Of all the issues in psychology that have fascinated scholars and practitioners alike none has been more pervasive than the one concerning the fit of person and environment. (B. Schneider, 2001, p. 141) Person-environment fit is defined as the compatibility that occurs when individual and work environment characteristics are well matched (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Models of personenvironment (PE) fit have always been a prominent theme in the field of industrial and organizational psychology. The notion that people are differentially compatible in particular work environments is so well accepted that Saks and Ashforth (1997) called the topic "a cornerstone of industrial/organizational psychology and human resources management" (p. 395). B. Schneider (2001) concluded that "the concept of person-environment fit is so pervasive as to be one of, if not the, dominant conceptual forces in the field" (p. 142). Yet in the same article, B. Schneider also notes, "There is considerable ambiguity over what is appropriate research from a person-environment fit perspective" (p. 150). Thus, the purpose of this chapter is as much to review where research on PE fit has been as it is to illuminate what the research contains and where it is going.

In this cross‐cultural meta‐analysis, we examine the relationships between person–environment [P–E] fit and work attitudes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to quit) as well as job performance based on 96 studies (110 independent samples) conducted in East Asia, Europe, and North America. We compare the results across cultures while focusing on 4 dimensions of P–E fit (person‐job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, and person–supervisor fit) separately and jointly. Findings suggest that the effects of rational fit (person–organization and person–job fit) are (relatively) stronger in North America and, to a lesser extent, Europe than in East Asia. However, the effects of relational fit (person–group and person–supervisor fit) are (relatively) stronger in East Asia than in North America. This highlights that in collectivistic and high power distance (vs. individualistic and low power distance) cultures, relational (vs. rational) fit is more salient in influencing employees’ perceptions about their work environments. Results are less clear concerning job performance. What is common across cultures is that, regardless of which dimension of P–E fit is being considered, fit happens and high levels of fit lead to positive outcomes, confirming the universal relevance of fit phenomenon.

No abstract

We conducted a field survey of leaders and their followers to examine factors that moderate the relationship between employee proactive personality and proactive behaviour. As hypothesized, random coefficient modelling analysis showed that two situational factors – transformational leadership and a climate of innovation and flexibility – moderated the relationship between employee proactive personality and proactive behaviour. Conceptually, we draw from situational strength theory to predict the pattern of these interactions. Our findings indicated that organizations desiring proactive employee behaviour would be well advised to take one of three courses of action: select employees with proactive personality who will generally behave proactively regardless of the situation; develop transformational leaders who will motivate, inspire, and support proactive employee behaviour; or cultivate a climate of innovation and flexibility which will create a strong situation that fosters proactivity regardless of employee individual differences. Practitioner points The modern workplace often demands that employees behave proactively, and our research shows that there are multiple strategies organizations can implement to facilitate employee proactive behaviour. In particular, our study reveals three ways for organizations to facilitate proactive employee behaviour: (1) recruit and select employees who are high in proactive personality, who will be more apt to naturally engage in proactive behaviour; (2) hire or train leaders to be transformational since transformational leaders will bring about proactive employee behaviour; or (3) create a climate that rewards innovation and flexibility as such a climate will encourage proactive employee behaviour.

No abstract