The Impact of Person–Job Fit on Job Satisfaction: The Mediator Role of Self Efficacy

Author(s): Yuwen Peng and Chao Mao

Source: Social Indicators Research , April (II) 2015, Vol. 121, No. 3 (April (II) 2015), pp.
805-813
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24721557

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Indicators
Research

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Soc Indic Res (2015) 121:805-813
DOI 10.1007/s 11205-014-0659-x

The Impact of Person-Job Fit on Job Satisfaction: The

Mediator Role of Self Efficacy

Yuwen Peng • Chao Mao

Accepted: 23 Mav 2014/Published online: 3 June 2014

' Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract The current study examined the impact of person-job fit on job satisfaction,
with a primary focus on confirmation of the mediator role of self efficacy among a sample
of 455 staffs. Participants completed a questionnaire packet containing Person-Job Fit
Scale, The General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. The
results revealed that both person-job fit and self efficacy were significantly correlated with
job satisfaction. Structural equation modeling indicated that self efficacy partially mediated
person-job fit to job satisfaction. The final model also revealed significant both paths from
person-job fit to job satisfaction through self efficacy. The findings extended prior
researches and shed light on how person-job fit influence job satisfaction; this provides
valuable evidence on how to promote subjective well-being at the workplaces.

Keywords Person-job fit • Job satisfaction • Self efficacy • Structural equation modeling

1 Introduction

Occupational happiness is the reflection of an individual's subjective well-being at the

workplace, and refers to employees' positive and negative emotional feelings towards their
jobs, as well as their cognitive evaluations of their jobs (Judge et al. 2001; Peng et al.
2013a, b; Wright and Cropanzano 2004). Typically, researchers tend to use indicators such
as job satisfaction, work engagement, positive emotional experience at the workplace, etc.,
as indirect measures of employees' well-being (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tan
ner, 2008; He et al. 2013b; Xiao et al., 2014; Zhang et al. 2014). Person-environment fit is

Y. Peng (0)
School of Business, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China
e-mail: pengyuwen20@l26.com

C. Mao
School of Business, Hunan University, Changsha, China

â Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 806 Y. Peng, C. Mao

an important research
of studies
have found t
including employees'
zenship behavior and p
et al. 2014). Person-env
hypotheses is that beha
and environment and a
job fit is paid most ext
that person-job fit has
2000). It is composed o
their posts have simila
provided could meet t
namely the knowledg
(Edwards 1991).
The meta-analysis rese
satisfaction, organizat
Job satisfaction is def
generated when individ
like their jobs (Millan
person-job fit is closel
et al. 2006). Self-effic
which means not skill i
the work behavior with
directly affects the ind
2012; Tracey 1997). Res
employees' past perfo
distance and emotiona
We consider that person
we expect that the em
Meanwhile, the relation
such as the research fo
intention and a positi
(Judge and Bono 2001
individual with higher
difficulties and easier
obtain the results wante
with higher self-efficac
higher job satisfaction
Above all, we consider
and self-efficacy. Moreo
satisfaction.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants and Procedure

Participants were 455 staffs from a large-scale enterprise in Hunan, China, which consist
of 321 men and 134 women. The ages of participants ranged from 28 to 39, with a mean

"ö Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Impact of Person-Job Fit on Job Satisfaction 807

33.54 (SD = 3.13), all married. Participants completed the question

environment, and received ¥20 as compensation. From the 455 scales
and collected, 1 unfinished scale was excluded. All participants pr
informed consent before completing the measures.

2.2 Instruments

2.2.1 Person-Job Fit Scale (PJFS)

We used the four-item subjective fit perception measure developed by Saks and Ashfort.
Ratings were completed on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). A sample item was, "The match between the demands of my job and my
personal skills is very good" (Saks and Ashforth 1997). In the present study, the Cronbach
alpha coefficient for the GSE was 0.784.

2.2.2 The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)

The General Self-Efficacy Scale consists of 10 items assessing optimistic self-beliefs to

cope with a variety of difficult demands in life with statements such as "I can usually
handle whatever comes my way". Respondents rate their agreement with each item on a
four-point scale (from 1 = not describe me at all to 4 = describes me to a great extent)
(Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995; Weber et al. 2013). In the present study, the Cronbach
alpha coefficient for the GSE was 0.836.

2.2.3 Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), developed by Weiss and Cro
panzano, is a 20-item self-report measure of job satisfaction, including two dimensions,
namely, intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction. Items are rated from 1 (strongly dissatisfaction)
to 5 (strongly satisfaction). The total scores ranges from 20 (low level of job satisfaction)
to 100 (high level of job satisfaction). Example of items include: "the chance to try out
some of my own ideas" (Weiss and Cropanzano 1996). In the present study, the Cronbach
alpha coefficients the two dimensions of MSQ were 0.841 and 0.815.

2.3 Data Analysis

Firstly, the intercorrelations of all the latent variables were calculated to test the significant
of correlation coefficient. Then, a two-step procedure introduced by Anderson and Gerbing
was adapted to analyses the mediation effect in order to confirm the structural relations of
the latent structured model (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Firstly, the measurement model
of the four latent variables was tested to assess the extent of goodness of fit represented by
its indicators respectively. If index of confirmatory measurement model meet the
requirements, then the maximum likelihood estimation would be used to test the SEM. All
the above analysis was conducted in AMOS 17.0 program.
In order to control the inflated measurement errors due to multiple items for the latent
variable, and to improve the reliability and normality of the resulting measures (Nasser
Abu Alhija and Wisenbaker 2006), two item parcels were created for person-job fit and
three item parcels were created for self efficacy with the factorial algorithm proposed by

â Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 808 Y. Peng, C. Mao

Rogers and Schmitt. T

factor analysis of the
each item was sorted in
in turns according to
loading in each parcel.
was the average scores
Zhang et al. 2014).
The following four in
(a) Chi square statisti
(SRMR), (c) the Root
Comparative Fit Index
was considered to have
0.05, X2/df was below
0.95 or more.

3 Results

3.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all the variables were presented in
Table 1. The results showed that person-job fit was positively correlated with self efficacy
(r = 0.332, p < 0.01) and job satisfaction (r = —0. 443, p < 0.01). In addition, self effi
cacy was also positively correlated with job satisfaction (r = —0.680, p < 0.01).

3.2 Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was adopted to assess whether the measurement model
fit the sample data adequately or not. The fully measurement model included three latent
constructs (person-job fit, self efficacy and job satisfaction) and 7 observed variables. The
initial test of the measurement model came into being a satisfactory fit to the data: x2 ( ' 1
N = 454) = 17.59, %2ldf= 1.59, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.036, SRMR = 0.022, an
CFI = 0.991. All the factor loadings for the indicators on the latent variables were si
nificant (p < 0.001), indicating that all the latent constructs were well represented by thei
indicators.

3.3 Structural Model

Then SEM was used to analyses the mediation effect. First of all, the direct effect of
person-job fit on job satisfaction without mediators was tested. The directly standardized
path (ß = 0.83, p <0.001) was significantly. Then, a partially-mediated model which
contained mediator (self efficacy) and a direct path from emotional intelligence to job
satisfaction was tested. The results showed that the model goodness of fit showed a very
good fit to the data: y2 (10, N = 454) = 17.48, y2/df = 1.75, p < 0.001 ;
RMSEA = 0.041, SRMR = 0.021, and CFI = 0.990. The final model was shown in
Fig. 1. Taken together, these results showed that person-job fit and self efficacy have
significant impacts on job satisfaction.

â Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Impact of Person-Job Fit on Job Satisfaction 809

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables of inte

Mean SD 1 2

1. Person-job fit 14.28 2.11 1

2. Self efficacy 34.57 4.12 0.178" 1
3. Job 68.09 10.51 0.504" 0.505**
satisfaction

**p<0.01

Fig. 1 The full model. Note: Factor loadings are standardized (p < 0.05)

3.4 The Confidence Interval of Direct and Indirect Effects

The mediating effects of self efficacy between person-job fit and job satisfaction was
tested for a significance by adopted the Bootstrap estimation procedure in AMOS (a
bootstrap sample of 1,500 was specified). The reason for not using Sobel test, the com
monly employed method for examining the statistical significance of a mediation effect,
which involves computing the ratio of products of direct effects to their estimated standard
error, is that Sobel test requires the products of direct effects follow a normal distribution
which is always not accordance with the fact, thus resulted in the reduction of statistical
efficacy. However, the bootstrap test actually relies on the 95 % confidence intervals from
the empirical distribution of indirect effect estimates and Mackinnon suggested that the
bootstrap method yields the most accurate confidence intervals for indirect effects (He
et al. 2013a; MacKinnon et al. 2002; Zhang et al. 2014). Table 2 shows the indirect effects
and their associated 95 % confidence intervals. As shown in Table 2, the indirect effect of
person-job fit on job satisfaction through self efficacy was significant. The effect of per
son-job fit on job satisfaction through self efficacy was 19.47 %.

4 Discussion

Being consistent with previous researches, we have found that person-job fit can sign
cantly affect job satisfaction (Bretz and Judge 1994; Laschinger et al. 2006). T

•£} Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 810 Y. Peng, C. Mao

Table 2 Direct and indirect effects and 95 % confidence intervals for the final model

Model pathways Estimated effect 95 % CI

Lower bonds Up bonds

Direct effect

Person-job fit -» Job satisfaction 0.670a 0.455 0.884

Person-job fit -» Self efficacy 0.363a 0.217 0.508
Self efficacy -» Job satisfaction 0.455a 0.348 0.563
Indirect effect

Person-job fit -» Self efficacy -> Job satisfaction 0.165a 0.084 0.245

Empirical 95 % confidence interval does not overlap with zero

employees with higher demands-abilities fit can qualify for their jobs from the th
dimensional analysis of person-job fit, therefore do not suffer enormous job stress (
2004); on the contrary, the employees with a lower demands-abilities fit cannot com
their jobs efficiently, therefore, they have to suffer heavier workload and spend more
on working, learning and training, and then enormous job stress are produced, which l
to a satisfaction of low level finally (Singh and Greenhaus 2004). Meanwhile, need
supplies fit plays a positive influence on job satisfaction. Demands-satisfaction theo
considers that the employees will have positive work attitudes when meeting their dema
(Burke and Weir 1980; Perrewé 1986). The salaries, social supports and work degrees
freedom that their post provided make them have job satisfaction of higher levels
meeting the their material and spiritual demands (Chilton et al. 2005). For example, stu
have found that the employees who gained social supports show a job satisfaction of hig
levels for that social supports can meet the employees' demands including their belongi
social recognition and being respected (Edwards 1996). From the perspective of cong
ence fit, the employees will be more engaged in their jobs and obtain the satisfaction
happiness from their work if person and post have similar essential characteristics such
similar value, which also explain why person-job fit can significantly affect their
satisfaction (Wheeler et al. 2007).
Person-job fit can significantly affect the self efficacy. From the perspective
demands-abilities fit, the employees with higher person-job fit can complete their
more perfectly, have little job stress and are more likely to get their supervisors' r
nitions and praises, therefore, have more confidence on the ability of completing th
work; on the contrary, the employees with a lower person-job fit maybe encounter m
troubles at work are likely to be criticized and rebuked by their supervisors and experi
more negative emotions such as stress and fear, therefore, the self-efficacy of low level
caused (Hecht and Allen 2005). On the other hand, from the perspective of needs-sup
fit, it will contribute to improve the self-efficacy of employees if the employees meet
demand of job resources. For example, the employees will have the opportunity to
imize their work abilities by using the working mode which is most suitable for th
therefore, have more confidence on completing their tasks by using their own abili
Also, the colleagues' support and help will reduce the obstacles that they may encounter
work and lower the work difficulties when their social supports are satisfied, therefore,
employees will be more confident to complete their tasks by using their own abilit
(LeRouge et al. 2006).

â Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Impact of Person-Job Fit on Job Satisfaction 811

The research found that self-efficacy can partially mediate th

fit on job satisfaction. Person-job fit can improve self-efficac
cognitive theory, the individual with a high self-efficacy will p
better work performance (Locke and Latham 1990), and get mor
career development opportunities, which means to meet more d
the job satisfaction of employees will be improved (Côté and

Acknowledgements This research is supported by the Foundation for Inn

National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71221001), Nati
of China, (Grant No. 71031004), National Natural Science Foundati
71202137).

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and rec
ommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-432.
Appelbaum, S. H., & Hare, A. (1996). Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance: Some
human resource applications. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 33-47.
Bretz, R. D, Jr, & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Impli
cations for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32-54.
Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1980). The type A experience: Occupational and life demands, satisfaction and
well-being. Journal of Human Stress, 6(4), 28-38.
Chilton, M. A., Hardgrave, B. C., & Armstrong, D. J. (2005). Person-job cognitive style fit for software
developers: The effect on strain and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(2),
193-226.
Choi, J. N. (2004). Person-environment fit and creative behavior: Differential impacts of supplies-values
and demands-abilities versions of fit. Human Relations, 57(5), 531-552.
Côté, S., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation,
job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of organizational Behavior, 23(8), 947-962.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological
critique. New York: Wiley.
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to
stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292-339.
Edwards, J. R., & Cooper, C. L. (1990). The person-environment fit approach to stress: Recurring problems
and some suggested solutions. Journal of organizational Behavior, 11(4), 293-307.
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job
resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 73(1), 78-91.
He, F., Cao, R., Feng, Z., Guan, H., & Peng, J. (2013a). The impacts of dispositional optimism and
psychological resilience on the subjective well-being of burn patients: A structural equation modelling
analysis. PLoS One, 8(12), e82939.
He, F., Guan, H., Kong, Y., Cao, R., & Peng, J. (2013b). Some individual differences influencing the
propensity to happiness: Insights from behavioral economics. Social Indicators Research, doi: 10.1007/
si 1205-013-0519-0.
Hecht, T. D„ & Allen, N. J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the
perspective of person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time? Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 155-178.
Hu, L„ & Bender, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1),
1-55.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development
of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.

Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 812 Y. Peng, C.Mao

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C.

relationship: A qualitativ
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person
and implications. Personn
Laschinger, H. K. S„ Wong
job fit and work engageme
LeRouge, C., Nelson, A., &
attitudes of IT profession
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G
Psychological Science, 7(
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwo
methods to test mediation
Millan, J. M., Hessels, J.,
comparison of self-emplo
Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & W
parceling strategies on pa
Modeling, 73(2), 204-228
O'Brien, K. M., Heppner, M
Scale: Instrument develop
20-31.
Peng, J., Jiang, X., Zhang, J., Xiao, R., Song, Y., Feng, X., et al. (2013a). The impact of psychological
capital on job burnout of Chinese nurses: The mediator role of organizational commitment. PLoS One,
8(12), e84193.
Peng, J., Miao, D„ & Xiao, W. (2013b). Why are gainers more risk seeking. Judgment & Decision Making,
8(2), 150-160.
Peng, J., Li, D., Zhang, Z., Tian, Y., Miao, D., Xiao, W., & Zhang, J. (2014). How can core self-evaluations
influence job burnout? The key roles of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of
Health Psychology, doi: 10.1177/1359105314521478.
Perrewé, P. L. (1986). Locus of control and activity level as moderators in the quantitative job demands—
satisfaction/psychological anxiety relationship: An experimental analysis. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 76(7), 620-632.
Rogers, W. M., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites:
A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3),
379-412.
Saba, T. (2012). Implications of E-learning systems and self-efficiency on students outcomes: A mode
approach. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 2(1), 1-11.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between jo
information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50(2)
395^(26.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. Measures in health psycho
user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, I, 35-37.
Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2004). The relation between career decision-making strategies and pers
fit: A study of job changers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 198-221.
Tak, J. (2011). Relationships between various person-environment fit types and employee with
behavior: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 315-320.
Tinsley, H. E. (2000). The congruence myth: An analysis of the efficacy of the person-environm
model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 147-179.
Tracey, T. J. (1997). The structure of interests and self-efficiency expectations: An expanded examin
the spherical model of interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44( 1 ), 32—43.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between
organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473-489.
Weber, M., Ruch, W., Littman-Ovadia, H., Lavy, S., & Gai, O. (2013). Relationships among highe
strengths factors, subjective well-being, and general self-efficacy-the case of Israeli adoles
Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 322-327.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the str
causes and consequences of affective experiences at work.
Wheeler, A. R„ Gallagher, V. C., Brouer, R. L., & Sablynski, C. J. (2007). When person-organizati
fit and (dis) satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Jou
Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219.

â Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Impact of Person-Job Fit on Job Satisfaction 813

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being

look at an age-old quest. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 338-351.
Xiao, W., Zhou, L., Wu, Q., Zhang, Y., Miao, D., Zhang, J., & Peng, J. (2014). E
and core self-evaluation on career commitment of medical university stude
anxiety and carrier satisfaction. International Journal of Mental Health Sy
Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Miles, A. K., & Kiewitz, C.
Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. Jo
13(4), 483^199.
Zhang, J., Wu, Q., Miao, D., Yan, X., & Peng, J. (2014). The impact of c
satisfaction: The mediator role of career commitment. Social Indicators Res

<£) Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms