Strategic Inpatriate Acculturation: A Stress Perspective
ABSTRACT
We argue that current acculturation research offers an incomplete picture of the psychological processes as they occur on the longer-term assignments of inpatriate international assignments. These assignments refer to the strategic transference of personnel to the parent company headquarters for significant periods of time. We argue that the inpatriate’s commitment to a global career combined with a prolonged investment of time at headquarters evokes acculturative stresses different to those experienced by other types of global staffing methods. The contribution of this manuscript is twofold, in that we (1.) describe the inpatriate acculturation experience and (2.) analyse the impact inpatriate assignment characteristics have on inpatriate acculturation stress. Propositions on the development of inpatriate acculturation strategy and acculturative stress are offered.
Keywords: inpatriation, acculturation strategy, stress, self-congruity, status inconsistency
Strategic Inpatriate Acculturation: A Stress Perspective
“Where in the world is there a university which could preserve its fame, or a cultural centre which could keep its eminence, or a metropolis which could hold its drawing power, if it were to turn inwards and serve only its own hinterland and its own racial group?” Roy Jenkins
1. Introduction
Alongside Berry (2005), we argue that not all individuals undergo acculturation in the same manner. Typically, individuals seek to engage in acculturation in a variety of ways, thus creating significant variations in how the process unfolds and the outcomes associated with the process. In this manuscript, we argue that the acculturation experiences of inpatriates at multinational corporations (MNC) headquarter locations (Harvey, Reiche & Moeller, 2011) are different to acculturation experienced by expatriates in subsidiaries (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Selmer, 2001). Furthermore, these differences may expose the inpatriate manager to additional levels of stress that may result in lower performance levels and significantly longer adjustment period (Harvey, Novicevic & Speier, 1999a).
1.1 Stress
The concept of acculturative stress has been identified as one kind of particular set of stress behaviors which occurs during acculturation and can result in lowered mental health status (specifically confusion, anxiety, depression), feelings of marginality and alienation, heightened psychosomatic symptom level, and identity confusion (Berry, Kim, Minde & Mok, 1987; Rudmin, 2009). Alleviating stress is one of the most important keys to the success of an international assignment (Silbiger & Pines, 2014). Stress for the inpatriate can emanate from many factors such as concern regarding their skills and capabilities and the likelihood of coping successfully with the demands and challenges resulting from relocation to the headquarters (Harvey, Ralston & Napier, 2000). Stress has the capacity to negatively influence all aspects of the inpatriate’s performance at work and may result in burnout at both the professional and personal levels. In severe cases this may lead to depression, loss of self-esteem, sadness, guilt, and grief and ultimately stress (Kim & Stoner, 2008) and is frequently seen as an antecedent to a lowering of performance and an increase in turnover (Thomas & Lankau, 2009).
1.2 Inpatriates
Inpatriates represent a new and viable pool of international candidates for staffing the global organization (Farndale, Scullion & Sparrow, 2010; Reiche, 2011), yet little work has been done to articulate the acculturation experiences of these international assignees who are committed to global careers and who spend significantly longer periods of time abroad than the traditional expatriate (Selmer, 2001). This situation begs the following two research questions: Firstly, what is the most appropriate acculturation strategy that allows inpatriates to fulfil their purpose at headquarters and minimalize stress? Secondly, why does the acculturation strategy matter in an inpatriate context?
1.3 Difference Between Inpatriate and Expatriate
In extant literature there has been a great deal of discussion concerning the distinctions between expatriates and inpatriates. The majority of scholars concur that there are considerable differences (Harvey, et al., 1999a; 2005; Reiche, 2011). The main characteristic distinctions between expatriates and inpatriates, with focus on the inpatriate, are these: 1.) the inpatriate’s status perceived by locals at headquarter is lower than the expatriate’s perceived status at subsidiaries. Inpatriates stand in the periphery compared to locals despite their marked value at headquarters. 2.) As a result, the level of influence for inpatriates at headquarters is significantly reduced. Expatriate influence is greater as they carry the ‘corporate flag’ to subsidiaries. 3.) Both national and corporate cultures at headquarters must be learned by inpatriates, whereas expatriates are predominantly concerned with national culture adjustment. 4.) Inpatriates are expected to enact goals set by MNCs and to act as boundary-spanners and knowledge expert between headquarter and subsidiary locations. Meanwhile, expatriates generally transfer corporate culture knowledge to subsidiaries but are limited in their knowledge transfer abilities back to headquarters. 5.) A geocentric staffing approach connotes that MNCs copiously employ the inpatriate type, increasing the mix of national cultures at headquarters. Expatriates encounter fewer nationalities in subsidiaries. Table 1 is adopted from Reiche, Kraimer and Harzing (2009) and shows those differences.
Whilst elements of stress have received a great deal of attention by researchers as they relate to expatriates (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991; Sullivan & Bhagat, 1992; Feldman & Thomas, 1993), little attention has been paid to the specific stress that may influence inpatriate managers. Additionally, the presence of stress in the inpatriation process may be brought on by the inpatriate manager’s perceived loss of status when transferring from the subsidiary to the headquarters (Maley & Kramar, 2010), the loss of influence they held in the subsidiary (Harvey & Miceli, 1999) and the expectation at the MNC headquarters to acclimatize to the national and corporate culture (Reiche, 2011). In comparison to the expatriate manager, these variances place further burden on the acculturation process and are more likely to result in increased stress for the inpatriate manager.
***** Insert Table 1 about Here *****
1.4 Acculturation Strategy
Acculturation is the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members (Berry, 2005). At the individual level, it involves changes in a person’s behavioral repertoire that is exhibited when introduced to a new, second culture. Redfield and colleagues (1936) suggest that continuous face-to-face contact by individuals from different cultures will principally result in changes of the original culture patterns of both cultures involved. In an era of increasing international mobility and thus intercultural contact (Ward & Kagitcibasi, 2010), a greater focus on global career acculturation patterns that shape global assignees’ success is desired and justified.
The acculturation literature is replete with numerous frameworks and conceptualization of acculturation, but none of them are as established and well-known as John Berry’s two-dimensional model of acculturation (Ward & Kus, 2012). Berry’s (1980; 1990) model of acculturation distinguishes between two dimensions that define how individuals go about negotiating the acculturation process. These dimensions revolve around 1.) a relative preference for maintaining one’s heritage culture and identity, and 2.) a relative preference for having contact with and participating in the larger society along with other ethno-cultural groups (Berry, 1980). The underlying assumption behind Berry’s evolving framework is that the acculturation dimensions are largely situated in the realm of attitudes described as “relative preferences” (Berry, 2009, p. 366).
The relative preferences result in four acculturation orientations: integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization. Within these four categorizations, integration is the preferred acculturation strategy over others for numerous reasons. Integration is a strategy wherein the individual identifies with both cultures (Motti-Stefanidi, Berry, Chryssochoou, Sam & Phinney, 2012). Integration essentially stands for an individual embracing both the original culture and new host culture. It has been argued that an integration strategy is typically associated with most favorable adaptation outcomes (Berry, 2005; Berry et al., 1989) as is evident in lower stress levels, better adaptation (Berry, 2005; Tung, 1998) and fewer mental health issues (Rudmin, 2009). Assimilation, on contrary, means that the individual identifies mostly with the dominant culture (Berry, 1990), whereas separation means that the identification is largely with the ethnic culture and marginalization strategy is low in identification with both cultures. Assimilation, separation and marginalization are all associated with problematic outcomes (Berry, Poortinga, & Pandley, 1997; Sam & Berry, 2006a).
In terms of acculturation/adjustment and stress, the academic literature on international assignment postings/experiences largely focuses on adjustment issues from a traditional expatriate perspective (Harzing, 2001; Tarique & Schuler, 2010), whereas only modest research attention has been directed at the non-traditional expatriate types (Vance & McNulty, 2014) which includes inpatriates (Collings, McDonnell, Gunnigle & Lavelle, 2012).
The nature of inpatriate assignments leads us to believe that the process of acculturation is experienced differently when compared to expatriate assignments and this difference may result in the inpatriate suffering unnecessary stress. Because the elements in Table 1 are strongly embedded in the inpatriate identity and purpose at headquarters, we argue that their purpose and assignment characteristics can create conditions that can eventually lead to stress, thus limiting the effectiveness of inpatriates. Stress is most often conceptualized as a psychological state that develops when an individual faces a situation that taxes resources for dealing with the situation (Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll, 2000). Although stress is often a central theme in a business context, it is exacerbated in an intercultural adaptation process (Brewis, 2008). More alarmingly, recent work relating to stress on overseas assignments has highlighted the lack of knowledge about global assignment-specific stresses (Brown, 2008; Caligiuri, Tarique & Jacobs, 2009; Ward & Kus, 2012).
Thus far, we can conclude that acculturation scholars argue for integration as the most viable method of acculturation. Integration concerns favorable/better adaptation outcomes and lower stress levels as well as fewer mental health issues. We take note that other strategies of acculturation (i.e. assimilation, separation and marginalization) can have the opposite effects of the pursuit of an integration strategy (Berry, Phinney, Sam & Vedder, 2006; Rudmin, 2003). This leads us to articulate a paradox we find in the literature. On one hand, the sociocultural acculturation scholars advise for sojourners to maintain their cultural heritage; that is, pursue a strategy of integration rather than assimilation (Berry, 2005; Rudmin, 2003). On the other hand, Reiche and colleagues (2009) argue that the human resource socialization policy of many MNCs typically drive the sojourner-in this case the inpatriate- to adopt a strategy of assimilation; thereby embracing the corporate culture in its “immediate organizational unit” (p. 521) by building relational social capital.
By further way of explanation, cultural assimilation is the process of integration whereby inpatriates are immersed into the MNC headquarter national and corporate culture. This implies the loss of certain characteristics of the inpatriates, such as language, customs, ethnicity and self-identity. Assimilation may be spontaneous or obligatory, as is often the case of the assimilation of the inpatriate. By contrast, integration requires acceptance of a headquarters’ corporate culture, but does not require the eradication of all cultural differences or inpatriate group-identities. it is conceived of as a two-way process, through which both the MNC headquarters and the inpatriates influence and change one another, and in which differences can be agreeably accommodated as long as there is a common commitment to working together. We note that corporate culture is heavily influenced by national culture of the headquarters (Novicevic, Buckley, Harvey, Halbesleben & Des Rosiers, 2003), and, therefore, adjustment to corporate culture carries equivalent significance to that of the pressures of retaining cultural heritage.
Striking the balance in this “tug of war” between the ideal of maintaining ones’ cultural heritage, and adapting to corporate culture via socialization policy reality, is not easily accomplished and the inpatriate is often left with competing ideals/realities. As Organizational members who perform an arguably more direct and stronger boundary-spanning role between headquarters and subsidiaries than expatriates do; inpatriates, on the other hand, ‘build a bridges. Sustaining the purpose of this ‘bridge’ between headquarters and subsidiaries, however, relies heavily on the inpatriate’s ability to juggle both the demands of maintaining one’s culture and caving in to the necessary adjustment (i.e., corporate culture) that enables inpatriates to operate at headquarters.
Cultural acculturation may take place at different speeds for a number of reasons, (Aleksynsk & Algan, 2010). Some theoretical frameworks specify that certain factors block acculturation, while other theories emphasize factors that merely slow it down. The sociological paradigm that has constituted the most prominent perspective on immigrant mobility is ‘classic assimilation theory’, which dates to the Chicago School in the 1920s. Classic assimilation theory sees acculturation following a straight-line convergence, becoming more similar over time in norms, values, behaviours, and characteristics (Brown & Bean, 2006). This theory predicts that those inpatriate managers residing the longest in the headquarters will show greater similarities with the headquarter corporate culture than newcomer inpatriate managers who have spent less time in the headquarter environment. ‘New assimilation theory’, on the other hand, contends that certain institutions play important roles in the timely achievement of acculturation (Alba & Nee, 2003). According to this model the successful acculturation of new inpatriate managers involves change and acceptance by the headquarters. In other words, the emphasis is on the MNC to adapt to accommodate the inpatriate; these modifications include the elimination of discrimination and organizational barriers.
In addition to time on the job (classic theory) and the obligation of the headquarters (new assimilation theory), an inpatriate’s cognitive ability, personality traits, language skills and motivation will inevitably have influence on the speed of their acculturation to the headquarter national and organizational culture (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2014). Likewise, the longer the cultural and economic distance between the home country of the inpatriate manager and the headquarters, the longer the acculturation adjustment period for the inpatriate (Harvey, Novicevic, Buckley, & Fung, 2005).
1.5 Research objectives
Returning to the paradox, the literature indicates without much justification that a strategy of assimilation is best for traditional and non-traditional assignees, such as expatriates and inpatriates (Paik, Segaudi, Malinowski & Stahl, 2002; Tung, 1998). We beg to differ on this assumption that expatriates and inpatriates orientate similarly to their new environments on two accounts; the first being the general purpose of inpatriate assignments and the second being the distinct assignment characteristics. Our threefold objectives are these: explain the relationship between acculturation strategy and inpatriate acculturation experience and stress, explain the implications of acculturation strategy on inpatriate acculturative stress levels, and examine the influence of inpatriate assignment characteristics on inpatriate acculturative stress levels.