Working abroad | 33
business; it?s how rising leaders advance into the senior ranks. Those who decline may be perceived to lack ambition and drive, and they may pay a price for that. While we are just beginning to collect hard data on career outcomes, research shows that employees often feel pressured into saying yes. They worry that refusing to be sent overseas will prevent them from getting ahead, or at least slow their careers considerably. Even if you feel able to decline an expatriate assignment at the moment, doing so can derail your career down the line.
"FAMILY CONCERNS ARE THE TOP REASON FOR EXPAT ASSIGNMENT REFUSAL, FOLLOWED BY CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAILING PARTNER?S CAREER."
Given all the challenges, it?s not surprising that expats are more likely to succeed ? that is, to adjust to living and working overseas and to be engaged at work ? if they are given the flexibility to accept or decline the assignment in the first place. But what happens when people actually say no? Turning down an international posting can have negative consequences, especially early in one?s career, when family considerations are assumed to be less of an issue. Many companies expect their aspiring leaders to work abroad. It?s how their executives develop the skills to lead across cultures and learn the inner workings of a global
In a recent theoretical article, we examined the reasons employees turn down expatriate assignments. We suggested that the career consequences depend on the employee?s psychological contract with the organization, the implied, unwritten agreement about what is expected of each party. During recruitment and hiring, job seekers may never be told explicitly that working abroad is required for advancement. Nonetheless, in companies with operations that span the globe, it?s often assumed that the corporate ladder includes one or more rungs in international locations. It?s part of the psychological contract. And when employers feel that someone has breached that contract, they may respond by decreasing the personal support and mentoring given to the employee and by providing fewer career development opportunities. The personal exchange
relationship between the supervisor and the employee is likely to suffer as well. However, we argue that the way an organization responds to expatriate refusal often hinges on why the contract has been broken. It depends on whether employees are unwilling to go, are unclear about the terms of the psychological contract, or are unable to relocate because of personal circumstances. Here?s how the implications differ. UNWI L L I NGNESS As you might expect, an organization?s response is likely to be the most negative when employees simply refuse to work abroad. For example, if a young, single manager working in Dallas turns down an assignment at a branch in London solely because he does not want to live outside the U.S. ? if no other factors are getting in the way, and the manager seems to understand that expat stints are generally expected of aspiring leaders in the company ? his decision to say no will probably be viewed as a lack of commitment and a breach of the psychological contract. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. Employees who have demonstrated their dedication and ?paid their dues? in other ways may be able to say no without penalty. In general, though, it?s best to avoid saying that you just don?t want to relocate. M I SCOM M UNI CATI ON In an earlier study we found that supervisors and subordinates frequently fail to see eye to eye regarding the terms of the psychological contract or the reasons a breach occurred. For instance, during recruitment and hiring, applicants who are told about international assignments may see them as an opportunity rather than a requirement. However, when the firm has extensive global operations, and WWW.EXPATSWORLD.COM