Distinguishing between Employees' Perceptions of Person–Job and Person–Organization Fit

Journal of Vocational Behavior 59, 454–470 (2001) doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1807, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Distinguishing between Employees’ Perceptions of Person–Job and Person–Organization Fit Kristy J. Lauver and Amy Kristof-Brown Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa This study examines the relationship between employees’ perceptions of person–job (P-J) and person–organization (P-O) fit. Survey data collected from 231 employees (104 office personnel and 127 drivers) of a national trucking company show a low correlation (r = .18) between the two types of self-reported fit. Both P-J and P-O fit had a unique impact on job satisfaction and intent to quit. P-O fit was a better predictor of intentions to quit than was P-J fit, but there was little difference in their relative influence on job satisfaction. The predicted positive relationship between perceived P-O fit and contextual performance (extrarole behaviors an employee performs beyond those prescribed in their job description) was also supported. No relationship was found between perceived P-J fit and task performance. Taken as a whole, these results provide further evidence that employees’ perceptions of P-J and P-O fit should be treated as distinct constructs. °C 2001 Academic Press Key Words: person–environment fit; contextual performance; intent to quit.

In recent years management scholars have expressed growing interest in the concept of person–environment (P-E) fit, due mainly to its many benefits for employee attitudes and behaviors. P-E fit has been positively related to individuals’ career involvement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career success and negatively related to turnover intentions and behaviors (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Chatman, 1991; Harris & Mossholder, 1996; Hollenbeck, 1989; Kristof, 1996). In light of these effects, researchers have begun to distinguish between specific types of fit included under the umbrella concept of P-E fit. These include individuals’ compatibility with their vocation (P-V), organization (P-O), job (P-J), and coworkers/group (P-G) (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof, 1996; Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). Although these different types of fit have been distinguished at the conceptual level, there is little existing empirical evidence to indicate their distinctiveness to employees. Research is needed to determine how these more specific types of fit are related to each other and to important individual outcomes. In the current study we empirically examine the differences between two of the most commonly studied types of fit: P-J and P-O fit. P-J fit is defined as the match The authors thank Sara Rynes and Frank Schmidt for their guidance during this project and Bob Freeman for his assistance and helpful suggestions. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kristy J. Lauver, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, 108 Poppajohn Business Building, University of Iowa, IA, 52242. E-mail may be sent to [email protected]. 454 0001-8791/01 $35.00 C 2001 by Academic Press Copyright ° All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

DISTINGUISHING FIT

455

between the abilities of a person and the demands of a job or the needs/desires of a person and what is provided by a job (Edwards, 1991). In contrast, P-O fit is “the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when at least one entity provides what the other needs, they share similar fundamental characteristics, or both” (Kristof, 1996, pp. 4–5). Whereas P-J fit is relevant to an individual’s compatibility with a specific job, P-O fit pertains to how an individual matches an organization’s values, goals, and mission. There are few examples of research that examine both P-J and P-O fit in the same study. In the studies that do exist, most have investigated whether recruiters distinguish between types of fit in a selection context (Bretz, Rynes, & Gerhart, 1993; Kristof-Brown, 2000; Cable & Judge, 1996). One study explicitly examined the relationship between multiple types of fit for existing employees (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). In this investigation P-O fit was operationalized as the correlation between the values of employees and their organizations; P-J fit was measured as the correlation between employees’ skills and their job requirements. Although this study answers important questions regarding actual fit (fit as determined through mathematical calculations such as profile correlations), it does not address employees’ perceptions of fit. Actual fit is one predictor of perceived fit, however, research has consistently demonstrated that the two constructs are distinct, and it is the perception of fit that best predicts individual outcomes (Cable & Judge, 1997; Endler & Magnusson, 1976). Yet, currently there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates that employees distinguish between fit with various aspects of their work environment. Additional studies are needed to verify whether employees’ perceptions of P-J and P-O fit are distinct and have unique relationships with employee attitudes and behaviors. This study builds on past research by examining employees’ perceptions of P-J and P-O fit and a variety of individual outcomes. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between perceived P-J and P-O fit and the attitudes of job satisfaction and intent to quit as well as task and contextual performance. By examining this network of relationships, evidence for the distinctiveness of perceived P-J and P-O fit to employees may be established. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Fit and Employee Attitudes Although both P-O and P-J fit have been shown to result in positive work attitudes, the question remains whether they each uniquely influence outcomes. Kristof (1996, p. 8) states “it is likely that many job requirements will mirror characteristics of the organization,” implying that perceived P-J and P-O fit are likely to be interdependent. However, an employee can possess the skills to be competent in a job, yet not share the organization’s values and vice versa. Thus, fit with one aspect of the work environment does not necessarily imply fit with the other. O’Reilly et al. (1991) demonstrated preliminary evidence for the distinction between P-O fit and P-J fit. Their results show that both types of fit have a unique impact on job satisfaction and intent to leave and that the two constructs are only

456

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

weakly related (r = .16). However, because the correlation they report is between two measures of actual fit (a value similarity index and a skill profile), their results do not address whether employees in fact perceive a distinction between the two types of fit. Most of the evidence regarding the uniqueness of perceived P-J and P-O fit comes from research on job interviews. Cable and Judge (1996) asked applicants to rate their perceived fit with organizations and with jobs in those organizations, after participating in on-campus interviews. Despite a modest correlation (r = .35), both perceptions predicted job offer acceptance, with perceived P-O fit having the greater impact. Recruiters’ perceptions of P-J and P-O fit were examined by Kristof-Brown (2000), who demonstrated that while highly correlated (r = .72) each contributed uniquely to predicting hiring recommendations. Although these results offer insight into the distinctiveness of P-J and P-O fit perceptions during organizational entry, it should be noted that they reflect only the limited information available during job interviews. We expect that employees experiencing fit or misfit with their jobs and organizations on a daily basis should be able to differentiate even more clearly between the two types of fit. Only research by Saks and Ashforth (1997) has examined employees’ perceptions of P-J and P-O fit. Like the selection researchers, they found that both had unique effects on employee attitudes, while being highly correlated (r = .56). However, because each type of fit was assessed with singleitem measures, it is unclear whether the construct domains were fully sampled. Thus, the correlation reported by Saks and Ashforth (1997) may have been inflated by a “halo” rating or superficial responding. We expect that a more rigorous assessment of employees’ perceptions of P-J and P-O fit will produce results that more closely approximate the weak correlation found by O’Reilly et al. (1991) and that each type of perceived fit will predict unique variance in employee attitudes. Hypothesis 1a: Employees’ perceptions of P-O fit and P-J fit will each have a unique positive impact on job satisfaction and a negative impact on intent to quit.

Because of their referents, Kristof (1996) suggested that P-J fit should be more strongly associated with attitudes specific to the job (e.g., job satisfaction) and P-O fit with attitudes about the organization in general (e.g., organizational commitment and intentions to quit). Although Saks and Ashforth’s (1997) findings indicate P-J fit explains the most variance in a number of work attitudes, research on commitment supports Kristof’s (1996) notion. Employees who develop a good fit with their organization become “globally committed,” wishing to remain in the organization but looking to change positions if their job fit is poor (Becker & Billings, 1993). A study by Hollenbeck (1989) provides empirical support for this idea, showing that a poor person–job match is associated with job turnover, but not with organizational turnover. Alternatively, if an employee has a good fit with the job, but not with the organization, that individual should search for a similar job in a new organization. Therefore, following the logic of Kristof (1996), we predict

DISTINGUISHING FIT

457

a stronger relationship for P-O fit than for P-J fit with the organization-focused attitude of intent to quit. Hypothesis 1b: Employees’ perceptions of P-O fit will have a greater impact on intent to quit the organization than will perceptions of P-J fit.

The opposite relationship should hold for the job-focused attitude of job satisfaction. Both P-O fit (Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991) and P-J fit (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970; Hollenbeck, 1989; O’Reilly, 1977) have been found to correlate with job satisfaction. However, given that established definitions of job satisfaction describe it as the difference between what people want from a job and what the job provides (Porter, 1962; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), the perceived fit between people and their jobs is most directly relevant. Moreover, numerous research suggests that overall job satisfaction is strongly influenced by employees’ evaluations of the work and tasks they perform, which are key components of P-J fit (e.g., Smith et al., 1969). P-O fit is less directly linked to the everyday tasks and activities of a job and is therefore less likely to influence a person’s job satisfaction. Therefore, a person’s perceived P-J fit should have a stronger effect on his or her job satisfaction than will perceived P-O fit. Hypothesis 1c: Employees’ perceptions of P-J fit will have a greater impact on job satisfaction than will perceived P-O fit.

Fit and Employee Performance Despite extensive support for a positive relationship between perceived fit and employee attitudes, results are mixed for the link with individual performance. In the case of P-J fit, the equivocal results may be due to different operationalizations of the fit construct. P-J fit has been operationalized as either a match between a person’s higher order needs and job characteristics or between employee skills, personality, and job demands. Studies using the first operationalization have tended not to find statistically significant relationships. For example, Lawler and Hall (1970) reported employees’ perceptions of fit on the job dimensions of autonomy and self-actualization were not related to self-ratings of performance and effort. Wanous (1974) also reported no relationship between supervisory ratings and employees’ perceived P-J fit on autonomy, variety, and task identity. Similarly, no relationship was found between fit on need for achievement and performance (Sexton, 1967), nor between fit (needed versus provided) on job enrichment and performance (Cherington & England, 1980). In contrast, when P-J fit has been operationalized as the match of employee skills and personality with job demands, a positive relationship between performance and P-J fit has generally been supported. Ivancevich (1979) demonstrated that performance was highest when a person’s readiness for decision-making matched the amount of decision-making offered on the job. Further, Caldwell and O’Reilly (1990) found that managers’ performance was higher when their skills and abilities fit the profile required for the job. Yet, in both of these studies only actual fit was measured. Because perceptions of fit have generally been found to predict behavior

458

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

better than actual fit, an equal or even stronger relationship between performance and perceived P-J fit is expected. Just as the perceived fit–performance relationship may change according to how P-J fit is defined and measured, it may also vary depending on how performance is operationalized. Recent research supports performance as a multidimensional construct. In particular, a distinction has been drawn between task and contextual performance. Task performance is defined by Borman and Motowidlo (1993, p. 73) as “the proficiency with which job incumbents perform activities that are formally recognized as part of their jobs, activities that contribute to the organization’s technical core either directly by implementing a part of its technological process, or indirectly by providing it with needed materials or services.” Alternatively, contextual performance contributes to organizational effectiveness in ways that shape the organizational, social, and psychological context (i.e., persisting with extra effort, helping/cooperating with others, and endorsing organizational objectives; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) that serves as the catalyst for task activities and processes (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Research by Motowidlo and colleagues (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) suggests that different individual characteristics affect task and contextual performance. Cognitive ability and job-related skills contribute directly to task habits, task skill, and task knowledge, which in turn influence task performance. Because job skills are most closely associated with P-J fit, it is predicted that people with a high P-J fit will have greater task performance than those with a low P-J fit. Alternatively, because P-O fit does not consider employees’ task specific skills, it is unlikely to influence task-related performance. Thus, we expect that only P-J fit perceptions will predict task performance. Hypothesis 2: Individuals’ perceptions of P-J fit, but not P-O fit, will predict their task performance.

Similar to research on P-J fit, findings regarding P-O fit and performance have been mixed. Tziner (1987) reported a positive relationship between congruence of individual personality and organizational climate with self-reported overall performance. Alternatively, Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert (1996) found that internalization of organizational values, an indicator of good P-O fit, was negatively related to performance ratings. Because they used supervisory ratings to assess performance, Becker et al. (1996) proposed that inconsistency between values of the organization and supervisor might have accounted for the unexpected negative relationship. However, Meglino, Ravlin, and Adkins (1989) found that subordinate–supervisor value congruence was also negatively related to employees’ task performance when assessed by a combination of supervisor ratings and objective criteria. They attributed these findings to factors out of the employees’ control which might have affected the performance criterion (i.e., mechanical restrictions). An alternative explanation is that supervisors may retain employees who share their personal values, regardless of their task performance .

DISTINGUISHING FIT

459

Despite the mixed results for task performance, there are several reasons to believe that employees’ perceptions of P-O fit might have a greater influence on contextual performance. Contextual performance has volition and predisposition, rather than proficiency, as its major source of variation and is not likely to be role-prescribed (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Because its activities are not specific to any one job with the organization, contextual behaviors are likely to be influenced by organizational, rather than job-specific, fit. No empirical studies have examined the effects of P-O fit on contextual performance while simultaneously controlling for the influence of P-J fit. However, there is some evidence for a positive relationship between value congruence and self-reported extrarole behaviors (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) as well as attitudes toward teamwork and ethical behavior (Posner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). In addition, Goodman and Svyantek (1999) reported that organizational values and individuals’ preferred values predicted contextual performance better than either type of value alone. These results are consistent with research by Motowidlo and colleagues (Motowidlo et al., 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), who found that underlying psychological traits, rather than job skills or ability, contribute most directly to the habits, skills, and knowledge that lead to contextual performance. Because values are deeply held beliefs that guide individual behavior, it is likely that they influence the motivation to engage in contextual performance. When an individual’s values match the company’s, performing extrarole activities also benefits the employee through value attainment. Therefore, perceived P-O fit is expected to influence contextual performance, while controlling for P-J fit. Hypothesis 3: Individuals’ perceptions of P-O fit will predict their contextual performance, controlling for perceptions of P-J fit.

METHOD Sample The sample for this study consisted of 231 employees of a large national trucking company. Positions included 104 office personnel (51% male) and 127 truck drivers (84% male). These respondents represented 15% of the total employees in the company, which management indicated was a typical survey response rate for their company. Although not as high as would be desirable, the response rate was likely affected by the sensitive nature of the data. Participants had to sign a consent form (to protect the company legally and to ensure employees’ privacy rights) giving the researchers access to their full personnel files. Company records indicated that participants were predominantly White (87%), with an average age of 42 years (range 21 to 69). Their average length of employment at the company was 3.3 years (S D = 5.3). To determine the representativeness of our sample, we conducted ANOVAs comparing respondents to the company’s average employee (data on just nonparticipants was not available). These analyses indicated that office employee respondents did not significantly differ

460

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

from the typical company office employee on age, length of employment, gender, or race. Similar results were found when comparing the respondent drivers with the typical company truck driver, except that female drivers were slightly overrepresented in the sample (respondents: 16% female, CI = .13, .19; population: 9% female, CI = .08, .10), as were Whites (respondents: 78% White, CI = .70, .86; population: 66%, White, CI = .65, .67). Procedure Surveys were distributed by mail to the drivers and hand-delivered to the office staff with their paychecks. The survey asked employees to rate their current levels of perceived P-J and P-O fit, as well as their job satisfaction and intentions to quit within the next year. In addition, they were asked to select a coworker with whom they worked closely and rate that person’s contextual performance. Respondents returned the survey in a confidential envelope addressed directly to the research team. This procedure resulted in a matched set of self-rated fit and peer-reported contextual performance for 47 (20%) of the participants. Each survey was numbered and the numbers were matched with employee names so that task performance data could be retrieved from company records. Task performance data was collected from supervisors’ performance appraisals for office workers and mileage and accident reports for drivers, resulting in a matched set of self-reported fit and task performance data for 85% of the participating drivers and 83% of the office personnel. Measures Perceived P-J fit. Because an established measure of perceived P-J fit could not be located, we developed a new measure for this study. Five items assessing perceptions of job fit were included. These items contained questions about fit with the job in terms of skills (“My abilities fit the demands of this job,” “I have the right skills and abilities for doing this job,” and “There is a good match between the requirements of this job and my skills”) and personality/temperament (“My personality is a good match for this job” and “I am the right type of person for this type of work”). Both skills and personality were included because the importance of both to P-J fit has been established (Edwards, 1991; O’Reilly, 1977). Interests were not included in this measure because they have been most strongly associated with person–vocation fit (Kristof, 1996), which was not assessed in this study. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Alpha reliability of the scale was .79. Perceived P-O fit. A three-item measure based on questions used by Cable and Judge (1996) was used to assess employees’ perceived P-O fit. Items included “My values match or fit the values of this organization,” “I am able to maintain my values at this company,” and “My values prevent me from fitting in at this company because they are different from the company’s values” (reverse scored). Respondents rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The α reliability of the measure was found to be .83.

DISTINGUISHING FIT

461

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the five-item Brayfield– Rothe job satisfaction scale (i.e. “I feel fairly satisfied with my present job” and “I find real enjoyment in my work”). Respondents scored each item on the same 7-point Likert scale (α reliability = .84). Intent to quit. Three items created by O’Reilly et al. (1991) were used to measure employees’ intent to quit. Items included “I would prefer another job to the one I have now,” “If I have my way, I won’t be working for this company a year from now,” and “I have seriously thought about leaving this company.” Items were rated on the 7-point Likert scale described above (α reliability = .85). Contextual performance. Respondents were asked to identify the last coworker (a peer, not a superior or direct report) with whom they had worked closely and to rate that coworker on the likelihood that he or she would display each of 16 contextual performance behaviors. The 16-item scale was developed by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) and represented the following dimensions: persisting with extra effort, volunteering to carry out extra activities, helping/cooperating with others, following rules/procedures, and endorsing organizational objectives. The mean of the 16 items formed the contextual performance score. Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = not at all likely to 5 = extremely likely). The α reliability of the scale was .93. Task performance. Because of the different type of work performed by office personnel and drivers, task performance was measured separately for each group. For office employees, task performance was assessed using the most recent supervisor evaluations obtained from personnel records. The evaluations contained dimensions including job knowledge, quality of work, quantity of work, organization, interpersonal skills, initiative, decision making/problem solving, and safety. Because multiple performance rating forms (e.g., 4-point, 5-point, and 9-point scales) were currently in use at the company, the final ratings were converted to z scores to allow comparison across rating systems. Reliability for supervisors’ ratings of office personnel task performance was estimated at α = .52 based on a recent comparative analysis of supervisory ratings (Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996). Drivers’ task performance was assessed using company records of year-todate miles traveled and year-to-date average numbers of accidents and violations per 10,000 miles driven. These measures were calculated on an average per month basis to take into account employees hired within the past year. RESULTS Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations for all measures are reported in Table 1. Means for P-J fit, P-O fit, satisfaction, and intent to quit are on 7-point scales, and peer-rated contextual performance is on a 5-point scale. Task performance ratings included z scores of office personnel appraisals. For drivers, average miles driven per month and accidents/violations per 10,000 miles driven were on a continuous scale. All scale reliability estimates ranged from .79 to .93, exceeding the criterion of .70 typically judged as acceptable (Nunnally, 1983). Table 1 reports that perceived P-O and P-J fit were weakly related to each other (r = .18). Because both of these scales had acceptable reliabilities, correcting

∗ Correlations

231 230 230 231 110 112 89 47

.61 .00 (z score) 4.41

N

6.22 5.23 3.43 5.34 6816

M

.62

.97

1.86

.86 1.47 1.99 1.25 2510

SD

1

.12 .28

−.01

.14

(.83) −.53∗ .47∗ −.22∗

2

.08

.03

(.79) .18∗ −.31∗ .46∗ −.11

with 95% confidence intervals which do not include zero.

P-J fit P-O fit Intent to quit Job satisfaction Task performance Drivers: miles driven/mo. 6. Task performance Drivers:violations/10 K mi. 7. Task performance Office:evaluations 8. Contextual performance

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Variable

(.84) −.18 .08 .11 .24

−.01 −.10 −.42∗

4

(.85) −.68∗ .17

3

−.12

NA

−.38∗

—

5

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Perceived Fit, Attitudes, and Performance

−.12

NA

—

6

−.42

(.52)

7

(.93)

8

462 LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

463

DISTINGUISHING FIT

for measurement error estimated the true correlation to be only slightly higher (r = .22 corrected). This relationship is similar to that reported by O’Reilly et al. (1991) for actual P-O and P-J fit (r = .16), but is much lower than the correlation (r = .54) of the single item perceived fit measures reported in Saks and Ashforth (1997). Thus, our data suggests that employees are able to distinguish between their fit with various aspects of their work environment. Fit and Employee Attitudes Hypothesis 1a predicted that perceived P-O fit and perceived P-J fit would both have an impact on job satisfaction and intent to quit. After controlling for job type we regressed job satisfaction and intent to quit on P-O and P-J fit perceptions. Results are reported in Table 2. The set of fit perceptions explained a significant amount of the variance in both job satisfaction (1R 2 = .36, p < .05) and intent to quit (1R 2 = .30, p < .05). The regression weights for both perceived P-O and P-J fit had 95% confidence intervals not including zero. These results indicate that each type of fit, when controlling for the other, has a unique impact on job satisfaction [(P-O) β = .40, (P-J) β = .39] and intentions to quit [(P-O) β = −.47, (P-J) β = −.22]. Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported. Hypothesis 1b predicted that employees’ perceptions of their P-O fit would have a greater impact on their intent to quit than would P-J fit. To test this hypothesis, we examined the 95% confidence intervals around the intent to quit regression weights (see Table 2). The confidence intervals did not overlap. Thus, the higher weight for P-O fit supports Hypothesis 1b. We further predicted in Hypothesis 1c that employees’ perceptions of their P-J fit when controlling for P-O fit would have a greater impact on job satisfaction than would P-O fit when controlling for P-J fit. Again we examined the confidence intervals around the regression weights. In contrast to our prediction, the confidence intervals around the regression weight for P-O fit overlapped with that for P-J fit. These results suggest that both P-J and P-O fit contributed equally to job satisfaction; Hypothesis 1c was not supported.

TABLE 2 Regression of Satisfaction and Intent to Quit on Perceived P-J and Perceived P-O Fit Satisfaction

Intent to quit CI

Variable

β

Step 1 Job type −.004 Step 2 P-O fit .403 P-J fit .386

R2

R

1R 2

L

CI H

.005 .070 .005 −.113

.105

.367 .606 .362

.510 .492

.297 .280

β

R2

R

1R 2

.120 .037 .192 .037

L

H

.013

.227

−.470 .337 .581 .300 −.579 −.361 −.219 −.327 −.111

464

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN TABLE 3 Regression of Task and Contextual Performance on Perceived P-J and Perceived P-O Fit Task performance: drivers—miles

Task Performance: drivers—accidents/viol. per 10 K miles CI

Variable P-O fit P-J fit

β

R2

R

1R 2

L

CI H

−.225 .057 .239 .057 −.414 −.036 −.051 −.241 .139 Task performance: office-supervisor evaluations

Step 1 Job type NA — — — — Step 2 P-O fit .116 .020 .143 .020 −.101 P-J fit .065 −.153

— .333 .283

β

R2

.137 .001

R

1R 2

.019 .137 .019

L

H

−.052 .326 −1.96 1.96

Contextual performance: peer-rating .051

.000 .011 .000

−.237

.339

.296 −.064

.083 .289 .083

.002 −.354

.590 .226

Fit and Employee Performance Hypothesis 2 predicted that perceived P-J fit would influence task performance when controlling for perceived P-O fit. Because task performance was assessed differently for office personnel and drivers, this hypothesis was tested separately for each group. Results from the regression analyses are shown in Table 3. For both measures of driver task performance, the 95% confidence interval for the beta weight for P-J fit included zero, suggesting that neither was appreciably different from zero (β = −.05 for miles driven, β = .001 for accidents/violations). When testing this hypothesis for office personnel, the 95% confidence interval around the beta weight for P-J fit also included zero (β = .07). Taken as a whole, our results suggest that perceived P-J fit was not significantly related to task performance for either office personnel or drivers. Finally, in Hypothesis 3 we predicted that perceived P-O fit would have positive influence on contextual performance when controlling for perceived P-J fit. To test this hypothesis we regressed peer ratings of contextual performance on both types of fit and job type for the subsample of 47 employees. In support of Hypothesis 3, the 95% confidence interval around the beta weight for P-O fit was positive and did not include zero (β = .30). DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to investigate the distinctiveness of employees’ perceptions of P-J fit and P-O fit by examining their relationship with each other and with various individual outcomes. Results indicate that the two types of perceived fit are only modestly correlated (r = .18), with both scales having acceptable reliabilities (P-O = .83, P-J = .79). This result suggests that the weak relationship reported by O’Reilly et al. (1991) between actual P-J and P-O fit also

DISTINGUISHING FIT

465

holds true for employees’ perceptions of these types of fit. Because the correlation is substantially lower than that reported in Saks and Ashforth (1996), researchers are cautioned against using single-item measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit because of their weak ability to discriminate between the two constructs. The low correlation reported in this study is particularly noteworthy, given that both types of fit were assessed simultaneously. Our results support the notion that established employees are able to distinguish between fit with their jobs and their company. When examining how employees’ perceptions of P-J and P-O fit relate to job attitudes, both were found to have a unique impact on job satisfaction and intent to quit. These results reinforce those reported in job search (Cable & Judge, 1996) and selection contexts (Kristof-Brown, 2000), that both perceived P-J and P-O fit independently influence attitudinal outcomes. Our results also support the proposition made by Kristof (1996) that P-O fit has a greater influence on the organizationfocused attitude of intent to quit than does P-J fit. However, we found no difference in the relative impact of each type of fit on job-focused satisfaction. Our results regarding the relationships between perceived fit and performance offer some additional evidence for the distinctiveness of P-J and P-O fit. As predicted, perceived P-O fit had a positive impact on contextual performance, when controlling for perceived P-J fit. However, P-J fit was unrelated to extrarole behaviors. These results extend existing research on P-O fit and non-task-related performance (Goodman & Svyantek, 1999; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Posner et al., 1985). In contrast to our prediction, however, perceived P-J fit was not significantly related to task performance when controlling for P-O fit. In fact, the correlations of task performance with both types of fit were relatively low (less than .25). Furthermore, although the directions of these correlations were positive (as predicted) for office personnel, they were negative for drivers. Strengths and Limitations When interpreting these results, it is necessary to consider the strengths and limitations of the study’s design. One strength is the assessment of both P-J and P-O fit in the same study. Most past research has assessed only one type of fit, without controlling for the other. Because in reality people interact with their jobs and organizations on a daily basis, assessing the effects of these two types of fit simultaneously provides a more realistic picture of their influence. A second strength is the inclusion of employees with two different job types. In light of the different relationships between fit and task performance reported for drivers versus office personnel, gaining access to people in multiple types of jobs proved to be important. Because of the types of jobs included, the results are most generalizable to other office jobs and those where workers spend a great deal of time in the field (e.g., delivery personnel and salespeople). However, it is important to note that although different jobs were included, all of the data was collected from one organization. Thus, although the perceptions of P-J fit measured how well employees matched with a variety of jobs, perceptions of P-O fit assessed how well employees matched with a single organization in a single industry.

466

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

Thus, the generalization of these results to other organizations and industries is unknown. The multiple measures used to assess performance represent another strength of the study. Performance data was collected from different sources, including peer ratings for contextual performance, supervisors’ ratings for office employees’ task performance, and mileage and accident/violation records for drivers’ task performance. This is an important advance over past studies linking fit and performance, which have often used self-reported performance or had a supervisor evaluate both task and contextual performance. Despite this benefit, the performance criteria were limited in a number of ways. Although miles and accidents objectively capture two fundamental elements of a driver’s performance, their generalizability to task performance in other jobs is questionable. Alternatively, supervisory ratings for office employees are common measures of performance, but have been found to have only modest reliability. Sample size was the greatest concern for the peer-ratings of contextual performance, which were available for only 20% of respondents. Using peer, rather than self-ratings, has the benefit of reducing selfserving bias, but substantially reduces the available sample size, biasing results toward nonsignificance. However, the fact that a relationship between perceived P-O fit and contextual performance was revealed with such a limited sample size raises our confidence that such a relationship exists. Although performance measures were collected from multiple sources, this was not possible for employee attitudes. This raises the possibility that common method bias may have exaggerated the relationships between self-reported fit and these variables. However, because we focused on the relative prediction of P-J versus P-O fit, the absolute size of the parameters is less important than their relative contributions to predicting job satisfaction and intent to quit. The low participation rate of 15% from across the organization also raises concerns about self-selection bias. The respondents were similar to the typical company employee on almost all demographic characteristic. However, we were unable to determine whether they were representative in terms of perceived fit or job attitudes. Social desirability concerns may have led only good fitting and satisfied employees to participate in the study. While it is possible that self-selection reduced the variance in perceived fit or satisfaction, it is very unlikely that range restriction would change the direction of the coefficients obtained. The most common effect of range restriction is attenuation of obtained effect sizes. Increasing the magnitude of coefficients in this study (by correcting for range restriction) would not change any of the substantive conclusions drawn. Furthermore, for all predictor and criterion measures the ranges indicated that respondents used the full scales. Thus, we believe it was most likely that we received extreme ratings (e.g., very high or very low fit) rather than only a restricted range of goodfitting individuals. A similar conclusion is drawn regarding contextual performance. Because employees chose whose performance they evaluated, they may have focused on coworkers viewed as either exemplary or subpar contributors. While this may have resulted in extreme ratings, it was preferable to collecting

DISTINGUISHING FIT

467

self-ratings of contextual performance, which would have increased the probability of self-serving and social desirability biases. Nonetheless, because of the small sample size and limited performance criteria we recommend that these results be viewed as preliminary and should be replicated before strong conclusions can be drawn. Future Research and Implications Although preliminary, our results suggest several directions for future research. First, the finding that P-J and P-O fit are distinguishable to employees, and that both explain unique variance in attitudes, implies that researchers should assess multiple types of fit in single studies. Prediction of individual consequences can be improved by considering a person’s fit with various aspects of their work environment, including their job and organization. Other important elements might include one’s work group and immediate supervisor. Second, because perceived P-J and P-O fit were differentially related to the criteria, researchers should take a closer look at what types of fit are most strongly associated with particular outcomes. In particular, P-O fit appears to be related to contextual, but not task performance, and to turnover plans. Future investigations into what translates P-O fit perceptions into action are needed, including what individual differences and situational factors moderate the impact of perceived fit on behavior. Furthermore, as organizations downsize by trimming payrolls and levels of management, high levels of contextual performance will become increasingly important for organizational success. Our results suggest that promoting high levels of P-O fit in employees may be one way to encourage these extrarole behaviors. However, Schneider and colleagues (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995; Schneider, Kristof, Goldstein, & Smith, 1997) caution organizations against excessive homogenization because of the potential decrease in organizational adaptability. We encourage researchers to empirically examine these competing views to better understand how individual-level fit may influence organizational-level consequences. These results also have some practical implications for managers. In particular, managers should be concerned about employees’ perceptions of both P-O and P-J fit. Increasing the P-O fit among people with low P-J fit may simply result in retaining poor task performers. However, focusing only on improving P-J fit may not result in the contextual behaviors that are becoming even more critical in today’s competitive environments. Therefore, we encourage managers to direct selection and socialization efforts toward increasing both types of fit among employees. Increasing managerial awareness of how anticipatory socialization processes (e.g., selection and recruitment activities) may influence both types of applicant fit perceptions is recommended (Anderson & Ostroff, 1997). Then, once applicants are in the organization, training should be designed to emphasize knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes that increase fit with their jobs as well as the organization (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998). Another way that these findings might be used is in the performance evaluation process. Emphasizing the attainment of shared individual–organizational values

468

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

may be one way to motivate contextual performance, even if it is not explicitly part of an employee’s job description. Coworkers can be important socialization agents, helping peers to learn about organizational values as well as develop new skills (Moreland & Levine, 1982). By improving new employees’ P-J and P-O fit, coworkers may have an important impact on the attitudes of their colleagues, and also on some types of performance. In addition, coworkers have the advantage of being able to observe and evaluate each others’ contextual performance when management is not present. Three-hundred-sixty-degree feedback on such behaviors may provide managers with a more complete picture of their employees’ overall performance. Finally, our results have implications for job seekers and employees. We encourage dissatisfied employees to consider the distinction between their P-J and P-O fit to help determine whether they should seek a new organization or a new position within the same organization. Regularly using tools to assess both types of fit as part of an organization’s career development planning may be particularly useful for retaining high-potential employees. In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the uniqueness of employees’ perception of P-J and P-O fit. Regardless of job type, employees’ perceptions of both types of fit uniquely contribute to positive job attitudes. Perceptions of P-O fit appear particularly important, as they affect both employees’ intentions to leave the organization and the degree to which they engage in extrarole behaviors. REFERENCES Anderson, N., & Ostroff, C. (1997). Selection as socialization. In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 413–440). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. B. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol.16, pp. 149–214). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177–190. Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464–482. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmit & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 2, 99–109. Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32–54. Bretz, R. D., Jr., Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (1993). Recruiter perceptions of applicant fit: Implications for individual career preparation and job search behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 310–327. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294–311. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person–organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546–561.

DISTINGUISHING FIT

469

Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A., III (1990). Measuring person–job fit with a profile-comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648–657. Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484. Cherrington, D. J., & England, J. L. (1980). The desire for an enriched job as a moderator of the enrichment–satisfaction relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 139– 159. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 283–357. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person–organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 254–275. Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176–190. Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22, 527–547. Hollenbeck, J. R. (1989). Control theory and the perception of work environments: The effects of focus of attention on affective and behavioral reactions to work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43, 406–430. Ivancevich, J. M. (1979). An analysis of participation in decision making among project engineers. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 253–269. Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resources staffing decisions. Human Resources Planning, 15, 47–67. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643–671. Lawler, E., III, & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305–312. Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351–389. Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424–432. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual– group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 137–192. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 2, 71–83. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480. Nunnally, J. C. (1983). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw–Hill. O’Reilly, C. A., III (1977). Personality–job fit: Implications for individual attitudes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 36–46. O’Reilly, C., III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person–organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.

470

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

Porter, L. W. (1962). Job attitudes in management: Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 375–384. Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24, 293–309. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395–426, Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773. Schneider, B., Kristof, A. L., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1997). What is this thing called fit? In N. R. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), Handbook of selection and appraisal (2nd ed., pp. 365–384). London: Wiley. Sexton, W. P. (1967). Organization and individual needs: A conflict? Personnel Journal, 46, 337–343. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand–McNally. Tziner, A. (1987). Congruency issue resettled using Finean’s achievement climate notion, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(1), 63–78. Wanous, J. P. (1974). Individual differences and reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 616–622. Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). Person-environment fit in the selection process. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management,Vol. 17 pp. 209–243. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis: Reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574. Received September 25, 2000; published online June 13, 2001