Recruitment & P-O Fit Flashcards
Kristoff 1996
Definitions for P-O fit–> supplementary = similar to others, complementary = diff chars, but fill a necessity; (person)Needs- (org)supplies vs (org)demands-abilities(person has)
RJP
Job preview Bretz & Judge 1998
Theory for complementary fit: Person vocation
RESULTS
Holland 1985 RIASEC–> mixed results w/job sat, moderate pos to task perfrom, OCB. neg to CBW (Nye et al., 2017; Van Iddekinge et al. 2011)
RIASEC
Realistic, investigative, artistic, social enterprising and conventional
Theory for complementary fit: PJ
Theory of work adjustment (Dawis & Logquist, 1984), connected to stress and burnout if discrepancy
Theory for supplementary fit
Attraction, Selection, Attrition: Schneider et al., 1998
No studies examine the whole cycle
Attraction
Dineen et al., 2002
Selection
Chuang & Sackett 2005
Attrition
Kristof- Brown et al., 2005
Kristof-Brown et al. 2005 Results
Job sat is most influenced by PJ fit, org commitment by PO fit. Performance is weakly associated w/ PO, more strongly w/ PJ, PS, PG. PO had strongest rlt w/turnover
6 antecedents to attraction
Chapman et al., 2005 Meta
Job org attributes, recruiter chars, recruitment process, perceived fit, perceived alternatives, hiring expectations
Elaboration likelihood model
Petty & Cacioppo 1986: basically ppl can be persuaded through a central route of higher elaboration, or peripheral route where info is passively processed–> use central route for attitude change
Hausknect et al. 2004
Applicant reactions meta: pos perceptions about selection are more likely to view org as favorable. Face calidity was strong predictor of PJ, DJ, and attitudes toward the process. Interviews and work sample better than cog, but cog vetter than personality, honesty, biodata
Recruitment
all org practices and decisions that affect either the # or types of individuals willing to apply for or accept a given vacancy (Rynes, 1991)
Long term consequences of P-O fit
Kristoff (1996): job sat, org commit, lower stress, higher OCBs
