You must select a manager to oversee your highly critical operations in New Delhi, India. The job is important, challenging, and visible, so you want the best possible candidate. After reviewing candidate files and talking to other leaders, you have narrowed your search to three hypothetical individuals:
| John Albertson is a young and ambitious up-and-comer. His strengths include a charismatic style, the ability for getting the best out of people, and plenty of energy. He has been in charge of the U.S. midwestern sales division for three years and has achieved outstanding results. Albertson is known, however, for a complete lack of organization (stories about his office clutter are legendary), and has been accused of being too competitive. You are a little concerned that he may be “too hungry” to be diplomatic—and diplomacy is key in this position. |
Maria Silva is an experienced manager who has worked for your organization for 15 years. Silva is rather introverted and withdrawn, but pleasant enough when one gets to know her well. Her impeccable technical knowledge and critical eye for detail have earned her the respect of her team—everyone knows that mistakes do not occur on Maria’s watch. Maria’s quality orientation may be valuable in Delhi because in the past there were some customer service and quality concerns in that office. Silva’s most visible weakness, however, is a certain proneness to anger—especially if critical safety rules are ignored by team members. |
Lewis Smith’s current job seems to match most closely with the Delhi manager’s new responsibilities. In addition, Smith has an almost uncanny ability to become everyone’s best friend. He is comfortable around Albertson’s gregariousness, appreciates Silva’s quieter style, and adjusts easily to changes. In fact, Smith’s flexibility has earned him the title of “Lewis the Chameleon,” which he accepts good-naturedly. A reasonably calm and optimistic man, Smith is a good team player and has a great deal of tact. Sometimes, however, he seems almost too easy going. A touch of competitiveness and a greater sense of urgency would be helpful. Can he be tough enough when the going gets tough? Will he be aggressive if needed? |
Let us assume that all three hypothetical candidates fulfill the basic job requirements and have a good performance record. All three are intelligent, capable, and loyal to the organization. How should you rank their characteristics? None of the candidates has everything you need. Yes, it would be great to place all three in a blender and come up with a super manager, but that is not the nature of the beast. You must compromise. You must choose.
Why Does This Matter?
Selection mistakes are costly. According to a 1998 article by Dr. Pierre Mornell, “No Room for Compromise,” from Inc., it is estimated that whenever an organization selects the wrong person and discovers the mistake within six months, it loses 2.5 times the new employee’s yearly salary. Financial consequences of poor selection include direct costs (hiring, training a replacement, paying for executive search services, and the like) and indirect costs such as company reputation, employee morale, and customer satisfaction,.
International selection processes, however, pose even greater risks. International assignments are challenging. New managers must not only tackle a new leadership assignment, but also must quickly learn how to operate in an environment characterized by different cultural, business, and legal practices. Consider the following:
1. Moving an entire family abroad is a costly proposition, with average costs estimated between $100,000 and $200,000. These costs accumulate as organizations send larger numbers of employees abroad. For instance, in the article, “Expatriate Return on Investment,” from Academy of Management Best Conference Paper, Y.M. McNulty and P. Tharenou suggested that the total relocation costs for U.S. multinational corporations exceed $75 billion a year.
2.The article, “Work Transitions: A Study of American Expatriate Managers in Japan,” from the Journal of International Business Studies, by J.S. Black, also estimated that 20 to 50 percent of all expatriate assignments end early. Early returns cost U.S. organizations between $250,000 and $1.25 million, according to the article “An Integrative View of International Experience,” from the Academy of Management Journal.
3. These estimates exclude the costs of failure in assignments that do not end early. Inept expatriate managers may damage the company’s reputation abroad and its relationship with host country nationals (HCNs). They also may be personally and professionally hurt in the process. Personal and professional consequences of unsuccessful assignments can include loss of self-esteem and confidence, loss of prestige, and decreased commitment to the organization.
The five major personality factors identified by FFM researchers were:
- Need for stability or negative emotionality (N)—our level of resilience when experiencing and/or reacting to stress.
- Extraversion (E)—our tolerance for sensory bombardment, the level of social interaction that we crave.
- Originality or openness to experience (O)—our focus on innovation versus efficiency, our interest in the “new and untested” versus the “tried and true.”
- Accommodation or agreeableness (A)—the way that we react to conflicts or disagreements, our tendency to stand our ground, seek middle ground, or submit to others’ wishes.
- Consolidation or conscientiousness (C)—our level of spontaneity and flexibility versus our tendency toward discipline and a focus on pre-defined goals.
International assignments are, therefore, a high-risk exercise for organizations. The compounding effects of costs, importance, and high failure rates have attracted the attention of numerous researchers. As a result, we now have considerable information on a dazzling array of issues that influence expatriate success. These factors could include:
- Company-specific issues such as internal culture, supervision, reputation, stage in the business cycle, and the amount of support given to the expatriate employee before, during, and after the assignment.
- Local issues such as political and economic climate, local culture (the amount of difference between the assignee’s culture and the local culture may be particularly important), and the organizational culture at the local office.
- Assignment issues such as clarity of the role, role scope, volume of work, and level of authority assigned to the employee.
- Employee issues such as technical and professional expertise, previous intercultural experiences, motivation, family adjustment, and personality.
As you see, enhancing the chances of success for international assignments is not an easy task. Success does not depend only on the employee’s background, skills, abilities, and other personal traits. It is possible, however, that certain employees are better equipped than others to handle a particular combination of company issues, local issues, and assignment issues. It is also possible that, in general, certain personality styles facilitate international adjustment. The remainder of this article will focus, therefore, on personality.
What Is Personality?
Researchers from the Center for Creative Leadership recently characterized personality as “a combination of traits made up of limitless possibilities of combinations and permutations that make us unique.”
Because it is “limitless,” personality is difficult to define and understand. To a certain degree, all existing personality models attempt to generalize, approximate, and find “more likely” (not 100 percent certain) outcomes. It is useful to study personality, however, for three main reasons:
- Personality traits are observable. We can infer them through actual behaviors. For instance, if we state that someone is “prone to anger,” we mean that the person exhibits anger-related behaviors more often than others would under similar circumstances.
- Personality is more or less constant. It changes little after about age 30. Workplace personality does not appear to change much after a few years of full-time employment, according to “The Owner’s Manual for Personality at Work.” This may explain why selection specialists insist that, “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”
- Personality effects are relative. A certain personality trait is seldom characterized as “good” or “bad,” but typically is viewed as “more” or “less” suitable for a particular objective.
In the initial candidate slate, Albertson is described as aggressive, motivational, and “hungry.” Silva is somewhat introverted and prone to anger. Smith is “flexible,” “good natured,” “a team player,” and “tactful.” Each of these traits was inferred through a correlated set of behaviors. For instance, we describe Albertson as “hungry” because he (a) jumps at a competitive assignment faster than anyone else, (b) visibly tries to “win,” and (c) has insatiable levels of observable energy.
For decades, researchers could not agree on a single set of terms to describe personality traits. As a result, researchers treated qualities that either were the same or at least strongly related as different. Not surprisingly, the various studies attempting to connect personality and overseas success in the ’60s and ’70s failed.
The Five Factor Model
The emergence of a unified taxonomy of personality traits—the five factor model of personality (FFM)—gave the personality field a major boost. The FFM is probably the most important personality model to date. A quick database search on one single scholarly journal, the Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, revealed 110 research reports and articles between 1996 and 2005 covering FFM. According to the article, “Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going: Some Conclusions Regarding Personality and Organizations,” from Personality and Organizations, authors B. Schneider and D.B. Smith argued, “these days, if one mentions personality, it is assumed he or she is referring to the five factor model.”
The biggest advantage of the FFM is that it provides researchers with a common personality language. This allows various research studies to be combined and contrasted. Consequently, we now are better able to estimate the chances of professional success in a number of areas such as leadership, sales, customer service, and international adjustment.
How These Factors Influence International Relations
Each of the five factors may influence international success on various levels. First, individuals exhibiting certain styles may be more likely to be selected in the first place. Second, personality influences performance appraisal scores and a person’s willingness to stay in the assignment. Third, one’s style may affect his ability to develop certain critical capabilities. Through the analysis of recent research reports, we logically could infer that:
- N affects the expatriate’s stress levels. Expatriate assignments are potentially stressful because of the disorientation caused by too many changes occurring at once. Expatriate leaders must be able to access their problem-solving mode rather quickly. They also must avoid reacting too fast to perceived threats. It is likely that successful expatriate sojourners are, therefore, calmer than average.
- E influences someone’s ability to form social ties with other expatriates and HCNs. Social ties, on the other hand, help international sojourners cope with the newness and ambiguity of the assignment. Researchers quoted in the article, “Expatriate Social Ties: Personality Antecedents and Consequences for Adjustment,” from the International Journal for Selection and Assessment, found that social ties are highly related to expatriate success. E scores also may influence the likelihood that an employee will terminate an assignment prematurely.
- O influences someone’s openness to others’ viewpoints. A person’s O score is related to his or her imagination, complexity, and willingness to change. Logically, all three sets of traits (in particular, the third one) bear on a person’s ability to function in an ambiguous scenario. Indeed, one group of researchers connected the O score with expatriate innovation. The importance of originality, however, is still debatable—other researchers found no significant evidence of O impact. Further research is needed to establish which of the O sub-traits are most important for expatriate success.
- A affects someone’s ability to “play ball” with people who are different from themselves. Very challenging people may find it harder to negotiate “win-win” agreements with others. A connection between A scores and overseas adjustment has been observed by researchers.
- C scores are based on a person’s levels of perfectionism, organization, ambition, concentration, and how methodical he or she is. High C professionals often receive higher scores by supervisors. They also are more likely to be selected for international assignments in the first place. Before we jump on the high C bandwagon, however, it is important to recognize that it could be unrealistic to expect strong focus and a high level of flexibility from the same individual. Focused individuals may find it hard to change their styles, goals, and methods when adjusting to a cross-cultural environment. This tendency toward rigidity, however, could be moderated by other traits, especially accommodation and originality. A focused person who is also somewhat agreeable and willing to change is likely to be more flexible.
As a summary, current evidence predicts international success for the calm, outgoing, original, somewhat agreeable, and focused individual. Before you rush to your HR department with this data, however, you should keep in mind the following:
- Other issues affect success. You could select the best possible candidate and still set him or her up for failure. Even the calmest individual could become stressed under excessively unfavorable conditions.
- We are talking about ranges of personality traits, not exact scores. It is perfectly possible for someone to be far from the ideal in one or two of the traits and still be very successful.
- As seen previously, the various personality traits interact. For instance, an introvert who is also agreeable and emotional may appear to the outside world as “warmer” than if this same introvert were challenging and very calm.
Do you remember our initial three hypothetical candidates? Actually, none of them illustrated a “perfect fit” for an international assignment. Albertson might be too competitive and aggressive to relate easily to the local community and adapt to different cultural norms. Silva’s introversion, anger, and rigidity could hurt her chances of establishing social ties. Finally, Smith “the chameleon” might lack the focus and drive needed to push the international office forward. Whichever one you pick would need awareness of personal strengths and weaknesses, development of “weaker” areas, and cross-cultural training.
What Does This All Mean?
Now that you know about the potential impact of personality on overseas success, what will you do to apply this knowledge? What issues should you keep in mind? The list below offers some final tips.
Get help. It is intuitive to select for an overseas position the person who is most successful back home in a similar position. Success, however, may be “lost in translation.” The same personality traits that work for a particular position in the United States may not work as well abroad. Furthermore, it may be difficult to select a person for international work if you lack international experiences or know little about the particular cultural environment where the employee will operate. Instead of relying only on your own perceptions, ask country nationals how they feel this person would adapt to their culture.
Conduct research. If your organization has a large number of international operations, you may want to run your own internal validation research, searching for patterns in the personality traits of successful and unsuccessful incumbents. Because each organization is unique, the personality traits most likely to work in your organization could be different from those identified by other researchers.
Assess and train. Offer FFM personality testing, awareness, and training to your leaders, especially those involved in international assignments. Personality is a basic leadership topic and one that should be part of all (national and international) leadership development curricula.
Develop leaders. Your expatriate leaders are responsible for highly critical and challenging jobs. Mistakes can be extremely costly. Training is vital. Sending a manager to a foreign environment without in-depth and specific cultural information is the business equivalent of a non-specialist surgeon changing a patient’s heart valve without either understanding cardiology or previously assessing the heart’s condition.
Expand and connect. Remember your expatriate personnel. Through their work with the U.S. headquarters, they already may have developed critical cross-cultural adaptation skills. Overseas managers, however, often are ignored in international succession planning processes simply because they are stationed overseas. Consider bringing some of your most promising foreign managers for a sojourn in the United States. Also, make sure that you remember foreign-based employees when planning assessment and development activities.
Provide family support. Consider extending testing and training to family members. Family success greatly affects the success chances of your expatriate employee. Also, ensure that the expatriate personnel have appropriate logistical support before, during, and after the international sojourn. As you read this list of recommended services, you may be justly concerned about expenses. Before you rule them out for “lack of budget,” however, ask yourself whether what you spend and lose internationally each year justifies a review of existing policies. This may, indeed, be an exacerbated case of “penny wise and pound foolish,” where the cost of inaction exceeds by far the cost of planning, implementing, and continuously improving a comprehensive human resource development strategy.
Cris Wildermuth is a doctoral candidate at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, and a master trainer for the WorkPlace Big Five ProFile™. She can be reached at +1 419 6379 or e-mail cris@diversityeffectiveness.com.