Disruptive decisions to leave home: Gender and family differences in expatriation choices

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200 www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Disruptive decisions to leave home: Gender and family differences in expatriation choices Phyllis Tharenou

*

Division of Business, University of South Australia, City West Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide 5000, Australia Received 30 November 2004 Available online 30 October 2007 Accepted by Dave Harrison

Abstract I developed a theoretical model predicting how gender and family status would influence employee willingness to expatriate, international job search behavior, and expatriation decisions and tested the model in a longitudinal investigation. Australian employees comprising 230 females and 401 males with partners and/or children and 208 female and male childless singles were surveyed three times over three years. Employees who had greater personal agency and less family barriers were more willing to expatriate, to search for international jobs, and to eventually leave their home countries. Having a family restricted females’ ability to transform their willingness to expatriate into an international job search to a greater extent than it did males’. In turn, international job search predicted actual expatriation for a job. Overall, the expatriation interests of women with partners and/or children were least realized (most inhibited) in international job search and subsequent expatriation behavior. The interests of childless single employees were most realized. The study challenges current thinking on women’s willingness to expatriate by demonstrating that women are willing to expatriate, but family factors lead to women being less able to transform their willingness into an international job search than men, subsequently flowing on to women expatriating less for work than men. Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Willingness to relocate abroad or internationally; International careers; Interest in international career; Job search abroad; International relocation; Global mobility; Global talent

The decision to leave home and search for an expatriate job is a disruptive, even momentous choice. Yet it is a choice on which organizations increasingly rely. Practitioners constantly seek ways to increase employees’ acceptance of international assignments (e.g., Cartus, 2004; GMAC, 2004; Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2005). Over two-thirds of companies deploy expatriates abroad at about the same rate, or at increased rates, as in previous years (GMAC, 2004, 2006). Individuals also expatriate of their own volition to take advantage of the employment opportunities available in a global economy with a shortage of skilled workers (Inkson &

*

Fax: +61 08 8302 0904. E-mail address: [email protected]

0749-5978/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.08.004

Myers, 2003; OECD, 2005; Tharenou, 2003). Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to advance understanding of the antecedents and consequences of the willingness to expatriate for work. The proportion of women deployed abroad by companies has been low but is increasing (23%, GMAC, 2006) and women form close to half of those who selfinitiate expatriation for work (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000; Barrett & O’Connell, 2001; DeVoretz, Ma, & Zhang, 2003; Inkson & Myers, 2003; Tharenou, 2003). Despite women’s increased expatriation, their motivation to expatriate is not yet understood. With rare exceptions (e.g., Lowe, Downes, & Kroeck, 1999; Van der Velde, Bossink, & Jansen, 2005), prior studies have not identified the causes of women’s willingness to expatriate for work or contrasted women’s causes

184

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

against the causes of men’s willingness. Employee samples in prior studies have had a majority of men (e.g., Adler, 1984, 1986; Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996; Brett & Stroh, 1995). When studies did use samples with more balanced numbers of men and women, researchers have often limited their analyses to assessing if there are gender differences in willingness to expatriate (e.g., Konopaske & Werner, 2005; Wang & Bu, 2004). Most studies show no gender differences in willingness to expatriate for work (Adler, 1984, 1986; Aryee et al., 1996; Brett & Stroh, 1995; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Stroh, Varma, & Valy-Durbin, 2000; Tharenou, 2003; Wang & Bu, 2004) although some have found that women are less willing to expatriate than men are (Konopaske & Werner, 2005; Lowe et al., 1999; Van der Velde et al., 2005). Hence, another aim of the present study is to examine causes of possible gender differences in willingness to expatriate. When gender differences in willingness to expatriate are observed, they are often attributed to corresponding gender differences in family roles or obligations. Women have reported that they have more restrictions on taking up international assignments than men due to dual career and timing concerns (Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Having children, but not being in a dual-career couple, was related to managers’ and women’s views that women would not want to accept international assignments (Stroh et al., 2000). But research has demonstrated that having children of high school-age reduces both women’s and men’s willingness to accept international assignments (Van der Velde et al., 2005). Yet prior studies have not examined the effects of family obligations in interaction with gender. Thus, a third aim of the current study is the theorizing and empirical inclusion of both gender and family variables as direct determinants of, and moderating influences on, willingness to expatriate. Furthermore, prior studies have not gone beyond willingness to expatriate, which can be defined as the degree to which an individual is motivated to expatriate for a job for a year or more. Willingness to expatriate also represents an employee’s interest in an international career (Adler, 1986). Prior investigators have implied that interest in an international career leads directly to expatriation behavior (Adler, 1984, 1986; Aryee et al., 1996; Van der Velde et al., 2005). However, as has been found in the turnover literature (Van Hooft, Born, Taris, Van Der Flier, & Blonk, 2004), an intermediate step should be search behaviors for an international job. These search behaviors may or may not result in eventual expatriation. Therefore, a fourth aim of the present study is to investigate the complex consequences of the willingness to expatriate across gender and family status. Finally, a distinctive feature of the study is its longitudinal design. The study follows mature employees

three times over three years to assess how willingness to expatriate is formed and how it is subsequently implemented in behavior. Only one study in this domain has been longitudinal (Tharenou, 2003), but it could not test for multiple, interactive effects of gender and family status. Further, it did not examine the sequence of behavioral consequences of willingness to expatriate that are addressed in the present investigation.

Hypothesis development Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000) forms the basis for a series of propositions regarding why some individuals are more or less inclined to expatriate (Tharenou, 2002). It also undergirds ideas about how that willingness is expressed in job search and subsequent expatriation. Role theory (Markham, 1987) forms the basis for the gender and family differences proposed in the willingness to expatriate. Propositions derived from these theories and formally stated below are shown in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, the willingness to relocate domestically is included as a control variable. Social Cognitive Career Theory: Antecedents to the willingness to expatriate Social Cognitive Career Theory proposes that people’s career interests and career choice goals stem partly from the exercise of their personal agency and partly from environmental opportunities, support and barriers they have experienced or expect to experience (Lent et al., 2000). An individual’s personal resources are critical for meeting the uncertainties and demands of moving to live in a foreign culture (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005). International relocation involves dealing on a daily basis with unfamiliar norms related to business practices, customs, living conditions, healthcare, safety, political systems, the law, language, and religion (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004). While on a foreign assignment, employees may be anxious and uncertain about what will happen to them, their job skills, their careers, their immediate families, and their extended families (Borstorff, Harris, Feild, & Giles, 1997). When considering expatriation, individuals assess whether they can cope with the unique challenges, uncertainties, and demands caused by the new norms, values, and attitudes they will face. Personal agency, or the belief that one can exercise control over the environment to be able to achieve desired goals and avoid undesired ones (Bandura, 2001), seems critical for an employee to anticipate that he or she can successfully deal with the challenges of expatriation. Individuals high in personal agency are more likely to anticipate that they

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

185

Career Instrumentality Willingness to Relocate Domestically SelfEfficacy

Disruption

Personal Agency

International Experience

Willingness to Expatriate

International Job search

Expatriation Behavior

Family Disapproval

Partner Career

Family Barriers

High-school Children

Fig. 1. The model providing the relationships to be tested. The structural equation model tested did not include the paths to expatriation behavior, which were separately tested.

can deal with the uncertainty, disruption, lack of familiarity, and change required in their attitudes and behaviors to adapt to a foreign culture and environment (Borstorff et al., 1997). Personal agency is formed from its core components of outcome expectancies and self-efficacy judgments and from other social cognitive components that allow the exercise of forethought and self-regulation with respect to a specific activity (Bandura, 2001; Lent et al., 2000). A core component of personal agency is an individual’s expectations of positive outcomes (Bandura, 2001). Across countries, individuals expatriate most often for career opportunities, advancement, pay and financial benefits—more often than they do for their partner’s needs, for adventure or exploration, or to satisfy desires for travel or change (Barrett & O’Connell, 2001; Clegg & Gray, 2002; Frank & Be´lair, 2000; Hugo, Rudd, & Harris, 2003; Inkson & Myers, 2003; Lidgard, 2001; Vandenbrande et al., 2006). In considering expatriation, employees construct outcome expectations for their career, and these expectations of career instrumentality contribute to the belief that they can control events. If employees believe that expatriation will be instrumental for gaining career benefits, their personal agency increases, and they are therefore more willing to expatriate. A second core component of personal agency is selfefficacy. Self-efficacy expectations are people’s judgments about their capabilities to organize and execute

courses of action required to attain a designated type of performance (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy for working abroad has been defined as individuals’ certainty that they are able to master the challenges related to working and living in a country with a culture different than their own (Cianni & Tharenou, 2000). Those with high self-efficacy are more likely than those with low self-efficacy to believe that they can cope with the considerable cultural adjustment demands they will face during expatriation (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005) and thus to be able to control their responses to the situation to gain favorable outcomes, therefore increasing their willingness to expatriate. A further component of the personal agency needed to expatriate for a job is anticipating low disruption and quick re-establishment of routines (Black et al., 1991). Expatriation disrupts work and social networks and job requirements and employees may need to adjust to a different organizational culture, as also does a domestic relocation (Harrison et al., 2004). But, unlike a domestic move, expatriation also involves adjustment to a new culture and environment and severe disruption to the way an employee lives day to day. The longer employees expect re-establishment of work and nonwork routines to take, the greater will be the uncertainty they expect from expatriation (Black et al., 1991). Anticipating disruption and uncertainty results in employees feeling that they have little control, therefore reducing their willingness to expatriate. If employees anticipate

186

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

little disruption, they anticipate greater control, increasing their willingness to expatriate. Finally, a component of personal agency for expatriation is having international capabilities (Borstorff et al., 1997). Employees with prior international experience should be more able to anticipate dealing with the challenges and uncertainties to be faced in a foreign environment than internationally inexperienced employees (Borstorff et al., 1997). Employees with international experience have accumulated knowledge and learned the skills for dealing with a foreign environment and the uncertainties abroad (Black et al., 1991; Borstorff et al., 1997). Employees with international experience should expect fewer stressors and problems, lessening their uncertainty and increasing their feelings of control (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Black et al., 1991), resulting in expatriation being more attractive than for those without international experience (Borstorff et al., 1997). In sum, individuals with high personal agency are more likely than others to believe that they can exercise control in a foreign environment and succeed. High personal agency allows an employee to expect to resolve the challenges to be encountered in a new culture and gain desired outcomes and avoid undesirable ones. Therefore, the employee’s motivation or willingness to expatriate will increase. Hence, as shown in Fig. 1: H1: Personal agency for working abroad will predict willingness to expatriate. Family barriers are the environmental element of interest in this study. In Social Cognitive Career Theory, barriers are events or conditions people perceive in their environment that make career choices difficult (Lent et al., 2000). Barriers are domain and context specific to the particular career area. Family barriers are emphasized in the present study because of their importance for resisting expatriation for work (GMAC, 2004, 2006). The core components of family barriers to expatriation reported by human resource personnel are general family concerns, a partner’s career, and children’s education (GMAC, 2004). Family concerns and circumstances have been the top reason found for why employees refuse to take international assignments (Cartus, 2004; Cendant, 2004, 2005; GMAC, 2004, 2006). Family disapproval is thus a major component of family barriers to expatriation. Dual career issues, especially the effect on a partner’s career, are frequently identified by human resource personnel as barriers leading employees to refuse international assignments (GMAC, 2004, 2006; ORC Worldwide, 2004) and to not put themselves forward as expatriation candidates (KPMG, 2003, 2004). Expatriation curtails a partner’s employment (GMAC, 2007). Partners often perceive insurmountable obstacles to gaining a job or practicing

their chosen profession abroad because they lack necessary work visas, certification or licensure, have insufficient language skills, or distrust local childcare (Interchange Institute, 2004). Another component of family barriers identified by employees is the disruptive effect a move to a foreign culture would have on their high school-aged children’s education (NFTC, 2001; Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2002, 2005). Indeed, employees who expatriate often leave their high school-aged children behind at school in the home country (rates as high as 49% have been reported recently by GMAC, 2006) because of concerns about their children’s safety and disruption to their schooling (GMAC, 2004). Family barriers arise most for employees with partners and/or children. For married employees, international relocation is a decision made by the couple and, if there are high school-aged children, by the family as a whole. An employee’s willingness to expatriate is thus likely to be a function of their family’s willingness to expatriate. For an employee to expatriate, their partner needs to also be willing. Although high school-aged children do not make autonomous decisions about expatriation, if they are not willing to go, an employee’s willingness may be reduced. Overall, when the family disapproves of the employee expatriating, partners have careers, and children are in high school, an employee’s probability of expatriating is reduced more than when the family does not disapprove, partners do not have careers, and the couple does not have high school-aged children. Hence, family barriers reduce employees’ willingness to expatriate. As shown in Fig. 1: H2: Family barriers will negatively predict an employee’s willingness to expatriate.

Role theory: Gender differences in the influence of family barriers Men and women experience different influences on their decision-making about expatriating because women are more receptive to family constraints in their social roles than men are. Role theory (Markham, 1987) explains why family barriers might have different effects on men’s and women’s willingness to expatriate. Role theory thus provides the basis for the interaction predicted between gender and family barriers. Role theory proposes that men and women are socialized to view relocation for work differently (Markham, 1987). Relocation supports the socialized role of married men as family providers, in which work obligations have highest priority (Bielby & Bielby, 1992; Markham, 1987). Married women are socialized to view relocating for their careers as inappropriate because it emphasizes pursuit of personal advancement and threatens

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

traditional family roles of wife as caregiver and husband as provider. This socialization causes role conflict for a woman and social pressure not to relocate (Markham & Pleck, 1986). Single childless women do not face the role expectations to put family before work that married women, especially mothers, face; single childless women also do not have a partner to consider when making expatriation decisions. Hence, single childless women have greater freedom to pursue work abroad (Linehan & Walsh, 2001)—they do not incur the role conflict and social pressure not to expatriate for jobs experienced by other women. According to role theory, the different socialized gender roles that men and women occupy suggest that incurring family disapproval, having a partner with a career, and having children result in women facing more family barriers than men when considering expatriation. Women with partners and/or children are likely to have more family disapproval of their expatriation for a job than men with partners and/or children due to women’s socialized role of caregiver, thus increasing family barriers and reducing women’s interest in work abroad. Women’s partners have careers more frequently than men’s do (Lyness & Thompson, 1997) and women put their partner’s careers before their own when making decisions to relocate for work (Feldman, 2001; Markham, 1987; Stroh, 1999). Hence, partners’ careers contribute more to the family barriers women face to expatriating than to the barriers faced by men, thus reducing women’s interest in expatriating more than men’s. With regard to children, mothers have the major caregiver role. Women report concerns about being able to care for children when considering expatriation for a job, due to the lack of support they will have from their extended families (Linehan & Walsh, 2001). Hence, caring for children contributes more to women’s family barriers to expatriation than to men’s, reducing women’s willingness to expatriate for a job more than men’s. Therefore, women’s willingness to expatriate is more likely to be affected by their family’s willingness to expatriate than is men’s. In sum, women employees with partners and/or children are likely to have more family barriers to their expatriation than men with partners and/or children, due to family disapproval, their partners’ careers, and children’s education, reducing women’s willingness to expatriate more than men’s. Gender is not included in Fig. 1. However, the effect of family barriers on willingness should be greater for women than for men. Gender is therefore hypothesized to interact with family barriers to explain willingness to expatriate. Hypothesis 3 proposes that: H3: Gender will interact with family barriers to predict willingness to expatriate; family barriers will reduce women’s willingness to expatriate more than men’s.

187

Social Cognitive Career Theory and role theory: Consequences of willingness to expatriate In Social Cognitive Career Theory, career interests lead to the development of career goals which, in turn, lead to actions to attain those goals (Lent et al., 2000). Job search is a purposive, volitional behavior occurring in response to a discrepancy between an employment goal and a current state of affairs (Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001). Being motivated to expatriate for a job is likely to result in committing to pursue a goal of gaining a job abroad, which then activates search behavior to bring about that goal (Kanfer et al., 2001). Searching for a job abroad is a critical transitional behavior for employees wanting to expatriate. Those who are motivated to expatriate are likely to first examine the job opportunities available, either in their own organizations or externally. Thus, willingness to expatriate will predict international job search. Hence, as shown in Fig. 1: H4: Willingness to expatriate will predict international job search. Willingness to expatriate may lead to job search more often when employees have few barriers to expatriation than when they have many barriers. In Social Cognitive Career Theory, barriers not only directly restrict career choice goals but they may also act as moderators (Lent et al., 2000). People are less likely to translate their career interests (i.e., a willingness to expatriate) into career choice goals (i.e., international job search) when they perceive their efforts will be impeded by many or insurmountable barriers rather than few or no barriers (Lent et al., 2000). Employees with partners and/or children should be less able to transform their motivation to expatriate into an international job search than employees who do not have partners and/or children; employees with partners and/or children have to consider whether these other family members would accompany them on an international move and the family’s willingness to expatriate. The constraint should be worse for female employees with partners and/or children than for male counterparts. As proposed by role theory, women put family obligations ahead of pursuing their own work desires more than men do and men give greater priority to work over family than women, facilitating men’s pursuit of interest in work abroad (Bielby & Bielby, 1992; Markham, 1987). Unconstrained either by socialized genderlinked roles with respect to the family or by dependence on others’ decision-making, childless singles should be able to freely transform their motivation to expatriate into an international job search. Childless single employees can decide on their own to search for work abroad. They do not need to consult with family members or be affected by family members’ willingness to go.

188

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

In sum, due to the gender-linked work and family roles women and men occupy, the willingness to expatriate of women employees with partners and/or children should predict their international job search less than for men with partners and/or children. Childless singles will be more able than men with partners and/or children to act on their motivation to expatriate by engaging in international job search. Hence, having a family will interact with gender to affect the impact of willingness to expatriate on international job search. Hypothesis 5 proposes: H5: Willingness to expatriate will predict international job search (a) most for childless singles, (b) less for men with partners and/or children, and (c) least for women with partners and/or children. In Fig. 1, willingness to expatriate fully mediates the effects of personal agency and family barriers on international job search. To demonstrate full mediation, a partially mediated model also needs to be tested. The latter adds direct paths to job search from personal agency, family barriers, and willingness to relocate domestically. No studies have predicted international job search. However, from the literature on domestic job search, having high expectancies with regard to agency and outcomes and incurring social pressure from one’s most significant others most predict job search (Kanfer et al., 2001; Van Hooft et al., 2004). Thus, the direct paths to job search from personal agency and family barriers should provide a fair test of partial mediation. International job search may reveal opportunities to an employee that lead to expatriation or it may not result in expatriation. The prediction of expatriation by international job search is included in Fig. 1 but was not tested in the structural equation model. In most countries, few people expatriate (Vandenbrande et al., 2006), resulting in too skewed an outcome measure to test in a structural equation model. Hence, the prediction of expatriation is tested separately using hierarchical logistic regression. In Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 2000), career interests (i.e., willingness to expatriate) are proposed to influence career behaviors (i.e., expatriation) by affecting career choice goals or actions (i.e., job search). However, motivated individuals may expatriate without having first arranged a job abroad, and find a job once they arrive in the new country (Vance, 2005). Hence, job search should partially mediate the relationship between willingness to expatriate and expatriation behavior. A gender by family/no family interaction effect is not proposed on the mediated willingness-job search-expatriation path because the small number of employees who expatriate will not enable a test of mediation for the men’s and women’s family groups. Hypothesis 6 proposes:

H6: International job search will partially mediate the relationship between willingness to expatriate and expatriation behavior. Method Data collection The sample comprised alumni from an Australian university with Australian business addresses who had graduated with an undergraduate degree at least six years ago. This sample was appropriate because the study’s interest was in mature employees and because expatriates are mostly university graduates. The university mailed surveys with reply-paid envelopes to 6000 randomly sampled alumni. The alumni were told the aim of the study was to gain an understanding of their interest in international work. They were surveyed three times, measuring antecedents at Time 1, mediators two years later at Time 2, and behavioral consequences a year later at Time 3. At Time 1, the response rate was 26% (n = 1580), chiefly because of out-of-date addresses; 38% of the surveys were returned to sender because the respondent was no longer resident at that address, resulting in an actual response rate of 43%. Respondents were asked to give their names and addresses if they wished to be followed up. Two years later, 1434 were resurveyed, resulting in 1130 respondents and 129 whose mail was returned to sender (a response rate of 87%). Willingness to expatriate has been found to be relatively stable over a two-year period (r = .58; Brett & Stroh, 1995; Tharenou, 2003). A two-year time lag was chosen because willingness to expatriate should have a long-term effect on explaining international job search. Of the 1130 Time 2 respondents, 1056 volunteered for further follow-up. They were surveyed a year later, which enabled a sufficiently long time lag to predict expatriation behavior. At Time 3, there were 895 respondents and 83 envelopes returned to the sender because of respondents no longer being at that address (a response rate of 92%). The lack of response each time was partly due to alumni’s out-ofdate addresses and their reports that they were no longer employed (retired, unemployed, on maternity or other leave). Every effort was made to mail to those who may have expatriated by providing a reply-paid postcard at Times 1 and 2 to notify the researcher of a change of mailing address, by asking others (e.g., past employers, family) who received a respondent’s mail to forward it, and by mailing abroad when an overseas address was given at Times 2 and 3. Chi-square tests compared respondents to nonrespondents at Time 2 on the Time 1 survey data and at Time 3 on the Time 2 survey data. Overall, respondents did not differ from nonrespondents on most factors: individual (e.g., gender, years worked in position), fam-

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

ily (e.g., teenage children, partner employment, and occupation), job (e.g., managerial level, occupation type), or organization (e.g., size, industry, sector, and multinational company). At Time 1, Time 2 nonrespondents were more likely than respondents to be childless, foreign citizens, not Australian-born, expatriates to a job abroad (their mail had been forwarded at Time 1) or impending expatriates to a job. At Time 2, Time 3 nonrespondents compared to respondents were more likely to be single, younger, lower in education level, expatriates to a job abroad, impending expatriates to a job abroad, repatriates, or to have worked fewer years or in foreign-owned firms. They were more likely to have changed jobs and organizations since Time 1 and to have increased in managerial level. Overall, respondents were lost at Times 1 and 2 when they were expatriates, when they had changed jobs, and when they were employed by foreign firms. Hence, the prediction of expatriation will be underestimated. Sample Of respondents, 895 replied at each of Times 1, 2, and 3. Because of missing data, the 895 were reduced to 839. Respondents worked in a range of industries (27% business and property services, 25% government and health and community services, 21% education, 17% manufacturing/mining/construction, 10% recreational and personal services). Half worked in organizations that expatriated employees for work and 38% said they could personally be asked by their organizations to expatriate. Of the 839, 631 respondents had partners and/or children, of whom 401 were men and 230 were women, and 208 respondents were childless singles (86 men, 122 women). Analysis of variance followed by Tukey HDS tests showed that the men and women with families’ (i.e., partners and/or children) differed from each other and as a whole differed from the childless single employees. Males with partners and/or children were older than their female counterparts (44.5 vs. 42.0), had worked more years (average of 20–25 years vs. 15–20 years), worked more in the profit sector, were at higher managerial levels (average of middle manager vs. lower level manager), had more children (2.0 vs. 1.5), and had more high-school-aged children (1.38 vs. 1.07). More of men’s partners than women’s were not employed (23% vs. 12%) or were employed part-time (40% vs. 11%). Fewer men than women had partners whose work was regarded fully as a career (32% of men, 66% of women) and men’s partners worked more in lower level occupations than did women’s. Compared to the women, the men had expatriated more times (.56 vs. .38), expatriated more for their firms and less for other reasons (such as for a partner), reported their partners would give up their jobs or careers more to follow them abroad, and

189

worked more where they could be asked to expatriate. Men had less international experience (as measured by language fluency) than women. Compared to respondents with partners and/or children, childless single employees were younger (32.1 vs. 43.6 years), had lower education levels, had worked fewer years fulltime (5–10 vs. 15–25 years), and had worked more in multinational and foreign-owned companies. Three samples were therefore used to test the hypotheses: women with partners and/or children (230), men with partners and/or children (401), and childless singles (208). For the hypotheses including tests of family barriers (Hypotheses 2 and 3), childless singles were omitted because family barriers could only be measured as family disapproval. Childless single employees could not be validly measured on the extent their partners had careers because they had no partners, nor on their having high school-aged children because they had no children; hence, they could not vary on partner career or high school-aged children. The tests of other hypotheses included childless singles. Measures Respondents were asked to respond to the measures in regard to an international job or assignment, defined as relocating abroad to work fulltime in a foreign country for a year or more (Adler, 1986). Scholars advise that no more than 20 observed items be used to test structural equation models (SEM; Bentler & Chou, 1987; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1990). Three items have been found to be most commonly used to represent latent constructs in SEM (Kelloway, 1996). Scholars recommend conducting exploratory before Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to be able to select the highest loading items on unidimensional scales for SEM (Bentler & Chou, 1987). Principal axis analyses were conducted on the 47 items making up the multi-item variables. For the male and female samples with families, the analyses supported the intended factor structure for career instrumentality, self-efficacy, disruption, high school-aged children, willingness to expatriate, and international job search, but family disapproval and international experience each yielded two factors. The factor structure was also supported for childless singles (the two items measuring high school-aged children were not included). Where constructs were measured by more than three items, the three highest loading items on each factor (for career instrumentality, self-efficacy, job search, willingness to expatriate) were used to represent variables in the SEM; these items are shown in Appendix A. Career instrumentality Six items measured the likelihood that career outcomes (e.g., money, promotion) could be gained from expatriating for a job. Each was scored on an 11-point

190

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

scale from 0%, not at all likely, to 100%, extremely likely. The measure was reliable (Time 1 a: 6-item .90, 3-item .83).

from 1, I will move domestically for a job, to 5, I will not move domestically for a job for any reason (reverse scored so high willingness was 5).

Self-efficacy Cianni and Tharenou’s (2000) 12-item scale measured confidence in one’s ability to work and live in a country with a different culture to one’s own. Each item was scored on an 11-point scale ranging from 0% (high uncertainty) to 100% (high certainty). The measure was reliable (Time 1 a: 12-item .94, 3item .89).

Willingness to expatriate Adler’s (1986) measure was used, comprising five, 7point items each scored from 1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree. An item referring to an employee wanting their first job to be abroad was replaced with ‘‘I am willing to relocate abroad for work.’’ Willingness to expatriate was assessed for its distinct predictive validity from willingness to relocate domestically. At Times 1 and 3, respondents gave the number of times they had relocated internationally and domestically. Time 1 willingness to expatriate, but not Time 1 willingness to relocate domestically, was related to respondents’ number of international relocations at Time 1 (r = .15, p < .01 vs. r = .00, p > .05) and predicted the number of international relocations three years later at Time 3 (r = .17, p < .01 vs. r = .05, p > .05). Time 1 willingness to relocate domestically, but not Time 1 willingness to expatriate, was related to respondents’ number of domestic relocations at Time 1 (r = .20, p < .01 vs. r = .04, p > .05) and predicted number of domestic relocations three years later at Time 3 (r = .17, p < .01 vs. r = .01, p > .05). Hence, willingness to expatriate demonstrated distinct predictive validity from its domestic counterpart. In SEM, willingness to expatriate was the 3-item measure (Appendix A) whereas to test H6 predicting expatriation by logistic regression, the full 5-item scale could be used. The measure was reliable (Times 1, 2 as, respectively: 5-item .92, .92; 3-item .87, .87).

Disruption Three items assessed disruption. Employees were asked how much relocation abroad for a job for 12 or more months would disrupt their work and nonwork routines and cause uncertainty, based on Black et al. (1991). Each item was scored from 1, not at all to 7, always. The alpha coefficient at Time 1 was .87. International experience The measure comprised two of the items (Time 1 a = .68) of the foreign experience subscale of Caligiuri’s (1994) International’s Orientation Scale. They measured foreign language fluency, which is related to expatriation for work (Vance, 2005). Family disapproval The measure averaged two items assessing the extent to which the family had a strong influence on, and family approval or support would be important to, taking international work (Tharenou, 2003). The items were scored from 1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree (Time 1 a = .82). Perceived partner career Respondents with partners rated the extent their partners had careers. The item was scored: 1, partner not employed; 2, no, regards job just as a job (e.g., for income); 3, yes, regards job partly as a career; 4, yes, regards job fully as a career. In support of the item’s validity, perceived partner career was related to the extent that the partner’s work was fulltime (r = .77, p < .01) and its occupational level (r = .41, p < .01). High school-aged children The measure was indicated by two items. Respondents gave their number of children and also whether they had high school-aged children or not. Willingness to relocate domestically Brett and Reilly’s (1988) item’s was adapted for use in the study. The 5-point response category was scored

International job search An 8-item measure of international job search was developed for the study, adapting Blau’s (1993) 6-item measure of active job search. The wording of Blau’s (1993) items was changed to refer to an international position and two items were added about actively searching for a job abroad. Employees were asked how often they had undertaken the search activities in the last 6 months. Each activity was scored from 1, never (0 times) to 5, very frequently (at least 10 times). To test H6 predicting expatriation using logistic regression, the full 8-item measure (measured at Time 2) could be used whereas the 3-item measure shown in Appendix A was used to test the structural equation model. The international job search measure was reliable (Times 2, 3 as, respectively: 8-items .93, .90; 3-items .82, .80). Expatriation behavior Respondents reported if they were expatriates who had relocated abroad for an international job for a year or more. The item was scored as 1, no and 2, yes. At Time 2, 57 respondents had expatriated abroad for a job since Time 1 as opposed to 779 respondents who

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

had not. At Time 3, 41 respondents had expatriated abroad for a job since Time 2, leaving 694 respondents who had not. On average, 3.6% of the sample expatriated for a job each year over the length of the study. The only available figure for Australians’ expatriation is for university graduates of whom 6% expatriate in the year after graduation (Hugo, Rudd, & Harris, 2001). Mature employees are likely to expatriate less than graduates straight out of university. But the analysis comparing respondents with nonrespondents showed that expatriates and impending expatriates were lost through nonresponse at Times 2 and 3, thus reducing the number of expatriates in the present study. Gender Gender was coded 1, male; 2, female. Method of analysis The LISREL 8 program was used to test Fig. 1 using SEM (Jo¨reskog & So¨rbom, 1996), omitting the paths predicting expatriation behavior. The input was the polychoric correlation matrix computed by the program PRELIS. The polychoric matrix assumes variables are ordinal and computes correlations appropriate to a scale’s type (Jo¨reskog & So¨rbom, 1996). The estimation procedure was unweighted least squares (Wothke, 1993). Fig. 1 was tested for the samples of men and women with partners and/or children by a formative model in which personal agency and family barriers were aggregate multidimensional constructs which caused willingness to expatriate which caused international job search (Williams, Edwards, & Vandenberg, 2003). In the model, the formative constructs are higher order constructs induced or formed by aggregating their first order dimensions which are each measured by multiple reflective items (Edwards, 2001; Williams et al., 2003). For personal agency, its dimensions of career instrumentality, self-efficacy, anticipated disruption, and international experience (first order constructs) were each measured by their reflective items. For family barriers, the dimensions of family disapproval, partner’s career, and high school-aged children were each measured by their reflective items. Willingness to expatriate and international job search were also measured as reflective constructs. For a construct to be formative, the dimensions are causes of the construct and variation in the causes produces variation in the construct (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Williams et al., 2003). Personal agency and family barriers are composites of specific component variables and are a function of their components. Personal agency and family barriers met the criteria required to be formative constructs (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Jarvis, 2005). First, the scope of the domain of both formative constructs was clearly specified. Second, their compo-

191

nents were defining characteristics of them and not determined by them (Bandura, 2001; Lent et al., 2000). Third, the indicators/dimensions of each of the formative constructs were not conceptually interchangeable or redundant and tapped unique aspects (MacKenzie et al., 2005). Fourth, the measures/dimensions of each formative construct attempted to constitute a census of the content domain. They covered essential facets stipulated for personal agency (Bandura, 2001; Lent et al., 2000) and for family barriers to expatriation (GMAC, 2004). Fifth, components of reflective constructs should be highly correlated, but correlations among the measures representing personal agency and family barriers were modest (Tables 1–3; 6.30 apart from one correlation of .44). None of their variance inflation factors exceeded 2, giving no support for multicolinearity. Personal agency and family barriers were not reflective constructs as their components were either not correlated or were weakly correlated. Sixth, the formative constructs had meaningful relationships with criterion variables (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). Specifically, personal agency and family barriers predicted respondents’ willingness to expatriate two years later. It was not possible to test a formative model for childless singles including family barriers because its domain could not be covered by the one indicator of family disapproval. Hence, the model specified by Fig. 1 was fitted for childless singles omitting family barriers. The measurement models were first fit using CFA to assess validity of the constructs. The fit of the hypothesized measurement models for the three samples (men or women with partners and/or children, childless singles) was assessed by comparing their fit with the fit of nested models using the difference in chi-square test (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Then the formative model with its latent variables measured reflectively was simultaneously estimated with the structural paths, thus taking into account measurement error whilst estimating the formative model. The single items measuring willingness to relocate domestically and partner career were corrected for unreliability. A series of SEMs was run examining a range of reliabilities, comparing their fit by chisquare difference tests. Reliabilities of .80 best corrected for error in partner career and willingness to relocate domestically. Gender was assumed to be perfectly measured. The aggregate formative model was run using procedures recommended by Williams et al. (2003) and Edwards (2001). To ensure that the model was identified, the formative constructs were direct or indirect causes of at least two manifest variables (the six items reflecting the willingness to expatriate and job search). The variances of the residuals of personal agency and family barriers were fixed to define the constructs as

192

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, alphas, and intercorrelations for the sample of women with partners and/or children Variables

Mean

SD

a

Correlations 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1. Career instrumentality T1 2. Self-efficacy T1 3. Disruption T1 4. International experience T1 5. Family disapproval T1 6. Partner career T1 7. High school-aged children T1 8. Willing to relocate domestically T1 9. Willingness to expatriate T2 10. International job search T3 11. Expatriation behavior T3

53.73 7.08 4.39 3.31 5.55 3.38 0.00 2.01 3.29 1.14 1.96

21.69 1.49 0.82 0.98 6.45 0.95 1.00 1.28 1.61 0.37 0.19

.85 .87 .76 .66 .76 .00 .59 — .82 .78 —

— .09 .04 .11 .09 .12 .26 .11 .35 .22 .05

.21 .04 .02 .03 .05 .11 .19 .19 .12

.02 .22 .04 .09 .02 .16 .47 .05

.07 .09 .20 .10 .07 .18 .08

.18 .44 .07 .18 .06 .02

.00 .10 .11 .21 .04

.21 .22 .01 .01

.50 .18 .12

.34 .23

.13

—

Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3; Willing = Willingness. Coefficients at .14 are significant at p < .05 and at .19 at p < .01. Scale anchors: 0–100 = career instrumentality; 0–10 = self-efficacy; 1–7 = disruption, family disapproval, willing to expatriate; 1–5 = international experience, willing to relocate domestically, international job search; 1–4 = partner career; 1, no; 2, yes = expatriation.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, alphas, and intercorrelations for the sample of men with partners and/or children Variables

Mean

SD

a

Correlations

1. Career instrumentality T1 2. Self-efficacy T1 3. Disruption T1 4. International experience T1 5. Family disapproval T1 6. Partner career T1 7. High school-aged children T1 8. Willing to relocate domestically T1 9. Willingness to expatriate T2 10. International job search T3 11. Expatriation behavior T3

56.20 7.42 4.46 2.90 5.85 2.77 0.00 2.07 3.51 1.28 1.95

22.52 1.64 0.80 1.12 1.34 1.11 1.00 1.33 1.70 0.64 0.22

.79 .90 .86 .67 .80 .03 .60 — .88 .75 —

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

.30 .05 .01 .06 .03 .26 .13 .39 .22 .13

.15 .09 .14 .00 .14 .06 .22 .20 .10

.02 .37 .01 .08 .11 .23 .09 .02

.00 .00 .01 .01 .18 .08 .06

.04 .22 .04 .25 .20 .02

.14 .02 .11 .07 .04

.18 .20 .12 .09

.45 .27 .02

.52 .20

.18

—

Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3; Willing = Willingness. Coefficients at .10 are significant at p < .05 and at .13 at p < .01. Scale anchors: 0–100 = career instrumentality; 0–10 = self-efficacy; 1–7 = disruption, family disapproval, willing to expatriate; 1–5 = international experience, willing to relocate domestically, international job search; 1–4 = partner career; 1, no; 2, yes = expatriation.

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, alphas, and intercorrelations for the sample of childless singles Variables

Mean

SD

a

Correlations 1

1. Gender 2. Career instrumentality T1 3. Self-efficacy T1 4. Disruption T1 5. International experience T1 6. Family disapproval T1 7. Willing to relocate domestically T1 8. Willingness to expatriate T2 9. International job search T3 10. Expatriation behavior T3

1.59 66.18 7.25 4.11 3.18 4.02 2.54 4.35 1.45 1.95

0.49 19.99 1.63 0.81 1.33 1.77 1.25 1.79 0.78 0.21

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

.28 .08 .12 .00 .24 .22 .02 .13

.28 .00 .07 .02 .22 .04 .17

.00 .32 .00 .30 .00 .01

.01 .15 .45 .10 .07

.00 .31 .19 .07

.45 .14 .02

.66 .20

.29

—

— .85 .91 .84 .67 .80 — .90 .80 —

.02 .04 .00 .40 .00 .21 .07 .13 .04

Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3. Correlations at .14 are significant at p < .05 and .18 at p < .01. Scale anchors: 0–100 = career instrumentality; 0–10 = self-efficacy; 1–7 = disruption, family disapproval, willing to expatriate; 1–5 = international experience, willing to relocate domestically, international job search; 1–4 = partner career; 1, no; 2, yes = expatriation.

weighted composites of their dimensions (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Williams et al., 2003). The beta coeffi-

cients for the first order constructs explaining personal agency and family barriers are interpreted as regression

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

weights and assessed for their relative importance in forming the constructs. Other models were also estimated replacing the six items reflecting willingness to expatriate and job search with alternate items from their longer scales, which made little difference to the results. Hence, the derived solution was robust. To test the fully mediated model, its fit was compared by the chi-square difference test to that of the partially mediated model under which it was nested. The partially mediated model added direct paths from personal agency, family barriers (omitted for the SEM for childless singles), and willingness to relocate domestically to job search. The fit of the models was assessed by several indices. For acceptable fit, the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) and confirmatory fit index (CFI) should be high (P.90) and the root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) should be low (under .08; Browne & Cudeck, 1989). Multigroup comparisons were used to test whether each of the paths predicted to be different for women and men was significant, using the LISREL procedure (Jo¨reskog & So¨rbom, 1996). If the constrained model, in which an equality constraint is imposed on the specific path for men and women, fits worse than when the path is unconstrained, as shown by a significant chisquare difference, the path tested differs for women and men.

Results The means, standard deviations, alpha coefficients, and intercorrelations for the variables are given for women with partners and/or children in Table 1, men with partners and/or children in Table 2, and childless single employees in Table 3. Women with partners and/or children reported less willingness to expatriate than men with partners and/or children (X = 3.29 vs. 3.51; t = 1.98, p < .05) and childless singles reported more willingness to expatriate than respondents with partners and/or children (X = 4.35 vs. 3.41; t = 6.16, p < .01). The SEM analysis omitted 28 persons who had no score on partner career (they had no partners), leaving 391 men and 212 women for the samples of men and women with families. Testing the measurement model Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess the fit of the hypothesized 10 latent factors measured reflectively for the samples of men and women with partners and/or children. The fit of the hypothesized 10-factor model was compared to sequentially nested models in which the covariances were restricted to 1.0 within pairs of similar latent constructs. The

193

restriction was first within the pairs of (a) willingness to expatriate and relocate domestically and (b) career instrumentality and self-efficacy, resulting in an 8-factor model. Then, additionally, the restriction was within the pair of high school aged-children and partner career, giving a 7-factor model. The final reflective model restricted covariances to 1.0 within (a) willingness to expatriate and relocate domestically; (b) career instrumentality, self-efficacy, disruption, and international experience (personal agency); and (c) family disapproval, partner career, and high school-aged children (family barriers), thus giving a four factor model. Table 4 gives the results for the CFAs. As shown by the significant chi-square differences, the 10-factor model fit better than the nested models for both the men’s and women’s samples, and had high fit and low error, supporting the discriminant validity of the constructs. The men’s and women’s samples had high and similar standardized factor loadings, all significant at p < .01, allowing men and women to be compared. The average factor loading was .82 for men (from .76 to .96) and .82 for women (from .77 to .94). A similar set of CFAs, but omitting family disapproval, partner career, and high school-aged children, was run for the childless single sample. The 7-factor model was compared to a 5-factor model restricting covariances to 1.0 within the pairs of willingness to expatriate and relocate domestically and of career instrumentality and self-efficacy. The 5-factor model was compared to a 2-factor model restricting covariances to 1.0 within (a) willingness to expatriate and relocate domestically, and (b) career instrumentality, selfefficacy, disruption, and international experience (i.e., personal agency). As shown in Table 4 by the significant chi-square difference tests, the 7-factor model had the best fit and also demonstrated high fit. The fully mediated model and the partially mediated models were then fit and their fit compared by chisquare difference tests. For women with partners and/ or children, the partially mediated model (NNFI = .985, CFI = .975, RMSEA = .041, SRMR = .052) fit better (Dv2 = 146.15, p < .001) than the fully mediated model (NNFI = .959, CFI = .946, RMSEA = .074, SRMR = .076). For men with partners and/or children, the partially mediated model (NNFI = .994, CFI = .986, RMSEA = .041, SRMR = .039) fit better (Dv2 = 23.94, p < .001) than the fully mediated model (NNFI = .980, CFI = .971, RMSEA = .044, SRMR = .042). For the childless singles, the partially mediated model (NNFI = .988, CFI = .986, RMSEA = .041, SRMR = .039) fit better (Dv2 = 23.94, p < .001) than the fully mediated model (NNFI = .971, CFI = .967, RMSEA = .044, SRMR = .042). Hence, the partially mediated models were selected as the best fitting models and had high fit and low error. Fig. 2 provides the fully standardized structural paths found for

194

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

Table 4 Fit indices for the measurement models for the samples NNFI

CFI

RMSEA

SRMR

v2

df

Dv2

Women with partners and/or children Hypothesized 10-factor model 8-Factor model 7-Factor model 4-Factor model

.968 .876 .878 .860

.978 .861 .899 .870

.049 .116 .137 .172

.049 .092 .093 .130

285 809 1035 1737

185 202 209 224

524** 226** 702**

17 7 15

Men with partners and/or children Hypothesized 10-factor model 8-Factor model 7-Factor model 4-Factor model

.962 .892 .863 .854

.970 .901 .871 .844

.048 .114 .127 .173

.039 .074 .075 .122

353 1185 1358 2713

185 202 209 224

832** 173** 1353**

17 7 15

Childless singles Hypothesized 7-factor model 5-Factor model 2-Factor model

.979 .724 .692

.969 .647 .617

.057 .163 .184

.051 .186 .197

239 965 1354

142 151 166

726** 389**

9 15

Ddf

Note. NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fix index; RMSEA = root-mean-square-error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual. ** p < .01.

Career Instrumentality

SelfEfficacy

.45**, .56**, .51** Willingness to Relocate Domestically .08, .52**, 46**

.43**, .32**, .42** .10, .05, .24 Personal Agency

Disruption

.11*, .11*, -.01

-.75**, .07, -.07 International Experience

.28**, .34**, .35** .26**, .42**, .53** Willingness to Expatriate

Family Disapproval

.17, .56**, NA

.30**, .45**, .63**

International Job Search

R2=.35, .34, .47

-.20*, -.24**, NA

R2=.29, .29, .51 Partner Career

.23*, .45**, NA

Family Barriers -.30**, -.08, NA

High-school Children

*p <.05. **p <.01. .50**, .24, NA

Fig. 2. Completely standardized coefficients are given for the solutions for the partially mediated models in order of: women with partners and/or children, men with partners and/or children, and childless singles. NA (not applicable) refers to paths for childless singles which could not be calculated; the single path for family disapproval forming family barriers had to be omitted. Dashed paths were not hypothesized.

the partially mediated models for the women and men with partners and/or children and childless singles. The paths for the three samples could be compared because the same metric was used. Results of the structural equation models: Hypotheses 1–5 To assess support for H1–H5, the significant path between willingness to relocate domestically and will-

ingness to expatriate was controlled (Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 2, personal agency significantly predicted respondents’ willingness to expatriate two years later for all samples—women with partners and/or children, men with partners and/or children, and childless singles, supporting Hypothesis 1. Unexpectedly, personal agency also predicted international job search three years later for women and men with partners and/or children.

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

Hypothesis 2 was supported. As expected, for women and men with partners and/or children, family barriers negatively predicted willingness to expatriate two years later (Fig. 2). Unexpectedly, family barriers also negatively predicted women’s international job search three years later. With respect to Hypothesis 3, the results of multigroup tests comparing women and men with partners and/or children showed that gender interacted significantly with family barriers to predict willingness to expatriate (Dv21 ¼ 38:11, p < .01). However, the path was greater for men than women, while Hypothesis 3 had predicted the effect of family barriers would be greater for women than for men. As shown in Fig. 2, family barriers negatively predicted men’s willingness to expatriate two years later more than women’s willingness, although both paths were significant. Unexpectedly, family barriers negatively predicted women’s international job search more than men’s (Dv21 ¼ 14:03, p < .01); family barriers was not a significant predictors of men’s international job search. Inspection of the standardized coefficients showed that family disapproval and a partner with a career were most influential in the formation of men’s family barriers. High school-aged children and a partner with a career were most influential in the formation of women’s family barriers. Multigroup tests showed that family disapproval (Dv21 ¼ 25:15, p < .01) and a partner’s career (Dv21 ¼ 55:92, p < .01) were more influential in forming men’s family barriers to expatriation than women’s, and high-school-aged-children were more influential in forming women’s family barriers to expatriation than men’s (Dv21 ¼ 24:00, p < .01). Hypothesis 4 was supported. As shown in Fig. 2, willingness to expatriate predicted international job search a year later for all samples: women with partners and/or children, men with partners and/or children, and childless singles. In support of part of Hypothesis 5, multigroup tests revealed a significant gender difference for men and women with families (Dv21 ¼ 32:86, p < .01). The completely standardized coefficients showing willingness to expatriate predicting international job search were lower for women with partners and/or children (B = .30, p < .01) than men with partners and/or children (B = .45, p < .01). To test the remainder of Hypothesis 5, the prediction needed to also be tested for childless singles. Supporting H5, the completely standardized coefficient for men with partners and/or children (B = .45, p < .01) was lower than that for childless singles (B = .63, p < .01). Overall, H5 was supported. Willingness to expatriate predicted international job search most for childless singles, less for men with partners and/or children, and least for women with partners and/or children. Unexpectedly for childless singles, willingness to expatriate predicted international job search more (Dv21 ¼ 23:46, p < .01) for women (B = .81, p < .01) than men (B = .53, p < .01).

195

Results of mediated regression analyses: Hypothesis 6 Mediated regression analysis was used to test Hypothesis 6 that job search would partially mediate the relationship between willingness to expatriate and expatriation behavior. Expatriation behavior was a dichotomous variable; hence, logistical regression was used. H6 was tested on the combined sample of 839 employees using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three steps. Regression analysis revealed that willingness to expatriate predicted the mediator variable of international job search two years later (B = .67, p < .01) and the dependent variable of expatriation behavior three years later (B = .56, p < .01). The prediction of expatriation by willingness to expatriate was reduced (from B = .56, p < .01 to B = .30, p 6 .05) when job search (B = .68, p < .01) was added into the equation. The result indicates that international job search partially mediates the prediction of expatriation by willingness to expatriate, supporting H6. Willingness to expatriate still significantly predicted expatriation behavior. Willingness to expatriate was greater two years earlier for the 57 nonexpatriates who became expatriates than for the 779 who did not by Time 2 (X = 5.00 vs. X = 3.72, t = 6.00, p < .01), and was greater three years earlier for the 39 nonexpatriates who became expatriates than for the 738 who did not by Time 3 (X = 4.98 vs. X = 3.63, t = 3.95, p 6 .01). Willingness to expatriate was greater a year earlier at Time 2 (t = 6.82, p = .001) for the 41who became expatriates than for the 694 who did not by Time 3 (X = 5.05 vs. 3.19). However, in terms of the amount of variance explained, ordinary least squares regression analysis showed that only 7% of expatriation behavior was explained by willingness to expatriate and international job search.

Discussion Expatriation is a momentous decision for an individual, requiring summoning up great personal resources and the ability to overcome significant obstacles. The results of this study show that employees with a stronger willingness to expatriate are those who have greater personal agency and fewer family barriers. The study advances current understanding by showing the importance of personal agency for developing willingness to expatriate. Personal agency is a key resource for an individual considering expatriation which places more demands on personal agency than does a domestic move, which is to a similar culture and general environment (Harrison et al., 2004). The study makes a second contribution by showing the decision to expatriate is made in different ways by men and women due to their different family responsibilities and roles. When employees with partners and children consider expatriation,

196

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

decision-making involves family members; these family members have more of a negative impact on women’s expatriation decisions than on men’s. The study makes a third contribution by answering the ‘‘so what’’ question. For the first time, there is empirical evidence that willingness to expatriate has behavioral consequences in terms of actual expatriation behavior, partly through its leading individuals to engage in job search. The interaction between family responsibilities and gender flows through to reduce women’s job search more than men’s and, subsequently, constrains women’s expatriation behavior compared to men’s. How gender and family affect willingness to expatriate For this sample, the results suggest that the motivation to expatriate of women with partners and children is not fully realized. Family barriers reduce both women’s willingness to expatriate and their international job search and having a family restricts women’s ability to transform willingness into international job search. That reduced job search then flows on to reduce women’s expatriation. The motivation to expatriate of men with partners and children is also not fully realized. Family barriers reduce men’s willingness to expatriate, which reduces their job search and ultimately their expatriation. But men’s motivation is more fully realized than women’s because their willingness to expatriate is more likely to be transformed into job search which then increases their chances of expatriation. Women with partners and children experience the most restriction and least realization of expatriation choices. Whose intentions to expatriate are most fully realized? Those of employees unencumbered by partners and children. Their willingness can most easily translate into job search, because they can decide to search for a job abroad without having to have partners and children agreeing to go. Consistent with role theory (Markham, 1987), the results support married women’s international job search as being at odds with their role of carer for the household and family (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000; Markham, 1987). Women with partners and children are more likely to subordinate their work interests to the family’s interests and give higher priority to the family than men do (Bielby & Bielby, 1992; Markham, 1987). They are likely to have less freedom to pursue personal advancement than men or single childless women (Markham, 1987; Markham & Pleck, 1986). Due to the constraints imposed on women from having a family, their motivation to expatriate is less able to be realized in search for work abroad than is men’s or childless single women’s. Prior studies have not examined family barriers as a formative variable. The present results indicate that

women’s family barriers are most formed from having high school-aged children. When considering expatriation, women have expressed concerns about disrupting their children’s schooling and losing the childcare support and assistance they receive from extended family (Linehan & Walsh, 2001). High school-aged children may be a greater barrier to women’s than men’s interest in expatriation and international job search because women are the primary caregivers to children. The family is also a barrier to men’s willingness to expatriate. For this sample, a partner with a career contributes to men’s family barriers which, in turn, reduce their willingness to expatriate. Contrary to the predictions from role theory (Markham, 1987), the husbands in this sample do not seem to discount their partners’ careers when forming interests in expatriation. The result may arise because an international move, unlike a domestic move, would curtail the wife’s career (Interchange Institute, 2004) and thus negatively affect the family’s overall economic wellbeing (Bielby & Bielby, 1992). College educated men may also be particularly likely to hold egalitarian gender role beliefs about women’s roles more than traditional beliefs (Bielby & Bielby, 1992) and not prefer their wives to sacrifice their careers for their own interests. The men in this sample appear to be tied stayers when considering expatriation more when their wives have careers than when they do not (Bielby & Bielby, 1992). Moreover, men in this sample are also affected by family disapproval, suggesting that they are affected by their partners and children when contemplating expatriation choices. By contrast, in support of role theory, the willingness to expatriate of men with partners and children translates more into international job search than does women’s. Men may consider the family less than women do when deciding to search for work abroad, consistent with the greater priority they give to work over family and their major role as provider (Bielby & Bielby, 1992). But a family still constrains men’s motivation leading to international job search when compared to the stronger relationship found for childless singles, and is consistent with men’s families deterring their expatriation (GMAC, 2004, 2006). A social cognitive career process explaining international job search and expatriation The process proposed by Social Cognitive Career Theory to explain career outcomes (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000) assists in explaining how expatriation occurs. The sequence reveals how personal agency and barriers are formed; in turn, personal agency and family barriers affect the development of career interests, in this case willingness to expatriate. Willingness to

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

expatriate in turn translates into the career outcome of expatriation by affecting career actions in the form of international job search. Theory of personal agency (Bandura, 2001) helps explain why personal agency affects willingness to expatriate. The study is the first to examine personal agency as a formative construct arising from its components. When employees expect that expatriation will be instrumental for gaining career outcomes, when employees have international capabilities, and when employees judge they have the capabilities to master living and working in a foreign culture, they believe they will exert control over a foreign environment and master its challenges. High personal agency therefore predicts the willingness to expatriate, helping develop interest in international work. Unexpectedly, personal agency is differently formed for men and women with families. For men with partners and children, as theorized, personal agency most arises from self-efficacy and outcome expectancies (Bandura, 2001; Lent et al., 2000). But the personal agency of women with partners and children is most formed from anticipating low disruption. Employed women hold not only roles of worker and partner but also roles of primary caregiver to children and of homemaker looking after the household, more than men do (Bianchi et al., 2000; Linehan & Walsh, 2000, 2001). Thus, women with partners and children are likely to be concerned about substantial disruption to their nonwork routines from expatriation—more concerned than men with partners and children. The anticipated disruption may reduce women’s feelings of control over a foreign environment and their perceptions of likelihood of success, therefore reducing their motivation to expatriate. The multiple work and family roles of women with partners and children may therefore explain why anticipated disruption is an important component of their personal agency but not of men’s. In turn, employees high in personal agency with few family barriers are more likely than others to develop a willingness to expatriate. Employees highly willing to expatriate are likely to make a commitment to pursue international work, which then activates search behavior designed to gain a job abroad (Kanfer et al., 2001). Consistent with Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 2000), the career choice action of international job search is an intervening stage between career interests and outcomes. Employees highly willing to expatriate are more likely to search for work abroad and, in turn, to expatriate. The relationship between job search and expatriation results from job search being a purposive, volitional activity directed towards the goal of gaining a job (Wanberg, Glomb, Song, & Sorenson, 2005)—in this case, a job abroad.

197

Limitations, future research, and practical implications This study uses a strong time-sensitive design of three waves. The time lags enable stronger causal statements than previous studies have been able to make. Antecedents, mediators, and behavioral consequences were measured at different times, enabling a valid test of the sequence proposed. A strength of the study is its examination for the first time of the behavioral consequences of willingness to expatriate, enabling an explanation of why willingness to expatriate for women with partners and children is transformed less into expatriating than for men with partners and/or children. However, despite the strong longitudinal design, it is not possible to say if changes in antecedents caused changes in mediators which then caused changes in consequences. Interpretation of, and generalization from, parameter estimates of structural equation models also requires caution. Moreover, there may be reasons other than those connected to the family for the gender differences found. The men and women with partners and children differed on a range of variables which were not controlled for in the SEM. In addition, further research is needed to confirm whether gender differences found in the construction of personal agency and family barriers are specific to this sample and whether the measures of the constructs have been adequately sampled from the domains of interest. The results, especially for childless singles, may also have been influenced by being from an Australian sample. Women form almost half of young Australian professionals who self-initiate expatriation for work (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000). The present results reveal that childless single women’s willingness is most realized in job search, more than childless single men’s. The result is likely due to childless single women not yet having committed to a partner and children, and thus not incurring role conflict and social pressure not to expatriate which women with partners and children have. However, research needs to test the findings with samples from other countries than Australia. Although the study predicts expatriation behavior, the result need to be interpreted cautiously as little of the variance in expatriation behavior was explained. A limitation is that there was a loss to the sample of those who expatriated abroad or were job mobile, weakening the explanation of expatriation and likely underestimating the magnitude of its prediction. Further research is needed to explain when gender differences arise in willingness to expatriate. Research needs to examine the effects of family concerns for senior women executives for whom concerns about expatriation might be fewer than for women in lower job levels. There are also factors other than family which likely

198

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

explain gender differences in willingness to expatriate and international job search. The present study focused on barriers in the environment. However, Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 2000) proposes also that opportunities and support available in the environment influence formation of career interests and implementation of career goals. Men may gain more opportunities and support for expatriation than women do. Research is needed to examine if gender interacts with environmental opportunities and support to explain gender differences in willingness to expatriate and whether fewer opportunities and less support for women employees’ expatriation than men’s limit women’s motivation to expatriate being realized. Practical implications arise from the results of this study to assist companies to attract women professionals to expatriate and thus take advantage of the full pool of talent available for staffing jobs abroad. Suitable women to approach are those expressing a willingness to expatriate and who have been searching for jobs abroad, especially among childless single women. Organizations should include these willing and searching women employees in their succession planning for developing managers through global assignments. Because motivated women actively search for jobs abroad, organizations should facilitate their search process to enable them to find suitable opportunities. Organizations also need to increase the personal agency of women with partners and/or children by helping reduce the disruption they anticipate and increasing the career outcomes they expect. Organizations may need to differentiate relocation support policies for women with partners and children, who face significant family issues when contemplating expatriation, from policies for men counterparts, who face fewer issues, and policies for childless single employees who do not face such problems. In this way, organizations can take advantage of women’s willingness to expatriate to gain the best possible talent for jobs abroad from the full pool available and assist women to make the momentous decision to expatriate.

3. Earn more money now or in the future than if I stayed in my home country.

A.2. Self-efficacy Rate your confidence in your ability to perform the following behaviors from 0% (high uncertainty) to 100% (total certainty) when working in a country with a different culture to your own. I am certain in my ability to: 4. Learn the skills in my job when working in a country with a different culture than my own. 5. Work with a boss of a different culture than my own. 6. Handle work-related problems when working in a country with a different culture to my own.

A.3. Disruption To what extent do you think relocation to a job overseas for 12 months or more would: 7. Disrupt your established work routines. 8. Disrupt your nonwork routines (e.g., social, home, and family). 9. Result in substantial uncertainty for a period of time.

A.4. International experience

10. I have studied a foreign language (from 1, never to 5, for several years). 11. I am fluent in another language (1, I do not know another language to 5, I am very fluent in another language).

A.5. Family disapproval Appendix A. Items representing the multi-item variables used in the structural equation models A.1. Career instrumentality A variety of things can happen to you if you relocate to take an international/overseas job. How likely is it that these things would happen to you if you relocate overseas for a job?

Indicate your extent of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: 12. My family has a strong influence on whether I take up international work. 13. My family’s approval and support would be important to my taking international work.

A.6. High school-aged children 1. Be promoted at a faster rate/given greater advancement. 2. Expand the types of jobs I would be qualified to accept in the future.

14. How many children do you have? 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, if more please write in the number.

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

15. Do you have high school-aged children or not? 1, no; 2, yes.

A.7. Willingness to expatriate In the following questions, an international job or assignment is one in which you relocate overseas to work as a fulltime employee in a foreign country for a year or more. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: 16. I want an international job or assignment abroad at some time in my career. 17. I want an international career which would be a series of foreign assignments. 18. I am willing to relocate abroad/overseas for work.

A.8. International job search Answer the following questions in regard to relocating abroad for a position for a year or more (i.e., expatriating). To what extent have you in the last 6 months with respect to obtaining a position abroad: 19. Listed yourself as a job applicant for an international position with employment consultants/ search firms/agencies. 20. Made inquiries (e.g., by telephone) of organizations/prospective employers about international work. 21. Gone for an informal chat or an informal get-toknow you interview/meeting about an international position.

References Adler, N. (1984). Women do not want international careers. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 66–79. Adler, N. (1986). Do MBAs want international careers? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 277–300. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Aryee, S., Chay, Y., & Chew, J. (1996). An investigation of the willingness of employees to accept an expatriate assignment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 267–284. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000). 1998–1999 Migration. Cat No. 3412.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. NJ: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Barrett, A., & O’Connell, P. J. (2001). Is there a wage premium for returning Irish migrants? The Economic and Social Review, 32(1), 1–22.

199

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78–117. Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 257–280. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M., Sayer, L., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Social Forces, 79(1), 191–228. Bielby, W. T., & Bielby, D. D. (1992). I will follow him. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1241–1267. Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment. Academy of Management Review, 16, 291–317. Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 213–330. Borstorff, P. C., Harris, S. G., Feild, H. S., & Giles, W. F. (1997). Who’ll go? Human Resources Planning, 20(3), 29–43. Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. (1988). On the road again. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 614–620. Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. (1995). Willingness to expatriate. Human Resource Management, 34, 405–424. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455. Caligiuri, P. M. (1994). The international orientation scale. In D. Marcic & S. Puffer (Eds.), International management (pp. 159–177). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Cartus. (2004). Emerging trends in global mobility. Chicago, IL: Cendant Mobility. Cendant. (2004). 2004 Worldwide benchmark study. Chicago, IL: Cendant Mobility. Cendant. (2005). 2005 Worldwide benchmark study. Chicago, IL: Cendant Mobility. Cianni, M., & Tharenou, P. (2000). A cross-cultural study of the willingness of graduating students to accept expatriate assignments. In R. Edwards, C. Nyland, & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Readings in international business (pp. 337–360). Victoria: Prentice Hall. Clegg, B., & Gray, S. J. (2002). Australian expatriates in Thailand. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 598–623. DeVoretz, D., Ma, J., & Zhang, K. (2003). Triangular human capital flows. In J. Reitz (Ed.), Host societies and the reception of immigrants (pp. 469–492). La Jolla, CA: University of California. Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Item construction with formative indicators. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behaviour research. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 155–174. Edwards, J. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174. Feldman, D. C. (2001). Domestic and international relocation for work. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 215–244). New York: Wiley. Frank, J., & Be´lair, E. (2000). Stateward bound. Statistics Canada, 56, 23–26. GMAC. (2006). Global relocation trends 2005 survey report. Woodridge, IL: GMAC Global Relocation Services. GMAC. (2007). Global relocation trends 2006 survey report. Woodridge, IL: GMAC Global Relocation Services. GMAC Global Relocation Services, National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), & SHRM Global Forum. (2004). Ten years of global relocation trends: 1993–2004. New Jersey: GMAC Global Relocation Services. Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1990). Confirmatory modeling in organizational behavior/human resource management. Journal of Management, 16, 337–360.

200

P. Tharenou / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 183–200

Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P. (2004). Going places. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23, 199–247. Hugo, G., Rudd, D., & Harris, K. (2001). Emigration from Australia. Melbourne: CEDA. Hugo, G., Rudd, D., & Harris, K. (2003). Australia’s diaspora. Melbourne: CEDA. Inkson, K., & Myers, B. (2003). The big OE. Career Development International, 8, 170–181. Interchange Institute. (2004). Many expatriates many voices. Newark, NJ: Prudential Financial. Jo¨reskog, K. G., & So¨rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8. Chicago: SPSS. Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 837–855. Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Common practices in structural equation modeling. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 141–180). New York: Wiley. Konopaske, R., & Werner, S. (2005). US managers’ willingness to accept a global assignment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1159–1175. KPMG. (2003). KPMG’s global assignment policies and practices survey 2003. USA: KPMG. KPMG. (2004). KPMG’s global assignments policies and practices survey 2004. USA: KPMG. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic self-interest, career choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior Monograph, 45, 79–122. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49. Lidgard, J. (2001). Return migration of New Zealanders: A profile of returnees in 2000. New Zealand Journal of Geography, 104, 10–17. Linehan, M., & Walsh, J. S. (2000). Key issues in the senior female executive international career move. British Journal of Management, 12, 85–95. Linehan, M., & Walsh, J. S. (2001). Work-family conflict and the senior female international manager. British Journal of Management, 11, S49–S58. Lowe, K. B., Downes, M., & Kroeck, K. (1999). The impact of gender and location on the willingness to accept overseas assignments. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 223–234. Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359–375. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730. Markham, W. T. (1987). Sex, relocation, and occupational advancement. In A. Stromberg, L. Larwood, & B. A. Gutek (Eds.), Women and work (pp. 207–232). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Markham, W. T., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). Sex and willingness to move for occupational advancement. The Sociological Quarterly, 27, 121–143. National Foreign Trade Council. (2001). Maximizing your expatriate investment. NY: CIGNA. OECD. (2005). Trends in international migration. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. ORC Worldwide. (2004). 2004 Worldwide survey of international assignment policies and practices. New York: ORC Worldwide. Pricewaterhouse Coopers. (2002). Managing mobility matters. London, UK: Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Pricewaterhouse Coopers. (2005). Understanding and avoiding the barriers to international mobility matters. London, UK: Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Stroh, L. K. (1999). Does relocation still benefit corporations or employees? An overview of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 279–308. Stroh, L. K., Varma, A., & Valy-Durbin, S. J. (2000). Why are women left at home: Are they unwilling to go on international assignments? Journal of World Business, 35, 241–255. Tharenou, P. (2002). Receptivity to careers in international work – abroad and at home. Australian Journal of Management, 27, Special Issue, 129–136. Tharenou, P. (2003). The initial development of receptivity to working abroad. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 489–515. Vandenbrande, T., Coppin, L., van der Hallen, P., Ester, P., Fourage, D., Fasang, A., et al. (2006). Mobility in Europe. Ireland: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Van der Velde, M. E. G., Bossink, C. J. H., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2005). Gender differences in the determinants of the willingness to accept an international assignment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 81–103. Van Hooft, E. A., Born, M. P., Taris, T. W., Van Der Flier, H., & Blonk, R. W. (2004). Predictors of job search behavior among employed and unemployed people. Personnel Psychology, 57, 25–59. Vance, C. M. (2005). The personal quest for building global competence. Journal of World Business, 40, 374–385. Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., Song, Z., & Sorenson, S. (2005). Job search persistence during unemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 411–430. Wang, B. C., & Bu, N. (2004). Attitudes toward international careers among male and female Canadian business students after 9–11. Career Development International, 9, 647–672. Williams, L. J., Edwards, J., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2003). Recent advances in causal modelling methods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management, 29, 903–936. Wothke, W. (1993). Nonpositive definite matrices in structural modeling. In K. A. Bollen & J. Scott Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation modeling models (pp. 256–293). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.