Person‐organization fit theory and research: Conundrums, conclusions, and calls to action

Abstract

The article presents a personal historical review of the person‐organization fit (PO) literature by Amy Kristof‐Brown, Benjamin Schneider and Rong Su. We present six conundrums and research evidence about each that we've encountered while studying fit during our careers: (1) What exactly is PO fit?—the term can be narrowly or broadly defined, but must be distinguished from other forms of Person‐Environment (PE) fit; (2) What is the best way to measure PO fit?—there are a variety of ways, each with strengths and liabilities and the measure of P and O can vary across a variety of attributes; (3) At what level of analysis is PO fit?—although conceptually cross‐level, it has been studied most frequently as an individual‐level variable; (4) To what extent does PO fit actually matter?—quite a bit, especially with regard to individual attitudes and turnover, but there are many caveats including measures and national culture; (5) Is PO fit always desirable?—for individuals generally yes, but there can be benefits of misfit; for organizations the answer is still unknown, particularly with regard to diversity; and (6) What are the implications of PO fit change over time?—it is clear that people engage in purposeful activity toward establishing fit in their lives, and purposeful organizational tactics toward accomplishing productive fit is recommended. Addressing these conundrums, we provide thoughts on future directions for research on PO fit and practical implications for managers who want to maximize the benefits of PO fit.

Fit for one or fit for all? The normative theory of fit and the normative and distinctive decomposition of fit

“…Second, along with identifying the issue, we also introduce the normative theory of fit as a new theoretical lens. This answers recent calls to expand the types of theories used in fit research (Kristof-brown et al, 2023) and presents a novel framework for conceptualizing and examining the fit construct. Third, we identify areas where the normative theory of fit can be implemented using profile correlations to examine and account The normative theory of fit for normative effects, which answers calls for alternative methodological approaches to estimating fit (Subramanian et al, 2022).…”

“…This inconsistency in results is particularly problematic as it likely indicates that prior approaches to assessing fit relationships suffer from methodological artifacts, which in turn can distort and muddy the theoretical conversations surrounding fit constructs (Su et al ., 2019). As a result, scholars have called for greater nuance and precision in theorizing when undertaking fit research (Kristof-Brown et al ., 2023) and a movement away from the relative homogenization of estimating fit that has dominated the field since the 1990s (e.g. Subramanian et al ., 2022).…”

Men's experience in masculine contest cultures

“…P-O fit research includes the important elements of both individuals and organizations with a focus on sharing similar characteristics (Kristof-Brown et al, 2023) and offers insights on the influence of gender norms on perceptions of fit and career decisions (Young & Hurlic, 2007). According to P-O fit, the degree of congruence between norms and values of the organization and the person impacts perceptions of fit.…”

Person-Environment Fit: Empowering Leadership Practices on Teachers’ Work Engagement and Motivation

“…For example, schools may need to clearly understand the personal characteristics that are most important for job success, or they may need a structured approach to assessing these characteristics in job candidates (Rauvola et al, 2020). Moreover, schools may not have the resources or capacity to provide the necessary training and support to ensure a good fit between teachers and their work environment (Gander et al, 2020;Kristof-Brown et al, 2023). PE fit is critical to teacher motivation, performance, and school retention.…”