Fit Flashcards
• Meta-analysis- purpose was to assess the criterion-related validity of P-O Fit as a predictor of job performance and TO• P-O fit more related to work attitudes than job performance; • P-O fit –turnover relationship based on few studies, but seemed to act more similar to work attitudes than performance• Additional moderators: operationalization, dimensions of fit, validation design, method of calculation• Raises concerns about the appropriateness of using P-O fit in hiring or selection decisions in the absence of validation studies that demonstrate its criterion-related validity
Arthur et al. 2006
• Person-Environment Fit (P-E Fit)o Complementary fit: weakness of one is offset by strengths of the other (C)o Supplementary fit: person and organization possess similar characteristics (S) o Both C and S are interrelated but contribute independently to outcomes.• Simultaneous effect models suggest that both PNF and VC are important in affecting work attitudeso PNF: psychological need fulfillment (adequate resources- desired AMOUNT of org. attribute)o VC: value congruence (IMPORTANCE of org attribute).
Cable & Edwards 2004
• Interviewer P-O Fit perceptions were the best predictors of hiring recommendationso Even after controlling for demographics and attractiveness• Same P-O fit judgments lead to hiring decisions• Perceptions of fit/value congruence has the biggest impact rather than actual fit.
Cable & Judge 1997
• Organizational change often leads to changes in perceptions of P-E fit.• Result of characteristics of the change, the change implementation process, and individual differences• Younger workers and those with mastery orientation were most adaptable, fared best in the face of organizational change.
Caldwell et al. 2004
• Meta-analysis of predictors of applicant attraction:o Job/org. characteristics (type of work, pay, etc.)o Recruiter behaviors (not demographics)o Perceptions of the processo Perceived fito Hiring expectations (not perceived alternates)• Recruiting customers:o Job pursuit intentionso Org attractiono Acceptance intentionso Job choice (all predictors were small/not significant)
Chapman et al (2005)
• Approaches to P-E Fit• Atomistic approach: Measure the perceived person and environment separately and combine them in some fashion to represent the concept of P-E fit• Molecular approach: Directly assess the perceived discrepancy between the person and environment (i.e., whether work rewards exceed or fall short of the needs)• Molar approach: Directly measure the perceived fit between the person and environment (ask respondents to rate the fit between themselves and their organization)• Approaches are not interchangeable, should be distinct• Molecular: unequally weighted comparison of the perceived person and environment; Molar: more affect more than the judged match/fit; Atomistic: may evoke comparisons of the person and environment to psychological or social standards.
Edwards et al. 2006
• Review of P-O fit (good overview!)• Definitional Issues• Generally: complementary between org. and individuals• Supplementary/complementary• Seeds- supplies perspectives/demands-abilities perspective• Measurement Issues• Commensurate: describe person and org. in same terms• Direct vs. indirect• Indicies of actual fit.• Reviewing the literature• Org. entry: job search, recruitment, selection• Socialization → increased fit• Long-term consequences: attitudes, TO, OCBs, performance, org. consequences
Kristof 1996
• Meta-analysis of effects of RJPs• RJPs – presentation by org about favorable and unfavorable job related info• Moderators – setting (job vs field), timing (early vs later in recruitment process), medium (written, verbal, video)• Results: RJPs related to lower attrition in recruitment process, initial expectations, voluntary turnovoer, turnover, and higher performance• RJPs administered earlier are more beneficial• Verbal and video RJPs were more effective• Videotaped RJPs resulted in higher performance • Best practice: verbal medium, before entering the organization (pre-hire)
Phillips (1998)
• Update on ASA framework (Schneider ’87)• Attraction- selection – attrition• Alternate explanations for OB• Situationist perspective: behaviors based on situations• Interactional psych. perspective: interaction of the person and the situation• Understanding individual behavior, situation as distinct from person• Person perspective• Situation not distinct, structure and process and culture are a result of people, not the cause of their behavior.• More empirical research needed, effect of homogeneity positive or negative? More research at the organizational level
Schneider et al. 1995
• Prefer high pay levels, individually based pay, fixed pay, and flexible benefits• High self-efficacy = higher preference for individually based pay (vs. team) • Job seekers place substantial weight on P-O fit when choosing jobs
Cable & Judge (1994)
• Delays bw recruiting phases were a fairly important cause of applicants’ dropping companies from further consideration• In a college population- applicants who were most likely to lose interest in specific companies due to delays were those that had the most job opportunities
Rynes et al. (1991)
• Most prefer orgs that display fairness, concern for others, high achievement, and honesty• Also, people are more interested in firms w values similar to their own
Judge & Bretz (1992)
• Person-Environment (P-E) Fit Theory • Assumes that stress occurs because of incongruity bw the ind and the environment• 2 types of fit:o Fit bw the demands of the environment and the abilities and competencies of the persono Fit bw the needs of the person and supplies from the environment• Objective person and environment refer to abilities and supplies• Subjective person and environment refer to perceptions• Incongruence can exist bw any of these• Incongruity bw the subjective environment and the subjective person produces strain
Harrison (1978)
