- Email: [email protected]
Applying person-environment theory to vocational behavior
Journal of Vocational Behavior 31, 333-336 (1987)
Applying Person-Environment Theory to Vocational Behavior SAMUEL
H. OSIPOW
Ohio State University Person-environment is acknowledged to be at the heart of vocational psychology and career development. Comments upon the emphases of selected papers in this special issue are made, focusing upon the need for substantial improvements in the measurement of the environment and the techniques for quantitatively comparing the fit between the person and environment. o 1987 Academic PESS, IN.
Person-environment is what vocational psychology is all about. Starting from the day of Frank Parsons (1909), if not before, career advice has been to find the job niche best suited to one’s characteristics. Success in obtaining such a fit was thought to assure success, satisfaction, and advancement. While few today believe that prescription is accurate because we have learned how truly complex the processes of vocational choice, adjustment, satisfaction, and performance are, nonetheless, the idea of a good match between people and their work remains at the core of career psychology. Indeed, the advent of microprocessors has underscored the potential to improve our skill in matching people and jobs. It is, therefore, surprising indeed that nearly three quarters of a century after Frank Parsons we continue to find the methods to fit people and work together amazingly rudimentary. We continue to work toward developing ways to advise young people how to obtain a good career fit, and we are often hard pressed to do more than “test ‘em and tell ‘em” when it comes to counseling adults about their careers, though our models to aid in decision making have become considerably more sophisticated (e.g., Gati, 1986). Thus, the Pervin (1987) and the Moos (1987) papers are right on the mark. Both writers, distinguished environmental scholars, each with a long history of work studying how people and their environments interact, are natural choices to write about people and work. Work environments have traditionally interested environmental scholars for obvious reasons. Both Pervin and Moos make the importance of the relationship between Requests for reprints should be directed to Samuel H. Osipow, Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210. 333 OOOl-8791/87$3.00 Copyright 0 1987 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
334
SAMUEL
H. OSIPOW
person-environment in work settings absolutely clear, and beyond that, their discussions are stimulating and lead to new insights about areas of study that will further our understanding about how people and their work environments interact. One of the main problems with testing person-environment theory and using it in practical ways has been measurement issues. How do we assess people? How do we measure the environment? Having measured individuals and assessed their environments, how do we compare the two regarding the degree and quality of fit? More precisely, which personal attributes do we need to assess (height, weight, age, personality, sex, length of hair etc?) and which environmental aspects are of importance? Clearly, the answer to the last question is “it depends.” If one wishes to be a sumo wrestler, or a National Football League player, then weight is important. For most other fields, probably not. But this may not be so, since so much has been written about the importance of impression formation in predicting business success. Leaders are said to be taller, heavier (but not fatter), and more attractive than subordinates. The sample above is just to give the reader a brief notion of how difficult it is to match people and their environments at work. Merely identifying the salient elements of the environment for assessment is extraordinarily difficult, as Pervin (1987) so clearly points out in noting a stability as well as fluidity in personality functioning. Probably the identification begins with the environment and then moves to the individual, but it is very likely an iterative process. First we need to identify the crude elements of environmental demands, then assess the individual on those elements, and in so doing to further refine our understanding of the environmental elements of importance, ideally moving back and forth between the two units (of person and environment) with increasing sophistication and sensitivity. Many career theorists have built their models based on, or at least related to, person-environment theory. Holland’s (1985) is a good example of an extensive model of person-environment matching in the world of work. To his credit, each version of Holland’s theory has demonstrated increasing sophistication about the number of important dimensions and variables in the match, so that what began as an attempt to simply match certain personality “types” to work environments has become a model which describes, among other variables, work styles and organizational contexts which differentially fit people. Similarly, the Work Adjustment Theory of Lofquist and Dawis (originally published in 1969 and more recently revised by Dawis and Lofquist, 1984) has posited a number of dimensions along which people should be assessed in relation to the work place. Some writers have considered occupational stress and strain as a special case of the person-environment fit (e.g., Caplan, 1987; Osipow & Spokane,
PERSON-ENVIRONMENT
AND
VOCATIONAL
BEHAVIOR
335
1983). In the Osipow and Spokane formulation the person-environment fit is subtle; that is, the perception of work role is seen as a source of potential stress, work roles having some elements important to personenvironment fit. As Pervin (1987) points out, over time and situations it seems likely that people and their environments are somewhat unstable, or at least changeable. The young worker probably has different strengths and weaknesses than the same person will have as he or she becomes an older worker, and the environmental demands on the worker over time probably change as well. One aspect of this seems well illustrated in a study reported by Osipow, Doty, and Spokane (1985) in which perceived occupational stressors seem to vary according to respondent age. Since it seems probable that to some degree worker perceptions of their social role stresses describe one aspect of their work environment, older workers are likely to be reporting different work environments than younger workers; but at the same time, it seems likely that the older and younger workers differ with respect to how they react to their work environments as well. All the above notwithstanding, problems exist with respect to the assessmentissue and judgments about fit. Most contributors to this special issue are that our measures of person and environment are not up to the task (e.g., Caplan, 1987). To this end, Rounds, Dawis, and Lofquist (1987), Muchinsky and Monahan (1987), and Assouline and Meir (1987) have, from various perspectives and theoretical positions, written their papers for this special issue. Each paper seems, in a particular way, to be attempting to solve some problem of application. The Rounds, Dawis, and Lofquist paper represents a special approach to the assessment process, taking a single person-environment formulation and tackling the measurement problems at a molecular level. The problem Rounds et al. deal with in their paper is at the heart of the person-environment issue as it applies to vocational psychology; that is, how to quantify the degree of person-environment fit once we have measured both. Other writers are beginning to recognize important antecedents and consequences of person-environment fit in the “out-of-work” environment. The degree of fit at work has implications for home and family, just as the home and family has person-environment implications for the workplace. A major question not entirely resolved but clearly raised by Kulik, Oldham, and Hackman (1987) is person-environment fit for what? They suggest three possibilities, i.e., needs satisfaction, performance capability, and job choice, the latter reflecting variables such as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback. Their paper emphasizes the need to recognize that the person and environment_ must fit each other in a myriad of ways, reflecting different variables for
SAMUEL H. OSIPOW
336
different people at various times, even different for the same people at various times. In this connection, yet another unresolved problem concerning person-environment fit becomes apparent: which comes first in person-environment studies, the person or the environment? Investigators can begin their inquiries at either end, but in doing so, important differences in outcomes may result. After nearly 80 years, person-environment remains as cogent for the understanding of career behavior as ever, while our technology to study the fit has improved substantially. What we need now is an improvement of the “breakthrough” variety in methods of environmental assessment and the quantification of the person-environment fit. Such a development would substantially raise the utility of all the person-environment approaches and permit the testing of theory as well as improve applications. REFERENCES Assouline, N., & Meir, E. I. (1987). Meta-analysis on the relationship between congruence and well-being measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 319-332. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gati, I. (1986). Making career decisions-A sequential elimination approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 408-417. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choice: A Theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, R. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278-2%. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1%9). Adjustment to work. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Moos, R. H. (1987). Person-environment congruence in work, school, and health care settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 231-247. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. .I. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.
Osipow, S. H., Doty, R., & Spokane, A. R. (1985). Occupational stress, strain, and coping across the lifespan. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 98-108. Osipow, S. H., & Spokane, A. R. (1983). Manual for measuring occupational stress, strain and coping. Columbus, OH: Marathon Consulting and Press. Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pervin, L. A. (1987). Person-environment congruence in the light of the person-situation controversy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 222-230. Rounds, J. B., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1987).Measurement of person-environment fit and prediction of satisfaction in the theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 297-318. Received: July 15, 1987
Applying Person-Environment Theory to Vocational Behavior SAMUEL
H. OSIPOW
Ohio State University Person-environment is acknowledged to be at the heart of vocational psychology and career development. Comments upon the emphases of selected papers in this special issue are made, focusing upon the need for substantial improvements in the measurement of the environment and the techniques for quantitatively comparing the fit between the person and environment. o 1987 Academic PESS, IN.
Person-environment is what vocational psychology is all about. Starting from the day of Frank Parsons (1909), if not before, career advice has been to find the job niche best suited to one’s characteristics. Success in obtaining such a fit was thought to assure success, satisfaction, and advancement. While few today believe that prescription is accurate because we have learned how truly complex the processes of vocational choice, adjustment, satisfaction, and performance are, nonetheless, the idea of a good match between people and their work remains at the core of career psychology. Indeed, the advent of microprocessors has underscored the potential to improve our skill in matching people and jobs. It is, therefore, surprising indeed that nearly three quarters of a century after Frank Parsons we continue to find the methods to fit people and work together amazingly rudimentary. We continue to work toward developing ways to advise young people how to obtain a good career fit, and we are often hard pressed to do more than “test ‘em and tell ‘em” when it comes to counseling adults about their careers, though our models to aid in decision making have become considerably more sophisticated (e.g., Gati, 1986). Thus, the Pervin (1987) and the Moos (1987) papers are right on the mark. Both writers, distinguished environmental scholars, each with a long history of work studying how people and their environments interact, are natural choices to write about people and work. Work environments have traditionally interested environmental scholars for obvious reasons. Both Pervin and Moos make the importance of the relationship between Requests for reprints should be directed to Samuel H. Osipow, Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210. 333 OOOl-8791/87$3.00 Copyright 0 1987 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
334
SAMUEL
H. OSIPOW
person-environment in work settings absolutely clear, and beyond that, their discussions are stimulating and lead to new insights about areas of study that will further our understanding about how people and their work environments interact. One of the main problems with testing person-environment theory and using it in practical ways has been measurement issues. How do we assess people? How do we measure the environment? Having measured individuals and assessed their environments, how do we compare the two regarding the degree and quality of fit? More precisely, which personal attributes do we need to assess (height, weight, age, personality, sex, length of hair etc?) and which environmental aspects are of importance? Clearly, the answer to the last question is “it depends.” If one wishes to be a sumo wrestler, or a National Football League player, then weight is important. For most other fields, probably not. But this may not be so, since so much has been written about the importance of impression formation in predicting business success. Leaders are said to be taller, heavier (but not fatter), and more attractive than subordinates. The sample above is just to give the reader a brief notion of how difficult it is to match people and their environments at work. Merely identifying the salient elements of the environment for assessment is extraordinarily difficult, as Pervin (1987) so clearly points out in noting a stability as well as fluidity in personality functioning. Probably the identification begins with the environment and then moves to the individual, but it is very likely an iterative process. First we need to identify the crude elements of environmental demands, then assess the individual on those elements, and in so doing to further refine our understanding of the environmental elements of importance, ideally moving back and forth between the two units (of person and environment) with increasing sophistication and sensitivity. Many career theorists have built their models based on, or at least related to, person-environment theory. Holland’s (1985) is a good example of an extensive model of person-environment matching in the world of work. To his credit, each version of Holland’s theory has demonstrated increasing sophistication about the number of important dimensions and variables in the match, so that what began as an attempt to simply match certain personality “types” to work environments has become a model which describes, among other variables, work styles and organizational contexts which differentially fit people. Similarly, the Work Adjustment Theory of Lofquist and Dawis (originally published in 1969 and more recently revised by Dawis and Lofquist, 1984) has posited a number of dimensions along which people should be assessed in relation to the work place. Some writers have considered occupational stress and strain as a special case of the person-environment fit (e.g., Caplan, 1987; Osipow & Spokane,
PERSON-ENVIRONMENT
AND
VOCATIONAL
BEHAVIOR
335
1983). In the Osipow and Spokane formulation the person-environment fit is subtle; that is, the perception of work role is seen as a source of potential stress, work roles having some elements important to personenvironment fit. As Pervin (1987) points out, over time and situations it seems likely that people and their environments are somewhat unstable, or at least changeable. The young worker probably has different strengths and weaknesses than the same person will have as he or she becomes an older worker, and the environmental demands on the worker over time probably change as well. One aspect of this seems well illustrated in a study reported by Osipow, Doty, and Spokane (1985) in which perceived occupational stressors seem to vary according to respondent age. Since it seems probable that to some degree worker perceptions of their social role stresses describe one aspect of their work environment, older workers are likely to be reporting different work environments than younger workers; but at the same time, it seems likely that the older and younger workers differ with respect to how they react to their work environments as well. All the above notwithstanding, problems exist with respect to the assessmentissue and judgments about fit. Most contributors to this special issue are that our measures of person and environment are not up to the task (e.g., Caplan, 1987). To this end, Rounds, Dawis, and Lofquist (1987), Muchinsky and Monahan (1987), and Assouline and Meir (1987) have, from various perspectives and theoretical positions, written their papers for this special issue. Each paper seems, in a particular way, to be attempting to solve some problem of application. The Rounds, Dawis, and Lofquist paper represents a special approach to the assessment process, taking a single person-environment formulation and tackling the measurement problems at a molecular level. The problem Rounds et al. deal with in their paper is at the heart of the person-environment issue as it applies to vocational psychology; that is, how to quantify the degree of person-environment fit once we have measured both. Other writers are beginning to recognize important antecedents and consequences of person-environment fit in the “out-of-work” environment. The degree of fit at work has implications for home and family, just as the home and family has person-environment implications for the workplace. A major question not entirely resolved but clearly raised by Kulik, Oldham, and Hackman (1987) is person-environment fit for what? They suggest three possibilities, i.e., needs satisfaction, performance capability, and job choice, the latter reflecting variables such as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback. Their paper emphasizes the need to recognize that the person and environment_ must fit each other in a myriad of ways, reflecting different variables for
SAMUEL H. OSIPOW
336
different people at various times, even different for the same people at various times. In this connection, yet another unresolved problem concerning person-environment fit becomes apparent: which comes first in person-environment studies, the person or the environment? Investigators can begin their inquiries at either end, but in doing so, important differences in outcomes may result. After nearly 80 years, person-environment remains as cogent for the understanding of career behavior as ever, while our technology to study the fit has improved substantially. What we need now is an improvement of the “breakthrough” variety in methods of environmental assessment and the quantification of the person-environment fit. Such a development would substantially raise the utility of all the person-environment approaches and permit the testing of theory as well as improve applications. REFERENCES Assouline, N., & Meir, E. I. (1987). Meta-analysis on the relationship between congruence and well-being measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 319-332. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gati, I. (1986). Making career decisions-A sequential elimination approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 408-417. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choice: A Theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, R. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278-2%. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1%9). Adjustment to work. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Moos, R. H. (1987). Person-environment congruence in work, school, and health care settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 231-247. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. .I. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.
Osipow, S. H., Doty, R., & Spokane, A. R. (1985). Occupational stress, strain, and coping across the lifespan. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 98-108. Osipow, S. H., & Spokane, A. R. (1983). Manual for measuring occupational stress, strain and coping. Columbus, OH: Marathon Consulting and Press. Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pervin, L. A. (1987). Person-environment congruence in the light of the person-situation controversy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 222-230. Rounds, J. B., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1987).Measurement of person-environment fit and prediction of satisfaction in the theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 297-318. Received: July 15, 1987