Ridderprint

Expatriate support and success: A systematic review 79 unmentioned (Chen, 2010; Stroppa & Spieß, 2011). On a related note, no study in the current review examined whether supporting supervisors were themselves expatriates or host country nationals (HCNs) or whether cultural differences played a role. A second factor is the context in which supervisory support is provided, as it seems to influence the value of this support. Studies demonstrate that PSS becomes more important when the overseas role is novel or ambiguous (Kawai & Mohr, 2015). Furthermore, the effect of PSS seems stronger when it is combined with support from the (parent) organization (Liu & Ipe, 2010). Additionally, five studies demonstrate that supervisors may provide unique or substitutable resources compared to other sources of social support (Pattie & Benson, 2013; Kraimer & Wayne, 2004; Kraimer et al., 2001; Stroppa & Spieß, 2011; Supangco & Mayrhofer, 2014). Although it is difficult to draw a simple conclusion, these findings suggest that the effect of PSS on IA success relies, at least partly, on the context in terms of the overseas role and the other available resources. The final, third moderating factor involves the measurement of constructs. Although scholars typically expect common method variance to inflate effect sizes (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the opposite occurred in the current review of PSS and expatriate performance. All studies that examined expatriates’ self-rated performance found nonsignificant effects of PSS (Kawai & Mohr, 2015; Stroppa & Spieß, 2011), whereas those that used supervisor evaluations of performance found mostly positive effects (Benson & Pattie, 2013; Kraimer & Wayne, 2004; Kraimer et al., 2001; Pattie, 2007; Pattie et al., 2013). One explanation for this phenomenon is that expatriates might not be able to assess their own performance very well. However, this seems questionable, as the issue did not arise when examining the impact of POS on expatriate performance. Hence, the concept of interpersonal affectivity may offer a more likely explanation (see Lefkowitz, 2000). It suggests that expatriates who have a high-quality relationship with their supervisor will generally be more positively evaluated by that supervisor without actually performing well. This would imply that the relationship identified between supervisor support and expatriate performance may have been a design artefact. 4.6.3 Conclusion In summary, PSS is typically associated with the success of IAs. Studies consistently demonstrate that supervisor support improves the satisfaction of expatriates, whereas they suggest a small positive influence on expatriate commitment and retention. Regarding expatriates’ adjustment, studies demonstrate either positive or non-existent effects of PSS. The evidence of an effect of PSS on expatriates’ performance is meagre. As our review shows, the supervisor support-success relationship seems to be contingent on moderating factors such as the proximity of the supervisor, design artefacts related to the measurement of constructs, and the available or needed resources in the IA context. 4.7 Mentoring Support Four studies in the current review examine the influence of social support by mentors on the success of IAs. Each of these studies measured mentoring support in a different way. Bozionelos (2009) asked expatriates for the number of mentors they have had, Florkowski and Fogel (1999) surveyed whether expatriates have a mentor looking