the benefits of supervisor and subordinate participation in the training are conferred. We do not necessarily expect that the mechanism is different for our particular cross-cultural training versus other cross-cultural training. On one hand, it could be that other cross-cultural training could impact expatriate subordinate outcomes by increasing LMX quality (i.e., the “mechanism”). On the other hand, the mechanism for other cross-cultural training could be something other than LMX quality. Prior studies showing that cross-cultural training leads to improved adjustment and job performance do not demonstrate a mechanism as we do in this study. Therefore, this is an open question and one that could be explored in future research.

Also relevant to LMX as the mechanism, future research might explore whether there are different aspects of LMX that are more important for cross-cultural adjustment versus job performance. Another idea worth exploring is the effect that supervisors’ commitment to increasing LMX quality might have in other cross-cultural arenas beyond our two outcome variables of adjustment and job performance. For example, does LMX theory predict who is more likely to be promoted or who is the most satisfied in multinational organizations? Finally, future research should explore the critical aspects of the relationship between the host-country supervisor and their expatriate subordinate, beyond cross-cultural competencies. For instance, future research might elucidate how relationships are maximized by contextual features (e.g., the number and content of meetings that are held between the host-country supervisor and expatriate subordinate, the critical and/or optimal information that must be exchanged). Furthermore, future research might take a more nuanced look at how LMX quality tends to break down. What hinders or promotes LMX quality for host-country supervisors and their expatriate subordinates? What are the most important aspects of the LMX relationship and how do we amplify those? Thorough examinations of each of these ideas would enhance our understanding of the roles of signaling theory and LMX across several different research subfields, including organizational training, diversity and inclusion, cross-cultural differences, and job performance.

Future research might also analyze the costs and benefits of using the same training content for both traveling expatriates and their host-country supervisors versus creating two different versions that are tailored to traveling expatriates and host-country supervisors, respectively. On the one hand, audience-specific training may be more effective at enhancing LMX quality, expatriate adjustment, and expatriate job performance; however, this more tailored approach might involve a greater amount of resources, time, money, and energy. On the other hand, delivering the same training content to both expatriate subordinates and host-country supervisors sufficiently increases LMX quality, expatriate adjustment, and expatriate job performance. In fact, it may be that there is something beneficial about expatriate subordinates and their host-country supervisors knowing that they each completed the same training (e.g., having the same educational framework may lead host-country supervisors and expatriate subordinates to further discuss and benefit from what they learned together) that leads to greater LMX quality, expatriate subordinate adjustment, and expatriate subordinate job performance. Moreover, LMX quality might be strengthened further if expatriate subordinates and host-country supervisors completed training together physically. This may not seem practical given that there are typically pre-existing geographic differences, but internet connections may allay these limitations. Another potential area for future research related to cross-cultural training is in exploring whether and the extent to which having people other than host-country supervisors engaging in cross-cultural training might have. For instance, would the effects on LMX quality and other job-related outcomes we observed in this study be seen when colleagues, direct reports, administrative staff, and anyone else with whom the expatriate is going to work completes cross-cultural training?

Future research might also expand on the content of the training and particularly what training content is most effective. A study conducted by Sieck et al. (2013) suggests that

“cross-cultural training that emphasizes metacognitive strategies (competent cultural sensemaking, including instantiating a general cultural schema, inquiring into causes, considering alternative explanations) early on may help to accelerate cross-cultural competence by providing sojourners with the means to gain more from future experiences” (p. 1021).

With the advent of widespread artificial intelligence, it is also possible that this tool might easily (and cost-effectively) deliver more specified cross-cultural training that positively influences LMX relationships and outcomes. In addition, researchers might examine methods of boosting supervisor readiness for hosting their expatriate subordinate, other than cross-cultural training. That is, our research shows that completing cross-cultural training is important, but what else can supervisors and organizations do that might better prepare them for assignments with international protégés? How else might they improve their cross-cultural competencies? Perhaps having supervisors engage in self-guided readings and other assignments might help. Furthermore, in terms of educational content, maybe there would be an incremental advantage to teaching supervisors about their expatriate subordinate’s country of origin, rather than teaching the expatriate about the supervisor’s country. Or perhaps the greatest benefit might be seen when both the country of origin and the host country are learned about by the opposite party.

Practical Implications

The current results have practical implications for the field of cross-cultural psychology, as well. First, it is critical for people managers (e.g., human resource professionals, organizational consultants) to better prepare and expand services that help expatriates adapt to international cultures. Expatriate assignments are predicted to increase in number (Ireland, 2021), and yet, so many of such assignments fail because of insufficient organizational support (Cole & Nesbeth, 2014). Given that expatriate assignments result in the disruption of existing social networks, it is important that organizations help to provide employees with support and the tools to build social networks cross-culturally in the host country. The significant relationships between host-country supervisor cross-cultural training and expatriate subordinate adjustment reinforce the increasing emphasis on formal training as part of the acculturation process. Indeed, there is still so little we know about cross-cultural research, relatively speaking. Cross-cultural training is big business, yet many organizations are not executing this training as effectively as they could, despite the increasingly international nature of work.

Second, the field of industrial and organizational psychology has demonstrated an increasing understanding of the importance of workplace relationships (Eby & Robertson, 2020; Gerbasi et al., 2023). Given the contentious international affairs that are affecting so much of the global population, maximizing supervisor-supervisee relationships—especially across cultural lines—is critical. Future research might explore the specifics of how to optimize these relationships such as by examining how the particular countries involved (i.e., the host country and the origin country) influence the effectiveness of cross-cultural training. For example, one might expect cross-cultural training to be more effective for cultures that are more dissimilar, but it may actually be the case that such training is more effective for cultures that are more similar. This is an open question that could have real-world implications for cross-cultural supervisor-supervisee relationships.

Third, the results show the meaningful impact that cross-cultural training can have on expatriate subordinates 4 weeks posttraining. Our study was not a typical cross-sectional study. As Gohi et al. (2022) have indicated, few studies have examined the longer-term effects of cross-cultural training. The current results underscore the utility of engaging in such investigations. If researchers and practitioners knew that cross-cultural training programs (especially those carried out on relatively easy-to-deliver, web-based platforms) were resulting in long-term results, more attention might be given to developing such training. In the absence of long-term studies, however, we cannot know the extent of their impact. Organizational human resource leaders should consider in much more detail the role that host-country supervisors can have both for short-term and long-term influences on expatriate subordinates.

Fourth, because the success of employees abroad has financial and emotional implications for expatriates and for the organizations that employ them, it is essential that conditions be optimized for cross-cultural training to have maximal impact. The results of this study suggest that not only should expatriates receive cross-cultural training, but that the host-country supervisors of expatriate subordinates should also participate in such training. Such findings may not be surprising. There are a number of studies that show that many organizational initiatives are more likely to be taken seriously and/or adopted if there is support for them by upper-level management (Ashford & Detert, 2015; Olson, 2023). Organizational leaders who are serious about having successful cross-cultural boundary-spanning may need to find the time and resources to ensure that not only do the expatriates have the training, but so, too, do the host-country supervisors of these expatriates. Certainly, organizational leaders should be aware that the effects of training host-country supervisors of expatriates are substantial and can be lasting.

Fifth, the current results suggest the important role that other important members of the expatriates’ network might play. For instance, training expatriates’ families might be key to managing their expectations and enhancing both their own and, in turn, the expatriate’s outcomes (see Tahir, 2022). If this is the case, then it might also be important to think about expanding training to partners and/or children of expatriates. Although the costs associated with such training may be significant, they may be well worth it if the results increase expatriate adjustment and job performance, and reduce turnover. Furthermore, organizational leaders may need to determine how to scale such training to be available to a larger percentage of the workforce and simultaneously make such expansive training affordable. The current results suggest that online training programs may be able to do just that. Whereas the training program that we used was one-size-fits-all, we are keen to recognize that, just like diversity training, training that is more tailored both to the individual and the organization may yield even stronger related outcomes (Traylor et al., 2020).

Limitations

There are a number of limitations to the current research. Although the sample size was quite large compared to those of other cross-cultural training studies, an even larger sample size would have allowed us to look at a number of potentially critical moderators such as the role that expatriates’ work context (e.g., remote versus in-person, industry sector, particular country, size of city) might have played in further influencing expatriate adjustment and job performance. Recent research, for instance, has shown the importance that social complexity beliefs, cultural distance, cultural tightness, and gender inequality can have on cross-cultural training outcomes (Alexandra, 2018; Han et al., 2022). However, the sample that we did obtain in this study was an authentic one and included expatriates from a wide variety of organizations, industries, and national citizenships, which may have served to increase the generalizability of the results.

In the current research, we focused on expatriate subordinate adjustment and host-country supervisor-rated job performance. Future research might also look at the influence of training on both additional expatriate subordinate outcomes (e.g., amount of time spent in the host country, satisfaction of family members, connections made within the community) as well as outcomes related to the host-country supervisors (e.g., willingness to engage in extra-role help with expatriate subordinates, satisfaction with expatriate subordinates).

Unfortunately, it was not possible in this study to evaluate the learning from the web-based cross-cultural training course by directly observing and rating the expatriate subordinates’ demonstration of cross-cultural skills. That said, our pretraining and posttraining measure of cultural competence (that both expatriate subordinates and host-country supervisors completed) gave us the ability to assess how much learning resulted from the cross-cultural training. On average, expatriate subordinates demonstrated a 2.85-point increase in cross-cultural knowledge (out of 21 possible points) after completing the training (M = 16.21, SD = 2.73) compared to before completing the training (M = 13.36, SD = 2.98). Host-country supervisors, on average, demonstrated a 2.71-point increase in cross-cultural knowledge (out of 21 possible points) after completing the training (M = 17.62, SD = 2.28) compared to before completing the training (M = 14.91, SD = 2.04). These data indicate that both expatriate subordinates and host-country supervisors experienced an increase in cultural competence as a result of the training.

Furthermore, we could not personalize each training session to the specific organization or role in which the expatriates worked. In practice, instead of adopting a general online training program, future research might focus on organizations that adopt their own formal and more tailored cross-cultural training programs. Such training may be even more effective than that which we observed; of course, the fact that our training did show differences across companies suggests that there is power and utility in continuing this line of research and in the practice of cross-cultural training.

Strengths

Despite the limitation of this study, we also note a number of strengths, one of which was its experimental design within a field setting, which is a rare combination in extant cross-cultural training research. Unfortunately, most studies of cross-cultural training are correlational in nature, which severely limits the causal inferences that can be drawn from their findings. In addition, many cross-cultural training studies are conducted in a laboratory with undergraduate students, thereby severely limiting the generalizability of the findings. The fact that the participants in this study came from a wide range of companies and industries adds a great deal of meaningfulness to the results.

An additional strength of this study was the design of the web-based training program. The training was developed based on cross-cultural training theory, with clear objectives, self-assessment opportunities, and tests tapping each of the objectives. The majority of training manipulations found in cross-cultural training studies are not designed by the researchers themselves. Instead, most cross-cultural training studies structure their paradigm and research questions around a training program that already exists. In these situations, researchers have no control over the training method or content, and sometimes know little about how the training was developed. The training course designed for this study was developed through an extensive review of the cross-cultural training literature, which resulted in a clear set of instructional objectives.

A final strength of this study is the magnitude of its findings, which is noteworthy given the length and the medium of the training. Most cross-cultural training studies use training manipulations that are longer than 30 minutes and that are facilitated by an in-person trainer (e.g., Hou et al., 2018). This study found a number of longitudinal effects after trainees participated in a short, web-based training, making it quite a conservative test in comparison to other cross-cultural training studies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while there is much to be learned about cross-cultural training, the current research makes several contributions. This study provides preliminary evidence that, to maximize expatriate outcomes abroad, host-country supervisors of expatriate subordinates should receive cross-cultural training. Organizations now more than ever are in need of training programs that will prepare their employees for moves to offices overseas and/or prepare them to work with the influx of overseas workers entering their workplace. We anticipate that there will be a continued demand for rigorous studies of cross-cultural training effectiveness as the globalization of business and the desire to spend time as expatriates in our world increase. The results of this study elucidate how organizational leaders can help manage and take advantage of these advancements to improve workplace experiences of employees at all levels.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the passing of the third author of this manuscript, whose bright future was cut short in a tragic accident involving a drunk driver. We miss her very much.

Data Availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Abby Corrington

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online at .

References

Adler

N. J.

Doktor

Redding

S. G.

(1986). From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: Cross-cultural management reviewed. Journal of Management, 12, 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200210

Alexandra

(2018). The roles of social complexity belief and perceived contact characteristics in cultural intelligence development among individuals receiving contact-based training. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(8), 1283–1301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118779743

Altshuler

Sussman

N. M.

Kachur

(2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity among physician trainees using the intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00029-4

Arshavskaya

(2018). Promoting intercultural competence in diverse US classrooms through ethnographic interviews. Teaching Education, 29(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2017.1373277

Ashford

Detert

J. R.

(20 15, January–February). Get the boss to buy in: Learn to sell your ideas up the chain of command. Harvard Business Review.

Atzor

M. C.

Andersson

von Lersner

Weise

(2024). Effectiveness of internet-based training on psychotherapists’ transcultural competence: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 55(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221231221095

Bae

S. M.

Masud

M. A. K.

Kim

J. D.

(2018). A cross-country investigation of corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosure: A signaling theory perspective. Sustainability, 10(8), 2611. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082611

Basadur

Pringle

Kirkland

(2002). Crossing cultures: Training effects on the divergent thinking attitudes of Spanish-speaking South American managers. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3/4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1434_10

Bauer

T. N.

Erdogan

(Eds.). (2015). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory: An introduction and overview. In The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 3–9). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199326174.013.2

10.

Benson

G. S.

Pattie

(2009). The comparative roles of home and host supervisors in the expatriate experience. Human Resource Management, 48(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20266

11.

Bergh

D. D.

Ketchen

D. J.

Jr. Orlandi

Heugens

P. P.

Boyd

B. K.

(2019). Information asymmetry in management research: Past accomplishments and future opportunities. Journal of Management, 45(1), 122–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318798026

12.

Bhawuk

Brislin

(2000). Cross-cultural training: A review. Applied Psychology, 49(1), 162–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00009

13.

Black

J. S.

Mendenhall

(1991). The U-curve adjustment hypothesis revisited: A review and theoretical framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490301

14.

Black

J. S.

Stephens

G. K.

(1989). The influence of the spouse on American expatriate adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of Management, 15(4), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500403

15.

Borman

W. C.

Motowidlo

S. J.

(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt

Borman

W. C.

(Eds.), Personnel selection in organization (pp. 71–98). Jossey-Bass.

16.

Bradley

Moergen

K. J.

Roumpi

Simon

L. S.

(2023). Don’t just tell me, show me: Impacting perceptions of organizational attraction and fit using activating LGBT diversity signals. Personnel Psychology, 77, 1025–1053. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12595

17.

Brendel

Aksit

Schrüfer

(2016). Multicultural group work on field excursions to promote student teachers’ intercultural competence. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40(2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1140731

18.

Brislin

R. W.

(1986). A culture general assimilator: Preparation for various types of sojourns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90007-6

19.

Brown

(2020, March 17). Millennials want to work abroad. The coronavirus will help it happen. ClearanceJobs. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/03/17/millennials-want-to-work-abroad-the-coronavirus-will-help-it-happen/

20.

Burgess

(2016, August 20). International assignment failure and tracking methods. Forum for Expatriate Management. https://www.forum-expat-management.com/posts/11414-international-assignment-failure-and-tracking-methods#:~:text=The%20Impact%20of%20International%20Assignment%20Failure%20Rates&text=The%20impact%20for%20a%20multinational,is%20estimated%20at%20%242%20billion

21.

Caligiuri

P. M.

(1997). Assessing expatriate success: Beyond just being there. In Aycan

(Ed.), New approaches to employee management (pp. 117–40). JAI Press.

22.

Carraher

S. M.

Sullivan

S. E.

Crocitto

M. M.

(2008). Mentoring across global boundaries: An empirical examination of home- and host-country mentors on expatriate career outcomes. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 1310–1326. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400407

23.

Celani

Singh

(2011). Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review, 40(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481111106093

24.

Celaya

Swift

J. S.

(2006). Pre-departure cultural training: US managers in Mexico. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 13(3), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600610683372

25.

Chebium

(2015, January 7). How to create an effective cross-cultural training program. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/010215-cross-cultural-training.aspx

26.

Chenyang

(2022). Meta-analysis of the impact of cross-cultural training on adjustment, cultural intelligence, and job performance. Career Development International, 27(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2020-0247

27.

Cohen

(1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.88.1.82

28.

Cole

Nesbeth

(2014). Why do international assignments fail? Expatriate families speak. International Studies of Management & Organizations, 44(3), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825440304

29.

Connelly

B. L.

Certo

S. T.

Ireland

R. D.

Reutzel

C. R.

(2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419

30.

Corrington

Fa-Kaji

N. M.

Hebl

M. R.

King

E. B.

Stewart

Alao

(2022). The impact of organizational statements of support for the black community in the wake of a racial mega-threat on organizational attraction and revenue. Human Resource Management, 61(6), 699–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22119

31.

Costigan

R. D.

Insinga

R. C.

Jason Berman

Kranas

Kureshov

V. A.

(2011). A cross-cultural study of coworker trust. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 21(2), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/10569211111144328

32.

Dansereau

Graen

Haga

W. J.

(1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7

33.

Day

D. V.

Miscenko

(2015). Leader-member exchange (LMX): Construct evolution, contributions, and future prospects for advancing leadership theory. In Bauer

T. N.

Erdogan

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 9–28). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199326174.013.8

34.

Deshpande

S. P.

Viswesvaran

(1992). Is cross-cultural training of expatriate managers effective: A meta analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(92)90054-X

35.

Doo

M. Y.

(2005). The effects of presentation format for behavior modeling of interpersonal skills to online instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14, 213–235.

36.

Eby

L. T.

Robertson

M. M.

(2020). The psychology of workplace mentoring relationships. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044924

37.

Erdogan

Bauer

T. N.

(2014). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory: The relational approach to leadership. In Day

D. V.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 407–433). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.020

38.

Fein

E. C.

Tziner

(2022). Editorial: The future of the leader-member exchange theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 736710. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736710

39.

FIDI Global Alliance. (2016, June 16). The real cost of expatriate assignment failure. https://www.fidi.org/blog/real-cost-expatriate-assignment-failure

40.

Froese

F. J.

Stoermer

Reiche

B. S.

Klar

(2021). Best of both worlds: How embeddedness fits in the host unit and the headquarters improve repatriate knowledge transfer. Journal of International Business Studies, 52, 1331–1349. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00356-4

41.

Gabrenya

Glazer

(2022). Bridging 50 years of theoretical and applied cross-cultural psychology: Contributions of IACCP and JCCP. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(7–8), 752–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221110874

42.

Gai

Brough

Gardiner

(2021). Psychological adjustment and post-arrival cross-cultural training for better expatriation: A systematic review.In Brough

Gardiner

Daniels

(Eds.), Handbook on management and employment practices (pp. 1–28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24936-6_39-1

43.

Gerbasi

Emery

Parker

(Eds.). (2023). Understanding workplace relationships: An examination of the antecedents and outcomes. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16640-2

44.

Gerstner

C. R.

Day

D. V.

(1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

45.

Gohi

L. G. C.S.

Wang

Gohi

B. V. M.L.

Bohou

B. H. G.F.

Traore

D. E. W.

(2022). A review of cross-cultural training research: The past 10 years and implications for moving forward. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 10(4), 653–671. https://doi:10.4236/jhrss.2022.104038

46.

Graen

G. B.

(1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Rand-McNally.

47.

Graen

G. B.

Cashman

(1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In Hunt

J. G.

Larson

L. L.

(Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–166). Kent State University Press.

48.

Graen

G. B.

Novak

Sommerkamp

(1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109–131.

49.

Han

Sears

G. J.

Darr

W. A.

Wang

(2022). Facilitating cross-cultural adaptation: A meta-analytic review of dispositional predictors of expatriate adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(9), 1054–1096. https://doi.10.1177/00220221221109559

50.

Harari

M. B.

Reaves

A. C.

Beane

D. A.

Laginess

A. J.

Viswesvaran

(2018). Personality and expatriate adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 486–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12215

51.

Harris

T. L.

McQuery

Raab

Elmore

(2008). Multicultural psychiatric education: Using the DSM-IV-TR outline for cultural formulation to improve resident cultural competence. Academic Psychiatry, 32(4), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.32.4.306

52.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

53.

Hippler

Caligiuri

Johnson

(2014). Revisiting the construct of expatriate adjustment: Implications for theory and measurement. International Studies of Management & Organization, 44(3), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825440301

54.

Hou

Fan

Tan

J. A.

Hua

Valdez

(2018). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: Does when the training is delivered matter? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 65, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.03.007

55.

Hsieh

T. Y.

Lavoie

Samek

R. A.

(1999). Are you taking your expatriate talent seriously? The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 70–83.

56.

Ireland

(2021, October 25). Global mobility: The world’s best countries to live and work abroad. CEOWorld Magazine. https://ceoworld.biz/2021/10/25/global-mobility-the-worlds-best-countries-to-live-and-work-abroad-2022/

57.

Janssen

Van Yperen

N. W.

(2004). Employees’ goal orientation, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159587

58.

Jin

(2015). Using Facebook to promote Korean EFL learners’ intercultural competence. Language, Learning & Technology, 19(3), 38–51. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2015/action2.pdf

59.

Jochems

(2019). The influence of cross-cultural training on the different forms of expatriates’ adjustment: A literature review [Bachelor thesis, Tilberg University]. http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=149905

60.

Kempf

Holtbrügge

(2020). Moderators and mediators of cross-cultural training effectiveness: Literature review and development of a conceptual model. European Journal of International Management, 14(2), 293–326. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2020.105544

61.

Kharouf

Lund

D. J.

Krallman

Pullig

(2020). A signaling theory approach to relationship recovery. European Journal of Marketing, 54(9), 2139–2170. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2019-0751

62.

Korhone

(2004). Developing intercultural competence as part of professional qualifications. A training experiment. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 4(1), 1–06. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v4i1.393

63.

Kossek

E. E.

Huang

J. L.

Piszczek

M. M.

Fleenor

J. W.

Ruderman

(2017). Rating expatriate leader effectiveness in multisource feedback systems: Cultural distance and hierarchical effects. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21763

64.

Kraimer

M. L.

Wayne

S. J.

(2004). An examination of perceived organizational support as a multidimensional construct in the context of expatriate assignment. Journal of Management, 30, 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.001

65.

Kraimer

M. L.

Wayne

S. J.

Jaworski

R. A.

(2001). Sources of support and expatriate performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54, 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00086.x

66.

Landis

Bhagat

R. S.

(1996). A model of intercultural behavior and training. In Landis

Bhagat

R. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 165–182). Sage.

67.

Learnit. (2022, March 3). Cross-cultural training and its importance in the global workforce. https://www.learnit.com/blog/cross-cultural-training-and-its-importance-in-the-global-workforce

68.

LeClerc

(2023, March 22). Cross cultural communication in a post-COVID world: The basics are as important as ever. Forbes. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/thunderbird/cross-cultural-communication-in-a-postcovid-world-the-basics-are-as-important-as-ever/83833/1

69.

Liang

Crant

J. M.

(2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018079

70.

Littrell

L. N.

Salas

Hess

K. P.

Paley

Riedel

(2006). Expatriate preparation: A critical analysis of 25 years of cross-cultural training research. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 355–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484306290106

71.

Martin

Guillaume

Thomas

Lee

Epitropaki

(2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100

72.

May

G. L.

Kahnweiler

W. M.

(2000). The effect of a mastery practice design on learning and transfer in behavior modeling training. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00205.x

73.

McNulty

Brewster

(2017). Theorizing the meaning(s) of “expatriate”: Establishing boundary conditions for business expatriates. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1243567

74.

Miller

Triana

M. D. C.

(2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 755–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00839.x

75.

Mol

S. T.

Born

M. P.

van der Molen

H. T.

(2005). Developing criteria for expatriate effectiveness: Time to jump off the adjustment bandwagon. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.05.004

76.

Morris

M. A.

Robie

(2001). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cultural training on expatriate performance and adjustment. International Journal of Training and Development, 5(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2419.00126

77.

Motowidlo

S. J.

Packard

J. S.

Manning

M. R.

(1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 618. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.71.4.618

78.

Motowidlo

S. J.

Van Scotter

J. R.

(1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.79.4.475

79.

Olson

A. B.

(2023, February 6). Getting employee buy-in for organizational change. Harvard Business Review.

80.

Parker

McEvoy

G. M.

(1993). Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17(3), 355-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(93)90039-b

81.

Palthe

(2004). The relative importance of antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment: Implications for managing a global workforce. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.12.004

82.

Phanphairoj

Piromsombat

(2019). The influence of cultural training on cultural intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diverse samples. Multicultural Education, 5(1), 145–153.

83.

Pinel

E. C.

Long

A. E.

Landau

M. J.

Alexander

Pyszczynski

(2006). Seeing I to I: A pathway to interpersonal connectedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.243

84.

Newswire

. (2022, August 5). Cross-cultural training market: 31% of growth to originate from North America, workshop segment to be significant for revenue generation-Technavio. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cross-cultural-training-market-31-of-growth-to-originate-from-north-america-workshop-segment-to-be-significant-for-revenue-generation–technavio-301600021.html#

85.

Puck

J. F.

Kittler

M. G.

Wright

(2008). Does it really work? Re-assessing the impact of pre-departure cross-cultural training on expatriate adjustment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2182–2197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479413

86.

Russ-Eft

Preskill

Sleeser

(1997). Human resource development review: Research and implications. Sage.

87.

Salgado

J. F.

Bastida

(2017). Predicting expatriate effectiveness: The role of personality, cross-cultural adjustment, and organizational support. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12178

88.

Sanchez-Burks

Lee

Nisbett

Ybarra

(2007). Cultural training based on a theory of relational ideology. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701503184

89.

Santoro

(2014). “If I’m going to teach about the world, I need to know the world”: Developing Australian pre-service teachers’ intercultural competence through international trips. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.832938

90.

Scandura

T. A.

Graen

G. B.

(1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.69.3.428

91.

Shaffer

M. A.

Harrison

D. A.

(1998). Expatriates’ psychological withdrawal from international assignments: Work, nonwork, and family influences. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 87–118. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00717.x

92.

Shah-Gordon

(2016). Intercultural competence development through civic engagement [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University]. http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/273

93.

Sieck

W. R.

Smith

J. L.

Rasmussen

L. J.

(2013). Metacognitive strategies for making sense of cross-cultural encounters. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 1007–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492890

94.

Sit

Mak

A. S.

Neill

J. T.

(2017). Does cross-cultural training in tertiary education enhance cross-cultural adjustment? A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 57, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINTREL.2017.01.001

95.

Sizoo

Serrie

(2004). Developing cross-cultural skills of international business students: An experiment. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 160–166.

96.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2020). Managing international assignments. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/international-assignments.aspx

97.

Spence

(1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010

98.

Spence

(2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92, 434–459. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136200

99.

Srivastava

(2001). The role of inferences in sequential bargaining with one-sided incomplete information: Some experimental evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 166–187. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2936

100.

Stiglitz

J. E.

(2002). Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. American Economic Review, 92, 460–501. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136363

101.

Suazo

M. M.

Martínez

P. G.

Sandoval

(2009). Creating psychological and legal contracts through human resource practices: A signaling theory perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.11.002

102.

Tahir

(2022). Cross-cultural training: A study of European expatriates in New Zealand. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(9), 894–919. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2021-0013

103.

Taj

S. A.

(2016). Application of signaling theory in management research: Addressing major gaps in theory. European Management Journal, 34(4), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.001

104.

Takeuchi

Yun

Tesluk

P. E.

(2002). An examination of crossover and spillover effects of spousal and expatriate cross-cultural adjustment on expatriate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.655

105.

Taveggia

T. C.

Gibboney

L. S.

(2001). Cross-cultural adjustment: A test of the “uncertainty reduction principle.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1, 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580112002

106.

Tolbert

A. S.

McLean

G. N.

(1996). Venezuelan culture assimilator for training United States professionals conducting business in Venezuela. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)00027-u

107.

Tomcho

T. J.

Foels

(2002). Teaching acculturation: Developing multiple “cultures” in the classroom and role-playing the acculturation process. Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 226–229. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2903_11

108.

Traylor

A. M.

L. C.

Corrington

Skorinko

J. L.

Hebl

M. R.

(2020). Expanding research on working women more globally: Identifying and remediating current blindspots. Journal of Social Issues, 76(3), 744–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12395

109.

Urquhart

(2022, August 19). Nearly three in five employees plan to work abroad this year, research finds. People Management. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1796237/nearly-three-five-employees-plan-work-abroad-year-research-finds

110.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, September 1). A labor day look at how American workers have changed over 40 years. https://www.bls.gov/blog/2021/a-labor-day-look-at-how-american-workers-have-changed-over-40-years.htm#

111.

Waxin

M. F.

Panaccio

(2005). Cross-cultural training to facilitate expatriate adjustment: It works! Personnel Review, 34(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480510571879

112.

Wayne

J. H.

Michel

J. S.

Matthews

R. A.

(2022). Balancing work and family: A theoretical explanation and longitudinal examination of its relation to spillover and role functioning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(7), 1094–1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001007

113.

Zhang

Wiersema

M. F.

(2009). Stock market reaction to CEO certification: The signaling role of CEO background. Strategic Management Journal, 30(7), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.772

114.

Zhang

Wang

M. O.

Shi

(2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0865