We used meta‐analysis to advance our understanding of personality traits as antecedents of expatriate adjustment to international assignments and to test expatriate adjustment as a mediator linking the Five‐Factor Model (FFM) of personality to job performance and turnover intentions (k = 43; N = 7,007). Personality accounted for 20% of the variance in expatriate adjustment. Relative weight analyses indicated that extraversion generally accounted for the greatest proportion of predicted variance, although emotional stability and openness were important predictors as well. This pattern of findings was largely, but not completely, consistent across adjustment dimensions (i.e., general, interactional, work). Consistent with our expectations, meta‐analytic path analysis indicated that adjustment mediated the relationships between the FFM and both expatriate job performance and turnover intentions. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Practitioner points Personality traits consistent with the Five‐Factor Model accounted for 20% of the variance in expatriate adjustment. Personality traits, particularly extraversion, emotional stability, and openness, can be used for identifying employees who are well suited for international assignments. Career planning in multinational enterprises can make use of personality scores to determine who may be a good candidate for the development for international assignments. Social support interventions (e.g., mentoring) should be provided when on assignment, particularly for introverted expatriates, to facilitate adjustment.

No abstract

Cortina, Cortina, and Cortina (2019) have summarized the main issues facing academic institutions in balancing the right of individual expression and the need for civility in all such conversations. In this commentary, we extend their focal article to note that the issues they raise also play out in other organizations (nonacademic) and involve free expression of various forms of beliefs and not just free speech on controversial topics. Organizations and HR departments have to grapple with religious expressions (or expressions of faith) by employees. Furthermore, public organizations must be careful about organizational support of religious expressions. Unfortunately, scholarly behavioral science literature, particularly industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature, is mostly silent about how such expressions of faith in work contexts affect employee attitudes and behaviors. Multiple surveys (Gallup, 2013; PEW Internet Research, 2015) have shown that for many individuals, their religion plays an important role in defining their identity. The rapid pace of workplace and societal changes have also generated high levels of uncertainty, and in the face of such uncertainty many employees find comfort in religion (Gebert et al., 2014; King & Williamson, 2012). Additionally, in this digital age, many employees carry work to their home and perform work-related tasks beyond the traditional 9-to-5 timeframe. The boundary between work and life blurs in many instances, and the "always-on employee" is frequently encountered (Manapragada & Viswesvaran, 2018). These trends bleed into individuals' expressions of their religious faiths, not only in the workplace, but also in work-related interactions that take place off-site. There have been several high-profile incidents reflecting the clash between individual desire to express one's religious beliefs and conflicting coworkers' (or other stakeholders') beliefs on appropriate expressions of faith. Consider the case of Kim Davis, former chief deputy clerk of Rowan County in Kentucky, who believed she was exercising her right to freedom of religion/expression by refusing to recognize marriage licenses issued to gay couples because it conflicted with her religious beliefs. As another example, consider the case of Hobby Lobby CEO David Green and Chick-fil-A President/COO Dan Cathy, who both became objects of public attention when it became known their religious identity was part and parcel of their business practices (De Vogue, 2014; Jeltsen, 2012). As a final example, consider Charita D Chalmers v. Tulon Company of Richmond (1996). Here, Ms. Chalmers, a supervisor in a manufacturing plant, wrote letters to her co-workers asking them to repent for their sinful acts or face eternal judgment-an act that was considered as creating a hostile work environment for her coworkers (cf. Berg, 1998). Although such high-profile cases are interesting, of more concern are the (more) pervasive but micro expressions of religion that may result in perceptions of incivility and inferences...

No abstract

No abstract