Never enough? A psychological contract perspective on migrants' efforts at local-language acquisition in work-related contexts

Language is known to be a prominent challenge for migrants within their host country's labour market (e.g. Farashah et al., 2023; Fitzsimmons et al., 2020; Tharenou and Kulik, 2020), but the details remain obscure. Migrants likely face similar constraints as identified by international business (IB) research on languages in other contexts, in that opportunities for professional growth tend to be related to work-relevant language skills (e.g. Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Vaara et al., 2005; Peltokorpi and Vaara, 2012; Tenzer et al., 2017), and the lack of such skills can severely constrain career progress (Śliwa and Johansson, 2014; Aichhorn and Puck, 2017; Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2023). Nevertheless, few studies have considered the lived experiences of migrants themselves (seeLi et al., 2020; Selmer and Lauring, 2015) or the specific language-related challenges they encounter at work, so it remains largely unexplored how migrants interpret a host country's language demands, evaluate the implications of such demands, and decide whether and how to engage with them.

We approach this lacuna from the theoretical premise that migrants develop a psychological contract (PC) with the host country. The PC concept refers to “an individual's beliefs about the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and another party” (Rousseau, 1989, p. 123). PCs are often implicit and not necessarily reciprocal in the sense that both parties have accepted the same contract terms (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). Nevertheless, the focal individual believes that a PC exists in relation to the host country. If a migrant's hopes and expectations from the migration process remain unfulfilled, this PC may be broken, potentially leading to disappointment, resentment, and other negative feelings toward the host country. Such feelings may lead to negative consequences, such as withdrawal or radicalization. Understanding these patterns better and determining to what extent they are driven by work-related linguistic challenges (e.g. Buckley et al., 2017) is therefore a crucial issue, not just for migrants themselves but also for their current and future employers and their host societies.

Local-language skills may be demanded by employers even when they are not needed for a particular job, raising critical questions about the actual motivations behind such requirements (Back and Piekkari, 2024), so it is important to learn about their consequences. Finland serves as a theoretically relevant context for studying our topic, because the Finnish language is unique to the country and widely considered difficult to learn, unlike English, which is broadly spoken as a second language. This combination creates an extreme situation: migrants who speak English can initially get by without learning Finnish, but ultimately encounter limitations to employment and career development, resulting in a “trap” where further opportunities depend on sufficient knowledge of a language that requires considerable effort to learn but has limited international utility.

This paper examines migrants' reasoning about host-country language learning as part of their broader integration experience. Drawing on PC theory, it focuses on how migrants form implicit effort-and-reward expectations and how these evolve over time. Our aim is to use the psychological contract (PC) lens to generate a typology of migrant positions with regard to learning the host country's language and explicate the pathways leading to these positions, with a focus on work-related outcomes. Our research question is twofold: What subgroups can be identified among Asian migrants in Finland with regard to host-country language skills, and how can these subgroups be explained from a PC perspective? Answering this question helps develop theory on migrant integration while providing practical guidance for migrants as well as for host societies where English is commonly spoken but is not an official language.

To answer the research question, we employed a sequential mixed-methods design (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2006; Fetters and Molina-Azorin, 2017) that combines quantitative survey data and qualitative interviews with Asian migrants in Finland. The survey data were used to construct a typology for language-learning positions, while the interviews provided deeper insight into the motivations and reasoning behind these positions. The analysis was grounded in PC theory and guided by an interest in the relational dynamics between migrants and host institutions.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. We first review the relevant literature for migrants' language use in professional life. We then provide a contextualized account of the empirical setting, including explaining why the data collection had a strong, albeit not exclusive, focus on South Asian migrants. This is followed by a detailed presentation of the typology derived from our analysis. We conclude by discussing the implications of the findings and offering recommendations for policies and practices for host-country integration.

Language plays a central, albeit not always understood, role in shaping migrants' experiences in IB contexts. This review of the relevant literature is structured into two parts: The first examines language proficiency as it relates to migrants' overall experiences in IB contexts, with particular attention paid to tensions between expectations on local-language skills, as opposed to English skills, in non-Anglophone host countries. The second relates the PC concept to host-country language proficiency and argues why this lens is appropriate for understanding how migrants interpret and respond to language demands as part of a broader set of perceived obligations and exchanges.

Previous research has emphasized that migrants enter host societies with diverse levels of language proficiency. While some arrive fluent in the local language(s), others possess little or no ability. Between these extremes lies a broad spectrum of linguistic competencies, including varying degrees of familiarity with the local language or a widely spoken lingua franca, such as English. These competencies combine with broader professional qualifications in profoundly shaping migrants' employment trajectories after arrival. Access to meaningful work is significantly influenced by how well these qualifications align with local labour market demands and which languages are institutionally accepted, promoted, or resisted (Henry, 2016; Harrison et al., 2019). These dynamics underscore a key insight from language-sensitive IB research, namely that language is never neutral but rather always embedded within broader societal, legal, and institutional contexts (Brannen et al., 2014; Karhunen et al., 2018; Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2023). In this context, institutional factors refer to formal systems and policies (Hendry, 2003) that structure migrants' access to rights and opportunities. These include immigration rules tied to language proficiency, residence or work permit conditions, recognition of foreign qualifications, and the accessibility of integration services, such as employment support or language training. Prior studies have found that migrants interpret these institutional signals as part of a broader exchange with the host society, thus shaping their sense of fairness, trust, and belonging (Morgan and Finniear, 2009; Beacco et al., 2017; Haak-Saheem et al., 2023).

IB research often highlights tensions between English and host-country languages, particularly for roles that navigate linguistic boundaries. In such contexts, English is often seen by managers as offering “a level playing field” or “the only practical solution” to communication challenges (Tietze, 2004; Vaara et al., 2005). At the same time, individuals who are more firmly situated within the local context tend to “defend their language,” and this may be interpreted by “outsiders” as exclusionary (e.g. Gaibrois, 2018). These contrasting positions reflect broader societal-level language ideologies (i.e. shared collective language beliefs within social groups) that manifest in everyday interactions at both the individual and organizational levels (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2023). In line with some of these ideologies, host countries may impose explicit local-language requirements on migrants through work permits, permanent residency, or citizenship. Meanwhile, the availability and quality of language-support services offered by the host society affects migrants' ability to meet these requirements. These legal obligations and structural support mechanisms together influence how migrants evaluate the potential benefits of learning the local language, especially when weighed against the costs involved.

English plays a dominant role as the world's most-spoken second language and the undisputed lingua franca of global business (Crystal, 2003; Nickerson, 2005), such that it is “used as a ‘neutral’ and shared communication code (…) within the global business discourse community” (Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005, p. 402). IB research often draws on data from large multinational enterprises whose senior executives tend to position themselves as proponents of English (Tietze, 2004), further legitimizing and elevating the language's status within organizational hierarchies. There is strong empirical support for the idea that English fluency significantly benefits individuals on certain career trajectories (Neeley et al., 2012; Peltokorpi, 2023). As the lingua franca of IB and the primary corporate language of many large Western firms (Tenzer et al., 2017), English facilitates access to a wide array of professional environments and global opportunities. Additionally, a considerable number of educational pathways, especially executive education programmes, are conducted in English, reinforcing its role as “the language of the global elite” and offering entry into influential social spaces. In the global “hierarchy of languages” (Phillipson, 1992), English holds a consistently elevated position. Furthermore, in many non-Anglophone contexts, English proficiency is not merely advantageous but effectively a requirement in sectors like technology, finance, and international trade.

While English fluency offers clear advantages in certain industries, especially at more advanced career stages, we should consider what is typically required to reach such levels in non-Anglophone contexts. Migrants often begin their professional life in a firm or sector at lower-level roles, where the local language is much more salient. At these early stages, the literature underscores the critical importance—and in many cases, dominance—of local language skills. Even in multinational enterprises with English as the official corporate language, local language proficiency remains essential for navigating regional operations (Barner-Rasmussen and Aarnio, 2011). This reliance tends to be even stronger in smaller companies (Talukder and Barner-Rasmussen, 2024) and public sector roles like healthcare and regional government, where local language competency is often a legal requirement.

It is also important to note that even when English can be used, it does not solve all migrants' language-related problems. What sociolinguists have termed “linguistic discrimination”, and what Wilmot and Tietze (2020, p. 51) describe in the IB context as a tendency to distance oneself from “linguistic others”, still applies. Migrants who speak English in ways that are perceived as heavily accented or less fluent, despite merely reflecting different linguistic norms, may find that their skills and competencies are undervalued, resulting in underemployment driven by assumptions about their language proficiency.

In short, the need to acquire host-country language skills becomes pressing for migrants who lack the linguistic resources to directly enter high-level roles where English is the norm or who are entering industries where English is not widely used. Coupled with the fact that local fluency is needed to avoid “othering” and remain competitive in the labour market, this poses challenges that are often experienced by migrants as insurmountable (e.g. Eijberts and Ghorashi, 2017). This also means that analyses of the role language plays in shaping migrant employment outcomes must be context-specific, because migrants make context-specific assessments about the expected return on investment in host-country language learning. Such calculations are not made in a vacuum.

As Pozzo (2022) notes, migrants often find themselves facing a “double-edged sword”: Mastering the local language may be vital to gaining social and professional acceptance, but it can be difficult to the extent that linguistic integration feels out of reach, leading to a search for alternatives. Young refugees in the Netherlands who struggle with Dutch turn instead to English, embracing alternative identities that appear more attainable and desirable, such as “expatriates” or “international students” (Pozzo, 2022). Such choices then shape how they engage with the host society's integration regimes and influence their willingness to comply with its expectations. Thus, understanding how migrants navigate the linguistic demands of their new environments requires accounting for the layered dynamics of these contexts (i.e. legal frameworks, labour market needs, societal attitudes and language ideologies, and perceived pathways to inclusion) with a particular focus on how migrants themselves perceive and interpret these layers.

A psychological contract (PC) is defined as an individual's beliefs about the terms of a reciprocal exchange between themselves and an organization or institution (Rousseau, 1995, 2003). It offers a valuable conceptual framework for understanding how migrants interpret and respond to expectations about host-country language learning (HCLL).

PC theory has long been applied to employment contexts, particularly in organizational behaviour and HRM research, where it has informed studies on trust, adjustment, and perceived fairness in the workplace (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002; Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). To explore its reach within IB, we conducted a structured bibliometric analysis across Web of Science and Scopus through a focused Boolean query ^[1] that combined “psychological contract” with terms linked to international work, global mobility, and integration. This search yielded 59 unique peer-reviewed articles published between 1999 and 2025 in various journals that feature IB-related work. In addition, we reviewed leading IB journals (Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, and International Business Review) to provide an overview of how psychological contracts have been addressed in the field, albeit in a limited context.

Although these sources cover a wide range of IB-relevant domains, PC theory remains largely conceptually anchored in international HRM, particularly talent management and expatriate adjustment (e.g. Wang, 2023; Chi and Chen, 2007; De Ruiter et al., 2018; McNulty and De Cieri, 2016; Pate and Scullion, 2018; Farndale et al., 2014; Kim, 2023); cross-cultural management, particularly culturally specific logic (e.g. Simosi, 2013; Ravlin et al., 2012; Welch and Welch, 2006; Zaidman and Elisha, 2016); subsidiary and knowledge management, particularly repatriate reintegration and knowledge flows (e.g. Millar and Choi, 2009; Horng and Chen, 2008); and supplier relationship management, especially in post-acquisition and supply chain contexts (e.g. Holland and Scullion, 2021; Wei et al., 2021; Kahiya and Butler, 2022; Abe et al., 2021; Leonidou et al., 2017).

We also identified a smaller group of studies pointing to the broader, more socially embedded applications of PC. These include analyses where psychological contracts are framed not only within the employer–employee relationship but also in relation to national institutions, host-country norms, and collective expectations (Bari et al., 2019; Bueechl and Pudelko, 2018; Chow et al., 2021; Hendry, 2003; Ramirez et al., 2015). These studies suggest that PC expectations may also be shaped by cross-border governance, symbolic recognition, and institutional trust, especially in contexts involving migration or intercultural negotiation. This resonates with recent migration literature that argues that migrants form PCs not just with employers but also with host-country institutions and society more broadly (Morgan and Finniear, 2009; Haak-Saheem et al., 2023; Casado and Caspersz, 2023).

Although limited in scope, this conceptual opening provides support for our application of PC theory to migrants' reasoning about host-country language learning and integration. For example, Guest et al. (2010) argued that language learning should be viewed as being central to PC formation, because it directly informs how migrants perceive fairness, opportunity, and social inclusion. Within this framework, host-country language expectations, whether explicitly mandated through legal or integration requirements or conveyed through societal norms, are often perceived by migrants as conditions for accessing valued outcomes like employment, residency, or citizenship. Thus, migrants may invest in HCLL to fulfil their perceived obligations under the expectation that this effort will be rewarded with opportunities, recognition, and acceptance.

When this perceived exchange is disrupted—such as through unacknowledged effort, discriminatory practices, opaque credentialing systems, and/or shifting policy landscapes—migrants may perceive a breach of contract (Conway and Briner, 2006; Abdullah, 2017). In such cases, fulfilling language requirements has not yielded the anticipated outcomes, leading to frustration, withdrawal from learning, or broader disillusionment with the integration process. Acar and Erozan (2024) showed that when professional development expectations remain unmet despite linguistic investment, migrants often disengage from further integration.

Significantly, migrants do not interpret these obligations uniformly. Some approach language acquisition through a transactional lens, a tool for securing employment or services, while others see it as a gesture of commitment and respect aimed at building trust and gaining long-term inclusion (Robinson et al., 1994; Rousseau et al., 2018). Nevertheless, both these orientations are susceptible to breaches when migrants feel that their linguistic efforts are not being recognized or rewarded (Beacco et al., 2017). Such breaches are particularly acutely felt among migrants who assumed that English would suffice for career mobility, only to encounter unanticipated language thresholds and institutional barriers (Abdullah, 2017). Even when local-language fluency is achieved, hidden breaches may still manifest, especially when native-speaker bias or non-recognition of foreign qualifications limits access to opportunities (Haak-Saheem et al., 2023; Casado and Caspersz, 2023).

Responses to breaches vary. Some migrants may disengage entirely from formal learning and integration, while others may adjust their expectations or persist with alternative forms of motivation (Rousseau, 2003; Solinger et al., 2016). Community support, peer networks, and informal learning environments often play a crucial role in sustaining motivation when institutional pathways are perceived as being unfair or ineffective (Beacco et al., 2017; Norton, 2013; Dörnyei, 2009). According to Solinger et al. (2016), recovering from a breach depends not just on individual resilience but also institutional cues (e.g. clarity, accessibility, and perceived goodwill) that signal a renewed commitment to supporting migrants' development.

Moreover, the PC surrounding HCLL is shaped on the individual, organizational, and institutional levels (Laulié et al., 2023). Migrants' language expectations are influenced not just by employers but also government policies, language-related laws, and dominant social narratives about what integration should entail. Institutional-level breaches—such as inconsistent messaging, shifting eligibility rules, or rigid language norms—may undermine trust, particularly when they contradict migrants' expectations of meritocratic reciprocity (Morgan and Finniear, 2009). Even those who enter with clear, instrumental goals may find themselves adjusting their understanding of what language learning offers, as well as what it demands, when faced with structural exclusion dynamics.

Thus, HCLL is not just a formal requirement or technical skill but also a core element of the PC between migrants and the host society. Migrants often interpret language learning as part of an implicit agreement whereby personal investment yields access, recognition, and acceptance. When institutions meet these expectations through transparent pathways, supportive infrastructures, and cultural responsiveness, language learning becomes a meaningful vehicle for integration. In contrast, when these expectations are unmet, HCLL becomes a source of frustration, perceived injustice, and potential withdrawal. Taken together, these perspectives provide the conceptual basis for our study design, which explores migrant reasoning about HCLL in relation to perceived obligations and opportunities in the Finnish context.

This study responds to calls for language-sensitive IB to better incorporate Asian perspectives (e.g. Tenzer et al., 2017) by focusing on the experiences of Asian, especially South Asian ^[2], migrants in Finland, a post-industrial EU member state where English is widely used but not an official language. Historically, Finland has had low immigration and dominant local languages, particularly Finnish, the first language of 95% of the population. This situation is now being reshaped due to acute labour shortages linked to population ageing and declining birth rates (OSF, 2024), resulting in increased immigration, which remains the subject of intense political debate. Later in this section, we provide a more detailed contextual overview of this setting and its implications for migrants.

South Asia is home to over 1.8 billion people, so we are naturally careful not to generalize, even for this subgroup of Asians. The South Asian focus is appropriate for our purposes, however, because English proficiency is widespread among urban and educated populations in the region. Existing research also suggests that South Asian migrants may perceive PCs particularly strongly in relation to employment conditions and institutional obligations (Abdullah, 2017). Their expectations are often shaped by cultural values that emphasize stability, relational commitment, and perceived fairness. South Asians also represent a significant and growing migrant group in Finland (OSF, 2024), adding to the practical relevance of our study.

The methodological idea behind this exploratory study was to use statistical methods to identify clusters in a quantitative data set with maximal diversity and then follow up and interpret these clusters based on in-depth qualitative interviews with individuals from each cluster. We collected data from Asian migrants with an emphasis on, but not exclusively limited to, South Asians (see Table 1). Our goal was not to achieve statistical representativity, which would be impossible given the huge populations of Asia and South Asia, but rather a diverse sample in terms of migrant experiences in Finland to cover a wide range of positions on HCLL. The interviews were conducted with South Asians partly based on respondent availability combined with the first author's South Asian heritage and fluency in relevant languages facilitating an insider's view of each cluster (cf. Welch and Piekkari, 2006; Tenzer et al., 2017). Overall, attention was paid to how migrants actively redefine their own identities and draw conclusions about what is best for them and their careers based on what a host country offers and requires. This forms a key part of the migrant-centred perspective adopted in this paper.

A sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2006) was applied. We first collected quantitative data through a questionnaire to statistically generate a typology of positions among Asian migrants with regard to learning Finnish in the context of work-related outcomes. We then interviewed 31 questionnaire respondents to explore these positions in depth to help explain the underlying paths from a PC perspective. The following subsections detail the implementation of each phase and highlight the key insights gained from the analysis.

For the quantitative data collection, we collaborated with a regional Finnish non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to supporting recent Asian migrants in their integration process. After extensively discussing the objectives of our research, the organization provided access to a database of migrants who had recently sought assistance. While our primary interest lay in the intersection of language acquisition and integration, the NGO was also interested in understanding the role of both governmental and non-governmental services in supporting migrant adaptation in Finland.

The initial survey was structured around three thematic blocks: demographic background, language learning and professional integration, and perceptions of institutional support. Demographic items covered age, gender, country of origin, duration of residence in Finland, education level, and employment status. Language-related questions included self-rated Finnish proficiency, participation in language-training programmes, and the perceived effectiveness of these programmes for personal and professional integration. To ensure accessibility, items were phrased in simple English with short, direct wording (e.g. “Your Finnish language proficiency?”, “Have you participated in any language training programmes since arriving in Finland?”, “How effective was the language training in helping you integrate?”). Most closed-ended items used either five-point Likert scales (e.g. from “Not at all” to “Very much”) or multiple-choice response formats. Institutional perception items assessed satisfaction with public services such as TE Services (public employment and economic development office), Kela (social insurance institution), and DVV (Digital and Population Data Services Agency), as well as healthcare, education, job opportunities, and entrepreneurship support. Respondents were also asked whether they felt Finland offered meaningful social and cultural integration opportunities, as well as which institutions had influenced their integration experience. Open-ended questions invited migrants to describe key challenges in accessing services, share their personal experiences of inclusion or exclusion, and offer suggestions for improving integration pathways. This structure provided a flexible yet accessible framework for understanding migrants' language learning and integration trajectories.

Prior to its actual deployment, the survey underwent a pilot study involving 13 participants who were selected to reflect the national diversity of the final sample (see Table 1). This ensured representation across different nationalities and a broad spectrum of experiences related to demographic factors, Finnish language proficiency, engagement with language programmes, integration difficulties, and satisfaction with available support services. The pilot study enabled the survey items to be evaluated for clarity, thus ensuring that respondents could comprehend and complete them within the estimated completion time.

The survey was administered in English under the assumption that participants possessed basic proficiency given its inclusion in the school curricula of many South Asian countries and its common usage in visa-related documentation for migrating to Finland. To enhance accessibility, the questionnaire was drafted in simple language to minimize the risk of linguistic barriers affecting participation.

Based on the pilot study, we refined the survey by further simplifying the language and reducing the number of questions from 32 to 26. The revised version was then distributed through email to 250 individuals identified through the supporting NGO. Some 206 responses were received over two weeks, with a response rate of 82.4% reflecting the significant interest in the topic among the target group. After removing incomplete responses, the sample comprised 201 participants. A detailed breakdown of nationalities within the sample is provided in Table 1.

A clear majority of the quantitative sample (77.6%, or 156 individuals) identified as South Asian as defined by the UN, with Indians being by far the largest national group. We subsequently focused our inquiry mainly, but not exclusively, on South Asians due to their dominance in the quantitative sample combined with the first author's South Asian heritage and fluency in relevant languages. South Asians are also a fast-growing immigrant group in Finland (OSF, 2024).

The questionnaire respondents were encouraged to provide contact details for further interviews. Among those who did, the first author interviewed some 31 migrants, mainly South Asian (24 from India, 1 from Sri Lanka, 2 from Pakistan, 1 from Vietnam, and 3 from Nepal) over two months in the summer of 2024. This resulted in 151 pages of transcripts with a total of 69,201 words. Interviewees were selected based on a combination of country of origin, interest in sharing their experiences of their relocation to Finland and the associated language challenges, and willingness to have their interviews recorded.

As with the quantitative survey, Indians were the largest group (see Table 1), but it is important to note that we did not seek for the qualitative sample to fully mirror the quantitative one, which was the outcome of sampling Asian respondents with serendipitous variation in nationality. The qualitative aspects of our methodology prioritized depth, nuance, and contextual richness above generalizability. Thus, while we made efforts to ensure representation across nations as well as the many large regions of India, roughly matching the quantitative sample within the bounds of participant availability, we prioritized diversity in interviewees' linguistic, educational, and professional backgrounds to ensure the dataset captured a broad range of lived experiences. Key integration challenges—such as language barriers, employment difficulties, and PC violations—were consistently reported across nationalities but varied within the Indian subsample, underscoring the broader relevance of the findings.

The semi-structured interviews took 30–59 min and focused on participants' views about the challenges and outcomes associated with their linguistic and professional integration. They were guided by a flexible thematic framework that allowed participants to narrate their experiences in their own terms. Although the phrasing of questions varied with the flow of each conversation, the interviews consistently explored language-learning trajectories, institutional support, and employment-related decision-making. Participants were asked to reflect on their first encounters with Finnish language expectations, the support they received or lacked, and how these experiences shaped their motivation to continue learning. Follow-up prompts explored whether they felt their efforts were recognized, what counted as fairness in institutional responses, and how language-related outcomes influenced their longer-term outlooks. These narratives formed the empirical basis for identifying the PC dynamics underpinning each of the five language-learner types detailed in our findings.

To capture detailed data, most interviews were conducted in the interviewee's preferred language (English, Nepali, or Hindi), all of which the first author speaks at a native level. Of the 31 respondents, 24 took the interview in Hindi, 3 in Nepali, and 4 in English. The first author's South Asian background helped build a shared understanding and rapport with the interviewees, thus ensuring accuracy and authenticity for the data (Welch and Piekkari, 2006). Interviews in Hindi or Nepali were translated into English for the wider research team's accessibility.

The overall analytical approach could be summarized as a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2006), such that quantitative analysis was followed by further exploration with the help of qualitative data (see Figure 1). This approach combines the ability to identify broad patterns through quantitative methods (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) with the capacity to capture diverse perspectives through qualitative methods (Molina-Azorin et al., 2017) with sensitivity to local contexts (Welch and Piekkari, 2006; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Van Maanen et al., 2007).

Our initial quantitative analysis investigated how language affects professional integration by identifying categorical associations between language proficiency, demographic characteristics, and professional integration. We then used individual-level data to perform a hierarchical cluster analysis focused on duration of stay and self-reported Finnish proficiency to identify respondent subgroups, as suggested by Hair et al. (2009). This revealed five main language-acquisition patterns and stages of professional integration among the respondents. In line with our explanatory sequential design (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2006), we then deepened these patterns through in-depth interviews to understand how demographic characteristics, language proficiency, and professional integration interacted at the individual level within each cluster. Additionally, the mixed-methods approach supported triangulating between individual experiences and the aggregated cluster-level questionnaire data (Fetters and Molina-Azorin, 2017).

It gradually emerged that the respondents viewed language skills as an investment. We confirmed and developed this insight by iterating between the different data dimensions, using the PC theoretical lens to ascertain why certain individuals had followed specific trajectories and what the consequences were. Epistemologically, this approach included both deductive elements based on prior literature and abductive insights that emerged from the data analysis (Van Maanen et al., 2007).

The questionnaire included a multiple-choice question asking participants to indicate all the challenges they had faced during their professional integration in Finland. A frequency-based analysis highlighted the most reported challenges as language proficiency barriers (194), lack of professional networks (139), unfamiliarity with the host culture (122), non-recognition of foreign credentials (104), workplace discrimination (59), and work permit issues (2). Language proficiency is therefore perceived as the most significant barrier to professional integration.

We then examined how Finnish language proficiency relates to migrants' backgrounds and integration outcomes. Table 2 shows that both migrants' starting point and integration outcomes shape their proficiency in the Finnish language. Indeed, strong associations emerged between proficiency and several key factors: duration of stay, employment status, integration satisfaction, and job satisfaction. While prior education also showed a link, its role was less decisive. Migrants with longer residence were more likely to have participated in Finnish language training, and those who were employed were more likely to report such training as useful.

After identifying associations between language proficiency and individual characteristics, our focus was narrowed to two key variables. The first was duration of stay in Finland, as categorized into five groups: less than a year (N = 32, 15.9%), 1–3 years (N = 101, 50.2%), 4–6 years (N = 43, 21.4%), 7–9 years (N = 15, 7.5%), or 10+ years (N = 10, 5%).

The second variable was self-reported Finnish proficiency according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2020). The CEFR categorizes linguistic competence into three broad levels—namely Basic user (A1–A2), Independent user (B1–B2), and Proficient user (C1–C2)—based on grammatical and lexical accuracy in the host language. Thus, 13 respondents (6.5%) identified as “proficient” (C1–C2), with 54 (26.9%) being “somewhat proficient” (B1–B2). Most (105 or 52.2%) classified themselves as “not proficient” (A1–A2). Finally, 29 (14.4%) reported “don't know, not at all proficient,” suggesting a level below A1.

We then used duration of stay and the self-reported Finnish language proficiency to identify subgroups through hierarchical cluster analysis (Hair et al., 2009). A five-cluster solution proved most appropriate and interpretable, and the resulting clusters were labelled as: a) disenchanted quitters, b) proactive seekers, c) inertial learners, d) fast integrators, and e) late bloomers (see Figure 2). To trace language learning trajectories, we calculated average proficiency scores by cluster and time in Finland, plotting them using second-order polynomial trendlines to reflect expected non-linear patterns. The full profiles are given in Stage 3.

To visualize the data, we applied principal component analysis to items related to language skill and professional integration (Kassambara, 2017). We extracted four components with eigenvalues greater than 1, together explaining 63% of the total variance. The first principal component (PC1) accounted for 27.4% and the second (PC2) for 14.5%, with their combined variance of 42% forming the basis for a two-dimensional symmetry plot (see Figure 5). This plot illustrates how respondents clustered across different language-acquisition and integration-experience profiles.

PC1 captures overall integration effectiveness. It combines Finnish language proficiency, duration of stay in Finland, job satisfaction, Finnish language training participation, and overall integration satisfaction (see Figure 3). Higher scores suggest more successful integration experiences.

PC2 reflects the effectiveness of Finnish language training, qualification recognition in Finland, and overall integration satisfaction, with a negative loading on year of arrival, thus indicating variation across cohorts (see Figure 4).

PC3 and PC4 explained an additional 10.8% and 10.2% of the variance, respectively, but they lacked clear interpretability. PC3 had diffuse loadings across education, language effectiveness, and employment, while PC4 was shaped mainly by year of arrival. Due to their limited clarity, these components were excluded from the visual analysis. Figure 5 therefore focuses on PC1 and PC2 as the most meaningful axes for capturing variation in overall integration (PC1) and language-related experiences (PC2).

We applied a mixed-methods approach to establish how language proficiency relates to other variables across different clusters. We assigned each of the 201 survey respondents to one of the five clusters identified in stage 2. We then quantitatively aggregated questionnaire data by cluster for comparison and triangulation (see  Appendix). The summary statistics discussed in this section are mostly drawn from the table in  Appendix.

We finally enriched our quantitative findings by carefully reading all 31 interviews, with each being read multiple times to identify which profile best fit the participant. Using a hybrid inductive–deductive approach (Van Maanen et al., 2007) informed by both the PC framework and the identified language-learning trajectories, we conducted a thematic analysis to explore how PCs influence language acquisition, as well as professional and social integration.

This analysis revealed a complex relationship between migrants' language-learning trajectories and their perceived PCs with Finnish society. Across the 31 interviews, we identified six distinct contract types: structural violations (PC1, 6 cases), delayed fulfilment (PC2, 7), hidden breaches (PC3, 6), precarious contracts (PC4, 5), compelled contracts (PC5, 3), and renegotiated contracts (PC6, 4). These six contract types reflect how migrants perceive their obligations and outcomes: structural violations (blocked access despite qualifications), delayed fulfilment (slow but eventual integration), hidden breaches (unmet but unspoken expectations), precarious contracts (unstable or insecure conditions), compelled contracts (adaptation driven by necessity), and renegotiated contracts (pragmatic, self-directed adjustment to constraints). Each type corresponds to a specific pattern of perceived obligations and challenges to integration. These patterns manifested through 13 recurrent themes identified in the thematic analysis (see Table 3). These are labelled T1-T13 in the text below.

The following subsections provide a cluster-by-cluster overview that draws on aggregated survey data and key themes from the interviews (T1-T13).

The disenchanted quitters score low for both PC1 and PC2, indicating poor Finnish proficiency, short residency, dissatisfaction with job prospects, and ineffective language training. They see language training as being inadequate, have moderate integration satisfaction, and struggle with having qualifications recognized (see Figure 5).

They are largely recently arrived young adults with limited Finnish proficiency despite strong participation in language training. While highly educated (over 80% hold master's degrees or higher), they face poor qualification recognition. There is a severe mismatch between their skills and employment, resulting in high employment rates but overwhelming dissatisfaction with job opportunities. Mixed feelings about integration and language training also point to frustration and unmet expectations (see  Appendix).

These individuals typically came to Finland on short-term work visas or as English-language degree students. Many put their careers at home on hold to explore opportunities in Finland but faced significant language barriers, resulting in underemployment and a desire to leave Finland rather than invest in learning Finnish. Their main obstacle is career mobility, because strict Finnish language requirements block access to some jobs (T1) even for highly qualified migrants with strong English skills. Many left stable careers in their home countries only to find that skilled positions demand Finnish, resulting in frustration, underemployment, and eventual disengagement. We identified this as a structural violation (PC1). These individuals are often forced into low-skilled jobs or face unstable employment (T7) due to work visa restrictions requiring them to work within the same sector for a set period, further deepening the structural breach of their psychological contract (PC1). As one Indian male put it:

Another participant described the helplessness of constant job insecurity despite being willing to adapt:

For some, even years of effort led to feelings of long-term entrapment and resignation (T11), reinforcing the enduring nature of the structural breach:

Others experienced compelled contracts (PC5), where language learning was often not voluntary but imposed by employers (T15) without meaningful outcomes:

Finally, some questioned the rationale of the system itself, highlighting the contradiction between global language norms and local barriers:

Overall, these immigrants are frustrated with their language-learning and integration efforts, with them finding that Finnish language skills are essential to get even basic jobs while criticizing the inadequate institutional support. From a PC perspective, these migrants expected their qualifications and English proficiency to be sufficient for career advancement, but their unmet expectations about employment, integration, and language support led to disillusionment. Such experiences foster a sense of exclusion and suggest a systemic failure to provide pathways to integration, leading to migrants considering leaving the country altogether. Their narratives collectively underscore a critical gap between policy intentions and practical support, leaving those involved feeling stuck and undervalued. This breach of the PC intensifies their feelings of disenchantment and exclusion. Many feel that Finland fails to honour the implicit promise that highly skilled workers can succeed in its labour market without learning Finnish, resulting in frustration and a desire to leave.

Proactive seekers also tend to be young, new arrivals, but they differ from disenchanted quitters by showing a strong interest in language learning despite poor participation. Although their integration satisfaction is moderate, widespread underemployment and dissatisfaction with job opportunities suggest that their early enthusiasm is constrained by systemic barriers, including persistent challenges to qualification recognition (see  Appendix).

Proactive seekers typically arrived on short-term work or study visas. They faced challenges accessing language-learning programmes, forcing them to seek out paid lessons. Despite knowing that learning Finnish is difficult, they were highly motivated to improve their proficiency in support of their professional integration, which is what defines them as “proactive”. For example, an Indian interviewee viewed Finnish as a barrier but remained hopeful, drawing strength from her husband's success and available public support:

A Sri Lankan participant emphasized individual responsibility in overcoming the language gap:

Similarly, others in the group saw learning Finnish as the gateway to integration:

Also:

While all interviewees agreed that language skills were vital for integration, their perspectives varied: The Indian interviewee stressed the importance of combining language with experience, while the Sri Lankan framed it as a moral responsibility. The Vietnamese and Bangladeshi interviewees saw language acquisition as the sole path to success.

Despite their optimism, hidden barriers to meritocratic employment often clashed with their expectations, leading to hidden breaches (PC3). Many believed that learning Finnish would yield fairer access to work but instead found that social networks and informal hiring practices often outweighed qualifications or language skills (T3). As one Nepali male noted:

Others experienced delayed fulfilment (PC2) when faced with exclusion within migrant-dominated workplaces, with internal hierarchies replicating broader inequalities (T9):

Additionally, some encountered structural violations (PC1) when shifting legal or policy frameworks disrupted their expected career pathways (T13), as one interviewee explained:

Overall, while proactive seekers invest significant effort in language acquisition and adaptation, they often face mismatches between effort and outcome. These erode trust in the system's fairness, not through overt exclusion but rather subtle, often imperceptible forms of unmet expectations.

From a PC perspective, proactive seekers perceive a reciprocal relationship between their commitment to learning Finnish and access to opportunities for career advancement through Finland's institutions and labour market. In other words, they expect their efforts to learn Finnish to be rewarded with smoother professional integration. They feel a strong personal responsibility to adapt to their new environment, but they also trust in Finnish institutions, especially for government support for employment and language programmes. All the interviewees in this cluster see mastering Finnish as the primary means for fulfilling their PC with Finland, thus minimizing the need for other forms of support. They expect that mastering Finnish will in turn provide access to the professional opportunities they came for, suggesting a linear path for fulfilling their PC. Nevertheless, there is a risk of the PC being breached if their efforts do not result in the anticipated professional success.

Inertial learners with a moderate-to-high Finnish proficiency and a longer residence generally report greater job satisfaction and positive integration experiences. Despite finding language training somewhat effective and being satisfied with their integration, their actual participation in such training is low (see Figure 5). This may be because rather than pursuing formal language training, they learn through exposure in the workplace and social networks. Their language skills develop slowly due to limited ambition or perceived career stagnation, with many working in low-paid jobs or occupying roles where English suffices.

Inertial learners can also be young, recent migrants who struggle with Finnish proficiency but show modest engagement with language training. Despite being relatively satisfied with integration, employment outcomes are inconsistent, while job satisfaction is only moderate. The mixed results suggest an uneven adaptation trajectory, with educational advantages not fully translating into labour market success (see  Appendix).

Inertial learners enter Finland with strong professional qualifications but struggle to advance due to language barriers, economic pressures, and limited access to formal training. Their integration is characterized by slow language acquisition, and immediate needs force them into low-skilled work. This tension between the desire to learn Finnish and the need to earn a living reflects a precarious contract (PC4), where obligations are maintained under unstable conditions (T4). As one Pakistani male explained:

These individuals often work in migrant-dominated sectors where Finnish is not essential, reinforcing a cycle of limited language development and stalled career progression. The survey data confirmed that only 35% of inertial learners enrolled in formal language courses.

Some interviewees emphasized the role of visa policies in buying time for integration, particularly through post-study work permits. One Indian interviewee described how language barriers pushed him toward informal jobs, but he also acknowledged the value of legal flexibility:

Others highlighted the mismatch between qualifications and job opportunities, revealing a long-term pattern of underemployment due to both language barriers and poor recognition of credentials. As another Indian respondent noted:

Access to vocational training emerged as another major hurdle (T6). Many found that essential courses were not available in English, resulting in compelled contracts (PC5) where migrants are essentially forced into low-skilled roles:

For some, language learning itself was enforced by employers rather than pursued voluntarily (T15), reinforcing a sense of coercion and lack of agency in the adaptation process:

Others adopted informal learning pathways (T14), often due to time or resource constraints, thus acquiring Finnish through daily interactions rather than structured programmes. Such experiences indicate the blurred border between compelled and precarious contracts:

Overall, inertial learners are motivated but structurally constrained. Their PCs with Finnish society are necessarily shaped more by compromise than proactive planning. They acknowledge the importance of learning Finnish for integration but face significant hurdles from language barriers and poor qualification recognition. They show a slow adaptation process, with many settling for low-skilled jobs while working on their language skills. They therefore exhibit a complex and strained relationship with their host country Finland. Unmet expectations about how the labour market values their existing qualifications, work experience, and English language skills amount to an early PC breach, leading to frustration and career stagnation. This is further exacerbated by relying on informal learning to develop their Finnish language skills. Taking on low-skilled jobs can be viewed as a temporary adjustment to the PC breach or a resignation or recalibration to the limitations of the PC. In short, the PC of inertial learners reflects a gradual process of adaptation and compromise in response to a contractual breach.

This cluster includes individuals who, despite their relatively short stay in Finland and only moderate Finnish proficiency, notably succeed in securing employment and integrating into the labour market. Their views on language training's effectiveness and satisfaction with overall integration are generally negative, however, suggesting there are challenges to having qualifications recognized and feeling the benefits of language training (see Figure 5).

Fast integrators, who are predominantly older adults, achieve strong employment outcomes despite ongoing challenges to language proficiency. Their steady participation in language training and job satisfaction suggests that they effectively navigated Finland's labour market, possibly helped by solid vocational or postgraduate qualifications and relatively positive experiences with qualification recognition (see  Appendix).

Fast integrators are characterized by a pragmatic, solution-oriented approach to integration. Many arrive in Finland as dependants or refugees and quickly engage in intensive language courses followed by vocational training. Despite facing challenges like language barriers and issues with qualification recognition, they tend to demonstrate high levels of employment and job satisfaction. Their integration path is marked by resilience, flexibility, and a willingness to adapt, reflecting their ability to renegotiate the psychological contract (PC6) with Finnish society.

A common strategy among fast integrators is to learn Finnish on the job while simultaneously adjusting their career expectations. One Indian interviewee described how she initially relied on translators but made steady progress after completing a language course. Although Finnish remained a barrier in her original field, she pragmatically shifted to a different sector and emphasized the sufficiency of basic proficiency (T5):

Others in this group emphasized how learning Finnish transformed their workplace experiences and helped them gain respect and stability. As one Indian female noted:

Their paths reflect renegotiated contracts (PC6), not because the system was perfectly fair but rather because they found creative, often informal ways to meet expectations and advance their goals. Many built their own study routines, sought support networks, and viewed language learning as a tool rather than a barrier. As a Nepali male described:

Their success is not rooted in ideal conditions but rather in their ability to adapt quickly, navigate available resources, and make strategic compromises. They embody a version of integration that is self-driven, realistic, and oriented toward long-term stability.

From a PC perspective, fast integrators expect their efforts at learning Finnish and adjusting to local cultural and professional norms to be reciprocated with opportunities for employment and integration. Although the outcome is not always immediate or ideal, such as getting a job in one's preferred field, their pragmatic and flexible approach enables them to navigate the challenges of integration. Their PC with the host country, despite being strained at times due to language barriers and employment challenges, is not perceived as being broken. Indeed, fast integrators instead adjust their expectations and accept temporary compromises as part of their long-term integration journey.

People in this cluster are characterized by strong Finnish language proficiency, a longer duration in Finland, and satisfaction with job opportunities, together indicating effective integration. Despite their success, however, they view language training's effectiveness and the recognition of previous qualifications relatively unfavourably (see Figure 5).

Late bloomers, nevertheless, stand out as being highly educated, strongly committed to language learning, and fully employed with near-universal job satisfaction. Unlike other groups, they demonstrate robust Finnish proficiency and report full recognition of their prior qualifications, suggesting that adaptability, education, and sustained language investment combine to achieve successful integration over time (see  Appendix).

Late bloomers achieve successful integration through a gradual, education-driven path. Most arrive in Finland to pursue long-term degree programmes in English and initially navigate academic and social environments using English as their primary language. Over time, they often participate in Finnish language courses, thus gaining basic proficiency while completing their studies. Many in this group ultimately settle in Finland, possibly through marriage or work placements, and pursue permanent residency or citizenship. Such goals encourage ongoing, albeit slow, language learning alongside meeting other commitments.

Late bloomers typically experience a delayed but eventual adaptation through patience and steady engagement. Their primary challenge lies in understanding local systems and cultural expectations, with language acquisition becoming easier once these structural barriers are addressed. One IT professional highlighted that Finnish was not essential for job performance in his field, but it helped with cultural adaptation (T2):

This group reflects delayed fulfilment (PC2) in that they do integrate successfully but only after sustained effort and incremental progress. While their long-term prospects are positive, their journey often includes early challenges related to hiring discrimination and unmet expectations around fair access to work (T2). As one Sri Lankan woman described:

Some also encounter hidden breaches (PC3), particularly when they are socially excluded or struggle to break into Finnish-speaking networks despite their efforts (T8):

Even high levels of formal integration, such as in jobs or language courses, can mask underlying dissatisfaction, hinting at deeper emotional or social disconnection. These cases reflect a subtle disconnect between statistical indicators and the lived realities (T16):

Others engage in compelled contracts (PC5) through informal language-learning strategies due to time constraints, such as learning Finnish from family rather than enrolling in courses (T14):

Overall, late bloomers show that integration is possible even when delayed. Their success is built on educational grounding, gradual adaptation, and sustained effort in navigating both formal systems and informal cultural expectations. Late bloomers exhibit a flexible and evolving PC shaped by both professional needs and a personal motivation to integrate into Finnish society. Their expectations tend to evolve from initially believing they can use English alone to navigate Finnish society to having an increasing emphasis on acquiring the Finnish language as a soft but important skill for long-term settlement and social integration. This appears to be linked to the circumstances in professional fields where English is commonplace, such as ICT, making it possible for many of them to postpone local-language learning. Late bloomers therefore gradually adjust to Finnish society through patience and a need to actively learn Finnish to access opportunities for professional growth and permanent settlement.

This study examined how Asian migrants in Finland experience learning the local language as part of their broader expectations about support, opportunity, and acceptance. Many weigh the value of learning Finnish through a cost–benefit perspective, especially highly educated South Asians with English fluency. They understand its limited value beyond Finland and doubt that it will lead to appropriately skilled jobs. These views shape five language-learning trajectories—namely disenchanted quitters, proactive seekers, inertial learners, fast integrators, and late bloomers—with each reflecting a different match between expectations and reality.

Across these groups, we identified six types of PCs: structural violations, delayed fulfilment, hidden breaches, precarious conditions, compelled adaptation, and renegotiated terms. These were shaped by how migrants interpreted what Finland offered, demanded, or withheld. A thematic analysis of 31 interviews revealed 13 recurring challenges, such as strict language requirements, poor qualification recognition, social exclusion, and emotional strain. These findings together show that learning a host country's language is not just about acquiring a skill but also going through a psychological process that is shaped by trust and disappointment, ultimately affecting decisions about remaining in the country or not.

This study makes several theoretical contributions at the nexus of IB, migration, and language-sensitive research. First, it advances the view that migrants are not passive recipients of policy or support but rather active agents making strategic choices about language learning based on perceived value and constraints (Hokkinen and Barner-Rasmussen, 2023; Elo, 2014). The respondents, many of whom are highly educated and multilingual, engaged in explicit cost–benefit reasoning around the Finish language, weighing its usefulness for securing employment against its limited transferability. Their subjective evaluations resulted in five distinct learner trajectories, each linked to varying levels of motivation, institutional trust, and career adaptation. This challenges the mainstream assumption that migrants share uniform language-acquisition goals, thus offering a framework for analysing integration as a differentiated, dynamic process.

Second, PC theory has been extended into the domain of migration and language learning by revealing how migrants form PCs not just with employers but also institutions and the host society more broadly. While PC theory is well established in organizational behaviour (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002; Robinson and Rousseau, 1994), applications in IB have been limited and instrumental, often confined to topics like talent management, repatriation, or supplier relations. Our findings support recent extensions of PC theory that consider migrants' perceived obligations and expectations vis-à-vis public institutions, integration policies, and societal norms (Morgan and Finniear, 2009; Haak-Saheem et al., 2023; Casado and Caspersz, 2023). Language becomes a focus of this contract as something that migrants must learn to access services and jobs and ultimately belong, but it is often shaped by monolingual assumptions and rigid institutional models. Our study shows that migrants engage with these expectations strategically, weighing effort against outcomes and recalibrating expectations when reciprocity is absent. In doing so, we reposition PC theory as a means for understanding not just workplace dynamics but the way in which individuals negotiate obligations and opportunities across institutional and societal interfaces.

Third, we contribute to language-sensitive IB research by highlighting how linguistic expectations, career prospects, and institutional support intersect in barrier-filled, non-Anglophone environments. Finland serves as a notable case in that English is widely spoken, but speaking the national language remains essential for long-term integration and career progression. This disjuncture creates a “language trap” for migrants, because they can initially navigate daily life with English but later face structural barriers to professional mobility. While prior research has addressed the exclusionary dynamics of language hierarchies (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Vaara et al., 2005; Peltokorpi and Vaara, 2012; Tenzer et al., 2017; Śliwa and Johansson, 2014; Aichhorn and Puck, 2017; Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2023), few studies have explored how migrants interpret and respond to these challenges from their own perspectives (Li et al., 2020; Selmer and Lauring, 2015). Our findings reveal migrants' own sense-making, thus showing how language learning is experienced not merely as acquiring a skill but also as a negotiated response to institutional expectations, one shaped by migrants' emotional experiences and perceived opportunities.

Fourth, we contribute to the growing literature on linguistic integration and multilingualism by challenging the prevailing focus on host-country language proficiency as the sole indicator of inclusion. Prior research has criticized this emphasis for privileging monolingual, test-based models that often overlook practical, situated, and relational forms of language use (Kalocsányiová, 2018; Reyes et al., 2021; Ghio et al., 2023). Our findings show that migrants' multilingual capacities are often undervalued, with heritage languages and linguae francae being side lined in favour of the dominant host country language. This reinforces monolingual biases (Peled, 2023; Berg, 2011) and ignores the potential of multilingualism as a resource for integration and social cohesion (Capstick, 2020; Bhatia, 2006; Bianco and Ortiz Cobo, 2019). We support calls for a more bidirectional view of linguistic integration where both migrants and host societies adapt to each other (Sancho-Pascual, 2020) and linguistic repertoires, rather than just standardized proficiency, are recognized as being meaningful for societal and workplace participation (Piller, 2016; Ciuk et al., 2023).

Finally, we have responded to calls for more Asian perspectives in IB and migration research (Tenzer et al., 2017). Focusing on Asian, primarily South Asian, migrants in a Nordic welfare state, we have shown how linguistic, cultural, and policy dynamics shape integration outcomes. Distinctive language-learning trajectories reflect evolving PCs, with these being shaped by shifting institutional, workplace, and personal expectations and constraints. These contracts adapt over time in response to unmet expectations, pragmatic compromises, and emotional fatigue. This opens fresh ground for positioning migrants not just as employees but as institutional actors navigating layered and often conflicting signals from the societies they seek to join. While rooted in South Asian experiences, the framework here offers a lens for understanding other migrant groups in this context.

This study has implications at three levels—namely national, organizational, and programmatic—with each reflecting how migrants interpret and respond to a host country's expectations through evolving perceptions of institutional fairness and support. In line with PC theory (Rousseau, 1989), these perceptions are shaped not just by explicit policies but also implicit signals ranging from immigration procedures to hiring practices and language course designs. Migrants form beliefs about mutual obligations that guide their motivation and integration strategies, and when expectations are unmet, the resulting sense of breach can lead to withdrawal or disengagement (Morgan and Finniear, 2009; Casado and Caspersz, 2023).

At the national level, integration policy should move beyond one-size-fits-all models for host-language acquisition. Our findings show that migrants engage with Finnish not simply to meet legal requirements but rather as part of a broader expectation that the effort will lead to opportunity. This link breaks down for disenchanted quitters, while for proactive seekers, unmet promises can erode trust. Policies must account for the diverse ways in which migrants acquire and use language, including informal and workplace-based learning. Relying on formal testing and monolingual standards ignores how integration actually happens, so flexible, vocationally aligned language support and recognition of multilingual competencies can better reflect migrants' lived realities (Piller, 2016; Bianco and Ortiz Cobo, 2019; Reyes et al., 2021).

At the organizational level, employers play a critical role in shaping migrants' sense of fairness and belonging. Many participants described how Finnish language demands were enforced inconsistently or symbolically, thus creating unnecessary barriers to skilled employment, especially in fields where the respondents felt that a job can be performed well in English. Migrants with strong English and relevant qualifications were often excluded from roles they felt they could have performed, thus reinforcing perceptions of unfairness. Organizations should therefore consider very carefully how language proficiency is defined and when it is truly needed. Conversely, multilingual and cross-cultural skills may be underused despite their potential value in international and customer-facing roles (Tenzer et al., 2017; Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2023; Ciuk et al., 2023).

At the programme level, language education must be better tailored to migrants' various integration paths. Many found courses to be too generic or disconnected from work, so formal instruction alone did not meet their needs. Integration also occurred through peer networks, on-the-job training, and family interactions, which are forms of learning that are often overlooked. Migrants value opportunities to learn language contextually, especially when it is tied to employment or vocational advancement. A shift away from rigid certification models toward more practical, situational approaches would better support long-term inclusion (Kalocsányiová, 2018; Ghio et al., 2023; Ciuk et al., 2023).

PCs are affected by how institutions respond to migrants' efforts to learn the local language. When signals are inconsistent or language-related outcomes fail to meet expectations, the feeling of reciprocity weakens, and once trust is breached, repairing it is difficult (Rousseau, 1989; Haak-Saheem et al., 2023). Tailored responses are essential: Disenchanted quitters need professional language training that aligns with career pathways, while proactive seekers require affordable, accessible instruction to continue learning. Inertial learners can benefit from embedded, workplace-based language development, while fast integrators respond well to intensive, context-specific language training tied to vocational advancement. Finally, late bloomers need flexible, long-term opportunities to maintain and build upon their skills. Meaningful integration requires more than formal access—it requires credible, sustained support for language learning that reflects migrants' lived realities and evolving expectations.

This need for differentiation goes beyond employers and national systems to a wide range of organizations that shape migrants' integration journeys. Private service providers offering relocation support, municipal advisory services assisting with everyday navigation, community-based NGOs fostering peer engagement, and adult education institutions delivering formal instruction all influence how migrants form and revise their psychological contracts. Our own data collection was made possible through collaboration with support organizations that engage with migrants during the early stages of relocation and settlement. Such interactions underscore the importance of both formal and informal institutional actors in shaping initial perceptions of language expectations and support. These actors do not merely deliver services but help set the tone for how migrants interpret their position within the host society. Fast integrators and proactive seekers benefit from clear, goal-oriented programmes with strong links to employment and legal status. Inertial learners and late bloomers, meanwhile, are more likely to respond to flexible, socially grounded formats that support gradual engagement. For disenchanted quitters, restoring trust requires transparent communication, personalized guidance, and credible learning pathways. In all cases, responding to migrants' expectations can strengthen perceptions of fairness and legitimacy in the integration process.

This study offers an exploratory framework for understanding migrants' language-learning trajectories and the PCs they form with host societies. Nevertheless, the scope of our findings is limited, prompting directions for future research.

While the data captured diverse migration experiences, it did not measure linguistic proficiency across all the dimensions of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Thus, our analysis reflects self-reported, thematically inferred language ability rather than fine-grained linguistic performance. Future studies could adopt tools from linguistics and sociolinguistics to treat proficiency as a multidimensional construct (Kalocsányiová, 2018; Reyes et al., 2021; Ciuk et al., 2023). Nevertheless, language is just one aspect of integration. Psychological, economic, political, and social dimensions interact in complex ways, so future work could explore how language intersects with these aspects (Harder et al., 2018).

Given the cross-sectional nature of the data, longitudinal trajectories were approximated by reconstructing development patterns based on residence duration and self-reported Finnish proficiency. While this approach offers a reasonable estimate of learning trends over time, a true longitudinal study would yield a more precise understanding of individual linguistic development at multiple stages.

Our sample, while diverse in experience, is not statistically representative of Finland's migrant population or even Asian migrants more generally. Most interviewees were South Asian due to respondent availability and the deliberate decision to draw on the first author's linguistic and cultural background to facilitate open discussions. While Asians and South Asians remain understudied in language-sensitive IB research (Tenzer et al., 2017), we must be careful with generalizing our results. Future research could examine whether the five learner trajectories identified here apply across migrant groups or national contexts and how differences in policies affect the formation and breach of PCs.

Our mixed-methods approach was exploratory in nature. The quantitative analysis, including principal component analysis and hierarchical clustering, was not designed to test hypotheses but rather to identify patterns for consideration in qualitative interviews. This two-step process allowed us to move from pattern recognition to interpretation, but our findings should be treated as illustrative rather than predictive. Future studies with larger, more representative samples could validate or extend this typology, perhaps by incorporating additional variables, such as legal status, intention to stay, frequency of host-language interactions, and English proficiency.

Our focus on host-country language skills was intentional, but we recognize that other factors—such as prior education, work experience, and social networks—also shape migrant outcomes. Thus, we did not seek to explain integration outcomes through a single lens but rather highlight how language becomes a nexus of expectation, investment, and disappointment, ultimately affecting the PCs that migrants perceive.

Finally, our findings suggest that both public policies and business organizations shape migrants' linguistic trajectories and PCs. While we outlined some policy implications above, future research could more systematically investigate how HR practices—such as language-training subsidies, bridging programmes, on-the-job learning, and English-language hiring—affect migrants' sense of inclusion. IB research has seldom explored how firms contribute to the formation or erosion of PCs around language despite their central role in shaping migrants' daily reality. Indeed, this remains a promising area for further study.

This study has shown how language learning shapes, and is shaped by, the PCs that migrants form with their host-country's institutions. Evolving PCs offer a powerful lens for understanding integration as both a personal and institutional process, one that future research is well placed to explore further.