Journal of Applied Psychology
2007, Vol. 92, No. 5, 1446 –1455
Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1446
Person–Organization Fit and Work-Related Attitudes and Decisions:
Examining Interactive Effects With Job Fit and Conscientiousness
Christian J. Resick
Boris B. Baltes
Drexel University and Florida International University
Wayne State University
Cynthia Walker Shantz
Credit Acceptance Corporation
This study examined boundary conditions that surround the importance of perceived person– organization
(P-O) fit for work-related attitudes and decisions. The authors hypothesized that P-O fit is more strongly
related to satisfaction and job choice decisions when needs–supplies (N-S) job fit or demands–abilities
(D-A) job fit is low, and that P-O fit is more strongly related to job choice decisions for highly
conscientious individuals. Hypotheses were tested among 299 participants in a 12-week internship
program. Results indicated that P-O fit was more strongly related to satisfaction when individuals
experienced low N-S job fit. P-O fit was more strongly related to job choice intentions when individuals
experienced low D-A job fit or were highly conscientious. Finally, P-O fit was related to job offer
acceptance for highly conscientious individuals.
Keywords: person– organization fit, person–job fit, perceived fit, attraction, satisfaction
The nature of work is changing, and with it the relationship between employers and employees. Person– organization (P-O) fit has
become an increasingly important aspect of the employment relationship, as good P-O fit has been linked to organizational attraction and
retention, recruiters’ selection decisions, and employees’ work-related
attitudes and actions (see Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown,
Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).
However, relatively little is known about the boundary conditions that
surround the importance of perceived P-O fit for positive attitudes and
behaviors. We proposed that two personal characteristics serve as
boundary conditions (or moderators) of P-O fit to attitude or decision
relationships: perceived fit with facets of the job, and conscientious
personality traits. We investigated these relationships among participants in a 12-week internship program. Through their experiences,
interns form perceptions of fit and attitudes about their work; however, they are not permanent employees and must decide whether
pursuing a future employment relationship is desirable.
provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c) both” (p. 6). Compatibility may take the
form of supplementary fit, achieved when an individual’s personal
characteristics are congruent with the characteristics of the organization and its members, or complementary fit, achieved when an
individual’s characteristics fill gaps that are not addressed by
others (i.e., demands–abilities [D-A] fit) or an individual’s psychological needs are fulfilled by characteristics of the work environment (i.e., needs–supplies [N-S] fit; Cable & Edwards, 2004;
Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). A second important
distinction in the fit literature is between objective fit and perceived (or subjective) forms of fit. Objective fit involves gathering
separate information about the person and the organization, then
assessing their congruence (e.g., Cable & Parsons, 2001; O’Reilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). In contrast, perceived fit involves
asking people directly whether or not they believe they are a good
fit with an organization and its members (e.g., Cable & DeRue,
2002; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, and Shipp (2006) have referred to this approach as
a molar approach to assessing perceived fit, which focuses on
perceptions of the match or the similarity, as opposed to focusing
on perceptions of the discrepancy or on perceptions of the environment and person separately. Recent meta-analytic investigations have referred to this conceptualization of fit as subjective fit
(e.g., Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Verquer et al., 2003) and perceived fit (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). We use the term
perceived fit throughout this article. In addition, larger effect sizes
tend to be found for perceived fit rather than objective fit, and
Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) suggested that objective congruence
between a person and an organization must first be filtered through
that person’s perceptions. In turn, these perceptions are likely to be
more cognitively accessible (Judge & Cable, 1997) and therefore
Fit With an Organization and Job
Kristof (1996) defined P-O fit as “the compatibility between
people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at least one entity
Christian J. Resick, Department of Management, LeBow College of
Business, Drexel University, and Department of Psychology, Florida International University; Boris B. Baltes, Department of Psychology, Wayne
State University; Cynthia Walker Shantz, Credit Acceptance Corporation,
Southfield, Michigan.
We thank Amy Kristof-Brown for her helpful comments on drafts of this
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christian J.
Resick, Department of Management, LeBow College of Business, Drexel
University, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: christian.j.resick@drexel.edu
1446
RESEARCH REPORTS
more proximally related to attitudes and decisions than objective
P-O fit would be (Cable & DeRue, 2002).
We examined P-O fit as a person’s perception of his or her
compatibility with an organization’s culture and members (i.e.,
perceived supplementary fit). While congruence with an organization’s values system is often the focus of supplementary P-O fit
research (e.g., Chatman, 1989), culture researchers have noted that
culture values are held by an organization’s members (e.g., Schein,
2004; Schneider, 1987). Similarly, Cable and Edwards (2004)
noted that employees are likely to be comfortable (and thus experience fit) in organizations where “the things that are most important to that employee are also important to other employees” (p.
823). Therefore, consistent with Van Vianen (2000), we suggested
that a more holistic picture of P-O fit is captured by addressing a
person’s congruence with an organization’s culture and members.
Previous research has indicated that perceptions of P-O fit are
strongly related to positive work-related attitudes and organizational attraction (e.g., Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, &
Jones, 2005; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer et al., 2003), and
moderately related to task and citizenship performance (Hoffman
& Woehr, 2006). However, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) also noted
that there are critical gaps in the fit literature and suggested that
there is a “need for future research on personal and situational
characteristics that moderate fit-outcome relationships” (p. 322).
We now examine fit with aspects of the job and conscientious
personality traits likely provide two such moderating personal
characteristics.
Researchers have contended that employees’ well-being and
success hinge on their fit with multiple components of the work
environment, particularly with the job and organization (e.g., Bowen, Ledford, & Nathan, 1991; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; KristofBrown, 2000). Fit with the task demands and psychological characteristics of a job likely serve as salient cues used in the
development of job-related attitudes, and as input for work-related
decisions. We therefore suggest that fit with aspects of the job are
likely to moderate relationships between P-O fit and work-related
decisions and attitudes. Fit with coworkers and team members
( person–work group [P-G] fit) also likely provides important cues
about the environment that people use to form fit perceptions and
attitudes. However, people often spend the vast majority of the
workday involved in job-related activities, and jobs tend to be a
reflection of the career choices that are the result of years of
education and training. Moreover, Jansen and Kristof-Brown
(2006) suggested that forms of person–job (P-J) fit are salient cues
at all stages of the employment process, while P-G fit becomes
salient only posthire. They also suggested that P-O fit is likely
most salient during the selection process and for long-term tenure
decisions, which would inevitability involve satisfaction with
work. Finally, perceived P-J fit has been shown to have stronger
relationships with attitudes such as job satisfaction (␳ ⫽ .58) than
does P-G fit (␳ ⫽ .31; see Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Therefore,
in this study we focused on the two types of fit most likely to be
related to job choice decisions and attitudes: P-O fit and P-J fit.
P-J fit focuses on the match between personal characteristics
and job characteristics, and takes two distinct forms: D-A fit and
N-S fit (Edwards, 1991). D-A job fit represents the degree to
which a person possesses the knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSAs) needed to perform the task-related demands of a job, while
N-S job fit reflects the extent to which a job’s characteristics and
1447
rewards fulfill a person’s psychological needs or preferences.
Several studies have simultaneously examined both P-O and P-J
fit, finding that each form of fit explains unique variance in
work-related attitudes (e.g., Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001; Saks
& Ashforth, 1997). However, these studies have focused only on
the main effects of each type of fit, representing simple additive
effects (see Kristof, 1996). To date, only Kristof-Brown, Jansen,
and Colbert (2002) have examined the interactive effects of multiple types of fit. Using a policy capturing study, they found that
P-O, P-J, and P-G fit perceptions were each related to work
satisfaction, and that P-O fit demonstrated a two-way interaction
with P-J fit and a three-way interaction with P-J and P-G fit. Their
findings suggest that people combine information about their environments in more complex ways than would be identified using
simple additive models, and that high fit with one aspect of the
work environment may compensate for low fit in another area.
Jansen and Kristof-Brown (2006) further elaborated on this compensatory process, suggesting that when people experience good
fit with one facet of the environment and poor fit with another
facet, they may downplay the lack of fit to reduce the dissonance
that might arise from conflicting perceptions of fit. As a result,
good fit with one aspect of the work environment becomes a
dominant fit cue that is relied upon when forming work-related
attitudes or making decisions.
Regarding fit and satisfaction, Cable and DeRue (2002) suggested that the N-S aspect of job fit should be more strongly
associated with job satisfaction than are P-O and D-A job fit,
because individuals should experience greater satisfaction with
their jobs when their jobs’ characteristics fulfill their psychological
needs. Kristof-Brown et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis also identified
larger effect sizes for N-S job fit (␳ ⫽ .61) than for D-A job fit
(␳ ⫽ .41) or perceived P-O fit (␳ ⫽ .56). Moreover, Shore and
Martin (1989) suggested that job-related attitudes should be most
strongly associated with job-related constructs. Based on these
works, we suggest that when people experience good fit with
aspects of the job, P-O fit may be less salient. That is, good N-S
job fit or good D-A job fit becomes a more dominant fit cue, and
P-O fit has a weaker relationship with satisfaction. In contrast, P-O
fit becomes a more salient fit cue for people who experience a lack
of fit with aspects of their jobs, and P-O fit is in these cases more
strongly related to satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1a: Perceived P-O fit is positively related to
satisfaction with the internship, and this relationship is moderated by perceived N-S job fit such that the relationship is
stronger when N-S job fit is low and weaker when N-S job fit
is high.
Hypothesis 1b: Perceived P-O fit is positively related to
satisfaction with the internship, and this relationship is moderated by perceived D-A job fit such that the relationship is
stronger when D-A job fit is low and weaker when D-A job
fit is high.
P-J fit has also been linked to organizational attraction and job
choice intentions (Chapman et al., 2005; Kristof-Brown et al.,
2005). When people perceive a potential job to be a good fit, this
may become a salient and dominant fit cue. Therefore, P-O fit may
be less salient and have a weaker relationship with job choice
RESEARCH REPORTS
1448
Hypothesis 2a: Perceived P-O fit is positively related to (a)
intent to accept a job offer, and (b) job offer acceptance, and
these relationships are moderated by perceived N-S job fit
such that the relationships are stronger when N-S job fit is
low and weaker when N-S job fit is high.
carefully before acting (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Moreover, conscientious people appear to be more selective in their choice of
jobs (Wanberg, Watt, & Rumsey, 1996), perhaps because they
desire to work in organizations where they fit.
In summary, conscientious people have a desire to achieve
(Digman, 1989), are proactive and dutiful (Roberts et al., 2005),
and are cautious and deliberate (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Because
of these qualities, a highly conscientious person may actively seek
information about his or her fit with a potential employing organization. Such individuals may be more likely to accept job offers
from organizations where they perceive good fit, because they
want to join organizations where they will adjust smoothly and be
successful. A highly conscientious intern may use an internship as
an opportunity to gather and evaluate information and make decisions about a potential employer. In the current study, we focused
on conscientiousness instead of other personality traits because of
the behavioral tendencies associated with conscientiousness and
the link with job search behaviors.
Hypothesis 2b: Perceived P-O fit is positively related to (a)
intent to accept a job offer, and (b) job offer acceptance, and
these relationships are moderated by perceived D-A job fit
such that the relationships are stronger when D-A job fit is
low and weaker when D-A job fit is high.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived P-O fit is positively related to (a)
intent to accept a job offer, and (b) job offer acceptance, and
this relationship is moderated by conscientiousness such that
the relationships are stronger when conscientiousness is high
and weaker when conscientiousness is low.
intentions or decisions. However, P-O fit likely becomes an increasingly salient and dominant fit cue for people who perceive a
lack of N-S or D-A job fit. P-O fit should then be more strongly
related to job choice intentions or decisions when job fit is low. For
example, a person may view a company as a great place to work
but believe that a job’s responsibilities do not fulfill his or her
psychological needs. That person may accept a job offer with the
hope of moving to a new position within the firm after getting a
“foot in the door,” and under those circumstances the individual
may downplay lack of fit with the accepted job. This could also
apply to individuals who feel that their KSAs are not a good match
for a job’s requirements.
Method
Conscientiousness
Kristof (1996) proposed that personality differences may affect
the importance that people attach to P-O fit when seeking and
choosing an organization, and in particular that “conscientious and
self-aware job seekers will weight anticipated P-O fit more heavily
in their job/organization choice decisions than those who are less
conscientious and self-aware” (p. 37). Highly conscientious individuals tend to be ambitious, dutiful, and cautious in their actions
(Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991; Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, &
Goldberg, 2005). Because of these tendencies, highly conscientious people should be likely to seek a thorough understanding of
potential employers and to exercise caution in accepting job offers,
to ensure that they join firms where they will fit in and be
successful. That is, we suggest that P-O fit is likely to be more
strongly associated with job choice decisions for highly conscientious individuals.
Conscientiousness is a broad trait that is characterized by two
primary dimensions, dependability and achievement (Mount &
Barrick, 1995). From a dependability perspective, conscientiousness encompasses thoroughness, self-discipline, order, and dutifulness; while from an achievement perspective, conscientiousness
reflects perseverance, industriousness, achievement striving, and
deliberation (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1990; McCrae &
Costa, 1987). Previous research has linked conscientiousness to
proactive job search behaviors (Schmit, Amel, & Ryan, 1993).
According to Ashford and Black (1996), proactive behaviors involve gathering information and feedback to make sense of new
situations, and building relationships and networks with potential
employers. These behaviors would likely be used to gain a thorough understanding of the expectations of potential employers,
based on which the individual would then join an organization
where the fit was good. At the same time, conscientious individuals are cautious and deliberate, and have a tendency to think
Participants
Data were collected from participants in a 12-week internship
program at a large manufacturing company in the Midwestern U.S.
during the summer of 2000. All 974 interns hired that summer
were invited to participate, of whom 756 (77.6%) agreed to participate. Of these, 299 (30.7% of the overall sample) completed all
sets of surveys. Using t tests, we found that responding and
nonresponding participants did not differ in terms of gender or
conscientiousness, but that they did differ significantly in terms of
age (t ⫽ ⫺2.10, p ⬍ .05); respondents were slightly older (M ⫽
22.7 years) than nonrespondents (M ⫽ 22.1 years). Because the
groups did not differ in terms of gender or conscientiousness and
age differences were minimal, we concluded that there was little
evidence of systematic nonresponse bias. The 299 participants
ranged in age from 18 to 41 years (M ⫽ 22.7), had an average of
21.5 months of full-time work experience, and were predominantly
male (61% male, 39% female). Interns worked full time in one of
seven job function areas: product development (n ⫽ 102), manufacturing (n ⫽ 81), finance (n ⫽ 42), marketing (n ⫽ 28), information technology (n ⫽ 20), purchasing (n ⫽ 18), and human
resources (n ⫽ 7). Area was unknown for 1 participant.
Measures
Perceived fit. Perceived P-O fit was measured with a 5-item
scale derived by combining items from Cable and Judge (1996)
and Saks and Ashforth (1997) that addressed supplementary P-O
fit. Internal consistency reliability was ␣ ⫽ .94. Perceived D-A fit
and N-S fit scales were also derived from perceived P-J fit scales
developed by Cable and Judge and by Saks and Ashforth. For D-A
job fit, 4 items addressing the match between a job’s requirements
and a person’s KSAs and/or training were used. For N-S job fit, 4
RESEARCH REPORTS
items assessing perceptions that job characteristics fulfill a person’s psychological needs were retained. Internal consistency reliability was ␣ ⫽ .72 for the D-A job fit and ␣ ⫽ .92 for the N-S
job fit scales. Confirmatory factor analysis, conducted using
LISREL 8.7, indicated that the 13 items (see the Appendix) were
associated with separate perceived fit factors (comparative fit
index ⫽ .98, goodness of fit index ⫽ .93, nonnormed fit index ⫽
.97, and root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .07). For all
measures, participants responded along a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was measured using
the 12-item scale from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). Internal consistency reliability for the current
study was ␣ ⫽ .78.
Control variables. Individuals with previous work experience
may have preconceived ideas about the types of organizations they
enjoy working for, which could affect fit perceptions, work-related
attitudes, and employment decisions. Therefore, we controlled for
months of full-time work experience. We also controlled for intern
age to minimize any potential effects.
Satisfaction. Satisfaction with the internship was assessed
with two items: “Overall, I am satisfied with my internship” and “I
am likely to recommend this organization to others as a favorable
company to work for.” Internal consistency reliability was ␣ ⫽
.78.
Job choice intentions and decisions. Intent to accept a job
offer was measured with a single item: “I am likely to accept a
full-time job offer from this organization if I am offered one.”
Actual job choice decision data were obtained from the organization’s employment records. Of the 299 interns, 248 (82.9%) were
offered positions, and 128 (51.6%) accepted.
1449
informed that if they excelled in the internship program, they
would be offered positions in the firm’s graduate training program
(GTP) upon graduation. According to company HR representatives, the general nature of work in the two programs was similar.
A participant in the GTP would be hired into a job function and
would perform assignments in several different areas of that function over a 2-year period. Of the 248 interns who were offered
GTP positions, 214 (86.3%) were offered positions in the same job
function, and 25 (10.1%) were offered positions in a different job
function. For the final 9 (3.6%), either the internship or GTP job
function was unknown. Based on this analysis, we concluded that
comparability existed between positions.
Analyses
We performed hierarchical multiple regression analyses to test
the hypotheses. The work experience and age control variables
were entered into the first step of the regression model, followed
by the block of main effect variables in the second step and the
block of interaction terms in the third step. We centered all
variables to minimize problems of multicollinearity (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001). Following Baron and Kenney’s (1986) approach,
we examined the significance of the incremental variance explained by the addition of the interaction terms, along with the
significance of the regression coefficients, to determine if the
hypotheses were supported and moderated relationships were
found. Because job choice is a dichotomous variable (i.e., accept
or decline an offer), we used logistic regression to test these
relationships.
Results
Data Collection
The interns were surveyed on the 1st day of the internship; they
received a description of the study and an assurance of confidentiality. Those who agreed to participate completed several questionnaires, including the Conscientiousness Scale and a demographics questionnaire. Data were collected a second time near the
end of the summer internship. Participants completed the Perceived Fit, Internship Satisfaction, and Intent to Accept an Offer
scales at this time. During the following spring, human resource
(HR) department officials reviewed employment records and indicated whether each intern had been offered a full-time position
and whether the offer had been accepted or declined.
Comparability of Positions
For perceived N-S and D-A job fit with the internship position
to be a meaningful gauge of fit with a future position, the responsibilities of each role needed to be comparable. We analyzed role
comparability by (a) interviewing company HR representatives,
(b) examining descriptions of the internship and entry-level, fulltime positions, and (c) comparing job function areas for the internship and full-time positions. An intern was hired into a job
function (e.g., product development), where he or she gained
experience performing assignments in a variety of areas within that
function. These assignments were designed to be measurable and
realistic and to stretch the interns’ abilities. New interns were
Table 1 summarizes the correlations among variables. Hypothesis 1a examined the interactive effects of P-O and N-S job fit with
satisfaction, while Hypothesis 1b examined the interactive effects
of P-O and D-A job fit. At Step 1 of the regression model, previous
work experience and age explained a small but nonsignificant
amount of variance in satisfaction (R2 ⫽ .02), F(2, 294) ⫽ 2.72,
ns. The addition of the main effect variables at Step 2 explained a
sizeable amount of incremental variance in satisfaction (⌬R2 ⫽
.63), F(3, 291) ⫽ 179.70, p ⬍ .01. The strongest relationships were
found for N-S job fit (sr ⫽ .46, ␤ ⫽ .56, p ⬍ .01), followed by P-O
fit (sr ⫽ .29, ␤ ⫽ .33, p ⬍ .01) and D-A job fit (sr ⫽ .08, ␤ ⫽ .09,
p ⬍ .05). The interaction terms entered at Step 3 explained a small
but significant amount of the remaining incremental variance
(⌬R2 ⫽ .02), F(2, 289) ⫽ 6.79, p ⬍ .01, and this finding was due
to the P-O Fit ⫻ N-S Job Fit interaction term (sr ⫽ ⫺.11, ␤ ⫽
⫺.14, p ⬍ .01). Results are summarized in Table 2.
Next, the P-O Fit ⫻ N-S Job Fit interaction was graphed,
following procedures suggested by Cohen, Cohen, West, and
Aiken (2003). This graph is depicted in Figure 1. Results indicated
that when N-S job fit was high, P-O fit had only a slight positive
relationship to satisfaction. However, when N-S job fit was low,
interns who experienced greater fit with the organization reported
substantially greater satisfaction than those interns who fit the
organization less well. That is, P-O fit became increasingly important for interns who perceived less of a match between job
characteristics and their psychological needs. Therefore, we con-
RESEARCH REPORTS
1450
Table 1
Zero-Order Correlations Among Variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Work experience
Age
Person–organization fit
Needs–supplies job fit
Demands–abilities job fit
Conscientiousness
Satisfaction
Intent to accept job offer
Job offer acceptancea
M
SD
21.46
22.68
3.95
3.68
4.24
3.21
4.11
3.70
0.52
28.81
3.67
0.69
0.94
0.61
0.42
0.70
0.91
0.50
1
—
.68**
.07
.10
.17**
.06
.11
.17**
⫺.02
2
—
.04
.19**
.17**
⫺.01
.13*
.09
⫺.05
3
4
—
.46**
.28**
.23**
.62**
.55**
.10
—
.38**
.04
.74**
.39**
.15*
5
—
.18**
.40**
.26**
⫺.01
6
7
8
9
—
.08
.06
⫺.04
—
.57**
.16**
—
.38**
—
Note. Work experience ⫽ months of prior full-time work experience. Age ⫽ age in years. N ⫽ 290 –299 (except with Job Offer Acceptance: N ⫽ 248).
Decline ⫽ 0; accept ⫽ 1.
*
p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.
a
cluded that Hypothesis 1a was supported and Hypothesis 1b was
not supported.
Hypothesis 2a examined the interactive effects of P-O and N-S
job fit with job choice intentions and decisions; Hypothesis 2b
examined the interactive effects of P-O and D-A job fit; and
Hypothesis 3 examined the interactive effects of P-O fit and
conscientiousness. Regarding job choice intentions, previous work
experience (sr ⫽ .15, ␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .01) and age (sr ⫽ ⫺.04, ␤ ⫽
⫺.06, ns) entered into Step 1 explained a small but significant
amount of variance (R2 ⫽ .03), F(2, 287) ⫽ 4.65, p ⬍ .05. The
addition of the main effect variables at Step 2 explained approximately 32% of the incremental variance in job choice intentions
(⌬R2 ⫽ .32), F(4, 283) ⫽ 34.67, p ⬍ .01. However, only P-O fit
(sr ⫽ .40, ␤ ⫽ .46, p ⬍ .01) and N-S job fit (sr ⫽ .13, ␤ ⫽ .16,
p ⬍ .01) had significant main effects. Finally, the interaction terms
entered at Step 3 explained a small but significant amount of
incremental variance (⌬R2 ⫽ .03), F(3, 280) ⫽ 5.12, p ⬍ .01. A
review of the regression coefficients indicated that both the P-O
Fit ⫻ D-A Job Fit (sr ⫽ ⫺.11, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.14, p ⬍ .05) and P-O Fit ⫻
Conscientiousness (sr ⫽ .13, ␤ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .01) interaction terms
were significantly related to job choice intentions, while the P-O
Fit ⫻ N-S Job Fit interaction was not significant (sr ⫽ ⫺.02, ␤ ⫽
⫺.02, ns). Results are summarized in Table 2.
The P-O Fit ⫻ D-A Job Fit interaction is depicted graphically in
Figure 2. Results indicated that the relationship between P-O fit
and job choice intentions was generally positive, and that the
relationship was slightly stronger for interns who perceived lower
D-A job fit and slightly weaker for interns who experienced higher
D-A job fit. This finding was consistent with Hypothesis 2b.
Figure 3 depicts a graph of the interactive relationship between
P-O fit and conscientiousness. Once again, results indicated that
the relationship between P-O fit and intentions was generally
positive; however, the relationship was stronger for highly conscientious interns and weaker for less conscientious interns, which
was consistent with Hypothesis 3.
Logistic regression was used to test the relationships with job
choice decisions. These results are summarized in Table 3. In Step
1, previous work experience and age were unrelated to job choice
decisions (R2 ⫽ .00), ␹2(2, N ⫽ 248) ⫽ 0.69, ns. With the addition
of the main effect variables at Step 2, the model accounted for a
small but nonsignificant amount of explainable variance (R2 ⫽
.05), ␹2(6, N ⫽ 248) ⫽ 9.92, ns. The addition of the interaction
terms at Step 3 resulted in a model that explained a moderate
amount of explainable variance (R2 ⫽ .12), ␹2(9, N ⫽ 248) ⫽
23.69, p ⬍ .01. A review of the regression coefficients indicated
that job choice decisions were significantly related only to the P-O
Fit ⫻ Conscientiousness interaction term (B ⫽ 1.91, p ⬍ .01), and
not to the P-O Fit ⫻ N-S Job Fit (B ⫽ .11, ns) or P-O Fit ⫻ D-A
Job Fit (B ⫽ ⫺.65, ns) interactions. Results are depicted in Figure
4. As hypothesized, P-O fit was strongly and positively related to
job offer acceptance for highly conscientious interns. Unexpectedly, however, P-O fit was negatively related to job offer acceptance for less conscientious interns. Based on these findings, we
concluded that partial support was found for Hypotheses 2b and 3,
while Hypothesis 2a was not supported.
Discussion
This study provided evidence that perceived fit with aspects of
a job and conscientious personality traits serve as boundary conditions on the relationship between perceived P-O fit and both
satisfaction and job choice decisions. Regarding satisfaction, the
findings indicated that P-O fit was more strongly linked to satisfaction for people who experienced a lack of N-S job fit. In
contrast, P-O fit was less important for satisfaction for people who
experienced good N-S job fit. D-A job fit did not interact with P-O
fit in relation to satisfaction. Perhaps experiencing fit with a job’s
psychological characteristics becomes a dominant cue regarding
satisfaction, decreasing the salience of fit with the organization and
thus weakening the relationship between P-O fit and satisfaction.
However, P-O fit may become a more dominant cue for people
who experience poor N-S job fit. As a result, P-O fit is more
strongly related to satisfaction under these conditions.
Regarding job choice intentions and decisions, D-A job fit moderated the relationships between P-O fit and intentions but not decisions,
while N-S job fit did not interact with P-O fit in relation to either
intentions or decisions. Through their experiences, interns had the
opportunity to determine their fit with the job’s demands and the
organization’s environment. As a result, fit with the organization
likely became more salient, and thus more strongly related to job
choice intentions, if they experienced poor fit with a job’s demands.
However, in the time between reporting their intentions and making
their actual decisions, some people may have considered the implications of accepting jobs for which they perceived poor fit and
RESEARCH REPORTS
1451
Table 2
Regression Analyses of the Relationships Between Fit Perceptions and Conscientiousness With Satisfaction and Intent
to Accept a Job Offer
95% CI
R2
F
⌬R2
Step 1
Work experience
Age
Step 2
Work experience
Age
P-O fit
N-S job fit
D-A job fit
Step 3
Work experience
Age
P-O fit
N-S job fit
D-A job fit
P-O Fit ⫻ N-S Job Fit
P-O Fit ⫻ D-A Job Fit
.02
2.72
.02
Step 1
Work experience
Age
Step 2
Work experience
Age
P-O fit
N-S job fit
D-A job fit
Conscientiousness
Step 3
Work experience
Age
P-O fit
N-S job fit
D-A job fit
Conscientiousness
P-O Fit ⫻ N-S Job Fit
P-O Fit ⫻ D-A Job Fit
P-O Fit ⫻ Conscientiousness
.03
Variable
Finc
dfsinc
sr
␤
.02
.08
.03
.11
.02
⫺.01
.29
.46
.08
B
SE
Lower
Upper
.00
.02
.00
.02
.00
⫺.01
.01
.05
.03
⫺.02
.33
.56
.09
.00
⫺.01
.34**
.42**
.11*
.00
.01
.04
.03
.04
.00
⫺.02
.26
.36
.02
.00
.01
.42
.48
.19
.01
⫺.01
.25
.45
.08
⫺.11
.02
.02
⫺.02
.30
.55
.10
⫺.14
.03
.00
.00
.31**
.41**
.11*
⫺.13**
.04
.00
.01
.04
.03
.04
.04
.06
.00
⫺.02
.23
.35
.02
⫺.21
⫺.08
.00
.02
.39
.47
.20
⫺.06
.16
.15
⫺.04
.21
⫺.06
.01**
⫺.01
.00
.02
.00
⫺.05
.01
.02
.13
⫺.07
.40
.13
.05
⫺.07
.18
⫺.10
.46
.16
.06
⫺.07
.01*
⫺.02
.61**
.16*
.09
⫺.15
.00
.02
.07
.06
.08
.11
.00
⫺.06
.46
.05
⫺.07
⫺.36
.01
.01
.75
.27
.25
.06
.12
⫺.06
.38
.11
.02
⫺.04
⫺.02
⫺.11
.13
.16
⫺.08
.47
.13
.02
⫺.04
⫺.02
⫺.14
.13
.01*
⫺.02
.62**
.13*
.03
⫺.08
⫺.03
⫺.27*
.36**
.00
.02
.08
.06
.08
.11
.07
.11
.13
.00
⫺.05
.47
.02
⫺.13
⫺.30
⫺.17
⫺.49
.10
.01
.01
.76
.24
.19
.13
.11
⫺.04
.62
Satisfaction
.65
.67
**
110.90
84.30**
.63
.02
2.72
**
179.70
6.79**
2, 294
3, 291
2, 289
Intent to accept a job offer
.35
.38
4.65*
25.39**
19.37**
.03
.32
.03
4.65*
34.67**
5.12**
2, 287
4, 283
3, 280
Note. N ⫽ 290 –299. Finc ⫽ F test associated with the ⌬R2. dfsinc ⫽ degrees of freedom associated with the Finc test. 95% CI ⫽ 95% confidence interval
around unstandardized regression coefficient. P-O fit ⫽ person– organization fit; N-S job fit ⫽ needs–supplies job fit; D-A job fit ⫽ demands–abilities job
fit.
*
p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.
decided to decline the offers, and some people may have received
offers for jobs for which they were a better fit. As a result, D-A job
fit did not moderate P-O fit and acceptance relationships. Together,
these findings suggest that D-A job fit is an important boundary
condition on relationships between P-O fit and employment intentions, while N-S job fit is an important boundary condition on relationships between P-O fit and work-related attitudes.
As expected, conscientiousness moderated the relationship between P-O fit and both job choice intentions and decisions. Regarding intentions, perceived P-O fit was positively related to the
intention of accepting an employment offer for both high- and
low-conscientiousness individuals; however, the relationship was
stronger for highly conscientious people. In addition, perceived
P-O fit was strongly and positively related to actual job offer
acceptance for more highly conscientious individuals. Perhaps
highly conscientious people are cautious about joining organizations that do not provide environments congruent with their values
and personalities, and thus perceived fit with an organization is
highly salient. As a result, these individuals are likely to thoroughly investigate potential employers, and to form intentions
toward and accept job offers from organizations where they perceive good fit. At the same time, several meta-analytic studies
have shown that conscientiousness is linked to performance across
job categories (see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan,
1452
RESEARCH REPORTS
Figure 1. Interaction of person– organization (P-O) fit and needs–
supplies (N-S) job fit on satisfaction with the internship. High N-S job fit ⫽
1 standard deviation above the mean; low N-S job fit ⫽ 1 standard
deviation below the mean.
2000). Highly conscientious individuals may have had more job
offers, affording them the luxury of declining offers where they
experienced low P-O fit. Surprisingly, for less conscientious individuals P-O fit was negatively related to job offer acceptance. For
less conscientious individuals, P-O fit may be a less salient cue in
job search behaviors; or they may be more reckless and tend to join
organizations where they perceive a lack of fit. Alternatively, less
conscientious individuals may have had few job opportunities and
might have accepted any job offer they received, regardless of how
well they fit the organization.
Finally, on a methodological note, the findings of the current
study also support the argument that P-O is a moderator of conscientiousness and job choice relationships, N-S job fit and satisfaction relationships, or D-A job fit and job choice intention
relationships. For example, the P-O Fit ⫻ N-S Job Fit interaction
could be interpreted as perceived P-O fit moderating the relation-
Figure 2. Interaction of person– organization (P-O) fit and demands–
abilities (D-A) job fit with intent to accept a job offer. High D-A job fit ⫽
1 standard deviation above the mean; low D-A job fit ⫽ 1 standard
deviation below the mean.
Figure 3. Interaction of person– organization (P-O) fit and conscientiousness with intent to accept a job offer. High conscientiousness ⫽ 1 standard
deviation above the mean; low conscientiousness ⫽ 1 standard deviation
below the mean.
ship between N-S job fit and satisfaction. For this reason, we stress
the importance of relying on an a priori theoretical rationale both
for proposing and for interpreting the main and moderator effects.
Several limitations of this study exist. First, the study focuses
exclusively on fit perceptions and neglects the implications of actual
P-O, N-S, or D-A congruence. Moreover, molar approaches to assessing fit perceptions, such as those used in the current study, may
indicate more of a general affective reaction to the workplace than an
assessment of one’s actual fit (Edwards et al., 2006). Future research
should include both objective and perceived measures of fit to more
fully examine these relationships. Second, participants were from a
single organization, which likely has members with similar types of
personalities and values throughout (Giberson, Resick, & Dickson,
2005; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998). Moreover, participants were both a self-selected and organization-selected sample, and
there is likely to be restriction in the range of variability regarding
perceptions of P-O fit, N-S job fit, and D-A job fit, as well as
regarding satisfaction scores—all of which would attenuate the magnitude of the relationships for both the main and interactive effects.
This may, in part, explain the small effect sizes for the interaction
terms. Future research should examine these relationships in a crossorganization sample.
Third, the sample of interns is another potential limitation of this
study. Interns are temporary employees and are limited in their
exposure to the organization’s culture. As a result, interns may
have a less accurate understanding of the organization’s culture
(Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey, & Edwards, 2000) and form less
accurate P-O fit perceptions. Future research should examine these
relationships using a sample of more experienced workers. However, interns also have an informed view of an organization and of
potential jobs. Although interns may be somewhat less representative of traditional job candidates, these results may be particularly useful for recruiting candidates from internal applicant pools.
Fourth, because the assessments of fit, satisfaction, and intent to
accept a job offer were gathered at the same time and by the same
source, there was the potential for the magnitude of the relationships to be inflated by common method variance. In their meta-
RESEARCH REPORTS
1453
Table 3
Logistic Regression Analyses of the Relationships Between Fit Perceptions and
Conscientiousness With Actual Job Offer Acceptance
Step coefficients
Model coefficients
Variable
␹2(N ⫽ 248)
df
␹2(N ⫽ 248)
df
R2a
Step 1
Work experience
Age
Step 2
Work experience
Age
P-O fit
N-S job fit
D-A job fit
Conscientiousness
Step 3
Work experience
Age
P-O fit
N-S job fit
D-A job fit
Conscientiousness
P-O Fit ⫻ N-S Job Fit
P-O Fit ⫻ D-A Job Fit
P-O Fit ⫻ Conscientiousness
0.69
2
0.69
2
.00
9.23
13.77**
4
3
9.92
23.69**
6
9
B
SE
.00
⫺.04
.01
.05
.00
⫺.06
.22
.36*
⫺.27
⫺.28
.01
.05
.23
.17
.24
.33
.00
⫺.04
.35
.33
⫺.39
⫺.22
.11
⫺.65
1.91**
.01
.05
.27
.17
.26
.36
.29
.49
.61
.05
.12
Note. P-O fit ⫽ person– organization fit; N-S job fit ⫽ needs–supplies job fit; D-A job fit ⫽ demands–abilities
job fit.
a 2
R ⫽ Nagelkerke estimated R2.
*
p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.
analysis of fit studies, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) noted that
relationships tended to be high when fit and outcome variables
were measured at the same time, and they suggested that this may
be the result of common method bias. Drawing on the arguments
of interactional psychology (e.g., Caplan, 1987; Endler & Magnusson, 1976; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982), that people are
primarily influenced by their perceptions of fit as opposed to their
objective fit with the environment, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005)
suggested that the strong link between fit perceptions and outcomes may reflect the reality of subjective internal states and not
merely an artifact of bias. Thus, some findings of the current study
should be interpreted in light of the potential for inflation due to
common method bias. However, an important strength of this
study is that job choice decision data were provided by the company’s HR department, not via self-reports. Therefore, relationships with job choice decisions should not have been affected by
common method bias. To disentangle the true effects from the
bias-driven effects, future research could use multiple methods of
assessing fit and attitudes or decisions.
In conclusion, our findings provide evidence that N-S job fit
moderates relationships between P-O fit and work-related attitudes, while D-A job fit and conscientiousness traits moderate
relationships between P-O fit and employment intentions and
decisions. Future research should examine a wider range of workrelated attitudes, decisions, and behaviors. Future research should
also examine the moderating role of other traits, such as emotional
stability. A better understanding of the importance of P-O fit in the
workplace will be uncovered by examining P-O fit in conjunction
with other forms of environmental fit and/or the characteristics of
the individual, rather than by examining P-O fit in isolation.
References
Figure 4. Interaction of person– organization (P-O) fit and conscientiousness with job offer acceptance. High conscientiousness ⫽ 1 standard
deviation above the mean; low conscientiousness ⫽ 1 standard deviation
below the mean.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, S. J. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry:
The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199 –214.
Baron, R. M., & Kenney, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
1454
RESEARCH REPORTS
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the
organization, not the job. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 35–51.
Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P. W., & Edwards, J. R. (2000).
The sources and accuracy of job applicant’s’ beliefs about organizational
culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1076 –1085.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant
validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
875– 884.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary
fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822– 834.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice
decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294 –311.
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and personorganization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23.
Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 31, 248 –267.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones,
D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A
meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 928 –944.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A
model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14,
333–349.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for
agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality
inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887– 898.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work
adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability,
and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214.
Edwards, J. E., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp,
A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 802– 827.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature
review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(Vol. 6, pp. 283–357). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and
personality. New York: Wiley.
French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1982). The mechanisms
of stress and strain. London: Wiley.
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding leader
characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1002–1010.
Goldberg, L. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The
Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 1216 –1229.
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the
relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 389 –399.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance:
The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869 – 879.
Jansen, K., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multi-dimensional theory
of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 28, 193–212.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational
culture, and organizational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359 –393.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1– 49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit.
Personnel Psychology, 53, 643– 671.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy
capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 985–993.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005).
Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job,
person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 281–342.
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454 – 470.
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of
personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions:
Implications for research and practice in human resources management. In
K. M. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resource management (Vol. 13, pp. 153–200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
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.
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and
organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.
Roberts, B. R., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The
structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven
major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103–139.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the
relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of
fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395– 426.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmit, M. J., Amel, E. L., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). Self-reported assertive
job-seeking behaviors of minimally-educated job hunters. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 105–124.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,
40, 437– 453.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality
and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462– 470.
Shore, L. M., & Martin, H. J. (1989). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in relation to work performance and turnover intentions.
Human Relations, 42, 625– 638.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Person-organization fit: The match between
newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences for organizational culture. Personnel Psychology, 53, 113–149.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of
relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63, 473– 489.
Wanberg, C. R., Watt, J. D., & Rumsey, D. J. (1996). Individuals without
jobs: An empirical study of job-seeking behavior and reemployment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 76 – 87.
RESEARCH REPORTS
1455
Appendix
Person–Environment Fit Scales
Items Contained in the Person–Organization Fit Scale
1. I feel my values “match” or fit this organization and the
current employees in this organization (from Cable & Judge,
1996).
2. I think the values and personality of this organization reflect
my own values and personality (from Cable & Judge, 1996).
3. The values of this organization are similar to my own values
(from Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
4. My values match those of current employees in this organization (from Cable & Judge, 1996).
5. I feel my personality matches the “personality” or image of
this organization (from Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
Items Contained in the Demands–Abilities Fit Scale
1. I believe my skills and abilities match those required by the
internship (from Cable & Judge, 1996).
2. My job performance is hurt by a lack of expertise on the job
(from Cable & Judge, 1996).
3. My knowledge, skills and abilities match the requirements of
the internship (from Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
4. I possess the skills and abilities to perform this job (from
Cable & Judge, 1996).
Items Contained in the Needs–Supplies Fit Scale
1. I feel that this internship enables me to do the kind of work
I want to do (from Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
2. This internship measures up to the kind of internship I was
seeking (from Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
3. This internship is a good match for me (from Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
4. This internship fulfills my needs (from Saks & Ashforth,
1997).
Received January 27, 2006
Revision received September 1, 2006
Accepted October 6, 2006 䡲