Journal of Managerial Psychology

Person-organization fit
Michael J. Morley,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Michael J. Morley, (2007) "Person‐organization fit", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 Issue: 2,
pp.109-117, https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710726375
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710726375
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 11 September 2017, At: 01:04 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13156 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"The impact of person-job fit and person-organization fit on OCB: The mediating and moderating
effects of organizational commitment and psychological empowerment", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 5
pp. 672-691 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2013-0118">https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2013-0118</
a>
(2008),"Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation
values fit", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 Iss 8 pp. 891-906 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904385">https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904385</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:187904 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Person-
Person-organization fit organization fit
Michael J. Morley
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Abstract 109
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to introduce the special issue that brings together six papers
exploring aspects of person-organization fit.
Design/methodology/approach – This overarching paper contextualizes the theme and
introduces the selected papers.
Findings – The findings in this paper vary according to the core theme of each of the six
contributions.
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

Originality/value – Combined the papers explore new avenues of enquiry in the

person-organization (P-O) fit domain and showcase international theoretical and empirical work on
the P-O fit construct.
Keywords Organizations, Selection, Recruitment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Since its inception, the Journal of Managerial Psychology has endeavored to promote a
dialogue between psychologists and management scholars and between theoreticians
and practitioners. There are few areas in which the promotion and safeguarding of a
dialogue between these groups could be more fitting than in the area of
person-environment fit (P-E fit) theory.
While its etymology lies in interactional psychology, the umbrella notion of P-E fit
is now a central plank of enquiry in several allied fields in the social and behavioral
sciences. It is an intuitively appealing concept because of what we know about the
desirability of good fit in the key domain aspects of our lives and the positive
psychosomatic consequences that can accumulate when individuals perceive good fit
between these aspects and their environment.
Applied specifically to the workplace domain, the P-E fit construct has been hugely
influential and has spawned a long line of investigations dedicated to exploring P-E fit
as an overarching construct, and more recently, a series of influential contributions
dedicated to dimensionalizing aspects of the P-E architecture and unearthing factual
and counterfactual evidence of the associated constructs (Edwards et al., 1998; Holland,
1997; Schneider, 2001; Caplan, 1987; Dawis, 1992; Judge and Ferris, 1992). As
Kristof-Brown et al. (2002, p. 985) note, P-E fit “is a comprehensive notion that
necessarily includes one’s compatibility with multiple systems in the work
environment”. Apposite to this it also has an ongoing and persistent “elusive”
quality (Judge and Ferris, 1992; Wheeler et al., 2005). Within the P-E fit construct,
distinct building blocks are seen to concomitantly exist, namely person-job fit (P-J fit),
person-vocation fit (P-V fit), person-person fit (P-P fit), person-group fit (P-G fit) and Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 22 No. 2, 2007
person-organization fit (P-O fit) (Caplan, 1987; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Cable and Judge, pp. 109-117
1996; Kristof, 1996; Werbel and Gilliland, 1999; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002; q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). DOI 10.1108/02683940710726375
 JMP In this special issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology, our interest lies
22,2 predominantly with the latter construct, person-organization fit (P-O fit). While there is
a danger in isolating P-O fit for independent treatment of allied fit constructs because
assessing multiple dimensions of fit simultaneously provides a “more realistic account
of their relative influence” (Carless, 2005, p. 412), and because multi-level research
bridging the macro (organizational) and micro (individual) perspectives is more likely
110 to enable researchers to make linkages between constructs that might appear
unconnected (Pappas and Flaherty, 2006), nonetheless because of the state of
development of both theory and empirics in the area, it is justified.

The nature of person-organization fit (P-O fit)

Rynes and Cable (2003) in their account of recruiting for the twenty-first century note
that serious job applicants are likely to demonstrate as much concern about choosing
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

the most appropriate organization for them to work for as much as the most
appropriate job for them to perform. From an organizational perspective, while
conventional selection processes were centrally concerned with work oriented analyses
and the determination of sets of knowledge, skills and abilities required for in-role
behavior, more recent research has sought to look beyond the job to identify extra-role
behavior. In this way, the priority is seen to have shifted from conventional models
which are primarily based on “KSA’s” for “jobs” to hiring for organizational
compatibility as manifest through a fit between an individuals personality, beliefs and
values and the organization’s espoused culture, norms and values. Schneider (2001)
advances an attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model suggesting that work values
are a core means by which individuals judge their P-O fit and individuals are attracted
to and seek employment with organizations that exhibit characteristics similar to their
own and organizations in turn tend to select individuals who are most similar to the
organization. Values are an important aspect of both individuals and organizations
that can be compared “directly and meaningfully” (Cable and Judge, 1997, p. 547).
Arthur et al. (2006) note that if P-O fit is going to be used for employment decision
making, as increasingly appears to be the case, then measures of P-O fit must be held to
the same psychometric and legal standards as are other selection tests.
Kristof (1996) in her integrative review defines P-O fit as the “compatibility between
people and organizations that occurs when at least one entity provides what the other
needs or they share similar fundamental characteristics, or both”. Derived from the
central premise that different types of individuals are attracted to different types of
organizations, and located within the broader debate on person-environment fit,
person-organization fit emphasizes the importance of fit between employees and work
processes and the importance of creating an organizational identity through the
institutionalization of consistent values that permeate an organization’s culture
(Werbel and DeMarie, 2005). Value congruence has become “widely accepted as the
defining operationalization of P-O fit” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 285). Westerman
and Vanka (2005) note that P-O fit is underpinned by the assumption that attitudes,
behavior and other person level outcomes result not from the person or the work
environment independent of each other, but rather from the relationship between the
two. In this context, value congruence between the individual and the organization,
achieved through the determining of good fit when making the employment decision is
the central plank of this aspect of person-environment fit (Chatman, 1989; Ostroff et al.,
 2005), and during the recruitment and selection process as potential employees explore Person-
and develop perceptions of fit with the organization in terms of a congruence between organization fit
their value set and that of the recruiting organization, they will potentially select
themselves out of the recruitment process if they perceive a misfit between their
enduring value set and that of the hiring organization.

Progress and pessimism in the P-O fit agenda 111

Achieving a high degree of P-O fit is viewed in many quarters as desirable in terms of
positive work-related outcomes, especially in the context of a tight labor market and
the war for talent (Ng and Burke, 2005) and in buttressing organizational culture. Much
has been be claimed for it in terms of its potential impact on inter alia, job seeking
intentions, both job and career satisfaction, psychological strain, organizational
citizenship behaviors, knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing, ethical conduct,
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

organizational identification, job performance, and turnover.

Thus, for example, in their meta-analytic review of the relationship between P-O fit
and behavioral outcomes, Hoffman and Woehr (2006) indicate that P-O fit is weakly to
moderately related to job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and
turnover. In their most recent meta-analysis Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) find that P-O fit
has strong correlations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and a
more moderate correlation with intention to quit. The relationship between P-O fit and
attitudinal dimensions including satisfaction with coworkers, satisfaction with
supervisors and trust in management was moderate, while the correlation with
organizational satisfaction was substantially higher. Specifically on the issue of
performance Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) find that P-O fit has low correlations with
overall job performance and task performance and moderate correlations with
contextual performance.
Despite significant advances in what has been characterized as a “robust” stream of
literature (Pappas and Flaherty, 2006), P-O fit as a concept remains somewhat
problematic and as Kristof-Brown et al. (2005, p. 282) note there are a number of
challenges to this kind of analysis, most especially “the proliferation of
conceptualizations, measures and analytic approaches”
P-O fit rather than having a singular platform for investigation has been
conceptualized in several different ways. Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) note the dominant
focus on values and value congruence as the main approach to operationalizing P-O fit,
but they also note that it is not the only one. In some situations, goal congruence is
used. Bretz and Judge (1994) identify four distinct conceptualizations which
characterize this literature: the degree to which individual knowledge, skills and
abilities match core job requirements; the degree of congruence between individual
needs and organizational structures; the match between an individual’s value set and
the organizations culture and value set; and the individual’s personality and perceived
organizational image. In their recent review Piasentin and Chapman (2006) suggest
that there is an underlying confusion in the literature on P-O fit generated through an
inconsistency in investigations on how fit is conceptualized and how it is subsequently
assessed. In acknowledging the multiple domain aspects of the concept of
person-organization fit, they highlight the necessity to develop and validate uniform
measures of person-organization fit in order to overcome some of the confusion
inherent in this literature. They identify four common definitions of P-O fit, namely:
 JMP (1) Supplementary fit where an individual possesses characteristics that are similar
22,2 to existing organizational characteristics.
(2) Complementary fit where an individual fills a void or adds something that is
missing in the organization.
(3) Needs-supplies fit where an individuals needs are fulfilled by the organization.
112 (4) Demand abilities fit where an individual’s abilities meet the demands of the
organization.

Arising from this, Piasentin and Chapman (2006, p. 203) note that:
Although, theoretically, these definitions should represent distinct ways of perceiving fit, the
dimensions have yet to be precisely defined or empirically tested. This lack of attention to
conceptual issues not only impedes our ability to adequately measure the construct, but it
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

may also lead us to draw faulty conclusions about the antecedents and consequences of
subjective P-O fit.
The relative emphasis in many studies is also problematic. Arthur et al. (2006) draw
attention to the absence of a strong theoretical or conceptual basis for a direct relation
between P-O fit and job performance. Their meta analysis revealed that, contrary to the
increased popularity of P-O fit in the selection decision, the volume of literature
investigating the criterion related validity of P-O fit as a predictor of job performance
and particularly, turnover was limited when compared with attitudinal criteria:
Results of our meta-analysis of criterion-related validity of P-O Fit suggest that P-O Fit is not
a good predictor of job performance, although it may hold more promise as a predictor of
turnover (Arthur et al., 2006, p. 797).
Carless (2005) notes that a problem that plagues many of the fit studies of job choice is
the heavy reliance on college students as a source of research data. Referring to the
extent to which we can assume that the perceived fit and attraction ratings given in an
experimental situation reflect the values attached to these during an actual job search,
she cites Breaugh (1992, p. 83) who notes that “such an assumption seems implausible”.
In proposing a strategic contingency framework dedicated to aligning strategic
human resource management and overall P-O fit, Werbel and DeMarie (2005) draw
attention to the problem of organizational sub-cultures and to the manifest difficulty
attaching to achieving person-organization fit where different units in an organization
will likely have different cultures. In this context they suggest an important role for
human resource management where consistency in selection, performance appraisal
and compensation systems across organizational units is necessary if firms are to
compete through culture-based competencies.

In this issue on P-O fit

The importance of exploring and testing person-organization fit concepts and
measures in a greater variety of cultural settings and with more diverse groups within
the labor market has been acknowledge as an important academic endeavor and one
which now forms part of the landscape of this area of enquiry (Van Hoof et al., 2006;
Erdogan and Bauer, 2005; Yaniv and Farkas, 2005; Parkes et al., 2001; Turban et al.,
2001), but one too which poses many significant challenges because of disparity in
culturally derived value systems and wide variation in the meaning and centrally of
 work in the cross-cultural, and increasingly heterogeneous workforce context. This Person-
issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology brings together six papers dedicated to organization fit
further exploring aspects of the P-O fit agenda and showcases theoretical and empirical
contributions from Japan, the UK, Ireland, The Netherlands and the US.
In our first paper Tomoki Sekiguchi of the Graduate School of Economics in Osaka
University in Japan presents a contingency perspective of the importance of P-J fit and
P-O fit in employee selection. The paper explores the different types of employees and 113
employment relationships that impact the relative importance of P-J fit and P-O fit in
the hiring decision. Drawing on several literatures, the centrality of fit as a selection
criterion is affirmed and propositions advancing the relative importance of P-J fit over
P-O fit and vice versa, depending on whether the firm wishes to establish a
transactional psychological contract or a relational psychological contract, are set
down. The paper offers insight into the value of fit constructs, depending on the
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

preferred human resource management architecture of the firm.

Our second paper by Jon Billsberry of the Open University Business School in the
UK reports an empirical test of Schneider’s attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model.
Noting the cross-level conceptualization of P-O fit common in the extant literature, and
combining them with Schneider’s attraction proposition, and drawing upon data
gathered among applicants for graduate entry managerial trainee posts in nine utility
companies in the UK and from a comparison group seeking work through university
career services, three core hypotheses are tested relating to whether individuals who
apply to an organization are a better fit than a sample of individuals who were looking
for similar work at the same time through the same process. Billsberry’s results fail to
support Schneider’s attraction proposition with graduates appearing to make
vocational choices over organizational ones. Controlling for P-V fit, the P-P, P-G and
P-O fit of job applicants to the firms in the study were not significantly different from
the comparison group seeking work through the university career services.
Our third paper by Thomas Garavan of the Kemmy Business School in the
University of Limerick in Ireland uses a panel design to examine the potential of
assessment performance to predict high potential graduate P-O fit over time. Three
core hypotheses relating to the assessment center performance and subjective P-O fit
are advanced and tested using hierarchical regression analysis. The results indicate
that assessment center performance has an important role to play in the selection of
graduates providing incremental variance over and above that provided by other
measures employed.
Our fourth paper by Angela Young of California State University in Los Angeles
and David Hurlic of Pepperdine University in Los Angles explores the importance of
gender and gender related behavior to P-G and P-O fit and career decisions. Drawing
upon multiple literatures, a model is advanced in order to provide an exposition of
gender enactment and fit in relation to career decisions. Gender enactment is viewed as
the “composite of an individual’s awareness that situations demand gender-related
behavior adjustments and an individual’s orientation toward masculine or feminine
behaviors. A series of P-G fit and P-O fit propositions and their impact on career
decisions are advanced from the enfolding literatures and offered as potential avenues
of enquiry in order that we might better understand the nuances of gender-related
behavior and its likely impact on interactions and perceptions in both the workgroup
and organization context.
 JMP Our fifth paper by Annelies van Vianen, Irene De Pater and Floor Van Dijk of the
22,2 University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands explores same source/different source fit,
investigating the linkage between fit regarding work values and turnover intentions.
The authors link employees work values to their own perceptions of the work values of
the organization, the aggregated perceptions of team members and the aggregated
perceptions of a larger group of organizational members and advance and test three
114 hypotheses using data from 105 employees grouped into sixteen teams in a liquor
trading company in The Netherlands Antilles. The results suggest that personal work
values were not significantly related to turnover intention. Neither was the
same-source fit measure related to turnover intention. However, the different source
fit measure did reach significant. Both the scientific and practical implications of the
work are discussed.
Our final paper in this special issue by Anthony Wheeler of Bradley University,
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

Vickie Coleman Gallagher and Robyn Brouer both of Florida State University and
Chris Sablynski of California State University examines the relationships between P-O
fit, job satisfaction, perceived job mobility and intent to turnover. Drawing upon Lee
and Mitchell’s unfolding model of voluntary turnover and Wheeler et al.’s theory of
multidimensional fit, four interlinked hypotheses are advanced and tested using data
from a web based survey. The analysis points to a statistically significant relationship
between P-O fit and job satisfaction, and as job satisfaction increases, respondents
intention to turnover decreases. Perceived job mobility is found to moderate the
relationship between job satisfaction and intent to turnover. Thus, decreases in P-O fit,
which leads to decreases in job satisfaction, are more likely to result in increases in
intent to turnover if the individual also perceives alternative job opportunities.

Special issue reviewer acknowledgements

This special issue was made possible by the support of a large number of collaborators,
most especially a cadre of committed reviewers who willingly assisted in reviewing
manuscripts submitted for consideration. I place on record my thanks to the following
reviewers who gave of their time and expertise:
.
Jon Billsberry, Open University;
.
Jeanette Cleveland, Pennsylvania State University;
.
Christine Cross, University of Limerick;
.
Ali Dastmalchian, University of Victoria;
.
Brian Dineen, University of Kentucky;
.
Joan Finegan, University of Western Ontario;
.
Sandra Fisher, Clarkson University;
.
Thomas Garavan, University of Limerick;
.
Noreen Heraty, University of Limerick;
. Margaret Linehan, Cork Institute of Technology;
.
Brian Lyons, University of Albany, State University of New York;
.
Wenzel Matiaske, University of Flensburg;
.
Cameron Newton, Queensland University of Technology;
 .
Emma Parry, Cranfield University; Person-
.
Judy Pate, University of Glasgow; organization fit
.
Elizabeth Ravlin, University of South Carolina;
.
Robert Renn, University of Memphis;
.
Lynn Shore, San Diego State University;
.
Aharon Tziner, Netanya Academic College; 115
.
Annelies van Vianen, University of Amsterdam;
.
Anthony Wheeler, Bradley University; and
.
Jonathan Ziegert, Drexel University.

A special word of thanks to the Editor of the Journal of Managerial Psychology,

Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

James Werbel for his encouragement in translating the first ideas for the Special Issue
into a coherent call for papers and to Kay Sutcliffe, the journal Editorial Administrator,
for ongoing support.

References
Arthur, W., Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J. and Doverspike, D. (2006), “The use of person-organization fit
in employment decision making: an assessment of its criterion-related validity”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 786-801.
Breaugh, J.A. (1992), Recruitment: Science and Practice, PWS Kent, Boston, MA.
Bretz, R.D. and Judge, T.A. (1994), “Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
implications for satisfaction, tenure and career success”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 44, pp. 43-54.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), “Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67,
pp. 294-311.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1997), “Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and
organizational selection decisions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 546-61.
Caplan, R.D. (1987), “Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate
dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 31, pp. 248-67.
Carless, S. (2005), “Person-job fit versus person-organization ft as predictors of organizational
attraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 411-29.
Chatman, J.A. (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: a model of
person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 333-49.
Dawis, R. (1992), “Person-environment fit and job satisfaction”, in Cranny, C., Smith, P. and
Stone, E. (Eds), Job Satisfaction: How People Feel about Their Jobs and How it Affects Their
Performance, Lexington, New York, NY.
Edwards, J., Caplan, R. and Harrison, R. (1998), “Person-environment fit theory: conceptual
foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research”, in Cooper, C. (Ed.),
Theories of Organizational Stress, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T. (2005), “Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality:
the role of fit with jobs and organizations”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 859-91.
 JMP Hoffman, B.J. and Woehr, D.J. (2006), “A quantitative review of the relationship between
person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68
22,2 No. 3, pp. 389-99.
Holland, J.L. (1997), Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work
Environments, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Judge, T. and Ferris, G. (1992), “The elusive criterion of fit in human resource staffing decisions”,
116 Human Resource Planning, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 47-66.
Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Jansen, K.J. and Colbert, A.E. (2002), “A policy-capturing study of the
simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 985-93.
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’ fit
at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
person-supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.
Ng, E.S.W. and Burke, R.J. (2005), “Person-organization fit and the war for talent: does diversity
management make a difference?”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 1195-210.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 487-516.
Ostroff, C., Shin, Y. and Kinicki, A.J. (2005), “Multiple perspectives of congruence: relationships
between value congruence and employee attitudes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 591-623.
Pappas, J.M. and Flaherty, K.E. (2006), “The moderating role of individual-difference variables in
compensation research”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 19-35.
Parkes, L., Bochner, S. and Schneider, S. (2001), “Person-organization fit across cultures:
an empirical investigation of individualism and collectivism”, Applied Psychology:
An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 81-108.
Piasentin, K.A. and Chapman, D.S. (2006), “Subjective person-organization fit: bridging the gap
between conceptualization and measurement”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69
No. 2, pp. 202-21.
Rynes, S.L. and Cable, D.M. (2003), “Recruiting research in the 21st century: moving to a higher
level”, in Borman, W., Ilgen, D. and Klimoski, R. (Eds), The Handbook of Psychology,
Vol. 12, John Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 55-77.
Schneider, B. (2001), “Fits about fit”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 141-52.
Turban, D.B., Lau, C.M., Ngo, H.Y., Chow, I.H.S. and Si, S.X. (2001), “Organizational
attractiveness of firms in the People’s Republic of China: a person-organization fit
perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 194-206.
Van Hoof, E.A.J., Born, M., Taris, T.W. and Van der Flier, H. (2006), “Ethnic and gender
differences in applicants’ decision-making processes: an application of the theory of
reasoned action”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 156-66.
Werbel, J.D. and DeMarie, S.M. (2005), “Aligning strategic human resource management and
person-environment fit”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 247-62.
 Werbel, J.D. and Gilliland, S.W. (1999), “Person-environment fit in the selection process”, Person-
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 17, pp. 209-43.
Westerman, J.W. and Vanka, S. (2005), “A cross-cultural empirical analysis of
organization fit
person-organization fit measures as predictors of student performance in business
education: comparing students in the Unites States and India”, Academy of Management
Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 409-20.
Wheeler, A.R., Buckley, M.R., Halbesleben, J.R., Brouer, R.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2005), “The elusive 117
criterion of fit revisited: toward an integrative theory of multidimensional fit”,
in Martocchio, J. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 265-304.
Yaniv, E. and Farkas, F. (2005), “The impact of person-organization fit on the corporate brand
perception of employees and of customers”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 447-61.
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

Further reading
Dineen, B.R., Ash, S.R. and Noe, R.A. (2002), “A web of applicant attraction: person-organization
fit in the context of web-based recruitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4,
pp. 723-34.
Lauver, K.J. and Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2001), “Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59 No. 3,
pp. 454-70.

About the author

Michael J. Morley is Head of the Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, Kemmy
Business School, University of Limerick, Ireland, and Director of the Master of Science in Work
and Organizational Psychology. He is Consulting Editor of the Journal of Managerial Psychology
and a member of the Editorial Board of several other international journals. His current research
interests include international human resource management and expatriate transfers,
intercultural transitional adjustment and convergence and divergence in European HRM.
Michael J. Morley can be contacted at: michael.morley@ul.ie

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Stephen Cranney, Andrew Miles. 2017. Desperate Housewives? Differences in Work Satisfaction Between
Stay-At-Home and Employed Mothers, 1972-2012. Journal of Family Issues 38:11, 1604-1625. [Crossref]
2. Milagros Pereyra-Rojas, Enrique Mu, James Gaskin, Tony Lingham. 2017. The Higher-Ed
Organizational-Scholar Tension: How Scholarship Compatibility and the Alignment of Organizational
and Faculty Skills, Values and Support Affects Scholar's Performance and Well-Being. Frontiers in
Psychology 8. . [Crossref]
3. Muhammad Naveed Anwar, Elizabeth Daniel. 2016. The Role of Entrepreneur-Venture Fit in Online
Home-Based Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Enterprising Culture 24:04,
419-451. [Crossref]
4. Laurent M. Lapierre, Elianne F. van Steenbergen, Maria C. W. Peeters, Esther S. Kluwer. 2016. Juggling
work and family responsibilities when involuntarily working more from home: A multiwave study of
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)

financial sales professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37:6, 804-822. [Crossref]

5. Tzu-Shian Han, Hsu-Hsin Chiang, David McConville, Chia-Ling Chiang. 2015. A Longitudinal
Investigation of Person–Organization Fit, Person–Job Fit, and Contextual Performance: The Mediating
Role of Psychological Ownership. Human Performance 28:5, 425-439. [Crossref]
6. Yasin Özdemir, Sinem Ergun. 2015. The Relationship between Organizational Socialization and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Person-Environment Fit. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 207, 432-443. [Crossref]
7. Amie Southcombe, Liz Fulop, Geoff Carter, Jillian Cavanagh. 2015. Building commitment: an
examination of learning climate congruence and the affective commitment of academics in an Australian
university. Journal of Further and Higher Education 39:5, 733-757. [Crossref]
8. Jin Gu Lee, Soon Won Park, Ki Seok Jeon. 2015. A Case Study on Core Value Education in Large
Corporations in Korea. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 15:6, 547-564. [Crossref]
9. Ultan P. Sherman, Michael J. Morley. 2015. On the Formation of the Psychological Contract. Group &
Organization Management 40:2, 160-192. [Crossref]
10. Eimear Marie Nolan, Michael J. Morley. 2014. A test of the relationship between person–environment
fit and cross-cultural adjustment among self-initiated expatriates. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 25:11, 1631-1649. [Crossref]
11. Cynthia K. Riemenschneider, Deborah J. Armstrong. What Influences IT Professional Psychological
Contract Violation? 5162-5172. [Crossref]
12. Fatma Nur Iplik, Kemal Can Kilic, Azmi Yalcin. 2011. The simultaneous effects of person‐organization
and person‐job fit on Turkish hotel managers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 23:5, 644-661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Chih-Lun (Alan) Yen, Suzanne K. Murrmann, Kent F. Murrmann. 2011. The Influence of Context
Orientation on Job Seeker Perceptions of Recruitment, Person-Organization Fit, and Job Application
Intention in the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 10:3, 315-330.
[Crossref]
14. Karen A. Jehn, Karsten Jonsen. 2010. A Multimethod Approach to the Study of Sensitive Organizational
Issues. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4:4, 313-341. [Crossref]
15. Eric Chong, Xiaofang Ma. 2010. The Influence of Individual Factors, Supervision and Work Environment
on Creative Self-Efficacy. Creativity and Innovation Management 19:3, 233-247. [Crossref]
 16. Jean-Luc Cerdin, Marie Le Pargneux. 2010. Career anchors: A comparison between organization-assigned
and self-initiated expatriates. Thunderbird International Business Review 52:4, 287-299. [Crossref]
17. Christophe Fournier, John F. Tanner, Lawrence B. Chonko, Chris Manolis. 2009. The Moderating Role
of Ethical Climate on Salesperson Propensity to Leave. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management
30:1, 7-22. [Crossref]
18. Hassan I. Ballout. 2007. Career success. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22:8, 741-765. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Limerick At 01:04 11 September 2017 (PT)