Ridderprint

Chapter 5 114 effects rather than a single true effect, thereby allowing small studies to contribute relatively more information (Borenstein, Higgings, Hedges, & Rothstein, 2009). However, we already had a relatively small number of independent samples for specific analyses and estimating random effects further decreased our statistical power. This may have contributed to the fact that we did not find evidence for some of our moderation hypotheses despite large differences in average effects. Therefore, we urge future scholars to examine more closely whether HCN and expatriate providers of social support and home and host country social support networks have differential effects on expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and retention. A final limitation is formed by the outcome variables included in this meta-analysis. We focused primarily on indicators that are relevant to the organization and, to some extent, to the expatriate, and thereby overlooked the interests of various other relevant stakeholders. Future research should include more indicators of success from the perspective of the family, such as work-life and work-family balance, the family’s adjustment, career consequences for expatriate families, and their long-term happiness. Similarly, future research could examine to what extent international assignment causes positive effects for local stakeholders, for instance, the knowledge transfer to and development of the local organization, and whether these outweigh negative effects, for instance, the (perceived) injustice for local talents. This is important because, paraphrasing Suutari and Brewster (2003, p.1347), successful expatriation from an organizational perspective does not always entail success from the viewpoint of other stakeholders.