Exploring cultural dimensions as predictors of performance management preferences: the case of self-initiating expatriate New Zealanders in Belgium

Abstract

Despite the large number of New Zealanders working overseas of their own volition, the expatriate management literature has largely ignored their performance management (PM) preferences. The need to consider followers' preferences has been established by evidence supporting a link between PM practices and national culture, and subsequent performance. This study utilised the semi-structured interview to explore and compare the PM preferences of self-initiating expatriate New Zealanders in Belgium, and Belgians. Content analysis revealed distinct similarities and differences in preferences that can be tentatively linked to elements of national culture, providing general support for related literature. Subgroups also emerged within the Belgian sample and individual differences emerged within both samples, emphasising the importance of cultural subgroups as well as individual variations when considering PM preferences. Findings have academic and practical implications, which may be further explored by the suggested avenues of future research.

Do three years make a difference? An updated review and analysis of self-initiated expatriation

“…In terms of the studied SIEs’ move between home and host country, it can be observed that it mostly occurs between developed countries (e.g. New Zealand-Belgium: Ellis 2012 ), followed by developing to developed ones (e.g. China-Germany: Cao et al 2013 ) and very few take place between developed to developing countries (e.g.…”

What distinguishes self-initiated expatriates from assigned expatriates and migrants?

“…The criteria presented here could serve as a basis for a classification of the different samples found in research studies in order to determine what kind of subgroups of international movers were included in the migrant category and to better understand and interpret the results found. ; (Thorn, 2009); (Ellis, 2011); Long-term (N = 6) (O" Sullivan & years (N = 3) (Meyskens et al, 2009); (Konopaske, Robie, & Ivancevich, 2005); (Collings et al, 2007) Maximum Duration: 1 year (N = 3) (Collings et al, 2007); ; (Tharenou & Harvey, 2006), 3 years (N = 2) (Guzzo, 1994); (Dickmann & Harris, 2005) (Cappellen & (N = 2) (Konopaske et al, 2005); (Meyskens et al, 2009) Implication: Either relocation of family or not…”

“…Executing Work Abroad Findings: Individual (N = 14) (Fitzgerald & Howe-McKenna, 2000); (Forstenlechner, 2010); ; (Ellis, 2011); (Biemann & Andresen, 2010) Self-funding (N = 5) (Peltokorpi, 2008); ; ; ; (Tharenou, 2010) Implication: No or little support from employer High support from home and host organization…”

“…Janssens, 2008); (Al Ariss, 2010);(Inkson, Arthur, Pringle, & Barry, 1997);;(Thorn, 2009););(Ellis, 2011); …”

“…(Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010);(Richardson, 2006);(Ellis, 2011) Sent (N = 11)(Peltokorpi, 2008);(Pruthi et al, 2009);(Richardson & Mallon, 2005);;(Lauring & Selmer, …”