The Use of Person–Group Fit for Employment Selection: A Missing Link in Person–Environment Fit • 227

THE USE OF PERSON–GROUP FIT FOR

EMPLOYMENT SELECTION: A MISSING
LINK IN PERSON–ENVIRONMENT FIT

James D. Werbel and Danny J. Johnson

Given an increased emphasis on work teams in organizations, it is important to select applicants

based on their ability to make contributions to a given work team. This paper proposes that
person–group fit should be useful to select applicants for work teams and suggests that effective
use of person–group fit will create both more cohesive work units and more effectively function-
ing work units. It proposes ways to make valid and reliable assessments of person–group fit that
could be used to minimize bias in the selection process. Finally, it addresses several implications
of using the person–group fit paradigm for human resource management practice. © 2001 John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Introduction chine required in the assembly process. While

In 1992, a manufacturer of electro-mechani-
cal control devices formed four cells of workers
to assemble relays. Each cell was dedicated to
the assembly of a family of relays and con-
tained all of the equipment necessary to do
so. Each cell was staffed by two to four cross-
trained workers who were expected to work
interdependently as a team to coordinate and
perform the tasks required to assemble the
relays demanded.
This method of work organization was in
direct contrast to the functional or job shop
layout that preceded the development of the
cells. In the functional layout, similar types
of machines were grouped in one area on the
plant floor. Relays were produced in large
batches and when a particular assembly op-
eration was complete at one machine, the
entire batch was transferred to the next ma-
all workers were cross-trained to perform more
than one assembly task and each worker ro-
tated to a different assembly task on a periodic Within one
year of
basis to reduce the risk of repetitive motion
implementation,
injuries, not all workers were trained to per- the first cell was
form all assembly tasks. A large amount of considered to be
work-in-process inventory existed in the func- an overwhelming
tional layout which effectively served to success.
decouple the assembly stations and allow the
assembly workers to operate relatively inde-
pendent of one another. Lead times to
assemble a batch of relays were also long, av-
eraging 1.5 weeks.
Within one year of implementation, the
first cell was considered to be an overwhelm-
ing success. Productivity was up 40%; the lead
time to assemble a batch of relays had dropped
to 2–4 hours; and work-in-process inventory
had been drastically reduced. In contrast, the
performance of the other three cells was no

Human Resource Management, Fall 2001, Vol. 40, No. 3, Pp. 227–240
© 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
228 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2001
better than in the previous system, and the
plant had trouble meeting the required pro-
duction volumes. After a year and a half of
operation, the three cells with poor perfor-
mance were dismantled, and the previous
functional method of work organization was
restored for those products.
While a number of factors contributed to
In such the poor performance of the three cells, dis-
environments, cussions with the production manager
job analysis must indicated that worker problems were the pri-
be supplemented
mary cause of the cell failure. In the successful
with a new form
of work analysis, cell, the workers cooperated well; they were
called person– willing to learn all of the assembly tasks re-
group fit, that quired; and they were willing to assume
considers the fit responsibility for the cells’ performance. In
between the contrast, workers in the three cells that failed
individual and
the group to did not want to become cross-trained to per-
determine the form all assembly tasks; they did not want to
broader set of work with each other and try the new method
worker of production.
requisites. As this example illustrates, selection of
employees for team-oriented environments
such as this must go beyond the traditional
job analysis. Traditional job analysis empha-
sizes person–job fit which identifies the
technical skills, knowledge, and abilities an
individual needs to perform the required job
tasks. Exclusive use of job analysis is appro-
priate in a functional type of work
organization where workers operate relatively
independent of one another and with clearly
designated job responsibilities. It is insuffi-
cient, however, for identifying the worker
qualifications necessary to operate in a team
oriented work environment that requires
more flexibility with job responsibilities.
In fact, Cardy and Dobbins (1996) sug-
gest that one of the most significant barriers
to implementing team based processes is that
human resource management practices are
based on traditional job analysis. Traditional
job analysis, which rigidifies job responsibili-
ties and lessens adaptive responses, focuses
exclusively on the individual level of analysis
and ignores the group level of analysis needed
for selecting employees for team-oriented en-
vironments. While person–job fit is important
for ascertaining individual ability to perform
the technical aspects of the job, it is insuffi-
cient for selecting employees as industry
increasingly moves to more complex and dy-
namic work environments that mandate the
adaptable use of human resources (Cascio,
1995; Cardy & Dobbins, 1996; Carson &
Stewart, 1996). In such environments, job
analysis must be supplemented with a new
form of work analysis, called person–group fit,
that considers the fit between the individual
and the group to determine the broader set of
worker requisites.
The case of the plant assembling relays
lends validity to this claim. All of the employ-
ees selected for the cells had the technical
capabilities to perform the assembly operations
required, and some of them had performed
all assembly operations in the previous func-
tional layout. The broad based skills required
to work together as a team, to control the flow
of production with the cells, etc., were present
in the cell that was a success and lacking in
the cells that failed. In addition, the plant
manager said these team-based characteris-
tics, as well as overall employee attitude
towards team-based work, would be more care-
fully assessed when selecting employees for
any future cells.
Due to the increased use of teams in or-
ganizations (DeSanctis & Poole, 1997), the
current paper focuses on person–group fit in
employment and/or team member selection
processes. Research is lacking on ways to
achieve person–group fit and how to effec-
tively use person–group fit as a tool to enhance
team effectiveness. This paper first describes
the different types of person–group fit (PG
fit) and then compares PG fit to person–job
(PJ fit) and person–organization fit (PO fit).
It then presents a model that illustrates the
impact of PG fit on organizational effective-
ness and raises some methodological issues
to consider when assessing PG fit. Finally, it
raises several research questions about human
resource practices related to the use and ef-
fectiveness of PG fit.
Person–Group Fit
Werbel and Gilliland (1999) defined PG fit as
the match between the new hire and the im-
mediate workgroup (i.e., coworkers and
supervisor); however, when a new group is
being formed from an existing pool of employ-
ees, the same concept applies. It is important
 The Use of Person–Group Fit for Employment Selection: A Missing Link in Person–Environment Fit
for the members of any new or on-going team
to have appropriate attributes to work effec-
tively with each other.
PG fit is based on the idea that many
employment positions require interpersonal
interactions with group members. A
newcomer’s or an existing employee’s ability
to develop and support quality interpersonal
interactions affects his/her abilities to make
distinctive contributions to the work unit.
Quality interactions are important because
they enhance the performance of other
group members whose job performance is
partially dependent on the newcomer’s abili-
ties to effectively interact with them. As
Montgomery (1996) suggested, interper-
sonal interactions may be more critical than
technical job skills in evaluating employee
performance in some organizations.
A match between the new hire and the
immediate work group is based on attaining
both supplementary and complementary PG
fit. Supplementary PG fit occurs when a new
hire shares similar qualities with other group
members (cf. Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987).
In order to develop effective interpersonal in-
teractions, it is important for team members
to share certain beliefs and values. When
shared, these beliefs and values become criti-
cal group norms. Research demonstrates that
those who accept group norms are likely to
express more positive work attitudes than
those who do not accept the group norms
(Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992).
Complementary PG fit occurs when new-
comers have distinctive qualities or
characteristics that complement or support the
characteristics of the other group members
(Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Since all
group members have some personal assets and
deficiencies related to supporting group per-
formance, group performance is enhanced
when the deficiencies of one team member
are complemented by the strengths of another
team member. Thus, complementary PG fit is
based on determining human resource defi-
ciencies in a group and then identifying
compensatory human resource attributes that
need to be acquired or developed. This type
of fit is directly related to the fit between en-
vironmental demands and personal abilities
(Edwards & Cooper, 1990) with the emphasis
• 229
being on group productivity. For example, a
team may lack someone to play the role of an
initiator who is responsible for getting a group
to explore new ideas. Groups that have mem-
bers who are deficient in this role are likely to
resist ideas associated with continuous im-
provement. Thus, for the group to pursue the Since all group
concept of continuous improvement, the members have
group needs to have someone play an initia- some personal
assets and
tor role. Complementary PG fit is more deficiencies
concerned with abilities to help with group related to
dynamics than to help with the technical as- supporting group
pects of the job. performance,
In the organizational entry literature, group
performance is
complementary fit may be less widely con-
enhanced when
sidered as a basis for establishing PG fit than the deficiencies
is supplementary fit. There may be a bias to- of one team
ward considering fit as developing similar member are
qualities among group members. For ex- complemented by
the strengths of
ample, Van Maanen (1975) suggested that
another team
organizational socialization was completed member.
after employees accepted work norms. Simi-
larly, Ferris, Youngblood, and Yates (1985)
viewed PG fit as similarities on personality
characteristics. While supplementary fit is
important, complementary PG fit is equally
important because group performance is of-
ten enhanced when diverse human resources
are brought together (Tziner, 1988). Thus,
being able to identify applicants’ value-added
attributes to a work group are important for
effective group performance.
In summary, it is important to consider
both supplementary and complementary PG
fit when selecting employees to work in
teams. In other words, both the environmen-
tal culture with personal values fit and the
environmental demands with personal abili-
ties fit are needed for effective group
performance. The presence of one without
the other is likely to lead to dysfunctional
groups as they either lack cohesiveness or
lack the abilities needed to perform essential
group functions.
Differences Between PJ, PG, and PO Fit
PG fit is different from either PO fit or PJ fit
(Kristof, 1996; Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). Al-
though all three types of fit are likely to impact
both worker motivation and organizational
effectiveness (see Table I), each does so in a
230 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2001

different manner. PJ fit is concerned with find- organizational socialization processes

ing a match between the skills, knowledge, and
abilities needed to perform the relatively static
technical aspects of a job and individuals who
have these abilities. Traditional job analysis is
the basis for assessing this fit. If one has the
requisite abilities to perform a job, self-effi-
cacy is likely to be high, resulting in a positive
influence on worker motivation (Bandura,
1991). In addition, since good PJ fit results in
high job proficiency, work is likely to be ac-
complished quickly and with higher quality
than in circumstances when the job profi-
ciency is low. This in turn, improves
organizational effectiveness.
PG fit is conducted at the group level of
analysis. Based on the evidence that peer in-
fluence is a motivation force, employees are
likely to value having the prestige of their val-
ued colleagues and work hard to achieve that
prestige (Ferris & Mitchell, 1987). As men-
tioned by one autoworker, “If I don’t do my
job properly, the next person on the line is
going to know about it and they are going to
tell me about it. For that reason, I want to do
my job better” (Besser, 1995, p. 389). PG fit
is likely to increase this motivational compo-
nent by increasing opportunities for
developing collegial relationships. Additionally,
PG fit is likely to impact organizational effec-
tiveness by promoting group cooperation and
synergy (Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). This as-
sumption is a critical component underlying
the adoption of work teams in organizations.
Finally PO fit is conducted at the orga-
nizational level of analysis. It concerns the
match between the worker and the organiza-
tional culture and is concerned with
(Chatman, 1989). It impacts worker motiva-
tion because organizations offer different
types of incentives to create an organizational
culture. Based on expectancy theory prin-
ciples applied to an entire organization, it
would be important to have employees who
value the incentives that are being offered to
all employees. Employees who discount the
dominant incentives are likely to be less mo-
tivated than those who value such incentives.
In a related manner, PO fit and effective so-
cialization are likely to improve work attitudes
and retention rates (Kristof, 1996).
To further distinguish between PO and PG
fit, consider the following example. A manu-
facturer of hydraulic components makes
extensive use of semiautonomous work group
structures in the form of production cells on
the factory floor. In this case, the ability to
work with others as a team is a general at-
tribute for PO fit; however, the same
manufacturer suggests that very different
norms exist in particular cells across different
shifts and that mixing membership across
shifts for the same work cell would not work.
Thus, the same work cell for each shift would
determine PG fit differently.
Ideally, all three types of fit are important.
Organizations should make efforts to address
all three types of fit given that each impacts
worker motivation and organizational effec-
tiveness. In order to be able to use PG fit in
conjunction with other types of fit, it is im-
portant to understand how PG fit impacts
organizational effectiveness; therefore, we pro-
pose a model of PG fit and its effects on
organizational effectiveness.

TABLE I A Comparison of Types of Person–Environment Fit.

Type of Fit Level of Motivational Components of

Analysis Component Organizational Effectiveness

Person–job fit Individual Self-efficacy Job proficiency

(PJ fit)

Person–group fit Group Social facilitation Group cooperation

(PG fit) Group synergy

Person–organization fit Organizational Effective incentives Retention rates

(PO fit) Work attitudes
 The Use of Person–Group Fit for Employment Selection: A Missing Link in Person–Environment Fit
FIGURE 1. Person–group Fit Model.
A Model of PG Fit
In order to understand the importance of PG
fit in the selection process, this paper proposes
a model of PG fit that shows how the compo-
nents of PG fit interrelate to both individual
and group member performance. The model
contains the complementary and supplemen-
tary aspects of PG fit, addresses group and
individual consequences of PG fit, and con-
siders the relevant human attributes that
contribute to PG fit.
Criterion Variables
PG fit is targeted towards group level variables
associated with organizational effectiveness.
If an existing group can achieve a degree of
both complementary and supplementary PG
fit with a newcomer to the group, that group
should sustain or enhance supportive inter-
actions that would facilitate the job
performance of all group members. Thus, cri-
terion variables associated with PG fit should
include indicators of group effectiveness.
Supplementary and complementary PG fit
are likely to impact different dimensions of
group effectiveness. Supplementary fit is likely
• 231
to have the greatest impact on group mainte-
nance issues associated with group
cohesiveness and cooperation. Group cohe-
siveness is important to consider as a criterion
variable because a meta-analysis reported that
group cohesiveness is positively associated
with group productivity (Evans & Dion, 1991).
Furthermore, there is evidence that this rela-
tionship is even stronger when group members
accept the goals of the group (Greene, 1989).
For example, the members of the relay assem-
bly cell (illustrated in the introduction to this
paper) that performed well appeared to have
a high level of group cohesion. They accepted
the goals established for the cell and were will-
ing to work together to achieve those goals.
These aspects were missing in the cells that
were subsequently disbanded.
Supplementary fit is likely to influence
group cohesiveness because sharing qualities
with other group members is likely to impact
the attraction of a newcomer to the group and
the group to the newcomer. Similarly, it may
also impact the willingness to remain a mem-
ber of group. Lau and Murnighan (1998)
suggested that having similar qualities is likely
to minimize the existence of fissures in groups
and consequently promote group cohesive-
232 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2001
ness. They also suggested that the personal
qualities of a new group member are impor-
tant elements to consider in creating a
cohesive culture. Finally, Barrick, Stewart,
Neubert, and Mount (1998) suggested that
as group members share consistently high lev-
els of extraversion, general intelligence, and
emotional stability, supervisors are more likely
to perceive that these groups work more ef-
… group fectively as a unit than do groups who do not
members may
share these qualities.
have different
perceptions In contrast to supplementary fit, comple-
about the mentary PG fit is more likely to influence
importance of group task orientation and boundary spanning
different group functions than group maintenance orienta-
norms and
tion. To successfully complete its work, some
differing
perceptions group members need to assume group respon-
about the sibilities associated with project initiation,
relative problem solving, communicating, monitoring,
importance of a and coordinating activities both within the
newcomer’s role work unit and with other work units. These
responsibilities.
responsibilities are important for guiding a
group through decision-making processes and
helping the group to implement designated
courses of actions.
If group members have significant defi-
ciencies in any of the task-oriented or
boundary spanning responsibilities, the group
is likely to have some difficulties in making
and/or implementing high quality decisions.
For example, a project team of public accoun-
tants may currently have members with good
computer abilities, writing abilities, and tech-
nical skills, but none have the necessary
abilities to interface with the customer. In this
case, a new hire would need to have the abil-
ity to be an effective boundary spanner,
perhaps even more than being a top quality
technical accountant, given that other group
members can make these technical contribu-
tions. Additionally, a sheet metal manufacturer
that has successfully implemented cell manu-
facturing emphasizes role diversity in its
training programs when a new cell gets cre-
ated. A company representative suggests that
this was a critical element in creating effec-
tive work teams in a union environment.
Finally, research suggests that the greater de-
gree of skill diversity with the group, the
greater the group effectiveness (Watson,
Kumar, & Michaelson, 1993), especially in
high task interdependency situations (Tziner,
1988, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, Colquitt, &
Hedlund, 1998).
Both aspects of PG fit (supplementary and
complementary) are likely to influence the job
performance of the individual group member.
Employees are often expected to work with
other employees as a part of their regular job
responsibilities. The ability to perform a job
that is dependent on the actions of other em-
ployees requires the employee to have
broad-based abilities (complementary PG fit)
and the appropriate work values and norms to
effectively interact with other employees
(supplementary PG fit). These effective inter-
actions are likely to occur when PG fit is used
in the selection process.
The socialization literature (Chatman,
1989) provides a theoretical basis for the im-
pact of PG fit on the stress related to individual
work adjustment, which ultimately affects in-
dividual performance. Within this context,
Feldman (1976) suggested that one of the criti-
cal elements of the early socialization process
is to gain role clarity. Role ambiguity is in-
versely related to PG fit. For example,
newcomers are likely to experience role ambi-
guity regarding the group power structure,
coalitions, and work norms. This can be a
source of stress that needs to be addressed
before newcomers can effectively adjust to the
new job. Similarly, the socialization research
suggests that newcomers who actively seek
information about their work environment,
perform their work more effectively (Ashford
& Tsui, 1991) and are less likely to perceive
role ambiguity (Miller & Jablin, 1991) than
are those who do not actively seek informa-
tion about their work environment.
Communicating aspects of PG fit during
the interview process may also impact a
newcomer’s level of interpersonal role conflict.
To some extent, group members may have dif-
ferent perceptions about the importance of
different group norms (Lau & Murnighan,
1998) and differing perceptions about the rela-
tive importance of a newcomer’s role
responsibilities. Lau and Murnighan (1998)
suggested that such disagreements are likely
to turn the selection process into a political
process to gain support for the objectives of
the respective subgroups. For example, in
some universities it is not uncommon for fac-
 The Use of Person–Group Fit for Employment Selection: A Missing Link in Person–Environment Fit
ulty members to argue about the most desir-
able qualities of applicants in regards to
teaching and research. More teaching oriented
faculty may favor hiring someone who has
values reflecting teaching, and more research
oriented faculty may favor hiring someone who
has strong research values. When this occurs,
a newcomer is likely to experience interper-
sonal role conflict with the conflicting
teaching and research role expectations of the
different subgroups.
One way to manage this type of role con-
flict is to gain common agreement about the
appropriate role behaviors among all group
members prior to the search process. Given
that the basis for determining PG fit should
be developed prior to the selection process,
the process could be used to openly discuss
differing role perceptions. If the group is able
to resolve these differences prior to the search
process and to agree on shared role expecta-
tions; newcomers are less likely to experience
role stress from conflicting role expectations.
Communication about role expectations is
likely to minimize newcomers’ role conflict
(Miller & Jablin, 1991).
Predictor Variables
Figure 1 (see the beginning of this main sec-
tion) suggests that there are two important
predictors of supplementary fit: work values
and work norms. Groups tend to develop a set
of values that reflect the group members’ in-
teraction style with the work context. For
example, the values associated with a “skunk
works” group that relies on informal commu-
nication patterns and networks may be
different than a formal Research & Develop-
ment group (Peters & Waterman, 1982).
Sharing work values may influence interper-
sonal attraction in the selection process
(Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994), is an im-
portant aspect of interpersonal attraction in
intact teams (Galman, Jones, & Rozelle,
1996), and appears positively related to su-
pervisors’ assessment of group performance
(Adkins, Meglino, & Ravlin, 1996).
Work norms are also important for
supplementary PG fit. There are certain be-
havioral expectations that group members are
likely to share that eventually become group
• 233
norms (Shaw, 1981). While there has been
less research on the effects of work norms
on the interactions among group members
than on work values, socialization research
emphasizes the importance of shaping em-
ployee work norms (Van Maanen, 1975). For
example, Murnighan and Conlon (1991) re-
ported that a successful British string quartet
achieved supplementary fit by sharing work
norms that developed from a common men-
tor who conveyed the same way of playing
Given the pace
music. The importance of different work of change in the
norms is likely to vary significantly across workforce,
groups and can be quite diverse. For example, generalized
work norms could be based on reactions to abilities may be
time, autonomy, co-worker support, accep- more useful over
the long term
tance of authority, or risk taking. than are specific
Perhaps an essential element to consider technical skills
is that norms and the values associated with that become
those norms appear to be most critical to a obsolete.
group when those values comprise a central
role in the group identity (Feldman, 1984).
Thus, groups may share some values, but cer-
tain values will be more critical for
supplementary PG fit than are values that are
unrelated to the group identity.
The predictors of complementary PG fit
need to be associated with abilities to effec-
tively perform task and boundary spanning
functions. To address this issue, Lawler (1994)
called for human resources to change from
job based to competency based employment
practices. This would help employers to de-
velop an inventory of needed abilities that can
be employed for diverse organizational issues
and problems. Similarly, Packer and Pines
(1996) suggested that broad based abilities and
competencies are increasingly needed to have
successful careers. Given the pace of change
in the workforce, generalized abilities may be
more useful over the long term than are spe-
cific technical skills that become obsolete.
To a great extent, broad based competen-
cies are likely related to group roles. For
example, Packer and Pines (1996) suggested
that problem solving abilities and system think-
ing abilities are important broad-based work
competencies. Both of these would be impor-
tant for a group’s task orientation. Similarly,
Packer and Pines (1996) suggest that team-
based interpersonal competencies such as
listening and personal qualities such as self-
234 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2001
objectivity are important worker attributes.
These could be supportive of the group bound-
ary spanning functions. Thus, groups need to
inventory their broad-based competencies to
determine the broad-based abilities that are
needed to achieve complementary PG fit.
Communication
is often In summary, PG fit is a multilevel vari-
mentioned as a able. PG fit is likely to impact a newcomer’s
critical issue role stress that would influence her/his job
influencing performance. It is also likely to impact the
interpersonal quality of interpersonal interactions and there-
relationships in
groups.
fore the performance of all group members.
This makes PG fit an important variable to
consider in the employment selection process.
When selecting employees based on PG fit,
employers should be concerned about indi-
vidual based issues and how they contribute
to PG fit. Thus, an applicant’s values, work
norms, and specific competencies are impor-
tant for determining PG fit.
A Proposed Process to Assess PG Fit
As with any type of employee selection pro-
cess, procedures must be developed to assess
PG fit that minimizes the possibility of em-
ployment discrimination. Since a valid job
analysis process can be used to mitigate
charges of discrimination when using PJ fit
for employment selection (see Ward’s Cove v
Antonio, 1989), the development and use of
valid and reliable procedures can also miti-
gate charges of discrimination when using PG
fit for employee selection. While job analysis
has been developed to prevent discrimination
when using PJ fit for employee selection, and
efforts have been proposed for PO fit (Bowen,
Ledford, & Nathan, 1991), means of assess-
ing PG fit have not been developed. This
section first proposes a general methodology
for analyzing PG fit and then discusses issues
relating to the construct validity, predictive va-
lidity, and reliability of the measurements used
to assess PG fit.
General Method of Analysis
The methodology proposed for assessing PG
fit in this paper is similar to that of job analy-
sis. Just as job analysis can be used
systematically to determine the requisite at-
tributes to establish PJ fit, group role analysis
can be used to systematically determine ap-
plicant attributes to establish PG fit. This
group role analysis requires:
1. An investigation of the group interac-
tion processes and the identification
of critical group norms (used to as-
sess supplementary fit).
2. The identification of any performance
deficiencies of the different group
roles (used to assess complementary
fit).
3. The specification of attribute levels
needed to fulfill the group’s needs in
order to obtain both supplementary
and complementary PG fit. Just as the
job analysis is unique for each posi-
tion, the group role analysis needs to
be unique for each group.
Identification of Supplementary Fit Cri-
teria. The group role analysis for
supplementary fit should include a descrip-
tion of the way group members collectively
conduct their work. Since the group norms
identified should represent relevant values or
work norms for determining supplementary
PG fit, they should be central to group inter-
action processes and to the identity of the
group. Norms related to communication,
time, and individualism are especially impor-
tant since they are likely to have an impact
on interpersonal relationships. Communica-
tion is often mentioned as a critical issue
influencing interpersonal relationships in
groups. To facilitate a climate of cooperation,
groups may need to develop compatible work
norms and values regarding communication
patterns. Individuals tend to develop certain
communication patterns, and McClane
(1991) notes that these communication styles
may vary in compatibility. In addition, com-
munication and information sharing are often
linked to issues such as interpersonal coor-
dination of activities (Stevens & Campion,
1994) and cohesiveness (Ribner, 1980).
McGrath and Rotchford (1983) suggested
that time orientation is an important factor that
affects interpersonal relationships in groups. In
particular, they suggested that the ways groups
schedule, synchronize, and allocate time are
important aspects of a unit’s culture and that
 The Use of Person–Group Fit for Employment Selection: A Missing Link in Person–Environment Fit
role conflict and role overload can be minimized
if these time issues are managed well. One way
to manage these time issues is to select em-
ployees who fit into the temporal norms of the
group. This is also compatible with notions
raised earlier by Dawis and Lofquist (1984)
regarding project time orientation.
Individualism may also be an important
norm for supplementary PG fit. Some groups
may share norms allowing team members to
work individualistically. Others may have
strong collectivistic norms. Team members
with the abilities to work with other team
members who share similar attitudes towards
working individualistically or collectivistically
are likely to have more cooperative relation-
ships than team members who are
incompatible on these dimensions. Hofstede
(1984) highlights the importance of this di-
mension across national cultures. This
dimension may also be significant across
groups within an organization.
Identification of Complementary Fit Cri-
teria. The interaction description for
complementary fit should include a descrip-
tion of how group members interact to achieve
the group’s goals. The goal statement is equiva-
lent to the objective statement in job analysis.
It summarizes the expected outcomes of the
group. This analysis also needs to specify the
critical role interactions in helping a group to
achieve those goals. The group needs to iden-
tify the critical task roles delineated by Benne
and Sheats (1948). This includes task roles
such as coordinator, elaborator, information
seeker, and information giver. It also needs to
identify the critical maintenance roles such
as compromiser, encourager, and follower. It
should also examine important boundary span-
ning roles that are identified by Ancona and
Caldwell (1988).
This analysis should be used to identify
the relative strengths and weaknesses of the
group with respect to its abilities to achieve
the specified goals. Most importantly for
complementary PG-group fit, it is important
to identify critical task and maintenance
roles that are inadequately performed by
current group members. The selection pro-
cess could then emphasize compensatory
applicant attributes to support group pro-
cesses and goal attainment.
• 235
Specification of Applicant Attribute and
Attribute Levels Needed. The last part of the
role analysis for establishing commensurate
relationships is the group-role specification.
The group role specification identifies appli-
cant attributes that fulfill the group’s needs
to attain both supplementary and complemen-
tary PG fit. This is analogous to the job
specification aspect of job analysis. Based on
the central values and work norms associated
with group norms and group members’ weak-
nesses in the performance of central role
responsibilities, the role specification would
identify the preferred applicant attributes.
Thus, a group role specification is likely to
include statements about work values, work
norms, and broad based abilities that are
needed to perform different functional roles.
An Example Method for PG Fit
Assessment
To illustrate the concepts discussed in the
previous sections, consider how PG fit might
be assessed in the context of a human re- Most importantly
source management department of four for
complementary
employees and one of the four employees PG-group fit, it is
recently left. The group has been very infor- important to
mal in regards to authority and very flexible identify critical
in sharing the workload. Before initiating the task and
search process, the group would need to con- maintenance
roles that are
duct an analysis, based on group discussions, inadequately
to establish the critical group norms that performed by
would be used to assess supplementary fit. current group
This would be based on group discussions. members.
This analysis would likely indicate the need
for the following work requisites:
1. the ability to work without clear di-
rection from a superior,
2. an appreciation of collectivistic ap-
proaches to work efforts, and
3. an ability to work patiently through
problems.
For complementary fit, the group analysis
would require an assessment of the strengths
and weakness of current team members. This
analysis might indicate the present group is
weak in broad-based computer skills and lacks
someone who can play the initiator role of
guiding the group to work on specific prob-
236 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2001
lems and issues. While the ideal candidate
would have both of these missing attributes,
either of these attributes would be a valued
added contribution for the group.
This supplementary and complementary fit
criteria would then be used during the resume
examination and candidate interviewing pro-
cesses to identify good candidates for the job.
Resumes could be useful in looking for initia-
tors (leadership positions) or an individual with
computer skills. The supplementary fit may be
best assessed by asking specific interview ques-
tions designed to address the ability to work
without clear directions, to patiently work
through problems, and to assess the apprecia-
tion for collectivistic work. Based on structured
assessment formats, applicants would be uni-
formly evaluated on these dimensions.
Group Stability and PG Fit
A central concern of any type of fit assess-
ment is the stability of the criteria used to
assess the fit. As the work context changes, so
may the criteria that determine the degree of
fit. For example, a job analysis may become
obsolete as jobs change. Organizational cul-
If turnover rates tures may change when new Chief Executive
are high because Officers are hired, making the previous orga-
no efforts have nizational fit analysis inappropriate. Similarly,
been made to
select employees
group dynamics are likely to change as a func-
based on tion of the stability of group membership. PG
supplementary fit, fit could be difficult to assess when groups
the group experience high turnover rates.
analyses may be If turnover rates are high because no ef-
used as an
forts have been made to select employees
effective tool to
reduce these based on supplementary fit, the group analy-
turnover rates. ses may be used as an effective tool to reduce
these turnover rates. If other factors such as
compensation are also influencing turnover
rates, however, the effectiveness of PG fit be-
comes limited. If PG fit is a constantly moving
target, then it becomes difficult to make any
assessments of fit. In this case, other types of
fit may be more relevant to guide selection
practices than is PG fit.
Construct Validity, Predictive Validity,
and Reliability
In order to have a valid, legally defensible,
and useful procedure for assessing PG fit, the
procedures used must be reliable and have
both construct and predictive validity. While
predictive validity is often emphasized in se-
lection research, construct validity is also
important (Schmitt & Landy, 1992), espe-
cially when it addresses applicants’ abilities
or other trait and value constructs (Harvey,
1991). Since PG fit is particularly concerned
about abilities and values, construct validity
is extremely important.
Edwards and Cooper (1990) proposed
three important issues to establish construct
validity for any type of person–environment fit.
First, the components must be commensurate.
This means the dimensions used to assess the
environment must be theoretically linked to the
dimensions used to assess the person. Thus,
for example, if a group has deficiencies with
information gathering roles for decision mak-
ing, one needs to assess applicant capacities to
gather information for decision making.
Second, the stem questions used to assess
the aspects of person–environment fit need
to be appropriate. Edwards and Cooper (1990)
suggest that supplementary fit stem questions
to assess the environment should ask how
much of an attribute is present in the work
context and then assess the extent to which
an applicant has the desired level of that at-
tribute. For example, to assess time orientation
of current group members, one may ask how
far ahead of the due date do current group
members prepare their work. For the appli-
cants, efforts would be made to assess the level
of values for being prepared before a date. For
complementary fit, stem questions to assess
the environment should focus on how much
of an attribute is present, while stem ques-
tions focusing on the person should ask ability
questions. For example, one may ask questions
about the analytical ability of current group
members. If there are deficiencies in analyti-
cal abilities, then one needs to assess the level
of analytical abilities available in the applicants
under consideration and determine how each
applicant would satisfy these analytical needs
of the group.
Third, Edwards and Cooper (1990) sug-
gest that it is important to consider multiple
dimensions of fit to establish construct valid-
ity for person–environment fit. Fit is complex
and can best be considered if multiple dimen-
 The Use of Person–Group Fit for Employment Selection: A Missing Link in Person–Environment Fit
sions are assessed. As employers weight dimen-
sions of a job analysis, it may also be relevant
to weight the dimensions of a role analysis.
The processes used to assess PG fit are
parallel to those used for person–job fit ex-
cept for the criterion variables used. For PG
fit, the criterion variables include group co-
hesiveness, group cooperation, group
decision-making effectiveness, and group pro-
ductivity. As the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (1987) principles
suggest, the results of a job analysis are help-
ful in developing criterion variables. It is
important to note that all PG fit criterion vari-
ables are at the group level of analysis derived
from the role specification.
Finally, the reliability of the measurements
underlying the constructs is important. Per-
haps the most important aspect of reliability
would be with the interaction description. Just
as multiple sources of information are essen-
tial for reliable job analyses (Harvey, 1991),
multiple sources of information would be es-
sential for the interaction description.
Self-assessment could be based on survey feed-
back techniques and informal group
assessment. In addition, supervisory input
should be used, or professional observers could
make such assessments on a periodic basis.
Discussion and Summary
In summary, this paper suggests that there is
a need to consider PG fit for employment se-
lection purposes. It suggests that the
attainment of PG fit influenced both indi-
vidual performance and group performance.
These, in turn, were likely to influence orga-
nizational effectiveness. The criterion variables
associated with PG fit appear to be distinct
from either PJ fit or PO fit. While the paper
offers some broad predictors of PG fit, it is
important for each group to develop its own
specific predictors based on a role analysis.
Finally, this paper offers suggestions to sys-
tematically assess PG fit and to minimize
discriminatory intent in employment selection.
Research Issues
The ideas presented in this paper raise two
important empirical research topics. First, it
• 237
is important to investigate the relative impor-
tance of PG fit on organizational effectiveness
in comparison to other types of person-envi-
ronment fit. The relative importance of
different types of fit is likely to vary as a func-
tion of different social contexts. For example,
while there is a trend toward increased team-
ing, many organizations still have highly
specialized jobs. In such organizations, PJ fit
may be more relevant than PG fit. In contrast,
companies that rely heavily on intensive tech-
nologies where employees work collaboratively
on one issue are more likely to emphasize PG
fit. Furthermore, while supplementary fit Finally, this
within a group may be relatively homogeneous paper offers
across many groups in some organizations, in suggestions to
systematically
others it may vary as organizational units work assess PG fit and
with different products, services, or objectives. to minimize
Thus, highly differentiated organizations that discriminatory
use work teams may place greater importance intent in
on PG fit than on PO fit. employment
selection.
The second research issue concerns the
relationship of PG fit to other HR functions
and how these functions can be used to
achieve PG fit. For example, selection is one
way to achieve PG fit; however, work group
dynamics are likely to change as group mem-
bers mature, group leadership changes, and
the work context is modified. Since these
changes may occur without opportunities to
select new employees, other methods are
needed to achieve or facilitate PG fit. These
methods could include peer appraisal, basing
part of total compensation on group perfor-
mance, or the use of team based training to
increase the possibility of PG fit. Research is
needed to assess the effectiveness of these
methods in comparison to the use of selec-
tion as the primary tool for achieving PG fit.
Limitations
There are three concerns about using PG fit
as an employment selection tool. First, both
employees and the work environment are in a
state of continual change. Employees are ma-
turing, and their abilities and interests are
likely to modify as they mature. As mentioned
previously, if group members are constantly
changing, then PG fit becomes very difficult
to determine as the values and the abilities of
the group change with the characteristics of
238 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2001
changing group members. This is likely to
make PG fit less valid and reliable.
On a related matter, some may argue that
establishing PG fit would minimize the ability
to transfer people to other groups. In this case,
PO fit may be more important. This same limi-
tation, however, could be applied to PJ fit. If a
person gets hired for one team, how could she/
he be promoted to work with a different team?
Essentially, different groups have different
needs, and PG fit could help groups identify
individuals who could be transferred to other
groups to achieve a better fit, or who could help
groups through different stages of group de-
velopment. For example, an employee may show
good group conflict management skills and have
the ability to help a group work through fis-
sures. If so, this person may be useful and
transferable in other groups that have fissures.
Similarly, a person may be a catalyst for using
brainstorming techniques. This person may be
valued by other groups that have difficulties
developing innovative ideas.
Second, it may be more costly to determine
PG fit when compared to PJ or PO fit; how-
ever, just as packaged job analysis programs,
such as the job element inventory (Harvey,
Friedman, Hakel, & Cornelius, 1988), have
been developed for job analysis, similar cost
efficient packages may emerge for role analy-
sis. Since certain roles appear to be important
for effective group functioning (Benne &
Sheets, 1948), a common instrument could be
developed to assess group norms and the de-
gree that different roles are fulfilled for all
groups in an organization. This would minimize
the costs associated with role analysis and pro-
vide more valid and reliable assessments.
Finally, it is important to point out that
groups have their dysfunctional elements. As
they become more homogeneous, productiv-
ity may increase (Evans & Dion, 1991) but so
may a tendency towards groupthink. However,
complementary fit mandates diversity and a
part of the diversity is likely to focus on differ-
ent decision-making abilities. These diverse
abilities are likely to ensure more effective
decisions and address some of the sources of
groupthink that disrupt group decision-mak-
ing processes.
In spite of these concerns, it is impor-
tant for organizations to realize that
organizational effectiveness is a multilevel
construct. That is, individual characteristics
(skills and abilities), group characteristics
(group norms and roles), and organizational
characteristics (organizational culture and
values) all have an impact on organizational
effectiveness. Thus, some degree of fit on
the individual, group, and organizational
levels would be important to achieve orga-
nizational effectiveness.
The current paper suggests that PG fit
is largely an unexplored means that can be
used to achieve organizational effectiveness.
If employers wish to emphasize groups in
organizations, it is important for them to
develop human resource practices that fa-
cilitate effective group process. Traditional
job analysis is a significant impediment to
these processes (Cardy & Dobbins, 1996).
It is reductionistic and emphasizes indi-
vidual instead of collective responsibility. To
overcome this impediment, this paper offers
suggestions to guide HRM research and
practice so the PG fit could be used to cre-
ate more effective organizations as
employers increasingly emphasize the impor-
tance of work teams in a competitive
marketplace.
 The Use of Person–Group Fit for Employment Selection: A Missing Link in Person–Environment Fit • 239

JAMES D. WERBEL (Ph.D., Northwestern University) is a Professor of Management and

Co-Director of the Murray Bacon Center for Ethics in Business at Iowa State Univer-
sity. His research interests include organizational entry, work and family, and career
development. He has published articles in Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Personnel Psychology, and Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior. He currently serves on the editorial review board for Human
Resource Management.

DANNY J. JOHNSON is an assistant professor of Operations Management at the College

of Business at Iowa State University. He holds a B.S. in Business Administration
from Moorhead State University, and an MBA and a Ph.D. in Operations Manage-
ment from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research interests are in the
design, implementation, operation, and management of quick response manufactur-
ing systems, and the problems faced by firms as they attempt to develop and use these
systems to improve key performance measures. He has published articles on cellular
manufacturing in the “International Journal of Production Research” and “Produc-
tion and Operations Management”.

REFERENCES source management in a total quality environ-

Adkins, C.L., Russell, C.J., & Werbel, J.D. (1994).
Judgements of fit in the selection process: The
role of work value congruence. Personnel Psy-
chology, 47, 605–623.
Adkins, C.L., Meglino, B., & Ravlin, E. (1996). Value
congruence between co-workers and its relation-
ship to work outcomes. Group and Organization
Management, 21, 439–460.
Ancona, D.G., & Caldwell, D.F. (1988). Beyond task
and maintenance: Defining external functions in
groups. Group and Organization Studies, 13,
468–494.
Ashford, S.J., & Tsui, A.S. (1991). Self regulation for
managerial effectiveness: The role of active feed-
back seeking. Academy of Management Journal,
34, 251–280.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-
regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., & Mount,
M.K. (1998). Relating member ability and per-
sonality to work-team processes and team
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
377–391.
Benne, K.D., & Sheets, P. (1948). Functional roles
of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4,
41–49.
Besser, T.L. (1995). Rewards and organizational
achievement: A case study of Toyota Motor
Manufacturing in Kentucky. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 32, 383–399.
Bowen, D.E., Ledford, G.E., & Nathan, B.R. (1991).
Hiring for the organization: Not the job. The
Academy of Management Executive, 5, 35–51.
Cardy, R.L., & Dobbins, G.H. (1996). Human re-
ment: Shifting from a traditional to a TQHRM
approach. Journal of Quality Management, 1, 5–
20.
Carson, K.P., & Stewart, G.L. (1966). Job analysis
and the sociotechnical approach to quality: A
critical examination. Journal of Quality Manage-
ment, 1, 49–66.
Cascio, W.F. (1995). Whither industrial and organi-
zational psychology in a changing world of work.
American Psychologist, 50, 928–939.
Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional orga-
nization research: A model of person-organization
fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–
349.
Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L.H. (1984). A psychologi-
cal theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M.S. (1997). Transitions in
teamwork in new organizational forms. In B.
Markovsky, M.J. Lovaglia, & L. Troyer (Eds.),
Advances in group processes, Vol. 14, 157–176.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Edwards, J.R., & Cooper, C.L. (1990). The person-
environment fit approach to stress: Recurring
problems and some suggestions. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 11, 293–307.
Evans, C.R., & Dion, K.L. (1991). Group cohesion
and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group
Research, 22, 175–186.
Feldman, D.C. (1976). A contingency theory of so-
cialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21,
433–452.
Feldman, D.C. (1984). The development and enforce-
ment of group norms. Academy of Management
Review, 9, 47–53.
Ferris, G.R., & Mitchell, T.R. (1987). The components
240 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2001
of social influence and their importance for hu-
man resources research. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris
(Eds.), Research in personnel and human re-
sources management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ferris, G.R., Youngblood, S.A., & Yates, V.L. (1985).
Personality, training performance, and with-
drawal: A test of the person–group fit hypothesis
for organizational newcomers. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 27, 377–388.
Galman, J.M., Jones, A.P., & Rozelle, R.M. (1996).
The effect of co-worker similarity on the emer-
gence of affect in work teams. Group and
Organization Management, 21, 192–215.
Greene, C.N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in
work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20, 70–86.
Harvey, R.J. (1991). Job analysis. In M.D. Dunnette
& L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology, Vol. 2, 71–163.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Harvey, R.J., Friedman, F., Hakel, M.D., & Cornelius,
E.T. (1988). Dimensionality of the job element
inventory: A simplified worker-oriented program
to job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,
639–646.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: Inter-
national differences in work related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., LePine, J.A., Colquitt,
J.A., & Hedlund, J. (1998). Extending the multi-
level theory of team decision making: Effects of
feedback and experience in hierarchical teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 269–282.
Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization fit: An inte-
grative review of its conceptualization,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psy-
chology, 49, 1–50.
Lau, D.C., & Murningan, J.K. (1998). Demographic
diversity and faultlines: The compositional dy-
namics of organizational groups. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 235–340.
Lawler, E.E. (1994). From job-based to competency-
based organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 3–15.
McGrath, J.E., & Rotchford, N.L. (1983). Time and
behavior in organizations. In L.L. Cummings and
B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior, Vol. 5, 57–102. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
McClane, W.E. (1991). The interaction of leader and
member characteristics in the leader-member
exchange model of leadership. Small Group Re-
search, 22, 283–300.
Miller, V.D., & Jablin, F.M. (1991). Information seek-
ing during organizational entry: Influences,
tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of
Management Review, 16, 92–120.
Montgomery, C.E. (1996). Organization fit is a key to
success. HRM Magazine, January, 94–96.
Muchinsky, P.M., & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is
person-environment congruence? Supplementary
versus complementary models of fit. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277.
Murnighan, J.K., & Conlon, D. (1991). The dynam-
ics of intense work groups: A study of British
string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly,
36, 165–186.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1992). Organiza-
tional socialization as a learning process. The role
of information acquisition. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 43, 849–867.
Packer, A.H., & Pines, M.W. (1996). School-to-work.
Princeton, NJ: Eye One Education.
Peters, T., & Waterman, S. (1982). In search of ex-
cellence. New York: Harper Row.
Ribner, N.G. (1980). Effects of explicit group con-
tract and on self-disclosure and group
cohesiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
21, 116–120.
Schmitt, N., & Landy, F.J. (1992). The concept of
validity. In N. Schmitt and W.C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations, 275–309.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaw, M.E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychol-
ogy of small group behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
[SIOP] (1987). Principles for the validation and
use of personnel selection procedures. College
Park, MD: SIOP.
Stevens, M.J., & Campion, M.A. (1994). The knowl-
edge, skill, and ability requirements of teamwork:
Implications for human resource management.
Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.
Tziner, A.E. (1988). Effects of team composition on
ranked team effectiveness: The blocked fractional
design. Small Group Behavior, 19, 363–378.
Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longi-
tudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban
police department. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 20, 207–228.
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L.K. (1993).
Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process
and performance: Comparing homogeneous and
diverse task groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 58–79.
Werbel, J.D., & Gilliland, S.W. (1999). The use of
person-environment fit in the selection process.
In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and hu-
man resources management, Vol. 17. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.