Journal of Vocational Behavior 59, 454470 (2001)

doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1807, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Distinguishing between Employees Perceptions

of PersonJob and PersonOrganization Fit
Kristy J. Lauver and Amy Kristof-Brown
Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa
This study examines the relationship between employees perceptions of personjob
(P-J) and personorganization (P-O) fit. Survey data collected from 231 employees (104
office personnel and 127 drivers) of a national trucking company show a low correlation
(r = .18) between the two types of self-reported fit. Both P-J and P-O fit had a unique
impact on job satisfaction and intent to quit. P-O fit was a better predictor of intentions
to quit than was P-J fit, but there was little difference in their relative influence on job
satisfaction. The predicted positive relationship between perceived P-O fit and contextual
performance (extrarole behaviors an employee performs beyond those prescribed in their
job description) was also supported. No relationship was found between perceived P-J fit and
task performance. Taken as a whole, these results provide further evidence that employees
perceptions of P-J and P-O fit should be treated as distinct constructs. C 2001 Academic Press
Key Words: personenvironment fit; contextual performance; intent to quit.

In recent years management scholars have expressed growing interest in the

concept of personenvironment (P-E) fit, due mainly to its many benefits for employee attitudes and behaviors. P-E fit has been positively related to individuals
career involvement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career success and negatively related to turnover intentions and behaviors (Bretz & Judge,
1994; Chatman, 1991; Harris & Mossholder, 1996; Hollenbeck, 1989; Kristof,
1996). In light of these effects, researchers have begun to distinguish between
specific types of fit included under the umbrella concept of P-E fit. These include individuals compatibility with their vocation (P-V), organization (P-O), job
(P-J), and coworkers/group (P-G) (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof, 1996; Werbel
& Gilliland, 1999). Although these different types of fit have been distinguished
at the conceptual level, there is little existing empirical evidence to indicate their
distinctiveness to employees. Research is needed to determine how these more
specific types of fit are related to each other and to important individual outcomes.
In the current study we empirically examine the differences between two of the
most commonly studied types of fit: P-J and P-O fit. P-J fit is defined as the match
The authors thank Sara Rynes and Frank Schmidt for their guidance during this project and Bob
Freeman for his assistance and helpful suggestions.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kristy J. Lauver, Henry B. Tippie College of
Business, 108 Poppajohn Business Building, University of Iowa, IA, 52242. E-mail may be sent to
kristy-lauver@uiowa.edu.
454
0001-8791/01 $35.00
C 2001 by Academic Press
Copyright
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

DISTINGUISHING FIT

455

between the abilities of a person and the demands of a job or the needs/desires
of a person and what is provided by a job (Edwards, 1991). In contrast, P-O fit is
the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when at least one
entity provides what the other needs, they share similar fundamental characteristics, or both (Kristof, 1996, pp. 45). Whereas P-J fit is relevant to an individuals
compatibility with a specific job, P-O fit pertains to how an individual matches an
organizations values, goals, and mission.
There are few examples of research that examine both P-J and P-O fit in the
same study. In the studies that do exist, most have investigated whether recruiters
distinguish between types of fit in a selection context (Bretz, Rynes, & Gerhart,
1993; Kristof-Brown, 2000; Cable & Judge, 1996). One study explicitly examined
the relationship between multiple types of fit for existing employees (OReilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). In this investigation P-O fit was operationalized as
the correlation between the values of employees and their organizations; P-J fit
was measured as the correlation between employees skills and their job requirements. Although this study answers important questions regarding actual fit (fit
as determined through mathematical calculations such as profile correlations), it
does not address employees perceptions of fit. Actual fit is one predictor of perceived fit, however, research has consistently demonstrated that the two constructs
are distinct, and it is the perception of fit that best predicts individual outcomes
(Cable & Judge, 1997; Endler & Magnusson, 1976). Yet, currently there is no
empirical evidence that demonstrates that employees distinguish between fit with
various aspects of their work environment. Additional studies are needed to verify
whether employees perceptions of P-J and P-O fit are distinct and have unique
relationships with employee attitudes and behaviors.
This study builds on past research by examining employees perceptions of P-J
and P-O fit and a variety of individual outcomes. Specifically, we investigate the
relationship between perceived P-J and P-O fit and the attitudes of job satisfaction
and intent to quit as well as task and contextual performance. By examining this
network of relationships, evidence for the distinctiveness of perceived P-J and
P-O fit to employees may be established.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Fit and Employee Attitudes
Although both P-O and P-J fit have been shown to result in positive work
attitudes, the question remains whether they each uniquely influence outcomes.
Kristof (1996, p. 8) states it is likely that many job requirements will mirror
characteristics of the organization, implying that perceived P-J and P-O fit are
likely to be interdependent. However, an employee can possess the skills to be
competent in a job, yet not share the organizations values and vice versa. Thus,
fit with one aspect of the work environment does not necessarily imply fit with the
other. OReilly et al. (1991) demonstrated preliminary evidence for the distinction
between P-O fit and P-J fit. Their results show that both types of fit have a unique
impact on job satisfaction and intent to leave and that the two constructs are only

456

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

weakly related (r = .16). However, because the correlation they report is between
two measures of actual fit (a value similarity index and a skill profile), their results
do not address whether employees in fact perceive a distinction between the two
types of fit.
Most of the evidence regarding the uniqueness of perceived P-J and P-O fit comes
from research on job interviews. Cable and Judge (1996) asked applicants to rate
their perceived fit with organizations and with jobs in those organizations, after
participating in on-campus interviews. Despite a modest correlation (r = .35),
both perceptions predicted job offer acceptance, with perceived P-O fit having
the greater impact. Recruiters perceptions of P-J and P-O fit were examined by
Kristof-Brown (2000), who demonstrated that while highly correlated (r = .72)
each contributed uniquely to predicting hiring recommendations. Although these
results offer insight into the distinctiveness of P-J and P-O fit perceptions during
organizational entry, it should be noted that they reflect only the limited information
available during job interviews.
We expect that employees experiencing fit or misfit with their jobs and organizations on a daily basis should be able to differentiate even more clearly between
the two types of fit. Only research by Saks and Ashforth (1997) has examined
employees perceptions of P-J and P-O fit. Like the selection researchers, they
found that both had unique effects on employee attitudes, while being highly
correlated (r = .56). However, because each type of fit was assessed with singleitem measures, it is unclear whether the construct domains were fully sampled.
Thus, the correlation reported by Saks and Ashforth (1997) may have been inflated by a halo rating or superficial responding. We expect that a more rigorous assessment of employees perceptions of P-J and P-O fit will produce results that more closely approximate the weak correlation found by OReilly et al.
(1991) and that each type of perceived fit will predict unique variance in employee
attitudes.
Hypothesis 1a: Employees perceptions of P-O fit and P-J fit will each have a unique positive
impact on job satisfaction and a negative impact on intent to quit.

Because of their referents, Kristof (1996) suggested that P-J fit should be more
strongly associated with attitudes specific to the job (e.g., job satisfaction) and
P-O fit with attitudes about the organization in general (e.g., organizational commitment and intentions to quit). Although Saks and Ashforths (1997) findings
indicate P-J fit explains the most variance in a number of work attitudes, research
on commitment supports Kristofs (1996) notion. Employees who develop a good
fit with their organization become globally committed, wishing to remain in
the organization but looking to change positions if their job fit is poor (Becker &
Billings, 1993). A study by Hollenbeck (1989) provides empirical support for this
idea, showing that a poor personjob match is associated with job turnover, but not
with organizational turnover. Alternatively, if an employee has a good fit with the
job, but not with the organization, that individual should search for a similar job
in a new organization. Therefore, following the logic of Kristof (1996), we predict

DISTINGUISHING FIT

457

a stronger relationship for P-O fit than for P-J fit with the organization-focused
attitude of intent to quit.
Hypothesis 1b: Employees perceptions of P-O fit will have a greater impact on intent to quit
the organization than will perceptions of P-J fit.

The opposite relationship should hold for the job-focused attitude of job satisfaction. Both P-O fit (Chatman, 1991; OReilly et al., 1991) and P-J fit (Hall,
Schneider, & Nygren, 1970; Hollenbeck, 1989; OReilly, 1977) have been found
to correlate with job satisfaction. However, given that established definitions of job
satisfaction describe it as the difference between what people want from a job and
what the job provides (Porter, 1962; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), the perceived
fit between people and their jobs is most directly relevant. Moreover, numerous
research suggests that overall job satisfaction is strongly influenced by employees evaluations of the work and tasks they perform, which are key components of
P-J fit (e.g., Smith et al., 1969). P-O fit is less directly linked to the everyday
tasks and activities of a job and is therefore less likely to influence a persons job
satisfaction. Therefore, a persons perceived P-J fit should have a stronger effect
on his or her job satisfaction than will perceived P-O fit.
Hypothesis 1c: Employees perceptions of P-J fit will have a greater impact on job satisfaction
than will perceived P-O fit.

Fit and Employee Performance

Despite extensive support for a positive relationship between perceived fit and
employee attitudes, results are mixed for the link with individual performance. In
the case of P-J fit, the equivocal results may be due to different operationalizations
of the fit construct. P-J fit has been operationalized as either a match between a
persons higher order needs and job characteristics or between employee skills,
personality, and job demands. Studies using the first operationalization have tended
not to find statistically significant relationships. For example, Lawler and Hall
(1970) reported employees perceptions of fit on the job dimensions of autonomy
and self-actualization were not related to self-ratings of performance and effort.
Wanous (1974) also reported no relationship between supervisory ratings and
employees perceived P-J fit on autonomy, variety, and task identity. Similarly,
no relationship was found between fit on need for achievement and performance
(Sexton, 1967), nor between fit (needed versus provided) on job enrichment and
performance (Cherington & England, 1980).
In contrast, when P-J fit has been operationalized as the match of employee skills
and personality with job demands, a positive relationship between performance
and P-J fit has generally been supported. Ivancevich (1979) demonstrated that
performance was highest when a persons readiness for decision-making matched
the amount of decision-making offered on the job. Further, Caldwell and OReilly
(1990) found that managers performance was higher when their skills and abilities
fit the profile required for the job. Yet, in both of these studies only actual fit was
measured. Because perceptions of fit have generally been found to predict behavior

458

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

better than actual fit, an equal or even stronger relationship between performance
and perceived P-J fit is expected.
Just as the perceived fitperformance relationship may change according to how
P-J fit is defined and measured, it may also vary depending on how performance
is operationalized. Recent research supports performance as a multidimensional
construct. In particular, a distinction has been drawn between task and contextual performance. Task performance is defined by Borman and Motowidlo (1993,
p. 73) as the proficiency with which job incumbents perform activities that are
formally recognized as part of their jobs, activities that contribute to the organizations technical core either directly by implementing a part of its technological
process, or indirectly by providing it with needed materials or services. Alternatively, contextual performance contributes to organizational effectiveness in ways
that shape the organizational, social, and psychological context (i.e., persisting
with extra effort, helping/cooperating with others, and endorsing organizational
objectives; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) that serves as the catalyst for task
activities and processes (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997).
Research by Motowidlo and colleagues (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997;
Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) suggests that different individual characteristics
affect task and contextual performance. Cognitive ability and job-related skills
contribute directly to task habits, task skill, and task knowledge, which in turn
influence task performance. Because job skills are most closely associated with
P-J fit, it is predicted that people with a high P-J fit will have greater task performance than those with a low P-J fit. Alternatively, because P-O fit does not
consider employees task specific skills, it is unlikely to influence task-related
performance. Thus, we expect that only P-J fit perceptions will predict task performance.
Hypothesis 2: Individuals perceptions of P-J fit, but not P-O fit, will predict their task performance.

Similar to research on P-J fit, findings regarding P-O fit and performance have
been mixed. Tziner (1987) reported a positive relationship between congruence of
individual personality and organizational climate with self-reported overall performance. Alternatively, Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert (1996) found that
internalization of organizational values, an indicator of good P-O fit, was negatively related to performance ratings. Because they used supervisory ratings to
assess performance, Becker et al. (1996) proposed that inconsistency between values of the organization and supervisor might have accounted for the unexpected
negative relationship. However, Meglino, Ravlin, and Adkins (1989) found that
subordinatesupervisor value congruence was also negatively related to employees task performance when assessed by a combination of supervisor ratings and
objective criteria. They attributed these findings to factors out of the employees
control which might have affected the performance criterion (i.e., mechanical restrictions). An alternative explanation is that supervisors may retain employees
who share their personal values, regardless of their task performance .

DISTINGUISHING FIT

459

Despite the mixed results for task performance, there are several reasons to
believe that employees perceptions of P-O fit might have a greater influence on
contextual performance. Contextual performance has volition and predisposition,
rather than proficiency, as its major source of variation and is not likely to be
role-prescribed (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Because its activities are not specific to any one job with the organization, contextual behaviors are likely to be
influenced by organizational, rather than job-specific, fit. No empirical studies
have examined the effects of P-O fit on contextual performance while simultaneously controlling for the influence of P-J fit. However, there is some evidence
for a positive relationship between value congruence and self-reported extrarole
behaviors (OReilly & Chatman, 1986) as well as attitudes toward teamwork
and ethical behavior (Posner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). In addition, Goodman
and Svyantek (1999) reported that organizational values and individuals preferred values predicted contextual performance better than either type of value
alone.
These results are consistent with research by Motowidlo and colleagues
(Motowidlo et al., 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), who found that underlying psychological traits, rather than job skills or ability, contribute most directly
to the habits, skills, and knowledge that lead to contextual performance. Because
values are deeply held beliefs that guide individual behavior, it is likely that they
influence the motivation to engage in contextual performance. When an individuals values match the companys, performing extrarole activities also benefits the
employee through value attainment. Therefore, perceived P-O fit is expected to
influence contextual performance, while controlling for P-J fit.
Hypothesis 3: Individuals perceptions of P-O fit will predict their contextual performance,
controlling for perceptions of P-J fit.

METHOD
Sample
The sample for this study consisted of 231 employees of a large national trucking
company. Positions included 104 office personnel (51% male) and 127 truck drivers
(84% male). These respondents represented 15% of the total employees in the
company, which management indicated was a typical survey response rate for
their company. Although not as high as would be desirable, the response rate
was likely affected by the sensitive nature of the data. Participants had to sign a
consent form (to protect the company legally and to ensure employees privacy
rights) giving the researchers access to their full personnel files.
Company records indicated that participants were predominantly White (87%),
with an average age of 42 years (range 21 to 69). Their average length of employment at the company was 3.3 years (S D = 5.3). To determine the representativeness of our sample, we conducted ANOVAs comparing respondents to the companys average employee (data on just nonparticipants was not available). These
analyses indicated that office employee respondents did not significantly differ

460

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

from the typical company office employee on age, length of employment, gender,
or race. Similar results were found when comparing the respondent drivers with
the typical company truck driver, except that female drivers were slightly overrepresented in the sample (respondents: 16% female, CI = .13, .19; population: 9%
female, CI = .08, .10), as were Whites (respondents: 78% White, CI = .70, .86;
population: 66%, White, CI = .65, .67).
Procedure
Surveys were distributed by mail to the drivers and hand-delivered to the office staff with their paychecks. The survey asked employees to rate their current
levels of perceived P-J and P-O fit, as well as their job satisfaction and intentions
to quit within the next year. In addition, they were asked to select a coworker
with whom they worked closely and rate that persons contextual performance.
Respondents returned the survey in a confidential envelope addressed directly to
the research team. This procedure resulted in a matched set of self-rated fit and
peer-reported contextual performance for 47 (20%) of the participants. Each survey was numbered and the numbers were matched with employee names so that
task performance data could be retrieved from company records. Task performance
data was collected from supervisors performance appraisals for office workers and
mileage and accident reports for drivers, resulting in a matched set of self-reported
fit and task performance data for 85% of the participating drivers and 83% of the
office personnel.
Measures
Perceived P-J fit. Because an established measure of perceived P-J fit could
not be located, we developed a new measure for this study. Five items assessing
perceptions of job fit were included. These items contained questions about fit with
the job in terms of skills (My abilities fit the demands of this job, I have the
right skills and abilities for doing this job, and There is a good match between
the requirements of this job and my skills) and personality/temperament (My
personality is a good match for this job and I am the right type of person for this
type of work). Both skills and personality were included because the importance
of both to P-J fit has been established (Edwards, 1991; OReilly, 1977). Interests
were not included in this measure because they have been most strongly associated
with personvocation fit (Kristof, 1996), which was not assessed in this study.
Respondents indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Alpha reliability of
the scale was .79.
Perceived P-O fit. A three-item measure based on questions used by Cable and
Judge (1996) was used to assess employees perceived P-O fit. Items included
My values match or fit the values of this organization, I am able to maintain my
values at this company, and My values prevent me from fitting in at this company
because they are different from the companys values (reverse scored). Respondents rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. The reliability of the measure was found to be .83.

DISTINGUISHING FIT

461

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the five-item Brayfield
Rothe job satisfaction scale (i.e. I feel fairly satisfied with my present job and
I find real enjoyment in my work). Respondents scored each item on the same
7-point Likert scale ( reliability = .84).
Intent to quit. Three items created by OReilly et al. (1991) were used to measure
employees intent to quit. Items included I would prefer another job to the one I
have now, If I have my way, I wont be working for this company a year from
now, and I have seriously thought about leaving this company. Items were rated
on the 7-point Likert scale described above ( reliability = .85).
Contextual performance. Respondents were asked to identify the last coworker
(a peer, not a superior or direct report) with whom they had worked closely and
to rate that coworker on the likelihood that he or she would display each of 16
contextual performance behaviors. The 16-item scale was developed by Motowidlo
and Van Scotter (1994) and represented the following dimensions: persisting with
extra effort, volunteering to carry out extra activities, helping/cooperating with
others, following rules/procedures, and endorsing organizational objectives. The
mean of the 16 items formed the contextual performance score. Responses were on
a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = not at all likely to 5 = extremely likely).
The reliability of the scale was .93.
Task performance. Because of the different type of work performed by office
personnel and drivers, task performance was measured separately for each group.
For office employees, task performance was assessed using the most recent supervisor evaluations obtained from personnel records. The evaluations contained
dimensions including job knowledge, quality of work, quantity of work, organization, interpersonal skills, initiative, decision making/problem solving, and safety.
Because multiple performance rating forms (e.g., 4-point, 5-point, and 9-point
scales) were currently in use at the company, the final ratings were converted to
z scores to allow comparison across rating systems. Reliability for supervisors
ratings of office personnel task performance was estimated at = .52 based on a recent comparative analysis of supervisory ratings (Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt,
1996). Drivers task performance was assessed using company records of year-todate miles traveled and year-to-date average numbers of accidents and violations
per 10,000 miles driven. These measures were calculated on an average per month
basis to take into account employees hired within the past year.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations for all measures are
reported in Table 1. Means for P-J fit, P-O fit, satisfaction, and intent to quit are on
7-point scales, and peer-rated contextual performance is on a 5-point scale. Task
performance ratings included z scores of office personnel appraisals. For drivers,
average miles driven per month and accidents/violations per 10,000 miles driven
were on a continuous scale. All scale reliability estimates ranged from .79 to .93,
exceeding the criterion of .70 typically judged as acceptable (Nunnally, 1983).
Table 1 reports that perceived P-O and P-J fit were weakly related to each other
(r = .18). Because both of these scales had acceptable reliabilities, correcting

 Correlations

231
230
230
231
110
112
89
47

.61
.00 (z score)
4.41

6.22
5.23
3.43
5.34
6816

.62

.97

1.86

.86
1.47
1.99
1.25
2510

SD

.12
.28

.01

.14

(.83)
.53
.47
.22

.08

.03

(.79)
.18
.31
.46
.11

with 95% confidence intervals which do not include zero.

P-J fit
P-O fit
Intent to quit
Job satisfaction
Task performance
Drivers: miles driven/mo.
6. Task performance
Drivers:violations/10 K mi.
7. Task performance
Office:evaluations
8. Contextual performance

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Variable

(.84)
.18
.08
.11
.24

.01
.10
.42

(.85)
.68
.17

.12

NA

.38

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Perceived Fit, Attitudes, and Performance

.12

NA

.42

(.52)

(.93)

462
LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

463

DISTINGUISHING FIT

for measurement error estimated the true correlation to be only slightly higher
(r = .22 corrected). This relationship is similar to that reported by OReilly et al.
(1991) for actual P-O and P-J fit (r = .16), but is much lower than the correlation
(r = .54) of the single item perceived fit measures reported in Saks and Ashforth
(1997). Thus, our data suggests that employees are able to distinguish between
their fit with various aspects of their work environment.
Fit and Employee Attitudes
Hypothesis 1a predicted that perceived P-O fit and perceived P-J fit would both
have an impact on job satisfaction and intent to quit. After controlling for job type
we regressed job satisfaction and intent to quit on P-O and P-J fit perceptions.
Results are reported in Table 2. The set of fit perceptions explained a significant
amount of the variance in both job satisfaction (1R 2 = .36, p < .05) and intent
to quit (1R 2 = .30, p < .05). The regression weights for both perceived P-O and
P-J fit had 95% confidence intervals not including zero. These results indicate
that each type of fit, when controlling for the other, has a unique impact on job
satisfaction [(P-O) = .40, (P-J) = .39] and intentions to quit [(P-O) = .47,
(P-J) = .22]. Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported.
Hypothesis 1b predicted that employees perceptions of their P-O fit would have
a greater impact on their intent to quit than would P-J fit. To test this hypothesis,
we examined the 95% confidence intervals around the intent to quit regression
weights (see Table 2). The confidence intervals did not overlap. Thus, the higher
weight for P-O fit supports Hypothesis 1b.
We further predicted in Hypothesis 1c that employees perceptions of their
P-J fit when controlling for P-O fit would have a greater impact on job satisfaction
than would P-O fit when controlling for P-J fit. Again we examined the confidence intervals around the regression weights. In contrast to our prediction, the
confidence intervals around the regression weight for P-O fit overlapped with that
for P-J fit. These results suggest that both P-J and P-O fit contributed equally to
job satisfaction; Hypothesis 1c was not supported.

TABLE 2
Regression of Satisfaction and Intent to Quit on Perceived P-J and Perceived P-O Fit
Satisfaction

Intent to quit
CI

Variable

Step 1
Job type .004
Step 2
P-O fit
.403
P-J fit
.386

R2

1R 2

CI
H

.005 .070 .005 .113

.105

.367 .606 .362

.510
.492

.297
.280

R2

1R 2

.120 .037 .192 .037

.013

.227

.470 .337 .581 .300 .579 .361

.219
.327 .111

464

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

TABLE 3
Regression of Task and Contextual Performance on Perceived P-J and Perceived P-O Fit
Task performance:
driversmiles

Task Performance:
driversaccidents/viol. per 10 K miles
CI

Variable
P-O fit
P-J fit

R2

1R 2

CI
H

.225 .057 .239 .057 .414 .036

.051
.241 .139
Task performance:
office-supervisor evaluations

Step 1
Job type NA

Step 2
P-O fit .116 .020 .143 .020 .101
P-J fit
.065
.153

.333
.283

R2

.137
.001

1R 2

.019 .137 .019

.052 .326
1.96 1.96

Contextual performance: peer-rating

.051

.000 .011 .000

.237

.339

.296
.064

.083 .289 .083

.002
.354

.590
.226

Fit and Employee Performance

Hypothesis 2 predicted that perceived P-J fit would influence task performance
when controlling for perceived P-O fit. Because task performance was assessed
differently for office personnel and drivers, this hypothesis was tested separately
for each group. Results from the regression analyses are shown in Table 3. For
both measures of driver task performance, the 95% confidence interval for the beta
weight for P-J fit included zero, suggesting that neither was appreciably different
from zero ( = .05 for miles driven, = .001 for accidents/violations). When
testing this hypothesis for office personnel, the 95% confidence interval around the
beta weight for P-J fit also included zero ( = .07). Taken as a whole, our results
suggest that perceived P-J fit was not significantly related to task performance for
either office personnel or drivers.
Finally, in Hypothesis 3 we predicted that perceived P-O fit would have positive
influence on contextual performance when controlling for perceived P-J fit. To test
this hypothesis we regressed peer ratings of contextual performance on both types
of fit and job type for the subsample of 47 employees. In support of Hypothesis 3,
the 95% confidence interval around the beta weight for P-O fit was positive and
did not include zero ( = .30).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the distinctiveness of employees perceptions of P-J fit and P-O fit by examining their relationship with each
other and with various individual outcomes. Results indicate that the two types
of perceived fit are only modestly correlated (r = .18), with both scales having
acceptable reliabilities (P-O = .83, P-J = .79). This result suggests that the weak
relationship reported by OReilly et al. (1991) between actual P-J and P-O fit also

DISTINGUISHING FIT

465

holds true for employees perceptions of these types of fit. Because the correlation
is substantially lower than that reported in Saks and Ashforth (1996), researchers
are cautioned against using single-item measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit because of their weak ability to discriminate between the two constructs. The low
correlation reported in this study is particularly noteworthy, given that both types
of fit were assessed simultaneously. Our results support the notion that established
employees are able to distinguish between fit with their jobs and their company.
When examining how employees perceptions of P-J and P-O fit relate to job
attitudes, both were found to have a unique impact on job satisfaction and intent to
quit. These results reinforce those reported in job search (Cable & Judge, 1996) and
selection contexts (Kristof-Brown, 2000), that both perceived P-J and P-O fit independently influence attitudinal outcomes. Our results also support the proposition
made by Kristof (1996) that P-O fit has a greater influence on the organizationfocused attitude of intent to quit than does P-J fit. However, we found no difference
in the relative impact of each type of fit on job-focused satisfaction.
Our results regarding the relationships between perceived fit and performance
offer some additional evidence for the distinctiveness of P-J and P-O fit. As predicted, perceived P-O fit had a positive impact on contextual performance, when
controlling for perceived P-J fit. However, P-J fit was unrelated to extrarole behaviors. These results extend existing research on P-O fit and non-task-related
performance (Goodman & Svyantek, 1999; OReilly & Chatman, 1986; Posner
et al., 1985). In contrast to our prediction, however, perceived P-J fit was not significantly related to task performance when controlling for P-O fit. In fact, the
correlations of task performance with both types of fit were relatively low (less
than .25). Furthermore, although the directions of these correlations were positive
(as predicted) for office personnel, they were negative for drivers.
Strengths and Limitations
When interpreting these results, it is necessary to consider the strengths and
limitations of the studys design. One strength is the assessment of both P-J and
P-O fit in the same study. Most past research has assessed only one type of fit,
without controlling for the other. Because in reality people interact with their jobs
and organizations on a daily basis, assessing the effects of these two types of
fit simultaneously provides a more realistic picture of their influence. A second
strength is the inclusion of employees with two different job types. In light of
the different relationships between fit and task performance reported for drivers
versus office personnel, gaining access to people in multiple types of jobs proved
to be important. Because of the types of jobs included, the results are most generalizable to other office jobs and those where workers spend a great deal of time
in the field (e.g., delivery personnel and salespeople). However, it is important
to note that although different jobs were included, all of the data was collected
from one organization. Thus, although the perceptions of P-J fit measured how
well employees matched with a variety of jobs, perceptions of P-O fit assessed
how well employees matched with a single organization in a single industry.

466

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

Thus, the generalization of these results to other organizations and industries

is unknown.
The multiple measures used to assess performance represent another strength of
the study. Performance data was collected from different sources, including peer
ratings for contextual performance, supervisors ratings for office employees task
performance, and mileage and accident/violation records for drivers task performance. This is an important advance over past studies linking fit and performance,
which have often used self-reported performance or had a supervisor evaluate
both task and contextual performance. Despite this benefit, the performance criteria were limited in a number of ways. Although miles and accidents objectively
capture two fundamental elements of a drivers performance, their generalizability to task performance in other jobs is questionable. Alternatively, supervisory
ratings for office employees are common measures of performance, but have been
found to have only modest reliability. Sample size was the greatest concern for
the peer-ratings of contextual performance, which were available for only 20% of
respondents. Using peer, rather than self-ratings, has the benefit of reducing selfserving bias, but substantially reduces the available sample size, biasing results
toward nonsignificance. However, the fact that a relationship between perceived
P-O fit and contextual performance was revealed with such a limited sample size
raises our confidence that such a relationship exists.
Although performance measures were collected from multiple sources, this was
not possible for employee attitudes. This raises the possibility that common method
bias may have exaggerated the relationships between self-reported fit and these
variables. However, because we focused on the relative prediction of P-J versus
P-O fit, the absolute size of the parameters is less important than their relative
contributions to predicting job satisfaction and intent to quit.
The low participation rate of 15% from across the organization also raises concerns about self-selection bias. The respondents were similar to the typical company employee on almost all demographic characteristic. However, we were unable
to determine whether they were representative in terms of perceived fit or job attitudes. Social desirability concerns may have led only good fitting and satisfied
employees to participate in the study. While it is possible that self-selection reduced the variance in perceived fit or satisfaction, it is very unlikely that range
restriction would change the direction of the coefficients obtained. The most common effect of range restriction is attenuation of obtained effect sizes. Increasing
the magnitude of coefficients in this study (by correcting for range restriction)
would not change any of the substantive conclusions drawn. Furthermore, for
all predictor and criterion measures the ranges indicated that respondents used
the full scales. Thus, we believe it was most likely that we received extreme
ratings (e.g., very high or very low fit) rather than only a restricted range of goodfitting individuals. A similar conclusion is drawn regarding contextual performance. Because employees chose whose performance they evaluated, they may
have focused on coworkers viewed as either exemplary or subpar contributors.
While this may have resulted in extreme ratings, it was preferable to collecting

DISTINGUISHING FIT

467

self-ratings of contextual performance, which would have increased the probability of self-serving and social desirability biases. Nonetheless, because of the small
sample size and limited performance criteria we recommend that these results be
viewed as preliminary and should be replicated before strong conclusions can be
drawn.
Future Research and Implications
Although preliminary, our results suggest several directions for future research.
First, the finding that P-J and P-O fit are distinguishable to employees, and that both
explain unique variance in attitudes, implies that researchers should assess multiple
types of fit in single studies. Prediction of individual consequences can be improved
by considering a persons fit with various aspects of their work environment,
including their job and organization. Other important elements might include ones
work group and immediate supervisor. Second, because perceived P-J and P-O fit
were differentially related to the criteria, researchers should take a closer look
at what types of fit are most strongly associated with particular outcomes. In
particular, P-O fit appears to be related to contextual, but not task performance,
and to turnover plans. Future investigations into what translates P-O fit perceptions
into action are needed, including what individual differences and situational factors
moderate the impact of perceived fit on behavior.
Furthermore, as organizations downsize by trimming payrolls and levels of
management, high levels of contextual performance will become increasingly important for organizational success. Our results suggest that promoting high levels of
P-O fit in employees may be one way to encourage these extrarole behaviors. However, Schneider and colleagues (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995; Schneider,
Kristof, Goldstein, & Smith, 1997) caution organizations against excessive homogenization because of the potential decrease in organizational adaptability. We
encourage researchers to empirically examine these competing views to better understand how individual-level fit may influence organizational-level consequences.
These results also have some practical implications for managers. In particular, managers should be concerned about employees perceptions of both P-O and
P-J fit. Increasing the P-O fit among people with low P-J fit may simply result in retaining poor task performers. However, focusing only on improving P-J fit may not
result in the contextual behaviors that are becoming even more critical in todays
competitive environments. Therefore, we encourage managers to direct selection
and socialization efforts toward increasing both types of fit among employees. Increasing managerial awareness of how anticipatory socialization processes (e.g.,
selection and recruitment activities) may influence both types of applicant fit perceptions is recommended (Anderson & Ostroff, 1997). Then, once applicants are in
the organization, training should be designed to emphasize knowledge, behaviors,
and attitudes that increase fit with their jobs as well as the organization (Bauer,
Morrison, & Callister, 1998).
Another way that these findings might be used is in the performance evaluation
process. Emphasizing the attainment of shared individualorganizational values

468

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

may be one way to motivate contextual performance, even if it is not explicitly

part of an employees job description. Coworkers can be important socialization
agents, helping peers to learn about organizational values as well as develop new
skills (Moreland & Levine, 1982). By improving new employees P-J and P-O fit,
coworkers may have an important impact on the attitudes of their colleagues, and
also on some types of performance. In addition, coworkers have the advantage of
being able to observe and evaluate each others contextual performance when management is not present. Three-hundred-sixty-degree feedback on such behaviors
may provide managers with a more complete picture of their employees overall
performance.
Finally, our results have implications for job seekers and employees. We encourage dissatisfied employees to consider the distinction between their P-J and
P-O fit to help determine whether they should seek a new organization or a new
position within the same organization. Regularly using tools to assess both types
of fit as part of an organizations career development planning may be particularly
useful for retaining high-potential employees.
In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the uniqueness of employees
perception of P-J and P-O fit. Regardless of job type, employees perceptions of
both types of fit uniquely contribute to positive job attitudes. Perceptions of P-O
fit appear particularly important, as they affect both employees intentions to leave
the organization and the degree to which they engage in extrarole behaviors.
REFERENCES
Anderson, N., & Ostroff, C. (1997). Selection as socialization. In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.),
International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 413440). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. B. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and
directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management (Vol.16, pp. 149214). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177190.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
464482.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In N. Schmit & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations
(pp. 7198). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning
for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 2, 99109.
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Personorganization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 3254.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (1993). Recruiter perceptions of applicant fit: Implications
for individual career preparation and job search behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43,
310327.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational
entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294311.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers perceptions of personorganization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546561.

DISTINGUISHING FIT

469

Caldwell, D. F., & OReilly, C. A., III (1990). Measuring personjob fit with a profile-comparison
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648657.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459484.
Cherrington, D. J., & England, J. L. (1980). The desire for an enriched job as a moderator of the
enrichmentsatisfaction relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 139
159.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Personjob fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological
critique. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 283357.
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Personorganization fit and contextual performance: Do
shared values matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 254275.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176190.
Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence
with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22,
527547.
Hollenbeck, J. R. (1989). Control theory and the perception of work environments: The effects of focus
of attention on affective and behavioral reactions to work. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 43, 406430.
Ivancevich, J. M. (1979). An analysis of participation in decision making among project engineers.
Academy of Management Journal, 22, 253269.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resources staffing decisions.
Human Resources Planning, 15, 4767.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Personorganization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 149.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters perceptions
of personjob and personorganization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643671.
Lawler, E., III, & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction,
and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305312.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies,
and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351389.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture:
A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74, 424432.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual
group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 137192.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task
and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 2, 7183.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished
from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475480.
Nunnally, J. C. (1983). Psychometric theory. New York: McGrawHill.
OReilly, C. A., III (1977). Personalityjob fit: Implications for individual attitudes and performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 3646.
OReilly, C., III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 492499.
OReilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing personorganization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34,
487516.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531544.

470

LAUVER AND KRISTOF-BROWN

Porter, L. W. (1962). Job attitudes in management: Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a

function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 375384.
Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical
test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24, 293309.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job
information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50,
395426,
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 747773.
Schneider, B., Kristof, A. L., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1997). What is this thing called fit? In
N. R. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), Handbook of selection and appraisal (2nd ed., pp. 365384).
London: Wiley.
Sexton, W. P. (1967). Organization and individual needs: A conflict? Personnel Journal, 46, 337343.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement. Chicago: RandMcNally.
Tziner, A. (1987). Congruency issue resettled using Fineans achievement climate notion, Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 2(1), 6378.
Wanous, J. P. (1974). Individual differences and reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 616622.
Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). Person-environment fit in the selection process. In G. R. Ferris
(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management,Vol. 17 pp. 209243. Stamford,
CT: JAI Press.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis: Reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557574.
Received September 25, 2000; published online June 13, 2001