Ridderprint

Chapter 4 86 circumstances or may require a certainmindset of the expatriate. Suchmoderating factors may be especially relevant because there is no longer only one type of expatriation, given the rise of non-traditional assignments and the changing profile of expatriate managers (Baruch et al., 2016; Brookfield, 2015). This review is subject to three main limitations. First, in its search for relevant documents this review focused on success criteria related to expatriates’ effort and attachment (see Table 4.1), which means that important studies examining expatriates’ job satisfaction and adjustment were thus not included. However, the purpose of this review was to illustrate what moderating factors influence the effectiveness of social support, not to provide a comprehensive overview of all processes at play. We urge scholars to consider reviewing the moderating factors affecting the relationships between social support and each success criterion separately and in more detail. Moreover, future studies could include other important outcomes of IAs such as knowledge transfer, personal development, career success and well-being. Second, in focusing on organization-based social support, this review did not consider the assistance expatriates receive from social ties outside of the work place. Valuable social resources that members of the local community may provide to expatriates (Van Bakel et al., 2015) were thus overlooked, and future studies should investigate to what extent expatriates’ interactions with non-work local ties stimulate success. More important, this review excluded the support expatriates receive from their families, which has been shown to have a major influence on IA success (e.g., Lazarova et al., 2010). Taking into account insights from the current review, future studies could examine how geographical proximity (i.e., trailing vs. non-trailing) affects the supportive resources that family members provide. Subsequently, their relative impact on IA success could be evaluated. Furthermore, scholars could extend the current framework to include success criteria from the family domain, such as spousal adjustment, work-family conflict, family well-being or even family performance. Third, a meta-analytical approach might provide more insights regarding the influence of the moderating factors. A meta-analysis could demonstrate whether hierarchical, geographical, situational and cultural proximity actually introduce discriminant validity between support sources. Moreover, meta-analysis could test statistically whether social support actually has a stronger impact on the more proximal criteria of IA success. Furthermore, in light of the changes in the expatriate population and the rise of new forms of assignments since the last review (see Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005), a new meta-analysis could compare the effects of social support for traditional and non-traditional expatriate profiles and for different forms of assignment. In conclusion, social support is highly multidimensional in the context of IAs and while it has positive connotations in general, its effect on the various criteria of success may not be straightforward. The rise of the term “expatriate return on investment” indicates the necessity of a more detailed investigation. Scholars should therefore team up with multinational organizations to examine what manifestations and configurations of social support reap the most benefits. This review shows that, in order to answer this question, researchers should consider at least two dimensions of proximity of the support