JBAM January 2005

the Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management
January 2005 Vol. 6, No. 2

The official journal of the
Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management
89 From the Editor

John Humphreys
Articles
91 Organizational Citizenship Behavior and

Developmental Experiences: Do Role Definitions Moderate the Relationship?
Unnikammu Moideenkutty
109 Repatriation Adjustment Problems and the Successful Reintegration of Expatriates

and Their Families
Aaron W. Andreason and Kevin D. Kinneer
127 Evaluating the Effects of Team Composition and Performance Environment on Team
Performance
Harlan E. Spotts and Anthony F. Chelte
141 The Integrative Effects of Flexible Work Arrangements and Preferences for
Segmenting or Integrating Work and Home Roles
MaryAnne M. Hyland, Ciaran Rowsome, and Erin Rowsome
Case Study
161 Stadium Foods Company

Stephen J. Skripak
2005 the Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management. All rights reserved. 88
From the Editor
Best wishes to you for 2005 from JBAM! This is our first issue of the New Year and we
think youll enjoy the quality articles and case presented. Before I describe these works,
however, I would like to use a portion of my space here to update the readership.
First, I would like to say thank you to the many members of the IBAM family I was able
to meet at the Providence, Rhode Island conference. It was a pleasure and I greatly
appreciated the warm welcome. The constructive tone and collegiality that epitomizes
IBAM was clearly evident. If you did not have the opportunity to participate in the 2004
conference, plan to join us at the beautiful Sunburst Resort in Scottsdale, Arizona
(October 6-8) for the 2005 meeting. The paper deadline is April 13th, 2005 and you can
register online at www.ibam.com.
Also, in a previous issue, I announced an agreement between the Journal of Behavioral

and Applied Management and EBSCO Publishing, Inc. EBSCO project managers tell
me we are slated for a new product group that is due out Fall/Winter 2005. Once this
product group becomes operational, JBAM articles will appear in the EBSCO periodical
database. We view this as a positive step in both enhancing the journal and providing
greater distribution of the superior work of our authors.
Examples of superior scholarship are certainly evident in this issue of JBAM. We begin
with an international flair as our first article comes to us from Unnikammu Moideenkutty
from Sultan Qaboos University in the Sultanate of Oman. This manuscript is titled,
Organizational citizenship behavior and developmental experiences: Do role definitions
moderate the relationship? The study examined 136 supervisor-subordinate dyads and
indicated organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was positively related to
developmental experiences after controlling for in-role performance (IRP). In addition,
the author addresses the implications of the breadth of supervisor role definitions on
followers OCB and developmental experiences.
Continuing on the international theme, our second article is, Repatriation adjustment
problems and the successful reintegration of expatriates and their families. In this
article, Aaron Andreason and Kevin Kinneer tackle the problem of expatriate
dissatisfaction and attrition associated with repatriation adjustment. The authors discuss
why many programs have been unsuccessful. More importantly, they offer a conceptual
framework for analysis and provide recommendations for managing reintegration into
the home culture and organization.
Our third article, by Harlan Spotts and Anthony Chelte, is Evaluating the effects of team
composition and performance environment on team performance. This study
considered the performance, interpersonal relations, equity, and output of online and
face to face groups. The authors suggest that while face to face groups may be more
costly, they may lead to higher levels of performance over the longer-term.
Next, we have an article titled, The integrative effects of flexible work arrangements
and preferences for segmenting or integrating work and home roles. MaryAnne Hyland,
Ciaran Rowsome, and Erin Rowsome investigated the relationship between work
flexibility, employee performance, affective commitment, and turnover intentions, while
controlling for the moderating effects of employees preferences for segmenting or
integrating their work and home lives. Involving 172 employees from eight organizations
in Ireland, they found marginally significant effects for compressed work weeks.
Finally, for those case aficionados, we offer a case entitled, Stadium Foods Company
by Stephen Skripak. This case study is quite complex and has a greater quantitative
focus than many. For those of you especially adept in using the case method, we think
youll enjoy this one. JBAM only publishes the case itself as teaching notes should be
requested from the author.
We hope you enjoy this edition of the Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management.
As always, please send us your comments as to how we can improve JBAM to better
meet your needs.
John Humphreys, Editor
Organizational Citizenship Behavior and
Developmental Experiences: Do Role Definitions Moderate the Relationship?
Unnikammu Moideenkutty
Sultan Qaboos University
ABSTRACT
Data from 136 supervisor-subordinate dyads indicated that Organizational Citizenship

Behavior (OCB) was positively related to developmental experiences after controlling for
In-Role Performance (IRP). Results also indicated that when supervisors had broad
role definitions, the relationship between OCB and developmental experiences was
non-significant. On the other hand, when supervisors had narrow role definitions, there
was a significant positive relationship between OCB and developmental experiences
reported by employees.
Key words: organizational citizenship behavior, developmental experiences, role

definitions
Introduction
Recently there has been a dramatic increase in research on organizational citizenship

behavior (OCB) (Podaskoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) or behavior that
contributes indirectly to the organization through the maintenance of the organizations
social system (Organ, 1997). This increase can be attributed to the greater use of
flatter and autonomous team-based structures in organizations and the consequent
emphasis on individual initiative and cooperation (Lepine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002).
Most of the early research on OCB focused on its antecedents. More recently,
increasing attention has been paid to the consequences of OCB (Podaskoff, et al,
2000). Findings from this line of research indicate that OCB has important
consequences for both the organization and individual employees (Podaskoff, et al,
2000).
At the organizational level, studies indicate that OCB is related to organizational

effectiveness (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994;
Walz & Niehoff, 1996). At the individual level, OCB has been found to affect
supervisory evaluations of employee performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui,
1993), reward recommendations (Allen & Rush, 1998; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Park &
Sims, 1989), and estimates of the dollar value of standard deviation difference in
performance (Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989). In addition, a recent field quasi-
experiment found that employees who perform higher levels of OCB are more likely to
be promoted than employees who perform lower levels of OCB (Hui, Lam, & Law,
2000). In summary, these studies indicate that the effect of OCB on personnel
decisions of supervisors is at least as great as that of task performance (Podsakoff, et
al, 2000).
Podsakoff et al. (2000) recommend that future research should examine the impact of
OCBs on other personnel decisions of supervisors, including those related to training.
This study tests the relationship of OCB to developmental experiences of employees.
Developmental experiences include, opportunities for training and development,
challenging work assignments, and work assignments with greater responsibility
(Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). Though Allen and Rush (1998) included opportunities
for professional development as an item in their measure of reward recommendations,
the effect of OCB on the developmental experiences of subordinates have not been
studied so far.
The willingness of supervisors to provide developmental experiences for their

subordinates based on their OCB is likely to depend on whether they consider this
behavior to be an expected part of the individuals job. An individuals interpretation of
what constitutes the role obligations of a specific job can be called his or her role
definition of that job (Morrison, 1994). This study also tests the moderating effect of
supervisors role definition of an employees job on the relationship between OCB and
developmental experiences.
It is important for employees to understand the consequences of engaging or not

engaging in OCB. Since OCB is often considered to be discretionary, a clear
understanding of the consequences will help employees to make more informed
choices about engaging in OCB. It is also important for employees to know the
circumstances under which supervisors value OCB. If the role definitions of supervisors
and employees are different, what employees may consider as extra-role behavior may
be viewed as in-role by supervisors and therefore as not meriting any special
consideration.
Literature Review
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is the theoretical framework on which most of the
research on OCB is based (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Organ, 1988). Social exchange
theory suggests that social relationships (including employment relationships) can be
classified into two types, social exchange relationships and economic exchange
relationships. Social exchange relationships are relationships in which the mutual
obligations of the parties are not formally specified. When one party to the relationship
provides a resource to the other party, there is an expectation that a similar resource
will be returned (Foa & Foa, 1980), but the exact nature and timing of the return is
discretionary. These relationships are characterized by feelings of personal obligation,
gratitude, and trust. Such relationships encourage spontaneous and cooperative
behaviors (like OCB) that go beyond formally specified obligations. Economic
exchange relationships, on the other hand, are relationships in which the conditions of
the exchange are clearly specified. In such relationships, the parties are unlikely to
engage in spontaneous or cooperative behaviors that go beyond specifications. Organ
(1990) suggests that individuals enter an organization presuming a social exchange
relationship and are willing to engage in citizenship behaviors. They will continue to
engage in citizenship behaviors until their treatment by the organization forces them to
redefine the relationship as an economic exchange. Developmental experiences are
consequences of OCB that could promote the belief that the relationship with the
organization is a social exchange.
This view is supported by the results of experimental studies on the effects of OCB on
performance evaluations and reward allocation decisions (Allen & Rush, 1998; Kiker &
Motowidlo, 1999; Werner, 1994). In these studies, OCB (independent variable) was
manipulated to study its effects on overall performance evaluations and reward
allocation decisions. Manipulation of OCB had important influences on the dependent
variables. These studies provide a stronger evidence of direction of causality than the
cross-sectional field studies. Further, in all the above studies, OCB affected supervisory
decisions after controlling for in-role performance. These studies clearly indicate that
OCB influences performance evaluations and reward allocation decisions after
controlling for task performance.
Based on the above discussion, it can be hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1: OCB will be positively related to developmental experiences after

controlling for in-role performance.
Research on role making (Graen, 1976) suggests that roles in organization are seldom
fixed and that role perceptions evolve as employees and supervisors negotiate the
scope of work activities. Similarly, work on psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1989)
indicates that employees and employers have substantially different understandings
about employment obligations. Finally, social information processing research
(Salancik, & Pfeffer, 1978) suggests that jobs are cognitive constructions created when
employees and employers make sense of social and behavioral cues. Work roles are
therefore likely to be socially constructed with only a subjective boundary between in-
role and extra-role work behavior (Morrison, 1994). This makes what constitutes these
two types of behaviors subject to multiple interpretations.
Morrisons (1994) empirical results indicated that employees and supervisors differed in
that which each perceived to be in-role and extra-role behavior. Morrison also found
that employees were more likely to engage in behaviors that they considered to be in-
role rather than extra-role.
Tepper, Lockhart and Hoobler (2001) found that employees role definitions moderated
the relationship between fairness and OCB. The relationship was stronger when
employees considered the behavior to be extra-role. Allen and Rush (1988) did not find
a moderating effect for the supervisors role definitions on the relationship of OCB to
supervisors liking for the employee and perceived organizational commitment. They
did not test for the moderating effect of role definitions on the relationship between OCB
and reward recommendations.
It seems likely that the breadth of the supervisors role definitions will affect the
supervisory evaluations of employee behavior. If a supervisors role definition is broad
and considers many citizenship behaviors to be an expected part of the employees job,
these behaviors are less likely to merit special attention. On the other hand, if the
supervisors role definition is narrow and considers many citizenship behaviors to be
beyond what is expected from the employee, such behaviors are likely to lead to very
positive evaluations and therefore to a greater willingness to provide developmental
experiences for the employee.
Since OCB is generally helpful to the supervisor (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter,
1991), good citizens will be liked by supervisors regardless of whether they consider
these behaviors to be an expected part of that individuals job. Similarly, supervisors
may also attribute high organizational commitment to individuals who are good citizens.
Hence, it is not surprising that Allen and Rush (1998) failed to find a moderating effect
for role definitions in their study. However, when allocating rewards, supervisors will
tend to search for distinguishing information (DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984). When
OCB is not an expected part of an employees job, it will be seen as a distinguishing
form of subordinate behavior and therefore merit consideration when making reward
allocation decisions. Therefore, it is likely that the supervisors role definition of the
employees job will moderate the relationship between OCB and developmental
experiences. Hence, it can be hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between OCB and developmental experiences will be

moderated by the supervisors role definition of the employees job, such that, the
relationship will be stronger when the supervisors role definition is narrow.
Methods
Sample and Data Collection
The sample consisted of employed graduate and undergraduate business students from
two universities in the northeastern part of United States and their supervisors or
subordinates. Surveys were administered to the subjects during class with the
permission of the instructor. Surveys consisted of two parts, the employee survey and
the supervisor survey. One part was completed by the student and returned to the
researcher. The other part was completed by the immediate supervisor of the student
(when the student was the employee) or by the students subordinate (when the student
was the supervisor). The non-student respondents mailed the completed surveys
directly to the researcher. Addressed and stamped envelopes were provided for this
purpose. The two parts of the survey had a common serial number, which was used to
match the employee and the supervisor parts of the survey.
Items measuring developmental experiences were included in the employee survey.

Items measuring in-role performance, OCB and role definition were included in the
supervisor survey. A total of 357 surveys were administered. The response rate was
43.98 percent, and 157, matched employee-supervisor surveys were returned.
Unfortunately, missing values reduced the effective sample size for statistical analysis
to 136 in some cases.
Out of the 157 employee respondents, 49.68 percent were females, 38 percent were
graduate students, and 7.05 percent were union members. Most of them were
employed full-time (93.59 percent) and 29.49 percent had supervisory responsibilities.
The average tenure was 4.503 years (SD = 4.921). Almost 95 percent were between
the ages of 20 and 49 years. The major industries represented in the sample were,
healthcare (13.4 percent), banking/finance (14.6 percent), and other (48.4 percent).
The major job categories represented in the sample were, professional (34.4 percent),
office/clerical (15.3 percent), technical (12.1 percent), and management (12.1 percent).
Females constituted 46.11 percent of the supervisory sample. The average tenure of
the supervisors was 6.994 years (SD = 6.983). More than 80 percent reported their
level of formal education as an undergraduate degree or graduate school. More than
90 percent were between 20 and 49 years of age.
Measures
In this section, the measures used in the study are described. These are in-role
performance, organizational citizenship behavior, role definition and developmental
experiences.
In-Role Performance
In-role performance was measured with 4 items based on the scale developed by
Williams and Anderson (1991). The items were, fulfills the responsibilities specified in
his/her job description, performs the tasks that are expected as part of the job, meets
performance expectations, adequately completes responsibilities. The responses
ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1-7). The reliability (Cronbachs
alpha) of the scale was .962.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior was measured with 15 items taken from various
OCB scales in the literature. The items and their sources are given in Appendix A. The
items were chosen to represent supervisor directed OCB, co-workers directed OCB,
and organization directed OCB (Barr & Pawar, 1995; Moideenkutty, 2000). The
reliability (Cornbachs alpha) of the scale was .899. The responses were never true to
always true(1-5).
Role Definition
Role definition was measured with the slightly modified versions of the 15 items used to
measure OCB. For example, items reflecting undesirable behavior (reverse coded
items) were worded in the reverse. The wordings of the items were changed slightly to
make them correspond to the response format. For example, conserves and protects
organizations property was changed to conserving and protecting organizations
property. Supervisors were asked to indicate whether they considered each behavior
to be an expected part of the employees job or to be above and beyond what is
expected for the employees job. Morrison (1994) used a similar measure of role
definition. A dichotomous response format rather than a continuous one was used
because Morrison (1994) found that more valid responses were obtained in the former
case. Job definition was computed by summing the number of behaviors that the
supervisor indicated as being part of the employees job and then dividing that sum by
15. The responses were scored 0-1, with values closer to 1 indicating a broader job
definition.
Developmental Experiences
In this study, developmental experiences were measured with 3 items with the highest
factor loadings from the four-item scale of developmental experiences reported in
Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997). The wordings of the items were changed so that all of
them could have the same response format i.e. strongly disagree to strongly agree
(1-7). The items used in this study were, My supervisor is usually willing to make a
substantial investment in me by providing formal training and development
opportunities, I am usually considered for additional challenging assignments, and I
am usually assigned to projects that would enable me to develop and strengthen new
skills. The reliability (alpha) of this scale was 0.779.
Statistical Analysis
The first hypothesis was tested using multiple regression analysis. The second
hypothesis was tested using hierarchical regression analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). In
the first step, the control and independent variable and the moderator variable were
regressed on the dependent variable. In the second step, the interaction term was
added. A significant change in the R2 in the second step indicates the presence of a
moderator effect (Stone, 1986).
Once significant interactions are discovered, the next step is to probe the nature of the
interaction. This was done by calculating regression coefficients for OCB at two levels
of role definition. Calculations were made at one standard deviation above the mean of
role definition, which represents a broad role definition and one standard deviation
below the mean of role definition, which represents a narrow role definition (Cohen &
Cohen, 1983; Aiken & West, 1991).
Results
Summary Statistics and Correlations
The summary statistics and reliabilities of the major variables in the study are given in
table 1.
Tests of Hypotheses
The first hypothesis proposed that OCB would have a positive relationship to
developmental experiences. Developmental experiences were regressed on in-role
performance and OCB. Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis. OCB has
a significant positive coefficient, indicating that developmental experiences are strongly
related to OCB after controlling for in-role performance. Thus, H1 was strongly
supported by the data.
The second hypothesis was tested by regressing developmental experiences first on in-
role performance, OCB and role definition. The regression was rerun after adding the
OCB-role definition cross product term. The results are shown in Table 3. The
interaction term is significant. The interaction term explains an additional 3.9 percent of
the variance in developmental experiences (Adj.R2 =0.033). Results of the analysis of
the interaction are shown in Table 4. The interaction plot based on standardized betas
is shown in Fig. 1. The slope for OCB is not significantly different from zero at role
definition values one standard deviation above the mean. However, the slope is
positive and significant for role definition values one standard deviation below the mean.
Low role definition scores indicate narrow job definition. Thus, the results show that
when the supervisor defined the job narrowly, OCB was related to developmental
experiences. However, when the supervisor defined the job broadly, there was no
effect of OCB on developmental experiences. These results provide support for H2.
Table 1. Summary Statistics and Correlations
Variable N Means SD IRP OCB Role Developmental

Definition Experiences
1. Task Performance 179 23.922 4.834 0.962
2. OCB 168 55.316 10.458 0.612** 0.899
3. Role
Definition 172 0.643 0.197 -0.032 0.051 0.707
4. Developmental
Experiences 156 16.135 3.387 0.255** 0.316** 0.249* 0.775
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01
Reliabilities are on the diagonal
Table 2. Results of Regression Analysis for Developmental Experiences
Independent B
Variables
Intercept 10.029**
Task Performance 0.081
OCB 0.075*
R2 0.109
Adj.R2 0.096
F
8.583**
N
142
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 3. Results of Moderated Regression Analysis for Role
Definition: Independent Variable: OCB; Dependent
Variable-Developmental Experiences
Independent B R2
Variables
Without Interaction With Interaction
Intercept 8.197** - 1.942
Task 0.091 0.092

Performance
OCB 0.068** 0.244**
Job Definition 3.172* 19.422**
Interaction -0.282*
R2 0.147 0.186 0.039
Adj.R2 0.128 0.161 0.033
F 7.677** 7.573**
N
136 136
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 4. Results of Analysis of Interactions-OCB
One Standard Deviation One Standard Deviation

Above Mean of Role Below Mean of Role
Definition Definition
Slope 0.0346 0.145
SE 0.034 0.032
t 1.010 4.586**
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01
Fig. 1. Interaction Plot For Role Definition
3
Developmental Experiences
2 Broad Job Definition

Narrow Job Defintion
1
0
OCB
Discussion
As predicted, there was a positive relationship between OCB and developmental

experiences after controlling for task performance. Also as predicted, supervisory job
definitions moderated the relationship between OCB and developmental experiences.
This relationship was significant only when the supervisor defined the job narrowly and
not when the supervisor defined the job broadly.
The relationship between OCB and developmental experiences indicate that

employees who engage in citizenship behaviors are more likely to receive outcomes
that have long-term benefits for them. The effect of OCB on developmental experiences
has not been tested so far. The findings of the present study contribute to this line of
research by showing that citizenship behavior affects managers decisions regarding
allocation of developmental experiences.
The hypothesis proposing that the relationship between citizenship behaviors and
developmental experiences would be moderated by supervisors definition of the
employees job was supported. This indicates that when supervisors consider the
behaviors defined here as OCB to be above and beyond the call of duty, it may
influence supervisory decisions about providing long-term developmental opportunities
for employees. On the other hand, when supervisors consider these behaviors to be an
expected part of employees job, they appear to lose their salience. However, it must be
noted that when employees report developmental experiences, they are likely to report
outcomes already received. Since the time that each employee worked under the
supervisor is not known, it is possible that employees are reporting about
developmental experiences that may not have been provided by their current
supervisors. The current supervisors, however, reported the job definitions. Therefore,
some caution is warranted while interpreting these results.
In summary, the study found that citizenship behaviors had a positive relationship to
developmental experiences. These findings contribute to the research on the outcomes
of OCB. The study also showed that the relationship between OCB and developmental
experiences was moderated by supervisory job definitions. This is again an extension
of the research on the outcomes of OCB. While considerable research has explored the
relationship between OCB and its outcomes, little research has looked at the factors
that affect this relationship. An example of the latter is the study by Allen and Rush
(1998). This study identified liking and perceived organizational commitment as
mediators of the relationship between OCB and supervisory evaluation and reward
recommendations. However, contrary to their expectations, role definitions did not
moderate the relationship between OCB and liking and perceived organizational
commitment. Earlier, it was suggested that this might have been because OCB is
generally helpful behavior, regardless of whether it is in-role or extra-role. However, it
appears that because supervisors look for distinctiveness information while evaluating
employees and making reward allocation decisions (DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984),
role definitions tend to moderate the relationship between OCB and these decisions.
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
This study has a number of strengths that increases the internal and external validity of
the results. First, the independent and dependent variables were measured from
different sources. Task behavior, OCB, and job definitions were measured from
supervisors. Employees reported developmental experiences. This method effectively
addresses a frequent alternate explanation for correlational studies, namely, common
method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Second, the data was collected from a very diverse sample. A number of different
organizations, occupations, and levels were represented in the sample. The sample
consisted of union and non-union and part-time and full-time employees. This
increases the generalizability of the results of the study. A third strength of the study
was that the sample consisted of actual supervisor-employee dyads.
The primary limitation of the study is that it is correlational. Therefore, no causal claims
can be made for the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Another limitation of the study is that not all individuals who were given the survey
responded to it. Responding to the survey can be considered as a citizenship behavior,
and it is possible that the employee sample is biased in favor of good citizens.
Avenues for Future Research
There is limited research on the factors that affect the relationship between OCB and its
outcomes for individuals (Allen & Rush, 1998). Apart from role definitions, there could
be other moderators of the relationship between OCB and individual outcomes. One
possible moderator is impression management. Allen and Rush (1998) found that
attribution of altruistic motives fully mediated the relationship between OCB and
performance evaluations and partially mediated the relationship between OCB and
reward recommendations. Future research could explore the role of impression
management in the relationship between OCB and individual outcomes.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study provide a number of implications for practice. The significant
relationship between OCB and developmental experiences indicates that employees
who want to develop their skills and get ahead in the organization on a long-term basis
must engage in these behaviors. The finding that this effect was stronger when
supervisory job definitions were narrow indicates that employees need to be made
aware of the behaviors that are valued by powers that be, even if they are not
considered as an expected part of the job.
Appendix A
OCB Scale Items
Item Source
1. Defends the organization when other Moorman & Blakely, 1992

employees criticize it
2. Shows pride when representing the Moorman & Blakely, 1992

organization in public
3. Actively promotes organizations products Moorman & Blakely, 1992

and services to potential users
4. Conserves and protects organizations Williams & Anderson, 1991

property
5. Keeps up with developments in the MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &

organization Fetter, 1991
6. Attends functions that are not required but MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &
that help the organizations image Fetter, 1991
7. Always goes out of the way to make newer Moorman & Blakely, 1992
employees welcome in the work group
8. Shows genuine concern and courtesy Moorman & Blakely, 1992

toward co-workers, even under the most
trying business or personal situations
9. Frequently adjusts his or her work schedule Moorman & Blakely, 1992
to accommodate other employees requests
for time off
10. Avoids extra duties and responsibilities at Van Dyne, Graham, &
work Dienesch, 1994
11. Does work beyond what is required Van Dyne, Graham, &
Dienesch, 1994
12. Volunteers for overtime work when Van Dyne, Graham, &
needed Dienesch, 1994
13. Assists me with my work even when not Williams & Anderson, 1991
asked
14. Adheres to informal rules devised to Williams & Anderson, 1991

maintain order
15. Does not complain about insignificant Williams & Anderson, 1991
things at work
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, T. D. & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on

performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 247-260.
Barr, S. H. & Pawar, B. S. (1995). Organizational citizenship behavior: Domain

specification for three middle range theories. Paper presented at annual meeting of
Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. (1984). A cognitive view of performance
appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 33, 360-396.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange.
In K. S. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in
theory and research (pp. 77-94). New York: Plenum Press.
Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organization. In M. D.

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational
citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5), 822-828.
Kiker, D. S. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Main and interaction effects of task and
contextual performance on supervisory reward decisions. Journal of Applied
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applies Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship

behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of
salespersons performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50, 123-150.
Moideenkutty, U. (2000). Correlates and outcomes of organizational citizenship

behavior directed toward the organization, the supervisor, and co-workers: A social
exchange perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University,
Philadelphia.
Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. (1992). A preliminary report on a new measure of

organizational citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Southern Management Association, New Orleans, LA.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The

importance of the employees perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
1543-1567.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). Motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In L.L.

Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43-
72.). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time.

Human Performance, 10, 85-97.
Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and non-
prescribed behavior in estimating the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied
Park, O. S., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1989). How subordinate prosocial behavior influences
performance ratings. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management
Meeting, Washington, DC.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship
behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied
Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and

sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (1), 351-363.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship

behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and
suggestions for future research. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management (Vol. 11, pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).

Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical
literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 513-563.
Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:

Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 223, 224-253.
Stone, E. F. (1986). Research methods in industrial and organizational psychology:

Selected issues and trends. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 305-334). London: Wiley.
Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role
definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (4), 789-796.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 765-802.
Walz, S. M. & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their

effect on organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In J. B. Keys & L. N.
Dosier (Eds.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 307-311.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. & Liden, R. L. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 10, 82-111.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-
role and extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
98-107.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational

commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601-617.
Repatriation Adjustment Problems and the Successful Reintegration of
Expatriates and Their Families
Aaron W. Andreason
University of Montana Missoula
Kevin D. Kinneer
University of Michigan
ABSTRACT
Many firms have not made special efforts for their repatriates despite growing evidence
indicating high levels of dissatisfaction and high attrition rates because of problems
encountered in repatriation adjustment. This paper discusses the nature of these
problems and the reasons why such efforts are typically not made. It further describes a
theoretical framework, combining adjustment and individual control theories, which can
be used to analyze and integrate recent research. Based on this theoretical framework
and recent research findings, recommendations are made for future research and for
managing reintegration into the home culture and organization.
Introduction
It seems all too soon that the foreign assignment is over and that expatriates and their
families are returning home. To their great surprise, however, many soon discover that
they are returning neither to the home they had remembered nor to the homecoming
they had anticipated (Brislin & Van Buren, 1974). Expatriate managers themselves often
find that their careers have been in a holding pattern while others have been promoted
ahead of them. What is more, these expatriates and their families have often changed in
ways that make it difficult for them to readjust to their home and organizational culture
(Black, 1992) and for home organization management to accept their returning
managers. The home country and organization may have also changed in important
ways during their absence (Black, 1992).
Repatriation or cross-cultural re-entry is the transition from the foreign country back into
the home country and organization. Upon return repatriates often experience problems
similar to those encountered in initial cross-cultural entry into the foreign environment.
These involve readjusting to the home country work and nonwork environments as well
as interacting again with home country nationals (Black, Gregersen, & Mendenhall,
1992). Until the 1980s, international firms had considered re-entry to be a relatively
easy process and it is clear that very few firms had developed definitive transition
strategies for their returning managers. After all, what was there to adjust to? They were
returning home, werent they? However, mounting empirical and anecdotal evidence
has demonstrated that re-entry is in fact a major problem, presenting expatriates and
their families with new and often unanticipated challenges, to the extent that repatriation
is sometimes referred to as reverse or re-entry culture shock (Murray, 1973).
Repatriation is such a problem that it keeps many returning managers and their
spouses from accepting a second overseas assignment (Copeland & Griggs, 1985).
Adler (1981), for example, found that for many individuals the process of readjustment
to being back home was even more difficult than the initial adjustment to living
overseas. As a consequence, the average attrition rate within one year after repatriation
ranges between 15 and 25 percent with subsequently nearly 40 percent leaving within
three years (Grant, 1997; O' Boyle, 1989). Yet, despite a growing concern with these
high attrition rates, international firms still do not appear to be paying a great deal of
attention to the problems of repatriation adjustment. It seems further that many firms are
either ignorant of and/or unconcerned about the growing number of reports of
repatriation problems, thereby increasing the probability of making the same mistakes
as their predecessors.
It is little wonder then that some studies (e.g., Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1987) report that
a majority of repatriated employees are dissatisfied with the repatriation process. The
result is a significant loss of both investment funds and international expertise for these
firms. It has been further demonstrated that a firm's repatriation failures may affect its
ability to attract future expatriates (Welch, 1994). These and other often-cited
repatriation adjustment problems have become the drivers behind this still under-
researched aspect of the expatriate experience. The purpose of this paper is to: (1)
discuss the reasons why many firms do not have effective repatriation programs, (2)
analyze the dynamics of repatriation problems and the study of their antecedent
variables within the framework of uncertainty reduction, and (3) discuss the implications
these findings have for re-entry management programs.
Why Companies Do Not Make Special Efforts for Repatriates
In a survey conducted by Harvey (1989), the most frequently mentioned reasons why
firms lack repatriation training programs were: a lack of expertise in establishing such
programs (47 percent), the cost of the programs (36 percent), and the belief by top
management that such programs were not needed (35 percent). As an explanation for
the last of these reasons, Dowling, Welch and Schuler (1999) point out that top
management may not see that such programs are needed because repatriation
problems are not as dramatic, visible, or readily identifiable as expensive as are
expatriation problems.
An often mentioned reason for the ignorance and/or lack of concern of many firms
regarding repatriation problems is the out-of-sight, out-of-mind syndrome, a frequently
observed phenomenon in which repatriates return to organizations that appear to have
forgotten who they are, do not know what they have accomplished during their overseas
assignment, and do not know how to use their international knowledge appropriately
(Solomon, 1995). This is obviously another manifestation of the continuing parochialism
on the part of business executives who seem to believe that modern business practices
are similar enough around the world that it is not necessary to engage in special efforts
for their expatriates (Black & Gregersen, 1999). How much easier is it, however, to
make this erroneous assumption when expatriates are merely returning home?
Another reason may be a difference of perception between international firms and
expatriates regarding the motivations and expectations connected with cross-cultural
transfers. Paik, Segaud and Malinowski (2002), for example, found that the expatriate
accepts the assignment anticipating career advancement and adventure, whereas the
firm is more likely to send the expatriate abroad to transfer the corporate culture and
meet project objectives. In addition, repatriates are more likely to place greater value on
reintegration into the home country culture upon return while the firm places greater
value on reintegration of the expatriate into the corporate culture. The implication of
these findings is that firms do not understand the contrasting expectations of their
returning expatriates and are, therefore, less likely to provide the support necessary for
a smooth transition.
Finally, Black et al. (1992) point out that, from a theoretical perspective, the lack of
systematic investigation of repatriation adjustment by scholars may stem, in part, from
an underlying assumption that repatriation adjustment is not significantly different from
either adjustment after a domestic relocation transfer or from adjustment to an overseas
assignment. This is similar to the erroneous assumption, previously mentioned, made
by executives who do not believe that they need to make special efforts for their
expatriates because they are merely returning home. An understanding of repatriation
adjustment should, therefore, begin with a comparison between repatriation and other
job-related geographic transfers.
Toward a Theoretical Framework
Repatriation as Compared with Other Job-Related Geographic Transfers
In proposing a theoretical framework for repatriation research, Black et al. (1992) initially
compare repatriation with two other kinds of geographic transfers: domestic relocation
and expatriate transfers. First, in comparison with a domestic relocation transfer (such
as moving across the country), repatriation adjustment differs both in degree (with
regard to the level of novelty on the new job) and kind, since repatriation involves a
return to one's home country after what may often be an extended period of absence
and domestic relocation merely involves an in-country transfer. The result is that these
two types of adjustment are sufficiently different from each other, such that variables
that play a minor role in domestic relocation adjustment may actually play a critical role
in repatriation adjustment (Black et al., 1992).
Second, when comparing expatriate transfers with repatriation transfers, Black et al.
(1992) argue that while both involve a movement between countries (thus, involving a
similar range of novelty), in expatriate adjustment cognitive expectations are based
primarily on vicarious experience (e.g., training or other sources of information) or on
simple stereotypes in anticipation of the transfer. This more indirect experience is likely
to lead to flexible expectations because the expatriate is unsure of what to expect.
Repatriates, on the other hand, have had actual personal experience with their home
countries and this more direct form of experience is more likely to lead to more rigid
expectations (i.e., repatriates already believe that they are sufficiently knowledgeable)
and when they return home they are, therefore, unprepared for the changes that have
occurred. Indeed, a major obstacle to the readjustment process is the need for such
readjustment is so unexpected, by repatriates as well as by their home organizations.
Suggested Theoretical Foundations for Repatriation Adjustment
A few emerging theories explain various aspects of the problems experienced by

repatriates and their families. In their review of proposed theoretical explanations
regarding the overall readjustment process, Black et al. (1992) point out that adjustment
theorists, studying domestic relocation adjustment, as well as researchers in the area of
expatriation adjustment assert that moving into a new environment creates uncertainty
and thereby a breakdown of an individuals interpretation systems. This, in turn, creates
a need to reduce that uncertainty. A related explanation is proposed by individual
control theorists who argue that individuals placed in new and unfamiliar environments
have a need to reestablish a certain level of control. According to this latter model, two
types of control can occur. The first is predictive control, which is defined as the ability
to make sense of, or predict, one's environment in terms of how one is expected to
behave and in terms of the rewards and punishments (i.e., negative consequences) that
are associated with specific behaviors. The second is behavioral control, which is
defined as the ability to control one's own behaviors that have an important impact on
the environment, and, by extension, as an indirect attempt at environmental or outcome
control (Bell & Staw, 1989).
A logical integration of adjustment and control theory as suggested by Black et al.

(1992) can be stated as follows: (1) Individuals establish behavioral routines based on
their perceptions of expectations, reward and punishment (i.e., negative incentive)
contingencies, and preferences for preferred outcomes. (2) When confronted with new
and unfamiliar situations, established routines are broken and the individual's sense of
control is reduced. (3) Individuals subsequently attempt to reestablish control by
reducing uncertainty in the new situation through predictive and/or behavioral control. A
first step in reducing uncertainty is the formation of expectations about the new
situation. (4) In consequence, those factors that reduce uncertainty would facilitate
adjustment, while those factors that increase uncertainty would inhibit adjustment.
One implication of this combined theoretical model is that, not only will individuals need
to make adjustments when actually placed in a new environment (in-country
adjustment) but, unless entering the new environment is totally without warning, they
can also make some anticipatory adjustments. Another implication is that adjustments
can be effective and uncertainty can be reduced only if they are based on accurate or
met expectations, as opposed to inaccurate or unmet expectations. Indeed, many
recent studies have attributed the failure in reintegrating into the back-home
organization to a discrepancy between re-entry expectations and the reality that
returning expatriates encounter upon return (Hammer, Hart, & Rogan, 1998; Stroh,
Gregersen, & Black, 1998).
A Multifaceted Research Approach
Since research on expatriate adjustment has been underway for a longer period of time,
a focus on the commonalities as well as the differences between the expatriate
experience and repatriation adjustment can serve as a guide for repatriation research.
As an example, research by Shaffer, Harrison, and Gilley (1991) demonstrated that
expatriate adjustment is composed of at least three related yet separate facets or
dimensions, originally conceptualized by Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou (1991) as (1)
adjustment to work, (2) adjustment to interacting with individuals in the foreign country
(socializing with host-country nationals), and (3) adjustment to the general environment
and culture (living conditions abroad). Further research (e.g., Black & Stephens, 1989;
Gregersen & Black, 1990) has found that while some antecedent variables affect all
three facets of expatriation adjustment, others may have a significant impact on only
one facet.
Black and Gregersen (1991) have extended this model to repatriation adjustment
research and have found evidence that repatriation adjustment is also multifaceted,
involving the same kinds of related yet distinct facets that have been associated with
expatriation adjustment. A study by Suustari and Vlimaa (2002), however, suggests
that, in the case of repatriation adjustment, the work adjustment facet may actually
consist of two separate facets or dimensions: job adjustment and organizational
adjustment. The result is a total of four different facets or dimensions of repatriation
adjustment instead of the three previously suggested in the literature. One way to
conceptualize repatriation adjustment, therefore, is that the general and interactions
adjustment facets may be categorized as dealing with the personal readjustment of
expatriates and their families; job and organizational adjustment facets may be
categorized as dealing with the professional (work-related) readjustment.
Just as with expatriate research, Black et al. (1992) assert that the likelihood that
repatriation adjustment is multifaceted is important because it allows for the possibility
that: (1) various antecedent variables may be related to all facets of adjustment or only
to specific factors, and (2) that certain facets may be more or less significantly related to
the observed outcomes (or problems) of repatriation adjustment. Much of current
research may, therefore, be directed toward determining (1) what these key antecedent
variables are with regard to how expectations are created, (2) how these variables
affect the various facets of expatriation adjustment, and (3) how these variables
influence the frequently occurring outcomes or problems of repatriation adjustment.
The first step in integrating current research should be to review the frequently
observed adjustment problems associated with personal and professional repatriation
adjustment in light of the formation of expectations and uncertainty reduction. If it serves
no other purpose, such a review can aid repatriates, their families and their home
organizations in becoming aware of these problems and thus be able to make some of
the necessary anticipatory adjustments. Such information is also helpful in determining
how well extant models explain these problems or, alternatively, where there may be a
need for further theoretical explanations and research beyond the previously mentioned
theories of overall adjustment.
Problems Encountered in Repatriation Adjustment
Personal Readjustment Problems
The causes of personal re-entry readjustment problems are to a certain extent inherent
in having had to adjust to living in a foreign culture for a period of time. With regard to
general adjustment, as an example, repatriates and their family members frequently
report experiencing a comedown upon return because of having developed inaccurate
expectations in the form of fond memories and myths about the general environment
and culture of their home country while abroad. Adler (2002) speculates that this may
occur because when expatriates are experiencing the trauma of culture shock in a
foreign assignment they ... often idealize their home country, remembering only the
good aspects of home in essence creating something to hold onto and dream about.
The resulting inaccurate expectations create two types of gaps: the gap between the
way it was and the way it is, and the gap between idealized memories and reality. The
disappointment that occurs when these unrealistic expectations are not metcan be
overwhelming. Most returnees, as a consequence, express surprise not only with regard
to their own feelings but also with reality, and are reluctant to even talk about it because
they think that something is inherently wrong with themselves.
Another source of inaccurate expectations and subsequent reality shock involves giving
up the personal and economic advantages of the foreign assignment. As Dowling and
Welch (2005, page #) point out, Usually, at least for PCNs, the international
assignment is a form of promotion. It carries greater autonomy, a broader area of
responsibility (because of the smaller size of the overseas subsidiary) and, at the top
management level, a prominent role in the local community. The result is higher status.
Some expatriates use the term kingpin to describe their positions abroad. Upon return
the repatriate is expected to resume his or her position within the home company, with
the loss of status and autonomy. (This direct quote is quite long. Is it necessary?)
Family members, too, may be reluctant to give up their special status. In some
countries, for example, expatriate families have servants, and the assignment may
involve interaction with the social and economic elite as well as a variety of
sophisticated international managers. The return home, however, may bring with it
feelings of social disappointment due to a loss of status and self-esteem. Compounding
the loss of the personal advantages is a corresponding loss of many economic
advantages present in the foreign assignment, including such benefits as cost of living
allowances, foreign service premiums, housing subsidies, education allowances and
other related benefits. Some repatriates, in addition, may no longer be able to afford to
buy a home similar to the one sold a few years before (Dowling & Welch, 2005). This
difficulty in giving up the economic lifestyle of the foreign assignment may result in
ineffective coping strategies upon return, explaining in part why some repatriates
become financially over-extended.
As previously indicated, many repatriates are surprised by the unexpected amount of
change that has occurred during the foreign assignment (Black et al., 1992). The ability
of repatriates to slip easily back into their previous lifestyles may be thwarted because
during this period of absence certain aspects of the individual (e.g., attitudes, values,
habits) are likely to have changed. When expatriates return, they are not really the
same persons. Living in another country for an extended period of time is a major
influence on personality change, and it is likely that while abroad expatriates and their
family members have taken on some of the values of the host culture. This may be
particularly a problem for expatriates who have gone native; that is, those who have
adapted well to the foreign culture and have developed a high level of commitment to
the foreign operation but a low commitment to the parent firm (Black & Gregersen,
1992). Subsequently, these repatriates may find it difficult to readjust to their own
cultures and organizations. It is also likely that a variety of elements in the home country
(e.g., technology, social norms, organizational culture, organizational communication
channels, economic conditions, styles of dress, aspects of the language) have changed
in ways not anticipated by returnees. It is as if they had pressed the pause button as
they flew out of the country and expected life at home to remain in freeze frame
(Dowling & Welch, 2005). Furthermore, these changes may have occurred relatively
independently of each other, and unlike the manager who has remained in the home
country, the repatriating manager is less likely to have examined the interplay between
his or her own personal changes and the changes in the home country. Home country
organizations also may not anticipate changes in their expatriate managers. The
problem is that these changes suddenly confront each other upon return; explaining
why, as Black et al. (1992) point out, most repatriates report re-entry as being more
difficult than the initial move overseas. The out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude that most
firms take enhances this discrepancy. According to Adler (2002), returnees, therefore,
frequently describe stages of adjustment upon return which are similar to those
experienced in initial culture shock abroad, including an initial high mood followed by a
low period.
With regard to interactions adjustment, Copeland and Griggs (1985) report that contrary
to expectations, Virtually everyone who returns is shocked by the lack of interest of
people at home. Friends say, Im dying to hear all about Indonesia, but soon they
switch the subject to last weekends football game. Returnees need to talk about their
experience a major event in their lives yet no one will listen... If you talk about your
overseas experience, people dont know how to relate to you you dont fit in. To
compound this problem, returnees find that the changes that have occurred at home
have put them out of touch with their home culture such that they often feel like
foreigners in their own country. Thus, readjustment unexpectedly takes on many
aspects similar to entry into a foreign culture. Children in particular have a hard time.
They are different, more sophisticated, literally more worldly than children who have not
left their home country. At the same time, they may feel odd not knowing the latest
slang, rock and television stars, or ways to dress. (Copeland and Griggs, 1985).
Subsequently, they are also likely to have difficulty in gaining the acceptance of peer
groups.
Similar to what may have occurred during the low period of adjustment abroad, in
reverse culture shock family members may begin to create a false comparison by
glamorizing the life they left behind in the foreign country (Dowling & Welch, 2005).
They may even express a desire to return. In comparison, life back home now seems
dull and unexciting. Unlike the situation in the foreign assignment, repatriates most often
find a significant lack of the kinds of support networks they found overseas. As a
contrast, since adjustment problems are anticipated in the foreign assignment,
international firms are beginning to provide direct support for their expatriates in the
form of organization-sponsored programs to assist in the adjustment process (e.g.,
predeparture training, in-country training, mentor systems) and indirect support in the
form of organization-encouraged activities and techniques (e.g., joining international
clubs, developing hobbies). These on-assignment support networks aid expatriates and
their families in developing effective coping skills (Andreason, 2003). But because
neither the international firm nor the employee are expecting adjustment problems upon
return, comparable forms of support are conspicuously absent.
Professional Readjustment Problems
It has been reported (e.g., Black & Gregersen, 1991) that for some repatriates
professional readjustment problems can be even more debilitating than personal
readjustment problems. To a great extent one can argue, however, that repatriation
adjustment is a global factor such that the professional facets of repatriation adjustment
are not truly independent from the previously discussed facets of personal
readjustment. All facets of ones life tend to interact. Brett and Stroh (1992), for
example, have found that the reverse culture shock experienced by family members can
interfere with the ability of returning expatriates to resume their responsibilities at the
home office. Thus, models of overall adjustment need to be applicable to both personal
and professional readjustment and any review of the frequently cited problems
connected with professional adjustment must take this interaction into account.
In professional readjustment, repatriates must adjust or readjust to the job they will be
performing. As previously indicated, a major reason why managers accept an
international assignment is the expectation of beneficial effects to their career path.
Upon return, however, many find that because of the out-of-sight, out-of-mind
syndrome, their careers have actually been in a holding pattern and that others have
been promoted ahead of them (Feldman, 1991; Harvey, 1989). This can result in
significant career disappointment. Additional causes for career-advancement problems
may range from organizational downsizing to poor company planning. The bottom line is
that repatriates often tend to be placed, at least at first, in mediocre or makeshift jobs
(Welch, 1990). Professional re-entry can also be a significant problem for the spouse in
the case of dual-career families. If the career path for the trailing spouse was put on
hold or altered in some way, negative experiences in job readjustment or job search
may affect the partners feelings of self-worth, compounding the readjustment process
and potentially causing tension in the relationship (Dowling & Welch, 2005).
The job adjustment problem is exacerbated when, also contrary to expectations, many
repatriates receive jobs with less authority, responsibility and autonomy than they were
used to in the foreign assignment. In one study, the category of reduced responsibility
and autonomy on the job was ranked second, after career advancement, as a major
concern upon repatriation (Tung & Andersen, 1997). As a consequence, other studies
(e.g., Barham & Antal, 1995), not surprisingly, found the re-entry position to be less than
their career expectations and less satisfying than their global assignment. In addition,
the sense of self-efficacy (a confidence and belief that one can gain control) achieved in
the foreign assignment (Dowling & Welch, 2005) is shattered upon return. Thus, not
only must repatriates and their family members make personal adjustments connected
with reduced social status upon return, but they must also adjust to a situation of
reduced job status and autonomy. The implicit message communicated to a firms
personnel by these kinds of problems, therefore, is that accepting an international
assignment is a high-risk career strategy one that may have a significantly negative
impact both on ones career path and also on the nature on ones job (Welch, 1997).
Such unmet expectations will likely affect the repatriates adjustment, productivity, and
commitment to the firm. What is more, reports of such problems may also be a general
deterrent in a firms ability to recruit high-caliber personnel for future assignments.
In addition to job readjustment problems, the transition from one organizational culture
to another can be difficult and stressful. For one thing, it is likely that in their absence
there have been changes in the organizational culture, so previous expectations
regarding correct attitudes and behaviors may also have changed. For another,
expatriates often return to organizations that do not seem to either appreciate or exploit
their newly gained international expertise. This devaluing of the expatriate experience is
reflected in the comment of an Australian repatriate: You gain a lot of expertise, but its
dismissed here (Welch, 1994). Consequently, repatriates often feel overqualified for
their positions and become an underutilized resource for the organization. Combined
with the previously mentioned perceptions of losses in social status, job status, and
autonomy, these feelings of underutilization can also have a demoralizing effect.
The research literature also suggests that organizational readjustment problems may
occur because the repatriates role conception may be influenced by that of the foreign
assignment; thus, the repatriates sense-making interpretations may be flawed (Louis,
1980). Just as the foreign assignment can bring about changes in ones personal
values, operating in a foreign cultural environment may also bring about significant
changes in the returnees conception of appropriate managerial role behavior (Gomez-
Mejia & Galkin, 1987). Thus, role conflict may occur when the repatriate does not
resume the expected managerial behavior upon return. According to Baughn (1995),
while abroad expatriates may adopt cultural norms and procedures that may no longer
match the home country or the home corporate culture.
This role conflict is obviously two-sided, reflecting not only changes in the repatriate, but
also a lack of understanding and appreciation of these changes by the home
organization. Adler (2002), for example, reports a frequently occurring xenophobic
response on the part of many home-country executives who tend to rate those
returnees as most effective who appear to be the least foreign; that is, those who do not
know or use foreign languages, do not have foreign friends, or were not born in a
foreign country. Repatriates, additionally, are rated as more effective if they do not
explicitly utilize the skills and learnings gained while abroad on their job back home. As
a result, many repatriates, according to Selmer (1999), choose a transition strategy of
(1) resocialization, in which they neither recognize nor use their globally acquired skills,
but distance themselves from their global experience and just try to fit back in. Others,
particularly those who believe they cannot fit back in, become (2) alienated and
continue to see the foreign societal and organizational culture as better than their own.
These are often those who had gone native during the foreign assignment and may
even want to return. Both of these transition strategies make repatriation readjustment
more difficult and prevent firms from utilizing globally acquired skills. A more productive
strategy, in contrast is, a (3) proactive strategy in which repatriates reject neither their
own nor the foreign culture; rather they combine the best aspects of both and contribute
to their firms by creating new, synergistic ways of perceiving and working in their
organizations, based on their experiences at home and abroad.
The Search for Relevant Antecedent Variables
A Preliminary Model
One of the major thrusts of current research is to discover antecedent variables that
relate to repatriation adjustment. These are the factors that either enhance or inhibit the
adjustment process. Many of these variables reflect the previously mentioned problems
encountered in repatriation adjustment. A study of these antecedent variables can
provide, among other things, insight into the nature, magnitude, and causes of the
variables that are related to repatriation adjustment. Results also can be analyzed with
regard to the model of uncertainty reduction, connected with how each variable
contributes to the creation of accurate or inaccurate expectations. A major component
of a theoretical framework presented by Black et al. (1992), for example, concerns four
such suggested general categories of antecedent variables: (1) individual variables,
variables that are a function of individual attitudes, values, needs, or characteristics; (2)
job variables; (3) organizational variables; and (4) non-work variables. The propositions
of this model are, in turn, dependent upon whether they deal with (1) anticipatory
repatriation adjustment and are thus more a function of predictive control and accuracy
of expectations; or (2) in-country repatriation adjustment, which emphasizes both
predictive and behavioral control; thus involving a more directly experiential test of
expectations.
Individual Variables
With regard to anticipatory repatriation adjustment, Black et al. (1992) propose that (1)
time overseas immediately preceding the return home, (2) the total time away from the
home country over a career, and (3) the magnitude of change in the home country will
be negatively related to accurate anticipatory expectations whereas, (4) the frequency
and length of visits back to the home country and home office will be positively related
to all facets of accurate expectations. Of the long list of individual variables that have
been asserted to be important to in-country adjustment, from a control theory
perspective, Black et al. (1992) propose that (1) a higher than actualized need for
control (resulting in greater attempts to gain control), and (2) a high self-efficacy (a
confidence and belief that one can gain control) will be positively related to all facets of
repatriation adjustment.
Job Variables
In anticipatory repatriation adjustment, Black et al. (1992) propose that: task

interdependency between the expatriate and home country operations is expected to
increase the exchange of information and thus be positively related to the formation of
accurate work expectations. With regard to in-country adjustment they propose that (1)
role clarity (the extent to which an individual knows what is expected on the job), and (2)
role discretion (the adjustment of the work role to fit the individual) would reduce the
level of uncertainty, whereas (3) role conflict (conflicting signals about what is expected
in the new work role) would inhibit predictive control and be negatively related to
repatriation adjustment.
Organization Variables
In anticipatory repatriation adjustment, Black et al. (1992) propose that (1) sufficient
anticipatory repatriation training regarding work, interacting with home nationals again,
and general conditions prior to return would have a positive impact on all aspects of
repatriation adjustment, (2) having a home country sponsor (who is responsible for
keeping in touch with the expatriate) would be positively related to accurate work
expectations, and (3) greater frequency and content of communication between the
home office and the subsidiary would also positively affect the formation of accurate
repatriation expectations. With regard to in-country repatriation adjustment they propose
that the extent of (1) post-return training would have a positive impact on all facets of
repatriation adjustment, and that the (2) congruence and clarity of information regarding
individual career objectives and repatriation policies (including the likelihood of less
autonomy than in the foreign assignment) would be positively related to in-country work
adjustment.
Non-Work Variables
With regard to anticipatory repatriation adjustment, Black et al. (1992) propose a

negative relation with regard to the cultural distance between the host and the home
countries because of the amount of change that was necessary for the individual to
adjust to the foreign assignment (the going native factor). With regard to in-country
repatriation adjustment, they propose that (1) a downward shift in social status and
poorer housing conditions will be negatively related to all facets of repatriation
adjustment, but that adequate (2) spouse repatriation adjustment will be positively
related to expatriate general and interaction repatriation adjustment.
Examples of Recent Relevant Research
Recent research has sought to verify the propositions made by the Black et al. (1992)
preliminary model and has also begun to look for additional antecedent variables. In a
study of Finnish repatriates, for example, Suustari and Vlimaa (2002) did find support
for the view that repatriation adjustment is a multifaceted phenomenon. Specific findings
regarding antecedent variables demonstrate that general adjustment was negatively
related to (1) the age of the respondent (a finding that was opposite to what was
expected from other models), (2) the length of the foreign assignment, (3) the extent of
expatriation adjustment problems in the foreign assignment, and (4) the amount of role
conflict. On the other hand, positive correlations were found with (5) the length of time of
role negotiations before ending the international assignment, and (6) keeping up on
events at home. With regard to organization adjustment, two antecedent variables were
found to be positive correlates: (7) the length of time of role negotiations before ending
the international assignment and, (8) a willingness to relocate internationally, whereas
(9) role conflict was a negative correlate. With regard to job adjustment (10) the length
of time or role negotiations before ending the international assignment and (11) the
amount of role discretion were positive correlates. With regard to interaction adjustment,
(12) the extent of expatriation adjustment problems in the foreign assignment, and (13)
role conflicts were negative correlates. In addition to providing support for the
multifaceted view of repatriation adjustment, findings (2), (4), (6), (9), (11) and (13), of
this study, support specific propositions of the Black et al. (1992) preliminary model
while the other findings suggest additional antecedent variables.
Other antecedent variables have also been proposed. Black and Gregersen (1992), for
example, have suggested that the type of allegiance expatriates established during the
foreign assignment will have an impact, not only on their performance while abroad, but
also on their ability to readapt upon return. Those who develop a Dual Allegiance,
characterized by a high commitment to both the parent firm and the foreign operation,
should have a higher probability of adjusting to their overseas stay, completing their
foreign assignment, and staying with the firm upon repatriation than those characterized
as Free Agents, Going Native or Hearts at Home.
As another example, OSullivan (2002) drawing on Career Transitions Theory and the
protean perspective, proposes that some repatriates have an easier time surviving the
problems of repatriation adjustment than do others. A protean (proactive) approach
suggests that repatriate survivors (as opposed to victims) take more responsibility in
actively carving out an appropriate niche for themselves, rather than merely reacting to
(making sense of) the niche in which they find themselves. Reactive (symptom-focused)
strategies do nothing to change the repatriates new environment and the stressors
within it, whereas proactive strategies such as information-seeking and social
networking have been associated with greater adjustment. This study also suggests that
expatriates with certain personality characteristics or orientations (i.e., extraversion,
conscientiousness, openness to new experience, emotional stability, and
agreeableness) will be successful in the use of proactive behaviors in protean-receptive
organizational climates which allow such behaviors to occur.
Suggestions for Future Research
More research is needed before a definitive model of repatriation adjustment is

possible, especially in the area of organizational factors. Black et al. (1992), for
example, propose studying the effect of having internationally experienced top
management, a longitudinal assessment of the factors that causally impact the various
facets of repatriation adjustment over time and whether some variables that are
proposed to benefit the repatriation process may actually inhibit the expatriation process
or vice versa. Suustari and Vlimaa (2002) point out the need for replication of their
findings with other national groups and also recommend a comparative study of the
adjustment process with those who are more on their own abroad (as many Finns in
their sample were) as opposed to those who are transferred by their company.
OSullivan (2002) suggests further the need for studies to determine what initially
triggers an individuals awareness that proactivity might be needed in a given situation.
In addition it may be useful to (1) further investigate the personality characteristics of
repatriation survivors and the organizational climates which facilitate proactive
behaviors, (2) evaluate the effectiveness of various re-entry training programs, and (3)
reconcile contradictory findings with regard to salient antecedent variables.
Managing Re-Entry
Repatriation programs must take into account repatriation adjustment problems

reported by practitioners and academics as well as current research regarding their
antecedent variables. As has been pointed out, since many studies have attributed
failure in reintegrating into the back-home organization to a discrepancy between re-
entry expectations and reality, the uncertainty reduction model can be used as a
theoretical framework for application as well as research. A successful repatriation
outcome can be defined as: ...one in which, upon return, the repatriate gains access to
a job which recognizes any newly acquired international competencies; experiences
minimal cross-cultural readjustment difficulties; and reports low turnover intentions
(OSullivan, 2002). Effective repatriation programs provide direct support in the form of
organization-sponsored programs that assist in the readjustment and indirect support in
the form of organization encouraged individual proactive strategies.
Organization-Sponsored Repatriation Programs
Predeparture Training for the Foreign Assignment
The time to begin planning for re-entry is even before leaving for the foreign
assignment. Effective pre-departure recruiting and selection procedures, to begin with,
can screen out employees and family members with personal characteristics or family
situations, which would limit their probability of success, along with those who are
unwilling to go on the foreign assignment. This can be followed by thorough
predeparture training, as well as effective in-country support programs, since those who
experience significant problems during the foreign assignment are also more likely to
have repatriation adjustment problems. Pre-departure training can also inform those
going on the foreign assignment as to what kinds of problems to expect upon return. For
repatriates and their family members, who often think that their experience is somewhat
unique and that there is something fundamentally wrong with themselves, just knowing
what kinds of problems to expect is a useful beginning. Proactive (protean) approaches
are more likely if expatriates and repatriates can anticipate the frequently encountered
problems.
Providing Assurances
In addition to informing, there are other ways firms can insure that expectations are met.
As previously mentioned, adjustment and individual control theorists point out the needs
of reducing uncertainty and establishing control in new environments. One transition
strategy suggested for professional re-entry is the use of repatriation agreements,
whereby firms give candidates preparing for international assignments written
guarantees as to the length of the foreign assignment, expectations regarding job
performance while abroad, and, upon return, that a mutually acceptable position will be
available. In the absence of such agreements, repatriate professional expectations may
not be met and there may be a perceived breach of the psychological contract believed
to be implicit in the international assignment (Dowling et al., 1999).
Formal Programs
Formal repatriation programs, to begin with, deal with anticipatory adjustments and start
several months before returning home. In addition to the use of repatriation agreements,
firms can create accurate expectations and thus ameliorate the problems of
professional and personal re-entry by (1) establishing home leave policies that allow the
expatriate to maintain professional contact via occasional visits back to the home
organization and family members to keep up with changes at home, (2) selecting a
home office executive to be a sponsor or mentor who will represent the interests of the
expatriate while away on assignment and assist him or her in the repatriation process,
and (3) establishing policies and procedures that assess and utilize skills gained on the
foreign assignment. Post-return programs can help repatriates and their family
members meet expectations via (1) re-entry debriefings with attempt to validate the
expatriate experience by learning about new skills gained while abroad, (2) personal
and career counseling, (3) relocation assistance, (4) financial assistance, (5) finding
schooling for the children, (5) training in workplace changes, (6) stress management,
and (7) providing career counseling and job assistance for the spouse.
Organization-Encouraged Individual Proactive Strategies
There are many things repatriates and their families can and should do for themselves.
One problem preventing individual proactive behaviors is that repatriates may not be
aware of or prepared to use effective coping strategies; such as information seeking
and social networking. Another problem is that the organizational climate may impede
individual initiative in utilizing proactive coping strategies. To begin with, therefore,
OSullivan (2002) suggests that organizations establish a protean-receptive
organizational climate that will facilitate proactivity by permitting individual searches for
appropriate post-return positions, providing proactive training, setting up a useful
organizational performance appraisal system (such as performance coaching),
providing considerable job discretion, and providing support for protean approaches by
senior line management.
With the availability of a proactive (protean-receptive) climate, expatriates and their

family members can be made aware of and have more discretion in utilizing additional
anticipatory and in-country adjustment coping strategies, which will allow them to
manage their expectations. In order to ease re-entry, for example, repatriates and their
family members can be encouraged to take an active role themselves in staying in
contact with the home organization, keeping informed with regard to changes in
technology and company structure and informing the home organization, in turn,
regarding their own accomplishments and the skills they have learned while on
assignment. Expats and family members also can be encouraged to keep up with
changes at home by staying in touch with friends and by keeping up with national
events through subscriptions to home country newspapers, magazines, and/or through
online news sources. Repatriates can also be encouraged to clarify their own
expectations, keeping in mind the two realities that of the foreign assignment and that
of the home organization and country. Basically, repatriates need to prepare for re-entry
as extensively as they had prepared for the foreign assignment. This includes doing
their homework on job assignments, living conditions, and schooling options.
Repatriates can be encouraged to distil the foreign-assignment experiences to be
communicated to others into a few specific areas of importance. Finally, in addition to
professional networking, repatriates can be encouraged to actively seek out friends and
social contacts, in contrast to the foreign assignment where the trend was for others to
seek them out.
Conclusion
More and more, repatriation is being seen as the final link in an integrated, circular
process that connects the initial recruitment, selection, and cross-cultural entry of
expatriates (along with their family members) with adequate in-country support, and
finally, with successful reintegration into the country and organization. Organization-
encouraged individual proactive strategies along with organization-sponsored programs
can help minimize inaccurate and unmet expectations that seem to be a key to the
problems of repatriation adjustment.
With enough insight and preparation, those on foreign assignments can have an
enjoyable and productive experience abroad, along with a relatively smooth transition
back home. The international firm, in turn, can reap the benefits of the acquiring more
global experience and developing a cadre of effective international managers.
References
Adler, N. (1981). Re-entry: Managing cross-cultural transitions. Group and

Organizational Studies, 6(3), 3418356.
Adler, N. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Mason,

OH: South-Western.
Andreason, A. W. (2003). Direct and indirect forms of in-country support for expatriates
and their families as a means of reducing premature returns and improving job
performance. International Journal of Management, 20(4), 548-555.
Barham, K., & Antal, A. B. (1995). Competencies for the pan-European manager. In P.
Kirkbride (Ed.), Human resource management in Europe (pp. 221-241). London:
Routledge.
Baughn, C. (1995). Personal and organizational factors associated with effective

repatriation. In Jan Selmer (Ed.), Expatriate management: New ideas for international
business (pp. 215-230). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Bell, N., & Staw, B. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: the role of personality
and personal control in organizations. in Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S.
(Eds), Handbook of career theory (pp. 232-251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Black, J. S. (1992). Coming home: the relationship of expatriate expectations with

repatriation and job performance. Human Relations, 45(2), 177-186.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). When Yankee comes home: Factors related to
expatriate and spouse adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(4),
671-695.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1992). Serving two masters: managing the dual
allegiance of expatriate employees. Sloan Management Review, 33(2), 61-71.
Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., & Mendenhall, M. E. (1992). Toward a theoretical

framework of repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4),
737-760.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1999, March/April). The right way to manage expats.
Harvard Business Review, 52-62.
Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. (1989). The influence of the spouse on American expatriate
adjustment in overseas assignments. Journal of Management, 15, 529-544.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of
international adjustment: an integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of
Management Review, 16, 291-317.
Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. (1992). Job transfer. In Cooper, C. L. and Robinson, I. T. (Eds.),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 323-362).
Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.
Brislin, R. W., & Van Buren, H. (1974). Can they go home again? International
Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1(4), 57-65.
Copeland, L., & Griggs, L. (1985). Going international, 204. New York: Random House.
Dowling, P. J., Welch, D. E., & Schuler, R. R. (1999). International human resource
management (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Dowling, P. J., & Welch, D. E. (2005). International human resource management (4th
ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Feldman, D. C. (1991). Repatriate moves as career transitions. Human Resource

Management Review, 14(1), 163-178.
Gomez-Mejia, L., & Balkin, D. B. (1987). The determinants of managerial satisfaction

with the expatriation and repatriation process. Journal of Management Development,
6(1), 7-17.
Grant, L. (1997, April 14). That overseas job could derail your career. Fortune, 166.
Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1990). A multifaceted approach to expatriate retention

in international assignments. Groups and Organizational Studies, 15(4), 461-485.
Hammer, M., Hart, W., & Rogan, R. (1998). Can you go home again? An analysis of the
repatriation of corporate managers and spouses. Management International Review,
38(1), 67-86.
Harvey, M. (1989). Repatriation and career system; an empirical study. Journal

Business Studies, 20(1), 131-144.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Career transitions: varieties and commonalities, Academy of

Management Review, 5(3), 329-340.
Murray, J. A. (1973). International personnel repatriation: Cultural shock in reverse.

MSU Business Topic, 21(2), 59-66.
OBoyle, T. (1989, December 11). Grappling with the expatriate issue. The Wall Street
Journal, p. B1.
OSullivan, S. L. (2002). The protean approach to managing repatriate transitions,

International Journal of Manpower, 23(7), 597-616.
Paik, Y., Segaud, B., & Malinowski, C. (2002). How to improve repatriation
management: Are motivations and expectations congruent between the company and
expatriates? International Journal of Manpower, 23(7), 635-648.
Selmer, J. (1999). Effects of coping strategies on sociocultural and psychological

adjustment of Western expatriate managers in the PRC. Journal of World Business,
34(1), 41-51.
Shaffer, M. A, Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M. (1999). Dimensions, determinants and

differences in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International Business
Studies, 30(3), 557-581.
Solomon, C. (1995, January). Repatriation: up, down or out? Personnel Journal, 28-30,
32-5, 37.
Stroh, L. K., Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1998). Closing the gap: Expectations
versus reality among expatriates. Journal of World Business, 33(2), 11-124.
Suustari, V., & Vlimaa, K. (2002). Antecedents of repatriation adjustment: New

evidence from Finnish repatriates. International Journal of Manpower, 23(7), 617-634.
Tung, R. L., & Andersen, A. (1997). Exploring international assignees viewpoints: A

study of the expatriation/repatriation process. Chicago, IL: Arthur Andersen,
International Executive Services.
Welch, D. E. (1990). The personnel variable in international operations: A study of

expatriate management in Australian companies. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Monash
University, Australia.
Welch, D. E. (1997). Determinants of international human resource management. In

Dowling, P. J., & Welch, D. E., International human resource management (4th ed.).
Mason, OH: South-Western.
Welch, D. E. (1994). Determinants of international human resource management and

activities: A suggested framework. Journal of Management Studies, 31(2), 139-164.
Evaluating the Effects of Team Composition and
Performance Environment on Team Performance
Harlan E. Spotts
Anthony F. Chelte
Western New England College
ABSTRACT
Performance, interpersonal relations, equity, and output are examined for both online
and face to face team structures. As organizations make wider use of online teams to
transcend geographical boundaries and maintain tight cost controls, the question
remains whether these innovations are as or more effective than traditional face-to-face
group structures. Hypothesized relationships are tested that include the evaluation of
the team performance in online groups contrasted to face to face groups; group
performance is hypothesized to be higher where membership in the group is self-
selected as opposed to assigned group membership; group performance is
hypothesized to be highest where its membership is self-selected and face to face.
Interaction effects are tested within these hypothesized relationships. Suggestions are
made that face to face groups, while a more costly alternative, may have higher levels
of performance than online groups over the longer-term. Areas for future research are
identified.
Introduction
Organizations have achieved improved efficiencies through technology and more

effective utilization of human resources. Teams are an integral part of this new
organizational landscape. As the twenty-first century continues to unfold, competitive
global pressures will require on-going improvements in productivity, quality, and
efficiency. To a large extent, the development and deployment of work teams will
undoubtedly be a significant part of the mix (Chelte and Hess, 2000).
There is firm case evidence to suggest that performance teams in organizations are well
established. Teams of employees are more productive, more creative, and better able
to meet the challenges of an increasingly dynamic business environment than
individuals alone (Townsend and DeMarie, 1996). Organizational structures have
emerged that provide flexibility, diversity and better access to information for all
organizational members. Resource availability, facilitated in part by continual
improvements in technology, have established mechanisms for the broader deployment
of virtual teams, which are the important element of these new structures (Nemiro,
2000). The use of virtual teams and team networks are becoming dominant structural
properties of 21st century organizations.
Formally defined, virtual (or online) teams are groups of geographically dispersed
organizational members who communicate and carry out their activities through
information technology (Kristof, Brown, Sims & Smith, 1995; Lipnack and Stamps,
1997). The traditional organizational structure is undergoing significant change as
individuals are finding themselves working in an anywhere/anytime mode, connected to
co-workers through information technology (Nemiro, 2000; OHara-Devereaux &
Johansen, 1994). The emergence of virtual teams as a hot topic in management
circles has been widely documented (Matthews & Gladstone, 2000; Melymuka, 1997;
Soloman, 1998; May, 1997). Despite this, little empirical research exists that explores
the dynamics, strengths and limitations that may be inherent in the virtual work
environment (Furst, Blackburn & Rosen, 1999).
There is disagreement over the efficacy of virtual teams. For example, Glacel (1998)
raises the question as to whether virtual teams can really exist. She contends that
given the strict definition of teams, virtual teams exist only with great difficulty, if at all.
For virtual teams to evolve and develop, a firm foundation of face-to-face relationship
building is essential and serves as a prerequisite for virtual teaming (1998:12). Others
have suggested that specialized training is necessary to ensure that individuals can
function effectively as virtual team members. The virtual team environment may also be
lacking in critical non-verbal aspects of communication and traditional cues of social
interaction such as body language and hand gestures that are lost in even the best tele-
conferencing and communications systems.
Anecdotal support for the value-added contributions of virtual teams stems from
individual corporate experiences related in the literature. The academic literature is still
developing and consensus on virtual team efficacy is still lacking. As organizations
continue to globalize and simultaneously reduce costs, it appears that virtual teaming
will become a permanent fixture of the organizational landscape. Organizations
continue to make wide-use of performance teams to participate in decision-making.
Many business decisions are now made by work teams rather than by individuals.
Empirical investigation of team dynamics in the virtual environment has become more
pressing. Critics of the effectiveness of virtual teams stress the need for balance
between high-tech and high-touch interaction among team members
In academic environments, the widespread use of teams has been well established. As
on-line education has become available to a much wider global audience, the use of
teams is necessarily virtual. To be sure, student teams (whether online or face-to-
face) experience many problems that may have an impact on team performance. It has
been well established that poorly defined goals and expectations, mismanaged conflict,
team member dissatisfaction and poor communication have potential dysfunctional
effects on student team performance (Cox and Bobrowski, 2000). Yet, when deployed
effectively, student teams can increase productivity, raise morale and encourage
innovation. Effective team management by team members is the key element in
minimizing dysfunction and enhancing the likelihood of a positive performance.
Business schools have embraced the team concept as an important instructional

element in the delivery of the curriculum. This has provided students with opportunities
to experience teamwork as part of their formal academic training and career
preparation. In addition to the potential for helping students develop interpersonal skills
and the understanding of different perspectives (Goldfinch, Laybourne, MacLead &
Stewart, 1999; Michaelson & Razook, 1999; Chelte, 2003), team projects may also
enhance student learning of course content (Tinto, 1999). However, evidence strongly
suggests that assigning team projects is not sufficient. Students benefit most from a
design that incorporates team-building skills and skills required to overcome barriers to
effectiveness (Feichtner & Davis, 1985; Bacon, Stewart & Silver, 1999; Bolton, 1999;
Ettington & Camp, 2002; Tonn & Milledge, 2002).
Business schools are responsible, in part, to respond to stakeholder needs and to

facilitate the development of leaders and effective organizational members. The
incorporation of virtual teams as an experiential component in online (and traditional
face-to face) education, is consistent with these goals. Courses that include virtual
teaming have the potential to involve students in experiences which are not available in
conventionally structured courses that use teams. Virtual team experience may offer
students opportunities to develop skill-sets appropriate for future organizational
challenges (Chelte, 2003).
Teams are important in attaining organizational and managerial goals. Business

schools and organizations clearly recognize their value. When deployed effectively,
teams can increase productivity, raise morale, improve satisfaction, increase
commitment, decrease turnover and absenteeism, and encourage innovation (Chelte,
2003).
The Research Framework and Design
The current paper proposes to investigate team performance in online and face to face
group environments. As part of the design, we will explore the relative impact that
group self-selection vs. assigned membership have on group performance. Thus, at
its simplest level, the experimental design for the research is a 2 by 2 factorial (online
vs. face to face, and, assigned vs. self-selected groups). Overall group performance
will be measured through a multi-dimensional scale of evaluation discussed in previous
research (cf Chelte, 2003).
At a basic level, the following hypotheses will be considered:
1. Evaluations of group performance will be higher in virtual groups than in

traditional groups (group type = main effect).
2. Evaluations of group performance will be higher where membership in the group

is self-selected than in groups where membership is assigned (group
composition = main effect).
3. Evaluations of group performance will be higher where group membership is self-

selected and face to face than in any of the other conditions, with assigned
group membership in the face to face setting having the lowest performance
evaluations (group type by group composition = interaction effect).
The hypotheses are based on the following suppositions:
Online group environments have a higher level of group performance documentation,
thus allowing individual team member contributions to be monitored. This allows for
tracking of those who tend toward social loafing and those who perform. The level of
electronic accountability could act as a motivator for members to participate more
frequently (group members know that their contributions are electronically tracked).
The face to face group environments have a certain level of accountability in that face-
to-face interactions will keep members involved. However, once the group disperses
there is no outside monitoring taking place to serve as a motivator to perform.
In the assigned membership versus the self-selected situations, members assigned to

a particular group have potentially less invested personally. Self-selected groups, on
the other hand, may have personal relationships that come into play to maintain group
performance.
Exploratory considerations seek to determine whether virtual, self-selected membership

groups are more or less efficient than traditionally structured, self-selected membership
groups. Perhaps what matters most is not the environment that the group operates in
but how the composition of the group is determined (self-selected vs. assigned). To
what extent do personal bonds matter in group efficiency? Does the environment
(online vs. face to face) have a measurable impact on the strength and cohesiveness of
personal bonds? Perhaps in the virtual setting, members may be familiar with others
work behavior but may not necessarily have developed personal bonds. These are
questions that will be explored in depth in this investigation.
Method & Analysis
A survey was administered to 36 students enrolled in a graduate business course

delivered in either an online or face to face format. Approximately one third of the
subjects were in the online section of the course. Throughout the course, students were
required to work in four different teams. Thus, in the offline class there were four teams
of four or five students, with the team composition changing for each of the four
assignments.
The first three team assignments revolved around extensive class exercises working
with a computer-based simulation. These team assignments lasted approximately two
weeks and required both a global and individual team evaluations after the assignment
was completed. Each of these first three teams in which the students worked were
composed by random assignment implemented by the instructor. Students had no say
as to team composition. The last team assignment required student teams to compete
against each other as they managed a computer-simulated company across 9 periods
of play. These last teams were composed by allowing students to self-select their
teams. Since students worked with most students in the class across the first three
assignments, it was assumed that they had enough prior knowledge about other
students teamwork behavior and personality style to make a reasonable decision as to
with whom they would like to work.
All team assessments were collected by using an online form administered through a
virtual classroom environment. The same virtual classroom platform is used at this
institution for both online and face to face courses. Thus, these classrooms become a
communication support vehicle for students meeting face to face. This virtual
classroom environment is used extensively throughout courses in the graduate
business program, so students are very familiar and comfortable using the platform.
After each team assignment students completed two assessments of team

performance, a global assessment and individual assessment. The global
assessment consisted of 34 items measuring perceptions of Team as a whole
performance on a variety of activities and behaviors. A factor analysis of the 34 items
resulted in a four factor structure reflecting the dimensions of Team Efficiency,
Interpersonal Issues, Equity in Participation, and Outputs of Effort. These factors were
not orthogonal. The individual assessment asked for each team member to evaluate
the participation of individual team members. This assessment included letter grade
and dollar compensation measures. So, each member could receive a letter grade
from A to F and a compensation amount from $0 to some portion of a $25,000 pool
distributed across four or five team members.
In addition to the two team assessments, two objective measures of performance were
included in the study. First, the virtual classroom has rooms that student teams can use
to communicate on projects. For students enrolled in the online course, these rooms
were their primary source of communications. A virtual chat routine was used on
occasion, but not extensively by these students as a primary communication channel.
For students enrolled in the offline course their primary means of communication were
weekly, face-to-face meetings in class. The virtual team discussion room was used by
these students as a supplemental communications channel between classes. Thus,
postings to these virtual team rooms by students were used as a measure of team
activity. Since each team had a different room through out the semester for each one of
the assignment teams, a historical record was kept of individual team and individual
team member activity.
A second objective measure of performance was abstracted from the computer

simulation used in the course. Being a competitive simulation, each team managed
their company in direct competition with their classmates. So, there were, in effect,
winners and losers in the simulation. The results of this simulation were used to
develop a score that ranged from 0 to 100 for each of the eight teams across the two
courses. This was determined by creating a weighted score for company performance
based on cumulative net income generated, final overall market share, and an efficiency
index dividing marketing expenses by net income.
Hypotheses:
The specific hypotheses related to team performance, postulating main and interaction
effects. Specifically, it was expected that there would be a main effect for online versus
face to face team performance, with higher evaluations in the online teams than in
offline teams. A second main effect was expected for team composition, instructor-
assigned versus student self-selected. It was expected that team performance would
be higher in student self-selected teams than instructor-selected teams. Finally, an
interaction effect was expected, with team performance being highest in self-selected
and offline teams, than in any other condition. The lowest evaluations would be in
offline, instructor assigned teams.
Results:
The 34-item global measure was subjected to a factor analysis. Scale purification lead
to retaining 25 items that cleanly loaded on four factors (see Exhibit 1). Principle axis
factoring uses estimated communalities in the analysis, making it difficult to determine
absolute variance explained; however, the four factors were estimated to explain
approximately 60 percent of the variance in the data. Each factor was subjected to a
reliability analysis, with resulting Cronbachs alpha scores between .88 and 1.0.
Exhibit 1
Factor Analysis Results of Global Team Assessment Measure
Performance Interpersonal Issues Equity Output
members are imaginative .785
Understand range of skills etc. .758
Diff-Sims effectively harnessed .730
team agrees on goals and objectives .689
members articulated a clear set of goals .685
team has effective work structure .665
team devised effective time tables .623
Members view themselves as team .587
Members participate in decision making .583
Team members support each other .534
Team members take turns leading .440
members have resources etc. .326
Members take arguments personally .836
team often disagrees about ideas .670
goals are not motivating to members .647
Team members are not effective decision makers .595
Team cannot integrate diverse .581
team meetings are not productive .575
not clear what members should do .492
a few members do most of the work* .702
Members do their fair share* -.685
team has clear leader* .343
Quality of team work is superior -1.004
Quantity of team work is superior -.826
We have met the needs of our client -.663
Percent Variance Explained 43.48 7.61 5.10 2.79

Eigenvalue 10.872 1.90 1.28 .70
Cronbachs alpha .92 .88 1.0 .92
One of the items loading on the equity dimension has a negative loading. While it appears that an inconsistency exists, the
valence of the items is consistent with the way in which the items were scored. Item responses were scaled 1 = disagree to 5 =
agree. Thus, Members doing their fair share was scored closer to 5 (mean = 4.18) while a few members do most of the work was
scored closer to 1 (mean = 1.95). The evaluation of the team not having a clear leader scored in between (mean = 3.36). If all
members were doing their fair and the team was operating efficiently, then the perception of having a leader would have been
low.
Values for the retained variables were summed to create four composite variables
subsequently used in a 2 x 2 MANOVA. Independent factors included Course Format
(online versus face to face) and Team Composition (instructor-assigned versus student
self-selected). The MANOVA indicated statistically significant results for the main
effects due to Course Section (Pillais Trace = .093, F = 2.887, df = 4,113, p = .026) and
Team Composition (Pillais Trace = .093, F = 2.887, df = 4,113, p = .026). The
interaction effect between Course Format and Team Composition was not statistically
significant.
An examination of ANOVAs revealed a statistically significant difference for the

Interpersonal Team Issues (F = 8.326, df=1, 116, p = .026) for Course Format. For
Team Composition the factors related to Team Performance (F = 5.028, df = 1,116, p =
.027) and Equity in Member Participation (F = 7.457, df = 1,116, p = .007) were
statistically significant. The fourth factor, Team Output, was marginally statistically
significant (F = 3.324, df = 1, 116, p = .071).
An examination of the means response for the summated factor of Interpersonal Team
Issues indicated that the students working in virtual teams were slightly less positive
about their perceptions of interpersonal team relationships than were students working
in face-to-face teams (see Table 1). Not surprisingly, it was found that student
perceptions of Team Effectiveness were greater for student self-selected teams than in
instructor-assigned teams. Equity in Team Member Participation exhibited the same
pattern as did Team Effectiveness. Finally, perceptions of Team Output were also
higher for student self-selected than Instructor-assigned teams (see Table 1).
Table 1
Results of Team Composition Across Course Format on Perceptions of
Effectiveness, Interpersonal Issues, Equity and Output
Course Format Team

Composition
Online Section Face to Face Instructor- Student Self-
Section Assigned Selected
Performance 48.58 52.48

.
Interpersonal 9.44 12.303
Issues
Equity 9.35 10.22
Output 12.33 13.26

**Statistical significance of simple main effects based on ANOVA results reported above
Although the interaction between Course Format and Team Composition was not
statistically significant, the pattern of mean responses was in the expected direction.
Students working in face to face, self-selected teams had the highest self-perceptions of
team performance (54.375), followed by Online, student self-selected teams (50.583).
Face to Face, Instructor-assigned teams had the lowest mean level self-perceived
performance (48.06).
Student self perceptions of team performance, interpersonal issues, equity and output
always provide interesting perspectives on the participants feelings about team
performance. Interestingly enough, all teams felt that they were producing relatively
high quality output, high quantity and delivered what the client wanted. However, in
looking at team performance there were statistically significant differences between the
virtual and face-to-face teams in the level of team activity throughout the semester. A
MANOVA of team activity as measured by message activity in the virtual classroom
revealed a simple main effect for Course Format (Pillais Trace = .224, F = 20.068, df =
2, 139, p < .001), with face to face teams generating a much higher level of team activity
than Online teams. There was also a simple main effect for Team Composition (Pillais
Trace = .598, F = 103.290, df = 2, 139, P < .001), with student self-selected teams
generating more activity than instructor-assigned teams. As for the interaction, it was
significant (Pillais Trace = .184, F = 15.722, df = 2, 139, p < .001), where face to face,
student self-selected teams had the highest level of both team and individual
contributions to team activity. The lowest level of activity occurred among Online,
instructor-assigned teams (see Table 2).
Table 2
Team Activity Assessed via Virtual Classroom Across Course Format and Team
Composition
Course Format Team

Composition
Online Section Face to Face Instructor- Student Self-
Section Assigned Selected
51.64(b,d) 195.73(a,d) 46.39(b,c) 109.62(a,c)

Overall Team
Activity
Individual Team 11.00(c) 40.78(a,c) 10.00(b) 23.77(a,b)

Member activity
Significant differences labeled a, b, c, d
Discussion and Conclusions
The global team assessment measure yielded four distinct factors. Each factor relates
to an important aspect of overall team performance. The elements that emerged
include team performance, interpersonal issues, equity, and output. The importance of
these elements have been demonstrated in previous research. Sixty percent of the
variance was explained by the four factors. For social science research, this is a robust
finding. Future research will demonstrate whether these four factors have applicability
across larger sample sizes and for a variety of different groups.
As predicted, there was a significant main effect for online team evaluations
performance. This indicates that online teams perceive themselves as more cohesive
with greater levels of contribution from all. This could be due, in large measure, to the
high degree of accountability present in the online environment. Documentation of
group performance (ie individual contributions) can and are monitored. In the electronic
classroom platform, all formal interaction among team members is recorded providing
a transcript for later review. This can be accessed directly by the team members as
well as by the instructor. Other studies have observed a direct correlation between
accountability and perceived team performance (Bowes-Sperry, Kidder, Foley, &
Chelte, 2004). In the face to face condition, there is no formal documentation of
contribution.
Whether teams self-select members or were assigned members by the instructor also
yielded significant effects. Self selected teams have membership that may be more
fully and personally vested by the participants. That is, individuals may align their
psychic selves and their personal investment in the overall performance of the team.
When the instructor assigns team membership, individuals may have less personal
investment, little or no history with other members, and a less direct personal stake in
the outcomes of group performance. This may lead to lower levels of team
performance. In the current study, however, the interaction effects between team
format (online vs. face to face) and team composition (self selected vs. instructor
assigned) were not significant. Future research needs to examine this interaction effect
across more observations to determine whether there is a potential salient effect of
these interactions.
It must be acknowledged that these results are preliminary in nature due to the sample
size restrictions on the experimental design. The low sample size may have played a
role in rendering some relationships statistically insignificant. It must be noted,
however, that mean levels of performance evaluation were in the expected direction
even though there was a lack of statistical significance. Sample size may also have an
impact on the factor structure, which should be verified in future research. In a very
recent study, similar constructs were examined including team empowerment, customer
satisfaction, process improvement, and task interdependence. A major focus of this
study was directed to the impact of the frequency of face-to-face meetings on team
effectiveness (measured by customer satisfaction). Interestingly, the frequency of face
to face meetings had some measurable impact on team empowerment (an internal
perceptual construct) but no effect on team performance indicated by customer
satisfaction (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, and Gibson, 2004). It is clear that more focused
research needs to be oriented toward interaction effects and moderating effects of a
broad set of team-based variables.
The exploratory question in this study was whether online and self-selected teams have
higher levels of performance than face to face, instructor assigned counterparts. The
impact of the environment (online vs. face to face) did have an effect. Students working
in virtual teams were less positive about their perceptions of interpersonal team
relationships. It appears that face to face, self-selected teams have the highest degree
of satisfaction and perceived efficiency.
This last finding is consistent with previous studies that have shown that students have
a tendency to reject virtual teams when provided the opportunity. That is, there is a
marked preference for working in a face-to-face, off-line environment, when provided
the opportunity (Chelte, 2003).
This raises an interesting and challenging question for the wide use of online teams
across organizations. Do online teams, while more cost-effective in the short-run, have
a higher level of performance? Do virtual teams take full advantage of all the human
resources available to them? Even where there is increased accountability, it appears
that the overall perception of performance and satisfaction is lowest where team
membership is online and assigned.
Future research should critically examine the role of online teams in achieving
organizational goals. While globalization may motivate organizations to take advantage
of technology and short-term cost reductions in deploying teams across virtual
geographical boundaries, they may do so at the longer-term expense associated with
lower levels of performance and satisfaction.
References
Adams, N. (1995) Lessons From the Virtual World Training, June: 45-48.
Ancona, D., T. Kochan, M. Scully, J. Van Maanen, D. Westney, D. Kolb, J. Dutton, & S.
Ashford. (1999) Managing for the Future: Organizational Behavior & Processes.
South-Western College Publishing,.
Bacon, D.R., Stewart, K.A., & Silver, W.S. (1999) Lessons From the Best and Worst
Student Team Experiences: How a Teacher Can Make the Difference. Journal of
Management Education. 23, 467-488.
Bolton, M.K, (1999) The Role of Coaching in Student Teams: A Just-in-Time

Approach to Learning Journal of Management Education, 23, 233-250.
Bowes-Sperry, L., Kidder, Foley, & Chelte, A.F. (2004) Just on a Team or on a Just
Team? Procedural Justice Effects on Perceived Student Learning. Unpublished.
Byrne, J. (1995) Virtual B-Schools--Beaming Classes to Companies From Daewoo to

Disney. Business Week. October 23, 64-68.
Chandler, Alfred D. (1962) Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. .
Chelte, A.F. (2003) Challenges of Virtual Teams in the Classroom The Journal of
Behavioral and Applied Management. Winter, , Vol 4(1):122-133.
Chelte, A.F. (2003) Traditional Teams Trump the Virtual Alternative Journal of
Business and Behavioral Science. Spring, Vol 10(1):50-61.
Chelte, A.F. and P. Hess. (2001) Tradition, Technology and Faculty Partnership: An
Integrated Approach to Course Delivery. The Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 2:151.
Cox, P. and P.E. Bobrowski. (2000) The Team Charter Assignment: Improving the
Effectiveness of Classroom Teams. The Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 1:92.
Cramer, S.F. (1994) Assessing Effectiveness in the Collaborative Classroom. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning. , 59:69-81.
Davis, S. and J. Botkin, (1994) The Coming of Knowledge-Based Business," Harvard

Business Review. Volume 72, September-October: 170.
Ettington, D.R. & Camp, R.R. (2002) Facilitating Transfer of Skills Between Group
Projects and Work Teams. Journal of Management Education, 26: 356-379.
Feichtner, S.B., & Davis, D.A. (1995) Why Some Groups Fail: A Survey of Student
Learning Experiences With Learning Groups. The Organizational Behavior Teaching
Review, 9: 58-71.
Feldman, D.C. (1984). The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms. Academy
of Management Review, 9:47-53.
Furst, S., R. Blackburn & B. Rosen. (1999) Virtual Team Effectiveness: a Proposed
Research Agenda Info Systems Journal,. 9:249-269.
Gersick, C.J. (1988) Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of
Group Development. Academy of Management Journal,. 31:9-41.
Glacel, B.P. (1998) Virtual Teams Create New Challenges. Business Journal,: 12-13
Goldfinch, J., Laybourne, P., MacLeod, L., & Stewart, S. (1999). Improving Group
Working skills in Undergraduate Education Through Employer Involvement.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24: 41-51.
Hilton, C. and N. Kameda. (1999) E-Mail and the Internet as International Business
Communication Teaching and Research Tools--A Case Study. Education for
Business. . January/February.
Ives, B. and S.L. Jarvenpaa, (1996) Will the Internet Revolutionize Business Education
and Research? Sloan Management Review. Spring,: 33-41.
Katzenbach, J.R. & D.K..Smith. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams. Harvard Business
School Press.
Kirkman, Bradley, L., Benson, R., Tesluk, P. and Gibson, C. (2004) The Impact of
Team Empowerment on Virtual Team Performance: The Moderating Role of Face-To-
Face Interaction. The Academy of Management Journal. Volume 47, #2, April: 175-
192.
Kristof, A., K. Brown, H. Sims, and K. Smith. (1995) The Virtual Team: A Case Study
and Inductive Model. In M.Beyerlein & D. Johnsons (Eds), Advances in Interdisciplinary
Studies of Work Teams: Knowledge Teams the Creative Edge. , Greenwich, JAI Press.
Lipnack, J. and J. Stamps. (1999) Virtual Teams. Executive Excellence. , Vol. 16 #5:
14-16.
Matthews, J. and B. Gladstone. (2000). Extending the Group: a Strategy for Virtual
Team Formation. Industrial and Commercial Training, #32:24-29.
May, M. (1997) Preparing Organizations to Manage the Future. Management

Accounting,. 28-32.
Melymuka, K. (1997) .Virtual Realities. Computerworld, 70-72.
Michaelson, L.K. & Kazook, N.M. (1999) Making Learning Groups Effective
Selections: 16, 28-35.
Miesing, P. (1998) Using Electronic Networks in Management and Executive

Learning Journal of Workplace Learning,. #10:324-327.
Nemiro, J. (2000) Connection in Creative Virtual Teams Proceedings of the IBAM,

San Diego,.
Ohara-Devereaux, M. and R. Johansen. (1994) Global Work: Bridging Distance,

Culture and Time. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,.
Potter, R., R. Cooke & P. Balthazard. (2000) Virtual Team Interaction: Assessment,
Consequences, and Management. Team Performance Management: An International
Journal. #6:131-137
Ragothaman, S. and D. Hoadley. (1997) Integrating the Internet and the World Wide
Web Into the Business Classroom: A Synthesis." Education for Business. . March/April
Ratcliff, J.L. (editor) (1992) Assessment and Curriculum Reform. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass,.
Rockett L., J. Valor, P. Miller & P. Naude. (1998) Technology and Virtual Teams: Using
Globally Distributed Groups in MBA Learning Campus-Wide Information Systems,.
#15:174-182.
Saltzberg, S. and S. Polyson. (1995) Distributed Learning on the World Wide Web.
Syllabus, 9(1), 26-28.
Shepperd, J.A. (1993) Productivity Loss in Performance Groups: A Motivation

Analysis. Psychological Bulletin,. #113:67-81
Simons, D. (1999) Closing the Gap on Distance Learning. BusinessWest. August,.
Solomon, C.M. (1998) Sharing Information Across Borders and Time Zones Workforce,
12-17.
Tinto, V. (1999) Taking Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of College.
NACADA Journal, 19:5-9.
Tonn, J.C. & Milledge, V. (2002) Team Building in an MBA Gateway Course: Lessons
Learned. Journal of Management Education, 26, 415-428.
Townsend, A. and S.M. DeMarie. (1996) Are You Ready for Virtual Teams? HR
Magazine. 41:123-128.
Treadwell, T.W. and E. Leach. (1998) Collaborative Teaching Over the Internet.
Journal of Management Education. August,. Volume 22: 498.
Watson, B.S. (1995) The New Training Edge Management Review. May,: 49-51.
Wiedmer, T.L. (1998) Digital Portfolios: Capturing and Demonstrating Skills and Levels
of Performance. Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 79:586.
The Integrative Effects of Flexible Work Arrangements and Preferences for
Segmenting or Integrating Work and Home Roles
MaryAnne M. Hyland
Adelphi University
Ciaran Rowsome
Flextime Limited
Erin Rowsome
The University of Dublin, Trinity College
ABSTRACT
Flexible work arrangements are being offered by an increasing number of organizations

for recruitment and retention purposes. However, Person-Environment Fit theory
(Edwards, 1996) suggests that flexible work arrangements may not be beneficial for all
employees. This study examined the relationship of flexible work arrangement use with
employee performance, affective commitment, and turnover intentions, while taking into
consideration the moderating effects of employees preferences for segmenting or
integrating their work and home lives. The sample consisted of 172 employees from
eight organizations in Ireland. Marginally significant effects for compressed workweeks
were found. Implications for future practitioners and future research are discussed.
Introduction
Flexible work arrangements are intended to serve as a strategic tool to attract, retain,
and motivate employees in the current business environment of increased competition
and high demands on workers (Kropf, 1996; Olmsted & Smith, 1997). Such
arrangements have also been advocated as a means of aligning individual and
organizational objectives (Apgar, 1998; Ronen, 1984). Anecdotal evidence suggests
that there are work-related benefits of flexible work arrangements, such as increased
productivity (e.g., Catalyst, 1997; Di Martino & Wirth, 1990). However, although
research dating back to the 1970s has examined the work-related benefits of flexible
work arrangements (e.g., Hicks & Klimoski, 1981; Schein, Maurer, & Novak, 1977), a
clear body of evidence of such benefits has not emerged.
Recent theoretical development on the boundaries between work and family roles (e.g.,
Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Clark, 2000, Nippert-Eng, 1996) may shed light upon
the relationship between flexible work arrangements and work-related outcomes, such
as employee performance, affective organizational commitment, and turnover
intentions. Nippert-Engs (1996) qualitative study explains what she refers to as
boundary theory in the context of home and work. Based on extensive interviews and
analysis, Nippert-Eng explains how individuals keep separate (segment) or intertwine
(integrate) their work and home lives. For example, she provides examples of highly
segmenting individuals who keep separate calendars for their work and home activities
and who wear different clothes for their work and home roles. In contrast, she provides
examples of individuals who combine work and home activities on one calendar and
who wear the same type of clothes at home and work. Nippert-Eng (1996) proposes
that segmentation and integration are opposite ends of a continuum. However, she
suggests that most individuals combine segmenting and integrating practices, resulting
in a more or less integrating/segmenting approach to work, rather than achieving the
ideal type of segmentor or integrator (Nippert-Eng, 1996, p. 6). All types of flexible work
arrangements allow for greater integration of work and home roles than the standard
Monday through Friday nine to five forty hour work week. However, some flexible work
arrangements allow for more integration than others. For example, when using flextime,
an individual still may keep separate calendars for work and home activities, whereas a
teleworker may benefit more from combining calendars since he/she may enter and exit
the work and home roles several times each day. The present study examines whether
preferences for integration or segmentation of work and home roles interact with the use
of flexible work arrangements to affect work-related outcomes.
Flexible Work Arrangements
Flexible work arrangements allow for work to be accomplished outside of the traditional
time and/or space boundaries of the standard workday. Although there is no truly
"standard" day, in that hours and the location of work differ based on such
categorizations as job type and organizational norms, a traditional work schedule is
defined as a forty hour week, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday
(Catalyst, 1997). Flexible work arrangements allow work to be performed before or after
standard working hours, as well as from alternative locations, such as an employee's
home. Flextime, compressed work weeks, job sharing, and telework, are commonly
accepted forms of flexible work arrangements (Duxbury & Haines; 1991; Friedman,
1990; Morgan and Milliken, 1992).
The degree of flexibility to coordinate work and nonwork demands has been
conceptualized as the key element in defining flexible work arrangements when relating
flexible working arrangements to employee attitudes and behaviors (Pierce, Newstrom,
Dunham, and Barber, 1989). This implies that the study of flexible work arrangements is
more complex than simply examining whether or not an employee uses a flexible work
arrangement. Rather, there may be varying degrees of flexibility that meet employee
preferences or needs, which may ultimately affect outcomes of the arrangement for both
the employer and the employee. Thus, unlike previous studies, the present research
conceptualizes flexible work arrangements on a continuum, rather than as isolated
dichotomous constructs that are either used or not used.
Figure 1. Work Arrangements on the Role Segmentation-Role Integration Continuum
(adapted from Rau and Hyland, 2002).
Flextime and
Compressed
Completely Work Week Completely
Segmented Roles Integrated Roles
Standard Telework
Work
Arrangement
Flextime
The concept of flextime allows employees to vary their work schedules, within certain
ranges and dimensions, according to their differing needs (Ronen, 1981). It focuses
exclusively on the work schedule. Flextime does not affect the total number of working
hours required or the location at which work is done. According to Rau and Hyland
(2002), who compared flextime and telework to a standard work arrangement on a
segmentation-integration continuum, flextime allows for slightly more integration of work
and home life than does a standard work arrangement due to increased temporal
flexibility in the boundaries between work and home. (See Figure 1.) For example, if a
parent wanted to be home at 3:30 p.m. to meet his child after school, a standard work
arrangement would not enable him to do so. However, using flextime, the parent could
begin work at 7 a.m. and finish work at 3 p.m. in time to meet his child.
Research on the work-related outcomes of flextime has not found flextime to be

unequivocally beneficial to organizations; however, most research suggests positive
effects on business outcomes. A meta-analysis of flextime studies found that
productivity increased when flextime was used; however, it did not find a significant
main effect of flextime on self-rated employee performance (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright,
& Neuman, 1999). Organizational commitment has been found to be positively related
to the availability of flextime (Scandura & Lankau, 1997) and turnover intentions have
been found to be negatively related to the use of flextime (Golembiewski & Proehl,
1978). Thus, some evidence for a positive effect of flextime on performance has been
found.
Compressed Work Week
The compressed work week condenses the hours in the standard work week into fewer
days (Ronen & Primps, 1981). The total number of hours required per week or month
usually remains the same. The rationale is similar to flextime in that it does not affect
the number of hours required or the work location. However, with the compressed work
week, there is no core time, which enables employees to work a greater number of
hours on certain days and then not work at all on other days. For example, on a four
day/40 hour schedule, an employee would work 10 hours per day for four days, and
then not have to work on the fifth day of that week. Although Rau and Hyland (2002) did
not include compressed work week arrangements on their proposed continuum, such
arrangements are similar to flextime in that they only increase the temporal flexibility
and do not affect the location of where the work is conducted. Therefore, like flextime,
they should be slightly closer to the integration end of the segmentation-integration
continuum than the standard work arrangement. (See Figure 1.)
Like the research for flextime, studies on compressed work weeks have found mixed
results. Ronen and Primps' (1981) literature review found improvements in productivity
and/or service for four of seven studies in which compressed workweeks were
implemented, while the remaining studies reported no change. A more recent study also
reported an increase in productivity (Vega & Gilbert, 1997). Pierce and Dunham (1992)
found no effect for compressed workweeks on organizational commitment; however, a
research review did find positive effects of compressed work weeks on job-related
attitudes like organizational commitment (Ronen & Primps, 1981). Although I am
unaware of a study that specifically examined the effects of compressed workweeks on
turnover, Latack and Foster (1985) did find reductions in sick time and personal leave
time as a result of implementing a compressed workweek schedule. Therefore, as with
flextime, there is some evidence of work-related benefits associated with compressed
workweeks.
Telework
Telework includes employees who work from home or another remote site, such as a
satellite office. The term is similar to telecommuting, which is working from home, but it
also includes working from such off-site locations as a hotel room or the local library.
Rau and Hyland (2002) place telework furthest towards the integration end of the
segmentation-integration continuum when compared to the standard work arrangement
and flextime. (See Figure 1.) This is due to the likelihood of both temporal flexibility
(determining when work is conducted) and spatial flexibility (conducting work from
various remote locations) being permitted under a teleworking arrangement.
Increases in productivity were reported in a review of telecommuting studies (Pitt-

Catsouphes & Marchetta, 1991) and in a recent natural experiment (Hill, Miller, Weiner,
& Colihan, 1998). However, using experimental design, Ramsower (1985) did not find
effects of telecommuting on productivity. I was unable to find a study that examined the
effect of telework on affective commitment; however, there are studies on turnover. One
such survey found improved retention of professional staff was a significant benefit for
firms offering telecommuting programs (Tomaskovic-Devey & Risman, 1993). However,
a statistically significant effect on turnover was not found by Ramsower (1985) in an
experimental study. Thus, there is some evidence of reduced turnover being associated
with telework.
Segmentation-Integration Preferences and Flexible Work Arrangements
The notion of preferring to segment work and home roles, rather than integrating them
has been proposed as an area for future research (e.g., Ashforth, et al., 2000). Such
preferences can be related to the use of flexible work arrangements, as individuals who
prefer integrating their work and home roles may benefit most from a work arrangement
that allows them a greater degree of integration. Kreiner (2002) uses a person-
environment (P-E) fit perspective to examine the effects of individual preferences for
segmentation and integration and what he refers to as workplace supplies on work-
family conflict, stress, and job satisfaction. The concept of P-E fit suggests that
attitudes, behavior, and other individual-level outcomes result from the relationship
between the person and his/her environment, rather than from either of the two
separately (Edwards, 1996). Although Kreiners workplace supplies are a general
aspect of the environment, rather than relating specifically to flexible work
arrangements, they tap into concepts related to segmentation that are associated with
flexible work arrangements (e.g., My workplace lets people forget about work when
theyre at home).
The present study uses a P-E fit perspective similar to that proposed by Kreiner (2002).
However, this research examines the fit between segmentation-integration preferences
and flexible work arrangements. Based on the P-E fit perspective, preferences for
segmenting work and home life (a personal characteristic) combine with the
environmental feature of being able to use a flexible work arrangement to affect
individual-level work outcomes. A model of the proposed relationships is depicted in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Proposed Model
Preference for
FLEXIBLE WORK Segmentation
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
ARRANGEMENT WORK OUTCOME
Flextime Performance
Compressed Affective
Workweek Commitment
Telework Turnover Intentions
Of all the flexible work arrangements previously listed, flextime is the most similar to a
standard work arrangement in the level of segmentation that it permits. Work and home
life are kept separate while an individual is fulfilling one of these roles, yet the timing
under which an individual can enact the role is flexible. Thus, an individual whose needs
are met with merely a schedule change is likely to be attracted to a flextime
arrangement. Likewise, P-E fit theory suggests that individuals who prefer segmentation
will fit well with using a flextime arrangement. This should result in positive effects on
performance and affective commitment, and negative effects on turnover when
individuals with a high preference for segmentation use flextime.
Given that most of the research on flextime suggests beneficial effects on work-related
outcomes, the hypotheses propose a positive main effect, and then a moderated
relationship of flexible work arrangements and preference for segmentation on these
work-related outcomes:
Hypothesis 1a: The relationship between flextime and individual performance will be
positive, with a strong positive effect for individuals with a high preference for
segmentation (low preference for integration) and with a weak positive effect for
individuals with a low preference for segmentation.
Hypothesis 1b: The relationship between flextime and affective commitment will be
positive, with a strong positive effect for individuals with a high preference for
segmentation (low preference for integration) and with a weak positive effect for
Hypothesis 1c: The relationship between flextime and turnover intentions will be
negative, with a strong negative effect for individuals with a high preference for
segmentation (low preference for integration) and with a weak negative effect for
A compressed work week allows for flexibility in the timing of work, much like flextime,
except that compressed workweeks vary the hours worked each day in order to reduce
the number of days worked per week. Still, when an individual is working, his work life is
kept separate from his personal life. Thus, an individual whose needs are met with a
schedule change that reduces the number of days worked each week is likely to be
attracted to and effective working under a compressed work week arrangement. As with
flextime, P-E fit theory suggests that individuals who prefer segmentation will fit well
with using a compressed workweek arrangement.
Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between compressed workweek and individual

performance will be positive, with a strong positive effect for individuals with a high
preference for segmentation (low preference for integration) and with a weak positive
effect for individuals with a low preference for segmentation.
Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between compressed workweek and affective

commitment will be positive, with a strong positive effect for individuals with a high
preference for segmentation (low preference for integration) and with a weak positive
Hypothesis 2c: The relationship between compressed workweeks and turnover

intentions will be negative, with a strong negative effect for individuals with a high
preference for segmentation (low preference for integration) and with a weak negative
Unlike flextime and the compressed work week, telework allows for deviations from the
standard work arrangement in terms of both the timing and the location of work. Thus,
telework falls closer to the integration end of the continuum. Following the P-E fit
perspective, individuals with a low preference for segmentation (high preference for
integration) will be most attracted to and most effective working under a telework
arrangement.
Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between telework and performance will be positive, with
a weak positive effect for individuals with a high preference for segmentation (low
preference for integration) and with a strong positive effect for individuals with a low
preference for segmentation.
Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between telework and affective commitment will be
positive, with a weak positive effect for individuals with a high preference for
segmentation (low preference for integration) and with a strong positive effect for
Hypothesis 3c: The relationship between telework and turnover intentions will be
negative, with a weak negative effect for individuals with a high preference for
segmentation (low preference for integration) and with a strong negative effect for
Method
Sample
Participants were 172 employees from eight organizations in Ireland. The organizations
were both public and private. Most were small organizations or a division of a larger
organization, such as a university. Of the participants, 76% were female, 35% arrange
for the care of at least one child, and 53% had a spouse or partner who works outside of
the home. The average age of the participants was 38 years. Forty-seven percent of the
participants classified their job level as clerical or support; eight percent as semi-
professionals; 26% as professionals or supervisors; and 16% as mid-level to upper
management (three percent gave no response to this question).
Procedures
The participating organizations were contacted by one of the researchers regarding the
study. The researcher explained that the study would consist of an anonymous
questionnaire that would be distributed to the employees at their work address and
would be returned directly to the researcher. Each participant received a packet
containing a letter from the principal researchers, a consent form, and a questionnaire.
One of the researchers went to each site to collect the completed questionnaires.
Measures
Employee Performance. Individual employee performance was measured with a scale

developed by Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli (1997), with items added from Greenhaus,
Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990). This scale was chosen due to its focus on core
tasks, rather than citizenship behavior that may fall beyond basic task performance. For
the current study, the 5-point response scale for the first five items ranged from
1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. The four items from Greenhaus et al. (1990)
used a response format ranging from 1=unsatisfactory to 5=excellent. The overall
eleven item scale was found to have an inter-item reliability of .89.
Turnover Intentions. Four items used by Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) measured
turnover intentions. Responses to each item were made on a 5-point Likert type scale
(1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). The inter-item reliability for this scale was .91.
Affective organizational commitment. Affective organizational commitment was

measured using Meyer, Allen, & Smith's (1993) six item scale. For the current study,
responses to each item were made on a 5-point Likert type scale (1=strongly disagree,
5=strongly agree). The inter-item reliability for this scale was .82.
Flextime. Use of flextime was measured with a single item which read, Are you
currently using flextime? (an arrangement by which you can come to work and leave at
times other than the official start and end of the work day, without changing the total
number of hours worked from that of a standard work day). Responses were made on
a 6-point Likert scale (1= not at all, 2=occasionally, 3=less than 50% of the time,
4=more than 50% of the time, 5=most of the time, 6=all of the time).
Compressed work week. Use of a compressed work week was measured by a single
item which read, Are you currently using a compressed work week? (an arrangement
by which you come to work fewer than five days per week, without reducing the total
number of hours worked from that of a standard five day work week). Responses were
made on a 6-point Likert scale (1= not at all, 2=occasionally, 3=less than 50% of the
time, 4=more than 50% of the time, 5=most of the time, 6=all of the time).
Telework. Use of telework was measured using a single item which read, Are you
currently using teleworking? (an arrangement by which you work from a location other
than the standard work location. For example working from home or the local library).
Responses were made on a 6-point Likert scale (1= not at all, 2=occasionally, 3=less
than 50% of the time, 4=more than 50% of the time, 5=most of the time, 6=all of the
time).
Segmentation Preferences. Segmentation preferences were measured using Kreiners

(2002) four item scale (I dont like to have to think about work while Im at home; I
prefer to keep work life at work; I dont like work issues creeping into my home life; I
like to be able to leave work behind when I go home). Responses were indicated on a
5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). The inter-item reliability for
this scale was .78.
Analysis
Three sets of hierarchical ordinary least squares regression was used to test the
hypotheses. Gender, making childcare arrangements, and having a working spouse all
were considered as control variables. Preliminary analyses showed that only working
spouse had an association with any of the dependent variables. Therefore, working
spouse was the only control variable included in the regression models. The three
regression models were the same except for the dependent variable. In the first
regression model, employee performance was the dependent variable. In the second
model, turnover intentions were the dependent variable. In the third model, affective
commitment was the dependent variable. For all three models, in the first step of the
hierarchical regression analysis, the dependent variable was regressed on the control
variable and the three flexible work arrangements. In the second step, the main effect
for segmentation preferences was added. In the third step, the interactions between
segmentation preferences and the various flexible work arrangements were added.
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the primary variables in the study are
presented in Table 1. Flextime was the only flexible work arrangement to show a
significant relationship with any of the work-related outcomes. Interestingly, the effects
were not beneficial, as flextime was positively correlated with turnover intentions and
negatively correlated with affective commitment. Figure 3 shows a frequency
distribution for segmentation preferences. Although the responses are positively
skewed, there is variance, which suggests that individuals do indeed differ in their
preferences for segmenting and integrating work and family roles.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables (n=153)
Variable M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. 3.88 .53 (.89)

Employee
Performanc
e
2. Turnover 2.33 1.05 -.07 (.91)
Intentions
3. Affective 3.44 .77 .08 -.63** (.82)
Commitmen
t
4. Flextime 3.08 1.82 -.05 .17* -
.18*
5. Com. 1.20 .78 .07 .08 -.02 .16
Workweek
6. Telework 1.11 .48 .11 -.04 .07 - .05
.19*
7. Seg. 4.04 .81 -.01 .17* - .16* -.01 -.07 (.78)
Preferences .17*
7. Working .53 .14 -.27** .17* -.05 -.01 -.01 -.04
Spouse
Figure 3. Histogram of Responses to Segmentation Preferences
Segmentation Preferences
60
50
40
30
20
Frequency
10 Std. Dev = .81

Mean = 4.03
0 N = 179.00
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Results of the hypothesis tests are presented in tables 2 through 4. The first set of
hypotheses related to flextime. Hypothesis 1a predicted that for individuals with a high
preference for segmentation, individual performance would be higher when the
individual uses a high level of flextime. For individuals with a low preference for
segmentation (high preference for integration), individual performance was predicted to
be lower when the individual uses a high level of flextime. As can be seen in step 3 of
Table 2, this hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 1b predicted that for individuals
with a high preference for segmentation, affective organizational commitment would be
higher when the individual uses a high level of flextime. For individuals with a low
preference for segmentation (high preference for integration), affective organizational
commitment would be lower when the individual uses a high level of flextime. As shown
in Table 3, there were no significant interactions in this model; therefore, no support was
found for hypothesis 1b. Hypothesis 1c proposed that for individuals with a high
preference for segmentation, turnover intentions would be lower when the individual
uses a high level of flextime. For individuals with a low preference for segmentation
(high preference for integration), turnover intentions would be higher when the individual
uses a high level of flextime. As shown in Table 4, this interaction was not statistically
significant, thus no support was found for hypothesis 1c.
Table 2. Regression Predicting Employee Performance with Segmentation Preferences
as a Moderator (n = 156)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
b (1) (2) b (1) (2) b (1) (2)
Working Spouse .13 .13 .13 .13 .14 .13
(.08) (.08) (.08)
Flextime -.02 -.06 -.02 -.06 -.01 -.04
(.02) (.02) (.13)
Compressed Work Week .05 .07 .05 .07 -.60 -.84
(.06) (.06) (.35)
Telework .10 .10 .10 .10 .00 -.00
(.08) (.08) (.48)
Segmentation Preference .01 .01 -.20 -.31
(.05) (.19)
Flextime x Segmentation Pref. .00 -.01
(.03)
Compressed Work Week x .16 .96
Segmentation Pref. (.09)
Telework x Segmentation Pref. .02 .10
(.11)
Constant 3.69 3.65 4.50
R2 .04 .04 .06
Adjusted R2 .01 .01 .01
2
Change in R .00 .02
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses.
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 3. Regression Predicting Affective Organizational Commitment with Segmentation
Preferences as a Moderator (n = 159)
b (1) (2) b (1) (2) b (1) (2)
Working Spouse .23 .15 .23 .12 .24 .15
(.12) (.12) (.12)
Flextime -.07 -.16* -.06 .03 .04 .08
(.03) (.03) (.18)
Compressed Work Week -.01 -.01 -.01 .08 -.24 -.23
(.08) (.08) (.51)
Telework .06 .04 .05 .12 .71 .46
(.12) (.12) (.69)
Segmentation Preference -.16 .07* .02 .02
(.07) (.27)
Flextime x Segmentation Pref. -.02 -.25
(.04)
Compressed Work Week x .06 .23
Telework x Segmentation Pref. -.16 -.47
(.16)
Constant 3.47 4.11 3.34
R2 .06 .08* .09
2
Adjusted R .03 .05* .04
Change in R2 .02* .01
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 4. Regression Predicting Turnover Intentions with Segmentation Preferences as a
Moderator (n = 157)
b (1) (2) b (1) (2) b (1) (2)
Working Spouse -.52 - -.52 -.25** -.53 .16**
(.16) .26** (.16) (.16)
Flextime .08 .15 .07 .12 .11 .23
(.05) (.05) (.23)
Compressed Work Week .08 .06 .09 .07 1.25 .65
(.11) (.11) (.65)
Telework -.01 .-.01 -.01 -.00 -.02 .89
(.16) (.16) (.89)
Segmentation Preference .22 .17* .56 .35
(.10) (.35)
Flextime x Segmentation Pref. -.01 .06
(.06)
Compressed Work Week x -.29 .16
Telework x Segmentation Pref. .01 .21
(.21)
Constant 2.28 1.42 .04
R2 .10** .13** .15**
2
Adjusted R .08** .10** .10**
Change in R2 .03** .02**
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
The next set of hypotheses examined the compressed work week. Hypothesis 2b
proposed that for individuals with a high preference for segmentation, individual
performance will be higher when the individual frequently uses a compressed work
week, whereas for individuals with a low preference for segmentation, individual
performance will be lower when the individual frequently uses a compressed work
week. Table 2 shows the results for this hypothesis. There was a marginally significant
interaction of segmentation preferences with use of a compressed work week, which
suggests preliminary support for this hypothesis. Figure 4 depicts the nature of the
interaction, showing that indeed employee performance is highest when a compressed
work week is combined with high preferences for segmentation. Likewise, performance
decreases for individuals with low segmentation preferences when combined with high
use of a compressed work week. Thus, hypothesis 2a was marginally supported.
Hypothesis 2b proposed that for individuals with a high preference for segmentation,
affective organizational commitment would be higher when the individual frequently
uses a compressed work week, whereas for individuals with a low preference for
segmentation, affective organizational commitment would be lower when the individual
frequently uses a compressed workweek. Table 3 shows that there was no significant
interaction between compressed work week and segmentation preferences. Thus,
hypothesis 2b was not supported. Hypothesis 2c proposed that for individuals with a
high preference for segmentation, turnover intentions would be lower when the
individual frequently uses a compressed work week. For individuals with a low
preference for segmentation (high preference for integration), turnover intentions will be
higher when the individual frequently uses a compressed work week. Table 4 shows
that there was a marginally significant interaction in step 3, which suggests preliminary
support for this hypothesis. Figure 4 depicts the nature of the interaction. It shows that
for individuals with high segmentation preferences, turnover intentions go down when a
compressed work week is used. Likewise, for individuals with low segmentation
preferences, turnover intentions increase when a compressed work week is used. This
supports hypothesis 2c at a marginally significant level.
Figure 4.
Employee Performance under Low and

High Use of Compressed Work Week
Moderated by Segmentation Preferences
5
Low
Performance
4 Segmentation
Preferences
3
High
2 Segmentation
Preferences
1
Low CWW High CWW
Figure 5.
Turnover Intentions under Low and High Use of

Compressed Work Week Moderated by Segmentation
Preferences
5
Turnover Intentions
4 Low Segmentation
Preferences
3
High Segmentation
2 Preferences
1
Low CWW High CWW
The final set of analyses examined telework. Hypothesis 3a proposed that for
individuals with a high preference for segmentation, individual performance would be
lower when the individual frequently uses telework. For individuals with a low preference
for segmentation, individual performance would be higher when the individual frequently
uses telework. Step 3 in Table 2 shows that there was not a significant interaction of
telework and segmentation preferences; therefore hypothesis 3a was not supported.
Hypothesis 3b proposed that for individuals with a high preference for segmentation,
affective organizational commitment would be lower when the individual frequently uses
telework. For individuals with a low preference for segmentation, affective organizational
commitment would be higher when the individual frequently uses telework. Step 3 of
Table 3 shows that there was not a significant interaction of telework and affective
commitment. Thus, hypothesis 3b was not supported. Hypothesis 3c predicted that for
individuals with a high preference for segmentation, turnover intentions would be higher
when the individual frequently uses telework. For individuals with a low preference for
segmentation, turnover intentions would be lower when the individual frequently uses
telework. Step 3 of Table 4 shows that there was not a significant interaction between
telework and segmentation preferences. Thus, this hypothesis was not supported.
Discussion
This study examined the relationship between use of flexible work arrangements and
the work-related outcomes of employee performance, affective organizational
commitment, and turnover intentions while taking into consideration employees
preferences for segmenting their work life and home life. Boundary theory (Ashforth, et
al., 2000; Clark, 2000, Nippert-Eng, 1996) and P-E fit theory (Edwards, 1996) served as
a basis for hypothesizing that preferences for segmenting home and work life would
interact with individuals use of flextime, compressed work weeks, and telework to affect
employee performance, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intentions.
Following the approach advocated by Kreiner (2002), we proposed that a high degree of
fit between employee preferences and the type of work arrangement used would result
in employees with high affective organizational commitment and performance, as well
as low turnover intentions.
Empirical analysis using hierarchical OLS regression did not find support for most of the
hypotheses. The only two hypotheses to receive marginal support were hypothesis 2a
and 2c, both of which examined compressed work weeks. One possible reason for this
lack of findings is that fit between individuals use of a flexible work arrangement and
their preferences for segmenting work and home are not a major contributor to work-
related outcomes such as performance, affective commitment, and turnover intentions.
Work and home roles may have "asymmetrically permeable boundaries" (Pleck, 1977:
423), such that the home boundary is more easily disturbed than the work boundary.
This suggests that the outcomes most closely related to segmentation preferences and
flexible work arrangements may be in the home realm, such as work-family conflict.
Employees work lives may not be as affected as much as their home lives by having a
good fit between their segmentation preferences and their flexible work arrangements.
Another possibility may be the measure of segmentation preferences. The items used
were those of Kreiner (2002) in a study of general segmentation preferences and
supplies. Given the more specific nature of the flexible work arrangements as a supply
provided by the organization to enable employees to better segment or integrate their
lives, perhaps the measure of preferences also should have focused more specifically
on issues directly related to flexible work arrangements. Another potential limitation of
this study is the fact that all of the data are self-reported. Although one might have
expected self-report bias to falsely inflate the relationship between flexible work
arrangements, segmentation preferences, and the various work-related outcomes, this
does not seem to be the case, as only two of the hypotheses were marginally
supported. Nonetheless, the fact that all of the data came from the employees
themselves should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Finally, the
relatively small sample size and a lack of variance may have limited the ability to detect
effects for the variables of interest. The measures for compressed workweek and
telework showed that most respondents used such arrangements occasionally or not at
all. Wider variance in these measures would increase the power to detect effects.
Organizations have been encouraged by practitioners and academics to foster more

integrative workplace policies such as flexible work arrangements (Kreiner, 2002). This
research, by illustrating that individuals differ in their preferences to integrate or
segment their work and non-work lives, suggests that when considering the
implementation of flexible work arrangements, organizations should not assume that all
such arrangements will be attractive and effective for all employees. With the exception
of compressed workweeks, this study did not find that a match in work arrangement and
preference for segmentation affected work-related outcomes. Given the previously
mentioned limitations to this study, further research is recommended to determine
whether the fit of an employee with his or her work arrangement should be taken into
account by an organization for performance purposes.
References
Apgar IV, M. (1998). The alternative workplace: Changing where and how people work.
Harvard Business Review, 76, 121-136.
Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a days work: Boundaries and
micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472-491.
Catalyst. (1997). A new approach to flexibility: Managing the work/time equation. New
York: Catalyst.
Di Martino, V. & Wirth, L. (1990). Telework: A new way of working and living.
International Labour Review, 129, 529-554.
Duxbury, L., & Haines, G. (1991). Predicting alternative work arrangements from salient
attitudes: A study of decision makers in the public sector. Journal of Business
Research, 23, 83-97.
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit
approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 292-339.
Friedman, D. E. (1990). Work and Family: The New Strategic Plan. Human Resource
Planning, 13, 79-89.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Proehl, C. W. (1978). A survey of the empirical literature on

flexible work hours: Characters and consequences of a major innovation. Academy of
Management Review, 3, 837-853.
Hicks, W., & Klimoski, R. J. (1981). The impact of flextime on employee attitudes.
Academy of Management Journal, 24, 333-341.
Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual
office on aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 667-683.
Kreiner, G. (2002). Boundary preferences and work-family conflict: A person-

environment fit perspective. Paper presented at the 2002 Academy of Management
annual meeting, Denver, Colorado.
Kropf, M. B. (1996). From policy to practice. HRMagazine, 41, 4, 88-92.
Latack, J. C. & Foster, L. W. (1985). Implementation of compressed work schedules:

Participation and job redesign as critical factors for employee acceptance. Personnel
Morgan, H., & Milliken, F. J. (1992). Keys to action: Understanding differences in

organizations' responsiveness to work-and-family issues. Human Resource
Management. 31, 227-248.
Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday

life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Olmsted, B. & Smith, S. (1997). Managing in a flexible workplace. New York: Amacom.
Pierce, J. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1992). The 12-hour work day: A 48-hour, eight-day
week. Academy of Management Journal. 35, 1086-1098.
Pierce, J. L., Newstrom, J. W., Dunham, R. B., & Barber, A. E. (1989). Alternative Work
Schedules. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Pleck, J. H. 1977. The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417-427.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M. & Marchetta, A. (1991). A coming of age: Telework. Boston: Boston
University, Center on Work and Family.
Ramsower, R. M. (1985). Telecommuting: The organizational and behavioral effects of

working at home. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.
Rau, B. L. & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The
effects on applicant attraction, Personnel Psychology, 55, 111-136.
Ronen, S. (1981). Flexible working hours: An innovation in the quality of work life. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Ronen, S. (1984). Alternative work schedules: Selecting, implementing, and evaluating.

Homewood, IL: D. Jones-Irwin.
Ronen, S. & Primps, S. B. (1981). The compressed work week as organizational

change: Behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 61-
74.
Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility

and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18, 377-391.
Schein, V. E., Maurer, E. H., & Novak, J. F. (1977). Impact of flexible working hours on
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 463-465.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Risman, B. J. (1993). Telecommuting innovation and

organization: A contingency theory of labor process change. Social Science Quarterly,
74, 367-385.
Vega, A. & Gilbert, M. J. (1997). Longer days, shorter weeks: Compressed work weeks
in policing. Public Personnel Management, 26, 391-402.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 82-111.
Stadium Foods Company
Stephen J. Skripak
Introduction
Stadium Foods Company (SFC) is a manufacturer of processed meat products located

in Pittsburgh. SFC was launched in 1962 by the Booth family, who purchased a
bankrupt company to gain access to existing manufacturing scale. SFC used the wide
appeal of sports and the clear consumer tie-in of hot dogs to sporting events to build its
Stadium frankfurter brand into one of the best known packaged meat products of the
1970s. A large consumer products company, Diversified Foods, had purchased SFC in
1986, after which the performance had steadily declined to the point where Diversified
had decided to fold the division into a sister company and eliminate the management
overhead. Diversified reversed course the day before the announcement was to have
become public, and brought in a new management team in the hopes of turning around
the performance of SFC.
Diversified Foods and the Processed Meats Industry
Diversified Foods competed in a variety of food product categories including frozen

dinners, bakery products such as bagels and frozen pies, and processed meats
products such as sliced and deli lunch meat, smoked and breakfast sausage, and
frankfurters. The processed meats segment of Diversifieds business consisted of ten
companies, most of which had been family businesses or had grown out of other small
startup companies. Several of their larger divisions competed across the full product
spectrum in processed meats, while others like SFC were specialized in a particular
product category, such as hot dogs or breakfast sausage. The divisions were managed
largely as autonomous companies, though Diversified did have executives at the top
level who worked with the divisions to coordinate strategies.
The processed meats industry consisted of Diversified Foods, a similarly sized

competitor called Roman Foods Company, and many smaller companies that
concentrated on a particular product category or a certain regional market. Roman
Foods produced and marketed the 4 Kids brand, which was the most dominant player in
the hot dog category. Like Diversified, Roman Foods had other products which were
strong players in the other processed meats categories. The industry was considered
mature, since with the exception of a few small new categories such as snack lunch
meat, sales growth ranged from 0% to 2% annually.
The processed meats industry was fairly price-sensitive, though the establishment of a
strong brand identification combined with excellent product quality allowed certain
products, such as the Stadium and 4 Kids brands in hot dogs, to achieve premium
status and command a correspondingly higher price. Brand advertising was a key in
many product categories. Hot dogs in particular were often an impulse purchase
consumers were observed to buy more hot dogs after seeing advertising for the
product, even if it item was not on their original shopping list.
Many of the products in the processed meats category were very seasonal in their sales
patterns. For example, breakfast sausage sold particularly well in the winter months
when people were more likely to prepare a hot breakfast for their families. Similarly, hot
dogs sold best during the warmer weather months, with exaggerated sales spikes
around the three summer holidays Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day.
The hot dog market was relatively fragmented, with Stadium and 4 Kids brands being
the only two products with true national distribution. Other brands were largely regional
players, though some were expanding towards a more national presence. Many
competitors of SFC offered a more complete line of processed meats products including
packaged and deli counter lunch meats, bacon, smoked sausage. Until recently
Diversified Foods had relied on SFCs sister divisions to compete in those categories.
The Stadium Foods Situation
For many years, Stadium Foods Company had competed exclusively in the hot dog
category. Its flagship Stadium brand products had enjoyed a rapid period of expansion,
supported by a national media campaign. In addition to the Stadium brand, SFC also
produced and sold hot dog products under the Grillers and Hi-Top brands. Grillers was
the companys first poultry frank, and Hi-Top was positioned as a low to mid-market
brand. Both brands had achieved market shares in the top ten within the hot dog
category.
As the Stadium brand became more prominent and the family had aged, the company
had become a prime acquisition target and was purchased by Diversified Foods in
1986. Diversified was one of the fastest growing companies in the food industry, and its
stock was a strong performer in the market. The company was well known for its
rigorous management processes that held executives strictly accountable for delivering
targeted profit performance.
Since the acquisition by Diversified, the performance of SFC had trailed off. Several key
executives left the company after receiving large bonuses when the company was sold,
and two new management teams had failed to achieve their targets and were fired. In
fact, since the acquisition, profits had steadily declined from their historical highs.
Recently, several new products had been introduced in an attempt to compete more
broadly across the packaged meats spectrum. New products included Stadium lunch
meats, Grandpas hams and Quickee Weenies, a microwavable frank in a bun targeted
at children. The new product launches had been reviewed with the top executives at
Diversified, but had met with a lukewarm reaction. Diversified was concerned that SFCs
brands would not extend well into these categories, and also that the corporation
already had sufficient presence in these markets from its other processed meats
divisions. However, in the spirit of autonomy, SFC had been allowed to proceed with
these introductions.
In 1996, profits reached a five-year low, and with a few months left in the year,
Diversified had decided to fold SFC into another division to realize the savings of
eliminating SFC headquarters personnel. For the past three years, Diversified had set a
pre-tax profit target of $15 million for SFC, although it was their desire to achieve annual
profit growth of 10-15%.
Just before the press release announcing the headquarters closure was to have gone
public, Diversified decided instead to try one more executive change to revive the
company. Brad Witherspoon was appointed division president, and shortly thereafter,
he dismissed the chief financial officer Sara Betz, choosing Ronnie Ortiz, the CFO of a
smaller Diversified division, as her replacement. Ortiz had been credited with
orchestrating a turnaround at his previous division. In Ortiz second month on the job, he
discovered several problems with the companys accounting practices. Ortiz informed
Witherspoon that the corrections would require a catch-up in overhead and
maintenance expenses of approximately $2 million, and that with only three months to
go in the year, it was clear that SFC would once again fall short of its corporate profit
target. Witherspoon smiled and said, Well Ronnie, youre going to have to tackle this
one without me. I just accepted the CEO job at a big bread company. Pittsburgh is just
too darn cold for me and my family.
Diversifieds CEO and corporate CFO called Ortiz a few days later. The CEO told Ortiz,
Look, were going to get a new president in there as soon as we can, but the search
process could take months. None of the obvious internal candidates want to come to
Pittsburgh, or frankly to take the career risk of coming to SFC. We can absorb the
accounting issues youve found so far and still make this years corporate targets, but
youve GOT to get this thing figured out in time for us to get back on track for next year.
Were looking to you to be in charge, but we cant announce it that way or the rest of the
team may start leaving. Let us know how we can help.
Ortiz had already begun a detailed analysis of the companys declining profitability, and
he quickly accelerated the completion of this effort. He realized that coming up with a
successful turnaround strategy before the arrival of the new president could greatly
accelerate his career at Diversified, but he also knew that several management teams
had tried before and failed. SFCs other vice-presidents were resentful that Ortiz had
been made the de-facto president and were only politely cooperative in responding to
his questions.
Ortiz believed that the solution to the companys problems lay in the market and
financial data he had compiled. A complete summary of the facts he gathered is shown
on pages 3 and 4 (1996 reflects the latest division estimate before correction of the
identified accounting issues). Ortiz decided it was up to him to deliver a new SFC
strategic plan to the corporation in two months, before the arrival of a new division
president.
Table 1. Historical P&L Data for Stadium Foods
SFC Income Statement

($ millions) 1994 1995 1996
Sales $134.5 $141.0 $154.0

Product Costs 89.2 94.6 105.8
Promotional Expenses 16.0 17.0 19.4
Media Advertising 11.0 10.0 7.2
Major Plant Repair Exp 3.0 4.0 6.0
Administrative Overhead 6.2 7.2 8.0
Net Income Before Tax $9.1 $8.2 $7.6
Table 2. 1996 Hot Dog Market Share, Pricing and Perception Statistics
Avg Price/Lb Market Brand Quality

at Retail Share Recognition Perception % Sold on
(Nationally) Dollar Basis (1) (2) Promotion
Brands of Diversified
Co.
Stadium Brand 1.88 6.8% 34% 88 49%
Hi-Top 1.26 2.1% 8% 41 68%
Grillers 1.03 1.3% 6% 39 68%
Big South 1.52 3.6% 10% 69 61%
Other Key Brands
4 Kids 2.14 21.2% 35% 73 38%
Dude Ranch 1.49 5.1% 11% 54 59%
Star Of David 2.99 2.7% 13% 96 24%
(1) % of consumers who recall product when mentioned

(2) Rated 1-100 by consumers recognizing the product
Table 3. SFC Product Cost Information (last 12 Month average)
Direct
Product Manufacturing
Cost/lb Overhead/lb Total Cost/lb
Stadium Franks 0.60 0.20 0.80

Stadium Lunch Meats 1.22 0.40 1.62
Hi-Top 0.45 0.13 0.58
Grillers 0.31 0.09 0.40
Grandpa's Hams 1.62 0.52 2.14
Quickee Weenies 1.01 0.44 1.45
Note - Overhead rates are not equal since some products are manufactured
at SFC's sister division plants and carry the rates of those facilities
Table 4. 1996 Product Sales Information
Annual Sales In Lbs (mm) In Dollars (mm)
Stadium Franks 65.0 $87.4

Stadium Lunch Meats 2.5 $4.7
Hi-Top 40.0 $30.4
Grillers 35.0 $17.0
Grandpa's Hams 5.0 $12.5
Quickee Weenies 1.3 $2.0
Table 5. 1996 SFC Hot Dog Manufacturing Capacity Utilization
Winter Spring Summer Fall

Plant One (120 mm
lbs/yr) 48% 94% 91% 46%
Plant Two (80 mm/lbs/yr) 46% 92% 93% 48%
Note: 10 million pounds of product can be produced in advance using a "deep chill"
process. SFC has chosen not to utilize this approach because of a slight degradation
in product quality that results.
Other Diversified Foods plants have the capacity to produce up to 10 million pounds of
additional hot dog products for SFC, but not during the peak selling seasons.
Table 6. 1996 Promotional Rebates to Retailers ($mm)
Stadium Franks $8.0

Stadium Lunch Meats $0.9
Hi-Top $6.0
Grillers $2.9
Grandpa's Hams $1.2
Quickee Weenies $0.4
Note: New products incurred unusually high promotional costs due to "slotting"
fees paid to retailers in order to get the products into the stores. Whether a
product continued to be carried depended on its performance at retail.
Note: 1996 P&L reflects needed accounting adjustments and can be assumed to be an accurate forecast
of the final results for the year.

JBAM January 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JBAM January 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JBAM January 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

the Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management

January 2005 Vol. 6, No. 2

89 From the Editor

91 Organizational Citizenship Behavior and

109 Repatriation Adjustment Problems and the Successful Reintegration of Expatriates

161 Stadium Foods Company

Also, in a previous issue, I announced an agreement between the Journal of Behavioral

John Humphreys, Editor

Data from 136 supervisor-subordinate dyads indicated that Organizational Citizenship

Key words: organizational citizenship behavior, developmental experiences, role

Recently there has been a dramatic increase in research on organizational citizenship

At the organizational level, studies indicate that OCB is related to organizational

The willingness of supervisors to provide developmental experiences for their

It is important for employees to understand the consequences of engaging or not

Based on the above discussion, it can be hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1: OCB will be positively related to developmental experiences after

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between OCB and developmental experiences will be

Sample and Data Collection

Items measuring developmental experiences were included in the employee survey.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Summary Statistics and Correlations

Variable N Means SD IRP OCB Role Developmental

1. Task Performance 179 23.922 4.834 0.962

2. OCB 168 55.316 10.458 0.612** 0.899

Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01

Reliabilities are on the diagonal

Task Performance 0.081

Without Interaction With Interaction

Intercept 8.197** - 1.942

Task 0.091 0.092

OCB 0.068** 0.244**

Job Definition 3.172* 19.422**

R2 0.147 0.186 0.039

Adj.R2 0.128 0.161 0.033

One Standard Deviation One Standard Deviation

Slope 0.0346 0.145

Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01

Fig. 1. Interaction Plot For Role Definition

2 Broad Job Definition

As predicted, there was a positive relationship between OCB and developmental

The relationship between OCB and developmental experiences indicate that

Avenues for Future Research

Implications for Practice

OCB Scale Items

1. Defends the organization when other Moorman & Blakely, 1992

2. Shows pride when representing the Moorman & Blakely, 1992

3. Actively promotes organizations products Moorman & Blakely, 1992

4. Conserves and protects organizations Williams & Anderson, 1991

5. Keeps up with developments in the MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &

8. Shows genuine concern and courtesy Moorman & Blakely, 1992

14. Adheres to informal rules devised to Williams & Anderson, 1991

Allen, T. D. & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on

Barr, S. H. & Pawar, B. S. (1995). Organizational citizenship behavior: Domain

Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organization. In M. D.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship

Moideenkutty, U. (2000). Correlates and outcomes of organizational citizenship

Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. (1992). A preliminary report on a new measure of

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Organ, D. W. (1990). Motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In L.L.

OCB 0.068 0.244