Where does person-organization fit collide?

Person-organization fit treats compatibility as the match between an individual and the whole organization, most often the agreement between a person's values and the values and culture of the organization. Chatman's 1989 Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit framed it as the congruence between the norms and values of an organization and the values of a person, and Kristof's 1996 Person-Organization Fit review gathered the many ways it has been defined and measured. This conception judges fit against the organization as a whole, which differs from matching a person to the specific job, to the immediate work group, or to the supervisor, and from asking whether the match is one of being similar or of filling a gap.[1][2]

Unit

One person's value agreement with an organization's culture

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Compared as the profile similarity between a person's rated values and the organization's values, often using a values card-sort or matched value surveys

Person-job fit treats compatibility as the match between an individual and the specific job, in two directions: whether the person's abilities meet the demands of the work, and whether the job's rewards and resources meet the person's needs and wants. Edwards's 1991 Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique pulled these strands together and set out how the two-way match should be modelled and tested. This conception fixes the target at the task and role a person holds, which is narrower than fit with the organization's culture, the work group, or the boss, and it is where the split between demands-and-abilities and needs-and-supplies is most often drawn.[3]

Unit

One person's ability-to-demand and need-to-supply match on a job

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Assessed by comparing rated job demands against a person's abilities, and job supplies against the person's needs, either directly or as a difference between the two profiles

Fit at work is not only with the job or the organization: a person can also match, or clash with, the immediate work group and the direct supervisor, and these are treated as separate targets of the same idea. Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson's 2005 Consequences of Individuals' Fit at Work meta-analysis kept person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit apart and found that each relates differently to outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment, and turnover. This conception multiplies the target of the same fit idea, so a person judged to fit the organization may still fit the team or the boss poorly, a distinction that is lost when fit is measured against only one target.[4]

Unit

One person's match with a named target: the group or the supervisor

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Estimated separately for each target, often by asking how well the person matches the group's or the supervisor's values, goals, or working style

Underneath the choice of target lies a second cut: fit can mean that a person is similar to the environment, sharing its values and characteristics, or that the person and the environment complete each other, one supplying what the other lacks. Muchinsky and Monahan's 1987 What is Person-Environment Congruence? Supplementary versus Complementary Models of Fit named these two models and argued that most fit research quietly assumes the being-similar version. This conception cuts across all the targets: whether fit is measured against the organization, the job, the group, or the supervisor, one can still ask whether a good match means resembling the other party or means filling a gap, and the two readings give different answers.[5]

Unit

A match read either as being similar or as mutual supply

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Distinguished by whether fit is scored as value or trait similarity between the two parties, or as one party's demands met by the other's supplies