Tucker, Bonial, and Lahti (2004) note that the relationship between cross-cultural adjustment and job performance is complex and not well understood. For example, research by Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski (2001) found a positive relationship between expatriate adjustments with performance; however, it found no support for spousal adjustment on expatriate performance. On the other hand, Shay and Baack’s (2006) analysis shows significant relationships between each dimension of adjustment to expatriate performance. This finding seems parallel to Shaffer and Harrison’s (2001) argument that well-adjusted expatriates will have greater reserve of personal resources, i.e., time, effort and emotional investment which are available to spend on the behaviors that facilitate job performance. Thomas and Lazarova (2006) stress that the relationship between adjustment and performance is still inconclusive, which warrants more investigation for a firmer concluding interpretation. Based on such developments, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis 2. Expatriate adjustment (EXPADJ) will be positively related to expatriate performance (PERFORM), specifically:
H2a. Expatriate general adjustment (EGAJ) will be positively related to expatriate task performance (ETP).
H2b. Expatriate interaction adjustment (EIAJ) will be positively related to expatriate task performance (ETP).
H2c. Expatriate work adjustment will be positively (EWAJ) related to expatriate task performance (ETP).
H2d. Expatriate general adjustment (EGAJ) will be positively related to expatriate contextual performance (ECP).
H2e. Expatriate interaction adjustment (EIAJ) will be positively related to expatriate contextual performance (ECP).
H2f. Expatriate work adjustment (EWAJ) will be positively related to expatriate contextual performance (ECP).
Fig. 1 summarizes the above hypothesized relationships in a path model.