Toxic transitions: workplace health risks and expatriate maladjustment in global higher education Open Access

What happens when the dream of global academic opportunity is disrupted by quiet mistreatment and hidden strain? Research highlights how workplace incivility (Sood and Kour, 2023), toxic leadership (Fahie, 2020), and persistent harassment (Reeves et al., 2025) undermine well-being and trust in higher education.

But most of this knowledge comes from Western settings. What about those teaching and researching at transnational campuses—especially in Sino-foreign universities? These institutions, born from partnerships between Chinese and Western universities, offer prestige and promise. Yet, for many expatriate faculty members from Western countries, these roles bring unexpected challenges: emotional exhaustion, unclear expectations, and cultural friction (Duffy, 2023).

International adjustment theory (Black et al., 1991) has shaped how we understand expatriate adaptation yet often assumes stability. Subtle harm is harder to see. Incivility—like exclusion or silence—can wear down morale and belonging, especially in cross-cultural spaces (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). When leaders enable such behavior, the damage deepens (Cortina et al., 2001).

More specifically, this mixed-method study integrates interviews and Glassdoor.com reviews to examine how expatriate academics in Sino–U.S. universities navigate governance transitions from U.S. to Chinese authority. Findings show how instability and incivility erode adjustment and well-being, underscoring the need for psychological safety, ethical leadership, and transparent institutional practices.

Prestigious International University (PIU, pseudonym), one of three full-scale Sino–U.S. joint venture universities, was established in 2014 in mainland China under an expatriation framework managed by its American headquarters, particularly for the faculty workforce. Assigned expatriates (AEs) initially received structured support, including relocation packages, institutional onboarding, and clearly defined role expectations, all safeguarded by the home campus faculty union’s collective bargaining agreements. These provisions fostered workplace stability, psychological security, and a sense of institutional belonging (Przytuła, 2015). Over time, self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) joined the institution, bringing adaptability and new perspectives but often lacking the same organizational protections afforded to AEs.

In 2018, authority over human resource (HR) operations was abruptly transferred from the U.S. headquarters to Chinese administrators under direct governance of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (Clark, 2018). This governance shift disrupted expectations of transparency and shared governance. All expatriate faculty were reclassified as local employees, resulting in the loss of formal protections and increased vulnerability, while only a small number of senior leaders retained AE status.

This study examines how expatriate academics at PIU navigated a governance transition in which authority shifted from a U.S. headquarters to Chinese administrators under CCP oversight. Using a mixed-method design, this study combines 47 qualitative accounts from 32 expatriate faculty with quantitative analysis of 164 Glassdoor.com reviews from three Sino–U.S. universities and a larger dataset from their U.S. headquarters. Guided by the multiple capitals framework, the study explores how organizational, psychological, and social resources eroded under political pressure.

Findings reveal systemic workplace distress characterized by opaque governance, weakened trust, and discrimination against Western faculty, contributing to isolation, emotional fatigue, and disengagement. This study underscores the vulnerability of expatriate academics and advances broader insights into how governance instability, geopolitical tensions, and cultural asymmetries threaten organizational health and employee well-being in global higher education.

As global integration deepens, cross-border mobility is becoming not just common but expected—especially among knowledge workers. Educators, researchers, and faculty increasingly pursue international careers in search of growth, impact, and new perspectives. Within this mobile workforce are various groups, including migrants, assigned expatriates (AEs), self-initiated expatriates (SIEs), and inpatriates—each navigating their own pathway into foreign work environments (Przytuła, 2015). While their journeys may differ, they all share the challenge of adjusting to the norms, expectations, and social fabric of the host country’s workplace and daily life.

The adjustment of expatriates is a complex process driven by individual motives and the hazards inherent in the host country. Individuals seeking lifestyle advantages often face more challenging issues than their career-oriented counterparts (Selmer and Lauring, 2013). Bader et al. (2022) assert that expatriates residing in high-risk areas have heightened stress due to political instability, cultural discord, and safety apprehensions.

Western faculty in China confront more than cultural differences; they must adjust to a political system led by the CCP, where centralized control, opaque decision-making, and limited academic autonomy often clash with Western expectations of shared governance, transparency, and institutional independence. These systemic contrasts heighten psychological and acculturative stress, weaken social trust, and disrupt professional norms, complicating adaptation and contributing to feelings of uncertainty, disempowerment, and disconnection within the workplace (Chen et al., 2022).

Berry (1997)’s acculturation model—articulating four key responses of assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization—remains a foundational framework for understanding intercultural adjustment. However, this study does not treat Berry’s model as a static cultural framework; instead, it extends it to examine how these strategies manifest when cultural adaptation is entangled with abrupt and non-voluntary governance shifts.

In such settings, assimilation may imply compliance under authoritarian structures, integration may be constrained by political opacity, separation may involve withdrawal from institutional participation, and marginalization may be exacerbated by exclusionary governance practices. Thus, while Berry’s model continues to provide valuable insights into expatriate well-being, this study explicitly adapts and expands it by situating acculturation within contexts of institutional instability, authoritarian leadership, and power asymmetry.

Conventional adjustment and acculturation models often miss how sudden institutional governance changes reshape expatriates’ daily realities. When governance shifts abruptly, expatriates are not simply confronting cultural discomfort—they are navigating disrupted norms, eroded agency, and heightened identity struggles (Chen et al., 2022; Bader et al., 2022; Selmer and Lauring, 2013). Expanding these frameworks reveals how foreign professionals manage uncertainty amid abrupt transitions. This gap calls for a more integrated lens that accounts for how personal strength, social support, and organizational structures together shape their capacity to adapt and endure.

To address this critical gap, this study synthesizes and adopts the multiple capitals framework (Luthans et al., 2024; IIRC, 2021) as a comprehensive analytical tool to examine the safety, well-being, and adjustment processes of expatriate academics working within unstable and unpredictable geopolitical situations. This framework was chosen because expatriate experiences are not shaped by a single factor but by the interplay of diverse resources. Financial stability, organizational systems, social relationships, human capital for career growth, psychological resilience, physiological health, and spiritual value alignment each contribute uniquely to how expatriates adapt or become vulnerable in volatile contexts. By examining these dimensions together, the study captures a holistic and realistic picture of expatriate adjustment.

The framework also integrates the concept of workplace incivility (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001), recognizing how low-intensity disrespectful behaviors can silently corrode key capital resources such as psychological safety, trust, and social cohesion—further complicating expatriate adjustment in culturally unfamiliar and hierarchically complex environments. By extending Sorensen et al. (2018)’s conceptualization of multiple capitals, this research contributes to the broader discourse on international adjustment by shedding light on the complex and multidimensional nature of expatriate (mal)adjustment, particularly within non-profit, partnership-oriented higher education institutions.

To translate this expanded conceptual framework into a practical analytical tool, the study delineates the distinct forms of capital embedded within the multiple capitals model. Each form represents a unique, yet interrelated, resource that shapes how expatriate academics respond to institutional instability and navigate the complexities of geopolitical uncertainty.

By guaranteeing access to essential resources such as housing, healthcare, and education, financial capital contributes to the maintenance of stability. Risks like inflation, regulatory changes, and civil unrest may be financially mitigated for expatriates living in places that are unstable. For expats, financial security helps them focus on their professional tasks, which in turn enhances their job performance and mental health (Peltokorpi and Zhang, 2020). The stability also decreases the stress that is associated with financial instability. In a nutshell, financial capital is an essential component for working abroad, particularly for academics in underdeveloped nations.

Organizational capital is comprised of the structures, regulations, and cultures that serve to establish a working environment that is both safe and welcoming to all employees. Having policies that are transparent, just, fair, and inclusive helps to decrease risks and builds confidence. Effective cooperation, work satisfaction, and overall organizational performance may be enhanced by the implementation of anti-discrimination efforts, cultural competency training, and clear communication (Nuñez and Villanueva, 2011).

However, workplace incivility—manifesting through subtle yet harmful behaviors such as exclusion, condescension, or neglect—can gradually erode this capital by undermining daily interactions and perceptions of procedural justice (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001). Recent research indicates an increasing incidence of incivility targeting expatriates, especially within higher education contexts in China, where structural hierarchies and cultural misalignments may exacerbate power imbalances and hinder conflict resolution (Hon and Dong, 2025).

A comprehensive framework that emphasizes mutual respect (Aldabbas and Bettayeb, 2024), psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), and inclusive engagement (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006) is essential for promoting well-being and resilience among diverse academic professionals. Such practices not only enhance satisfaction and retention but also sustain long-term organizational resilience and productivity (Sharp et al., 2020).

Social capital refers to social networks and relationships that foster trust and cooperation among individuals. Isolation in the workplace is reduced, and job happiness, productivity, and organizational cohesiveness are all increased as strong connections are fostered. According to Di Fabio et al. (2016), positive connections not only reduce stress but also improve collaboration in environments that are multicultural. When workplace incivility is witnessed—particularly toward peers with similar identities—it can erode social trust and hinder collaboration, further amplifying feelings of isolation and exclusion among expatriates (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001).

Management can match the performance of the business with the well-being of the employees by fostering positive social relations and behaviors (Sharp et al., 2020). This can result in long-term success and resilience in both corporations and individuals (Luthans et al., 2007; Dollard and Bailey, 2021).

Human capital emphasizes the development of knowledge, abilities, and opportunities for professional advancement (Becker, 1993; Brown et al., 2020). It is important to have clear avenues for progress because they prevent stagnation and enhance participation (Brown et al., 2020). It has been shown that organizations that place a priority on the professional development of expatriates are more likely to achieve both individual and group success (Becker, 1993). Organizations can cultivate a culture that values learning and development by putting an emphasis on professional development, which enhances the human capital of expatriates. However, when incivility impedes mentoring relationships or limits access to advancement opportunities, it may restrict the growth and application of human capital among expatriates.

The ability to adjust to new cultural and professional environments requires a certain amount of PsyCap, which comprises traits such as resilience, optimism, self-efficacy, and hope (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2007). Particularly Luthans et al. (2007) found that positive psychological state and psychological safety, where employees feel safe to express their concerns without fear of repercussions, is beneficial to both mental health and job satisfaction, and it also enables successful performance in high-pressure circumstances. PsyCap helps expatriates manage stress, boosting personal growth and team performance. It enhances well-being and success, enabling them to thrive in challenging workplaces. Nonetheless, repeated exposure to incivility may gradually undermine these psychological resources, lowering morale and decreasing emotional resilience in high-stress foreign assignments.

A focus on physical well-being and safety in the workplace is emphasized by physiological capital. Having access to healthcare, adhering to safety regulations, and practicing ergonomics lessen the likelihood of injuries and stress, particularly in environments that are high-risk or distant from home country. According to World Health Organization (2022), fundamental physical health protection improves both the involvement and productivity of the workforce. Securing the physiological capital is not only a legal need but also a strategic investment that improves the culture and performance of a company by boosting the well-being of its employees on psychological, mental, and physiological levels.

The beliefs, values, and ethics that serve to direct decision-making and cultivate trust are reflected in spiritual capital. This factor enhances collaboration in complicated cultural environments by connecting personal values with corporate practices and beliefs. According to Neubert et al. (2017), it also allows expatriates to develop resiliency and a sense of purpose, which are both necessary for successfully navigating ethical and cultural challenges. Organizations that cultivate a workplace culture integrating spiritual capital can enhance the safety and well-being of expatriates, supporting their long-term success and retention in international roles (Greenbaum et al., 2019). Disrespectful or dismissive conduct that clashes with personal ethical standards may weaken this capital, contributing to a loss of meaning and organizational trust among expatriates.

The multiple capitals framework shows how these dimensions collectively support expatriates’ safety and well-being. Financial resources ensure stability, organizational systems promote inclusion, and social ties build trust. Human capital fosters growth, while psychological and physical health boost resilience and performance. Spiritual alignment aids ethical choices and cultural adaptability. This holistic approach addresses the unique challenges expatriates face in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment (IIRC, 2021; Sorensen et al., 2018; Luthans et al., 2024). Within the context of challenging work conditions for expatriates, this model establishes a connection between organizational practices, HR, and employee well-being. It provides recommendations for the creation of workplaces that are safer and more supportive for not only academics who are working abroad but also many forms of expatriates in the global operations.

This study used a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design (Creswell and Inoue, 2025) to examine workplace health and well-being challenges among expatriate academics. Qualitative findings guided the quantitative phase, ensuring both contextual depth and generalizability. The first strand applied a qualitative case study approach (Yin, 2018; Stake, 2013) incorporating semi-structured interviews, field observations, and institutional documents to capture rich contextual detail. Following Yin (2018)’s rigor criteria, systematic procedures ensured validity and transparency.

Data were analyzed using axial coding (Corbin and Strauss, 2014) to refine first-cycle codes and form higher-order categories. Coding in ATLAS.ti (v24) combined deductive sensitizing concepts with inductive insights to integrate predefined and emerging themes.

The second strand involved quantitative benchmarking of Glassdoor.com data, analyzing employee reviews, ratings, and salary insights from higher education institutions. Descriptive and comparative statistics established benchmarks for job satisfaction, workplace health, and expatriate experience.

Both strands were merged through triangulated interpretation and joint displays, comparing qualitative themes with quantitative benchmarks to identify convergence and divergence. This sequential integration followed updated mixed-methods procedures (Creswell and Inoue, 2025) and enhanced validity by combining narrative depth with comparative metrics (Holland et al., 2022). The overall design—spanning data collection, analysis, and integration—is shown in Figure 1.

Ethical approval for the qualitative phase was obtained from an American Institutional Review Board (IRB#23–091505). Participants provided written consent after being fully informed of the study’s purpose, risks, and their right to withdraw. Conducted in a politically sensitive Sino–U.S. setting, the study applied strict safeguards: personal identifiers were removed, pseudonyms assigned, and all records securely stored to maintain confidentiality.

The quantitative phase analyzed publicly available, anonymized Glassdoor.com reviews, which required no IRB approval. Combining ethically approved qualitative data with anonymized secondary sources upheld research integrity and compliance with ethical standards.

Data were collected at the Chinese campus of a Sino–American university (PIU) in southeast China, which employed 221 faculty, including 72 international staff and 47 American expatriates. Of 52 eligible expatriate and international faculty, 32 participated, generating 47 qualitative entries, supplemented by input from administrators, board members, and union representatives at the U.S. headquarters.

A purposeful sampling strategy targeted those most affected by the governance transition, while local faculty without expatriate contracts were excluded. Snowball sampling, where initial participants refer others with similar experiences, was used to reach faculty hesitant to engage openly due to surveillance concerns in a politically sensitive setting.

The expatriate academic sample was ethnically diverse: 36.7% were non-Chinese Asian Americans (U.S. citizens or permanent residents), 29% White Americans, 23.3% Asian international faculty (from Singapore, South Korea, India, and Thailand), and 10% from other Western countries. Of these, 68% identified as male, 23% as female, and 10% declined to disclose. Figure 2 illustrates this diversity, aligning with the main faculty composition of the university’s Business and Liberal Arts Colleges. Stakeholder insights further explained how governance changes and geopolitical tensions shaped expatriate faculty experiences.

The qualitative phase explored how expatriate academics experienced and adapted to a major governance shift at a Sino–foreign university, where control moved from a U.S. partner institution to CCP-appointed administrators, reclassifying expatriate faculty as local hires (Clark, 2018; Duffy, 2023).

Semi-structured interviews were the primary instrument. All interviews were recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim. They were guided by three guiding questions: (1) How do you experience workplace safety and security in the current environment? (2) How has the institution responded to governance changes? (3) What impact has this had on your motivation and professional trajectory? Follow-up conversations were conducted not to duplicate firsthand accounts but to validate initial narratives, resolve ambiguities, and capture evolving perspectives over time.

Field observations and document analysis complemented the interviews, enhancing the dataset’s credibility and depth while ensuring diverse yet reliable insights into post-transition conditions (Creswell, 2013; Stake, 2013).

The quantitative phase analyzed aggregated Glassdoor reviews (1.0–5.0 star ratings) to validate and benchmark qualitative findings. A total of 164 reviews were collected from PIU (n = 74), KDU (n = 42), and NSU (n = 48), along with data from their U.S. headquarters campuses. KDU, a liberal arts partnership in suburban Shanghai, and NSU, China’s first fully integrated Sino–U.S. research university located in central Pudong, Shanghai, offered comparative contexts alongside PIU, the largest Sino–U.S. higher education joint-venture institution.

Glassdoor.com was selected because it is the only global platform providing transparent, verified, and anonymized employee reviews in higher education. Its standardized metrics and broad international coverage made it ideally suited for cross-campus benchmarking (Holland et al., 2022).

Including both the Sino–U.S. campuses and their American headquarters allowed comparison across joint-venture institutions and their parent universities, offering a clearer benchmark to determine whether expatriate dissatisfaction stemmed from local governance transitions or broader organizational factors.

The qualitative strand was analyzed iteratively through interview transcripts, field observations, and documents, with follow-up discussions to validate participants’ accounts. A systematic coding process applied predefined categories from the multiple capitals framework (financial, organizational, social, human, psychological, physiological, and spiritual) while inductively identifying new themes. Axial coding explored relationships among categories, which were then mapped through network analysis in ATLAS.ti (v24) to reveal interconnections among the seven capitals.

The quantitative strand used descriptive and comparative statistics on 164 Glassdoor reviews from three Sino–U.S. universities. Star ratings were analyzed using ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD, and Kruskal–Wallis tests to benchmark satisfaction across joint-venture and U.S. headquarters campuses.

This study employed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design in which qualitative findings on governance instability and political oversight informed quantitative benchmarking of expatriate adjustment and organizational health and toxicity. After independent analyses, the two strands were integrated through triangulated synthesis using thick description, enabling systematic comparison between qualitative themes and quantitative results. This approach enhanced transparency, validity, and methodological rigor while combining contextual depth with broader institutional patterns to strengthen the study’s credibility and generalizability (Holland et al., 2022).

Using the multiple capitals framework as a guide, the qualitative data analysis may uncover important insights into the ways in which various dimensions link with emerging themes. Expatriate safety and happiness were shown to be primarily influenced by organizational, psychological, and social capitals, according to insights gleaned from 47 data entries as summarized in the Table 1.

With 99 references emphasizing the lack of procedural justice and fairness, mismanagement, and insufficient assistance, organizational capital emerged as the most frequently cited dimension among participants. Many interviewees described feeling excluded from decision-making and isolated by opaque management practices. An expatriate faculty member from HQ campus said that:

This quotation highlights how inadequate governance undermines organizational trust and stability. Expats’ impressions of safety and inclusion were lower than they should have been because of gaps in openness and justice.

Mentioned 90 times, PsyCap reflected the importance of open communication and emotional resilience. Many expatriates described a pervasive lack of open and transparent communication. One professor lamented the poor communication and disregard for expatriate faculty input:

The absence of an open, trusting climate undermined their psychological capital—exacerbating stress and impeding their ability to cope with challenges.

Seventy-six references to social capital highlighted persistent challenges in building trust and collaboration, further complicated by cultural barriers and strained professional relationships.

For example, during an inter-campus business plan competition between the USA and China, a Chinese female professor publicly berated a senior American expatriate professor in front of students and attendees, using mocking language. The hostile behavior disrupted the event and caused visible distress among participants. This incident marked a serious breakdown in mutual respect and trust, demonstrating a severe decline in social capital within the academic community. The senior expatriate professor further stated that:

Such episodes illustrate the deterioration of relational trust and weakening of social ties within the workplace. When incidents of harassment or conflict are ignored, expatriate faculty feel their social and support networks are fragile or even hostile.

Opportunities for advancement and professional growth are crucial to expatriate job satisfaction. Many participants voiced frustration over stalled promotion and limited career development. One senior business professor noted,

Such uncertainty weakened motivation and trust, showing how limited human capital growth reduced expatriate satisfaction and commitment to the Sino–U.S. university.

Concerns over financial transparency and employee benefits administration were mirrored in the financial capital (52 references). One professor noted:

This example demonstrates how confidence and stability, two fundamental components of financial capital, can be undermined by inadequate management of financial resources.

There are 48 occurrences of spiritual capital, which refers to the alignment of personal principles with the culture of an institution. Maladjustment frequently resulted in tension and a sense of isolation. Another participant reflected on spiritual misalignment:

This comment highlights the importance of personal integrity and values. When the institutional environment clashes with deeply held ideals, expatriates may disengage or leave despite other costs. Maintaining spiritual capital—adjustment of personal values with work—is thus crucial for expatriates’ sense of purpose and commitment.

Physiological capital (48 mentions) highlighted physical safety concerns, particularly regarding workplace hazards. One professor shared.

This underscores the importance of enforcing safety protocols to protect physical well-being. When basic safety is in question, it adds another layer of stress for expatriates already coping with numerous challenges.

Beyond capital-specific insights, three overarching themes—toxic management, job dissatisfaction, and geopolitical tensions—were identified. These were clarified through systematic qualitative analysis, using a priori coding to capture capital-specific concerns, axial coding to cluster related patterns, and network analysis to reveal cross-capital linkages. Together, these procedures demonstrated how the themes cut across multiple capital dimensions and consistently surfaced as underlying sources of expatriates’ maladjustment.

Ineffective leadership, noncompliance with accountability standards, and cultural insensitivity were all components of toxic management, which was mentioned 87 times. A stakeholder at HQ campus reported that:

Leadership shortcomings following the abrupt governance transition undermined trust, heightened stress, and fostered a sense of exclusion among expatriate faculty. The resulting maladjusted organizational climate diminished opportunities for inclusion and recognition, further compromising their sense of safety and belonging.

Many expatriate academics reported deteriorating job satisfaction (64 mentions), stemming from career stagnation, unfair evaluations, and friction with the new local governance. One communication professor recounted her experience:

Such experiences left expatriates feeling alienated and insecure. Career-related frustrations — being passed over for advancement, feeling one’s work was unappreciated or one’s personal hardships ignored — were amplified by the cross-cultural context and power disparity after the personnel authority was transferred to hosting country. This theme of job dissatisfaction links closely with multiple capitals: lack of organizational support (organizational capital), limited career growth (human capital), and emotional exhaustion (psychological capital).

Geopolitical tensions (51 mentions) included nationalism, U.S.-China conflicts, and cultural misunderstandings. A stakeholder and expert of the Sino-U.S. higher education partnership indicated:

These tensions exacerbated feelings of alienation and insecurity among expatriates.

Figure 3 presents an integrative model that illustrates how American and international expatriate academics in China interact with various forms of capital, including organizational, psychological, social, career, financial, spiritual, and physical capital, particularly in the context of shifts in management authority from the headquarters in the United States to local campuses in China. Numbers in the figure indicate coded frequency of mentions in data.

Organizational capital continues to be the most often identified factor, with governance problems, decreased autonomy, and inadequate leadership all leading to substantial concerns around safety and inclusiveness.

Psychological and social capitals show critical gaps in communication and trust-building, with strained relationships and inadequate support intensifying feelings of isolation. Human capital reflects limited advancement opportunities, while financial capital reveals persistent insecurities regarding compensation and transparency. Spiritual capital, often overlooked, reflects value conflicts between expatriates and institutions, while physiological capital highlights unresolved campus health and safety issues.

The framework illustrates how shortfalls in multiple capital are the root cause of issues such as toxic management, job dissatisfaction, and geopolitical issues. In the context of international academic institutions, this study advocates for the implementation of policies that will increase leadership responsibility, accept cultural diversity, and encourage staff well-being.

Quantitative data of Glassdoor ratings, reflecting overall employee satisfaction, complemented the qualitative findings by providing comparative benchmarks across campuses, validating faculty narratives, and revealing systematic differences in organizational health and employee well-being among the three Sino–U.S. universities and their HQ campuses in the USA.

To enrich the qualitative insights, Glassdoor star rating data were utilized to assess cross-campus variation in expatriate satisfaction, offering a structured comparison of workplace conditions (see Figure 4 and Table 2). It is worth noting that Glassdoor.com utilizes a star rating system ranging from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).

The comparison shows clear variation in institutional ratings. PIU had the lowest mean score (M = 3.05, SD = 1.64), indicating lower satisfaction relative to peer Sino–U.S. and U.S. headquarters campuses. While this value is numerically close to the scale midpoint, it reflects comparatively diminished satisfaction when benchmarked against peer Sino–U.S. campuses and their U.S. headquarters, all of which scored notably higher. Moreover, the large standard deviation indicates substantial polarization in respondents’ perceptions—signifying that, although some faculty reported neutral or positive experiences, a considerable proportion expressed dissatisfaction or negative sentiment toward workplace conditions.

In contrast, KDU was evaluated more positively (M = 3.86, SD = 1.16), and NSU reported the most favorable outcomes, with the highest mean rating (M = 4.25, SD = 0.81, n = 48). These patterns underscore meaningful differences in perceived organizational health across the institutions.

Statistical analysis further confirmed that these differences were significant. An ANOVA indicated substantial variation across the three universities, F(2, 160) = 8.60, p < 0.001, reflecting a moderate effect size (η² ≈ 0.10) that suggests practically meaningful differences in work satisfaction (Cohen, 1988). Post hoc Tukey’s HSD comparisons showed that PIU’s ratings were significantly lower than those of both KDU and NSU. The difference between KDU and NSU, however, was not statistically significant. To ensure robustness, a nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test was also performed, which corroborated the ANOVA findings, χ²(2) = 16.09, p < 0.001. Beyond cross-campus variation, comparisons with U.S. headquarters revealed that Sino–U.S. campuses generally received lower evaluations, suggesting that expatriate academics in China perceived greater risks to organizational health and employee well-being than their peers at home institutions.

Figure 5 highlights notable differences in how respondents evaluated the three Sino–U.S. campuses. At Prestigious International University (PIU), ratings were sharply divided. A substantial proportion of reviews fell at the lowest levels (one and two stars), while another group gave relatively high scores (four and five stars). This polarization may reflect deeper structural or cultural divides within the institution—wherein some faculty, mainly pro-China members, experience autonomy, recognition, or alignment with institutional values, while others, Western faculty members, report systemic dissatisfaction, marginalization, or organizational dysfunction. Such bifurcation in perception may be indicative of inconsistent governance practices, uneven leadership engagement, or segmented organizational climates.

On the other hand, KDU showed a more balanced profile, with ratings spread across the scale but leaning toward mid-to-upper levels, especially at four stars. NSU presented the strongest performance, with the bulk of evaluations concentrated at four and five stars, and only a handful at the lower end.

Taken together, the distributions confirm that PIU was the most divisive and negatively evaluated institution, KDU reflected a moderate and mixed experience, and NSU consistently achieved the most positive assessments. The patterns align with qualitative findings regarding organizational trust, leadership quality, and faculty autonomy.

This sequential exploratory mixed-methods study employed triangulation to integrate qualitative narratives with quantitative benchmarks (Creswell and Inoue, 2025), providing a cohesive interpretation of how expatriate faculty experiences reflect systemic dissatisfaction, conflict, and declining well-being in global partnering higher education. Among the triangulation syntheses developed, three exemplary cases illustrate the depth and complementarity between qualitative and quantitative findings.

The first case highlights the erosion of organizational capital, where opaque governance and unfair management practices were central. Expatriate faculty described “disciplinary retaliation without evidence” and “opaque HR actions,” exposing a toxic organizational climate rooted in procedural injustice. These accounts aligned with quantitative results showing PIU’s lowest Glassdoor satisfaction ratings and the highest proportion of one-star reviews, demonstrating how opacity and authoritarian management undermined fairness, trust, and organizational health.

The second case focuses on psychological capital, revealing how emotional neglect and managerial indifference harmed well-being. Faculty reported being ignored, dismissed, and emotionally unsupported. One professor noted, “There’s a disconnect between faculty and administration … they ignore foreign faculty concerns and don’t listen to suggestions.” These experiences mirrored PIU’s lower satisfaction ratings compared with its peer Sino–U.S. and U.S. headquarters campuses, confirming that persistent neglect and lack of empathy eroded morale and resilience.

The third case examines human (career) capital, where limited professional growth, cultural marginalization, and geopolitical tensions restricted expatriate advancement. A senior expatriate faculty member’s accounts of “absence of promotion” and “lack of clear pathways for career progression” aligned with PIU’s polarized Glassdoor ratings, which contrasted with the more positive evaluations of its peer institutions in China. This polarization highlighted deep divisions in perceived opportunity and fairness within the university.

Together, these triangulated syntheses show that PIU’s governance transition depleted multiple forms of capital, creating an environment where injustice, neglect, and constrained growth fueled widespread expatriate dissatisfaction and institutional fragility.

The increasing exodus of expatriate faculty from China and comparable areas indicates significant underlying institutional issues that pose challenges to the future of global higher education collaborations (SCMP, 2024). The departures are not solely a result of job dissatisfaction; rather, they arise from a more intricate disconnection which is influenced by authoritarian shifts and limited academic autonomy (Chen et al., 2022).

Although this study focuses on a Sino–U.S. joint-venture university, its implications extend more broadly. First, the erosion of organizational, psychological, and social capital parallels conditions in other international universities facing authoritarian governance or weak faculty protections. Second, the model shows that declining morale and resource depletion are not unique to China but reflect a wider pattern of maladjustment under power asymmetry, opaque governance, and restricted academic freedom. These findings highlight shared vulnerabilities among expatriate academics in regions such as the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, where similar institutional dynamics persist (Reeves et al., 2025).

A significant disruption occurred with the non-consensual shift of HR control from U.S.-based governance models, which emphasize transparency and collegiality, to the centralized authority of the CCP. The transition brought political oversight into daily academic life, curbing autonomy, eroding trust, and weakening psychological and spiritual capital. As open dialogue declined, expatriate faculty reported increasing feelings of insecurity and institutional fragility.

Coping responses varied: some adopted “strategic compliance,” publicly conforming while privately dissenting (Sood and Kour, 2023; Sharp et al., 2020), whereas others relied on informal peer networks for support—mirroring strategies seen in Middle Eastern organizations under authoritarian control (Melhem et al., 2024).

Unlike labor migrants, expatriate academics seek intellectual contribution and institutional development, yet political and organizational barriers intensified their acculturative stress. Similar challenges in the Gulf States, Southeast Asia, and Africa affirm the wider relevance of these patterns.

A robust theoretical model is essential to unpack the unique challenges faced by marginalized expatriate academics in culturally and geopolitically complex contexts. The proposed framework (Figure 6) synthesizes seven interrelated “multiple capitals”—financial, organizational, psychological, social, human, physiological, and spiritual—within the broader lens of organizational health and toxicity (OHT) and its impact on job satisfaction. This integrated model offers a rigorous lens for analyzing how expatriates navigate external constraints and internal organizational dynamics.

This study extends international adjustment theory (Black et al., 1991) by showing governance disruptions undermined multiple forms of capital essential for expatriate adaptation. Imposed policies curtailed autonomy (organizational capital), trust, and collegial ties (social and human capital); opaque compensation weakened security (financial capital); and safety risks and value misalignments eroded well-being (physiological and spiritual capital). Recurring incivility further depleted resilience (psychological capital), illustrating how institutional instability destabilizes adjustment across personal and institutional domains, magnifying stress and maladjustment.

Berry (1997)’s acculturation framework remains vital for understanding cultural adaptation but assumes stable institutional contexts. This study extends Berry’s logic by positioning acculturation within non-voluntary governance transitions, where adaptation involves not only culture but also shifting power structures. In such environments, political asymmetry and organizational opacity amplify stress beyond cultural discomfort (Chen et al., 2022; Hodgins et al., 2020; Reeves et al., 2025). Successful adjustment thus requires not only initial preparation but also stable, supportive institutional conditions.

Hofstede (1994)’s concept of power distance is particularly relevant. Expatriates from low power-distance cultures, accustomed to openness and equality, face heightened tension in hierarchical, opaque systems. At the case university, high power distance restricted feedback, silenced dialogue, and made faculty concerns invisible. Integrating this cultural dimension with the multiple capitals lens clarifies how structural inequality produces psychological strain and organizational toxicity.

By combining the multiple capitals framework with the OHT model, this study deepens understanding of expatriate adaptation under volatile governance. Toxic management accelerates capital depletion, reducing satisfaction and well-being, whereas transparent and inclusive governance fosters resilience and motivation. Adaptation thus depends not only on personal strength but also on institutional fairness and psychological safety. The model links individual adjustment to governance structures, emphasizing that preserving multiple capitals—not just cultural fit—is vital for sustaining global academic talent.

The success of expatriate assignments depends on coordinated action among sending institutions, host universities, and policy bodies. Sending organizations should prepare expatriates through tailored cultural and political orientation, clear communication of workplace expectations, and coping strategies that build psychological capital and reduce assignment failure (Sood and Kour, 2023). Host institutions or employers should provide structured onboarding, regular mentorship, and sustained engagement to promote retention under conditions of cultural complexity and organizational uncertainty.

At the policy level, internationally recognized HR standards and norms provide benchmarks for effective practice. These include International Labor Organization (ILO) standards on fair treatment, equity, and safety; AAUP (2023, 2025) guidelines on academic freedom and tenure; and ISO 30400-30414 frameworks on human capital reporting and HR management transparency. Adopting such standards ensures procedural fairness and enhances expatriates’ trust in host institutions.

For day-to-day management, organizational leaders should model intercultural sensitivity, promote open communication, and ensure confidential systems for reporting incivility. These practices are crucial in high power-distance contexts, where hierarchy often silences faculty concerns (Sharp et al., 2020). Long-term strategies—such as cross-border mentorship, fair promotion pathways, and shared governance—can strengthen human and social capital, turning governance challenges into learning opportunities. Joint faculty-development initiatives built on transparency, respect, and shared values between home and host universities can reduce attrition and enhance the resilience of transnational partnerships (Chen et al., 2022).

This study used a mixed-method design, integrating qualitative case analysis with quantitative benchmarking of Glassdoor reviews to strengthen triangulation and validity. Although this approach enriched insights, limitations remain.

The qualitative strand involved a small sample of international academics, constrained by political sensitivity, surveillance concerns, and access difficulties. Credibility may be affected by self-reported data, limited external generalizability, and replication challenges—issues common in case study research (Yin, 2018; Stake, 2013). The quantitative strand offered valuable benchmarks but lacked the scope of large-scale measurement. Further triangulation combining ethnographic, survey, and institutional data could enhance validity and reach.

Future studies should employ longitudinal and cross-national designs to test the OHT–multiple capitals model, incorporating power-distance and organizational justice measures (Creswell, 2013; Creswell and Inoue, 2025). Cross-sector comparisons between academic, corporate, and NGO expatriates could also reveal sector-specific vulnerabilities and resilience strategies.

Expatriate academics in geopolitically sensitive regions face multidimensional challenges, including governance instability, declining autonomy, and external political pressures. By integrating qualitative narratives with quantitative benchmarks, this study advances understanding of how organizational health and resource depletion affect adjustment and the well-being of expatriates. The integrative framework linking OHT with the multiple capitals approach provides a practical and theoretical foundation for building healthier, more inclusive institutions. Strengthening governance transparency, faculty protections, and support systems are essential to safeguard talent and sustain international academic partnerships in volatile global contexts.