International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Cross-cultural training, expatriate self-efficacy, and adjustments to

overseas assignments: An empirical investigation of managers in Asia
AAhad M. Osman-Gani *, Thomas Rockstuhl
Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This paper presents the findings of an empirical study that investigated the relationship
Accepted 12 February 2009
between cross-cultural training (CCT) effectiveness, self-efficacy, and adjustment of
expatriate managers in Asia. Responses of 169 managers from four different national
Keywords:
backgrounds, all currently on overseas assignments in Asia, indicate that the relationship
Expatriate
between CCT effectiveness and adjustment is mediated by an increase in self-efficacy.
Cross-cultural training
Self-efficacy Implications of the findings for professional practice and for future research are discussed.
Adjustment ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Expatriate development is increasingly becoming an important Human Resource Development (HRD) issue for MNCs and
international organizations (Osman-Gani & Tan, 2005). One of the major determinants of expatriate performance
effectiveness is how well they adjust themselves to function appropriately in the host culture. Previous research has found
that between 16 and 40% of all expatriate managers (mostly American) return prematurely from their overseas assignments
due to their poor performance or failure in cross-cultural adjustment (Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Black & Mendenhall, 1991;
Dunbar & Ehrlich, 1986; Tung, 1981). While there is an increasing acceptance that failure rates might not be as high as
originally claimed (Daniels & Insch, 1998; Foster, 1997; Harzing, 1995, 2002; Harzing & Christensen, 2004; Insch & Daniels,
2002) it is still accepted to be an important issue. This is even more so, if the concept of expatriate failure is also to include
expatriates who stay on their international assignment but perform below expectations (e.g., Black & Gregersen, 1999;
Fukuda & Chu, 1994; Harvey & Wiese, 1998). Although estimations of the costs of expatriate failure tend to vary widely and
are not based on a fixed set of criteria (GMAC, NFTC, & SHRM, 2002; 2003; 2005a, 2005b) they likely cannot be neglected by
organizations (Gregersen & Black, 1990; Waxin, 2004). As the cost associated with under-performance is likely to be even
higher (Harzing & Christensen, 2004), it is crucial to identify the ways to reduce and eliminate such failures. Cross-cultural
adjustments of expatriates and their families were found to be the most significant factors in this regard (Black, Mendenhall,
& Oddou, 1991; Insch & Daniels, 2002; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999). Academic researchers as well as corporate
management of multinational enterprises (MNEs) are searching for ways to address this issue from various perspectives,
such as how to facilitate the cross-cultural adjustment.
In the adjustment process of overseas assignment, cross-cultural training has long been advocated as a medium to
facilitate effective cross-cultural interactions (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000; Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Brislin & Yoshida, 1994;
Chemers, 1969; Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992; Landis & Bhagat, 1996; Landis & Brislin, 1983; Tung, 1981). Furthermore,

* Corresponding author at: Nanyang Business School, Box: S3-B1B-73, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798,
Singapore. Tel.: +65 6790 4982; fax: +65 6791 8377.
E-mail address: aahad@ntu.edu.sg (AAhad.M. Osman-Gani).

0147-1767/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.02.003
278 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290

as international companies begin to compete more intensively in the global market, the role of cross-cultural training becomes
increasingly crucial (Bhagat & Prien, 1996). Nevertheless, the practice of cross-cultural training is not yet pervasive in most
organizations. The most prevalent reason cited by organization for not offering such training is that they perceived that such
training is not effective (Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Black & Gregersen, 1999; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Osman-Gani, 2000).
To contribute to the knowledge on how cross-cultural training increases expatriates’ adjustment, we argue in this paper
that cross-cultural training facilitates adjustment through an increase in expatriates’ self-efficacy. Higher self-efficacy
reduces the perceived uncertainty in cross-cultural interactions which in turn leads to better adjustment. Self-efficacy has
been shown to be related to cultural adjustment (Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales, 1996) but to our knowledge has not been
linked to cross-cultural training. In conceptualizing self-efficacy explicitly as a dynamic rather than stable trait (Leiba-
O’Sullivan, 1999) and showing how self-efficacy mediates the relationship between cross-cultural training and expatriate
adjustment we therefore extend the work of Harrison et al. (1996). We develop a general conceptual framework that
incorporates these ideas and take a first step in testing parts of the framework by surveying a sample of 169 expatriate
managers. The study demonstrates the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between cross-cultural training
and adjustment. The results have practical implications in that they highlight what makes particular types of cross-cultural
trainings more effective than others. We also discuss needs for future research on cross-cultural training, self-efficacy, and
adjustment of expatriates.

2. Cross-cultural training

In international assignments, expatriates are often exposed to situations in their new environments in which they are
uncertain what behaviors are acceptable and what is not (Adler, 2001). Expatriate literature suggests that the reduction of
uncertainty is the key to adjustment (Black & Gregersen, 1991; Feldman & Brett, 1983; Gudykunst, 1998; Louis, 1980).
Previous research also suggested that cross-cultural training enhances expatriates’ intercultural adjustment as they aid in
the reduction of uncertainty (Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992; Earley, 1987).
Many studies have found that expatriates with cross-cultural training adjust better in the host country (Earley, 1987;
Eschbach, Parker, & Stoeberl, 2001; Landis & Brislin, 1983; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Tung, 1981). However, the evidence
for the effectiveness of cross-cultural trainings is also quite mixed, with different studies showing a larger variance in
correlations between cross-cultural training and expatriate adjustment and job performance (Black & Gregersen, 1991;
Earley, 1987). An early meta-analysis by Deshpande and Viswesvaran (1992) examined the effect of cross-cultural training
on the criteria of job performance and adjustment. They found moderately strong correlations (corrected for sampling and
measurement error) of 0.39 and 0.43 for the effects of cross-cultural training on performance and adjustment respectively.
However their study is limited in two important ways. Some of the articles included in the analysis by Deshpande and
Viswesvaran (1992) examined the effectiveness of intercultural training on different ethnic groups within America which
may not be sufficiently similar to pre-departure training for expatriates to justify aggregation (Morris & Robie, 2001). They
also did not limit their samples to include only methodologically sound studies and thus their conclusions about cross-
cultural training effectiveness may have been too optimistic (Kealey & Protheroe, 1996).
In addressing the first concern, and also including more recent studies, Morris and Robie (2001) in a meta-analysis found
the relationships between cross-cultural training and adjustment (r = 0.13 after correction for sampling error and
unreliability) as well as performance (r = 0.23 after correction for sampling error and unreliability) to be much lower. They
also found strong evidence for potential moderators but did not have enough information to test some of the moderators that
are suggested by the literature such as training type/method, time in training, total numbers of trainees, training content,
and source of training (Landis & Brislin, 1983; Kealey & Protheroe, 1996).
In addressing the second concern, Mendenhall et al. (2004) in their review of evaluation studies of cross-cultural training
programs from 1988 to 2000 also found the relationships between cross-cultural training and a variety of outcomes –
including knowledge, behavior, attitude, adjustment, performance, and training satisfaction – to be less strong than
suggested by prior research. They further highlighted the notion that the methodological rigor of a lot of these evaluation
studies does not fit the criteria for rigor in cross-cultural evaluation research suggested by Kealey and Protheroe (1996) or
Blake and associates (Blake & Heslin, 1983; Blake, Heslin, & Curtis, 1996).
In summary, these recent reviews seem to suggest that cross-cultural trainings are likely to have a positive effect on
expatriates’ adjustment and performance albeit of a small magnitude. We therefore propose:

H1a. Expatriates who received cross-cultural training will have better adjustment in the host culture than those who did not.
Furthermore, not all types of training programs are going to be equally effective. The more effective a particular type of
cross-cultural training program is, the better adjusted the participating expatriate should be. We thus expect a positive
relationship between an effective cross-cultural training and adjustment.

H1b. Cross-cultural training effectiveness will be positively related to expatriate adjustment in the host culture.
Despite the claims of positive effects of cross-cultural training on adjustment in the literature, little is known about the
processes through which cross-cultural training affects adjustment. We propose self-efficacy as one key concept to explain
the relationship between cross-cultural training effectiveness and overseas assignment.
 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290 279

3. Self-efficacy and cross-cultural adjustment

The definition of cross-cultural adjustment usually refers to the level of psychological comfort which one feels in a foreign
environment (Simeon & Fujiu, 2000). Different job assignments require various degrees of contacts with the local culture,
which may be very different from or similar to the home culture (Tung, 1981). Studied from the perspective of culture shock,
it has been shown that the awareness and acceptance of what is considered acceptable behaviors in a different environment
can reduce uncertainty and thus, ease the difficulty of adjustment for people in a new environment (Harrison, 1994;
Nicholson, 1984; Oberg, 1960). One of the most influential models of the expatriate adjustment process was proposed by
Black et al. (1991). The model distinguishes three main dimensions of adjustment: general adjustment (comfort associated
with various non-work factors), interaction adjustment (comfort associated with interacting with host country nationals),
and work adjustment (comfort associated with the assignment job). It has been extensively tested and generally received
support (e.g., Shaffer et al., 1999).
Expatriate adjustment has been strongly related to non-work factors such as psychological orientations, attitudes
towards international living and family-related problems. The tolerance of ambiguity and willingness to live in foreign
environments are some attitudes, which can help expatriates adjust better and faster (Black & Gregersen, 1991; Brett, 1984;
Oberg, 1960). Adjustment literature on family-related issues has found that family-related situations often influence the
expatriate’s ability to adjust and perform effectively (Palthe, 2004; Fitzgerald-Turner, 1997; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Black
& Stephens, 1989; Harvey, 1985; Mendenhall, Dunbar, & Oddou, 1987; Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Tung, 1982).
Another individual level variable that has been proposed as important to adjustment is self-efficacy (see Harrison et al.,
1996 for an exception). Self-efficacy is defined as the level of confidence that individuals have in their ability to accomplish
tasks (Bandura, 1986; Gist, 1987). Self-efficacy is found to play a pivotal role in cross-cultural adjustment in terms of the
impact on expatriates’ perceptions of their ability to perform successfully in the new culture (Jones, 1986) and on their skills
of relating to host nationals (Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991). In a similar argument, Fan and Mak (1998) have suggested, that
in the context of international students in the US, students with greater self-efficacy should be more comfortable and more
likely to engage in contact with host-culture nationals, thus enhancing their sociocultural adjustment. Testing this
proposition, Li and Gasser (2005) indeed found that contact with the hosts partially mediated the effect of self-efficacy on
sociocultural adjustment. Tsang (2001) suggested that self-efficacious individuals may be more actively seeking new
cultural experiences. As a result, they may receive constant feedback regarding their novel behavior, which enhances their
cultural knowledge and reduces uncertainties in future cross-cultural interactions. Using longitudinal data, Hechanova-
Alampay, Beehr, Christiansen, and Van-Horn (2002) found that international students’ self-efficacy was significantly related
to their adjustment in the new culture. Recently, in a large meta-analysis of over 50 determinants and consequences of
expatriate adjustment, Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, and Luk (2005) found self-efficacy to be significantly related to
interaction adjustment (r = 0.21) and work adjustment (r = 0.30) but not to general adjustment.
One distinction that is crucial for our argument concerns the difference between task-specific self-efficacy and general
self-efficacy. Tipton and Worthington (1984) suggest that while task-specific self-efficacy accounts for the majority of
variance in clearly defined and familiar situations, general self-efficacy is a major determinant of the variance in ambiguous
and less familiar situations. In the domain of expatriate adjustment, the distinction between task-specific and general self-
efficacy is reflected in the distinction between general and social self-efficacy (Harrison et al., 1996). While the former refers
to self-efficacy without reference to any specific behavioral domain, the latter refers efficacy expectations in social
interactions. In a prior study that focused explicitly on the relationship between general or social self-efficacy and different
kinds of adjustment for expatriates, Harrison et al. (1996) found that subjects with high general self-efficacy were
significantly better than subjects with low general self-efficacy on general adjustment, interaction adjustment, and work
adjustment. They found no such differences for social self-efficacy and attributed this finding to the lower construct validity
of that scale. Theoretically though, one would expect social self-efficacy to be related to interaction adjustment. This should
be so because interaction adjustment refers to clearly defined and familiar situations and the more specific social self-
efficacy should be the best predictor of adjustment in such situations. On the other hand, given the diversity of situations
involved in determining general and work adjustment, general self-efficacy appears to be the more appropriate predictor of
adjustment in these situations.
It is interesting to note that no attempt has been done to date to link the effects of cross-cultural trainings on adjustment
to its impact on participants general and social self-efficacy. This is particularly surprising given the fact that self-efficacy is
usually conceptualized as an important dynamic cross-cultural competency (Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1999) and should therefore be
particularly malleable through training. One exception is a study by Bird, Heinbuch, Dunbar, and McNulty (1993) that
reported an increase in factual, conceptual, and attributional knowledge for participants of a Japan area studies training
program, but did not find an increase in their self-efficacy. However, they used a measure of task-specific self-efficacy which
as argued above, might not have been appropriate in such a situation. This lack of studies with regard to the effects of cross-
cultural training on self-efficacy is even more surprising considering that many studies have shown that some training
methods can enhance self-efficacy in the areas of self-management (Frayne & Latham, 1987), cognitive modeling (Gist, 1989;
Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991) and behavioral modeling (Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989). Given that cross-cultural trainings
should provide participants with factual, conceptual, attributional, and experiential knowledge with regard to the host
culture, one would expect that this knowledge will lead to an increase in general self-efficacy by reducing some of the
uncertainty involved in cross-cultural adjustment. The more effective cross-cultural training is, the bigger this reduction in
280 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

uncertainty, and hence the increase in general self-efficacy, should be. Furthermore, in terms of methods used and skills
learnt, cross-cultural trainings are somewhat similar to social skills training. As the latter have been shown to increase social
adjustment through an increase in social self-efficacy (e.g., Bierman & Furman, 1984) we would also expect that cross-
cultural trainings lead to an increase in social self-efficacy. The more effective the training program, the larger this increase in
social self-efficacy is expected to be.
Fig. 1 summarizes the hypothesized relationships. Combining our arguments on the differential effects of general and
social self-efficacy for adjustment with the hypothesized relationships between cross-cultural training and both types of
self-efficacy, we propose:

H2. The relationship between cross-cultural training effectiveness and general as well as work adjustments in overseas
assignments will be mediated by the general self-efficacy of the expatriate.

H3. The relationship between cross-cultural training effectiveness and interaction adjustments in overseas assignments
will be mediated by the social self-efficacy of the expatriate.

4. Methods

This study adopted a survey research approach to collect primary data from expatriates of four different nationalities.
Structured questionnaires were distributed to expatriates from Japan, United States of America, Germany, and Singapore
through companies situated in Singapore. The research team went through two phases in collecting the primary data. In the
first phase we conducted sample interviews with randomly selected expatriates from four national groups, and then a pilot
test was conducted on a group of 40 expatriate managers for testing the draft questionnaire. In addition, a panel of experts
consisting of faculty members from the University and a select group of human resource executives, training and
development managers, and expatriates from selected multinational companies, was used to validate the questionnaire in
terms of content, format, layout, and sequence. In the second phase a revised version of the questionnaire was distributed
personally to the expatriates, and the completed questionnaires were collected after 1 week. Several follow-up measures
(e.g., phone calls, email, visits) were taken after the initial deadline, in order to improve the response rate.

4.1. Sample

A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed to expatriates from Japan, the U.S., Germany, and Singapore. Out of this a
total of 169 responses were collected, resulting in an overall response rate of 28%. This response rate is somewhat lower than
those reported by other expatriate studies in the meta-analysis by Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005). This could be due in part to
the fact that Singapore is limited in the size of its professional population. As this population tends to be extensively studied
by the local academic world, response rates in Singapore tend to be typically in the range of 25–30% (e.g., Osman-Gani, 2000).
Given the concerns about the potential response bias in our sample but limited in our access to non-respondents, we tried to
at least compare late repliers with replies received at the initial deadline. There were no significant differences between
these two groups on the measures of central interest in our study – general adjustment, interaction adjustment, work
adjustment, general self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, or training effectiveness.
The sample contains 44 (26%) Singaporeans, 39 (23%) Germans, 43 (25.5%) Japanese, and 43 (25.5%) Americans. While the
expatriates from other countries were stationed in Singapore, the Singaporean expatriates were sent overseas by their parent
companies. All of them had been sent to well developed and larger cities in South East Asia (i.e., Shanghai, Seoul, Taipei, and
Tokyo). Responses from Singaporean expatriates were collected while they were on Holiday in Singapore. Because the
standard living conditions in these cities are comparable to Singapore, we felt justified in including the Singaporean
expatriates into our analysis. It should be noted that all the expatriates in our sample were posted to locations that can be
considered quite amenable in terms of standard living conditions. General adjustment should therefore pose less of a
problem to the expatriates studied here. What makes our sample unique in comparison to prior studies of Western
 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290 281

expatriates posted to East Asia, is that we also included Asian expatriates as a comparison group in our sample. In terms of
the industries these expatriates worked in, 94 (55.5%) are working in the manufacturing industry, 47 (28%) in the financial
industry, 18 (10.5%) in the transportation industry, and 10 (6%) did not indicate their industry. For 119 (70%) of the 169
expatriates, the organization of their overseas assignment was a subsidiary in the host country, whereas for the remaining
expatriates other organizational arrangements (e.g., Joint-Venture, Licensee/Agency, Distributor, or others) were found to be
prevalent. Of the 169 respondents 144 (85%) are male. 75 (44.5%) are between 25 and 35 years old, and 81 (48%) are between
35 and 45 years old. Of the expatriates, 105 (62%) live with their family in the host country while 64 (38%) don’t. A total 72
(42.5%) of the respondents have been working on their current overseas assignment for less than 2 years, whereas 97 (57.5%)
have been doing so for more than 2 years. Of our respondents, 88 (52%) had one overseas contract completed, 66 (39%) had
completed two overseas contracts, 14 (8%) completed 3 or more, and for only one respondent this was the first overseas
contract. With regard to their monthly income, 125 (74%) indicated that they received less than US$ 10,000; 41 (24%)
received US$ 10,000–20,000; and 3 (2%) indicated that they received more than US$ 20,000. A total of 49 (29%) of the
respondents had received no cross-cultural training, while 20 (12%) had received pre-departure training, 49 (29%) of the
respondents had received post-arrival training, and 51 (30%) of the respondents had received both pre-departure and post-
arrival training.
To compare the levels of adjustment for the four nationalities we conducted a MANOVA with nationality as a fixed factor
and with the three types of adjustment as dependent variables. The multivariate test was significant (F = 13.02; p < 0.01) and
tests of between-subject effects showed that there were significant differences in levels of adjustment between Singaporean,
German, Japanese, and American expatriates on general adjustment (F = 16.07; p < 0.01), interaction adjustment (F = 19.89;
p < 0.01), and work adjustment (F = 20.19; p < 0.01). We also conducted post-hoc comparisons to determine which
nationalities differ from each other in terms of adjustment. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for each
nationality on all three forms of adjustment as well as results of the post-hoc comparison.

4.2. Dependent variables

Cross-cultural adjustment is defined as the level of psychological comfort that one feels in a foreign environment (Simeon
& Fujiu, 2000). The adjustment measure, which was drawn from previous research on expatriate adjustment (Black &
Gregersen, 1991; Black & Stephens, 1989; Parker & McEvoy, 1993) consisted of 14 items with a 6-point Likert scale ranging
from ‘‘not adjusted at all’’ to ‘‘very well adjusted’’. These items assessed three facets of adjustment: general, interaction, and
work (Black & Stephens, 1989). The first facet focused on adjustment to general conditions within the non-work
environment of the host country and consisted of seven items (a = 0.81). The second facet reflected adjustment to interaction
with host nationals and comprised four items (a = 0.90). The last facet included three items (a = 0.91) and focused on
adjustment to one’s work role.

4.3. Variables of central interest

Self-efficacy was defined by Bandura (1986) as the level of confidence that individuals have in their ability to
accomplish tasks. For this study, self-efficacy was determined by a scale consisting of 23 items with a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (Harrison et al., 1996). This assessment of self-efficacy measured
generalized self-efficacy expectations dependent on past experiences and on tendencies to attribute success to skill as
opposed to chance (Sherer et al., 1982). We adapted the original measure from Harrison et al. (1996) to reflect the
challenges of dealing with situations in a new culture. The 23 items focused on two facets of self-efficacy: general and
social. The first facet assessed self-efficacy without reference to any specific behavioral domain and consisted of 17 items
(a = 0.89). Sample items include ‘‘When I make plans in the host country, I’m certain I can make them work’’; ‘‘If I cannot
do a job the first time in the host country, I keep trying until I can’’; and ‘‘When I have something unpleasant to do in the
host country, I stick to it until I finish it’’. The second facet was composed of six items (a = 0.76) and reflected efficacy
expectations in social situations. Sample items include ‘‘If I meet someone interesting who is hard to befriend, I’ll soon
start trying to befriend that person in the host country (reverse scored)’’; ‘‘I do not handle myself well in social gatherings
in the host country (reverse scored)’’; and ‘‘When I’m trying to become friends with someone of the host nationality who
seems disinterested at first, I don’t just give up’’.

Table 1
Means and standard deviations of adjustment for different nationalities.

Variables Adjustment

General Interaction Work

Singaporean 3.79 (0.61)a 4.00 (0.97)d 4.30 (0.74)g

German 4.02 (0.63)ac 3.18 (1.03)e 3.95 (0.83)g
Japanese 4.58 (0.43)b 4.64 (0.60)f 4.88 (0.41)h
American 4.21 (0.50)c 4.01 (0.78)d 4.80 (0.42)h

Notes: Means that do not share a subscript differ statistically from each other (p < 0.05).
282 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290

To assess the effectiveness of the cross-cultural training, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had received
pre-departure or post-arrival training. They were also asked to rate how effective they perceived the training was on a scale
from 1 (least effective) to 5 (most effective) using a single item for both pre-departure and post-arrival training. If no training
was provided, the according perceived effectiveness was scored as zero. We chose this approach over more established
measures of effectiveness (e.g., Searle & Ward, 1990) because we felt that the latter assess adjustment (psychological and
sociocultural) of expatriates as well. Kirkpatrick’s (1994) model of training evaluation distinguishes four different levels of
training effectiveness: (1) reactions – or perceptions of the training by participants, (2) learning – or the degree of change in
knowledge, skills or attitudes as a consequence of the training, (3) transfer – or the degree of applying newly learned skills in
the learners everyday environment, and (4) results – or increase in performance due to the training. In the terminology of
levels of training evaluation by Kirkpatrick (1994) both the effectiveness measure by Searle and Ward (1990) and the
adjustment measure by Black and Stephens (1989) might be understood to address the question of transfer from training
into the everyday environment of the learner. To avoid tautological conclusions we therefore chose to focus on perceived
training effectiveness as our measure of effectiveness. This measure addresses effectiveness from the level of perceptions by
the training participants.

4.4. Control variables

As Osman-Gani (2000) has pointed out, comparative analysis among expatriates from various nationalities working in
Asia is still insufficient. It has been suggested in the adjustment literature that culture distance determines the adjustment
process (Black & Mendenhall, 1991). Although nationality is a very crude indicator for culture distance, we included it into
our study as a control variable because it is easy to assess. There is some evidence that the four nationalities included in our
study have sufficient culture differences to treat nationality as an indicator for cultural distance (see the Globe culture
clusters, House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). We also included several demographic control variables that
might also influence adjustment. The cultural adjustment process is thought to depend on the time spend in a host country
(Black & Mendenhall, 1991) so we controlled for the duration of time that the expatriates had been working abroad on their
current assignment. The literature on cultural intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003) furthermore suggests that the ability to
adjust to another culture grows through experience of adjusting to different cultures. We thus controlled for the number of
overseas contracts the expatriates had completed prior to their current assignment. The presence of family has also been
demonstrated to be important for the adjustment of expatriates (Palthe, 2004), so we also asked respondents to indicate
whether their family was living with them abroad. Finally, we also included gender, age, monthly income, industry type, and
whether the organization was a subsidiary or not as control variables. We assessed all control variables in a multiple choice
format and created dummy variables accordingly for all analyses.

4.5. Analysis of data

We tested Hypothesis 1a by contrasting expatriates who had received cross-cultural training with those who did not, by
using a MANOVA with training received as a fixed factor, and general, interaction, and work adjustment as dependent
variables. We expected that expatriates that had received cross-cultural training would show higher levels of adjustment for
all three types of adjustment.
Because results from previous meta-analysis (Morris & Robie, 2001) suggested that the relationship between cross-cultural
training and expatriate adjustment is not very large the power to detect this relationship in our limited sample size may not be
very large. We therefore simply examined the bivariate correlations between our measures of perceived training effectiveness
and the three types of adjustment for support for Hypothesis 1b. We expected both the measure of pre-departure training
effectiveness and post-arrival training effectiveness to be positively correlated with all measures of adjustment.
In order to test the mediation Hypotheses 2 and 3 we implemented the bootstrapping procedures recommended by
Shrout and Bolger (2002). Because this approach deviates somewhat from the more common approach to testing mediation
(e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986) we briefly describe the rational for employing this approach below. For a more detailed
discussion, the interested reader is referred to the work by Shrout and Bolger (2002), or MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams
(2004).
Within the mediation framework outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), we conclude that mediation has occurred, when
the indirect effect between a predictor and criterion via the mediator is nonzero. This indirect effect is estimated as the
product of the effect of the predictor on the mediator and the effect of the mediator on the criterion. The standard error of this
effect estimate is typically calculated using a large-sample test provided by Sobel (1982). In most studies, the indirect effect
is then divided by its standard error and the resulting ratio is compared to the standard normal distribution to test its
significance and to construct confidence intervals. This confidence interval will accurately cover 95% of the possible
population values only if the estimated indirect effect is normally distributed (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). However, products of
normally distributed variables with positive mean tend to have a positive skew, and products of normally distributed
variables with means of opposite signs tend to have a negative skew (Bollen & Stine, 1990; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). This
means that in the presence of mediation the usual test of the indirect effect lacks statistical power to reject the null
hypothesis that the indirect effect is zero. This is because it assumes a symmetric confidence interval when due to the skew
in the distribution the confidence interval should be non-symmetric (Bollen & Stine, 1990).
 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290 283

Bollen and Stine (1990) proposed computing non-symmetric confidence intervals for the indirect effect using bootstrap
information. We adapted the steps suggested by Shrout and Bolger (2002) to estimate the indirect effects involving our
Hypotheses 2 and 3:

1. Using the original data set as a population reservoir, we created a bootstrap sample of 100 persons by randomly sampling
observations with replacement from the data set.
2. For each bootstrap sample, we estimated the indirect effect as the product between the effect of training effectiveness on
self-efficacy and self-efficacy on adjustment. We saved the results of this estimation into a separate datafile.
3. We repeated Steps 1 and 2 a total of 1000 times.
4. We examined the distribution of the estimates and determined the (a/2)  100% and (1 a/2)  100% percentiles of the
distribution.

The values of the two percentiles are the lower and upper limit of the confidence interval used to decide whether the
indirect effect is significantly different from zero. We expected that the 95% bootstrap confidence interval would not cover
the zero point as support for our hypotheses.
We implemented all bootstrap estimations using a path-analytic approach in LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). For
each bootstrap sample, we estimated all direct and indirect effects between the pre-departure and post-arrival training
effectiveness variables, the two measures of self-efficacy and the three measures of adjustment. This allows for the
estimation of all effects while controlling for the relationships between the different types of adjustment. To include our
control variables, we first ran a linear regression of each adjustment dimension on all the control variables. We then saved
the residuals of this regression as our new dependent variables for the bootstrap estimations. This step was necessary
because the categorical nature of these variables would have made their inclusion into our bootstrapping procedure difficult.
By using the residuals of this regression for the further analysis we intended to control for the effect of these categorical
variables.
As some of the control variables show large correlation coefficients, we checked for possible multicollinearity by
inspecting the variance inflation factor (VIF) values for each of them. Only the variables, time in host country and age
displayed VIFs larger than 4 suggesting possible problems of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity does not bias the estimation
of coefficients or the overall goodness of fit but inflates the variances of parameter estimates. As a consequence, confidence
intervals for individual predictors tend to be wide and inferences about the significance of individual predictors tend to be
overly conservative (Aiken & West, 1991). Possible multicollinearity among control variables does not present a problem to
our analysis as we do not intend to assess the relative importance of the control variables. Possible multicollinearity between
control and independent variables may mean that the independent variables appear to be less important than their
uncontrolled relation with the dependent suggests thus making our observations possibly conservative.

5. Results and discussions

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables. The multivariate comparison between
expatriates who had received cross-cultural training and those who did not showed a significant difference between the two
groups in terms of adjustment (F = 6.7; p < 0.001). Tests of between-subject effects indicated that there was no difference
between the two groups in terms of general adjustment (F = 1.58; ns) but that expatriates with cross-cultural training
indicated better interaction adjustment (F = 10.99; p < 0.01) and better work adjustment (F = 15.7; p < 0.001). Thus
Hypothesis 1a is partially supported. In terms of training effectiveness, we note that pre-departure training effectiveness is
positively related to general adjustment (r = 0.16; p < 0.05), interaction adjustment (r = 0.42; p < 0.01) and work adjustment
(r = 0.32; p < 0.01). Post-arrival training effectiveness is significantly related to work adjustment (r = 0.16; p < 0.05) but not
to general adjustment (r = 0.06, ns) or interaction adjustment (r = 0.14, ns). Thus Hypothesis 1b is also partially supported.
Table 3 presents the results of these regression analyses. A few results are worth noticing. Female respondents indicated
significantly lower levels of general and work adjustment than their male counterparts. Considering that female expatriates
still seem to be less common in overseas assignments, this might reflect acceptance problems that these expatriates face,
especially in the work place. We also found a consistent negative effect of the presence of the family on all three dimensions
of adjustment. Two alternative explanations might account for this finding, although our design did not allow us to
distinguish between the two. The literature suggests that family can be a supporting mechanism but family related problems
might also influence expatriates ability to adjust (Fitzgerald-Turner, 1997; Palthe, 2004). Alternatively it might also be that
when the family is present, the expatriates simply spend more time with their family and thus has less contact with the host
culture. This reduced amount of contact might also account for the lesser adjustment. In agreement with other findings on
adjustment, we also find a positive relationship of time spend in the host country with interactive and work adjustment.
Finally, we found that expatriates who had only completed one prior overseas contract showed significantly better
adjustment than expatriates who had completed two overseas contracts before.
Table 4 shows the results of our path-analysis and bootstrap estimation for confidence intervals. Hypothesis 2 predicted
that the effect of training effectiveness on general and work adjustment would be mediated by general self-efficacy. For
general adjustment, the indirect effect of both pre-departure training effectiveness (b = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.16) and
post-arrival training effectiveness (b = 0.00; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.04) as mediated by general self-efficacy is not significantly
 284
Table 2
Means, standard deviations and correlations for the sample.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1. General 4.15 0.62 (0.81)

A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290

adjustment
2. Interaction 3.98 0.99 0.47(**) (0.90)
adjustment
3. Work 4.49 0.72 0.63(**) 0.62(**) (0.91)
adjustment
4. General 4.31 0.51 0.55(**) 0.62(**) 0.70(**) (0.89)
self-efficacy
5. Social 4.00 0.58 0.47(**) 0.61(**) 0.48(**) 0.52(**) (0.76)
self-efficacy
6. Pre-departure 1.59 2.01 0.16(*) 0.42(**) 0.32(**) 0.29(**) 0.23(**) –
training
effectiveness
7. Post-arrival 2.24 2.04 0.06 0.14 0.16(*) 0.08 0.02 0.28(**) –
training
effectiveness
8. Gender 0.14 0.34 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.19(*) 0.15 –
(female)
9. Age 2.08 0.75 0.24(**) 0.03 0.22(**) 0.22(**) 0.08 0.09 0.29(**) 0.12 –
10. Living with 0.38 0.49 0.03 0.34(**) 0.14 0.22(**) 0.18(*) 0.02 0.18(*) 0.06 0.39(**) –
family
11. Singaporean 0.26 0.44 0.35(**) 0.01 0.16(*) 0.32(**) 0.13 0.30(**) 0.40(**) 0.08 0.61(**) 0.30(**) –
12. German 0.23 0.42 0.11 0.44(**) 0.41(**) 0.24(**) 0.23(**) 0.40(**) 0.32(**) 0.05 0.21(**) 0.27(**) 0.32(**) –
13. Japanese 0.25 0.44 0.41(**) 0.39(**) 0.31(**) 0.46(**) 0.49(**) 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.18(*) 0.35(**) 0.32(**) –
14. American 0.25 0.44 0.05 0.02 0.25(**) 0.09 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.34(**) 0.22(**) 0.35(**) 0.32(**) 0.34(**) –
15. Time in host 2.83 1.03 0.06 0.17(*) 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.25(**) 0.08 0.30(**) 0.19(*) 0.16(*) 0.11 0.02 0.04 –
country
16. Prior 1.55 0.64 0.14 0.31(**) 0.28(**) 0.28(**) 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.06 –
contracts
17. Monthly 1.95 0.76 0.33(**) 0.29(**) 0.51(**) 0.46(**) 0.15(*) 0.10 0.05 0.26(**) 0.48(**) 0.16(*) 0.50(**) 0.11 0.16(*) 0.46(**) 0.28(**) 0.04 –
income
18. Financial 0.30 0.46 0.20(*) 0.32(**) 0.15 0.21(**) 0.17(*) 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.27(**) –
19. Transportation 0.11 0.32 0.02 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.39(**) 0.37(**) 0.09 0.30(**) 0.22(**) 0.40(**) 0.12 0.13 0.17(*) 0.05 0.13 0.19(*) 0.23(**) –
20. Subsidiary 0.70 0.46 0.07 0.16(*) 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.26(**) 0.04 0.23(**) 0.00 0.22(**) 0.15 0.20(**) 0.04 0.08 0.21(**) 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.16(*)

N = 169; Cronbach’s alpha estimates in parentheses.

** p < 0.01.
* p < 0.05.
 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290 285

Table 3
Regression coefficient estimates for control variables (unstandardized coefficients with standard error in parenthesis; N = 169).

Variables Adjustment

General Interaction Work

Constant 3.587 (0.254) 4.095 (0.362) 4.398 (0.250)

Gender 0.229** (0.055) 0.138 (0.079) 0.205** (0.054)
Age 25–30 0.113 (0.284) 0.665 (0.405) 0.676* (0.280)
Age 30–35 0.601* (0.291) 0.938* (0.415) 0.570* (0.287)
Age 40 0.292 (0.286) 1.397** (0.408) 0.547 (0.282)
Age 40–45 0.104 (0.278) 1.088** (0.397) 0.482 (0.274)
Age 45–50 0.336 (0.382) 0.543 (0.544) 0.088 (0.376)
Age above 50 0.884 (0.544) 1.240 (0.776) 0.294 (0.536)
German 0.349* (0.171) 0.531* (0.244) 0.528** (0.169)
Japanese 0.569** (0.157) 0.416 (0.224) 0.215 (0.155)
American 0.472** (0.166) 0.034 (0.237) 0.179 (0.164)
Living with family 0.199** (0.114) 0.453** (0.162) 0.306** (0.112)
Time in host country 1–2 years 0.215 (0.202) 0.357 (0.288) 0.299 (0.199)
Time in host country 3–5 years 0.212 (0.208) 0.720* (0.296) 0.532* (0.205)
Time in host country >5 years 0.153 (0.178) 0.799** (0.254) 0.365* (0.176)
1 overseas contract before 0.244* (0.108) 0.288 (0.154) 0.186 (0.106)
2 overseas contracts before 0.415 (0.365) 1.263* (0.520) 1.543** (0.359)
>3 overseas contract before 0.002 (0.194) 0.597* (0.276) 0.004 (0.191)
Monthly income $ 5–10K 0.167 (0.132) 1.069** (0.188) 0.774** (0.130)
Monthly income $ 10–15K 0.128 (0.182) 0.803** (0.259) 0.764** (0.179)
Monthly income $ 15–20K 0.515 (0.312) 1.902** (0.445) 1.030** (0.308)
Monthly income $ >20K 0.473 (0.326) 0.316 (0.465) 1.450** (0.321)
Financial industry 0.003 (0.111) 0.369* (0.145) 0.031 (0.104)
Transportation industry 0.320* (0.154) 0.464* (0.202) 0.399** (0.144)
Subsidiary 0.065 (0.118) 0.220 (0.154) 0.055 (0.110)
Adjusted R2 0.35 0.51 0.55

Notes: *p < .05; **p < .01.

Fig. 2. Revised empirical model (Estimates are standardized b coefficients; *p < 0.05).

different from zero as indicated by the 95% confidence interval covering the zero point. For work adjustment, general self
efficacy mediates the effect of pre-departure training effectiveness as indicated by a positive indirect effect whose 95%
confidence interval does not cover the zero point (b = 0.09; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.22). The indirect effect of post-arrival training
effectiveness (b = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.06) as mediated by general self-efficacy is not significantly different from zero
as indicated by the 95% confidence interval covering the zero point. Thus Hypothesis 2 is supported for pre-departure
training effectiveness and work adjustment.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that the effect of training effectiveness on interaction adjustment would be mediated by social
self-efficacy. As can be seen from Table 4, social self efficacy mediates the effect of pre-departure training effectiveness as
indicated by a positive indirect effect whose 95% confidence interval does not cover the zero point (b = 0.07; 95% CI = 0.01 to
0.13). The indirect effect of post-arrival training effectiveness (b = 0.03; 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.04) as mediated by social self-
efficacy is not significantly different from zero as indicated by the 95% confidence interval covering the zero point. Thus
Hypothesis 3 is supported for pre-departure training effectiveness.
Finally, we note that none of the other indirect effects are significantly different from zero as indicated by their confidence
intervals all covering the zero point. Fig. 2 summarizes the resulting empirical model.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

The main contribution of this study is in demonstrating that the positive effects of cross-cultural trainings on expatriate
adjustment are due to an increase in self-efficacy as a result of the training. Although previous research (conducted in the
west) has established the positive effects of cross-cultural training on adjustment (e.g., Black & Mendenhall, 1990) or
occasionally linked self-efficacy to cultural adjustment (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Harrison et al., 1996) to our
knowledge no study has linked the two processes. In doing so, this study not only adds to our understanding of the
 286
A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290
Table 4
Standardized path estimates and Bootstrap procedure results for effects of perceived training effectiveness on adjustment.

General self-efficacy Social self-efficacy General adjustment Interaction adjustment Work adjustment

b Bootstrap 95% CI b Bootstrap 95% CI b Bootstrap 95% CI b Bootstrap 95% CI b Bootstrap 95% CI

Direct effect
Pre-departure training effectiveness 0.32 (0.09;0.48) 0.28 (0.05;0.42) 0.02 ( 0.17;0.26) 0.07 ( 0.11;0.28) 0.12 ( 0.09;0.26)
Post-arrival training effectiveness 0.03 ( 0.16;0.20) 0.12 ( 0.24;0.15) 0.11 ( 0.17;0.24) 0.09 ( 0.12;0.27) 0.04 ( 0.22;0.17)
General self-efficacy 0.15 ( 0.09;0.41) 0.08 ( 0.10;0.28) 0.29 (0.06;0.55)
Social self-efficacy 0.13 ( 0.13;0.39) 0.25 (0.02;0.48) 0.07 ( 0.15;0.31)

Indirect effect
Pre-departure mediated by general self-efficacy 0.05 ( 0.02;0.16) 0.03 ( 0.03;0.10) 0.09 (0.01;0.22)
Pre-departure mediated by social self-efficacy 0.04 ( 0.03;0.10) 0.07 (0.01;0.13) 0.02 ( 0.04;0.08)
Post-arrival mediated by general self-efficacy 0.00 ( 0.04;0.04) 0.00 ( 0.03;0.03) 0.01 ( 0.06;0.06)
Post-arrival mediated by social self-efficacy 0.02 ( 0.04;0.03) 0.03 ( 0.08;0.04) 0.01 ( 0.04;0.02)

Notes: Table reports standardized regression coefficients and 95% confidence interval based on 1000 bootstrap samples. Significant effects based on the confidence interval are highlighted in bold.
 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290 287

processes by which cross-cultural trainings effect expatriate adjustment but also has implications for the design of cross-
cultural training programs by suggesting that effective training should target at enhancing self-efficacy of participants in
dealing with the host-culture. As self-efficacy depends largely on past experience (Sherer et al., 1982) training programs
that emphasize on experiential learning and incorporate specific work-related experience might be particularly useful.
One unexpected finding was that self-efficacy was not related to general adjustment in our study. Although partially in
line with the meta-analytic results by Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005), that found no direct relationship between self-efficacy
and general adjustment, this result is still very surprising to us as general living conditions and environmental information
should be the content of area briefings, the most basic form of cross-cultural training. One possible explanation for this
finding might be that the majority of the expatriates were stationed in Singapore. Being a well-developed country, adapting
to general living conditions might not pose a strong challenge for expatriates in this context.
Like all studies, this study contains some inherent limitations that also need to be discussed. Most importantly, we
must point out that all three variables studied in this paper (cross-cultural training; self-efficacy; and expatriate
adjustment) are based on (a) a cross-sectional design and (b) reports from the same source – the self. Being a cross-
sectional design, our data did not allow us to assess the degree of change in self-efficacy as a result of the cross-cultural
training. Also, as Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) have pointed out, studies that rely exclusively on data
from a single source tend to find inflated relationships. We thus cannot rule out that this created the appearance of
mediation. Nevertheless our aim was mainly in exploring whether changes in self-efficacy would be a potential
mechanism to explain the effects of cross-cultural training on adjustment. We think that our results are encouraging and
recommend that future research investigate these effects using longitudinal design and data from multiple sources such
as self and peers or supervisors in the host country. Second, we were not able to directly measure the training
effectiveness using training evaluation methodology for different kinds of cross-cultural training due to the limitations in
resources available for this study. However, we feel confident that the demonstrated mediation effect is substantial, and
future research might elaborate on this finding by using more stringent measures of training effectiveness. Third, female
expatriates are somewhat underrepresented in our sample possibly limiting generalization of our results. Finally, from
the perspective of the company, the link to performance that is proposed to result from adjustment is most important as
the costs of under-performing are likely to be severe (Harzing & Christensen, 2004). Future research should therefore
include a link to performance in studies of expatriate adjustment as well. Valuable suggestions on how to include
performance measures into the study of expatriate effectiveness come from Mol, Born, and van der Molen (2005) who
argue convincingly: (a) that behaviorally specific criteria, such as those developed by Tett, Guterman, Bleier, and Murphy
(2000) are essential to the adequate assessment of expatriate job performance and (b) that the dimensions of adaptive
performance as developed by Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamandon (2000) and Pulakos et al. (2002) constitute an
important subdomain of expatriate job performance.

6.1. Recommendations for professional practice

Since cross-cultural training was found to have significant effect on expatriates’ self-efficacy and adjustment, it is
important for the Human Resource Development (HRD) managers/professionals to plan, design, and implement relevant
training programs considering various assignment issues and personal characteristics of the expatriates. It should be noted
that there is no one standard type of training program that is proven effective for all types of adjustments. Therefore, HRD
managers/professionals should consider most appropriate training programs when making decisions on intercultural/cross-
cultural training programs for expatriates. More culture specific training programs may be developed to increase the
expatriates’ level of self-efficacy for effective adjustments in overseas assignments.
As evidenced from this study, in developing self-efficacy for effective adjustments, training programs should emphasize
more on overseas acquaintance trips, cultural sensitivity training, culture assimilator/immersion and cultural orientation
programs. The training content should emphasize more on socio-cultural factors, human resource and labor factors, and
general management factors. It would be better to provide the training using a combination on-the-job training method, role
play methods, and self-instructional training. Cross-cultural training programs should be planned for 1–4 weeks. Also,
training may yield better results if it is provided internally by experienced company personnel, preferably by host country
nationals or former expatriates. Companies may also consider selecting expatriates having relatively higher self-efficacy for
adjustments in overseas assignments, since higher self-efficacy leads to better adjustment.

6.2. Recommendations for future research

In this research, only expatriates from four countries were selected, namely Americans, Germans, Japanese and
Singaporeans. Future research may consider expatriates from other countries since with the increased pace of globalization,
more countries are having investments in other Asian countries. This research can be replicated in other Asian countries to
identify the similarities and differences with these findings, and thereby attempt to develop a broader conceptual framework
for Asia.
Future research may also include other pertinent issues (such as effects of industrial sectors, organization size,
organizational culture, etc.), in studying the effects of cross-cultural training programs that have not been covered in this
paper. This will help supplement this research and hopefully provide more information to human resource managers in
288 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290

planning and designing more appropriate training programs and thereby help expatriates in adjusting to different cultural
environments.
In addition, more demographic factors (such as number of dependants, age of spouse and children, language proficiency,
etc.) should be studied in future. It would also be interesting to study the responses from Human Resource managers/
professionals/consultants, as well as non-managerial employees and identify their views on cross-cultural training, self-
efficacy and expatriate adjustment.
This research only studied the relationship between the three variables (cross-cultural training, self-efficacy and
expatriate adjustment). The impact of these relationships among the variables on expatriates’ performance level could be
studied in future. This is because the actual work performance of the expatriates in the host country could validate the
relationship of the expatriates’ perceived level of adjustment with their performance level. Research might also include
culture distance as an antecedent of adjustment as well as the effect of other personality factors on adjustment. As Caligiuri
(2000a,b) has shown in her work, the big five personality factors are important antecedents of adjustment that should be
studied further in their effects. Furthermore, the concept of cultural intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003) might also be fruitful in
this regard as it is conceptually linked to cultural adjustment and should also be influenced by cross-cultural trainings.
Tolerance of ambiguity (Black & Gregersen, 1991) might moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and adjustment as
the latter is expected to be due to a reduction in uncertainty. Also, as adjustment is defined as the level of psychological
comfort in a foreign environment (Simeon & Fujiu, 2000) it would be conceivable that the relationship between adjustment
and performance is moderated by knowledge of acceptable behaviors in the foreign environment (Harrison, 1994).
Also, more in-depth studies might be conducted in future by using qualitative research method to add more insights to
these research findings. Case-study research approach could also be used for examining the relationship between of self-
efficacy and the degree of adjustment in order to give a much clearer picture of their relationships.
Finally, since this is the first empirical study done for identifying the relationship between cross-cultural training, self-
efficacy, and expatriate adjustment in Asia, hopefully this research will trigger more research interest in this area in future.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive suggestions and insightful comments received from Prof. Dan
Landis and the two anonymous reviewers to an earlier draft of this paper. The authors would also like to thank the former
students Lee Sze Ling, Edward Lee, and Ling Liyun for their assistance in the data collection phase of this study.

References

Adler, N. J. (2001). International dimensions of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baker, J. C., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1971). The assignment of American executives abroad: Systematic, haphazard, or chaotic? California Management Review, 13(3), 39–
44.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bhagat, R. S., & Prien, O. K. (1996). Cross-cultural training in organizational contexts. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed.,
pp. 216–230). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence
and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 257–281.
Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (2000). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and theoretical framework for future research. American Management
Review, 15(1), 113–136.
Bierman, K. L., & Furman, W. (1984). The effects of social skills training and peer involvement on the social adjustment of preadolescents. Child Development, 55(1),
151–162.
Bird, A., Heinbuch, S., Dunbar, R., & McNulty, M. (1993). A conceptual model of the effects of area studies training programs and a preliminary investigation of the
model’s hypothesized relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17(4), 415–435.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Antecedents of cross-cultural adjustment for expatriates in Pacific Rim assignments. Human Relations, 44(5), 497–515.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1999). The right way to manage expats. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 52–63.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management
Review, 15(1), 113–136.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1991). The U-curve adjustment hypothesis revisited: A review and theoretical framework. Journal of International Business Studies,
22(2), 225–247.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives.
Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 291–317.
Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. K. (1989). The influence of spouse on expatriate adjustment and intent to stay in assignments. Journal of Management, 15(4), 529–544.
Blake, B. F., & Heslin, R. (1983). Evaluating cross-cultural training. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 203–223). New York:
Pergamon Press.
Blake, B. F., Heslin, R., & Curtis, S. C. (1996). Measuring impacts of cross-cultural training. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd
ed., pp. 165–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20(1), 115–140.
Brett, J. M. (1984). Job transitions and personal and role development. In K. M. Rowland & G. L. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management
(pp. 155–185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural training programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000a). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate’s desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance.
Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 67–88.
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000b). Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: A moderating effect of personality on the relationship between host national contact
and cross-cultural adjustment. Management International Review, 40(1), 61–80.
 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290 289

Chemers, M. M. (1969). Cross-cultural training as a means of improving situational favorableness. Human Relations, 22(4), 531–546.
Daniels, J. D., & Insch, G. S. (1998). Why are early departure rates from foreign assignments lower than historically reported? Multinational Business Review, 6(2),
13–23.
Deshpande, S. P., & Viswesvaran, C. (1992). Is cross-cultural training of expatriate managers effective: A meta analysis. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 16(3), 295–310.
Dunbar, E., & Ehrlich, M. (1986). International practices, selection, training and managing the international staff: A survey report. New York: Columbia University,
Teachers College, Project on International Human Resource.
Earley, P. C. (1987). Intercultural training for managers: A comparison of documentary and interpersonal methods. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), 685–
698.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Eschbach, D. M., Parker, G. E., & Stoeberl, P. A. (2001). American repatriated employees’ retrospective assessments of the effects of cross-cultural training on their
adaptation to international assignments. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(2), 270–287.
Fan, C., & Mak, A. (1998). Measuring social self-efficacy in a culturally diverse student population. Social Behavior and Personality, 26(1), 131–144.
Feldman, D. C., & Brett, J. M. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and job changers. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 258–272.
Fitzgerald-Turner, B. (1997). Myths of expatriate life. HRMagazine, 42(1), 65–74.
Foster, N. (1997). The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates: A reappraisal. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(4), 414–433.
Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee self management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 387–
392.
Fukuda, J., & Chu, P. (1994). Wrestling with expatriate family problems. International Studies of Management and Organization, 24(3), 36–47.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. The Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472–485.
Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42(4), 787–805.
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance on computer software training. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74(6), 884–891.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex
interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 837–861.
GMAC, NFTC, & SHRM (2002). Global relocation trends survey report 2001. GMAC Global Relocation Services.
GMAC, NFTC, & SHRM (2003). Global relocation trends survey report 2002. GMAC Global Relocation Services.
GMAC, NFTC, & SHRM (2005a). Global relocation trends survey report 2003–4. GMAC Global Relocation Services.
GMAC, NFTC, & SHRM (2005b). Ten years of global relocation trends: 1993–2004. GMAC Global Relocation Services.
Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1990). A multifaceted approach to expatriate retention in international assignments. Group and Organization Studies, 15(4), 461–486.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Applying anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory to intercultural adjustment training. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 22(2), 227–250.
Harrison, J. K. (1994). Developing successful expatriate managers: A framework for the structural design and strategic alignment of cross-cultural training
programs. Human Resource Planning, 17(1), 17–35.
Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural adjustment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-
monitoring. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(2), 167–188.
Harvey, M. G. (1985). The executive family: An overlooked variable in international assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 20(1), 84–92.
Harvey, M., & Wiese, D. (1998). Global dual-career couple mentoring: A phase model approach. Human Resource Planning, 21(2), 33–48.
Harzing, A. W. K. (1995). The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates. The International Journal of Human Resource Planning, 6(2), 457–475.
Harzing, A. W. K. (2002). Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23(1), 127–148.
Harzing, A. W. K., & Christensen, C. (2004). Expatriate failure: Time to abandon the concept? Career Development International, 9(7), 616–626.
Hechanova-Alampay, R., Beehr, T. A., Christiansen, N. D., & Van-Horn, R. K. (2002). Adjustment and strain among domestic and international student sojourners: A
longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 23(4), 458–474.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Insch, G., & Daniels, J. (2002). Causes and consequences of declining early departures from foreign assignments. Business Horizons, 39–48.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL, 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.
Kealey, D. J., & Protheroe, D. R. (1996). The effectiveness of cross-cultural training for expatriates: An assessment of the literature on the issue. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 20(2), 141–165.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Landis, D., & Bhagat, R. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Landis, D., & Brislin, R. (Eds.). (1983). Handbook of intercultural training. New York: Peragamon.
Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1999). The distinction between stable and dynamic cross-cultural competencies: Implications for expatriate trainability. Journal of
International Business Studies, 30(4), 709–725.
Li, A., & Gasser, M. B. (2005). Predicting Asian international student’s sociocultural adjustment: A test of two mediation models. International Journal of
Intercultural relations, 29(5), 561–576.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2),
226–251.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C., & Williams, M. J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128.
Mendenhall, M., Dunbar, E., & Oddou, G. (1987). Expatriate selection, training and career-pathing: A review and critique. Human Resource Management, 26(3), 331–
345.
Mendenhall, M., Stahl, G. K., Ehnert, I., Oddou, G., Osland, J. S., & Kuehlmann, T. M. (2004). Evaluation studies of cross-cultural training programs: A review of the
literature from 1988–2000. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 129–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review, Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1),
39–47.
Mol, S. T., Born, M. Ph. , & van der Molen, H. T. (2005). Developing criteria for expatriate effectiveness: Time to jump of the adjustment bandwagon. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 339–353.
Morris, M. A., & Robie, C. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cultural training on expatriate performance and adjustment. International Journal of
Training and Development, 5(1), 112–125.
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(2), 172–191.
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropologist, 7(2), 177–182.
Osman-Gani, A. M., & Tan, W. L. (2005). Expatriate development for Asia-Pacific: A study of training contents and methods. International Journal of Human
Resources Development and Management, 5(1), 41–56.
Osman-Gani, A. M. (2000). Developing expatriates for the Asia-Pacific region: A comparative analysis of multinational enterprise managers from five countries
across three continents. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 213–235.
Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. M. (1993). Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17(3), 355–379.
290 A.M. Osman-Gani, T. Rockstuhl / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 277–290

Palthe, J. (2004). The relative importance of antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment: Implications for managing a global workforce. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 28(1), 37–59.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamandon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624.
Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability.
Human Performance, 15(4), 299–323.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation.
Psychological Reports, 51(6), 663–671.
Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 14(4), 449–464.
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M. (1999). Dimensions, determinants, and differences in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International
Business Studies, 30(3), 557–572.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4),
422–445.
Simeon, R., & Fujiu, K. (2000). Cross-cultural adjustment strategies of Japanese spouses in Silicon Valley. Employee Relations, 22(6), 594–611.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). Development and content validation of a ‘hyperdimensional’ taxonomy of managerial competence.
Human Performance, 13(3), 205–251.
Tipton, R. M., & Worthington, E. L. (1984). The measurement of general self-efficacy: A study of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(5), 545–548.
Tsang, E. W. K. (2001). Adjustment of mainland Chinese academics and students to Singapore. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(4), 347–372.
Tung, R. L. (1981). Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16(1), 68–78.
Tung, R. L. (1982). Selection and training procedures of U.S., European, and Japanese multinationals. California Management Review, 25(1), 57–71.
Waxin, M. F. (2004). Expatriates’ interaction adjustment: The direct and moderator effects of culture of origin. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1),
61–79.