Host Country National Employees’ Prosocial Behavior toward Expatriates in Foreign Subsidiaries: A Common Ingroup Identity Model Perspective

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Business Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

Host Country National Employees’ Prosocial Behavior toward Expatriates in Foreign Subsidiaries: A Common Ingroup Identity Model Perspective Vesa Peltokorpi Graduate School of Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-1-89 Higashi-Senda-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima City, Hiroshima, 730-0053, Japan

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Common ingroup identity model dual identity social categorization expatriate organizational identity affiliative citizenship behavior information sharing

Social categorization is predominately assumed to have negative effects on the prosocial behavior of host country national (HCN) employees toward expatriates in foreign subsidiaries. Challenging this assumption, I draw on the common ingroup identity model to propose that dual identity – simultaneous identification with membership in a subgroup and in a superordinate group – reduces HCNs’ intergroup biases and facilitates prosocial behavior. More specifically, I hypothesize that HCNs’ organizational identity has a moderating effect on the positive relationship between HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity, such that this relationship is weaker when organizational identity is low. Furthermore, I hypothesize that dual identity mediates the relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and two prosocial behaviors: information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior. Results from the data collected from 1,290 HCN employees in Japan provide support for these hypotheses and the moderated mediation model.

1. Introduction Expatriates gain various benefits from prosocial behaviors – voluntary actions that are aimed to help or benefit other people – provided by HCN employees in foreign subsidiaries (for reviews, see Kang & Shen, 2018; Toh, DeNisi, & Leonardelli, 2012). While beneficial, the social identity theory (SIT)-based literature suggests that salient differences between HCNs and expatriates in visible and underlying attributes increase HCNs’ intergroup bias - the tendency for an individual to favor one’s ingroup over relevant outgroup(s) - and decrease prosocial behavior (e.g., Bonache, Langinier, & Zarraga-Oberty, 2016; Olsen & Martins, 2009; Pichler, Varma, & Budhwar, 2012; Toh & DeNisi, 2007; Varma, Toh, & Budhwar, 2006). At the same time, the common ingroup identity model (CIIM; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasion, Bachman, & Rust, 1993) and related research provides evidence that people help outgroup members more than the SIT-based literature suggests. For example, social categorization has been found to be a precondition for positive intergroup contact (Brown & Hewstone, 2005) and common intergroup identity to reduce intergroup bias and enhance prosocial behavior (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). In foreign subsidiaries, social categorization can also help HCNs recognize opportunities for prosocial behavior (Leonardelli & Toh, 2011). While the SIT-based literature sheds light on important but littleresearched phenomena, due to its predominant focus on intergroup bias and negative outcomes in HCN-expatriate relations (Kang & Shen,

2018; Toh et al., 2012), little is known about how the detrimental effects of intergroup bias can be alleviated and well-functioning intergroup relations developed within multinational corporations (MNCs). Indeed, one caveat inherent to SIT is the assumption of a clear division between ingroups and outgroups (Brewer, 1999; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). In real life, these distinctions can become blurred and are subject to change (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). To provide a more positive account of HCN-expatriate relations, I draw on the CIIM (Gaertner et al., 1993) to examine conditions that can potentially reduce intergroup bias and facilitate HCNs’ prosocial behaviors. In contrast to the focus on the determinants and negative outcomes of intergroup bias in the SIT-based literature, the center of attention in the CIIM is on factors that decrease intergroup bias through cognitive and motivational processes involving ingroup favoritism (Gaertner et al., 1993). The CIIM holds that because social categorization and related psychological processes have important roles in the development and continuation of intergroup biases, they also are the key elements of means to reduce these biases (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). Guided by the CIIM, I hypothesize that HCNs organizational identity has a moderating effect on the positive relationship between HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity, as well as that dual identity mediates the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and two HCNs’ prosocial behaviors: information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior. Dual identity refers to a simultaneous identification with membership in a subgroup and in a

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101642 Received 23 January 2019; Received in revised form 29 October 2019; Accepted 31 October 2019 0969-5931/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Vesa Peltokorpi, International Business Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101642

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

expatriates to understand the norms of the organization and to learn their work roles (Toh & DeNisi, 2005; Vance & Ensher, 2002; Vance, Andersen, Vaiman, & Gale, 2014). As cultural insiders, HCNs can help expatriates to understand the cultural norms and values in host countries (Bruning et al., 2012; Vance & Ensher, 2002). HCNs can also have an important liaison role, playing an effective conduit of knowledge between expatriates and various parties within and across foreign subsidiary boundaries in host countries (Vance et al., 2009, 2014). A meta-analysis, in turn, suggests that social support from coworkers, including HCNs, is positively related to expatriates’ host country adjustment (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005). While these prosocial behaviors can provide benefits to expatriates, such role is usually not in the HCNs’ job descriptions, and even it was, they have considerable degree of latitude in how seriously they adopt this role (Toh & Srinivas, 2012). For example, salient HCN-expatriate intergroup boundaries are conceptualized and shown to have negative effects on prosocial behaviors in foreign subsidiaries (Kang & Shen, 2018). If HCNs regard expatriates as outgroup members, they might not be willing to share information with and can even intentionally withhold information from expatriates (Peltokorpi, 2010; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2014). Many expatriates are also prematurely recalled to their home countries due to their “difficulties in dealing with a host country work force” (Paik & Sohn, 2004: 61). Given the frequency and considerable costs of unsuccessful expatriate assignments (Mezias & Scandura, 2005), scholars have stressed the importance of the HCN role in expatriate success (Takeuchi, 2010; Toh & DeNisi, 2007; Vance et al., 2009). Taken together, the literature suggests that while HCNs’ prosocial behaviors can provide benefits to expatriates, these behaviors are hindered by intergroup bias.

superordinate group (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). In the present study, I focus on information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior because they have been identified as the most important prosocial behaviors of HCNs toward expatriates in foreign subsidiaries (Toh et al., 2012). Furthermore, the separation of these two prosocial behaviors is consistent with the distinction between task- and person-focused behaviors (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and HCNs sharing information and providing emotional support to expatriates (Toh & DeNisi, 2005). I tested the hypotheses using data collected from 1,290 HCN employees in foreign subsidiaries in Japan. While subject to certain limitations like any other single country study, Japan provides a revealing context for the present study because of the salient outgroup categorization of expatriates by HCNs (Komisarof, 2009; Skuja & Norton, 1982) and being a challenging destination for expatriates (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2014; Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005). This paper provides three important contributions. First, I go beyond the dominant SIT-based rationale of negative intergroup relations to examine how intergroup bias can be reduced and better HCN-expatriate relations created in foreign subsidiaries. Importantly, I use the CIIM as a novel theoretical lens in the MNC context to highlight the importance of a dual identity recategorization on HCNs’ prosocial behaviors. In contrast to the assumptions of negative intergroup relations and a clear ingroup-outgroup categorization, I propose that it is possible to influence changes in the ways that people categorize themselves and others (i.e., recategorization) and thereby to reshape the dimensions on which people are categorized as ingroup and outgroup members. By doing so, I answer to a call for more positive perspectives on intergroup relations in international business (IB) research (Stahl & Tung, 2015). More broadly, this paper introduces a novel theoretical perspective that can be applied to various areas in international settings. Second, I add to scarce expatriate research based on HCNs’ perspectives. In addition to a refocus in the literature by being more inclusive of the contributions of HCN employees in MNC operations (Toh & DeNisi, 2003), scholars have called for more expatriate research based on HCN perspectives (Caligiuri & Bonache, 2016; Takeuchi, 2010; Toh & DeNisi, 2003; Vance & Ring, 1994; Vance, Vaiman, & Andersen, 2009). The HCN perspective presents expatriate issues from the “other side of the coin,” considering the role of HCNs in these issues (Vance & Ring, 1994). More research from the HCN perspective is also warranted because HCNs’ support is instrumental for expatriates to succeed in their objectives (Takeuchi, 2010; Vance et al., 2009) and whose resistance can lead to expatriate failure (Takeuchi, 2010; Toh & DeNisi, 2007). Such research helps to reveal from the HCN perspective how HCN-expatriate relations can be enhanced in foreign subsidiaries. Furthermore, instead of collecting data from expatriates, leaving the source of coworker social support or prosocial behavior unspecified (Takeuchi, 2010), and using general measures of social support as in previous studies (Kang & Shen, 2018; Takeuchi, 2010), I collected data from HCNs and focused on two specific HCNs’ prosocial behaviors. Third, while accumulated research in laboratory settings has demonstrated the efficacy of the CIIM model (for a review, see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012), the present study contributes by extending CIIM-based research to the MNC context. Although previous CIIM research has provided important information, one often voiced concern is the extent to which the findings from laboratory studies can be extended to field settings (Anderson & Bushman, 1997; Mitchell, 2012). In the present study, I test my theoretical framework using a sample of HCN employees in Japan.

2.2. The Social Identity Theory Perspective of HCN-Expatriate Relations Social identity theory (SIT) has predominately been used in research on HCN-expatriate relations (e.g., Bonache et al., 2016; Olsen & Martins, 2009; Toh & DeNisi, 2007; Varma, Pichler, Budhwar, & Biswas, 2009). Three assumptions summarize the main tenets of SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1986): (1) people strive for the establishment or enhancement of positive self-esteem; (2) a part of the person’s self-concept, his or her social identity, is based on the person’s group memberships; and (3) to preserve a positive social identity, the person strives for positive differentiation between his or her ingroup and relevant outgroup(s). SIT holds that people use salient context-specific attributes classify and categorize themselves and others into ingroups and outgroups. Through the categorization between similar ingroups (“us”) and different outgroups (“them”), people develop ingroup bias by showing favoritism toward their own similar ingroup and degrade their evaluations of outgroup members to maintain high levels of selfesteem (Turner, 1982). The need for a positive social identity is the basic cognitive and motivational mechanism responsible for ingroup bias (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Because this categorization process ascribes certain qualities and traits to others, people seek to minimize differences between members of the same ingroup category and maximize intergroup distinctions. Emotionally, people tend to experience more positive affect towards ingroup than outgroup members (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In terms of behavioral outcomes, people are often more helpful towards ingroup than outgroup members (Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton, & Hume, 2001). SIT has been used to conceptualize and empirically demonstrate that HCNs categorize expatriates as outgroup members due to salient differences in age (Olsen & Martins, 2009), gender (Varma et al., 2006), and race (Toh & DeNisi, 2007). Significant pay differences have also been conceptualized to increase HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization in emerging economies where pay differences are significant (Toh & DeNisi, 2003, 2007). However, perhaps due to the contextspecific nature of social categorization (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), research has provided inconsistent evidence of the antecedents and outcomes of

2. Conceptual Framework 2.1. HCN-Expatriate Relations HCNs can be socializing agents, and sources of assistance, social support, and friendship to expatriates in foreign subsidiaries (Kang & Shen, 2018; Toh et al., 2012). As organizational insiders, HCNs can help 2

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

former outgroup members (i.e., expatriates) should become more positive through processes involving pro-ingroup bias, thereby reducing intergroup bias. The processes that lead to favoritism toward ingroup members would now be directed toward former outgroup members. The formation of a common ingroup identity does not require each group to give up its less inclusive group identity completely; that is, people can conceive of two groups as distinct units within the context of a superordinate identity (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1993). According to the CIIM (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012), recategorization can take two different forms: (1) one group and (2) dual identity representation. First, positive perceptions of intergroup contact conditions can contribute to a one group representation whereby both groups are combined to develop a single, larger superordinate entity. Applied to the present study, this suggests that there is not perceived distinction between HCNs and expatriates, as well as that both HCNs and expatriates are perceived to be employees in the same organization. Second, dual identity occurs when people at the same time identify with membership in a subgroup and in a superordinate group (Beaton, Dovidio, & Leger, 2008). Dual identity constitutes an amalgam of salient ingroup categorization and recategorization, in which original group identities are preserved, but within the context of a superordinate identity. In intergroup contexts involving relatively large group memberships, the presence of one, inclusive group identity might not optimally satisfy people’s needs for inclusion and distinctiveness (Brewer, 1999). In such cases, a dual identity is more potent in creating more favorable outgroup evaluations and prosocial behaviors (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). When dual identity exists, original group memberships are salient but recognized within the context of a common ingroup identity. This maintenance of distinctive subgroup boundaries allows people to appreciate the differences that each group (in this case, expatriates and HCNs) brings to the interaction and forming a more inclusive group identity allows for cooperative interdependence (Beaton et al., 2008; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). In the present study, I focus on dual identity due to salient social categorization between HCNs and expatriates in foreign subsidiaries (Kang & Shen, 2018; Toh et al., 2012). In cases of salient subgroup identities, dual identity produces more positive effects for intergroup relations than complete abandonment of subgroup identities (Gonzalez & Brown, 2003). Indeed, the CIIM maintains that dual identity where subgroup distinction remains salient within the larger and more inclusive superordinate group is a key aspect of reducing social categorization. This occurs because positive attitude toward the superordinate group representation provides a mechanism for the generalization of that positive attitude to the other subordinate groups (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). The transfer of a positive attitude to the subgroups takes place when the superordinate common ingroup category is the most salient identity, but other subgroups remain accessible within that representation (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Taken together, the above evidence suggests that it is possible for HCNs to regard themselves and expatriates as distinct entities within the context of a superordinate identity (i.e., dual identity approach).

HCNs’ expatriate social categorization. For example, HCNs in China did not provide social support differentially to female and male expatriates from the USA (Varma, Budhwar, & Pichler, 2011; Varma, Pichler, & Budhwar, 2011). However, HCNs in India preferred to work with female expatriates from the USA (Varma et al., 2006). In the UK, HCNs provided more social support to male colleagues, regardless their nationality (Varma, Budhwar et al., 2011, 2011b). Based on a recent review (Kang & Shen, 2018), the existing research on HCN-expatriate relations has not reached a consensus on the antecedents of HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and consequences of their attitudes and behaviors towards expatriates. Because of the focus on intergroup bias and negative outcomes in the SIT-based literature, only few scholars have offered measures that can be used to facilitate HCN-expatriate relations in MNCs. In a conceptual paper, Toh and DeNisi (2005) stressed the importance of transparent pay and promotion policies, expatriate selection, organizational identification, HCN training, and using and rewarding HCN mentors. Drawing on SIT and organizational behavior research, Toh and DeNisi (2007) similarly argued that situational characteristics, such as pay fairness between HCNs and expatriates, moderate the negative relationship between the outgroup categorization and socializing behaviors provided by HCNs to expatriates. In addition to expatriate training, scholars have also stressed the importance of HCN training to facilitate HCN-expatriate relations (Vance & Ensher, 2002; Vance & Ring, 1994). Leonardelli and Toh (2011), in turn, found in a two-sample study (Sample 1; N = 75, Sample 2; N = 83) in foreign subsidiaries that procedural justice moderates the relationship between HNCs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity and information sharing. Leonardelli and Toh used these findings to speculate (not empirically show) that social categorization is used to identify the groups of people in need of support and the groups of people who can give this support. While suggesting some measures that can potentially enhance HCNexpatriate relations, scholars have provided little empirical evidence and overarching theoretical rationale as to how intergroup bias can be reduced and prosocial behaviors enhanced in MNCs. One possible reason for the scarcity of empirical and conceptual evidence is the predominance of SIT in the works on HCN-expatriate relations. Indeed, as already mentioned, SIT focuses on determinants and negative outcomes of social categorization rather than on conditions that reduce intergroup bias. Providing a different perspective, I turn to the CIIM (Gaertner et al., 1993) to examine how HCN-expatriate intergroup bias can be reduced and prosocial behaviors enhanced in foreign subsidiaries. 2.3. The Common Ingroup Identity Model The common ingroup identity model (CIIM; Gaertner et al., 1993), by building on Allport (1954) contact hypothesis, Sherif (1966) concept of superordinate goals, and Tajfel (1981) notion of social identity, shifts the focus from the causes and negative consequences of intergroup bias to how better intergroup relations can be established. The CIIM maintains that the consequences of ingroup bias can be redirected toward creating better intergroup relations through the recategorization process at a superordinate level (Gaertner et al., 1993). Instead of eliminating group boundaries, the recategorization process reduces intergroup bias by altering the perceptions of intergroup boundaries, redefining who are regarded as ingroup members. Based on the CIIM, group boundaries can be eclipsed by a more inclusive superordinate identity because intergroup bias often takes the form of ingroup enhancement instead of outgroup devaluation; increasing the inclusiveness of group boundaries enables some of the cognitive and motivational processes that contributed initially to intergroup bias to be redirected and transferred to former outgroup members. Applied to the present study, if HCNs and expatriates as members of two separate groups are induced to regard themselves as a single, more inclusive superordinate group, instead of separate groups, attitudes toward

3. Hypotheses Drawing on the CIIM, I provide hypotheses on the moderated effect of organizational identity, and mediating effect of dual identity between the strength of HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and prosocial behaviors in terms of information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior (see Fig. 1). 3.1. Organizational Identity as a Moderator Applied to the present study, the dual identity concept suggests that HCN employees perceive themselves and expatriates as two distinct entities in a foreign subsidiary as the context of a superordinate 3

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

H2+

Information sharing

et al., 2001). In a related vein, Ashforth and Mael (1996) have argued that a strong organizational identity unifies employees in organizations. A strong organizational identity can thus act as a common uniting force that prevents subgroups from eliciting negative group processes based on stereotyping and outgroup biases.

H3+

Affiliative citizenship behavior

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Organizational identity moderates the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity such as this relationship is strengthened as organizational identity increases.

Organizational identity H1+ Expatriate outgroup categorization

Dual identity

Fig. 1. Research model and hypotheses.

3.2. Dual Identity as a Mediator identity. Indeed, the CIIM maintains that positive outgroup perceptions and prosocial behaviors can be effectively promoted by a change in the level of categorization toward a common ingroup identity that is shared by all subgroups (Dovidio, Gaertner, Shnabel, Saguy, & Johnson, 2009; Nier et al., 2001). For example, Dovidio et al. (2009): 193-194) proposed: “A common ingroup identity can be achieved by increasing the salience of existing common superordinate memberships (e.g., a school, a company, a nation)”. While higher-order identities tend to be less salient than lower-order ones, they are particularly important in the recategorization process (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Building on these CIIM-based arguments, I propose that organizational identity reduces intergroup bias of HCNs’ expatriate categorization through the recategorization process at a superordinate level. Defining organizational identity from the SIT perspective, Haslam, Postmes, and Ellmers (2003: 360) explained that “people engage in a process of self-stereotyping whereby their behaviors are oriented towards, and structured by, the content of that group or organization’s defining characteristics, norms and values, resulting in the internalization of a particular organizational identity”. Integrated with the CIIM, this definition suggests that HCNs high on organizational identity are more committed to their foreign subsidiaries rather than or in addition to their subgroup goals and identities. As a superordinate entity, higher perceptions of organizational identity can consequently enhance HCNs’ perception of similarities and acceptance of expatriates, reducing intergroup bias of social categorization. For some empirical support, Lipponen, Helkama, and Juslin (2003) found in a study of shipyard subcontractors in Finland that whereas subgroup identification was positively associated with subgroup bias, superordinate identification was negatively associated with subgroup bias. In a related vein, strong organizational identification is found to attenuate the negative impact of high team identification on intergroup relations (Richter, West, van Dick, & Dawson, 2006). Further, Hornsey and Hogg (2000) found increased ingroup favoritism when a superordinate university identity was made, in relative terms, more salient than subgroup faculty identities. In a similar context, Crisp, Stone, and Hall, (2006) established that these comparatively high levels of bias observed in the superordinate university identity condition were driven by high faculty (subgroup) identifiers. A more salient organizational identity is further theorized and found to motivate employees in SITbased a study to cooperate with other members of the same organization (while they can have different lower-order identities) and to engage in prosocial behaviors) (Ashforth & Mael, 1996; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002). Extended to the foreign subsidiary context, the above evidence suggests that intergroup bias of HCNs’ expatriate social categorization can be reduced by emphasizing the superordinate organizational identity to HCNs so that expatriates are regarded less as outgroup members, but rather as fellow members of the larger and more inclusive organizational group. This allows both HCN employees and expatriates to maintain their own group identities within the context of a superordinate identity. Indeed, the CIIM suggests that a common ingroup can be attained by increasing the salience of common superordinate memberships such as organizational identity (Dovidio et al., 2009; Nier

In the CIIM, dual identity has been presented as a key mediator between intergroup categorization and prosocial behaviors (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Instead of an outcome (Leonardelli & Toh, 2011), consistent with the CIIM, I regard dual identity in the present study as a mediator between the strength of expatriate outgroup categorization and prosocial behaviors. As already mentioned, dual identity is a mixture of salient categorization and recategorization, in which original social identities are kept, but within the context of a superordinate identity (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Positive perceptions of intergroup contacts are associated with the belief that while both groups are different and unique, but they also belong to a larger superordinate entity. Instead of SIT-based “us versus them” categorization, a dual identity in the CIIM suggests “us and them” categorization (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). In a related vein, Brewer (1999) proposed that the preferential treatment of ingroups is not the same as outgroup derogation. Toh et al. (2012), in turn, conceptualized that dual identity allows HCNs and expatriates to perceive their category membership as a distinctive asset, one that could be used to assist others. These arguments place expatriate social categorization as a key antecedent of dual identity. Building on the evidence provided above, I propose that HCNs and expatriates in MNC subsidiaries share a common organizational identity but categorize each other as separate groups. Dual identity is valuable in HCN-expatriate relations because the superordinate identity builds a basis for shared identity and collaboration within the superordinate group without reducing the identity of the nested category. This maintenance of distinctive subgroup boundaries allows individuals to appreciate the differences that each group brings to the interaction, and the development of a more inclusive group identity allows for cooperative interdependence (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). In some support, the CIIM-based research provides evidences that a dual identity facilitates positive intergroup relations and prosocial behaviors. For example, a laboratory study with 144 university students shows that dual identity increased helping toward others formerly perceived as outgroup members (Dovidio et al., 1997). In another study with 114 students, two groups interacted under conditions that individual identities, separate group identities (i.e., Analytics and Synthetics), only common university memberships (i.e., common group identity), and both different subgroup identities and superordinate university identity (i.e., dual identity) (Gonzalez & Brown, 2003). The findings show that outgroup bias was lowest in the dual identity condition. Evidence consistent with the benefits of a dual identity comes also from a study that assessed the strength of White respondents’ superordinate identity as “American” and superordinate American identity, in addition to their own White racial identity, were more likely to base their support for affirmative action policies that would benefit Blacks and other minorities on fairness-related concerns than on selfinterest (Smith & Tyler, 1996). More relevant to the present topic, a study with 207 HCN employees in MNCs in Mexico shows that a dual identity (i.e., the perception that Americans are another group and at the same time that Americans share a common identity with HCNs) explains how high-quality contact between American and HCN coworkers improves HCNs’ general attitudes toward Americans (Eller & Abrams, 2004). 4

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

consequently be considered as one of those not formally required or rewarded prosocial behaviors provided by HCNs toward expatriates in foreign subsidiaries. In some support for the mediating role of dual identity between HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and affiliative citizenship behavior, CIIM-based research suggests that dual identity does not only improve attitudes towards outgroup members but can also lead to more favorable behaviors toward outgroup members (Dovidio et al., 2009; Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005). For example, an experiment with university students suggests that dual identity predicted football fans’ willingness to help each other across team affiliations (Levine et al., 2005). In the experiment, an injured stranger wearing an ingroup team shirt was more likely helped than when wearing a rival team shirt or an unbranded sports shirt. While only remotely related to prosocial behaviors in the present study, the experiment illustrates the importance of shared identity between ingroup and outgroup members and dual identity for increasing the likelihood of helping behaviors. In sum, the evidence provided above suggests that dual identity reduce intergroup boundaries, educe positive outgroup evaluations, and facilitate person-related prosocial behaviors by HCNs, including affiliative citizenship behavior.

In the present study, I take a step beyond previous CIIM and expatriate research by extending CIIM-related research to foreign subsidiary settings and exploring the mediating effects of a dual identity between HCNs’ expatriate social categorization and two prosocial behaviors: information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior. In contrast to information sharing, affiliative citizenship behavior focuses on person-related behaviors (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995) and emotional support provided by HCNs toward expatriates in foreign subsidiaries (Toh & DeNisi, 2005). Although information sharing fulfills the work-related information needs of expatriates, scholars have also argued that the emotional and instrumental support characteristics of affiliative citizenship is important for fulfilling higher order needs such as belonging and feeling accepted in host countries (Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2002; Mahajan & De Silva, 2012). Taken together, informationsharing and affiliative citizenship behavior respectively consist of taskrelated and person-related prosocial behaviors in work-settings. Information sharing refers to the degree to which HCN employees provide work-related information to expatriates. As indicated above, HCNs can be sources of valuable information to expatriates due to their “insider” status and social networks within and beyond the foreign subsidiary boundaries (Vance et al., 2009, 2014). HCNs can share valuable work-related information to expatriates, ranging from role expectations in foreign subsidiaries to advice in negotiating business contracts with local companies (Mahajan & De Silva, 2012). Since information sharing and other prosocial behaviors provided by HCNs toward expatriates are unlikely to be required as part of their jobs or formally rewarded (Toh & Srinivas, 2012), I draw on the CIIM to propose that dual identity motivates HCNs to engage these behaviors. For indirect conceptual support, Toh et al. (2012) conceptualized (without drawing on the CIIM) that HCNs are more inclined to share information with expatriates when they regard expatriates as different groups but share the same superordinate identity. Interpreted from the CIIM perspective, this suggests dual identity recategorization process. For empirical support, Dovidio et al. (1997) found that student members of two different ad hoc laboratory groups shared more personal information with each other and also helped an outgroup member not present in the contact situation more, when a shared identity (i.e., dual identity) has been previously induced in comparison to a separate subgroup representation condition. Thus, the dual identity representation can be considered as a mediator between intergroup categorization and information sharing.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Dual identity mediates the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and affiliative citizenship behavior.

3.3. Moderated Mediation Hypotheses In previous sections, I have hypothesized that HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization is positively associated with information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior. I have also hypothesized that dual identity has a mediating role between expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity, as well as that organizational identity has a moderating role on the relationship between the strength of HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity. Taken together, these hypotheses suggest that the indirect relationships between HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and two prosocial behaviors through dual identity are conditioned upon organizational identity. Although Hypotheses 1-3 can be examined by testing individual paths in the model, testing individual paths is insufficient for establishing mediation and moderated mediation effects (Hayes, 2013; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Thus, I provide two hypotheses, which specify the overall moderated mediation effects predicted in the research model.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Dual identity mediates the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and information sharing.

Hypothesis 4a. Organizational identity moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and information sharing through dual identity such as this mediated relation is stronger under high organizational identity than under low organizational identity.

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been defined as “individual behavior that discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that is aggregate promotes the functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988: 4). More recently, citizenship behavior has been described as voluntary behaviors that transcend an employee’s specified role requirements and are not formally rewarded by the organization (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Indeed, such behaviors often involve efforts that go beyond formal job requirements (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Citizenship behaviors have further been classified into two different categories: affiliative versus challenging (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 1995). In contrast to challenging citizenship behaviors “as actions that question the status quo in order to improve organizational functioning and effectiveness” (Cardador & Wrzesniewski, 2015: 257), including selling issues, voicing problems, selling issues, and taking charge to implement constructive changes, affiliative citizenship behavior involves personal help and assistance, as well as showing courtesy toward coworkers (Morrison, 1993; Van Dyne et al., 1995). Accordingly, affiliative citizenship behaviors have been classified as prosocial forms of OCB (Chiaburu, Oh, Wang, & Stoverink, 2017). In contrast to challenging citizenship behaviors, affiliative citizenship behaviors can

Hypothesis 4b. Organizational identity moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and affiliative citizenship behavior through dual identity such as the mediated relation is stronger under high organizational identity than under low organizational identity.

4. Method 4.1. Sample and Procedures I collected data through a large Japanese research company in the Tokyo area through two online surveys at two points in time. I collected data through a research company because they help to prescreen potential respondents on a variety of characteristics (Ng & Feldman, 2003). In Japan, collecting data is also challenging without personal 5

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

respondents was 43.22 years (SD = 8.05), 78% were male. Their average tenure in the present foreign subsidiary was 11.19 years (SD = 9.03). On an average, their foreign subsidiaries had 310.56 employees (SD = 713.74). The bulk of the respondents worked in manufacturing (49%), service (14%), and finance (13%) industry sectors.

contacts (Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007). I conducted this study in Japan for two reasons. First, Japan is one of the most ethnically homogeneous developed countries (Fearon, 2003), potentially influencing how HCNs categorize expatriates. Several scholars have argued that Japanese categorize non-Japanese (foreigners) as outgroup members (e.g., Komisarof, 2009; Lie, 2001; Skuja & Norton, 1982; Yamashiro, 2011). According to Lie (2001), two categories guide ingroup-outgroup categorization in Japan: “Japanese” and “foreigner”. These two categories are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed; “Japanese” refers to people who are presumably not “foreign” and “foreigner” describes people who are supposedly not “Japanese”. This suggests that the Japanese-foreigner distinction guides ingroup-outgroup categorization in Japan. In a similar vein, previous research suggests that expatriates are not considered by HCNs as ingroup members in Japan (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2014; Skuja & Norton, 1982). Second, perhaps because of the salient ingroup-outgroup categorization, Japan is a challenging destination for expatriates (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2014; Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005), providing an interesting context for the present study. In line with previous research on HCN-expatriate relations (Varma et al., 2006; Wang & Fang, 2014), data were collected from HCNs with expatriate coworkers in foreign subsidiaries. The approach taken is also consistent with purposive sampling used in the CIIM-based research (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). More specifically, I requested the research company to collect data on the following screening criteria: HCNs working full-time in foreign subsidiaries the Tokyo area, having workrelated interactions with expatriate coworker(s) in the same functional department. These screening criteria were first used to identify potential respondents in the research company’s database and then used as a set of screening questions to potential participants. Only respondents who answered appropriately to all screening questions could proceed to the rest of the survey. In the screening criteria and in the survey, I described expatriates as employees of foreign MNCs, who are sent to Japan on a temporary basis to complete a time-based task or accomplish an organizational goal. Thus, these expatriates can be classified as corporate expatriates sent from headquarters to work in a foreign subsidiary for a set period of time to achieve an organizational goal (Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, 2004: 203). Data were collected from HCN who are in the same functional department with expatriates because HCNs in close proximity to expatriates have more accurate information of expatriates (Toh & DeNisi, 2003) and in the Tokyo region because most foreign subsidiaries with expatriates are located there in Japan (Toyo Keizai, 2013). The concentration of expatriates in the Tokyo region became also clear in our previous research projects and interactions with the research company’s representative. Participation to surveys was voluntary; respondents received small incentives from the research company for participation. At Time 1 (Survey 1), the research company invited 1,678 HCNs fulfilling my screening criteria to participate in the survey. Among those HCNs, 1,498 participated and completed the survey (89% response rate). At Time 1, I measured independent, moderating, mediating, and control variables. At Time 2, three months later, another survey (Survey 2) was sent to the respondents who participated at Time 1. Among those respondents, 1,290 completed the survey (86% response rate). At Time 2, I measured the dependent variables. The overall response rate in this study was 77%. I linked these two surveys by the respondents’ identification numbers, age, and gender provided by the research company. In addition to the identification numbers, age, and gender provided by the research company, the respondents reported their age, gender, and tenure in both surveys. I then compared participants who participated in both surveys with those who did not participate to Survey 2 but did not find any significant differences in terms of the respondents age, gender or tenure in the present foreign subsidiary. I also compared foreign subsidiary size in both surveys but did not find any significant differences. In the final sample used in the hypotheses testing, the average age of

4.2. Measures The back-translation method (Brislin, 1980) was used to translate surveys from English to Japanese. To ensure face validity of the items, two bilingual HCNs working for foreign MNC subsidiaries in Japan checked and approved the translated survey. 4.2.1. Expatriate outgroup categorization Expatriate outgroup categorization was measured by a modified 7item scale from Leonardelli and Toh (2011). In the survey, the respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements, such as “I consider expatriate(s) as ‘one of them’ and other Japanese employees in this organization to be ‘one of us’” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). (α = .84). 4.2.2. Dual identity Dual identity was measured by a modified 3-item scale from Beaton et al. (2008). In the survey, the respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements, such as “Japanese employees and expatriate employees are different groups, but working together to contribute to the organization” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). (α = .72). 4.2.3. Organizational identity Organizational identity was measured by a 5-item scale from Smidts, Pruyn, and Van Riel, (2001). In the survey, the respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements regarding to their employing foreign subsidiary, such as “I am glad to be a member of my company” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). (α = .92). 4.2.4. Information sharing Information sharing was measured by a 5-item scale from Morrison (1993). In line with previous research (Toh & Srinivas, 2012), the respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements on work-related information sharing behaviors with the expatriate coworker whom they have most work-related interactions in the same functional department, such as “How often do you provide this expatriate information on how to perform specific aspects of job in your company?” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = never, 7 = a few times a day). (α = .99). 4.2.5. Affiliative citizenship behavior Affiliative citizenship behavior was measured by a 7-item scale from McAllister (1995). In line with prior research (Wang & Fang, 2014), the respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements on work-related affiliative citizenship behavior behaviors with the expatriate coworker whom they have most work-related interactions in the same functional department, such as “I willingly help this expatriate, even at some costs to personal productivity” on a 7point Likert scale (1 = almost never, 7 = almost always). (α = .91). 4.2.6. Control variables I controlled for ten variables theorized or shown to affect variables in this study. I controlled for foreign subsidiary size (number of employees) and largest industry sector (manufacturing) because they can influence the examined relations (Kang & Shen, 2018). Further, I controlled for HCNs’ tenure (measured in years) in current foreign subsidiary because employees with longer tenures tend to engage more into 6

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

before computing product terms. Table 3 provides results of the PROCESS analyses. Hypotheses 1 stated that organizational identity moderates the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity; this relationship is strengthened as organizational identity increases. In support for Hypothesis 1, organizational identity had a significant positive moderating effect on the relation between expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity (B = .05, SE = .02, t = 2.02, p < .05, 95% CI = .00, .07). To facilitate interpretation of the interactions, I plotted relations, showing the high and low degrees of expatriate outgroup categorization by values 1 standard deviation above and below the mean. Fig. 2 shows that the strength of expatriate outgroup categorization has a more positive association with dual identity when organizational identity is 1 standard deviation above than 1 standard deviation below the mean. Hypotheses 2 stated that dual identity mediates the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and information sharing. In support for Hypothesis 2, outgroup expatriate categorization had a positive effect on dual identity (B = .08, SE = .03, t = 2.29, p < .05, 95% CI = .01, .15) and information sharing (B = .10, SE = .05, t = 2.14, p < .05, 95% CI = .01, 20), and dual identity had a positive effect on information sharing (B = .17, SE = .04, t = 4.06, p < .001, 95% CI = .09, 25). Hypotheses 3 stated that dual identity mediates the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and affiliative citizenship behavior. In support for Hypothesis 3, expatriate outgroup categorization had a positive effect on dual identity (B = .08, SE = .03, t = 2.29, p < .05, 95% CI = .01, .15) and affiliative citizenship behavior (B = .07, SE = .03, t = 2.22, p < .05, 95% CI = .01, .13), and dual identity had a positive effect on affiliative citizenship behavior (B = .35, SE = .02, t = 13.40, p < .001, 95% CI = .29, .40). Taken together, the above results satisfy conditions 1, 2, and 3 for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. To test Hypotheses 4a and 4b, I used 95% bootstrap bias-corrected intervals for the indirect effect conditioned by organizational identity on the basis of 10,000 bootstrap samples (see Table 4). In support for Hypothesis 4a, bootstrapping tests showed that when organizational identity was high, the indirect effect of expatriate outgroup categorization on information sharing through dual identity was stronger (B = .02, SE = .01, 95% CI = .00, .05). When organizational identity was low, the indirect effect was weaker (B = .00, SE = .01, 95% CI = -.01, .02). In support for Hypothesis 4b, bootstrapping tests showed that when organizational identity was high, the indirect effect of outgroup categorization on affiliative citizenship behavior through dual identity was stronger (B = .05, SE = .02, 95% CI = .01, .08). When organizational identity was low, the indirect effect was weaker (B = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI = -.02, .04). Taken together, these results satisfy condition 4 for moderated mediation, providing support for the moderated mediation model and Hypotheses 4a and 4b.

prosocial behaviors (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). I also controlled for HCNs’ foreign experience (i.e., the length of time [years] they have been abroad) because people with longer foreign experience tend to make a less salient distinction between HCNs and foreigners (Hoersting & Jenkins, 2011). I controlled HCN work experience with expatriate coworker (measured in months) because it can affect prosocial behaviors (Allport, 1954). I controlled for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and organizational rank differences between the HCN respondent and the expatriate with whom the HCN respondent indicated to have most work-related interactions in the same functional department because such differences can influence intergroup relations and prosocial relations (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). Age differences were measured in years, gender difference by a dummy code (similar 0, different 1), and race/ethnicity by a dummy code (other 0, Caucasian/white 1). In the sample, most (69.3%) expatriates were Caucasian/white. Organizational rank was measured by differences by 16 ranks, ranging from top manager to staff. I also controlled for HCN-expatriate pay fairness because large pay differences can influence HCNs’ prosocial behaviors (Toh & DeNisi, 2003). Pay fairness was measured by a 2-item scale, 7point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) scale from Leung, Lin, and Lu, (2014). A sample item is “I am fairly rewarded in comparison to expatriate employees in my company”. (α = .95).

5. Results I first conducted confirmatory factor analyses on all multi-item scales. As shown in Table 1, the six-factor measurement model (i.e., expatriate outgroup categorization, dual identity, organizational identity, information sharing, affiliative citizenship behavior, and pay fairness) demonstrated acceptable fit to the data, χ2 = 1184.66(334), p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04 than other alternative models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Table 2 represents descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables. I used PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) for SPSS statistical software to test Hypotheses in four steps for moderated mediation, as suggested by Preacher et al. (2007). PROCESS is widely used in social sciences to estimate direct and indirect effects in mediator models, interactions in moderation models, and conditional indirect effects in moderated mediation models (Hayes, 2013). More specifically, I used PROCESS model 7 to examine four conditions: (1) a significant effect of expatriate outgroup categorization on dual identity, information sharing, and affiliative citizenship behavior; (2) a significant effect of dual identity on information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior; (3) a significant interaction between expatriate outgroup categorization and organizational identity and dual identity; and (4) a conditional indirect effect of expatriate outgroup categorization on information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior through dual identity, depending on the degree of organizational identity. To reduce multicollinearity (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), I mean-centered independent variables Table 1 Measure model comparison.

χ2

Models Six-factor model (baseline model): Expatriate outgroup categorization, organizational identity, dual identity, information sharing, affiliative citizenship behavior, pay fairness Five-factor model: Expatriate outgroup categorization and organizational identity combined into one factor Four-factor model: Expatriate outgroup categorization, organizational identity, and dual identity combined into one factor Three-factor model: Expatriate outgroup categorization, organizational identity, dual identity, and information sharing combined into one factor Two-factor model: Expatriate outgroup categorization, organizational identity, dual identity, information sharing, and affiliative citizenship behavior combined into one factor One-factor model: Six factors combined into one factor

Note: N = 1,290. *** p < .001. 7

df

Δχ2

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

.97

.97

.04

1184.66

334

3403.35 4626.87 7208.24

339 343 346

2218.69*** 1223.52*** 2581.37***

.91 .87 .79

.87 .84 .75

.08 .10 .12

11859.09

348

4650.85***

.65

.59

.16

13824.26

349

1965.17***

.58

.52

.17

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

Dual identity

B

SE

t

4.06 .03

.18 .04

22.50 .71

-.06 -.00 .01 -.00 -.14

.06 .00 .01 .01 .07

-.98 -.05 .88 -.03 −2.04

.27 .01 .01

.08 .00 .01

3.44 1.82 .61

.12 .08 .10 .05

.02 .03 .02 .02

5.24 2.31 4.07 2.02 .28 .08 8.36

LLCI

ULCI

3.71 -.05

4.42 .10

-.19 -.01 -.01 -.02 -.28

.06 .01 .03 .01 -.00

***

.11 -.00 -.01

.42 .02 .02

*** * *** *

.08 .01 .05 .00

.17 .15 .15 .07

LLCI

ULCI

*** ***

2.47 -.41

3.67 -.19

*** *** *

-.30 -.02 .07 .02 -.45

.07 .00 .12 .07 -.05

-.33

.12

***

-.01 -.18

.02 -.13

*** *** *

.08 .09 .02

.21 .25 .21

LLCI

ULCI

1.56 -.15

2.31 -.01

Information sharing

B

SE

(Constant) Foreign subsidiary size (number of employees) Industry (other 0, manufacturing 1) HCN tenure (years) HCN international experience (years) Together work experience (months) Expatriate race (other 0, Caucasian/ White 1) Gender difference (similar 0, different 1) Age difference (years) Rank difference (16 organizational ranks) Pay fairness Dual identity Expatriate outgroup categorization R R2 F

3.07 -.30

.30 .06

10.10 −5.44

-.11 -.01 .10 .05 -.25

.09 .00 .01 .01 .10

−1.22 −1.19 7.09 4.14 −2.42

-.10

.11

-.86

.00 -.15

.01 .01

.09 −10.74

.14 .17 .11

.03 .04 .05

4.31 4.16 2.34 .46 .22 18.32

.23 .09 .08 .09 .00 .35 .20 .19 .39 ** * ** **

**

**

** *

** * ** ** ** *

*

***

t

***

* *

** ** *

** ** ** ** * *

***

* *

Affiliative citizenship behavior

B

SE

t

(Constant) Foreign subsidiary size (number of employees) Industry (other 0, manufacturing 1) HCN tenure (years) HCN international experience (years) Together work experience (months) Expatriate race (other 0, Caucasian/ White 1) Gender difference (similar 0, different 1) Age difference (years) Rank difference (16 organizational ranks) Pay fairness Dual identity Expatriate outgroup categorization R R2 F

1.93 -.07

.19 .03

10.08 −2.22

-.05 -.01 .02 .01 -.11

.06 .00 .01 .01 .06

-.93 −1.69 1.86 1.13 −1.66

-.17 -.01 -.00 -.01 -.24

.06 .00 .03 .02 .02

.04 .00 -.04

.07 .00 .01

.52 .48 −5.08

***

-.10 -.01 -.06

.18 .01 -.03

.27 .35 .07

.02 .02 .03

12.62 13.43 2.32 .54 .29 29.52

*** *** *

.22 .29 .01

.31 .40 .13

*** *

***

Note: N = 1,290. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. **p < .01. *** p < .001. * p < .05.

Note: N = 1,290. ** p < .01. * p < .05.

**

*

.07 -.02 .07 -.02 -.04 .15 .04 .08 .07 .25 .14 -.13 -.00 .10 -.17 .09 -.08 -.02 .07 .15 -.00 -.09 -.07 * *

.13 -.06 -.01 .07 -.06 .03 -.03 -.07 .05 .02 -.04 -.06 -.07 -.06 .22 -.03 -.06 .07 -.01 .00 -.02 -.02 .03 -.02 .01 -.06 -.06 713.74 .50 9.03 3.50 4.09 .46 .42 6.01 3.34 1.44 .97 1.40 1.17 1.88 1.25 310.56 .49 11.19 1.64 8.82 .69 .22 7.96 4.23 3.86 4.23 4.18 4.67 3.18 4.12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Foreign subsidiary size (number of employees) Industry (other 0, manufacturing 1) HCN tenure (years) HCN international experience (years) Together work experience (months) Expatriate race (other 0, Caucasian/White 1) Gender difference (similar 0, different 1) Age difference (years) Rank difference (16 organizational ranks) Pay fairness Expatriate outgroup categorization Organizational identity Dual identity Information sharing Affiliative citizenship behavior

SD M Variable

Table 2 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Correlations.

* **

2 1

** *

**

4 3

*

5

.00 .00 .04 .08 .02 .08 .06 .02 .12 .04

**

6

-.06 .01 .11 .01 -.03 .03 -.06 -.13 -.09

*

7

.02 .13 -.00 -.02 -.04 .10 -.01 .05

**

8

9

-.07 -.01 -.01 .01 -.28 -.13

*

** **

** ** ** **

11 10

** ** ** **

12

.18 .12 .27

** ** **

13

.15 .40 **

(Constant) Foreign subsidiary size (number of employees) Industry (other 0, manufacturing 1) HCN tenure (years) HCN international experience (years) Together work experience (months) Expatriate race (other 0, Caucasian/ White 1) Gender difference (similar 0, different 1) Age difference (years) Rank difference (16 organizational ranks) Pay fairness Expatriate outgroup categorization (EC) Organizational identity (OI) EC x OI R R2 F

.08 -.02 .04 -.01 .05 -.02 .01

** **

14

.45

**

Table 3 PROCESS Analysis Results.

8

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

6.1. Theoretical Contributions First, the present study provides a novel theoretical perspective to the literature on HCN-expatriate relations in MNCs. In contrast to the SIT-based works that have focused mainly on antecedents and negative outcomes of expatriate outgroup categorization (Kang & Shen, 2018; Toh et al., 2012), the attention in the CIIM is directed on factors that decrease intergroup bias, suggesting that outgroup categorization does not need to lead to negative outcomes (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). In contrast to a clear division between ingroups and outgroups in the SITbased literature on HCN-expatriate relations, the CIIM suggests that recategorization processes occurs when two separate groups (in this case, expatriates and HCNs) are induced to perceive themselves as a single, more inclusive superordinate group (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012). Contributing to the literature, I extended the CIIM-based logic to HCNexpatriate relations and thus shifted the focus from the antecedents of expatriate outgroup categorization to mechanisms that decrease intergroup bias and enhance HCNs’ prosocial behaviors to expatriates. Instead of the factors that potentially increase intergroup bias between HCNs and expatriates, I developed and empirically examined a research model considering moderating and mediating factors that facilitate recategorization processes and prosocial behaviors given by HCNs to expatriates. By doing so, this study provides a more positive perspective on HCN-relations than previous, largely SIT-based research. The CIIM perspective taken in the present study further adds to the important but scarce literature focusing on ways to enhance HCN-expatriate relations in MNCs (e.g., Leonardelli & Toh, 2011; Toh & DeNisi, 2005, 2007). While suggesting various feasible ways to facilitate HCNexpatriate relations, previous works have not provided overarching theoretical rationale why and how ingroup-outgroup categorization is reduced, and prosocial behaviors enhanced. Perhaps due to the dominance of SIT-based logic in the literature, scholars have overlooked dual identity recategorization processes. For example, Toh and DeNisi (2007): 282, emphasis added) drew on SIT to predict that “to the extent to which expatriates are categorized as outgroup members, HCNs could be less willing to display socializing behaviors…because the apparent social distance between HCNs and expatriates increases the perceived and real costs of doing so”. While proposing situational factors that can moderate the relationship between HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and socializing behaviors, Toh and DeNisi did not provide a coherent theoretical argument why HCNs are willing to help to outgroup members (i.e., expatriates). They used SIT to describe expatriate social categorization and the organizational citizenship behavior literature to explain HCNs’ helping behaviors. A notable exception is a study by Leonardelli and Toh (2011) that draws on the intergroup relations literature to integrate some elements of dual identity. However, regarding dual identity as an outcome, their framework is in odds with the CIIM in which dual identity is a key mediator between intergroup categorization and prosocial behaviors (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Adding to the literature on how HCN-expatriate relations can be facilitated, the present study used the CIIM to develop and test a parsimonious model of strategies that reduce intergroup bias and facilitate prosocial behaviors given by HCN to expatriates in MNCs. In addition to the HCN-expatriate relations, the CIIM perspective taken can also be applied in various topics in international settings. For example, it can be used in research on acculturation and cross-cultural adjustment to take into account dual identity recategorization. Indeed, the CIIM suggests that a common ingroup identity can be created by increased host country identification (Dovidio et al., 2009). This suggests that individuals can retain their home country identity within the context of superordinate identity (i.e., dual identity). Indeed, to adjust successfully, scholars have proposed that expatriates experience some revision of their identities (Takeuchi, Marinova, Lepak, & Liu, 2005). More broadly, the CIIM can be used to explain and provide strategies on how multicultural and ethnic workforce can be integrated in MNCs for smooth and productive intergroup relations. The CIIM can also be

Fig. 2. Interaction between expatriate outgroup categorization and organizational identity predicting dual identity.

Table 4 Bootstrap Results for Conditional Indirect Effects. Information sharing Mediator: Dual identity

Boot SE

Boot indirect Effect

- 1 SD M + 1 SD

.00 .01 .02

.01 .01 .01

Boot Lower Limit 95% CI

Boot Upper Limit 95% CI

-.01 .00 .00

.02 .03 .05

Affiliative citizenship behavior Mediator: Dual identity

- 1 SD M + 1 SD

Boot SE

Boot indirect Effect .01 .03 .05

.01 .01 .02

Boot Lower Limit 95% CI

Boot Upper Limit 95% CI

-.02 .00 .01

.04 .05 .08

Note. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000; CI = confidence interval.

5.1. Additional analyses To rule out the control variables as potential explanation for the findings (Becker, 2005), I tested Hypotheses 1-3 with identical analyses as above without control variables. The results were similar, but stronger and more significant than with control variables. Furthermore, because Toh and DeNisi (2007) have conceptualized that pay fairness between HCNs and expatriates moderates the relationship between HCNs’ expatriate outgroup categorization and socializing behaviors to expatriates, I examined whether pay fairness moderates the relationship between expatriate HCNs’ categorization and dual identity. The moderating effect was not significant. 6. Discussion I drew on the CIIM to examine conditions that enhance prosocial behaviors provided by HCNs to expatriates in foreign subsidiaries. By so doing, I deviated from the expatriate literature that has primarily used SIT to describe intergroup induced negative HCN-expatriate relations and outcomes. More specifically, I hypothesized HCNs’ organizational identity to moderate the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and dual identity; this relationship is strengthened as organizational identity increases. Further, I hypothesized dual identity to mediate the positive relationship between expatriate outgroup categorization and two prosocial behaviors: information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior. These findings, providing support for all hypotheses and the overall moderated mediation model, have several theoretical contributions and practical implications. 9

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

categorization precedes dual identity formation. Consistent with the key mediating role of dual identity between social categorization and prosocial behaviors in the CIIM (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012), the findings also show that dual identity had a positive mediating effect on the relationship between the strength of expatriate outgroup categorization and information sharing and affiliative citizenship behavior. These prosocial behaviors, which seldom are formally required or rewarded consequently need to be induced in some other ways in organizations. The findings provide evidence that organizational identity in combination with expatriate social categorization lead to dual identity formation, which in turn facilitate prosocial behaviors given by HCNs to expatriates. Understanding what these mechanisms is important because dysfunctional HCN-expatriate relations may lead to expatriate failure (Paik & Sohn, 2004). In contrast, smooth HCN-expatriate relations including prosocial behaviors facilitate expatriate cross-cultural adjustment and performance (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). I hope that the present study generates more research on prosocial behaviors given by HCNs to expatriates in MNCs, and more generally in IB research.

applied to provide a novel, alternative theoretical perspective to the literature on organizational identity in MNCs (Kostova & Roth, 2002). For example, the present findings suggest that people can identify simultaneously with multiple targets, in this case with subordinate and superordinate entities, and perhaps more importantly that dual identity promotes prosocial behaviors. While recategorization processes and dual identity are key concepts in the CIIM, they have not received attention in IB research. Taken together, the CIIM provides a novel theoretical approach to shift the focus from the predominant negative to more positive perspectives on intergroup relations in MNCs (Stahl & Tung, 2015). Second, the findings suggest that expatriate outgroup categorization facilitate rather than hinder prosocial behaviors given by HCNs to expatriates in MNCs. In some contrast to the SIT-based literature (e.g., Bonache et al., 2016; Toh & DeNisi, 2007; Varma et al., 2009), the findings suggest that expatriate outgroup categorization is a key antecedent of dual identity, which in turn facilitates prosocial behaviors. In a similar vein, the literature on intergroup prosocial behaviors suggests that social categorization has an important role in helping to identity which group(s) of people in need of assistance and group(s) can give aid (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Dovidio et al., 2009). In line with the CIIM tenets that recategorization reduces intergroup bias (Dovidio et al., 2009), I provided empirical evidence of the value of dual identity formation in HCN-expatriate relations. By doing so, I answered to calls for research on factors that moderate the effectiveness of a dual identity for alleviating intergroup bias and illuminate the mechanisms accounting for these effects (Gaertner, Dovidio, Guerra, Hehman, & Saguy, 2016). The findings also add to scarce research based intergroup perspective on HCN’s prosocial behaviors in MNCs. While a previous study suggests that procedural justice has a moderating effect on the relationship between expatriate categorization and information sharing by HCNs in MNC subsidiaries (Leonardelli & Toh, 2011), I examined mediating and moderating effects of HCNs’ dual identity and organizational identity and took into account affiliative citizenship behavior. Importantly, the present findings highlight the mediating role of dual identity between the strength of expatriate outgroup categorization and prosocial behaviors, which to date has not been taken into account in expatriate research. Third, the findings contribute to important but scarce expatriate research based on HCN perspectives. While scholars have recognized the neglect of and called for more research of the HCN perspective in expatriate research (e.g., Caligiuri & Bonache, 2016; Takeuchi, 2010; Toh & DeNisi, 2003, 2007; Vance et al., 2009), the bulk of existing research is still characterized by an ethnocentric belief that HCNs are not particularly significant in the success of the expatriate or the MNC (Takeuchi, 2010; Vance et al., 2009). Contributing to the expatriate research based on HCN perspectives, I examined the mechanisms that enhance the prosocial behaviors given by HCNs to expatriates in foreign subsidiaries. The findings suggest that HCNs share more information and engage into affiliative citizenship behaviors with expatriates when they regard themselves and expatriates as different groups but share a common superordinate identity. This finding highlights the mediating role of dual identity between social categorization and prosocial behaviors. Despite its importance, recategorization has not received any attention in expatriate research based on HCNs perspectives. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first CIIM-based IB study in MNCs. Finally, the findings extend CIIM-based research conducted predominately with students in laboratory settings to HCN employees in MNCs. I also went a step beyond previous CIIM-based research by taking into account organizational identity and linking intergroup attitudes to work-related prosocial behaviors. In particular, the findings extend previous CIIM research by going beyond the evidence in laboratory settings that recategorization produce more positive intergroup attitudes to show that dual identity has positive effects on prosocial behaviors in work settings. At the same time, the present findings suggest in line with the basic propositions of the CIIM that social

6.2. Practical Implications The findings suggest that HCNs high on organizational identity are more likely to develop dual identity perceptions and to provide prosocial behaviors to expatriates. Such behaviors are important for wellfunctioning intergroup relations because they can elicit reciprocal behaviors and stimulate more harmonious HCN-expatriate relations. In foreign subsidiaries, organizational identity can be facilitated in various ways such as by joint HCN-expatriate training programs (Toh & DeNisi, 2005; Vance & Ensher, 2002; Vance & Ring, 1994). Increasing positive, collaborative HCN-expatriate social interactions can be used to increase organizational identity and minimize the perception of expatriates as outgroup members. By having more frequent social interactions with expatriates, HCNs have more opportunities to learn about expatriates personally and develop more accurate awareness of their expatriate coworkers (Selmer, 2001). In this way, pre-existing stereotypes can be refuted, allowing HCNs to start to regard expatriates more as “one of us” rather than “one of them” (Gaertner et al., 1993). However, it should be noted that scholars have also argued that intercultural contact in some circumstances can lead to a reinforcement of pre-existing stereotypes (Crisp et al., 2006; Tajfel, 1981). To increase dual identity perceptions, top management can also emphasize that both HCNs and expatriates have important roles in foreign subsidiaries and the MNC global network. Indeed, scholars have proposed that an important function of senior management is to make higher order identities more salient and unite disparate members in a common cause (Dovidio et al., 2009; Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003). For example, the former CEO of Asea Brown Boveri (ABB), Göran Lindhal, emphasized that official corporate language at ABB was “poor English” to make the point that “no one should be embarrassed to forward an idea because of a lack of perfection in English” (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2001: 68). By this statement, Göran Lindhal emphasized the importance of English as a unifying force that unites the global work force for a common purpose at ABB. While promoting superordinate identities can help to reduce intergroup bias and encourage positive intergroup relations in foreign subsidiaries, it should also be noted that a strong emphasis on the superordinate identity is potentially a threat to group distinctiveness (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). Attempts to create a common identity can produce superordinate identities that are unstable; they may also produce identities that are unsuccessful and that actually exacerbate bias. In the present study, this can occur when organizational identity conflicts with HCNs’ prevalent host country values and practices. As indicated above, the CIIM holds that intergroup relations benefit most if a balance is struck between the emphasis on the common ingroup identity and the distinct subgroup identity (Gaertner 10

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

and facilitate HCN-expatriate relations in MNCs.

& Dovidio, 2012). Thus, a dual identity is likely to be a more stable recategorization solution than one group identity in foreign subsidiaries where large intergroup bias is alleged to occur between HCNs and expatriates (Kang & Shen, 2018; Toh et al., 2012).

References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of “trivial” experiments: the case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1(1), 19–41. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1996). Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual. Advantages in Strategic Management, 13, 19–64. Beaton, A. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Leger, N. (2008). All in this together? Group representations and policy support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 808–817. Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289. Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and ingroup bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542. Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 257–281. Bonache, J., Langinier, H., & Zarraga-Oberty, C. (2016). Antecedents and effects of host country nationals negative stereotyping of corporate expatriates: A social identity analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 26, 59–68. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. Brewer, M. B., & Yuki, M. (2007). Culture and social identity. In S. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds.). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 307–322). New York: Guilford Press. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & W. W. Lambert (Eds.). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 349– 444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Vol. Ed.), Advantages in experimental social psychology: Vol. 37, (pp. 255–344). New York, NY: Academic Press. Caligiuri, P., & Bonache, J. (2016). Evolving and enduring challenges in global mobility. Journal of World Business, 51, 127–141. Cardador, T. M., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2015). Better to give and to compete? Prosocial and competitive motives as interactive predictors of citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(3), 255–273. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Wang, J., & Stoverink, A. C. (2017). A bigger piece of the pie: The relative importance of affiliative and change-oriented citizenship and task performance in predicting overall job performance. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 97–107. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crisp, R. J., Stone, C., & Hall, N. R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 230–243. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Shnabel, N., Saguy, T., & Johnson, D. J. (2009). Recategorization and prosocial behavior: Common identity and a dual identity. In S. Sturmer, & M. Snyder (Eds.). Psychology of helping: New directions in intergroup prosocial behavior. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). Extending the benefits of re-categorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401–420. Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 507–533. Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: longitudinal comparison of Pettigrew’s reformulated intergroup contact model and the common ingroup identity model in Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 229–256. Fearon, J. (2003). Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 195–222. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, M. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Vol. 2, (pp. 439–457). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasion, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European review of social psychology, 4, 1–26. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Guerra, R., Hehman, E., & Saguy, T. (2016). A common ingroup identity: categorization, identity, and intergroup relations. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 433–454). New York: Psychology Press. Gonzalez, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identification in intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 195–214. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2001). Building an effective global business team. Sloan Management Review, Summer63–71. Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P. (2004). Going places: Roads more

6.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research As with all research, there are several limitations in the present study. First, all measures were collected through self-reports. To reduce common method concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), data were collected at two points in time to minimize the effects of potential transitory biases at the time of the survey. The results of confirmatory factor analyses also suggested that common method variance did not significantly limit my ability to adequately test the hypotheses. Further, Siemens, Roth, and Oliveira, (2010) have found that interaction effects are not artifacts of common method variance. Nevertheless, future research based on data collected from multiple sources is valuable. Second, because the present study was conducted in Japan, the findings to some extent may have limited generalizability in other countries. For example, Brewer and Yuki (2007) have argued that people in East Asian countries tend to show higher levels of outgroup discrimination in their social behavior than people in Western countries. Due to more diverse labor force, the distinction between HCNs and expatriates can also be less salient in the USA and several European countries, such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Because previous research suggests that expatriates adjust more easily in large cities than in small towns (Selmer, 2005), the present findings can also be limited to metropolitan areas. However, due to my focus on the psychological processes common to all people as outlined in the CIIM, similar findings can be found in other countries, especially in East Asia. However, more research on the hypothesized effects in other countries and areas is certainly needed. Third, while data collection through research companies provide various benefits, one relevant concern using online surveys with incentives is whether the respondents are mainly motivated by extrinsic rewards (Ng & Feldman, 2013). However, studies show that small monetary incentives are not the main motivation for people to participate in online surveys and have no effect on response quality. For example, a field study shows that the proportion of online survey takers who were intrinsically motivated to participate was much larger than the proportion motivated by extrinsic rewards (Bruggen et al., 2011). In experimental settings, Göritz (2004) also found that different types and amounts of tangible incentives given in online surveys had no effect on response quality. Fourth, although not directly related to the CIIM recategorization processes at a superordinate level (dual identity) (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2012), scholars have suggested that several additional factors, such as transparent pay and promotion policies, rewards for helping (Toh & DeNisi, 2005), and procedural justice (Leonardelli & Toh, 2011), can potentially moderate the relation between the strength of expatriate outgroup categorization and prosocial behaviors. In addition to these moderating factors, future research could also examine other outcomes of dual identity, such as emotional support provided by HCNs to expatriates. 7. Conclusion These limitations aside, this study offers important theoretical contributions and practical implications. It goes beyond SIT-based research on HCN-expatriate relations by using the CIIM to demonstrate the importance of recategorization processes between social categorization and prosocial behaviors. By shifting the focus on negative outcomes of social categorization, it opens the door for future research on positive perspectives on HCN-expatriate relations in MNCs. It also provides practical implications how to reduce intergroup boundaries 11

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. Richter, A. W., West, M. A., van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1252–1269. Selmer, J. (2001). Antecedents of Expatriate/Local Relationships: Pre-Knowledge vs.Socialization Tactics. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(6), 916–925. Selmer, J. (2005). Is Bigger Better? Size of the Location and Adjustment of Business Expatriates in China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(7), 1228–1242. Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal relationship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255–267. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Siemens, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. Skuja, I., & Norton, J. (1982). Counseling English-speaking expatriates in Tokyo. International Social Work, 25, 30–42. Smidts, A., Pruyn, H., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062. Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantages to willingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 171–200. Stahl, G. K., & Caligiuri, P. (2005). The effectiveness of expatriate coping strategies: The moderating role of cultural distance, position level, and time on the international assignment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 603–615. Stahl, G. K., & Tung, R. L. (2015). Towards a more balanced treatment of culture in international business studies: The need for positive cross-cultural scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(4), 391–414. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Takeuchi, R. (2010). A critical review of expatriate adjustment research through a multiple stakeholder view: Progress, emerging trends, and prospects. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1040–1064. Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An empirical examination of the mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1069–1083. Takeuchi, R., Marinova, S. V., Lepak, D. P., & Liu, W. (2005). A model of expatriate withdrawal-related outcomes: Decision making from a dualistic adjustment perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 15(2), 119–138. Toh, S. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (2003). Host country national (HCN) reactions to expatriate pay policies: A proposed model and implications. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 606–621. Toh, S. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (2005). A local perspective to expatriate success. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 132–146. Toh, S. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (2007). Host country nationals as socializing agents: A social identity approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 281–301. Toh, S. M., DeNisi, A. S., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2012). The perspective of host country nationals as socializing agents: The importance of foreign-local relations. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization. Toh, S. M., & Srinivas, E. S. (2012). Perceptions of task cohesiveness and organizational support increase trust and information sharing between host country nationals and expatriate coworkers in Oman. Journal of World Business, 47, 696–705. Toyo Keizai (2013). Gaishikei-kigyo soran 2013 (Directory of foreign-affiliated corporations in Japan 2013). Tokyo: Toyo Keizai. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.). Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vance, C. M., Andersen, T., Vaiman, V., & Gale, J. (2014). A taxonomy of potential contributions of the host country national local liaison role in global knowledge management. Thunderbird International Business Review, 56(2), 173–191. Vance, C. M., & Ensher, E. A. (2002). The voice of the host country workforce: A key source for improving the effectiveness of expatriate training and performance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 447–461. Vance, C. M., & Ring, P. S. (1994). Preparing the host country workforce for expatriate managers: The neglected other side of the coin. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(4), 337–352. Vance, C. M., Vaiman, V., & Andersen, T. (2009). The vital liaison role of host country nationals in MNC knowledge management. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 649–659. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Vol. Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: Vol. 17, (pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI

and less traveled in research on expatriate experiences. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 23, 199–247. Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83–113. Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 357–369. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the “Contact Hypothesis”. Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell1–44. Hoersting, R. C., & Jenkins, S. R. (2011). No place to call home: Cultural homelessness, self-esteem and cross-cultural identities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 17–30. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143–156. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criterion for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–34. Kang, H., & Shen, J. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of host-country nationals’ attitudes and behaviors toward expatriate: What we do and do not know. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 164–175. Komisarof, A. (2009). Testing a modified interactive acculturation model in Japan: American-Japanese coworker relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 399–418. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233. Kulik, C. T., & Ambrose, M. L. (1992). Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 212–237. Leonardelli, G. J., & Toh, S. M. (2011). Perceiving expatriate coworkers as foreigners encourages aid: Social categorization and procedural justice together improve intergroup cooperation and dual identity. Psychological Science, 22(1), 110–117. Leung, K., Lin, X., & Lu, L. (2014). Compensation disparity between locals and expatriates in China: A multilevel analysis of the influence of norms. Management International Review, 54, 107–128. Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453. Lie, J. (2001). Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lipponen, J., Helkama, K., & Juslin, M. (2003). Subgroup identification, superordinate identification and intergroup bias between the subgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 239–250. Mahajan, A., & De Silva, S. R. (2012). Unmet role expectations of expatriates, hostcountry national support, and expatriate adjustment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(3), 349–360. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. Mezias, J. M., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). A needs-driven approach to expatriate adjustment and career development: a multiple mentoring perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(5), 519–538. Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: the external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 109–117. Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557–586. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects of employees’ embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 645–685. Nier, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., & Rust, M. C. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: The effects of a common group identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(4), 299–316. Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2009). The effects of expatriate demographic characteristics on adjustment: A social identity perspective. Human Resource Management, 48(2), 311–328. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexinton, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paik, Y., & Sohn, J. D. (2004). Expatriate managers and MNC’s ability to control international subsidiaries: The case of Japanese MNCs. Journal of World Business, 39(1), 61–71. Peltokorpi, V. (2010). Intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries: The influence of expatriates’ language and cultural competencies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 176–188. Peltokorpi, V., & Froese, F. (2014). Expatriate personality and cultural fit: The moderating role of host country context and job satisfaction. International Business Review, 23(1), 293–302. Peltokorpi, V., & Vaara, E. (2014). Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations: Productive and counterproductive effects of language-sensitive recruitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 600–622. Pichler, S., Varma, A., & Budhwar, P. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of the social categorization of expatriates in India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(5), 915–927. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

12

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

V. Peltokorpi

and guanxi. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9(2), 99–126. Varma, A., Toh, S. M., & Budhwar, P. (2006). A new perspective on the female expatriate experience: The role of host country national categorization. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 112–120. Wang, C.-H., & Fang, M. (2014). The effect of personality on host country nationals’ helping behaviors toward expatriates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 42, 140–145. Yamashiro, J. H. (2011). Racialized national identity construction in the ancestral homeland: Japanese American migrants in Japan. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(9), 1502–1521.

Press. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. Varma, A., Budhwar, P., & Pichler, S. (2011). Chinese host country nationals’ willingness to help expatriates: The role of social categorization. Thunderbird International Business Review, 53(3), 353–364. Varma, A., Pichler, S., & Budhwar, P. (2011). The relationship between expatriate job level and host country national categorization: An investigation in the UK. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 103–120. Varma, A., Pichler, S., Budhwar, P., & Biswas, S. (2009). Chinese host country nationals’willingness to support expatriates: The role of collectivism, interpersonal affect,

13