Ridderprint

Chapter 5 110 We propose three directions for future research on family support. First, it would be interesting to examine how the importance of supportive relations between family members changes over time. Family members are likely the main support providers during the early stages of the expatriation cycle. Expatriates strongly rely on their family members for cultural sense-making, emotional counselling, and arranging administration and accommodation, especially when their external support network is still disrupted due to the relocation. Second, family support may have increased importance during non- standard assignments. For example, assignments with elevated hardship (e.g., remote locations or terrorism-endangered countries) place higher demands on expatriate families. Similarly, the rising use of frequent commuting, rotations, and split-family arrangements (BGRS, 2016) causes completely new challenges for expatriate families as they are separated for longer periods of time. We have limited knowledge of what these developments imply for expatriates’ need for support. Third, not all expatriates have a trailing family or family members to rely on at all. It would be interesting to compare the instrumentality of support from trailing and non-trailing family members. Moreover, scholars could explore to what extent the lack of a family increases expatriates’ reliance on other sources of social support. 5.6.4 Research Implications & Agenda We call for a more granular examination of social support in future expatriate management research. This study established that different agents provide different benefits, potentially at different phases of the expatriation cycle. Scholars and practitioners should be able to build on these potentially different roles and responsibilities of agents. In order to advance our theoretical understanding, we urge future studies to provide a more detailed specification of the agents and/or the support they examine, rather than referring to general social “ support ” (Black, 1990; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Tsang, 2001; Wang, 2003; Wiese, 2013), social “ networks ” (Claus, Maletz, Casoinic, & Pierson, 2015), or social “ contact ” and “ interactions ” (Jun, Lee, & Gentry, 1997; Stierle, Van Dick, & Wagner, 2002). Based on the current sample of studies, our meta-analysis puts forward several areas that require empirical elaboration. First, there are nearly no studies that examine the effects of specific practices on expatriates’ performance and retention. We urge future scholars to examine more rigorously how the global mobility practices implemented by organizations are perceived by expatriates, whether they fulfill elements of the psychological contract, and whether they help motivate and retain expatriates. Studies could compare organizations with similar policies and practices, operating in similar industries and countries, and compare retention rates. Second, more research is required on mentorship and buddy programs during international assignment. We did establish that mentoring benefits expatriates’ adjustment, commitment, and performance, but, intriguingly, not on expatriates’ retention. This while mentoring seems oriented at the long-term (career) development of the protégé. Scholars have claimed that home and host mentorship have different purposes, respectively repatriate retention and expatriate adjustment (Feldman & Bolino,