|
Article Excerpt
Identifying and selecting individuals who fit into the organization (known as person-organization or P-O fit) has been noted as a key ingredient to retaining a productive and committed workforce (Kristof, 1996). Although P-O fit research has successfully improved the prediction of important work outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003), knowledge of how employees experience fit is incomplete. Most of our knowledge about employees' fit perceptions comes from assessing the extent to which individuals perceive that their personal characteristics are similar to organizational characteristics (i.e. supplementary fit). Despite a general consensus in the literature that P-O fit may also occur from complementarity between individual and organizational characteristics (i.e. when an individual's characteristics 'serve to "make whole" or complement the characteristics of an environment'; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p. 271), this type of fit has been subjected to minimal empirical investigation and what entails a 'complementary' fit remains elusive (Kristof, 1996). In fact, many researchers do not distinguish complementary fit from needs-supplies fit (i.e. when an individual's needs are met by the organization) or demands-abilities fit (i.e. when an individual's characteristics meet the demands of the organization) and, often, the construct pertains to fit with the job (i.e. person-job or P-J fit) as opposed to fit with the organization (e.g. Cable & DeRue, 2002; Cable & Edwards, 2004).
To our knowledge, no empirical research has directly examined perceptions of complementarity as a distinct form of P-O fit. To this end, in the current study we further develop the concept of complementary fit and specify two important criteria that distinguish complementary fit from other types of fit: first, an individual must perceive that he or she is dissimilar to existing organizational characteristics on important criteria (e.g. abilities, knowledge, personality traits); second, the individual must also perceive that this dissimilarity makes him or her unique in the organization and, therefore, of value to the organization. Thus, we define complementary fit as occurring when an individual possesses unique characteristics that are perceived to be different from other employees' characteristics, yet valuable to the organization. Based on this conceptual definition, in this study we compare the extent to which complementary and supplementary fit are conceptually distinct from each other as well as the extent to which each contributes unique variance to overall judgments of fit and work attitudes.
Distinguishing between perceived similarity, perceived complementarity and subjective fit
An overarching assumption in the literature is that perceptions of P-O fit will be experienced to the extent that an individual perceives him/herself to be similar to existing organizational characteristics. For example, the individual might perceive that his or her personality is congruent with the overall culture or image of the organization, or might determine that his/her values match the values of other employees in the organization. Whatever the source of individual-organizational congruence, the similar-to-me phenomenon (i.e. the finding that individuals are more likely to be attracted to, join and remain in organizations when they are similar to organizational members; Byrne, 1971; Schneider, 1987) is thought to be the primary driving force in how individuals evaluate their P-O fit. For instance, social psychological research explains that people find it more desirable to interact with others who have similar psychological characteristics because these individuals help to verify and reinforce a person's attitudes, beliefs and behaviours (Swann, 1987; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). Implicit in these findings is the assumption that individuals place value on being similar to others and that it is this feeling of being similar that leads to overall perceptions of fit with the organization. However, is perceived similarity a necessary antecedent of subjective P-O fit? Since measures of perceived similarity and overall subjective fit are often confounded in the same scale (e.g. Cable & DeRue, 2002; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001), we currently have no understanding of whether all individuals use similarity to gauge their fit with an organization.
The complementary model of fit suggests that individuals do not need to be similar to experience fit, but that fit can also occur through complementarity. As mentioned previously, we define complementary fit as stemming from individuals' perceptions that their differences serve to complement organizational characteristics. Implicit in this definition is the notion that being different is perceived as desirable and is valued by the organization. Thus, whereas some individuals might perceive that being different prevents them from fitting in, others may perceive that being different makes them unique, therefore enabling them to fit in (albeit in a complementary way). In this sense, feeling different may only result in low levels of subjective fit when individuals do not perceive that their differences add value to the organization.
Snyder and Fromkin's (1977) theory of uniqueness may be useful for explaining what seems to be the paradoxical nature of 'fitting in by being different'. An underlying assumption of this theory is that feeling unique is important for one's sense of self-worth. According to this theory, people derive intrinsic satisfaction from the perception that they are unique, special and distinguishable from 'the masses'. Snyder and Fromkin acknowledge, however, that individuals have varying degrees of uniqueness motivation. Individuals with a high need for uniqueness are thought to be particularly sensitive to the degree to which they are seen as similar to others and will strive to fulfill their desire to be unique through various means, including their appearance, style of personal interaction and domains of knowledge in which they establish expertise.
In sum, we expect that individuals may experience fit as either similarity or complementarity; thus, we predict that perceptions of similarity and complementarity will both predict subjective fit.
Hypothesis 1a. Individuals who perceive that their personal characteristics are similar to organizational characteristics will report higher levels of subjective P-O fit.
Hypothesis 1b. Individuals who perceive that...
|
