“…In regard to content dimensions, there are two dominant and distinct frameworks for conceptualizing P-O fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002;Edwards, 2008;Kristof, 1996;Edwards, 1996): (1) The demands-abilities fit; this aspect of P-O fit is also labeled as Person-Job (P-J) fit , which rests on match between abilities and work skills possessed by individual employees and those needed by their organizations (Edwards, 2008;Kristof-Brown et al, 2005); (2) The perspective of needssupplies fulfillment (French, Caplan & Harrison, 1982), another way to conceptualize P-O fit as the extent to which an employee's work preferences or needs get fulfilled by his/her employer (Cable & Edwards, 2004;Locke, 1976;Manhardt, 1972;Meglino, Ravlin & Adkins, 1989;Super, 1970Super, ,1995Wanous & Lawler, 1972). In this study, I will focus on the needs-supplies fulfillment approach of P-O fit for the following reasons: (1) Compared to needs-supplies fulfillment approach, the demands-abilities approach is limited in scope and application in regard to impact on associated outcomes as it is most relevant to the area of recruitment and selection (Turban, Lau, Ngo, Chow & Si, 2001;Edwards & Cooper, 1990;Werbel & Gilliland, 1999); (2) The integration of needssupplies fulfillment approach with Chatman's (1989;1991) value congruence concept described above may afford us with "a more comprehensive picture of fit" (Cable & Edwards, 2004;Kristof, 1996, p. 30). More specifically, drawing the insights from the work-value theory discussed previously, comprehensive comparisons at the individual level can be made across content dimensions associated with work values.…”