P-E Fit Flashcards
Background
•Not just nature, not just nurture; it’s the compatibility or the fit between the two!
oThe notion that people are differentially compatible in particular work environments is so well accepted that the topic is “a cornerstone of I/O Psychology and HR mgt.”
Definition
• Broad definition: “the compatibility that occurs when individual and work environment characteristics are well matched”
• One of the “dominant conceptual forces in the field”
• Fundamentally based on interactional psychology (advocates a study of the relationship between persona and environment)
o Behavior is a function of person and environment (we see this with p= axmxsc)
3 defining conditions of PE fit
Background
• One universally agreed upon condition for fit: that PE fit requires that a constellation of P and E attributes influence outcomes; aside from that, scholars vary widely with regard to how they define the parameters of PE fit interactions.
(1) Exact correspondence (NO)
-Identical match b/w the levels of P and E; most restrictive definition (i.e., have the same score on the scale)
-May be where the field started out but research has questioned this with poly reg.; doesn’t necessarily lead to strongest outcomes
(2) Commensurate compatibility (YES - see in lit)
P and E levels don’t have to be the same; research shows that you don’t have to exactly match—E could provide more than E wants/needs and that would be okay
(3) General compatibility (YES many use this)
-Operationalizes fit as the compatibility b/w P and E on conceptually relevant, but not same dimensions
-Example: high need for achievement individuals might be better matched with pay for performance systems
No one is correct or wrong, but K-B seems to favor commensurate compatibility; need to report which is used.
Continuum of fit def: Exact correspondence –> commensurate compatibility –> general compatibility continuum
Are fit outcomes only positive?
o Tendency to assume fit has positive consequences in some definitions
o Example of negative consequences of fit: excessive homogeneity, stagnation, etc
o Tends to occur at higher levels of analysis (e.g., groupthink in teams)
o Can also be positive outcomes of misfit (e.g., development)
o Need to be careful how you define fit
What level does fit occur @?
Individual (but can influence factors at the org/group level)
o Authors argue that “fit” conceptualized at higher levels of analysis (e.g., team) would be better labeled differently (e.g., homogeneity)
Two types of fit
- Supplementary fit= similarity
- Most commonly studied; similarity-based
- An individual fits b/c is a match to others in the environment or to characteristics of the environment; there is a congruency between the P and E
- Example: person values achievement an org. environment offers achievement
- Most commonly studied; similarity-based
- Complementary fit = fill a need or gap
- A deficiency in the environment or person is made up for by characteristics of the other (e..g, we need a quant person, could hire a strong quant person to fill the gap)
1.”Demands/abilities fit”
• Is the org made whole by the person? “our org is in need of a person with this ability, need to find someone who has this ability/skill to complement the org”
• What does job demand? And what KSAOs does person have?
- “Needs-supplies fit”
• Is the person made whole by the environment?
• Is the organization meeting the person’s needs? (e.g., need for achievement, affiliation and job can provide)
Conclusion - Balance between the two;
Aspects of fit
- Person-vocation fit: congruence between person’s interests and their career path
- theory of work adjustment - Person-job fit: match between person’s interests/characteristics and a specific job
- sometimes called person-role fit
- excess (in either skills or supplies) usually not seen as misfit when examining this type of fit
- sometimes called person-role fit
- Person-organization fit: how similar is the person to the organization?
- many studies have taken the supplementary fit with exact correspondence but some have taken the general compatibility approach with individual traits and org compensation packages or structures and processes - Person-group fit: newest area of research; focuses on compatibility between person and groups/teams
- Person-individual fit: fit between two people (employee, manager; employee, coworker; etc)
- supplementary fit most often studied
Fit theory
Misnomer to talk about fit theory since there are many diff. theories w/ many diff. views - need for a cohesive theory
• Supplementary fit underlying theories
Similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971)
• Attracted to that which is similar to us; affirms own beliefs and choices; interest, personalities, goals, etc.
Attraction, selection, attrition (ASA; Schneider, 1987)
o Org’s attract, select, and retain similar people
o Over time, the org will become more similar; however, this can be bad if it too homogeneous (lack of creativity, diversity, etc.)
Value congruence
• Values - enduring beliefs about preferred conduct and results
• 4 explanations for why people find value congruence rewarding (Edwards & Cable, 2009); trust, comm., attract., predictability
• Complementary fit: compatibility based on completion
• Primarily based on need-fulfillment
• Individual’s view: needs-supplies: is this job satisfying my needs? (is this job inherently interesting, am I getting paid enough, am I making friends with coworkers, do I feel a sense of autonomy, etc); discrepancy theories of job satisfaction
• Organization’s view: demands-abilities fit–is this individual’s KSAOs fulfilling our needs?
• Demands and supplies by both parties are important
o Has an impact on stress/strain as well as work adjustment
Integrating fit theories; themes
Reward and reinforcement
– people like being in Es that are rewarding
Multiple types occur! Has led to multidimensional construct (PV, PJ, PO, PG, PP) and assessing the diff. dimensiosn to see how they relate to global evals.
Combining supplementary and complementary to give more holistic view of fit
Measuring Fit
- Direct Measures -asking about perceived fit, not P and E separately
• This is typically used when PE fit is conceptualized as a “general compatibility”
• Ask an individual to report their perceived level of fit
o E.g., “How well do you think you fit in with this company?”, “How well do your skills match the requirements of your job?” - Indirect Measures - P and E are examined separately rather than asking a person if they perceive fit
• Typically employed when PE fit is conceptualized as “exact correspondence” or “commensurate compatibility”
• P and E are both measured separately, then fit between them is assessed by examining relationship b/w the two
o P –> self reports
o E –> others’ reports (OBJECTIVE) of E or employee’s reports of E (SUBJECTIVE)
Stpehanie prefers subjective
Objective example: Organizational Culture Profile: 54 statements of values people arrange into categories of most and least important
Subjective example: Work Values Survey
Antecedents
–> of PO fit: Org commitment (.77), Job satisfaction, Intent to hire, Org attraction, Job offers, trust in manager, etc
Other of PE fit
1. Attraction
• The decision by job seekers to apply, and the decision by orgs to hire
o Whether an individual perceives a good fit affects where they are likely to apply
o Depending on personality, some jobs are more appealing than others
o Individual’s values relate to
o Not only are individuals attracted –they apply to these orgs.
- Selection
• Perceived fit on the part of the organization plays a role in whether an individual is offered a job
• Fit with an org environment may become more important at the later stages of selection (PJ fit has the opposite effect) - Attrition
• Homogeneity hypothesis
• Those who are not a good fit leave either voluntarily or involuntarily, leaving the rest of the workplace more homogeneous (thus, reinforcing fit between everyone in the org) - Socialization and training
- through socialization, employees learn about various aspects of the organization
- 3 stages: anticipatory (before entering job), adjustment (once you’ve been hired), and either acceptance/rejection
- as people learn through self-initiated and org-initiated appraisal, they gain more accurate perceptions of fit with the company
- through socialization, employees learn about various aspects of the organization
- Experience - prior experience in a certain industry predicts PO and PJ fit
How do we analyze PE fit data?
• Much research has looked at difference scores (between P and E on single or multiple dimensions) to operationalize fit
o Edwards: This approach suffers from reduced reliability (construct validity is questionable), ambiguous interpretation, etc
• Polynomial regression avoids collapsing the P and E measures into a single fit score
o Fit hypothesis predicts that congruence b/w P and E will result in better individual outcomes than incongruence
o Appropriate model is quadratic
o Surface plot
• P & E are predictors in polynomial regression.
• Similar to regular regression, but more terms are added.
• Outcome = intercept + main effect for P + main effect for E + curvilinear effects of P + curvilinear effects of E + interaction between P & E
Outcomes
Kristof-Brown et al.
Job satisfaction Org commitment Stress and strain Performance, much more for contextual than actual Withdrawal
Future Research
• What exactly IS fit? Defining fit
• Tighten the theory to avoid overgeneralizing the construct (Harrison, 2007)
• Conceptualizing it as a continuum
• Multiple conceptualizations of PE fit creates interesting research Qs
• Typically E carries more weight than P variables (environment has a bigger effect on fit)
• How and when are fit perceptions formed?
• Org change may create “shocks” in PE fit…may prompt one to reassess their degree of fit
• What’s the opposite of fit? No fit, poor fit, misfit
• When do different types of fit matter most?
• Qualitative methods to evaluate PE fit
• Level of analysis
• Multilevel fit
• Globalization - need research on expatriates
• Longitudinal assessment
o Fit as a dynamic state
o How does P influence E over time and vice versa?
Oh et al., 2014
Fit happens globally
- Effects of rational fit (person–organization and person–job fit) are (relatively) stronger in North America and, to a lesser extent, Europe than in East Asia.
- Effects of relational fit (person–group and person–supervisor fit) are (relatively) stronger in East Asia than in North America.
- This highlights that in collectivistic and high power distance (vs. individualistic and low power distance) cultures, relational (vs. rational) fit is more salient in influencing employees’ perceptions about their work environments.
