Fit as a Tool for Improving Organizational Functioning

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Fit as a Tool for Improving Organizational Functioning"

Transcription

1 PETAR MILOJEV; ID: Fit as a Tool for Improving Organizational Functioning Utilizing Person-Environment Fit Keywords: Person-Environment fit; Value Congruence; Goal Congruence; Needs-Supplies fit; Demands- Abilities fit; Person-Organization fit; Person-Job fit

2 Executive Summary It is often said that the most important and valuable resource of any organization is its people. However, this is only true if these people are the right people. It can therefore be argued that the most important thing for any organization is having the right people or the people that fit. Obviously than in an organizational context this fit between the employees and the organization is of great, if not critical importance. Indeed, this idea of fit between the person and their working environment has over the past decades received a substantial amount of attention in under the field of Person-Environment fit. This notion of Person-Environment fit most simply refers to the degree of match or congruence between the characteristics of the person and the characteristics of their working environment. This concept indeed encompasses, amongst other things that fit between the employees and the organization that they work for. While it is commonly understood in everyday life that fit matters whereby the better the one fits the better the outcomes or results, a substantial amount of research has investigated the effects, and so the importance of this fit between the person and their working environment. Indeed it is consistently found that the Person-Environment fit is related to a number of work-related attitudes and behaviors such as satisfaction, commitment to the organization and a number of other factors (Edwards et al, 2005). What this white paper sets out to do is to clarify, through research findings over a number of years, what it is that we are talking about when we refer to fit, more specifically when we refer to Person- Environment fit in the Organizational Work context. In doing so we will look at different kinds of fit that are important to understanding Person-Environment fit and its effects. Finally, we will look at how this concept of Person-Environment fit can be utilized in the practical setting to improve organizational operation and functioning through that most valuable resource, the right people. So What is Fit? The idea of fitting in is commonly used and intuitively understood in everyday language. Kids fit in at school, people fit in with their peers, friends, families, relationships, with each other, at work, and so on. People easily make judgments and quite commonly agree as to whether someone fits in or doesn t in a number of contexts. However the notion of fit is not an entirely simple one. For example, a person can fit into a group of other people on the basis of commonly shared beliefs, attitudes, and interests. On the other hand one can fit in a group of others because they have some skills and knowledge that others lack or need, like being good at listening and giving advice or cheering people up. Or one can fit for both of these reasons. So from this simple example one can see that fitting in has numerous layers and it is important to keep these complexities in mind when considering Person-Environment fit in the workplace. There are different Person-Environment interactions, as well as different levels of the environment that one can fit to. Put simply, there are different ways to fit and different things to fit to. 1

3 Similarity or Filling the Gap = Supplementary and Complementary fit Different kinds of Person-Environment interactions correspond to different kinds of fit, and so we get two different ways a person can fit with their working environment. Person-Environment fit can be achieved Similarity between the characteristics of the person and the characteristics of their environment. This is Supplementary fit. Supplementary fit can be achieved on a number of factors, most commonly considered being Values and Goals, Operationalized as Value Congruence and Goal Congruence (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Vogel & Feldman, 2009). On the other hand there is Complementary fit. This kind of Person-Environment interaction is based on mutually complementing characteristics of the person and the environment. That is, the characteristics of the person contribute or compliment the characteristics of the environment, and the characteristics of the environment compliment or the characteristics or the needs of the person. Research in this area of Person-Environment fit has identified two forms of Complementary fit that are in no way exclusive but usually operate simultaneously. These are the Demands-Abilities fit and the Needs-Supplies fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). The Demands-Abilities fit can be understood in terms of the person meeting the requirements of the working environment. Every work environment has some demands it places on the person, such as qualifications, experience, knowledge, and skills. The degree to which the person s abilities match the demands of the environment is the Demands-Abilities fit. At the same time every person has demands they place on their working environment. More specifically, every person has needs that they need fulfilled by environment. A person will have needs such as financial security and stability, rewards, training and self-improvement, and the need for challenge, that they will want satisfied by their working environment. Therefore, the Needs-Supplies fit is the degree to which the needs of the person (needs) are satisfied by their working environment (supplies) (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). These differences in fit processes are important to understand for they allow the understanding and differentiation of different levels of Person-environment fit. Multileveled Environment = multileveled Fit As mentioned earlier, any environment will have a number of layers that a person can fit to. Multileveled nature of the working environment corresponds to multiple levels of Person-Environment fit. Of concern to this white paper are the levels of work environment fit that have received the most research attention and are the most important for practical consideration. These are the levels of the organization and the Job. Therefore, we will look at the concepts of Person-organization and Person-Job fit, and their relationships to work related outcomes (Edwards et al, 2005: Vogel & Feldman, 2009; Cable & DeRue, 2002). 2

4 Person-Organization One level of the environment that a person can achieve fit with is the organization that they work in or may intend to work in. Just like when a person fits into a peer group on the basis of shared interests so a person can fit into an organization through their similarity. In other words, Person-Organization fit is the Supplementary fit between the characteristics of the person and the characteristics of the organization. As mentioned in the discussion on Supplementary fit this similarity can be achieved through Value Congruence and Goal Congruence (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Vogel & Feldman, 2009). It is important to note that Person-Organization fit as well as Person-job fit is measured as the Perceived compatibility between the person and that aspect of the environment. That is, the fit is conceptualized as the person s perception of their match with their environment. It is also possible to measure Actual fit by taking objective measures of the person variables or characteristics and the environment variables, and then objectively comparing them and evaluating the fit between the two (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). However, a consistent finding in the Person-Environment fit research is that Perceived fit has a stronger relation to peoples choices and work outcomes than Actual fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Therefore, most of the research in the area, and indeed this White Paper is concerned with perceived fit, but it is important to realize the distinction. Measures of Person-Organization fit have been developed in terms of three item scales for measuring Value and Goal congruence, totaling six items (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Vogel & Feldman, 2009). These scales include items such as: The things I value in life are very similar to the things my organization values for measuring value congruence (Cable & DeRue, 2002), and: My Personal goals and the goals of my organization are very similar for measuring goal congruence (Vogel & Feldman, 2009). Importantly, both of these sales score high on reliability measures (α=.89 and α=.81, for value and goal congruence respectively) (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Vogel & Feldman, 2009). Measured as such Person-Organization fit has been shown to be related to a number of important work related outcomes. For example, higher levels of value and goal congruence between the person and the organization are associated with higher levels of Organizational commitment and Organizational citizenship behavior (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Organizational citizenship behaviors are those extra-role or going the extra mile behaviors that employees may engage in to help achieve organizational goals. Furthermore, higher levels of Person-Organization fit are associated with more Perceived organizational support, or positive attributions for organization s behavior, Job satisfaction, and lower levels of intentions to leave the organization (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Person-Job Whereas Person-Organization fit is conceptualized and measured Supplementary fit, Person-Job fit is conceptualized as Complementary fit between the person and the job. As such Person-job fit is operationalized as having two factors, the Needs-Supplies fit and Abilities-Demands fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Cable & DeRue, 2002). The first relates to whether the person s needs, for example development, challenge, rewards, and financial needs, are sufficiently met by the job. On 3

5 the other hand Demand-Abilities fit relates to whether the person meets the requirements of the job, such as skills and knowledge, and that these demands are not under-matched or over-matched. As with other types of fit, Person-Job fit is most commonly measured as Perceived fit. Furthermore, while usually considered simultaneously, separate scale measures have been developed for Needs- Supplies fit and Demands-Abilities fit (Cable & DeRe, 2002)both of these aspects of Person-job fit are measured on three-items scales including items such as: There is a good fit between what my job offers and what I am looking for in a job for measuring Needs-Supplies fit, and: The match is very good between the demands of my job and my personal skills for measuring Demands-Abilities fit. Both of these scales have been shown to have a satisfactory high level of reliability (α=.90 and α=.84, for needssupplies fit and demands-abilities fit respectively) (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Through use of such measures person perceptions of their fit with their job has been found to be related to a number of work related outcomes. For example, higher ratings of Person-Job fit are related to higher ratings of job satisfaction, career satisfaction, occupational commitment, as well as, to a lesser degree, job performance (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Vogel & Feldman, 2009).Furthermore, Person-Job fit is negatively related to intentions of leaving the job and the organization (Vogel & Feldman, 2009). However, these effects are not symmetric al between the Needs-Supplies fit and the Demands-Abilities fit perceptions. In fact most of the effects are more strongly related to Needs-Supplies fit perception than to Demands-Abilities fit perception. The only exception is the job performance which is not related to Needs-Supplies fit but rather to the Demands-Abilities fit (Vogel & Feldman, 2009). These findings suggest that Needs-Supplies fit perception has more bearing on the work related outcomes than does Demands-Abilities fit perception; however job performance is affected by the employee having the capabilities to meet the demands of the job. Making Use of the Tool that is Person-Environment Fit Now that we have familiarized ourselves with the notion of Person-Environment fit, specifically Person- Organization fit and Person-Job fit, we can look at the practical implications of research in the area and how it can in organizational practice to optimize those work-related outcomes. From the previous discussion it is clear that the research has important implications to how workplace practice should be conducted from recruitment processes to employee management. Obviously, in light of the research, the key to achieving the best results is increase or optimize the levels of fit amongst employees. However, while time spent in an organization is associated with increasing levels of fit (Schmidt, 1987), there are no well-established factors that can be manipulated to achieve higher levels of Person-Organization fit. Therefore, Person-organization fit is not a tool that can be used for prompt problem resolution, but it is nevertheless a useful and important tool. Organizations can use person-organization fit in the recruitment process in order to attract and select for employees with higher levels of value and goal congruence with the organization. The measurement scales developed by Cable and DeRue (2002) could easily be adopted for use in the interview context. This would allow for an assessment of the prospective employee s value and goal congruence to be conducted prior to selection. Such information would aid in selection considering the implications of 4

6 Person-Organization fit has on work-related outcomes. In addition to this organizations should understand the importance of clearly communicating their values and goals to the public and the potential employees. In this way the organization would attract people with more similar values and goals, as well as get a more accurate measure of value and goal congruence gathered in the interview assessment. Measures of Person-Organization fit can also be used to monitor the perceptions of fit amongst the employees and so get an evaluation of their wellbeing and satisfaction. This would be particularly useful in situations of changes to the organization, particularly those changes that could affect the perceived values and goals of the organization. In such cases having a standard measure of Person-organization fit to compare before and after the changes would be useful in assessing the effects of those changes. Moreover, measures of Person-Organization fit could be used to assess proposed changes in a hypothetical-scenario-investigation. In addition, having a measure of Person-Organization fit as a standard measure in employee management would allow for inter-organizational comparisons. Research on Person-Job fit also has important implications for organizational practice. This type of fit is indeed a useful tool that can readily be used in practice and is more flexible and versatile than measures of Person-Organization fit. In fact, the notion of Person-Job fit can be utilized in the recruitment context, as a standard measure, as well as for improving work-related outcomes through direct manipulations of fit. The finding that Person-Job fit rather than Person-Organization fit is related to job performance has important implications to the approach organizations have to employee recruitment and development. Depending on the circumstances organizations may consider selecting employees for a position that have a higher Person-Job fit, rather than those that fit in with the values and goals of the organization. This approach would improve levels of job performance and decrease the costs associated with skill training that would be required to get the employees to a satisfactory level of Person-Job fit. Level of Person-job fit, particularly of Demands-abilities fit that is of greater importance in this case is easily measured in the interview context using the scales developed by Cable & DeRue (2002). The finding that Needs-Supplies fit has a great bearing on work related outcomes has implications for communication job positions. While it is important to clarify the demands of the job, it is also important to clearly communicate the benefits provided by the job, such as financial benefits and challenges. Furthermore, using the measurement scales of Cable and DeRue (2002) both Needs-Supplies fit and Demands-Abilities fit can be monitored and appropriate action taken to optimize congruence and improve the associated work related outcomes, in particular employee satisfaction with their job and career. Organizations can make the effort to fulfill the needs of their employees where needed as well as to train and improve work related skills of the workers. Here the relationship between Needs- Supplies and Demands-Abilities fit is particularly salient since in some cases developing those workrelated skills may be the need that employees need satisfied. Taking such proactive action would increase the levels of Person-Job fit and so increase the levels of employee satisfaction and job performance. 5

7 Conclusion Through this white paper we have explored the notion of Person-Environment fit as a practical tool to be used for improving organizational functioning and employee wellbeing. We have explored its conceptualization and the research into its effects and measures. Finally, the paper discussed some specific ways in which the notion of Person-Environment fit can be used in practical settings. The white paper focused on Person-Organization and Person-Job fit because of their prevalence in the research and their practical importance in organizational functioning. However it is important to remember that there is more research into different levels of Person-Environment fit that could be just as important, such as the Person-Vocation fit. While the area of Person-Environment fit has a lot of room for development and future research, as the body of knowledge is currently, Person-Environment fit, specifically Person-Organization and Person-job fit, is a very useful practical tool that should be used in organizational practice for it has important implications for both employee performance and wellbeing, and so for organizational functioning. References Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), Edwards, J.R., Cable, D.M., Williamson, I.O., Lambert, L.S., & Shipp, A.J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequence of individuals fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organisation, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, Vogel, R.M., & Feldman, D.C. (2009). Integrating levels of person-environment fit: The roles of vocational fit and group fit. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75,

8 7