Subjective person–organization fit: Bridging the gap between conceptualization and measurement

Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Subjective person–organization Wt: Bridging the gap between conceptualization and measurement 夽 Kelly A. Piasentin ¤, Derek S. Chapman Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta., Canada T2N 1N4 Received 27 September 2005 Available online 7 July 2006

Abstract In this paper, we present a critical examination of the literature on subjective person–organization (P–O) Wt and highlight several conceptual and measurement issues that may be perpetuating confusion in this literature. SpeciWcally, we reviewed 46 empirical studies that have measured P–O Wt perceptions and identiWed three primary sources of inconsistency among these studies, including (a) how P–O Wt is conceptualized, (b) the operational deWnition of ‘organization,’ and (c) the content domain used to assess P–O Wt. We discuss several implications of this review, including the potential role that individual diVerences play in Wt perceptions. We also make a case for the development and adoption of uniform, validated measures of P–O Wt that incorporate the multidimensional nature of Wt. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Subjective person–organization Wt; Review; Conceptual issues; Measurement; Multidimensional; Individual diVerences

1. Introduction An abundance of research shows that subjective P–O Wt has important implications for a variety of workplace outcomes (e.g., organization attraction, job choice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover; Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003). Missing in 夽

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii. * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 403 282 8249. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.A. Piasentin). 0001-8791/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.001

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

203

the literature, however, is speciWc attention devoted to the underlying mechanisms that inXuence Wt perceptions. Unlike objective measures of Wt, which are obtained by calculating the similarity or correspondence between the characteristics of an individual and his/her organization, subjective measures of Wt are designed to capture individuals’ perceptions about the extent to which they feel like they Wt into their organization. As such, they are both qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from objective measures of Wt (Carlson & Herdman, 2005; Lutrick & Moriarty, 2002). They are also perhaps more susceptible to measurement problems because the construct of subjective Wt is elusive and has yet to receive precise deWnition. To date, little attention has been devoted to understanding whether Wt perceptions are multidimensional, how the construct should be operationalized, or whether perceptions of Wt can be adequately captured through self-report scales. For instance, although most researchers would agree that P–O Wt represents some sort of person–organization compatibility, there are numerous ways of deWning what is meant by ‘compatibility’ (Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994). Four common deWnitions of P–O Wt include supplementary Wt (i.e., when an individual possesses characteristics that are similar to existing organizational characteristics), complementary Wt (i.e., when an individual Wlls a void or adds something missing in the organization), needs-supplies Wt (i.e., when an individual’s needs are fulWlled by an organization), and demands-abilities Wt (i.e., when an individual’s abilities meet the demands of the organization). Although, theoretically, these deWnitions should represent distinct ways of perceiving Wt, the dimensions have yet to be precisely deWned or empirically tested. This lack of attention to conceptual issues not only impedes our ability to adequately measure the construct, but it may also lead us to draw faulty conclusions about the antecedents and consequences of subjective P–O Wt (Schwab, 1980). In this paper, we review the literature on subjective P–O Wt and provide a critical examination of how previous empirical studies have conceptualized, operationalized, and measured the construct. Stemming from this review, we organize the paper around the following questions: (1) what is the meaning of P–O Wt, as it is experienced by employees? (2) How are Wt perceptions formed? and (3) Are there systematic diVerences among individuals that can predict how they will perceive P–O Wt? We conclude this paper with a general discussion of directions for future research that may help advance this Weld. 2. Review of the subjective person–organization Wt literature To obtain a better appreciation of how subjective P–O Wt is operationalized in the literature, we conducted a systematic and comprehensive search for studies that have examined subjective P–O Wt, including published manuscripts, conference papers, and unpublished dissertations. First, databases in psychology (PsycInfo, 1967 to April 2006), management (ABI Inform), and education (ERIC) were searched using six P–O Wt-related terms (i.e., person–organization Wt, person–environment Wt, subjective Wt, perceived Wt, organizational Wt, and value congruence). Second, the reference lists from three P–O Wt reviews (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer et al., 2003) were examined. Third, we searched recent conference programs from the Academy of Management and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology for papers related to Wt. Any studies that measured Wt indirectly or objectively or that measured other types of person–environment Wt (e.g., person–job Wt, person–group Wt) were excluded from this review (for a discussion of the various analytic methods that can be used to measure P–O Wt or how P–O Wt diVers from other types of Wt, see Kristof, 1996 or Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).

204

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

A total of 46 studies were identiWed, dating from 1985 to 2006; 24 of these studies were published in peer-reviewed journals, whereas the remaining studies were either presented at peer-reviewed conferences (n D 13) or were unpublished dissertations (n D 9). The P–O Wt measures used in these studies contained as few as one item and as many as 18 items (M D 4.0, SD D 3.0). These items were used to assess the Wt perceptions of recruiters, applicants, or employees. SpeciWcally, seven studies examined recruiter perceptions of P–O Wt (i.e., the extent to which recruiters perceive that a particular applicant is a good Wt for the organization), nine studies examined applicant Wt perceptions, and 25 studies examined employee Wt perceptions. The remaining Wve studies used a longitudinal design in which Wt perceptions were assessed at both application and post-hire stages. When reviewing the items used in each study, we detected three primary sources of variability with respect to how subjective P–O Wt was measured. Measurement varied in terms of (a) the conceptualization used (e.g., supplementary, complementary, needs-supplies, or demands-abilities), (b) the operational deWnition of ‘organization’ (e.g., organizational characteristics versus organizational members), and (c) the content domain assessed (e.g., values, goals, personality, or knowledge, skills, and abilities, or KSAs). Table 1 lists our coding of each study along these three variables. 2.1. Conceptualizations of subjective person–organization Wt By far, the dominant way of conceptualizing Wt was the supplementary model, where 40 of the 46 studies (87%) had at least one item that pertained to perceived similarity or congruence (e.g., “The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my organization values,” “This applicant is similar to other employees”). In fact, 13 of the studies (28%) measured subjective P–O Wt solely from a supplementary perspective. Eight studies (17%) included items that measured subjective P–O Wt from a needs-supplies perspective (e.g., “My current organization meets the needs I expect an organization to meet,” “The attributes that I look for in an organization are fulWlled very well by my present organization”), two studies measured P–O Wt from a demands-abilities perspective (e.g., “I have the qualities this organization is seeking,” “To what extent do you think your skills and abilities match those required by this organization in general?”), and only one study contained items reXecting complementary P–O Wt (e.g., “My knowledge, skills, and abilities oVer something that other employees in this organization do not have,” “I feel that I am a unique piece of the puzzle that makes this organization work”). It is important to note that many of the items we examined did not reXect any of the above conceptual deWnitions but instead pertained to general Wt (i.e., individuals’ direct assessment of how well they Wt or how well an applicant Wts). In fact, 29 studies (63%) contained items that pertained to Wt in general as opposed to Wt based on similarity or some other dimension (e.g., “I think I would Wt in well with other people who work for this organization,” “I feel that the culture of this organization highly Wts the job culture I believe in”). Thus, some researchers appeared to be interested in measuring general subjective perceptions of Wt, which permits the respondent to choose criteria that are personally relevant and to apply idiosyncratic weightings to these criteria in assessing their own general Wt with the organization, whereas others focused on perceptions of one or more the four conceptualizations of P–O Wt noted earlier. Unfortunately, we know little about how these various conceptualizations aVect the usefulness of subjective P–O Wt for predicting important organizational outcomes.

Table 1 Review of studies measuring subjective P–O Wt Source

Adkins et al. (1994) Amram (2004)

JA D

Cable and DeRue (2002) Cable and Judge (1996)

Items

Respondent

Conceptualization

O-component

Criteria used

2 4

Recruiter Employee

Organization Organization

General Values; personality; needs

JA JA

3 3

Organization Organization; employees

Values Values; personality

Cable and Judge (1997) Cable and Parsons (2001)

JA JA

1 3

Supplementary Supplementary

Organization; employees Organization; employees

General Values; personality

Canger et al. (2002) Carless (2005a) Carless (2005b)

CP JA JA

5 4 4

Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary Supplementary

Organization Organization Organization

Values; general Values; personality; goals Values; personality; goals

Cooper-Thomas et al. (2004) Dineen et al. (2002) Dineen et al. (2005) Erdogan and Bauer (2005) García (2004) Gellepsie (2003) Haptonstahl and Buckley (2002) Harold (2005) Harold and McFarland (2005) Higgins and Judge (2004) Hutcheson (1999)

JA JA CP CP CP D CP CP CP JA D

1 1 2 3 4 3 3 6 6 2 10

Employee Applicant; employee Recruiter Applicant; employee Employee Applicant Applicant; employee Employee Applicant Applicant Employee Recruiter Applicant Recruiter Applicant Applicant Recruiter Employee

General Wt Supplementary; needs-supplies; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary

Organization Organization Organization Organization Organization; employees Organization; employees Organization; employees Organization; employees Organization; employees Organization; employees Organization

Judge and Cable (1997) Kennedy and HuV (2004)

JA CP

3 8

Applicant Employee

General Values Values Values General Values; personality; goals General Values; personality Values; personality Values; general Values; personality; goals; needs; KSAs Values; personality; goals Values; general; attributes

Kennedy and HuV (2005)

CP

8

Employee

Kim et al. (2005) Kristof-Brown (2000) Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2002)

JA JA JA

3 4 3

Employee Recruiter Employee

General Wt Supplementary Supplementary Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary Supplementary; needs-supplies; demands-abilities; general Wt Supplementary Supplementary; needs supplies; general Wt Supplementary; needs-supplies; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt

Organization; employees Organization Organization Organization Organization; employees Organization

Values; general; attributes; culture Values; culture General Values

205

(continued on next page)

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

Authors

206

Authors

Source

Respondent

Conceptualization

O-component

Criteria used

Lovelace and Rosen (1996)

JA

Items 1

Employee

General Wt

Organization

Lutrick and Moriarty (2002) Lyons et al. (2005)

CP JA

7 4

Employee Employee

Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary; needs-supplies

Organization Organization

Mastaler (1999) Mosley (2002)

D D

1 4

General Wt Supplementary; needs-supplies

Organization Organization

Netemeyer et al. (1997) Piasentin and Chapman (in press)

JA CP

4 18

Recruiter Applicant; employee Employee Employee

Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary; complementary; general Wt

Organization Organization; employees

Values; ethics; goals/ objectives; skills; attitudes; participation in extracurricular activities; interaction with coworkers; outside interests; work–family balance; politics; religion; deWnition of career success; dress/personal style Values; general Values; personality; general General Values; personality; general Values Values; personality; KSAs; perspective; competencies; qualities; general

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

Table 1 (continued)

Organization Organization Organization

Supplementary Supplementary; demandsabilities

Organization; employees Organization; employees

Organization; employees

Employee Employee

Supplementary; needs-supplies; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary; general Wt

Applicant Employee Employee Employee Employee

General Wt Supplementary Supplementary; general Wt Supplementary Supplementary; general Wt

Organization; employees Organization; employees Organization Organization; employees Organization; employees

JA JA JA

2 1 4

Sarris and Kirby (2005) Scheu and Ryan (2001)

JA CP

3 6

Employee Employee Applicant; employee Employee Applicant

Shantz (2003)

D

8

Employee

Siegall and McDonald (2004) Soh (2000)

JA D

2 5

Stevens et al. (2001) Tepici (2001) Valentine et al. (2002) Verquer (2002) Vigoda-Gadot and Ben-Zion (2004)

CP D JA D JA

2 3 4 3 2

Note. JA, journal article; CP, conference presentation; D, dissertation.

Organization Organization

Values General Values; personality; general Values; personality Values; personality; qualities; skills and abilities; general Values; personality; general; needs Values; goals Values; goals; beliefs; attitudes; behaviors General Values; personality Values Values; personality; goals Culture; perspectives

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

Supplementary; general Wt General Wt Supplementary; needs-supplies

Posner et al. (1985) Saks and Ashforth (1997) Saks and Ashforth (2002)

207

208

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

2.2. The meaning of “organization” in person–organization Wt A second source of variability in measuring P–O Wt pertains to the operational deWnition of organization. We identiWed two distinct ways of how the O-component of subjective P–O Wt has been operationalized in the literature. One method consists of asking employees to consider the organization’s characteristics (e.g., its values, mission, etc.). The other method consists of asking employees to consider the people in the organization. Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith (1995) argued that it is people that make up the organization; thus, an organization should not be conceptualized as separate and distinct from the individuals behaving in them. It is apparent, however, that researchers generally do not distinguish between these two points of reference in their operationalizations of P–O Wt. For instance, all 46 studies reviewed included at least one item that pertained to Wt with the organization (e.g., “I feel my personality matches the ‘personality’ or image of this organization”), whereas 19 of the studies (41%) also included items pertaining to Wt with employees in the organization (e.g., “I think people who work at this organization are similar to me”). Furthermore, for 11 of the studies (24%), both organizational characteristics and organizational members were referred to in a single item (e.g., “I feel my values ‘match’ or Wt this organization and the current employees in this organization”). Thus, we know surprisingly little about whether these ways of describing the organization lead to diVerent work outcomes or diVerent eVect sizes for work outcomes. 2.3. Criteria used to assess person–organization Wt A Wnal source of variability in our review of existing measures of subjective P–O Wt pertains to the speciWc content domain used to assess Wt. Values were the most common source of Wt, with 36 of the studies (78%) including items that assessed value congruence (e.g., “My values match those of current employees in this organization”). Nineteen of the studies (41%) measured personality Wt (e.g., “To what extent does your personality match the personality or image of the organization?”), and nine studies (20%) measured P–O Wt in terms of goal congruence (e.g., “Assess the degree of your Wt between your goals and objectives and the organization’s goals and objectives”). Only three studies included KSA congruence as a measure of subjective P–O Wt (e.g., “My skills and abilities reXect the skills and abilities the organization is looking for”). In 16 studies (35%), the scales used to measure Wt contained items with multiple criteria (e.g., “I think the values and personality of this organization reXect my own values and personality”) and, in 20 studies (43%), the scales included items that did not have speciWc criteria for evaluating Wt (e.g., “To what extent does your new organization measure up to the kind of organization you were seeking?”). Table 2 lists the number and percentage of studies that were categorized along the above dimensions. 3. Summary and implications 3.1. What is the meaning of subjective P–O Wt? This review clearly indicates that there are numerous perspectives on what is meant by subjective P–O Wt and that, across the literature, there is little consensus regarding how it should be measured. This lack of attention to construct deWnition is problematic since it makes it diYcult to obtain a clear understanding of what underlies individuals’

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

209

Table 2 Frequency of conceptualizations, operational deWnitions, and content domains explored in the subjective P–O Wt literature Dimension

Studies with at least one item in the category

Conceptualization of P–O Wt

Supplementary Wt D 40 (87%) Needs-supplies Wt D 7 (15%) Demands-abilities Wt D 2 (<1%) Complementary Wt D 1 (<1%) General Wt D 29 (63%) Multiple Conceptualizationsa D 9 (20%)

Operational deWnition of ‘organization’

Organizational characteristics D 46 (100%) Organizational members D 19 (41%) Both characteristics and membersb D 11 (24%)

Content domain of P–O Wt

Values D 36 (78%) Personality D 19 (41%) Goals D 9 (20%) KSAs D 3 (<1%) Other D 10 (22%) No speciWc criteria D 20 (43%) Multiple criteriac D 16 (35%)

a

Number of studies including at least two of the following conceptualizations: supplementary, complementary, needs-supplies, demands-abilities. b Number of studies including both operationalizations within a single item. c Number of studies including at least two speciWc content domains within a single item.

Wt perceptions. Although conceptualizations of P–O Wt have alternatively been labeled as supplementary, complementary, needs-supplies, or demands-abilities (Adkins et al., 1994; Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof, 1996), because these four factors have never been measured in a single study, the accuracy of this framework is debatable. To date, the majority of studies have focused on the supplementary model of Wt, where individuals are thought to Wt to the extent that their characteristics are similar to organizational characteristics. Many studies have also utilized more general measures of subjective Wt; for these studies, it is diYcult to know what applicants, recruiters, or employees were thinking about when they responded to how well they Wt. Perhaps the most pressing issue stemming from this review is whether complementary Wt exists as a separate factor—one that is distinct from other forms of Wt. As mentioned earlier, we found only one study that has measured perceptions of complementary P–O Wt, which is not surprising given the ambiguity surrounding how to deWne this construct in the Wrst place. For instance, Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) coined the term “complementary Wt” by deWning it as occurring when an individual ‘makes whole’ or complements the characteristics of an environment. Subsequent authors, however, have produced deWnitions of varying degrees of departure from this original deWnition. For example, complementary Wt has been deWned as occurring when “the person who ‘Wts’ is diVerent on key attributes and therefore Wlls an existing void” (Bretz & Judge, 1994), when there is a “match of individual abilities and job requirements” (Ryan & Schmit, 1996), when “individuals possess unique skills and characteristics that allow them to easily blend with the existing labor force” (Valentine, 2000), when “an individual’s characteristics add to the environment what it is missing” (Van Vianen, 2000), when “the organization and the individual

210

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

contribute to the fulWllment of needs of the other” (Verquer et al., 2003), when “the person brings into the organization abilities and characteristics which act incrementally to the existing organizational attributes” (Nikolaou, 2003), and when “the characteristics of an individual complete the environment by oVsetting a weakness or Wlling a gap” (KristofBrown, Barrick, & Stevens, 2005). Typically, whenever the term “complementary Wt” has been included as a dimension of P–O Wt, it has been (mis)conceptualized in terms of needs-supplies and/or demands-abilities types of Wt, and usually pertains to Wt with the job as opposed to Wt with the organization (e.g., Cable & DeRue, 2002; Scheu & Ryan, 2001; Smith, 2002). For example, Cable and DeRue (2002) deWned complementary Wt as the extent to which employees’ needs are met by the job (needs-supplies Wt) and the extent to which their abilities are a good Wt with the requirements of the job (demands-abilities Wt). More recently, Cable and Edwards (2004) deWned complementary Wt as need fulWllment, where employees were seen as having a complementary Wt to the extent that they perceived their needs to be met by the organization (needs-supplies Wt). In some respects, the complementary model of Wt that was initially proposed by Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) does appear to conceptually overlap with both the needs-supplies and demands-abilities Wt constructs. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that complementary Wt really is not a distinct construct at all and that there are only three types of P–O Wt (i.e., supplementary, needs-supplies, and demands-abilities). Thus, an important empirical question to address through future research is whether complementary Wt represents something diVerent from the needs-supplies and demandsabilities frameworks. Preliminary Wndings from a study by Piasentin and Chapman (in press) suggest that perceptions of complementary Wt may be distinct from other types of Wt. In their study, complementary Wt was deWned as the Wt that occurs when individuals feel they are diVerent from other employees in the organization, yet their unique diVerences add value to the organization. They found that perceived complementarity contributed to overall judgments of Wt incrementally to perceptions of similarity (i.e., supplementary Wt) and that Wt perceptions—regardless of whether they were experienced as similarity or complementarity—predicted positive work attitudes, including greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and lower turnover intentions. Kristof-Brown et al.’s (2005) study on person–team Wt also provides support for the notion that being diVerent (albeit in a complementary way) can make for a good Wt. They examined the personality characteristics of individuals working in teams and found that individuals were more attracted to team members—and more productive in the team—when their levels of extraversion diVered from that of their team members. One theory that is useful for explaining what seems to be the paradoxical nature of “Wtting in by being diVerent” is Snyder and Fromkin’s (1977) theory of uniqueness. An underlying assumption of this theory is that feeling unique is important for one’s sense of self-worth and that people will derive intrinsic satisfaction from the perception that they are unique, special, and distinguishable from “the masses”. Snyder and Fromkin acknowledge, however, that individuals have varying degrees of uniqueness motivation. Individuals high in need for uniqueness are thought to be particularly sensitive to the degree to which they are seen as similar to others and will strive to fulWll their desire to be unique through various means, including their appearance, style of personal interaction, and domains of knowledge in which they establish expertise.

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

211

In summary, even though needs-supplies Wt may be necessary before individuals are able to perceive that their diVerences are important to the organization (i.e., their needs for standing out are met), complementary Wt may still account for unique variance in work outcomes and, therefore, provide a more complete evaluation of individual Wt perceptions. For instance, from a needs-supplies perspective, employees would evaluate their organizational Wt by considering the extent to which their needs are fulWlled by the organization. From a demands-abilities perspective, employees would evaluate the extent to which their abilities meet the demands or requirements of the organization. Alternatively, from a complementary perspective, employees may consider the extent to which they possess unique characteristics that add something diVerent to the organization. 3.2. What constitutes the ‘organization’? The Wndings of this review indicate that there are two ways of operationalizing the organization-component of P–O Wt—organizational characteristics and organizational members—and that these operationalizations are used interchangeably without apparent regard for the diVerent responses they might elicit for individuals. Because empirical tests of this distinction have not been pursued, an important focus of future research should be to examine potential diVerences that may occur as a function of how the organization is operationalized. Billsberry, Marsh, and Moss-Jones (2004) provided evidence that employees consider both organizational characteristics and employees in the organization in their conceptualizations of Wt. In their study, employees were asked to discuss their Wt perceptions, without being prompted to focus on any speciWc type of Wt. The researchers found that 72% of respondents included Wt with other people they work with in their descriptions, whereas 39% included Wt with the organization (in terms of its values and mission). Although it has yet to be tested, it is possible that placing emphasis on organizational characteristics versus organizational members will inXuence how respondents assess their Wt. Perhaps individuals will report diVerent levels of Wt depending on whether they are considering characteristics of the organization or characteristics of people in the organization. Alternatively, individuals might use diVerent criteria to evaluate their Wt with the organization versus employees in the organization. For example, when asked to evaluate their Wt with organizational characteristics, individuals might consider how their values and goals match up to the organization’s values and goals. Conversely, when asked to evaluate Wt with employees in the organization, individuals might be more inclined to focus on personality characteristics, demographics, and KSAs. It is also possible that individuals may experience Wt with the organization but not employees in the organization, or vice versa, and this may be especially true for employees who work in large national or multinational companies that have dispersed regional oYces. For instance, the culture that an organization espouses in terms of its values, mission statement, and vision might be substantially diVerent from the culture that exists in the subsidiary oYces. Another possibility is that the ideals promoted by an organization actually may not exist but are merely a vision for what the organization hopes to be or wishes it were. In either situation, individuals might perceive diVerent levels of Wt depending on whether they are considering the organization as its own entity or the actual environment they work in.

212

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

Finally, it is possible that people will consider diVerent aspects of the organization depending on how they are conceptualizing Wt. For example, when thinking about Wt from a supplementary perspective, individuals might consider how similar they are to employees in the organization. Alternatively, when asked to consider how well their needs are met by the organization, they might consider the characteristics of the organization as opposed to individuals in the organization. Thus, in order to accurately measure diVerent conceptualizations of P–O Wt, we believe that it is important to design measures that depict relevant components of the organization. 3.3. What criteria should be used to assess person–organization Wt? In our review, we found that values were the most common way of measuring P–O Wt, and that personality and goals were also frequently included as criteria. Many of the scales also comprised items that measured overall Wt as opposed to Wt along some speciWc criteria. Because these studies did not test the relative importance of the diVerent types of P–O Wt in predicting work outcomes, and many of the items reXected double-barrel questions (e.g., “Do you think the values and personality of this organization reXect your own values and personality?”), we still have little understanding of which characteristics are essential in assessing P–O Wt. As such, there are many avenues for future research that could signiWcantly improve our understanding of Wt perceptions. We suggest that future research focus on clearly measuring diVerent characteristics of Wt (e.g., values, personality, goals, etc.) without confounding these characteristics in the same scale, and that Wt perceptions along these speciWc criterion domains are empirically tested. For example, it may be that values are critical for assessing supplementary Wt perceptions, whereas personality characteristics or work-related skills and abilities are important for assessing complementary Wt perceptions. Because values are considered to be fundamental to self-identity and they play a strong role in guiding attitudes, judgments, and behaviors (Chatman, 1989, 1991), it stands to reason that value similarity is important, if not essential, to Wt assessments. Nevertheless, it is also plausible that complementarity in terms of personality, KSAs, or competencies may foster additional perceptions of Wt. 4. Individual diVerences in subjective Wt perceptions One of the beneWts of capturing multiple forms of Wt in a single study is that it makes it possible to generate hypotheses about the relative importance of certain types of Wt for diVerent individuals. There may be individual diVerences in whether employees focus on certain types of Wt over others, and these diVerences may predict the likelihood that they develop positive work attitudes about the organization and their role in the organization. For instance, if an individual tends to focus on how well his or her needs are met by the organization, then needs-supplies Wt may be a much stronger predictor of work outcomes for this individual than other types of Wt (e.g., supplementary Wt). Alternatively, for an individual who focuses more on being similar to others, needs-supplies Wt might not predict this individual’s work attitudes as strongly as the supplementary model of Wt. Thus, knowledge of the extent to which individuals focus on diVerent dimensions of P–O Wt (i.e., ‘Wt style’) may improve our understanding of how P–O Wt relates to work outcomes.

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

213

Locke’s (1976) research on job satisfaction helps illustrate why it is useful to examine the importance that individuals attach to speciWc aspects of their work. He suggested that the importance of a particular job characteristic deWnes the range of job satisfaction, as opposed to actual satisfaction with that job characteristic. Thus, if a particular aspect of a job is relatively unimportant to an individual, he or she is likely to be relatively indiVerent about whether this aspect is satisWed, regardless of the amount of that job element received. On the other hand, if an individual values a particular aspect very highly, slight variations from optimal amounts of that job aspect will produce wide variations in job satisfaction. In relating Locke’s theoretical approach to P–O Wt perceptions, it could be argued that the importance individuals attach to speciWc types of P–O Wt will be relevant for predicting how P–O Wt relates to work outcomes. Currently, researchers have very limited knowledge of whether there are systematic diVerences that inXuence how people evaluate Wt. Thus, an important avenue for future research is to learn whether there are stable individual characteristics that can predict how individuals perceive Wt. For instance, why might some employees—when asked to think about their organizational Wt—consider how similar they are to other employees in the organization (supplementary Wt), while others focus on whether they are unique and add value to the organization (complementary Wt)? Moreover, why might some individuals think of P–O Wt in terms of whether the organization fulWlls their needs (needs-supplies Wt), while others focus on whether they provide the organization with what it requires of them (demands-abilities Wt)? Four individual diVerence variables that might inXuence how people evaluate P–O Wt include: (a) self-construal, (b) need motivations, (c) personality, and (d) self-esteem. 4.1. Self-construal Markus and Kitayama (1991) distinguished between independent and interdependent views of the self and explained how these self-construals inXuence various aspects of cognition, emotion, and motivation. The independent self-construal is analogous to the individualistic orientation of Western culture, where self-interest is promoted above the collective, and people are seen as separate and distinct individuals. People who have an independent self-image focus on being unique, expressing themselves, and promoting their own goals (Singelis, 1994). These individuals adhere to notions such as independence, uniqueness, and self-reliance. Because individuals who have a strong independent self-image enjoy being diVerent from others and standing out, they should be more likely than individuals low on independence to focus on complementary Wt. On the other hand, the interdependent view is analogous to collectivist values of connectedness, social context, and relationships (Singelis, 1994). Individuals who view themselves as interdependent tend to value belonging and Wtting in, and are subservient to the wishes of the ingroup. Thus, people who have a strong interdependent self-image should be more likely than individuals low in interdependence to focus on the supplementary model of Wt. 4.2. Need motivations A second potential source of individual diVerence that may inXuence Wt perceptions pertains to peoples’ need motivations. The theory of work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) explains that a person will be satisWed with work only if his or her needs are fulWlled

214

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

by the environment. Individuals with a high need for achievement are typically characterized as goal seekers; they react positively to competition and consistently aspire to accomplish diYcult tasks (Jackson, 1989). These individuals tend to desire personal responsibility and strive to maintain high standards. Because these individuals are concerned with achieving high standards, they should also be more likely to concern themselves with whether they are meeting the demands of the organization. To this end, individuals with a high need for achievement should be more likely than individuals low on this need to focus on demands-abilities Wt in their assessment of P–O Wt. Alternatively, individuals with a high need for aYliation tend to focus their energy on being with friends and people in general, and on maintaining emotional ties with others (Jackson, 1989). Because individuals with a high need for aYliation seek acceptance and strive to appease others by doing whatever is perceived to be valued by others, they may be more likely to derive their perceptions of Wt from a supplementary perspective. As such, individuals with a high need for aYliation should be more likely than individuals with a low need for aYliation to focus on supplementary Wt. 4.3. Personality One of the most popular sources of individual diVerence includes the various personality factors identiWed through factor analysis. This vast body of research suggests that a Wve-factor model of personality including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience may be an optimal way of categorizing personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Of these personality variables, we judged that openness to experience would be the most likely to inXuence how individuals perceive Wt. Individuals who are high in openness to experience tend to be imaginative, original, autonomous, and broad-minded; they often seek out new and unconventional experiences and, in doing so, tend to stand out from others (Barrick & Mount, 1991). On the other hand, people who are low in openness to experience are typically more conventional and prefer familiarity to novelty. These individuals also tend to exhibit less creativity and divergent thinking than people high in openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, it is expected that individuals who are high in openness to experience may be more likely than individuals who are low on this trait to perceive a complementary Wt with their organization. 4.4. Self-esteem Self-esteem refers to how favorably individuals evaluate themselves—whether one accepts oneself, respects oneself, and considers oneself a person of worth (Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982). Individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to perceive themselves as worthy in general and, thus, may be more likely to focus on what they deserve from the organization. On the other hand, individuals with low self-esteem are more likely to doubt their abilities and overall worthiness; as such, these individuals might be more inclined to focus on whether or not they meet (or fail to meet) the expectations of the organization. Vocational research suggests that people with high self-esteem are more likely to choose occupations that they perceive will most likely fulWll their speciWc needs and that are consistent with their self-perceived characteristics (Korman, 1966). Alternatively, those with low self-esteem are known to be less likely to choose occupations that

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

215

fulWll their needs and that are consistent with their self-perceived characteristics. In other words, high self-esteem individuals are more likely to be “need-satisfying individuals,” whereas low self-esteem individuals are typically “non-need-satisfying” individuals (Korman, 1966). To date, only a few studies have examined the relationship between self-esteem and subjective P–O Wt. Saks and Ashforth (1997) predicted that self-esteem would be positively related to applicant’s perceptions of P–O Wt, but this hypothesis was not supported. The results of Dineen, Ash, and Noe’s (2002) study also showed a non-signiWcant relationship between self-esteem and subjective Wt. In spite of these Wndings, it is still possible that selfesteem plays an important role in P–O Wt perceptions. Although self-esteem may not be related to whether or not individuals experience Wt, it may be related to how individuals experience Wt. SpeciWcally, demands-abilities Wt seems to focus primarily on meeting the needs of others, whereas needs-supplies Wt focuses primarily on meeting one’s own needs (Caplan, 1987). Thus, it is possible that individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to focus on needs-supplies Wt, whereas individuals with low self-esteem may be more likely to focus on demands-abilities Wt. 5. Recommendations for future research Our review of the subjective P–O Wt literature shows that, despite a proliferation of research on perceptions of Wt from the perspective of applicants, recruiters, and employees, important gaps remain in our conceptual understanding of what underlies individuals’ evaluations of Wt. These unresolved issues not only perpetuate confusion about how to best measure the Wt construct, but they also limit our ability to draw accurate conclusions about the antecedents and consequences of P–O Wt. In terms of future research directions, we Wrst and foremost recommend that researchers focus their attention on developing and then adopting a comprehensive and validated measure of subjective P–O Wt. One of the major criticisms of direct assessments of subjective P– O Wt (as opposed to indirect or objective measurement approaches) is that they tend to be omnibus measures that provide little insight into the speciWc attributes of individuals or organizations upon which those assessments are based (Carlson & Herdman, 2005). As a result, subjective measures typically provide little diagnostic information regarding how individuals evaluate Wt. This diagnostic issue can be addressed by creating speciWc direct items that tap into the multitude of factors that inXuence Wt. Such measures may assist researchers and practitioners in understanding the role each plays in predicting workrelated attitudes and behaviors, and they may also facilitate meaningful comparison of results across studies. Establishing a more integrative perspective of P–O Wt may also prove beneWcial to organizations in their eVorts to hire and retain the “right” employees. In most of the existing research on P–O Wt, is presumed to be synonymous with similarity, and organizations are often encouraged to recruit and select individuals based on how similar they are to existing organizational members (Kristof, 1996). Nevertheless, some researchers have argued that focusing on the supplementary model of Wt (i.e., Wt via similarity) may be detrimental to organizations because the resulting homogeneous workforce may impede their ability to adapt to diverse or changing circumstances (Enz & Schwenk, 1991; Schneider, 1987; Walsh, 1987). Thus, it may actually be advantageous for organizations to strive for diVerent types of Wt (Kristof, 1996). Furthermore, with an increasingly diverse workforce

216

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

(Powell, 1998), and rising awareness among corporations to promote organizational diversity (Richard, 2000), a more inclusive model of Wt may help identify how individual diVerences can be promoted while still maintaining high levels of P–O Wt. A second criticism about direct assessments of P–O Wt pertains to the self-report nature of these measures. Given that Wt perceptions are typically measured along with other self-reported work outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intentions to remain in the organization), the question arises about whether measures of subjective Wt are assessing a distinct construct or whether they are simply tapping into overall aVect-laden judgments. For instance, it is possible that individual diVerences in positive/negative aVectivity (i.e., the tendency to view oneself and the environment in generally positive/negative terms) may be accounting for much of the variance in the observed relationships between Wt perceptions and criterion measures of interest. One recommended strategy for detecting (or controlling for) this source of measurement error involves partialling out the eVects of mood dispositions when analyzing the relationship between Wt perceptions and work outcomes (PodsakoV, MacKenzie, Lee, & PodsakoV, 2003). It is also important, however, that researchers are cognizant of other potential sources of method bias (e.g., using a single source, using common scale formats or common scale anchors, using similar measurement contexts; see PodsakoV et al. for a detailed review of the various sources of, and techniques for controlling, method bias). Using procedural strategies designed to circumvent the eVects of method bias may improve both our ability to understand how subjective Wt relates to other variables and also the conWdence we have in using self-report measures of Wt in future research. Another important avenue for future research is to explore speciWc criteria that are important to recruiters, applicants, and employees in their Wt assessments. The vast majority of studies that have measured P–O Wt are based on researcher-derived conceptualizations, which may or may not reXect the true nature of how diVerent types of respondents conceptualize Wt. Bretz, Rynes, and Gerhart (1993) were the Wrst researchers to advocate the use of non-directive research methods to investigate P–O Wt so as to avoid researcher-generated scales that may slant responses or provide incomplete information about the Wt domain. In their study, recruiters articulated their own conceptualizations of applicant Wt by providing speciWc examples of good- and poor-Wtting applicants and the characteristics associated with these applicants. It was found that recruiters placed more emphasis on job-speciWc Wt and general Wt than on Wt to unique organizational characteristics or culture. To date, only one study has examined how employees conceptualize Wt. Billsberry et al. (2004) conducted open-ended interviews with employees to learn how they deWne Wt, and found that employees identiWed an overall sense of Wt, but also categorized Wt into diVerent domains. For instance, employees’ Wt perceptions pertained to (a) the people they worked with, (b) the requirements of the job, (c) organizational level matters, (d) the conditions of their employment, and (e) extra work. Although these Wndings provide initial evidence that Wt is multidimensional and that respondents are capable of distinguishing between diVerent types of Wt, it would be valuable to conduct further research that speciWcally pertains to the construct of P–O Wt. For instance, to understand how to inXuence applicant attraction to the organization as well as job choice and employee retention, organizations must Wrst have an understanding of what information individuals use to assess their organizational Wt. This knowledge may then assist organizations in

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

217

developing more eVective recruitment strategies and employment practices designed to promote employee commitment and retention. We also believe that longitudinal research is important in order to understand the extent to which P–O Wt may change for individuals over the course of their employment. Although researchers have demonstrated that the level of Wt individuals experience may change over time (e.g., from pre-entry to post-entry; Cable & Judge, 1996; Saks & Ashforth, 2002), researchers have yet to explore whether or not how individuals conceptualize Wt is susceptible to change. For example, prior to organizational entry, how individuals evaluate their Wt with a prospective organization may be substantively diVerent from how they evaluate their Wt once become organizational members. One possibility is that diVerent conceptualizations are relevant at diVerent stages of the employment process. For instance, during the job search phase, competition for jobs requires individuals to not only present themselves in a positive light, but also to demonstrate how they “stand out” from other applicants. Thus, applicants may be inclined to focus on what they can add to the organization (complementary Wt) or on how their KSAs suit what the organization is looking for (demands-abilities Wt). Once individuals have become organizational members, the need to belong becomes salient; thus, individuals’ evaluations of Wt and of their role in the organization may switch to assessments of how they are similar to others in the organization (supplementary Wt) or whether their needs are being met by the organization (needssupplies Wt). Individuals may also come to alter how they evaluate their organizational P–O Wt as their tenure in the organization accrues. For instance, early on in an employment relationship, individuals might strive for a supplementary Wt in the organization. Over time, however, as individuals become more comfortable in their work environment, they might seek out a complementary Wt. Hollander’s (1958) theory of idiosyncrasy credits is useful for explaining why individuals with greater work experience and tenure may be more able to engage in behaviors that deviate from the norm without being sanctioned. Because individuals with longer tenure are generally perceived as being more valuable in the workplace, they may be more likely to seek out ways that they can express their individuality. On the other hand, younger people generally have less work experience and are more likely to rely on cues in the environment for how to behave in the workplace (Miceli & Near, 1988). Finally, we believe that it will be very useful to examine the role of P–O Wt perceptions within the broader framework of person–environment (P–E) Wt. This may help researchers understand how Wt at other levels (e.g., person–group Wt, person–job Wt, and person–supervisor Wt) aVects, and is aVected by, the relationship between P–O Wt and work outcomes; it may also help researchers obtain a more complete evaluation of the process by which individuals come to feel like they belong. In a recent meta-analysis, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) found that the various levels of P–E Wt diVerentially inXuenced employee work attitudes. For example, job satisfaction was best predicted by Wt with one’s job, organizational commitment was best predicted by Wt with the organization, and satisfaction with one’s coworkers and one’s supervisor was best predicted by Wt with one’s group and supervisor, respectively. In light of this empirical evidence, an interesting avenue for future research might be to examine antecedents of Wt at the various levels. For example, there may be individual diVerences that predict the extent to which individuals place value on Wt with the organization, Wt with one’s workgroup, or Wt with one’s job, and these diVerences might also be important for organizational outcomes.

218

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

6. Conclusion Our goal at the outset of this paper was to convey a better understanding of how researchers conceptualize, operationalize, and measure P–O Wt. In the last comprehensive review that has been conducted on P–O Wt, Kristof (1996) called for greater conceptual clarity of the multiple conceptualizations and for improved measurement strategies; she also highlighted the importance of resolving these issues in order to further advance this literature. It has now been a decade since Kristof’s review was published, yet many conceptual issues still remain within this literature that we believe are worthy of attention. We hope that this review encourages researchers to re-evaluate their conceptual and psychometric approaches to examining subjective Wt perceptions and that it also provides some guidance regarding approaches to move this literature toward more standardized, comprehensive measures of P–O Wt. References References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the review of subjective P–O Wt measures. *Adkins, C. L., Russell, C. J., & Werbel, J. D. (1994). Judgments of Wt in the selection process: the role of work value congruence. Personnel Psychology, 47, 605–623. *Amram, S. (2004). Organizational work–life balance practices: socialization, perceived Wt and organizational outcomes. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Concordia University. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Billsberry, J., Marsh, P., & Moss-Jones, J. (2004). Mapping organizational members’ sense of Wt. Paper presented at the 64rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, Louisiana. Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–organization Wt and the theory of work adjustment: implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32–54. Bretz, R. D., Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (1993). Recruiter perceptions of applicant Wt: implications for individual career preparation and job search behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 310–327. *Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective Wt perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884. Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. F. (2004). Complementary and supplementary Wt: a theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822–834. *Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization Wt, 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 Wt and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546–561. *Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person–organization Wt. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23. *Canger, J. M., Smith, M. A., Lutrick, E. C., & Herst, D. E. L. (2002). Supervisor “big Wve” personality and subordinate attitudes. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person–environment Wt theory and organizations: commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248–267. *Carless, S. A. (2005a). Person–job Wt versus person–organization Wt as predictors of organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 411–429. *Carless, S. A. (2005b). The inXuence of Wt perceptions, equal opportunity policies, and social support network on pre-entry police oYcer career commitment and intentions to remain. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 341–352. Carlson, K. D., & Herdman, A. O. (2005). Measures of person–work environment Wt constructs: conceptual ambiguity and empirical reality. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

219

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928–944. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: a model of person–organization Wt. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–349. Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public accounting Wrms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484. *Cooper-Thomas, H. D., van Vienin, A., & Anderson, N. (2004). Changes in person–organization Wt: impact of socialization on perceived and actual P–O Wt. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 52–78. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. *Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of applicant attraction: person–organization Wt in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 723–734. *Dineen, B. R., VandeWalle, D., & Noe, R. A. (2005). Job seeker goal orientation and the relative weighing of P–O and demands-abilities Wt perceptions in making applicant decisions. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, California. Enz, C. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). The performance edge: strategic and value dissensus. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 75–84. *Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). When do proactive individuals feel successful? The role of Wt. Presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, California. *García, M. F. (2004). Antecedents of an interviewer’s Wt perceptions of an applicant: the role of perceived similarity. In D. H. Nagao (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixty-third annual meeting of the academy of management (pp. 1543–8643). *Gellepsie, M. A. (2003). The inXuence of personality traits on person–organization Wt perceptions. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University. *Haptonstahl, D. E., & Buckley, T. (2002). Applicant Wt: a three-dimensional investigation of recruiter perceptions. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada. *Harold, C. M. (2005). Person–organization Wt: the role of symbolic factors. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, California. *Harold, C. M., & McFarland, L. A. (2005). Investigating person–environment: the role of instrumental and symbolic factors. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, California. *Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The eVect of applicant inXuence tactics on recruiter perceptions of Wt and hiring recommendations: a Weld study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 622–632. Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127. *Hutcheson, J. M. (1999). An examination of three levels of person–environment Wt. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston. Jackson, D. N. (1989). Personality Research Form Manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. *Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organizational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–394. Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion of Wt in human resource staYng decisions. Human Resource Planning, 15, 47–67. *Kennedy, M., & HuV, J. (2004). Person–organization and person–job Wt: testing a three-factor model of subjective Wt perceptions. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, Louisiana. *Kennedy, M., & HuV, J. (2005). An empirical investigation of subjective person–environment Wt perceptions. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, California.

220

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

*Kim, T. Y., Cable, D. N., & Kim, S. P. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and person–organization Wt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 232–241. Korman, A. K. (1966). Self-esteem variable in vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 479–486. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person–organization Wt: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–28. *Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant Wt: distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person–job and person–organization Wt. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643–671. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Barrick, M. R., & Stevens, C. K. (2005). When opposites attract: a multi-sample demonstration of complementary person–team Wt on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73, 936–957. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of Individuals’ Wt at work: a meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor Wt. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. *Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2002). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of person–job and person–organization Wt. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454–470. Locke, E. A. (1976). Nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. *Lovelace, K., & Rosen, B. (1996). DiVerences in achieving person–organization Wt among diverse groups of managers. Journal of Management, 22, 703–722. *Lutrick, E. C., & Moriarty, K. O. (2002). Measuring perceived Wt directly and indirectly: does method matter? Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada. *Lyons, H. Z., Brenner, B. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2005). A multicultural test of the theory of work adjustment: investigating the role of heterosexism and Wt perceptions in the job satisfaction of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 537–548. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. *Mastaler, S. E. (1999). A study to explore the role of executive search consultants in assessing person–organizational Wt at organizational entry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing. Personnel Psychology, 41, 267–281. *Mosley, D. C. (2002). The inXuence of person–job Wt, person–organization Wt, and self-eYcacy on work attitudes, job performance, and turnover. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Mississippi State University. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person–environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of Wt. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277. *Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of Marketing, 61, 85–98. Nikolaou, I. (2003). Fitting the person to the organization: examining the personality-job performance relationship from a new perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 639–648. *Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (in press). Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective person–organization Wt. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. PodsakoV, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & PodsakoV, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. *Posner, J. M., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a diVerence: an empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24, 293–309. Powell, G. N. (1998). Reinforcing and extending today’s organizations: the simultaneous pursuit of person–organization Wt and diversity. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 50–62. Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and Wrm performance: a resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 177–184. Rosenberg, M., & Kaplan, H. B. (1982). Social psychology of the self-concept. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlon Davidson. Ryan, A. M., & Schmit, M. J. (1996). An assessment of organizational climate and P–E Wt: a tool for organizational change. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4, 75–95. *Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of Wt, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395–426. *Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the Wt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 646–654.

K.A. Piasentin, D.S. Chapman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 202–221

221

*Sarris, A., & Kirby, N. (2005). Antarctica: a study of person–culture Wt. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 161–169. *Scheu, C. R., & Ryan, A. M. (2001). Achieving recruiting goals: applying what we know about person–organization Wt across a range of organizational image. Paper presented at the 16th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, California. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: an update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–762. Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. *Shantz, C. A. (2003). Person–organization Wt: individual diVerences, socialization, and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University. *Siegall, M., & McDonald, T. (2004). Person–organization value congruence, burnout and diversion of resources. Personnel Review, 33, 291–301. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self constructs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. Smith, M. A. (2002). Subordinate-supervisor “Wt” using the big Wve personality Constructs. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: the development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518–527. *Soh, S. (2000). Organizational socialization of newcomers: a longitudinal study of organizational enculturation processes and outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University. *Stevens, C. K., Dragoni, L., & Collins, C. J. (2001). Familiarity, organizational images, and perceived Wt as antecedents to the application decision of new graduates. Paper presented at the 16th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, California. *Tepici, M. (2001). The eVect of personal values, organizational culture, and person–organization Wt on individual outcomes in the restaurant industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. Valentine, S. (2000). International person–organization Wt: the role of national culture. International Journal of Management, 17, 295–302. *Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Lucero, M. (2002). Ethical context, organizational commitment, and person–organization Wt. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 349–360. Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Person–organization Wt: the match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53, 113–149. *Verquer, M. L. (2002). Fitting in at work: a comparison of the relationships between person–organization and person–group Wt with work attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Central Michigan University. Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person–organization Wt and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–489. *Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Ben-Zion, E. (2004). Bright shining stars: the mediating eVect of organizational image on the relationship between work variables and army oYcers’ intentions to leave the service for a job in high-tech industry. Public Personnel Management, 33, 201–224. Walsh, W. B. (1987). Person–environment congruence: a response to the Moos perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 347–352.