What does expatriate success mean? Developing a comprehensive definition through a systematic literature review Open Access

Despite the worldwide crises and current global turmoil (PWC Global Crisis Survey, 2021), organisations largely remain dependent on expatriates for business success and expansion. They rely on them to establish business relations, transfer knowledge, control the subsidiary, or achieve goals set before the assignment (DeNisi and Sonesh, 2016). Accordingly, expatriate success demonstrates a prominent position in the literature on expatriate management as the primary dependent variable (e.g. Kraimer and Wayne, 2004; Reiche and Harzing, 2011).

Nevertheless, this literature presents no consensus on what expatriate success means or how it is measured (Hemmasi et al., 2010). Expatriate success has been conceptualised in various ways, from individual and organisational perspectives and through objective and objectivist measures. Traditionally success depended on whether the expatriate stayed or left the mission (Caliguiri and Cascio, 1998) which is a direct, objective and observable fact from the organisational perspective. Next, the second and most extended conception of expatriate success has been an adjustment-defined as the extent to which expatriates are comfortable living abroad (e.g. Black, 1990; Black and Gregersen, 1991)– to the new assignment and environmental context. However, this is an “objectivist measure” of career success since respondents rate their level of adjustment with researcher-imposed expatriate success criteria without considering the concept's subjective nature (Briscoe et al., 2021). A third and more contemporary conception of expatriate success is based on achieving the organisational goals for the assignment (Harzing and Christensen, 2004). Even though this measure of success is not standard but adapts to the nature of each organisation and international mission, it still leaves out the phenomenological and subjective nature of the construct. The lack of consensus on expatriate success measures and definitions extends to the studies investigating their antecedents. For instance, they associated expatriate success with one or more of the following: adjustment (Black et al., 1991), withdrawal cognitions (Shaffer and Harrison, 1998), job performance (Caligiuri, 1997), organisational commitment (Florkowski and Fogel, 1999) and assignment completion (Reiche and Harzing, 2011). The most widely used dimension as a proxy measure of expatriate success is cross-cultural adjustment (CCA), performance, satisfaction and organisational commitment, respectively (Hemmasi et al., 2010). Also, this disagreement is evident in how studies used one concept (e.g. adjustment) as either a measure (e.g. DeNisi and Sonesh, 2016) or antecedent of success (e.g. Benson and Pattie, 2009; Templer, 2010; van Bakel et al., 2011). Regarding this, a more comprehensive understanding of expatriate success that considers its multidimensionality is needed.

On another note, according to the dictionary, success is “the fact that an individual has achieved something they want and have been trying to do or get” (Oxford University, 2022). Also, contemporary careers literature suggests that career success is “the experience of achieving goals that are personally meaningful to the individual, rather than those set by parents, peers, organisation, or society” (Mirvis and Hall, 1994, p. 366). Both definitions are synonymous with individual achievement and depend on objectives, which are subjective and differ from one individual to another. Hence, being “successful” holds different meanings for different people (Nugin and Onken, 2010. Furthermore, success is a socially constructed phenomenon (Dries, 2011). However, this socially constructed, phenomenological and subjective nature has been overlooked in the extant definitions of expatriate success often disregarding various aspects of expatriate success depending on whether it's explored from an individual or organisational perspective (e.g. Kraimer and Wayne, 2004; Van der Laken et al., 2016). For instance, defining expatriate success as the completion of the assignment (Tung, 1981) overlooks the expatriate performance throughout, the repatriate turnover from the organisational perspective (e.g. Mezias and Scandura, 2005), expatriate subjective perceptions of success (e.g. Mello et al., 2020) or their perceived career expectations from the individual's perspective (Haski–Leventhal et al., 2020; Sokro et al., 2021). Thus, this “objective” conception is insufficient to capture the multidimensionality of the construct of expatriate success particularly when recently the subjective dimension of expatriate success expressed as forms of work satisfaction, life satisfaction, or well-being related to career (Canhilal et al., 2015) has gained importance. Therefore, a broader conception of expatriate success that considers its subjective nature is needed.

Therefore, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of expatriate success by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) guided by the following objectives: (1) identify the dimensions and antecedents of expatriate success, (2) determine the interplay among them and (3) identify previous definitions of expatriate success in the literature and provide an integrative definition of it. By achieving these objectives, the contribution of this SLR to the expatriate literature is twofold. First, it provides greater insight into the different dimensions of expatriate success and their interplay, highlighting the construct's multidimensional and socially constructed nature. Second, it provides an integrative definition, combining individual and organisational perspectives with subjective and objective measures of success.

In what follows, we describe in detail how we proceeded with the SLR following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) steps (selection process, article risk of bias assessment, methods of analysis) and, then discuss the findings. Finally, we conclude and reflect on the possibilities for future research that this new integrative understanding of the construct provides.

We conducted a SLR (Tranfield et al., 2003) to elucidate the concept of expatriate success further and critically analyse what has been missed from this concept. Compared to narrative literature reviews, SLR minimises the bias involved in identifying, selecting and analysing studies, as it is based on replicable methods (Needleman, 2002). Our SLR documents were selected, and the findings reported according to the PRISMA approach (Moher et al., 2009). This approach is most suitable for SLR because it eliminates bias in the above tri-phasic (article selection, analysis and reporting) workflow (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006; Priyashantha et al., 2021a, b).

Following the 3-step PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1: Page et al., 2021) for study selection, the first step involved determining search terms, selection criteria and electronic databases. Preliminary results show that “expatriate success' was commonly associated with keywords like adjustment, performance, productivity, satisfaction, turnover and withdrawal. Our inclusion criteria (Table 1) were document types (book chapters, conference proceedings, journal articles), English language, and published between 1990 and 2021. Next, we searched Scopus and Web of Science separately using the combined terms (“expatriate success”) AND each keyword in the topic, title and abstract.

Searches on Scopus and WOS yielded 895 studies. After eliminating duplicates, we reviewed the titles and abstracts of 650 studies for relevance. We excluded 388 unrelated documents (e.g. seasonal marine life expatriation, novels). After which, we conducted a second round of inspection, resulting in 262 studies. Out of these, 13 studies were excluded because of inaccessibility. Then, we screened the remaining 249 eligible studies, recording the journal name, year, author, information on the nature of the study, theory(ies) adopted, variables used as either antecedents and/or dimensions, methods, themes and whether an explicit definition of expatriate success is provided (Table A1 in  appendix).

Study selection and subsequent analysis may be significantly influenced by the researcher's subjectivity, negatively affecting the review's quality (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007). However, the empirical evidence in support of quality assessment is so little that no consensus exists on the basis of such assessments (Thomas and Harden, 2008). As such, the selected studies were subjected to an assessment that is based on the relation with our focus on the research, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria only, and coupled with the fact that only WOS- and Scopus-retrieved publications were considered on the basis that such documents have already been peer-reviewed (Xiao and Watson's, 2019). That was done independently and in parallel by the two authors of this article (Brereton et al., 2007) who formed a consensus regarding the 249 included studies.

We performed a ‘descriptive analysis (see Findings) by identifying the frequency that expatriate success-related variables were treated as dimensions and/or antecedents of success, authors, dates, journals, research methodologies, data collection techniques, unit of analysis (individual, interpersonal and organisational levels) and theories. This allowed us to satisfy objectives to (1) identify the dimensions and antecedents of expatriate success (Table A1 in the  appendix) and (3) clarify the definition of expatriate success in the previous literature (Table A2 in the  appendix). Hence, antecedents, dimensions and definitions were the overarching themes or analytical codes extracted deductively from the research objectives.

Through inductive thematic analysis of the articles (Thomas and Hardens, 2008), we were able to identify different dimensions (e.g, CCA, Performance, Satisfaction) and antecedents (e.g. CCA, Motivation to migrate, Interaction with HCNs) of success as first-order codes and classify them into three levels (individual, interpersonal and organisational). Subsequently, we used these first-order and second-order codes to analyse expatriate success definitions and trends based on the frequencies of these codes (see findings). Next, we conducted this analysis manually by tabulating the information in chronological order for a better understanding (Table A1 in the  appendix) and to highlight the contrast and trend of expatriate success definition across the years (Table A2 in the  appendix). Drawing on Rousseau et al.'s classification (2008), we used integration and interpretation methods to analyse and synthesise our data. Integration is a process of triangulation across different studies and methods to answer specific questions and examine the approaches taken to the topic. This enabled us to answer the following questions: What variables did the studies consider and how? How did the studies define expatriate success? And what theoretical framework did they adopt? Interpretation involves collecting descriptive data, pinpointing its common concepts and transferring them to new classifications to develop new constructs. Although, we didn't explicitly develop a new construct, however in systematically classifying its dimensions and critically indicating what is missed from the extant definitions we extended and developed the construct further.

We used VOSviewer version 1.6.11 (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010) to generate a perceptual map of the final sample to satisfy objective (2), that is to determine the interplay between antecedents and dimensions of expatriate success. VOSviewer is a software tool that helps create and visualise maps based on network data using objects of interest (e.g. keywords). The relationship between these items is shown by the way they link together. All of the links and items constitute the network. After running our sample, the final list contained 29 terms (Figure 2). These terms are connected by lines and are labelled with coloured nodes. The node's size is positively correlated with the occurrence of terms in the titles and abstracts. The more co-occurrences between two terms is evident in their closer proximity on the map, colour similarity and the stronger the link between them (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010). Finally, we obtained a complex visualisation of clusters and networks (Figures 3 and 4). The five clusters demonstrate how the antecedents and dimensions of expatriate success are interrelated, thus helping us to attain objective 2. For example, in the blue cluster-the biggest node- (CCA) is linked to HCNs, attitude, satisfaction and turnover intentions. This linkage helps answer our objective to determine the interplay between antecedents and dimensions of expatriate success.

This section explains the characteristics of the final 249 studies we included (Table 2). The 249 studies were published between 1990 and 2021 across 104 journals, 14 books and 15 of which were conference proceedings. These studies involve 482 authors from 41 countries, indicating broad coverage. The average citation rate for each article during this period was 34. In total, 531 author keywords were determined. 111studies adopted quantitative methods (44.6%), 64 were conceptual (25.7%), 50 qualitative (20%), 17 mixed-methods (6.8%), four meta-analyses (1.7%) and three conducted SLRs (1.2%).

This section addresses our first objective: identifying the dimensions and antecedents of expatriate success. Across 249 studies, relationships between factors considered antecedents or dimensions of expatriate success were investigated (Table A1). Noticeably, 167 studies (67.1%) were atheoretical in contrast to, 82 (32.9%) which were theory-informed (the 10th column in Table A1). Although in this analysis, we do not distinguish between Oes (organisational expatriates) and SIEs (self-initiated expatriates), and our findings confirm Pinto et al.'s (2020) criticism of SIE's studies as atheoretical or theoretically fragmented without further understanding underlying motives and drivers of success. However, in the last 4 years, theory-based explanations of expatriate success increased (Figure A1 in the  appendix).

Two dimensions received the most attention in expatriate studies, namely the individual (62.6%) and the organisational (45%). Recently, the interpersonal dimension gained further attention (6.8%). Various studies investigated the individual dimensions: subjective and self-reported such as CCA (Webb and Wright, 1996; Cao et al., 2013), satisfaction, whether life, self, career, or job (Gabel et al., 2005; Canhilal et al., 2015), success, whether in the career, job or in self-development (Cerdin and Le Pargneux, 2009; Bashir et al., 2021), the expatriate's perspective on work-family balance (Valk et al., 2014), job security, personal growth, authenticity and ability to live contentedly (Valk, 2021). Other dimensions investigated were knowledge gain (Bonache and Zárraga-Oberty, 2008), financial gains (earnings, salaries) and promotions and the duration to obtain the latter after the assignment (Bolino, 2007).

The organisational dimensions considered are expatriate performance (e.g. Hiltrop and Janssens, 1990; Caliguiri and Phillips, 2003), intention to complete the international assignment (IA) (Kraimer and Wayne, 2004), completing the IA (Caliguiri, 1997), effectiveness during the IA (Lee and Donohue, 2012), achieving organisational goals (Porter and Tansky, 1999), job withdrawal intentions (Harcar and Harcar, 2004), turnover intentions (Bozionelos, 2009), commitment to the organisation (Hemmasi et al., 2010), tenure after repatriation (Varner and Palmer, 2005), expatriate return on investment (McNulty and Cieri, 2013), ability to work effectively (Lee and Donohue, 2012) and the organisation's use of knowledge gain (Toh et al., 2012).

Lastly, the interpersonal dimensions are concerned with relationship building and identification with the team abroad (Harrison and Shaffer, 2005), knowledge transfer among host-country nationals and their career capital gain (Toh et al., 2012), contribution to society and family (Valk et al., 2014) and work-family balance (from the family's perspective) (Kempen et al., 2015).

Despite the many studies covering the different dimensions, we rarely found studies that addressed those antecedents and dimensions across all three levels jointly except for Porter and Tansky (1999) and Toh et al. (2012) further clouding the meaning of expatriate success. This was evident in the 3 SLRs, which each address expatriate success's dimensions and antecedents differently. Van der Laken et al. (2016) focused on perceived organisational support's impact on expatriate success. Weisheit (2018) studied expatriate success from an individual standpoint, emphasizing the importance of an employee's readiness to relocate. Lastly, Faeth and Kittler (2020) explored expatriate management in hostile environments from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Despite the fragmented studies, our findings confirm that expatriate success is multidimensional, as indicated by previous literature (Toh et al., 2012) (Table A1).

This section addresses our second objective showing the intertwined relationships between the antecedents and dimensions. In what follows, we discuss the most frequently studied dimensions and show how some antecedents are related.

Depending on the study, adjustment was designated as an individual dimension or antecedent of success. The most widely studied dimension was CCA in its different forms (psychological, socio-cultural and work). Then, 111 studies (44.6%) considered CCA a dimension of expatriate success. In contrast, 33 articles (13.3%) considered it an antecedent of expatriate success, good performance, intention to complete the IA and expatriate well-being. Thus, adjustment has been mostly equated to success rather than an antecedent of it despite several individual antecedents shaping expatriates' CCA. For example, the Big Five personality characteristics explicitly related to expatriates' CCA (Ones and Viswesvaran, 1997). Also, other antecedents of expatriate adjustment were also investigated: cultural intelligence (CQ, e.g. Huff, 2013) 12 studies (4.8%), (emotional intelligence (EQ; e.g. Cray et al., 2018) six studies (2.4%); motivation to migrate (Van den Bergh and Du Plessis, 2012) and willingness to go on IAs (e.g. Wan, 2019) six studies (2.4%)). Other explored factors were language proficiency (e.g. Caliguiri et al., 2009; Huff, 2013), management and leadership skills (Harjo, 2016).

Also, interpersonal antecedents played a significant role in expatriates' CCA: the family's (and spouse's) adjustment and their willingness to go on IAs (e.g. Van Vianen et al., 2008) and interaction with HCNs (e.g. Varma et al., 2012; Van Bakel, 2019). Several organisational antecedents also affected expatriates' CCA such as selection criteria. Organisations whose primary selection criteria were the expatriate's mental ability, Big Five personality characteristics and EQ facilitated the expatriate's CCA (Gabel et al., 2005). Selecting the right candidate, providing them and their accompanying families with adequate cross-cultural training (CCT) and preparation (e.g. Hiltrop and Janssens, 1990; McCabe, 1993) were crucial to adjustment. Organisational support also contributed to CCA (Hiltrop and Janssens, 1990; Webber and Vögel, 2019). Kraimer and Wayne (2004) believe that this perceived organisational support and efforts is crucial for expatriates' CCA and well-being. David et al. (2021) showed that POS and family-supportive work perceptions could enhance the odds of an expatriate's success as it alleviates the burdens they potentially face when accompanied by their family. If expatriates perceive the company's support positively, they will adjust more readily.

Performance is the second most frequent dimension involved in expatriate success. Although only one study (0.4%) considers it an antecedent of success, 80 (32.1%) consider it one of the critical dimensions of success from the organisational perspective. Similarly, various individual antecedents shaped CCA and satisfaction and impacted expatriates' performance. For instance, in addition to Big Five personality characteristics, CQ (Huff, 2013), EQ (Cray et al., 2018), motivation to migrate (van den Bergh and Du Plessis, 2012), willingness to go on IAs (e.g. Wan, 2019), language proficiency (e.g. Caliguiri et al., 2009; Huff, 2013), management and personal leadership skills (Harjo, 2016) have also been correlated with expatriate performance as a dimension of success.

Furthermore, to ensure optimal performance, organisations must also consider the expatriate candidate's technical abilities, stress tolerance, flexibility, communication skills, cultural empathy, spouse adaptability and subsidiary-parent company relations (Hiltrop and Janssens, 1990). Harvey et al. (2001) showed the impact of a candidate's level of motivation on their performance. Lee and Kartika (2014) suggest that both CCA and expatriate performance and knowledge transfer are influenced by interpersonal factors, for example. Similarly, performance is primarily shaped by the same interpersonal and organisational antecedents.

The third most frequent dimension of expatriate success was expatriate satisfaction. Satisfaction appeared as a dimension of success in 35 studies (14.1%) but as an antecedent in only three (1.2%), which indicates that satisfaction was mainly considered an essential dimension of success but not a contributing factor, and various antecedents shaped it. Although satisfaction is one of the critical dimensions of expatriate success, unlike CCA, it is not considered a dimension of success on its own. Instead, satisfaction complements other dimensions of success, such as CCA (Supangco and Mayrhofer, 2014), intention to complete the IA (Mezias and Scandura, 2005), turnover intention (Bozionelos, 2009) and withdrawal cognition (Canhilal et al., 2015). Further, several factors contribute to expatriate satisfaction. Interaction with HCNs relates to expatriate job satisfaction and intention to complete the IA (Konanahalli et al., 2011; Templer, 2010). Organisational support and the extent to which expatriates and HCN support perceive it contributes to their satisfaction with their career and intention to complete the assignment (Cao et al., 2014). Similarly, this perceived organisational support affects their life and family satisfaction (David et al., 2021).

Other dimensions of expatriate success from the organisational perspective were the completion of the IA (e.g. Lazarova et al., 2015) and willingness to remain (e.g. Braga and Kubo, 2010), both with 20 studies (8%); intention to stay with 13 studies (5.2%) (e.g. Cao et al., 2014); premature returns with four studies (1.6%) (e.g. Canhilal et al., 2015); and withdrawal cognition with four studies (1.6%) (e.g. Davis et al., 2018). Ten studies (4%) address commitment to the organisation as another dimension of success (Chen, 2015; Gallego-Toledo, 2015; Van Der Laken et al., 2016). To a lesser extent, other organisational dimensions of expatriate success that were considered sporadically were knowledge transfer (2%), tenure after repatriation (0.4%) and effectiveness (2%). As for achieving organisational goals like financial targets and market shares (0.2%), Porter and Tansky (1999) showed that specific individual antecedents (e.g. assimilation, endurance, psychological factors and career expectations) play a significant role in increasing expatriate chances of achieving such goals, adjusting better and completing the IA.

Finally, knowledge transfer was considered one of the interpersonal dimensions in only three articles (1.2%). While Toh et al. (2012) investigated the role played by organisations in providing adequate CCT to expatriates to ensure this transfer, Wang and Varma (2018) highlighted the critical role of HCNs. Bonache and Zárraga-Oberty (2008) echoed this and added the need for the right abilities and motivation. Contribution to home country society and family, work-family balance and satisfaction were other dimensions of expatriate success at this level (Valk et al., 2014). Moreover, as one key interpersonal dimension of expatriate success, CCA affects relationship building and identification with the team abroad (Harrison and Shaffer, 2005; Denisi and Sonesh, 2016). Hence, the interplay of individual, interpersonal and organisational antecedents shapes these interpersonal dimensions.

To complement these findings, we used VOS viewer to generate several maps highlighting our sample's networks of the keywords co-occurrence. These maps represented five clusters, namely the following: International career success (Cluster 1 in red); Success determined by selection based on personal characteristics (Cluster 2 in green); Success as adjustment and satisfaction influenced by interpersonal factors (Cluster 3 in blue); Success as the lack of expatriate failure facilitated by spouse's organisational support and training (Cluster 4 in yellow); and finally, success linked to commitment and performance enabled by social support (Cluster 5 in purple).

Figure 3 represents the network of co-occurrences of all 29 terms in the five clusters. Figures 2 and 3 show that the “Expatriate success' node is the largest in our sample. It occurred 233 times and is linked to the other terms. This is expected as the studies in our sample specifically relate to expatriate success, the main keyword. The “Expatriate adjustment” node has the highest total strength link (1,364). This node has 27 links (out of 28), reflecting that expatriate adjustment was highly researched and considered the most frequent dimension or antecedent of success. “Performance” has 26 links, the third strongest links (920) and occurred 139 times.

The five clusters show that expatriate success is not a uni- or bi-dimensional concept. Instead, it is multidimensional and affected by diverse factors at differing levels. The main dimensions considered were adjustment, performance, satisfaction, commitment, effectiveness, turnover intentions, career success and repatriation success, therefore, taking the individuals' and the organisation's perspectives into account.

This map (Figure 4) echoes our previous finding about expatriate success, shifting to focus on global career success and involving the whole career, not only the IA. For instance, none of the terms is shaded in blue (oldest), and most are in light orange (more recent). Although authors explored adjustment, performance and expatriate success since the 1990s, these terms appear to be emphasised more recently (light orange) as the research intensity increased as of 2009. Our findings show that research on these dimensions tripled from 67 articles between 1990 and 2006 to 182 articles from 2007 to 2021. The dimensions considered from 2009 onward are career success, repatriation, satisfaction and turnover intention.

In this section we satisfy the third objective, by reviewing the existing definitions of expatriate success and suggesting an integrative one. Although researchers studied expatriate success in many ways and from various lenses, no consensus on one definition exists. As mentioned, different dimensions have been considered for the same concept making comparing them difficult. Our findings reveal that very few studies explicitly define expatriate success: only 31 (12.4%) studies, from which only half, 16 (51.6%), were grounded in some theory (Table A2 in the  appendix). In 5 out of 16 studies, authors adopted Human Capital Theory (Becker, 1964) thus reflecting the predominance of the organisational perspective when defining expatriate success. Conversely, the importance of the interaction and exchange between the organisation and the individual to define expatriate success also seems relevant, with 5articles out of 16 using either Person-Environment Fit Theory (Kristof, 1996), Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) or relational models of procedural justice (Tyler and Lind, 1992), thus highlighting the organisational perspective in the definition of expatriate success. The use of psychological theories focussing on the subjective dimension of expatriate success at the individual level, such as Anxiety and Uncertainty Management Theory (Gudykunst and Nishida, 2001), Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997) are less used to define success, with only three articles out of 16.

Of these 31 articles that define success, 12 (38.8%) considered either individual (e.g. CCA) or organisational (e.g. performance) dimensions, 17 (54.8%) took both dimensions into account, 1 (3.2%) considered the individual and interpersonal dimensions (e.g. knowledge transfer) and 1 (3.2%) highlights all three.

Also, these studies differed in how they refer to success: 12 (38.8%) used the term “expatriate success”, eight (25.8%) used “career success”, eight (25.8%) used “success in the IA”, 2 (6.4%) contrasted “expatriate success” and “failure” and one (3.2%) combined “expatriate success” with “success in the IA”. More than half, 16 (51.6%), focused on the success of OEs. The rest either investigated SIEs (five studies, 16.2%), did not specify the type of expatriate of interest (eight studies; 25.8%), or investigated both OEs and SIEs (two studies, 6.4%). So, comparably, fewer studies defining expatriate success were referred to as SIEs. It is also worth noting that when referring to success in the IA, which is bound to the assignment's corporate goals, authors studied OEs solely, whereas both OEs and SIEs were the subjects of the studies on career success with a broader focus going beyond the attainment of the corporate goals.

The first to suggest a definition of expatriate success was Zeynep Aycan in 1997. She considered both individual and organisational perspectives and proposed that success can be defined by expatriates' levels of adjustment and performance. Also, Caligiuri (1997) explored these two dimensions and suggested that the three most common criteria for evaluating expatriate success were the following: completion of the foreign assignment, CCA and performance on the foreign assignment in this order. Also, Porter and Tansky (1999) considered success "in terms of the expatriate achieving specific objectives but considered from the organisational perspective. These objectives often include some financial goals but might also be in the form of market share gain, introducing a new product or service, cycle time improvements, or quality objectives” (p. 47). Other researchers (Caligiuri, 1997; Kraimer and Wayne, 2004) reported similar definitions of expatriate success and related it to adjustment, performance, completion of the IA, or even the organisation's return on investment on its expatriates (McNulty, 2008). Hence, authors have been more interested in equating expatriate success to tangible and organisational dimensions rather than subjective and individual dimensions, showing a predominance of the organisational perspective in their definitions of expatriate success.

Another trend observed when analysing these definitions is that while previous studies mainly emphasised objective and factual measures of success, such as completing the IA or promotions, more recent definitions started incorporating more subjective measures. For instance, Gabel et al. (2005) introduced life satisfaction as an additional measure of success. Other subjective measures, such as expatriates' gain in knowledge from IAs, fulfilled psychological contracts reflecting the individuals' perspective (Kumarika Perara et al., 2017), and career and job satisfaction (Traavik and Richardsen, 2010) have been considered. Hence, research attempted to provide greater insight into expatriate success by simultaneously focussing on subjective and objective measures that capture the individual's and the organisation's perspectives.

Finally, another consideration that can be drawn from the findings is that of a broader time scope that goes beyond success in the IA and encompasses long-term career success. Cerdin and Le Pargneux (2009) proposed this idea and incorporated both the IA and the long-term career. They added expertise, career, job and development success concepts. They also shed light on the importance of measuring all these during expatriation and after repatriation to define success. Traavik and Richardsen (2010) also explored career success and proposed subjective (e.g. career, job satisfaction) and objective outcomes (e.g. rewards, promotions) to measure it. Valk et al. (2014) considered new dimensions of expatriate success while relating it to career success. They found that the outcome of a successful international career is the work-family balance, self-satisfaction and contribution to the family and home-country society. Three other studies (Blanco and Castillo, 2020; Hamori and Koyuncu, 2011; Schmid and Wurster, 2017) also related expatriate success to career success but considered the time required to get to the top as the measure of this success. Blanco and Castillo pointed out that the longer expatriates are away from the HQ, the longer they will take to get to the top and, therefore, the less successful they will be. Conversely, Ramaswami et al. (2016) considered that the more international experience expatriates exhibit, i.e. the more time spent on IAs, the more human capital they possess, the more rewards they obtain and, therefore, the more successful they are.

This perspective was recently updated. Harry et al. (2019), Waxin and Brewster (2020), Mello et al. (2020) and Lazarova et al. (2021) all provided more recent definitions of expatriate success and linked it to career success and its objective and subjective outcomes. Mello et al. (2020) defined expatriate success as including different subjective and objective measures at the individual level. They mainly focused on the accomplishment of desirable, positive psychological or work-related outcomes, on tangible, objective and measurable features such as promotions or salaries as objective outcomes, and career satisfaction, career success and finally, the multidimensional evaluation criteria of career facets, such as growth and development, personal life and authenticity as subjective outcomes. Then, we found that the definitions by Valk et al. (2014) and Mello et al. (2020) are the most integrative, comprehensive and inclusive. They tackle the individual, interpersonal and organisational aspects and use the subjective and objective measures of an expatriate's success to describe this complex and multi-faceted concept, even though their definitions apply to SIE.

In sum, over time, the definition of expatriate success evolved. First, it was associated with merely completing an assignment measured factually and objectively. Then, it incorporated the expatriates' ability to adjust, measured in a self-reported way, perform well and achieve organisational goals, measured by the organisation. Finally, it considered the efficient transfer of knowledge and expertise and several subjective dimensions of career success.

Research on expatriate success often overlooked the construct's multidimensionality and subjective and socially constructed nature failing to achieve a consensus on defining it. Our findings support this notion and show the various antecedents and dimensions to understand expatriate success. These antecedents and dimensions were not independent, as a visible interplay was found among them across individual, interpersonal and organisational levels. Considering the dimensions identified and discriminating them from antecedents, we suggested a comprehensive definition, complementing the extant ones (e.g. Aycan, 1997; Mello et al., 2020). Next, we discuss each of our findings to their respective objectives next.

The first objective of identifying the dimensions and antecedents of expatriate success has been thoroughly fulfilled through our findings, which comprehensively address individual, interpersonal and organisational ones. Specifically, our SLR clarifies the concept by systematically categorising and integrating the antecedents and dimensions that were previously primarily investigated separately and only rarely in combination. It also identifies which dimensions (CCA, performance and satisfaction in this order) have been most frequently studied as proxies of expatriate success, which level of analysis (individual and organisational mostly) and which perspective (primarily organisational). From these findings, we conclude that expatriate success is a multidimensional construct that needs to be analysed individually, interpersonally and organisationally from two perspectives, namely individual and organisational (e.g. Harry et al., 2019; Lazarova et al., 2021) jointly to be adequately measured. While each level is essential to understanding expatriate success, no single level can be considered the sole determiner. Thus, categorising these antecedents and dimensions (Table A1) provides a much-needed boundary-clarification of the concept of expatriate success. This clarification calls for attention for future studies in expatriate management research to specify what they mean by success when analysing it as a variable. This specification is necessary to compare studies and create an integrated corpus of knowledge.

Our second objective of the SLR, the interplay among the factors across the different levels is evident in the five clusters that emerged from VOSviewer. Interestingly, four out of the five clusters evidenced the importance of interpersonal and organisational factors on the dimensions of success. The interplay between the antecedents and outcomes at the individual and interpersonal levels contributes to understanding expatriate success. Personality traits play a significant role in facilitating the expatriates' adjustment and, subsequently, success in their IA. Also, the HCNs' attitudes toward expatriates are equally important as emphasized by some studies that a good level of communication between the two parties often leads to a better CCA, performance, intention to complete the IA and overall satisfaction (Templer, 2010; Konanahalli et al., 2011; Cao et al., 2014). All these factors increase expatriates' satisfaction with their job and career, which will likely be reflected in their decreased turnover and withdrawal intentions. Furthermore, the interplay is also evident across the three levels together. For instance, expatriates' commitment to the mission and organisation and their performance seems to be highly influenced by the level of social support provided at the interpersonal level. The social support from the expatriates' family, community, and new work surroundings can play either a positive or a negative role in an expatriate's commitment levels to the job, performance and CCA, all of which consequently reflect on their success (Goby et al., 2002). Undoubtedly, this success is also ensured by a positive performance which is also impacted by the level of social support (Konanhalli et al., 2011; Araci, 2015).

Finally, in line with our third objective, we propose an integrative, multidimensional and multi-level definition of expatriate success. Expatriate success is a socially and scholarly constructed term that comprehensively and integratively evolved and acquired new dimensions at the individual, interpersonal and organisational levels. The trend in this evolution has been divergent rather than convergent making the concept more broadly defined with new, previously unnoticed dimensions. The definition we put forward reflects this expansive trend and incorporates less-noticed dimensions and perspectives for a more holistic understanding of the construct. Hence, we propose the following definition: “expatriate success encompasses all dimensions: the individual (adjustment, satisfaction, career success and work-life balance), the interpersonal (HCNs and expatriate relationship, HCN career capital gain, knowledge transfer and work-family balance) and the organisational (performance, commitment, completion of IA, achieving organisational goals, repatriation success, turnover intention, knowledge transfer and effectiveness).” The interplay between these three dimensions shows that expatriate success can only happen when all the stakeholders across the three levels can capitalise on the expatriation process. Moreover, expatriate success is the outcome of pre-, during and post-assignment factors that ensure the appropriate candidate selection, transition into the assignment and environment through the various individual, interpersonal and organisational factors, and a post-assignment path forward. Our definition integrates all the dimensions previously addressed fragmentedly, to offer a broader conception of expatriate success. It also incorporates a new processual and more comprehensive focus on the long-term rather than short-term success. This long-term view shows that expatriate success is conceived as the overall career success that extends s beyond the termination of an assignment, as suggested in recent research addressing both subjective and objective measures and outcomes (e.g. Harry et al., 2019; Lazarova et al., 2021).

The attainment of these objectives has allowed for covering an extant gap in previous expatriate research where the concept of success had been differently and incongruently addressed (Hemmasi et al., 2010) leading to a lack of comparability among studies (Black, 1990; Caliguiri and Cascio, 1998; Harzing and Christensen, 2004). Also, satisfying our objectives allowed the crafting of a broader conception of expatriate success that considers its subjective and socially constructed nature in line with the career's literature (Briscoe et al., 2021). As we indicate below, this new conception opens a range of avenues for future research.

This research is not without its limitations. The studies included do not investigate different kinds of expatriates, such as flex-patriates, short-term assignees, international commuters, business travellers and non-traditional and minority expatriates (Mäkelä et al., 2017; Hutchings, 2021). Instead, it focuses only on OEs and SIEs, which we distinguish between (Table A2). However, understanding whether the measures and definitions of success differ among different groups of expatriates is critical to enriching the conception of expatriate success and should be further investigated by future studies. Specifically, a SLR can be conducted to explore the dimensions of success considered in the studies using these atypical samples of expatriates. Furthermore, delving into the subjective nature of success, it will be interesting to compare the key dimensions used by organisations and the different groups of expatriates to define success (i.e. the protean career of SIEs in contrast to other kinds of expatriates might emphasize individual dimensions such as work–life balance or satisfaction). In a similar line, comparing the dimensions used by expatriates to define success with those of migrants can be also a fruitful avenue for research to enrich the understanding of the socially constructed nature of this concept.

The suggested conception of expatriate success exhibits three important implications for further research in expatriate management. First, given that 15 out of the 31 articles (48.39%) defining expatriate success are not theoretically grounded, it might be time to abandon the concept of expatriate success altogether and instead focus on the overall career success of our international employees. HRM and occupational psychology theoretical models on career achievement and success (Pinto et al., 2020) such as the Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis and Lofquist, 1984) can be drawn upon to further enrich, ground and theorise the understanding of career success concerning international workers' work-life experience, and subsequently success. These theoretical models can enrich and complement the existing organisational perspective (Kristof, 1996; Becker, 1964) in the definition of expatriate success by giving more prominence to the individual level and subjective nature of this construct.

Second, the suggested broader and multidimensional understanding of expatriate success highlights a necessary shift in the measurement criteria of it and for considering its subjective and socially constructed nature. Multiple indicators covering the highlighted dimensions should be employed to measure the complex nature of expatriate success, as it is neither limited to “objectivist” measures such as CCA, job, life or career satisfaction and organisational commitment, nor to observable measures such as financial compensation or promotions, assignment completion, knowledge transfer, or performance measures, but also expands to include the expatriates' subjective perceptions of their career success defined in their terms (Spurk et al., 2019). While subjective and objective career success measures were addressed in the career development literature (Briscoe et al., 2021), they have not been so in expatriate research, often ignoring the multidimensional, subjective and socially constructed nature of expatriate success. To further understand expatriate success, objective and subjective measures must be accounted for. Thus, to account for the subjective experience of success, we suggest that future studies include subjective measures of expatriates' success. We recommend incorporating the expatriates' perspective into studies on expatriate success by exploring their expectations before, during and after the assignment and how they define success through qualitative or mixed-methods designs.

A third research avenue on expatriate success is to develop and validate a questionnaire with the previously qualitatively identified meanings and idiosyncratic definitions of subjective expatriate success. Given that the meanings of success, like all personal meanings, are particularly sensitive to cultural differences, we recommend conducting this study cross-culturally to account for possible differences across cultures and to develop a culturally sensitive scale.

Also, the evolution of the concept of expatriate success entails practical implications for organisations. In line with the new, more integrative conception of expatriate success, organisations should now not merely focus on selection and training but also incorporate career development support and career path planning in harmony with the expatriates' perceptions and expectations of their career success which contributes to expatriates' career success, their willingness to share their acquired knowledge and experience with others and ultimately contribute to the organisation's success.

But before deploying HR actions to facilitate expatriate success, organisations should ask expatriates to define what success means to them in their own words, to clarify expectations, help to satisfy them or understand some paradoxical situations that are assessed as expatriate success. Also, this knowledge should be translated into using multiple rather than single indicators (e.g. the completion of the IA) by HR professionals when evaluating expatriates' success. With these steps, organisations may also overcome the issue of expatriates disengaging after repatriation or abandoning the organisation despite completing the IA and outperforming during it, because their expectations and mental representations of success have not been considered by their organisations.

Further, capitalising on these considerations can foster a sense of loyalty and commitment among their expatriates particularly when they realise that their organisations are concerned with the expatriates' perceptions and expectations of success, not just the organisational goals, which align with the move toward protean and boundaryless career models (McDonald and Hite, 2008).

This study (1) identified the dimensions and antecedents of expatriate success, (2) determined the interplay among them and (3) clarified the definitions of expatriate success in the previous literature to provide an integrative definition of it. Following the PRISMA guidelines, 249 studies were included for the review from WOS and Scopus databases, These studies were thoroughly reviewed, coded and analysed manually and with VOSviewer.

In attaining these objectives, the review has made two important theoretical contributions: first, to highlight the construct's multidimensional, subjective and socially constructed nature, calling for this consideration in future research. Second, to suggest an integrative definition incorporating all the dimensions and combining individual and organisational perspectives with subjective and objective measures of success.

The authors would like to extend gratitude to the editor in chief, associate editor as well as to one of the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, feedback and support. The authors greatly appreciate all their guidance.