Toward a Multi-Level Theory of Person-Environment Fit.

Jansen, Karen J.; Kristof‐Brown, Amy L.

doi:10.5465/apbpp.1998.27668649

Cited by 166 publications

(337 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

304

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, despite earlier notions about the likely interplay of different fits, where one type of fit buffers misfit on another one (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006), this study did not find such an interaction effect. This finding and the ones from earlier multidimensional fit studies offer new avenues for future fit research.…”

Section: Theoretical and Practical Implicationscontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…The distinctive contribution of PO and PS fit perceptions Jansen and Kristof-Brown (2006) have suggested that people rely on the dominant fit cue when forming work-related attitudes. PO fit is the dominant fit cue in the present study because PO fit was found to be most strongly related to organizational commitment (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005).…”

Section: Employees' Fit Perceptions and Organizational Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may mean that the main and interaction effects of fit perceptions that were found in a particular study were dependent on the specific combination of fit measures and outcomes involved. Jansen and Kristof-Brown (2006) have argued that people who experience a good fit on one facet and poor fit on another downplay the lack of fit to reduce cognitive dissonance from conflicting perceptions of fit. They suggested interactive rather than additive effects of different fits.…”

Section: Employees' Fit Perceptions and Organizational Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Employees who perceive fit with their work environment are better off than those who do not perceive fit. Individuals who fit are more satisfied with their job (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Cooper-Thomas, Van Vianen, & Anderson, 2004;Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006), are more attached to their organization (Cable & Judge, 1996;Westerman & Cyr, 2004), and tend to perform better (Downey, Hellriegel, & Slocum, 1975;Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). Fit at work is broadly defined as the compatibility between a person and his or her work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005).…”

Section: Fit With the Work Context: Po And Ps Fitmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Person–organization and person–supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe present study simultaneously examined people's perceptions of person-organization (PO) and personsupervisor (PS) fit and related these perceptions to employees' commitments. Three-hundred-and-sixty employee-supervisor dyads from Taiwanese organizations reported about their PO fit and PS fit perceptions. In addition, supervisors reported about their perceptions of fit and guanxi with each of their employees.Results indicated that PO and PS fit perceptions both had an independent and additive relationship with organizational commitment. The link between employee PS fit perceptions and organizational commitment was mediated by commitment to the supervisor. Both employee and supervisor fit perceptions contributed to commitment to the supervisor through their influence on the quality of the leader-member exchange (LMX). Guanxi could not explain additional variance in LMX and supervisor commitment. Implications for theory and practices regarding person-environment fit, commitment, and LMX are discussed. The study findings offered suggestions for a new Theory of Multiple Fits.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical and Practical Implicationscontrasting

confidence: 54%

Section: Employees' Fit Perceptions and Organizational Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Employees' Fit Perceptions and Organizational Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fit With the Work Context: Po And Ps Fitmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Person–organization and person–supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So, extrovert people are more likely to identify with more sociable groups or that conscientious employees are more likely to identify with organized groups. It seems that agreeable people who are conformed to group or organization norms and values are more likely to have strong sense of identification (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006); and groups with norms that value hard work and success may tend to select conscientious employees (Bizumic et al, 2012). Hence, the first hypothesis of the present study is formulated as following:…”

Section: Personality and Organizational Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Impact of Personality Traits on Expanded Model of Organizational Identification

Aghaz¹,

Hashemi²

2014

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of personality traits on the expanded model of organizational identification and to empirically address the following question: "can personality traits explain why some people identify strongly with their organization more than others?" The population of this survey included employees of the Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. The research method adopted in this study was survey and the main tool for data collection was questionnaire. The results indicated that there were significant positive relationship between personality and organizational identification, significant negative relationship among personality, disidentification and neutral identification, and no relationship between personality and ambivalent identification. It was also found that highly extrovert employees with agreeableness traits, identified with their organization more than those with neuroticism trait, and neurotic employees felt more disidentification, neutral, or ambivalent identification.

show abstract

A Self‐Regulation Approach to Person–Environment Fit

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Person-environment (PE) fit refers to the compatibility between ideal aspects and experienced aspects of people's external environment (Edwards, 1991;Kristof, 1996). 1 Typically, when fit exists, employees report more favorable attitudes, experience greater well-being, and perform more effectively (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006; KristofBrown et al., 2005;Verquer, Beehr, and Wagner, 2003). Much of the attention in the PE fit literature has revolved around how fit is conceptualized (e.g., supplementary versus complementary fit) and measured (e.g., direct versus indirect measures; Billsberry et al., 2005;Edwards et al., 2006;Muchinsky and Monahan, 1987). Although this research has advanced our understanding of the phenomenon of PE fit, additional theory is needed to better understand why the extent to which workers fit with their environment predicts their attitudes, behavior, and well-being. Employees are motivated to attain a sufficient level of fit and they regulate their cognition and behavior in order to do so (Latham and Pinder, 2005). Despite this motivation to attain fit, there have been relatively few attempts to integrate the concept of PE fit with contemporary theories of self-regulation (for exceptions, see Edwards, 1992, andFrench et al., 1982).

show abstract

Toward a Multi-Level Theory of Person-Environment Fit.

Cited by 166 publications

References 11 publications

Person–organization and person–supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context

Person–organization and person–supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context

Investigating the Impact of Personality Traits on Expanded Model of Organizational Identification

A Self‐Regulation Approach to Person–Environment Fit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About