- Email: [email protected]
The Next Millennium of “Fit” Research: Comments on “The Congruence Myth: An Analysis of the Efficacy of the Person–Environment Fit Model” by H. E. A. Tinsley
Journal of Vocational Behavior 56, 190 –196 (2000) doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1744, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
RESPONSE The Next Millennium of “Fit” Research: Comments on “The Congruence Myth: An Analysis of the Efficacy of the Person–Environment Fit Model” by H. E. A. Tinsley Beryl Hesketh The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
The critical review by Tinsley in this volume is long overdue. The field of vocational psychology has been dominated by Holland’s model and hexagonal research for decades, and it is time to move on. In my response, I restrict myself to elaborating and hopefully clarifying a few of the principles raised by Tinsley, while also adding alternative approaches to future fit research that may overcome some of the difficulties highlighted by Tinsley in current and past fit research. I was pleased to see the recognition that a form of fit research is widespread within the broader field of Industrial and Organizational (I/O) psychology. A variety of I/O theories and intervention strategies fall within the general umbrella of “fit” theories and approaches. Issues of fit are relevant to selection (Hesketh & Robertson, 1993), training (Goldstein, 1993), job design and motivation (Hesketh, 1993), and career choice (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Holland, 1992). In its simplest form, research examining any fit theory requires four components: 1. Measurement of the person on a relevant array of dimensions covering both the competency and the motivational components [knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) and values, needs, and interests]; 2. Measurement of the environment on a commensurate relevant array of dimensions (requirements for KSAs and outlets for values, needs, and interests); 3. Measurement of an outcome (satisfaction, performance, tenure, stress, and accidents); and 4. Assessment of the fit between the person and the environment, directly, and as revealed in the contribution of the person, the environment, and the fit to an outcome. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Beryl Hesketh, Dean of Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]. 190 0001-8791/00 $35.00 Copyright © 2000 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
FIT RESEARCH: COMMENTS ON TINSLEY
191
Fit Research in I/O Psychology For the past 2 decades, I have used the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA) (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) as an organizing framework for my own research and thinking in mainstream I/O psychology. Although making use of the RIASEC interests, I have not found the same value in Holland’s (1992) theory. The value of TWA lies in the clarity with which it identifies the separate components of the selection and training model, while also providing a basis for understanding career choice and work adjustment. Furthermore, it is a person– environment (P–E) interaction theory with clear implications for organizational and individual change. As noted by Tinsley, Holland’s (1985a) fit model does not distinguish clearly between individual desires and environmental supplies, on the one hand, and abilities and job demands on the other. Skill and motivational components tend to blur in the Holland model and there is no attempt to address change. However, for I/O psychology it is important to distinguish the skill and ability component of the fit model from those components that contribute to motivation, and accommodating change is essential. Selection is based implicitly on the concept of fit. In selection research, a job or function and organizational analysis is undertaken to establish the required KSAs. This information is used to identify appropriate predictor measures and to design the criterion performance rating systems. The validity of the chosen predictors is assessed by examining individual and combined relationships of the predictors to concurrent or subsequent measures of performance. A “fit” model and commensurate measurement is implicit in this approach, in part because the latent underlying dimensions derived from the job analysis drive the choice of predictors and performance measures. However, in practice, the actual measures often stray from the underlying constructs, and few studies obtain a direct measure of fit between the required and supplied KSAs as a predictor of performance. Most recently, particularly in relation to personality and selection, the importance of commensurate measurement has been recognized. Previous selection research suggesting low validity coefficients for personality measures tended to use very broad performance measures that were not necessarily conceptually related to personality predictor dimensions. Recent personality selection research has at least attempted to establish the requirements for relevant personality dimensions using job analysis and to use this information to guide the choice of appropriate personality scales as predictors. Where the dimensions relevant to personality constructs are used as a basis for rating performance (commensurate measurement), validities are higher (Robertson & Kinder, 1993). Tinsley’s summary of research testing Holland’s theory of fit does not point to high validity. Perhaps the issues raised in the recent history of personality selection research are relevant to understanding the reasons. Holland’s theory does not make good use of commensurate measurement, as congruence research depends upon the hexagonal arrangement for fit indices and often employs a very
192
BERYL HESKETH
gross classification of jobs to obtain information about the environment. Research is seldom carried out using fit across all six scales. If this were done, validity coefficients may increase. Present Status Model Tinsley raises a particularly important issue under the topic of “Present Status Models,” namely that some environments produce desired outcomes irrespective of the extent of fit with individuals. Warr (1987), drawing on decades of research on unemployment and job satisfaction, highlighted that there are normatively desirable characteristics found in good environments. Examples include variety, environmental clarity and feedback, availability of money, physical security, interpersonal contact, externally generated goals, opportunity for skill use, opportunity for control, and valued social position. Good environments produce satisfaction and well-being independently of fit. Fit research has tended to underestimate the direct contribution of the environment. Fit research also tends to ignore the direct contribution of the individual irrespective of fit, an issue mentioned briefly by Tinsley. Hesketh (1993) discussed this in relation to Holland’s theory where it might be argued that certain Holland types are more satisfied irrespective of fit. Extroverts are generally happier individuals, and given the relation of extroversion to Social and Enterprising types, one might expect these types to be more satisfied in any environment. Of course we need more longitudinal research to understand why these individuals may be more satisfied. It may relate to underlying levels of positive and negative affectivity, or it may be that extroverted personality types have a greater preparedness to negotiate minor improvements in their current jobs to suit themselves (active modes of adjustment). Restriction of Range One of the more interesting points raised by Tinsley relates to the issue of restriction of range on the validity of fit models in the vocational field. One of the best illustrations of a debate relevant to restriction of range is that associated with general ability and selection. Hunter (1986), writing in the special issue of the Journal of Vocational Behavior (Gottfredson, 1986) on the role of “g” in selection, highlighted the importance of general ability in selection, an argument now associated with the widely accepted phenomenon of validity generalization. The validity generalization view, taken to extreme, suggests that all that matters in selection is general ability and that validity coefficients will not be moderated by different types of jobs or different organizations. An associated argument is that special abilities do not add predictive validity, except for perceptual speed. This would suggest that fit was unimportant in relation to skills and abilities as all the variance is accounted for by a direct effect of general ability. Prediger (1989) noted, however, that some of the homogeneity in the validity coefficients for general ability (after corrections for restriction of range, sample size, and unreliability in the criterion), were due to the restricted and homogeneous
FIT RESEARCH: COMMENTS ON TINSLEY
193
samples on which selection studies were carried out. Using the much broader ACT sample, special abilities did add unique variance. A solution to the fit debate would be extremely valuable in the field of selection, where there is a need for good longitudinal research measuring all components of the fit model (individual differences and job requirements as well as performance) on commensurate dimensions. Approaches to Measuring and Testing Fit Tinsley provides a very useful discussion on the problem with fit indices. In many studies fit has been operationalized in a linear and noninteractive way as either a difference score or an absolute difference score between the environment measure and the corresponding person score (e.g., Edwards, 1991). Typically these difference, or absolute difference, scores are averaged across an array of dimensions to provide an overall index of fit, which is then related to the outcome measure (satisfaction, performance, stress, etc.). Correlating a composite index with the outcome measures raises the scaling issues repeatedly highlighted in the literature (Evans, 1991; Schmidt, 1973) but just as often ignored (e.g., Job Characteristics Model, Hackman & Oldham, 1980). It is often not recognized that the use of a fit index without including the direct contribution of the individual and the environment is essentially equivalent to entering an interaction term into multiple regression without including the lower order terms in the model. Item-level approach. Hesketh and Gardner (1993) tested fit hypotheses within the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment at an item level to overcome the many problems associated with using difference scores implicit in a composite fit index. Microtheories, as suggested by Tinsley, were used in relation to some of the dimensions. For example, it was predicted that friendly supervision would have a direct effect from the environment (present status model) and that fit would not be important. However, a requirement for sales (an Enterprising activity) does require fit, as not everyone enjoys this activity. The microtheories used in the Hesketh and Gardner (1993) study were somewhat rudimentary, and much more detailed thinking is needed for future research. Another problem with traditional fit indices is the failure to account for interactions among different dimensions in deriving fit, some of which may be nonlinear. The item-level analysis reported by Hesketh and Gardner (1993) highlighted the direct contribution of the environment on several dimensions, but was somewhat limited in understanding developments involving nonlinear and interactive relationships among dimensions as contributions toward fit. Polynomial regression approach. Tinsley reviews very thoroughly the polynomial regression approach that has been suggested as a way of overcoming the problems with analysis at the item level. This approach involves a full polynomial regression equation combining all the dimensions to obtain an overall measure of fit. I agree with Tinsley that this approach does not provide improved understanding of the meaning of relationships and, without substantive crossvalidation, it capitalizes on chance.
194
BERYL HESKETH
Fit and Holland’s theory. In Holland’s theory, the problems with fit indices are different. For example, in Holland’s theory, the three-letter code approach assumes linear relations and tends to ignore the role of dislike or lack of interest as an influence on preference. In order to obtain a complete picture of an individual’s work personality it is necessary to retain and use information about orientation to all six types. The various measures associated with Holland’s theory (VPI and SDS; Holland, 1985b,c) and the Strong Interest Inventory (Hansen & Campbell, 1985) provide a basis for obtaining scores on all six types. The Position Classification Inventory (PCI; Gottfredson & Holland, 1991) provides an analytic approach to job descriptions in terms of the six Holland types so that it should be possible to use all six dimensions in fit measures. The importance of dislikes was highlighted in a study undertaken to investigate managerial and technical career paths (Hesketh, Gardner, & Lissner, 1992). Although not reported in this article Holland interest data were also collected. We found that the only factor differentiating satisfied engineer managers from technical engineers was how much they disliked Enterprising activities. Both groups had primary orientations toward Investigative, Realistic, and Artistic interests, but Enterprising interests were very low for the technical group. The current approach to the use of Holland measures ignores valuable information of this sort. As pointed out by Tinsley in the discussion in relation to Principle 3, the descriptions of Environments seldom do more than consider three-letter codes providing a form of restriction of range, in that disliked components are ignored. Failure to include the full set of scales in assessing Holland’s model may have attenuated the validity of the studies testing it. It would be instructive to compare the validity of predictions from Holland’s dimensions using the classic fit indices with a more comprehensive fit model that makes use of all six Holland dimensions. Direct measures of fit. Tinsley highlights the use of measures that ask specifically about fit without measuring either the person or the environment. I agree that these measures confound the direct contribution of P and E and also leave out important information. Nevertheless, it is interesting that an item that predicts job satisfaction extremely well is one that asks respondents the extent to which their jobs require the use of their skills and abilities. This item is almost a direct measure of fit, as it asks the person to judge whether the job matches his or her own skills and abilities. It is particularly interesting that this perceived match in relation to the ability skill dimension relates to job satisfaction, not performance. Hit rate and pattern approach. Tinsley draws attention to a hit-rate approach as an alternative. The idea has considerable merit and can be studied within a broader signal detection theory and framework. Another approach worth considering arises from the work of Gustafson and Mumford (1995) who have used cluster analysis to obtain clusters of people and then of environments forming types which they then relate to outcome measures. The patterns are described in terms of complex profiles of attributes. Their pattern approach starts to capture the nonlinear interacting effects in a way not previously possible. Gustafson and
FIT RESEARCH: COMMENTS ON TINSLEY
195
Mumford (1995) recognize the interdependence of people and environments in P–E fit and interaction models and argue that a pattern-oriented approach to assessing fit identifies information ignored in other approaches. The Gustafson and Mumford (1995) article in the Journal of Vocational Behavior is well worth reading. Unfortunately research of this sort requires large and heterogeneous sample sizes. Hesketh, Hesketh, and Allworth (1997) suggested that fuzzy configural analysis might offer ways of capturing the interactive and nonlinear aspects, but work in this area is very preliminary. In other areas of science sophisticated visualization techniques are being used to help people understand complex nonlinear and interactive relationships. I believe that we should use some of these approaches to explore fit data sets and develop microtheories for subsequent cross-validation. For this purpose, the data sets will need to have used commensurate measurement and to contain all the required components of the fit model. Allworth and Hesketh (1999) have pursued the idea of using measures that capture change as the basis for establishing fit. Jobs are analyzed for the change requirement and predictive measures such as change-related biodata are developed and validated against measures of Adaptive performance. Conclusion The review suggests that it is time to move on in fit research. We need longitudinal studies, new statistical and visualization approaches, and new ideas such as a cluster configural approach or hit-rate analysis. Theory and meaningfulness should drive the research, not just blind and complex statistical approaches, as has been evident in hexagonal research. REFERENCES Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7, 97–111. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organisational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–375). New York: Wiley. Evans (1991). The problem of analyzint multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 1– 6. Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (3 rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Gottfredson, L. S. (1986). Occupational aptitude patterns map: Development and implications for a theory of job aptitude requirements. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 254 –291. Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1991). Position Classification Inventory (PCI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Gustafson, S. G., & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Personal style and person– environment fit: A pattern approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 163–188. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
196
BERYL HESKETH
Hansen, J. I., & Campbell, D. P. (1985). Manual for the Strong Interest Inventory (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hesketh (1993). Toward a better adjusted Theory of Work Adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 75– 83. Hesketh, B., & Gardner, D. (1993). Person– environment fit models: A reconceptualization and empirical test. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 315–332. Hesketh, B., Hesketh, T., & Allworth, E. (1997, August). Fuzzy set approach to configural prediction from interests and personality. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Conference, Chicago. Hesketh, B., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Personnel selection: A process model for research and practice. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1, 3–18. Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340 –362. Holland, J. L. (1985a). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Holland, J. L. (1985b). Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1985c). The self-directed search: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Prediger, D. J. (1989). Ability differences across occupations: More than just g. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 1–27. Robertson, I. T., & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competencies: The criterion-related validity of some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 66, 225–244. Schmidt, F. L. (1973). Implications of a measurement problem for expectancy theory research. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 10, 243–251. Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Received: October 20, 1999
RESPONSE The Next Millennium of “Fit” Research: Comments on “The Congruence Myth: An Analysis of the Efficacy of the Person–Environment Fit Model” by H. E. A. Tinsley Beryl Hesketh The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
The critical review by Tinsley in this volume is long overdue. The field of vocational psychology has been dominated by Holland’s model and hexagonal research for decades, and it is time to move on. In my response, I restrict myself to elaborating and hopefully clarifying a few of the principles raised by Tinsley, while also adding alternative approaches to future fit research that may overcome some of the difficulties highlighted by Tinsley in current and past fit research. I was pleased to see the recognition that a form of fit research is widespread within the broader field of Industrial and Organizational (I/O) psychology. A variety of I/O theories and intervention strategies fall within the general umbrella of “fit” theories and approaches. Issues of fit are relevant to selection (Hesketh & Robertson, 1993), training (Goldstein, 1993), job design and motivation (Hesketh, 1993), and career choice (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Holland, 1992). In its simplest form, research examining any fit theory requires four components: 1. Measurement of the person on a relevant array of dimensions covering both the competency and the motivational components [knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) and values, needs, and interests]; 2. Measurement of the environment on a commensurate relevant array of dimensions (requirements for KSAs and outlets for values, needs, and interests); 3. Measurement of an outcome (satisfaction, performance, tenure, stress, and accidents); and 4. Assessment of the fit between the person and the environment, directly, and as revealed in the contribution of the person, the environment, and the fit to an outcome. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Beryl Hesketh, Dean of Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]. 190 0001-8791/00 $35.00 Copyright © 2000 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
FIT RESEARCH: COMMENTS ON TINSLEY
191
Fit Research in I/O Psychology For the past 2 decades, I have used the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA) (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) as an organizing framework for my own research and thinking in mainstream I/O psychology. Although making use of the RIASEC interests, I have not found the same value in Holland’s (1992) theory. The value of TWA lies in the clarity with which it identifies the separate components of the selection and training model, while also providing a basis for understanding career choice and work adjustment. Furthermore, it is a person– environment (P–E) interaction theory with clear implications for organizational and individual change. As noted by Tinsley, Holland’s (1985a) fit model does not distinguish clearly between individual desires and environmental supplies, on the one hand, and abilities and job demands on the other. Skill and motivational components tend to blur in the Holland model and there is no attempt to address change. However, for I/O psychology it is important to distinguish the skill and ability component of the fit model from those components that contribute to motivation, and accommodating change is essential. Selection is based implicitly on the concept of fit. In selection research, a job or function and organizational analysis is undertaken to establish the required KSAs. This information is used to identify appropriate predictor measures and to design the criterion performance rating systems. The validity of the chosen predictors is assessed by examining individual and combined relationships of the predictors to concurrent or subsequent measures of performance. A “fit” model and commensurate measurement is implicit in this approach, in part because the latent underlying dimensions derived from the job analysis drive the choice of predictors and performance measures. However, in practice, the actual measures often stray from the underlying constructs, and few studies obtain a direct measure of fit between the required and supplied KSAs as a predictor of performance. Most recently, particularly in relation to personality and selection, the importance of commensurate measurement has been recognized. Previous selection research suggesting low validity coefficients for personality measures tended to use very broad performance measures that were not necessarily conceptually related to personality predictor dimensions. Recent personality selection research has at least attempted to establish the requirements for relevant personality dimensions using job analysis and to use this information to guide the choice of appropriate personality scales as predictors. Where the dimensions relevant to personality constructs are used as a basis for rating performance (commensurate measurement), validities are higher (Robertson & Kinder, 1993). Tinsley’s summary of research testing Holland’s theory of fit does not point to high validity. Perhaps the issues raised in the recent history of personality selection research are relevant to understanding the reasons. Holland’s theory does not make good use of commensurate measurement, as congruence research depends upon the hexagonal arrangement for fit indices and often employs a very
192
BERYL HESKETH
gross classification of jobs to obtain information about the environment. Research is seldom carried out using fit across all six scales. If this were done, validity coefficients may increase. Present Status Model Tinsley raises a particularly important issue under the topic of “Present Status Models,” namely that some environments produce desired outcomes irrespective of the extent of fit with individuals. Warr (1987), drawing on decades of research on unemployment and job satisfaction, highlighted that there are normatively desirable characteristics found in good environments. Examples include variety, environmental clarity and feedback, availability of money, physical security, interpersonal contact, externally generated goals, opportunity for skill use, opportunity for control, and valued social position. Good environments produce satisfaction and well-being independently of fit. Fit research has tended to underestimate the direct contribution of the environment. Fit research also tends to ignore the direct contribution of the individual irrespective of fit, an issue mentioned briefly by Tinsley. Hesketh (1993) discussed this in relation to Holland’s theory where it might be argued that certain Holland types are more satisfied irrespective of fit. Extroverts are generally happier individuals, and given the relation of extroversion to Social and Enterprising types, one might expect these types to be more satisfied in any environment. Of course we need more longitudinal research to understand why these individuals may be more satisfied. It may relate to underlying levels of positive and negative affectivity, or it may be that extroverted personality types have a greater preparedness to negotiate minor improvements in their current jobs to suit themselves (active modes of adjustment). Restriction of Range One of the more interesting points raised by Tinsley relates to the issue of restriction of range on the validity of fit models in the vocational field. One of the best illustrations of a debate relevant to restriction of range is that associated with general ability and selection. Hunter (1986), writing in the special issue of the Journal of Vocational Behavior (Gottfredson, 1986) on the role of “g” in selection, highlighted the importance of general ability in selection, an argument now associated with the widely accepted phenomenon of validity generalization. The validity generalization view, taken to extreme, suggests that all that matters in selection is general ability and that validity coefficients will not be moderated by different types of jobs or different organizations. An associated argument is that special abilities do not add predictive validity, except for perceptual speed. This would suggest that fit was unimportant in relation to skills and abilities as all the variance is accounted for by a direct effect of general ability. Prediger (1989) noted, however, that some of the homogeneity in the validity coefficients for general ability (after corrections for restriction of range, sample size, and unreliability in the criterion), were due to the restricted and homogeneous
FIT RESEARCH: COMMENTS ON TINSLEY
193
samples on which selection studies were carried out. Using the much broader ACT sample, special abilities did add unique variance. A solution to the fit debate would be extremely valuable in the field of selection, where there is a need for good longitudinal research measuring all components of the fit model (individual differences and job requirements as well as performance) on commensurate dimensions. Approaches to Measuring and Testing Fit Tinsley provides a very useful discussion on the problem with fit indices. In many studies fit has been operationalized in a linear and noninteractive way as either a difference score or an absolute difference score between the environment measure and the corresponding person score (e.g., Edwards, 1991). Typically these difference, or absolute difference, scores are averaged across an array of dimensions to provide an overall index of fit, which is then related to the outcome measure (satisfaction, performance, stress, etc.). Correlating a composite index with the outcome measures raises the scaling issues repeatedly highlighted in the literature (Evans, 1991; Schmidt, 1973) but just as often ignored (e.g., Job Characteristics Model, Hackman & Oldham, 1980). It is often not recognized that the use of a fit index without including the direct contribution of the individual and the environment is essentially equivalent to entering an interaction term into multiple regression without including the lower order terms in the model. Item-level approach. Hesketh and Gardner (1993) tested fit hypotheses within the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment at an item level to overcome the many problems associated with using difference scores implicit in a composite fit index. Microtheories, as suggested by Tinsley, were used in relation to some of the dimensions. For example, it was predicted that friendly supervision would have a direct effect from the environment (present status model) and that fit would not be important. However, a requirement for sales (an Enterprising activity) does require fit, as not everyone enjoys this activity. The microtheories used in the Hesketh and Gardner (1993) study were somewhat rudimentary, and much more detailed thinking is needed for future research. Another problem with traditional fit indices is the failure to account for interactions among different dimensions in deriving fit, some of which may be nonlinear. The item-level analysis reported by Hesketh and Gardner (1993) highlighted the direct contribution of the environment on several dimensions, but was somewhat limited in understanding developments involving nonlinear and interactive relationships among dimensions as contributions toward fit. Polynomial regression approach. Tinsley reviews very thoroughly the polynomial regression approach that has been suggested as a way of overcoming the problems with analysis at the item level. This approach involves a full polynomial regression equation combining all the dimensions to obtain an overall measure of fit. I agree with Tinsley that this approach does not provide improved understanding of the meaning of relationships and, without substantive crossvalidation, it capitalizes on chance.
194
BERYL HESKETH
Fit and Holland’s theory. In Holland’s theory, the problems with fit indices are different. For example, in Holland’s theory, the three-letter code approach assumes linear relations and tends to ignore the role of dislike or lack of interest as an influence on preference. In order to obtain a complete picture of an individual’s work personality it is necessary to retain and use information about orientation to all six types. The various measures associated with Holland’s theory (VPI and SDS; Holland, 1985b,c) and the Strong Interest Inventory (Hansen & Campbell, 1985) provide a basis for obtaining scores on all six types. The Position Classification Inventory (PCI; Gottfredson & Holland, 1991) provides an analytic approach to job descriptions in terms of the six Holland types so that it should be possible to use all six dimensions in fit measures. The importance of dislikes was highlighted in a study undertaken to investigate managerial and technical career paths (Hesketh, Gardner, & Lissner, 1992). Although not reported in this article Holland interest data were also collected. We found that the only factor differentiating satisfied engineer managers from technical engineers was how much they disliked Enterprising activities. Both groups had primary orientations toward Investigative, Realistic, and Artistic interests, but Enterprising interests were very low for the technical group. The current approach to the use of Holland measures ignores valuable information of this sort. As pointed out by Tinsley in the discussion in relation to Principle 3, the descriptions of Environments seldom do more than consider three-letter codes providing a form of restriction of range, in that disliked components are ignored. Failure to include the full set of scales in assessing Holland’s model may have attenuated the validity of the studies testing it. It would be instructive to compare the validity of predictions from Holland’s dimensions using the classic fit indices with a more comprehensive fit model that makes use of all six Holland dimensions. Direct measures of fit. Tinsley highlights the use of measures that ask specifically about fit without measuring either the person or the environment. I agree that these measures confound the direct contribution of P and E and also leave out important information. Nevertheless, it is interesting that an item that predicts job satisfaction extremely well is one that asks respondents the extent to which their jobs require the use of their skills and abilities. This item is almost a direct measure of fit, as it asks the person to judge whether the job matches his or her own skills and abilities. It is particularly interesting that this perceived match in relation to the ability skill dimension relates to job satisfaction, not performance. Hit rate and pattern approach. Tinsley draws attention to a hit-rate approach as an alternative. The idea has considerable merit and can be studied within a broader signal detection theory and framework. Another approach worth considering arises from the work of Gustafson and Mumford (1995) who have used cluster analysis to obtain clusters of people and then of environments forming types which they then relate to outcome measures. The patterns are described in terms of complex profiles of attributes. Their pattern approach starts to capture the nonlinear interacting effects in a way not previously possible. Gustafson and
FIT RESEARCH: COMMENTS ON TINSLEY
195
Mumford (1995) recognize the interdependence of people and environments in P–E fit and interaction models and argue that a pattern-oriented approach to assessing fit identifies information ignored in other approaches. The Gustafson and Mumford (1995) article in the Journal of Vocational Behavior is well worth reading. Unfortunately research of this sort requires large and heterogeneous sample sizes. Hesketh, Hesketh, and Allworth (1997) suggested that fuzzy configural analysis might offer ways of capturing the interactive and nonlinear aspects, but work in this area is very preliminary. In other areas of science sophisticated visualization techniques are being used to help people understand complex nonlinear and interactive relationships. I believe that we should use some of these approaches to explore fit data sets and develop microtheories for subsequent cross-validation. For this purpose, the data sets will need to have used commensurate measurement and to contain all the required components of the fit model. Allworth and Hesketh (1999) have pursued the idea of using measures that capture change as the basis for establishing fit. Jobs are analyzed for the change requirement and predictive measures such as change-related biodata are developed and validated against measures of Adaptive performance. Conclusion The review suggests that it is time to move on in fit research. We need longitudinal studies, new statistical and visualization approaches, and new ideas such as a cluster configural approach or hit-rate analysis. Theory and meaningfulness should drive the research, not just blind and complex statistical approaches, as has been evident in hexagonal research. REFERENCES Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7, 97–111. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organisational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–375). New York: Wiley. Evans (1991). The problem of analyzint multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 1– 6. Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (3 rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Gottfredson, L. S. (1986). Occupational aptitude patterns map: Development and implications for a theory of job aptitude requirements. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 254 –291. Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1991). Position Classification Inventory (PCI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Gustafson, S. G., & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Personal style and person– environment fit: A pattern approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 163–188. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
196
BERYL HESKETH
Hansen, J. I., & Campbell, D. P. (1985). Manual for the Strong Interest Inventory (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hesketh (1993). Toward a better adjusted Theory of Work Adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 75– 83. Hesketh, B., & Gardner, D. (1993). Person– environment fit models: A reconceptualization and empirical test. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 315–332. Hesketh, B., Hesketh, T., & Allworth, E. (1997, August). Fuzzy set approach to configural prediction from interests and personality. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Conference, Chicago. Hesketh, B., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Personnel selection: A process model for research and practice. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1, 3–18. Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340 –362. Holland, J. L. (1985a). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Holland, J. L. (1985b). Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1985c). The self-directed search: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Prediger, D. J. (1989). Ability differences across occupations: More than just g. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 1–27. Robertson, I. T., & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competencies: The criterion-related validity of some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 66, 225–244. Schmidt, F. L. (1973). Implications of a measurement problem for expectancy theory research. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 10, 243–251. Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Received: October 20, 1999