PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT: VALUES SELECTION
IN A STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
Stephanie Ann Jones
B.A., California State University, Sacramento 1999
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
PSYCHOLOGY
(Industrial/Organizational Psychology)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
Fall
2010
PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT: VALUES SELECTION
IN A STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
A Thesis
by
Stephanie Ann Jones
Approved by:
______________________________________, Committee Chair
Gregory M. Hurtz, Ph.D.
______________________________________, Second Reader
Lawrence S. Meyers, Ph.D.
______________________________________, Third Reader
Rachel August, Ph.D.
Date:_________________________________
ii
Student: Stephanie Ann Jones
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and
credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT: VALUES SELECTION
IN A STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
by
Stephanie Ann Jones
Person-organization fit is believed to improve commitment and reduce turnover
intentions in organizations. The Organizational Culture Profile (OCP), a Q-sort
instrument, is a well established way to assess person-organization fit. This study
looked to develop an organizational profile using the OCP so that the state government
department being examined could use it as a supplemental selection tool. This study
also tested 7 hypotheses regarding the relationships between person-organization fit,
organizational commitment, time since promotion, and turnover intentions. The OCP
was executed in a new way; a web-based survey instead of the traditional card sorting
method. This new methodology came with its own set of challenges. The results of the
study did not show a reliable organizational profile. The only hypothesis that was
supported was the negative relationship between affective commitment and turnover
intentions; all others were not supported.
iv
_______________________, Committee Chair
Gregory M. Hurtz, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Finishing my Master’s thesis has been a very long, approximately 8 years,
process for me. I could not and might not have finished if it was not for the support and
encouragement of my advisor, committee members, family, and friends. I would like to
thank all of you who helped me along the way.
Dr. Hurtz, you were an awesome advisor and committee chair. I appreciate that
you hung in there with me. I was probably one of your first thesis students and you
have seen many come and go in the time it has taken me to finish. Thank you for your
patience and guidance through the process. I am sure there were a few times when you
wondered whether I would ever finish. I also want to thank you for taking a sabbatical;
it gave me that final push to finish. Dr. Meyers and Dr. August, I have really enjoyed
working with both of you over the past 13 years including my time as an undergrad and
grad student as well as having you on my thesis committee. You are finally rid of me!
To my Mom, you always wanted me to get a college education. I don’t think
either one of us ever thought I would get a Master’s degree. I know there was a time
when both of us thought I might not ever finish. But you never gave up on me and I
love you so much for that. You gave the right amount of pressure and encouragement
and you backed off when you knew I didn’t want to talk about if I would ever finish. I
know you are proud of me, but I want you to know that I could never have achieved
this if it wasn’t for you. You have been the best Mom I could ask for.
vi
To my husband Scott, you have been ever so patient. I was working on this
paper when we met and you probably thought I would be done within a year or so.
However, you swept me off my feet and I loved spending so much time with you that I
didn’t want to focus on school anymore. I wanted to focus on being your wife and
making our house a home. Becoming the mother of your child is what really pushed me
to finish. I couldn’t go through the rest of my life telling our children to finish what
they start if I didn’t finish my thesis and get my degree. Thank you for making my life
everything I dreamed of, even if it didn’t happen in the order that I planned (and we
both know how I am about planning).
To my son Parker, you are the most wonderful part of my life. You are the
reason I pushed myself to finish. I want you to know that you can do anything you put
your mind to. Don’t ever give up, even when things don’t go according to plan or in the
order you thought they would. All things happen for a reason and everything happens
when it is supposed to you. Mommy loves you very much.
To my friend Brenda, you have been a huge inspiration. You are the girl who is
always doing it all. I am so glad that grad school brought us together and that we have
become such good friends. I have loved sharing my grad school and life experiences
with you. It has been wonderful to have someone who is going through all of the same
things I am so I can vent to someone who understands. I will never forget you!
To the rest of my family and friends, I would never have gotten here without
your support. Thank you all for believing in me even when I didn’t.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2
Individual Values Systems and Interaction with Other Individuals .................... 3
Organizational Culture ......................................................................................... 3
Organizational Values Systems ............................................................... 4
Shared Values and Successful Organizations .......................................... 5
Person-Organization Fit ....................................................................................... 6
A Model of Person-Organization Fit ....................................................... 6
Practical Effects and Outcomes of Person-Organization Fit ................... 8
Consequences of Low Person-Organization Fit ...................................... 9
Commitment and Person-Organization Fit ............................................ 10
Components of Commitment ................................................................. 11
Turnover and Commitment .................................................................... 12
Selection - a Two-Way Process ......................................................................... 14
Person-Organization Fit – Organizations’ Applicant Selection............. 15
Person-Organization Fit - Applicants’ Organizational Selection .......... 17
viii
Criteria for Assessing Person-Organization Fit ................................................. 18
Comprehensiveness................................................................................ 18
Systematic/Unsystematic Error .............................................................. 19
Commensurate Dimensions ................................................................... 19
Direct Measurement of Fit ..................................................................... 21
Indirect Measurement of Fit................................................................... 21
Assessing Person-Organization Fit .................................................................... 23
Faking .................................................................................................... 23
Interviews ............................................................................................... 24
Personality Measures ............................................................................. 25
Forced-Choice Scales............................................................................. 25
Q-methodology ...................................................................................... 26
Organization Culture Profile .............................................................................. 29
The Organization Being Examined .................................................................... 30
Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 31
2. METHOD ................................................................................................................ 35
Participants ......................................................................................................... 35
Materials ............................................................................................................ 35
Organizational Culture Profile ............................................................... 35
Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment Scales ............... 36
Turnover Measures ................................................................................ 37
ix
Procedure ........................................................................................................... 38
3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 42
Analysis of the Department’s Profile ................................................................. 42
Model 1 – Antecedents of Person-Organization Fit .......................................... 48
Model 2 – Antecedents of Affective Commitment ............................................ 54
Model 3 – Antecedents of Normative Commitment .......................................... 54
Model 4 – Antecedents of Continuance Commitment ....................................... 58
Model 5 – Antecedents of Turnover Intentions ................................................. 58
4. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 61
Appendix A. Web-Based Surveys ................................................................................. 68
Appendix B. Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment Scales.................. 70
Appendix C. Turnover Intentions Measures .................................................................. 73
Appendix D. Employee Demographic Questions .......................................................... 74
References ...................................................................................................................... 76
x
LIST OF TABLES
1.
Page
Table 1: Organizational Culture Profile rwg Analysis for Employees
Working in the Department More Than 1 Year and Factor 1 Group ................. 44
2.
Table 2: Organizational Culture Profile rwg Analysis for Factor 2 and
Factor 3 Groups.................................................................................................. 49
3.
Table 3: Person-Organization Fit Scores for Employees That Had Been
Working in the Department for Less Than 1 Year Correlated with the
Department’s Profile .......................................................................................... 53
4.
Table 4: Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for the Models ................ 55
5.
Table 5: Correlation and Descriptive Statistics of Regression Variables .......... 57
6.
Table 6: Analysis of Variance Summaries for Antecedents of
Continuance Commitment and Turnover Intentions.......................................... 59
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
2.
Page
Figure 1. Model of person-organization fit Chatman, J. (1989).
Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Hypothesized model of relationships between personorganization fit, commitment, time since promotion, time working in the
department, and turnover intentions. ................................................................. 32
xii
2
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This study looked at person-organization fit (based on values) as a selection tool
for a state government department. It looked at whether using person-organization fit as
a selection criterion helps select applicants who are more likely to have similar values
systems and be more likely to stay with and be more committed to the department.
People often identify others based on their values. Values represent what is most
important to a person. They are deep-seated, pervasive standards that influence almost
every aspect of life (moral judgments, responses to others, and a personal “bottom
line”; Posner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). Values are a type of social cognition that
facilitate a person’s adaptation to their environment and have implications for their
behavior (Chatman, 1989). A person’s values are closer to their personality than other
constructs such as attitudes and opinions, which are more specific and serve to express
values (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987).
An individual’s values are relatively stable and are established through life
experiences (Judge & Bretz, 1992; Ravlin & Meglino, 1987). They are thought to have
pervasive effects upon individuals, effects that include choice of behavior, and modes
of conduct (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987). The attention focused on the role of individual
values in the workplace is based upon the implicit assumption that these values affect
the behavior of individuals in all situations including work situations (Ravlin &
Meglino, 1987).
3
Individual Values Systems and Interaction with Other Individuals
Individuals are more attracted to others with similar values because similar
values reduce cognitive dissonance, improve communication, and increase
predictability in social interactions (Cable & Judge, 1997). Individuals who have
similar value systems tend to behave and perceive external stimuli in similar ways. This
allows them to better predict the behavior of others, and thus more efficiently
coordinate their actions to achieve common goals (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998).
Individuals seek to surround themselves with similar individuals because it makes them
feel more comfortable. They do this in their personal and professional lives. It is
illustrated in social settings and in organizations’ lunchrooms everywhere. The
gravitation to others who are similar often goes deeper than just choosing whom to
socialize with; people may choose to work for an organization based on the
organization’s values system.
Organizational Culture
An organization’s culture is comprised of deeply embedded, shared values and
assumptions (Denison, 1996). This is different from climate, which refers to perceived
environmental factors that are subject to organizational control (Denison, 1996). The
two terms, culture and climate, are often used interchangeably; however, they are
different. Organizations can have many climates, but only one culture (Schneider,
1975). This study focuses on values, therefore it focuses on culture, not climate.
An organization’s culture is anchored by the values, beliefs, and assumptions
held by its members (Denison, 1996). It is rooted in history, collectively held, and
4
complex enough to resist attempts at direct manipulation (Denison, 1996). It interacts
with the organization’s people and structures (Boxx, Odom, & Dunn, 1991). Values are
a fundamental element in most definitions of organizational culture (Barley, Meyer, &
Gash, 1988). In many cases the two terms (values and organizational culture) are
synonymous.
Organizational Values Systems
An organization’s values represent what it stands for and what its people believe
in. Values say what really counts in organizations and can be seen in every decision
made and every objective formulated (Posner et al., 1985). Values systems are often
considered a group product and although all members of the group may not hold the
same values, typically a majority of active members are aware of support for a given set
of values (Chatman, 1991). Much like culture, organizational values develop as a
consequence of the organization’s history, its traditions, as well as its current goals
(Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Organizations that are guided by strong, shared values tend to
reflect those values in the design of their formal organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).
An organization’s values can affect all aspects of the organization from what
products get manufactured to how workers are treated. They play an important role in
communicating to the outside world what to expect from an organization (Wakhlu,
1986). Widely held organizational values can eventually affect the way that customers
are perceived and treated, the ways employees and their contributions are viewed and
rewarded, and the way in which the future is anticipated and managed (Boxx et al.,
1991). Shared values guide day to day decision making in organizations and silently
5
give direction to the hundreds of decisions made at all levels of organizations every day
(McDonald & Gandz, 1991).
Deal and Kennedy (1982) claim that strong organizational cultures are the new
“old rule” for business success and that a strong culture has almost always been the
driving force behind continuing success in American business. They command
everyone’s attention while weak values are often ignored (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).
Shared Values and Successful Organizations
Most successful organizations place a great deal of emphasis on and have strong
values systems (Wakhlu, 1986). Intensely held and widely shared values are critical to
an organization’s competitive success (Chatman, 1991; McDonald & Gandz, 1991).
Successful organizations possess a distinct and identifiable set of values which include
beliefs about superior quality and service; being the best; innovation; the importance of
people as individuals; details of execution; informality to enhance communication; and
a profit orientation and goal accomplishment (Boxx et al., 1991).
Shared characteristics of successful organizations include: they stand for
something; they have a clear and explicit philosophy regarding how they aim to
conduct business; management pays a great deal of attention to shaping and fine-tuning
the values to conform to the economic and business environment of the organization
and to communicating them to the organization; and values are known and shared by all
of the people who work for the organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Superior
performance of organizations with strong corporate cultures is ascribed to the use of
socialization and other techniques to emphasize specific core values that when shared
6
with employees are thought to perform a critical function (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins,
1989).
Person-Organization Fit
Person-organization fit has been defined in a number of ways including value
congruence, goal congruence, the match between employees’ needs and reinforcers
available in the work environment, and the match between the personality of the
individual and the characteristics of the organization (Chatman, 1991). For the purposes
of this study, person-organization fit is defined as the congruence of values of a person
and an organization (Chatman, 1989). Person-organization fit is a meaningful way of
assessing person-situation interaction because values are fundamental and relatively
enduring and individual and organizational values can be directly compared (Chatman,
1991).
A Model of Person-Organization Fit
This study will follow Chatman’s (1989) model of person-organization fit
(Figure 1). Person-organization fit starts by measuring an organization’s characteristics
based on values and norms. Individuals in the organization are measured and their
individual scores are combined to make an organizational profile. The individual scores
are used to find crystallization (how widely shared the values are), intensity (how
strongly held values are relative to other values), and content (which values are
important to the organization). Intense and crystallized values make for strong
organizational situations.
7
Figure 1. Model of person-organization fit Chatman, J. (1989).
Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit.
Individual
Characteristics:
Values
Organization Characteristics:
Values
Norms
(Intensity, Content)
(Crystallization, Intensity, Content)
Selection
Socialization
Selection
Person-Organization Fit
Sample Organization Outcomes:
· Changes in Norms/Values
Sample Individual Outcomes:
· Value Change
· Extra-Role Behaviors
· Tenure
8
Organizations can use the same scale to measure job seekers or new
organization members. These individuals’ scores are also used to measure content
(what values are) and intensity (how strongly held they are). Their scores are then
compared to the organization’s profile to see how well the individuals match the
organization.
Practical Effects and Outcomes of Person-Organization Fit
According to multiple studies, organizations are more successful, and
individuals within organizations do better, if person-organization values congruence
exists (Boxx et al., 1991; Balazs, 1990; Chatman, 1989, 1991; Meglino et al., 1989;
O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Person-organization fit leads to greater positive
effects. The positive outcomes for employees include enhanced employee job attitudes,
reduced stress, lower turnover, higher commitment, greater satisfaction, positive effects
on self-report ratings of teamwork, and tendencies toward ethical behavior (Chatman,
1991; Karren & Graves, 1994; Kristof, 1996).
Organizations also receive positive effects from person-organization fit.
Employees are more likely to feel as if they are an important part of the organization.
They are motivated because life in the organization has meaning to them (Deal &
Kennedy, 1982). Deal and Kennedy (1982) said employees who know what their
organization stands for and what standards they are to uphold are much more likely to
make decisions that would support these standards. High person-organization fit also
increases the likelihood that extra role behaviors (pro-social acts that are not directly
specified in the individual’s job description and that primarily benefit the organization
9
as opposed to the individuals) will occur and individuals will feel more comfortable and
competent in the organization (Chatman, 1989). Employees with a strong sense of
shared values were more likely to decline a promotion if they felt they could not handle
the duties because they did not want to not take advantage of the organization (Posner
et al., 1985).
In a study of managers, when their values matched the organization’s values,
the managers worked harder, were more dedicated to the cause, were more confident
they would stay with their organization for the next five years, and were more willing
to work long hours (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Posner et al., 1985). Deal and Kennedy
(1982) also found that the managers made better decisions, on average, because they
were guided by their perception of shared values. When values congruence diminished
managers expressed increasing degrees of cynicism about the level of ethical concern
of their peers, subordinates, and supervisors (Posner et al., 1985). In a study by Posner
et al. (1985), as a manager’s perception of a close person-organization values match
increased so did the extent of their awareness and understanding of the organization’s
values. Clarity extended to the professed understanding of the values of their superiors,
colleagues, and subordinates (Posner et al., 1985).
Consequences of Low Person-Organization Fit
Many outcomes may result from low person-organization fit. Low personorganization fit has three immediate outcomes; a person’s values could change and
become more similar to the organizational values system, the organization’s values
could change, or a person could leave the organization (Chatman, 1989). A weak
10
relationship or mismatch between the individual’s values and those of the organization
is likely to lead to reduced job satisfaction, lower organizational commitment, and
lower job performance (Balazs, 1990). People who do not fit their environment often
experience feelings of incompetence and anxiety. Employees with lower levels of
congruence with organizational values are more likely to report an intention to leave
their organizations than those with higher congruence levels (Kristof, 1996).
Commitment and Person-Organization Fit
Commitment is closely associated with organizational culture. It is highly
affected by person-organization values matches (Finnegan, 2000). It embodies three
underlying experiences: belief and acceptance of the values and goals of the
organization; willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization to achieve
organizational goals; and strong desire to maintain organizational membership (Porter,
Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974). Meyer and Allen (1991) stated that commitment is
not only a psychological state restricted to value and goal congruence but it can reflect
a desire, a need, and/or an obligation to maintain membership in an organization.
An accurate understanding of the job requirements and the organization’s values
has been shown to enhance people’s adjustment to their jobs as well as their subsequent
level of satisfaction and organizational commitment (Posner, 1992). A person whose
values match the operating values of the organization will be more committed to the
organization than a person whose personal values differ from the organization’s
(Finnegan, 2000).
11
Components of Commitment
According to Meyer and Allen (1991), there are three components of
commitment. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2001) said the rationale
for developing a three component model was their beliefs that although all three forms
of commitment relate negatively to turnover, they relate differently to measures of other
work-relevant behavior (e.g., attendance, in-role performance, organizational
citizenship behavior). They are called components of commitment rather than types of
commitment because employees can experience all three components to varying
degrees (Meyer & Allen, 1991). It is important to know that there are certain things that
are common to all three components; they characterize an employee’s relationship with
an organization and they have implications for the decision to continue or discontinue
membership with an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Allen and Meyer (1990) defined the three components of commitment.
Affective commitment is the emotional attachment a person feels for an organization.
The employee identifies with and enjoys membership in the organization. The
antecedents are personal characteristics, job characteristics, work experience, and
structural characteristics (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Strong evidence has been provided for
work experience antecedents, most notably those experiences that fulfill employees’
psychological needs to feel comfortable with the organization and competent in the
work-role.
Normative commitment is the feelings of obligation a person has to remain with
an organization. It is influenced by the individual’s experiences both prior to and
12
following entry into the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The main antecedent is
whether significant others have been long-time employees of an organization and/or
have stressed the importance of organizational loyalty (Wiener, 1982).
Continuance commitment develops as an employee recognizes the investments
that would be lost if they were to leave the organization, or as they recognize that the
availability of comparable alternatives is limited. It reflects the degree to which an
individual experiences a sense of being locked in place because of the high cost of
leaving. Continuance commitment develops on the basis of two factors; magnitude and
number of investments the individual makes and the perceived lack of alternatives
(Allen & Meyer, 1990). The fewer job alternatives, the stronger the employee’s
continuance commitment to the current organization.
Each component of commitment produces different effects. Affective
commitment has been linked to higher productivity, more positive work attitudes, and a
greater likelihood of engaging in organization citizenship (Finegan, 2000). The findings
for normative commitment are similar. Continuance commitment has very few positive
relationships with performance indicators and negatively correlates with job
satisfaction; employees tend to not really be engaged in the organization or their job
(Finegan, 2000).
Turnover and Commitment
Turnover is defined as the cessation of membership in an organization by an
individual who received monetary compensation from the organization (Mobley, 1982).
There is a lot of research that surrounds employee turnover or turnover intent. Most of
13
this research is related to commitment and person-organization fit and how it impacts
turnover and intent to turnover. Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005) found
that an increase in person-organization fit will tend to result in a decrease in intent to
turnover (with the converse also being true). O’Reilly et al. (1991) demonstrated that
person-organization fit can predict job satisfaction and organizational turnover one year
later and actual turnover after two years.
Individuals who are less committed as a result of poor organizational fit are
more likely to leave the organization (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Wheeler,
Buckley, Haldesleben, Brouer, and Ferris (2005) suggest that the combination of job
dissatisfaction and person-organization misfit would lead to turnover in so far as the
individual perceived viable job alternatives. If an individual believes that job
alternatives will not provide better fit than the current job, that individual will tend to
remain with their current organization. On the other hand, if the individual believes that
a better fit will be achieved by working for another organization that individual will
likely decide to leave the current organization (Wheeler, Gallagher, Brouer, &
Sablynski, 2007). Decreases in person-organization fit, which lead to decreases in job
satisfaction, are more likely to result in increases in intent to turnover if the individual
also perceived alternative job opportunities. An individual who feels misfit with an
organization might only leave the organization if he/she believes that alternative job
opportunities exist (Schneider, 1987).
The link between commitment and turnover differs by the component of
commitment. Employees with strong affective commitment remain because they want
14
to. Employees with strong normative commitment remain because they feel they ought
to. Employees with strong continuance commitment remain because they need to.
Affective commitment (=-.17) correlates most strongly with turnover followed by
normative (=-.16) and continuance (=-.10) (Meyer et al., 2002). Chen, Hui, and Sego
(1998), Paré and Tremblay (2007), and Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, and Sincich (1993) all
found negative relationships between all components of commitment and turnover or
turnover intentions.
Selection - a Two-Way Process
One would assume organizations want to recruit and retain individuals for the
long term. But many organizations go about recruiting and selecting individuals
incorrectly. Given all of the research about person-organization fit and its outcomes, it
is time for organizations to start seeing selection as a two way process. Wanous (1992)
suggests that two separate matches between the person and the organization are
necessary to assess person-organization fit. One match is between the person’s abilities
and the job requirements (organizations interviewing applicants); a second match is
between the person’s needs and the organization’s culture (applicants interviewing
organizations). The match between a person’s abilities and the job requirements affects
performance (Wanous, 1992). The match between individual’s wants and what the
organization has to offer influence job satisfaction and employee longevity (Wanous,
1992).
15
Person-Organization Fit – Organizations’ Applicant Selection
In many organizations, selection is viewed purely in the interest of the
organization. Applicants are forced to undergo procedures arbitrarily imposed on them
if they want any hope of getting a job with the organization (Schuler, Farr, & Smith,
1993). Often applicants have no idea how the measurements they are subjected to are
relevant to how conclusions about the job will be made (Schuler et al., 1993).
Employee selection practices are one mechanism for creating person-organization fit.
The key function of the selection process can be to select individuals who fit the
organization (Karren & Graves, 1994). What organizations often fail to recognize is
that hiring the right employees can help establish the desired organizational culture
from the beginning (Bowen, Ledford, & Nathan, 1991).
Traditional selection techniques rarely consider the characteristics of the
organization in which the job resides; they also ignore the characteristics of the person
that are relevant to immediate job requirements (Bowen et al., 1991). The traditional
selection model is more concerned with finding new employees rather than retaining
them (Bowen et al., 1991). Organizations give little attention to whether or not the
whole person finds the organization’s culture satisfying enough to stay (Bowen et al.,
1991).
One expects organizations to try to create a positive impression during
recruitment (Rynes, 1993). However, evidence suggests that organizations often portray
too positive a picture at the expense of employee disenchantment and premature
turnover (Schneider, 1976; Wanous, 1980). This overly positive picture might also
16
interfere with an applicant’s ability to obtain complete information on which to make a
decision to join an organization (Thornton, 1993).
An alternative model of selection is geared toward hiring a “whole” person who
will fit well into a specific organization’s culture (Bowen et al., 1991). The alternative
model focuses on hiring “people”, not just knowledge, skills, and abilities, for
“organizations”, not just jobs, (Bowen et al., 1991). Although potential hires with skills
that meet the demands of specific jobs are not ignored, some companies feel that the
person job fit needs to be supported and enriched by person-organization fit (Bowen et
al, 1991). Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) feel that in a perfect world,
organizations would describe the job it has to offer in realistic terms, pointing out both
the satisfactions and the frustration that the job presents. Applicants would be presented
test results to help the applicant decide whether or not he/she wants the job. Individuals
on the other hand, would present an accurate picture of themselves as they could.
Organizations that provide accurate information about their organization in the
recruitment processes enhance Wanous’s two matches described by facilitating selfselection of candidates (Breaugh, 1992).
Since values are the main component of person-organization fit it is important,
if organizational values are relatively stable, to examine their role in the selection
process because the selection process would be the primary means through which
person-organization fit is achieved (Judge & Bretz, 1992). Selection processes also help
screen out those whose values are incompatible with the organization’s (Chatman,
1991). Organizations that present an image of emphasizing their values may more
17
successfully attract workers (Judge & Bretz, 1992). Organizations whose recruitment
practices clarify the organization’s values for potential employees are more likely to
select for and enhance internalized attachment among new recruits than organizations
who do not screen applicants for value congruence (Caldwell, Chatman, & O’Reilly,
1990; Chatman, 1991). If values are clear and salient in the recruitment process,
candidates will have more information on which to determine if they agree with, or can
comfortably conform to, the organization’s values; and organizations can more easily
match prospective candidates both to specific jobs and organizational culture (Caldwell
et al., 1990).
Person-Organization Fit - Applicants’ Organizational Selection
Organizations must not discount applicants’ perceptions of the organization
during the selection process. Initial impressions form the basis for later impressions of
the organization, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover, and
performance (Premack & Wanous, 1985). Traditional selection techniques often find
organizations attempting to gather in-depth information about the applicants. They
ignore or are not aware that it might appear intrusive to the applicant and cause
negative attitudes toward the organization (Thornton, 1993). Organizations need to
know that applicants are looking for detailed, specific, and relevant information that
distinguishes one vacancy from others and includes some negative as well as positive
information (Rynes, 1993). These characteristics not only help applicants make better
job choices, but also prepare them to cope with challenges they encounter as new
employees (Rynes, 1993).
18
Studies have shown that organizational values systems strongly influence job
choice decisions (Judge & Bretz, 1992; McDonald & Gandz, 1991). Job seekers’
subjective person-organization fit perceptions emanate from congruence between their
perceptions of an organization’s values and their own (Cable & Judge, 1996; Meglino,
Ravlin, & Adkins, 1992). Their perceptions can significantly predict their job choice
intentions with an effect size comparable to other important aspects of jobs (Cable &
Judge, 1996). When job seekers have multiple organizations to choose from, they tend
to choose an organization with values similar to their own. Since the values are similar
to their own, they are likely to be more committed to the chosen organization’s values
and to stay longer than those who have fewer options to choose from (Chatman, 1991).
This shows that organizations need to be discussing organizational values and assessing
person-organization fit during their selection processes.
Criteria for Assessing Person-Organization Fit
Comprehensiveness
There are several criteria for assessing person-organization fit. Since a variety
of constructs or variables may affect individual outcomes in organizations, the degree
of fit should be assessed with respect to a wide range of variables (Karren & Graves,
1994). A wide range of variables must be used in order to achieve comprehensiveness.
Using a small number of dimensions when measuring fit is likely to omit important
determinants of employee attitudes and behavior and it inhibits the examination of the
relationship between person-organization fit and outcomes (Karren & Graves, 1994).
19
Systematic/Unsystematic Error
It is important to be aware of systematic error. It arises from response styles,
social desirability bias, or a tendency to respond in a socially approved way. It is likely
to be a problem because individuals seeking jobs in a competitive employment market
might engage in faking and deception (Karren & Graves, 1994).
Measures with few items or items with little in common are likely to have large
components of unsystematic error and a lower estimate of internal consistency.
Insufficient sampling is also a cause of unsystematic error (Karren & Graves, 1994).
Inadequate sampling of content is particularly likely to occur when the defined personorganization fit domain is large. To avoid unsystematic error, the measurement
technique used should not be susceptible to measurement error due to chance elements,
fatigue, or fluctuations in memory or mood; if the domain being measured is large; the
number of items should be relatively large (Karren & Graves, 1994).
Commensurate Dimensions
Commensurate dimensions, whether or not the person and situation are
described in the same language or along the same dimensions, is another criteria in
assessing person-organization fit. When a person and an organization are described
with different sets of variables, direct comparisons cannot be made between individual
and organizational characteristics (Karren & Graves, 1994). The use of commensurate
measures allows a direct comparison of an individual and an organization and can allow
for more specific conclusions than when separate sets of variables are used (Caldwell &
O’ Reilly, 1990).
20
Lewin (1951) suggested that the relevance of person to situation (organization)
would be maximized if we could conceptualize and measure them in commensurate
terms. Graham (1976) attempted to create a scale that could characterize individuals
and organizations in the same terms, so the two could be compared. Organizations are
different than people; therefore, the same adjectives may have very different meanings
when applied to an organization rather than an individual (Chatman, 1989).
This is why values are potentially useful. They are an important aspect of
individuals and organizations and can be compared directly and meaningfully (Cable &
Judge, 1996). In order to be commensurate, values must be specific enough to define
the unique nature of an individual and universal enough to represent an aggregation of
individuals (an organization; McDonald & Gandz, 1991). Describing both the person
and the organization with the same content dimensions is recommended for assessing
fit because it ensures mutual relevance of characteristics under investigation (Kristof,
1996).
It is difficult to achieve perfectly commensurate measures, but all attempts
should be made to maximize measures’ commensurability (Kristof, 1996). Failure to
describe individuals and situations (organizations) along commensurate dimensions
limits the development of a coherent theory of person-organization interaction and may
make it more difficult to determine the magnitude to which person-organization
interaction affects outcomes (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990).
21
Direct Measurement of Fit
Direct measurement of fit involves asking people explicitly whether they
believe that a good fit exists (Kristof, 1996). Direct measures of fit are beneficial if the
construct under investigation is subjective or perceived; that is if fit is conceptualized as
the judgment that a person fits well with an organization (Kristof, 1996). When using
direct measurement of fit, good fit is said to exist as long as it is perceived to exist,
regardless of whether or not the person has similar characteristics to, or complements/is
complemented by, the organization (Kristof, 1996). This is detrimental because anyone
can “perceive” fit but could be completely incorrect in the assessment. Direct measures
of fit may show significant relationships with individual outcome variables; however
there are several criticisms of the use of them.
Edwards (1991) denounced direct measures of fit primarily because they
confound the constructs of the individual and environment and prevent estimates of
their independent effects. When questions in a measure do not explicitly describe what
values or other characteristics are to be considered in respondents’ answers, it is almost
impossible to ensure that commensurate dimensions are being considered (Edwards,
1991).
Indirect Measurement of Fit
Indirect measures of fit assess actual or objective fit and involve explicit
comparisons between separately rated individual and organizational characteristics
(Kristof, 1996). Indirect measures of fit are said to reflect actual fit because they allow
22
a verifiable assessment of similarity or complementarity without asking for implicit
judgments of fit by those involved in the situation being analyzed (Kristof, 1996).
There are two different techniques for indirect measurement. One is cross-levels
measurement; the other is individual level measurement. Cross-levels measurement is
commonly used to assess both supplementary and complimentary person-organization
fit (Kristof, 1996). This technique involves assessing compatibility of individuals with
verifiable organization characteristics; therefore it involves measuring characteristics at
two levels of analysis (Kristof, 1996).
In cross-level studies organizational characteristics are assumed to be
homogeneous, individual level measurement organizational constructs are no longer
verifiable organizational characteristics, but individuals’ perceptions of those
characteristics (Kristof, 1996). This measure typically consists of each respondent
answering parallel questions such as “What do you value?” and “What does your
company value?” The similarity of the answers to these questions is calculated using
either traditional difference scores or polynomial regression, resulting in an individual
level measure of actual person-organization fit (Kristof, 1996). The reason to use
individual level measurement is that the perception of organizational characteristics
may have a stronger influence on individual outcome variables such as stress,
satisfaction, or commitment than would fit with an organization’s actual characteristics.
This is particularly true of fit on characteristics like values and goals that are difficult to
verify (Kristof, 1996).
23
Assessing Person-Organization Fit
Studies have examined the different ways of assessing person-organization fit.
Interviews, personality measures, forced-choice scales, and Q-methodology have all
been examined and evaluated as person-organization fit assessment instruments. No
matter which type of instrument is used, organizations must be aware of applicant
faking.
Faking
Faking is a deliberate distortion of responses by applicants to make themselves
attractive to the organization (Karren & Graves, 1994). Applicants can fake their
responses to a measure of fit if they are knowledgeable about the purpose of the
measure and the characteristics of the organization (Karren & Graves, 1994). Some job
applicants may become quite sophisticated at manipulating their scores on tests, which
could undermine the construct validity of tests and their utility for making personnel
selection decisions (Hurtz & Alliger, 2002). This means that when selected, the
individual will not actually fit and the hiring process would need to start over.
Many applicants engage in faking behavior according to findings by Donovan,
Dwight & Hurtz (2003). Even a few applicants engaging in faking behavior can impact
hiring decisions (Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998). It appears that faking does
possess a potentially harmful threat to the construct validity of tests and to the quality
of hiring decisions that are influenced by those tests (Rosse et al., 1998). Individuals
who fake their good responses actually possess less of the trait being measured than
their test scores indicate (Donovan et al., 2003).
24
Interviews
A lot of companies only use interviews to select employees. Standardized
questions and scoring keys can easily be developed to measure person-organization fit
in structured interviews. Structured interviews use commensurate dimensions and have
high reliability. This does not eliminate the problem of systematic error due to faking
and social desirability responding (Karren & Graves, 1994). Although structured
interviews can be used to assess person-organization fit, individual biases (on the part
of the interviewer) may influence the accuracy of these assessments (Karren & Graves,
1994). Interviewers are not adept at assessing applicants’ personal characteristics
(Cable & Judge, 1997).
Interviewers have a prevalent belief that they can actually assess personality
characteristics (Cable & Judge, 1997). They often overlook the fact that applicants
might actually be faking. There is no evidence of predictive validity of interviewers’
assessment of applicant-organization fit (Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994). Past
research indicates that interviewers may base their person-organization fit judgments on
inaccurate perceptions of applicants. Absence of comprehensive measurement of the
applicant and organization may lead interviewers to rely on their personal feelings
about applicants to determine fit; since interviewers view themselves as successful
organizational members, they will assume that applicants who they view as similar to
themselves possess the necessary values to be successful in the organization (Adkins et
al., 1994). This phenomenon, referred to as interviewer illusion, has been interpreted as
evidence of the fundamental attribution error (Cable & Judge, 1997).
25
Interviewer judgments of person-organization fit may be based on something
other than complementary work values between organization and applicants (Adkins et
al., 1994). This is why an instrument assessing person-organization fit is needed. Other
measures of fit such as personality measures, forced choice scales, and Q-sort methods
could be used to assess fit, while negating effects of interviewers’ bias (Karren &
Graves, 1994).
Personality Measures
Personality measures, such as standardized personality inventories, have been
criticized due to their relatively low levels of validity in predicting future work
performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). In order to work the organizational
environment must be analyzed and personality constructs related to success in the
environment must be identified. This is often a very time consuming process. Also,
personality measures are highly susceptible to faking (Alliger & Dwight, 2000). Other
selection techniques such as reference checks and interviews can be used in place of
personality measures. They can capture (at least partially) global personality measures’,
potentially small, contribution. Personality measures do not lend well to commensurate
dimensions between individuals and organizations (Karren & Graves, 1994).
Researchers must make inferences regarding the personality constructs related to the
dimensions of the organizational environment (Bowen et al., 1991).
Forced-Choice Scales
Forced-choice scales use a set of statements reflecting possible organizational
characteristics. They are obtained when a sample of organizational members rate the
26
extent to which each statement is desirable and characteristic of the organization.
Forced choice scales can be an effective technique for assessing person-organization fit.
This technique has the potential to meet all of the criteria for assessing personorganization fit (comprehensiveness, commensurate dimensions, and systematic and
unsystematic error) (Karren & Graves, 1994). However, faking can still be a problem
with these scales.
Q-methodology
This study used a Q-methodology instrument to assess person-organization fit.
It is a well-established way of assessing person-organization fit. It offers some potential
strength over other approaches for analyzing jobs (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990). Qmethodology assesses the content, integrity, and crystallization of organizational values
and matches them with an assessment of individual values (Bowen et al., 1991). This
method provides a solution to the commensurate dimension problem and unsystematic
error is not likely to be a problem (Kristof, 1996). A large number of items can be
compared to one another to determine the breadth and complexity of values (Chatman,
1991).
Calculating a reliability coefficient for the mean organizational profile can
assess crystallization of organizational values. A strong organizational values system
would be indicated by a high reliability coefficient (above .70) which shows that an
organization’s members perceive the content and ordering of the organizational values
system similarly (Chatman, 1989). Examining pivotal items (the top and bottom 3
ranked categories) captures the intensity with which values are held. Together
27
crystallization and intensity reflect how strong or weak an organizational values system
is (Chatman, 1989).
Q-methodology uses a set of 60 to 90 statements describing the organizational
environment. A correlation between the applicant’s responses and the organization’s
profile serves as a measure of person-organization fit. Q-methodology enables
respondents to model their viewpoints on a matter of subjective importance through the
operational medium of Q-sort (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Modeling is accomplished
by a respondent system. Q-sorting is a process whereby a subject models their point of
view by rank-ordering Q-sample stimuli along a continuum defined by a condition of
instruction, a guide for sorting the Q-sample items (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Rank
ordering of values is more important than their absolute levels in determining reactions
to the organization, thus person-organization fit calculated via correlations can be a
better predictor of specified outcomes compared with that calculated by difference
scores (Arthur, Bell, Villado, & Doverspike, 2006).
Block (1978) pointed out that to maximize the discriminations judges make and
yet avoid difficulty and randomness, the “distribution should have a fixed but sensible
number of judgment categories.” Using trial and error Block found that a nine-interval
continuum, although demanding of the judge, still elicits reliable discriminations. A
nine-interval, forced sorting continuum is most widely used primarily because of
Block’s work.
Divisions along a Q-sort distribution can be mistaken for nominal rather than
ordinal (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). There are not distinct categories wherein the
28
items placed in a +3 position are cognitively and functionally separate from those put
under +4. Q-sort is a matter of ranking items on the basis of more or less rather than
either/or (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). A middle score (0) is not an average but a point
neutral in meaning and without psychological significance (McKeown & Thomas,
1988).
Q-methodology uses the “forced-free" selection process. The Q-sort distribution
is forced in that a certain number of items are prescribed for each rank; the subject is
free, however, to place an item anywhere within the distribution (McKeown & Thomas,
1988). In this model individuals place the largest number of items in the middle
categories. The recommended quasi-normal distribution is merely a device for
encouraging subjects to consider the items more systematically than they otherwise
might. In keeping with the law of error, it is assumed that fewer issues are of great
importance and more are issues of less or no significance (McKeown & Thomas, 1988).
Thus fewer items are found at the extremes.
In some cases, the same Q-sample is used with variations on the same basic
condition of instruction (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). This could be done with a group
of people responding based on what they think the organization is and then responding
on the basis of self. Multiple conditions of instruction are especially useful in single
case studies where the conditions can act as surrogates for behavioral hypotheses – that
is, a respondent is asked to perform the Q-sort (McKeown & Thomas, 1988).
29
Organization Culture Profile
The Organization Culture Profile (OCP) was developed to assess personorganization fit (Chatman, 1989). The OCP, a Q-sort method of selection, contains a set
of value statements that can be used to ideographically assess the extent to which
certain values characteristics target the organization’s and individual’s preferences for
that particular configuration of values (O’Reilly et al., 1991). When setting out to create
a comprehensive set of values for the OCP, O’Reilly et al. (1991) attempted to identify
items that could be used to describe any individual or organization, would not be
equally characteristic of all individuals or organizations, and would be easy to
understand.
The initial pool of over 110 items was narrowed down using four criteria
(O’Reilly et al., 1991). The first criterion was generality, meaning that the item is
relevant to any type of organization regardless of industry, size, and composition.
Discriminability, the second criterion, indicated that no item should reside in the same
category for all organizations. Readability, the third criterion, stated that items should
be easy to understand in order to facilitate their having commonly shared meanings.
Finally, nonredundancy meant that items should have distinct enough meanings that
they could not substitute for one another consistently. Using these criteria the 110 plus
items were narrowed down to 54 statements that can generically capture individual and
organizational values (O’Reilly et al., 1991).
If the organization is not highly crystallized then the organization profile is not
reliable (Chatman, 1989). Low crystallization at the organization level indicates strong
30
factions within an organization (Chatman, 1989). To determine membership
crystallization, organizational profiles could be calculated according to various
subgroups, such as departments, job levels, or divisions (Chatman, 1989).
Employee-organizational values congruence as defined by the OCP is predictive
of employee satisfaction, commitment, and turnover decisions (Heneman, Judge, &
Heneman, 2000). Applicant’s responses to the OCP have been found to be relatively
stable even after they have joined an organization (Heneman et al., 2000).
One of the main ways to maintain a values system is to develop a selection
process that would assess applicants on person-organization fit. After reviewing the
literature and looking at several instruments, it was decided that the O’Reilly et al.
(1991) version of the OCP would be used in this study.
The Organization Being Examined
The particular state department examined in this study is still fairly young. The
organization and its employees are continuously working hard to uphold its values. At
the time of the study the organization did not use a selection process that included
looking at person-organization fit based on values. There was not a standardized
selection process in place in the organization. It was up to the hiring manager to
determine the elements that would be included in the interview and selection process.
Some of the common elements included application screening, a writing exercise, and
panel interviews (sometimes an applicant goes through more than one panel).
31
Hypotheses
Person-organization fit can be a useful measurement during selection. The
department studied had not used person-organization fit as a selection tool. Therefore it
is possible that employees that were hired into the organization more recently might not
be as similar to the department’s profile as employees that had been with the
department longer given that they have not had extensive time to adapt to the
department’s culture. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the hypothesized relationships in
this study. The relationship between time working in the department and personorganization fit is illustrated as H1 in Figure 2.
H1: Employees who have been with the department for one year or less will
be less similar to the department’s profile.
Many studies have shown that person-organization fit has positive effects for
both the organization and the employee (Boxx et al., 1991; Balazs, 1990; Chatman,
1989, 1991; Meglino et al., 1989; O’Reilly et al., 1991). Commitment is highly affected
by person-organization fit (Finnegan, 2000). Of the three components of commitment
proposed by Meyer and Allen (1991), only affective and normative commitment show
positive relationships with things like higher productivity, more positive work attitudes,
and more engaging in organizational citizenship (Finnegan, 2000). The relationships
between person-organization fit and affective and normative commitment are shown in
Figure 2 as H2 and H3.
32
Affective
Commitment
H2
H5
PersonOrganization Fit
H3
H7
Normative
Commitment
H1
H5
Time in
Department
Continuance
Commitment
Time Since
Promotion
H4
H5
H6
Lower Turnover
Intentions
Figure 2. Hypothesized model of relationships between person-organization
fit, commitment, time since promotion, time working in the department, and
turnover intentions.
33
H2:
High person-organization fit will lead to high affective commitment.
H3: High person-organization fit will lead to high normative commitment.
State government jobs require a probation period (traditionally one year) before
an employee is permanently assigned as that classification. Employees that decide to
change jobs during this time usually have to start the probation period over again. So it
is likely that employees who recently received a promotion will have a different
motivation to stay in their current job than someone who has already passed probation.
In order to qualify to test for the next classification employees must pass
probation and spend a certain amount of time in a classification (this often equates to
passing probation, but not always). If employees are interested in moving up the ladder,
they usually spend the least amount of time required in any classification. Therefore,
starting probation over again can delay testing eligibility for the next classification. It is
believed that the desire to not start probation over again will create higher continuance
commitment. The relationship between time since promotion and continuance
commitment is shown in Figure 2 as H4.
H4: Employees who received their promotions less than one year ago will
show higher continuance commitment than employees who received a
promotion more than a year ago.
The link between commitment and turnover intent differs based on the
component of commitment the same way person-organization fit affects the
components differently. Even though the reasons for staying are different, all
components of commitment have negative relationships with turnover intentions. The
34
relationship between affective, normative, and continuance commitment are shown as
H5 in Figure 2. Based on the layout of Figure 2, H5 is represented by three separate
lines.
H5: Affective, normative, and continuance commitment will all be negatively
related to lower turnover intentions.
Because employees who have not passed probation for their current
classification would have to start probation over again if they moved to another job,
they should have lower turnover intentions as well as higher continuance commitment.
Figure 2 shows this relationship as H6.
H6: Employees who received their promotions less than one year ago will
show lower turnover intentions than employees who received a promotion
more than a year ago.
Since person-organization fit affects commitment, which in turn affects
turnover, it could be said that a direct relationship might exist between personorganization fit and turnover intentions. This relationship is illustrated as H7 in
Figure 2.
H7: Employees with high person-organization fit will have low turnover
intentions.
35
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Current state government employees in one division of a department
(approximately 100) were asked to participate. Forty-eight employees completed the
materials. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 59 with the average age of 40. The
participants’ gender breakdown was 35 females and 12 males (one participant did not
indicate gender). The ethnicity breakdown was: 24 Caucasian/white; 5 African
American; 8 Hispanic; 3 Asian; 1 Pacific Islander; 2 mixed race; and 5 did not respond.
Twenty-four of the participants previously worked for another state department that
performed one or more of the functions that are now performed by this department
before going to work for this department. The participants represent all but one of the
business units that make up the division.
Materials
Organizational Culture Profile
O’Reilly et al. (1991) Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) was used to
measure person-organization fit. In this measure person-organization fit is defined as
the congruence between the values of the organization and the values of a person
(Chatman, 1989). The OCP consists of 54 items cast in neutral terms. The measure is
typically used as a selection tool comparing a potential employee’s responses to the
organization’s profile (obtained by having current employees complete the measure).
36
Person-organization fit is calculated by correlating the organization’s profile with an
individual employee’s responses (O’Reilly et al., 1991).
Participants must score each item based on how important it is for this item to
be part of the organization they work for. The participant must assign a score to each
item. The possible scores are between 1 least characteristic and 9 most characteristic
with 5 being neutral. Participants are required to assign the scores in the item-category
sorting pattern 2-4-6-9-12-9-6-4-2. Fewer items are required at the extremes than in the
central, more neutral categories (O’Reilly et al., 1991; Chatman, 1989). This means that
the subject can only assign scores of 1 and 9 to two values each. Scores of 2 and 8 can
be assigned to four values each; 3 and 7 six values each; 4 and 6 nine values each; and
5 can be assigned to twelve values.
When employees who make up the organizational profile complete the measure
they are asked to keep in mind how much each item characterizes their organization’s
values. Appendix A is a view of the OCP as it was presented in a Web-based
environment for this study.
According to Chatman (1989), a reliability score of .70 or higher shows strength
in an organization’s values system. The organization examined in this study had a
reliability score of  = .81 with a mean inter-rater correlation of .11.
Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment Scales
Meyer and Allen’s (1997) affective, continuance, and normative commitment
scale was used to measure the three different components of commitment. In this scale,
affective commitment is defined as the emotional attachment an employee feels for an
37
organization. Continuance commitment is defined as the recognition of employees of
what investments they would lose if they left the organization or the realization that
comparable alternatives are limited. Normative commitment is defined as the feelings
of obligation an employee has to remain with an organization.
There are 24 items on the scale, 8 items for each type of commitment. The scale
is numbered from 1 to 24 so the participant is not aware that three different constructs
are being measured. Individual scores are calculated for each type of commitment. The
reliability scores for each subscale, affective, continuance, and normative commitment
are .85, .79, and .73 respectively (Allen & Meyer, 1996). The reliability scores for these
scales in this study were lower than the historical reliability scores; affective
commitment  = .45, continuance commitment = .50, and normative commitment  =
.66. Appendix B provides all of the items in each of the scales. All commitment scale
scores are calculated by first reverse scoring negatively worded items and then
calculating the average score across all eight items of each sub-scale.
Turnover Measures
Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth’s (1978) Turnover Measures was used to
measure turnover intentions (Appendix C). This three-item scale revolves around how
much the employee thinks about or plans to leave the organization. Employees are
asked to rate how frequently they think about each of the items using a five-point scale.
The scale ranges from 1-never to 5-constantly. An overall turnover intention score is
calculated by computing the average of the three items in the scale. This scale has a
reliability of  = .90. In this study the reliability was comparable  = .88.
38
Procedure
The OCP is typically conducted as a card sorting activity. For ease of
distribution and ease of execution, it was decided to conduct the entire study using a
Web-based survey. The survey was hosted on the researcher’s private server. Only the
researcher and the Website developer had access to the data.
An email invitation was sent to all employees in the division asking them to
participate in the study. The email included a link to the Web survey. Multiple followup messages were sent after the initial distribution encouraging employees to
participate.
The consent form was the first screen employees saw after clicking on the link.
On this screen they were informed that they were participating in a research study.
Employees were told the amount of time it would take to complete the survey and
informed that their managers had given time and permission for each employee to
participate if they chose to. Employees were made aware that “… my responses will not
be tied to me personally and that my answers will have no impact (positive or negative)
on my performance review or how management views me.” To further stress that
employees would remain anonymous, the email that was sent to all employees
explained that management would only see the final analysis and not the individual
responses. Employees were given the researcher’s contact information in case they had
any questions or concerns. Employees had to mark that they agree to participate before
they could move to the next screen in the survey.
39
Employees then were asked to complete demographic questions (Appendix D).
Employees were not prevented from moving to the next step in the survey if they chose
not to answer any of the demographic questions.
Employees received different instructions on how to complete the OCP
(Appendix A), on the next screen, based on how they answered the question “How long
have you worked for DCSS?” Employees who had worked for the department for more
than one year received the following instructions:
Important values may be expressed in the form of norms or shared expectations
about what is important, how to behave, or what attitudes are appropriate. When
you are answering keep in mind the question ‘How much does this attribute
characterize your organization’s values?’ Please sort the 54 values into the 9
categories given. Those values that you consider to be most characteristic
aspects of the culture of your organization will be scored 9 and those that you
believe to be least characteristic will be scored 1. The middle category is
neutral. Use the other numbers in between as they describe your perception.
You can only give a specific score to a certain number of values. The
distribution pattern is 2-4-6-9-12-9-6-4-2. You’ll be given a warning if you try
to assign too many values to a certain score.
This group of employees was used to create the organization’s profile.
Employees who had worked for the department less than one year were given
the question:
40
Important values may be expressed in the form of norms or shared expectations
about what is important, how to behave, or what attitudes are appropriate. When
you are answering keep in mind the question ‘How important is it for this
characteristic to be a part of the organization I work for?’ Please sort the 54
values into the 9 categories given. Those values that you consider to be most
desirable values will be scored 9 and those that you believe to be least desirable
values will be scored 1. The middle category is neutral. Use the other numbers
in between as they describe your perception. You can only give a specific score
to a certain number of values. The distribution pattern is 2-4-6-9-12-9-6-4-2.
You’ll be given a warning if you try to assign too many values to a certain
score.
For the purpose of this analysis this group of employees was given the same
instructions potential employees would receive.
Additional instructions were included for all participants in order to clarify the
sorting task.
You can only sort a set number of values to each category. The set distribution
is so you will take greater care in assigning a value to a category. Think of it as
assigning the values to ranked groups. There is a red counter below to help you
keep track of how many times you’ve assigned a category. The current count
will turn yellow if you’ve assigned a category to too many values. Read all of
the values before you begin sorting them.
41
The OCP was the only section of the survey where every question had to be
completed before the employee could move to the next screen. Responses to all
questions were required in order to score the employee’s person-organization fit.
The next screen asked employees to complete the Meyer and Allen (1997)
affective, continuance, and normative commitment scales (Appendix B). Standard
instructions for the scale (described in the materials section) were given. Finally
employees were asked to complete the three-item Mobley et al. (1978) turnover
intention scale (Appendix C). Once employees clicked the “next” button their responses
were saved. The last screen of the survey gave the debriefing and thanked employees
for participating.
42
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Analysis of the Department’s Profile
To calculate the organization’s profile the mean scores were calculated for all
employees that had worked for the department more than one year (N=35) for all 54 of
the OCP items. The rwg statistic (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) was calculated on the
OCP scores to see if there was sufficient consensus among the employees to aggregate
them into a single organizational profile. This statistic is used to assess within-group
agreement, not interrater reliability (Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). It is particularly used
when discussing organizational culture and climate because they are built on absolute
agreement, not relative agreement (Lindell & Brandt, 2000). An example is if one
respondent produced scores of 6,3,3,6 and a second rater produced scores of 2,1,1,2.
This is a perfect reliability, but the consensus is low (Lindell & Brandt, 2000).
Consensus is a key to setting up an organization’s culture profile. The rwg accounts for
this.
The formula for rwg (James et al, 1984) is:
rwg = 1 – s2x/2E
s2x = observed variance of given item
2E = variance of user-defined error term
Typically an rwg score of .70 or higher indicates consensus. When the entire
group of employees who were with the department for one year or more was examined,
43
there was only significant consensus on one of the 54 items (see Table 1). Since
consensus was low, exploratory analyses were carried out in an attempt to identify
subgroups of the more tenured employees that had a high degree of consensus and
could be justifiably treated as the organization’s profile.
A Q-factor analysis was run to investigate homogenous clusters of employees
and see if there was a group that could represent the organization’s profile. All
employees that had been with the department for more than one year were included in
this analysis. To run a factor analysis, the matrix was transposed so that the employees
became the variables and the 54 items of the scale were the cases. A 3-factor solution
was chosen based on the initial Eigenvalues, the percentage of variance that each factor
accounted for, and the interpretability of the factors.
Once it was determined that the 3-factor solution fit the data, consensus within
the three subgroups of employees was checked using the rwg statistic. The Factor 1
group contained the largest number of employees (18) and a few significant rwg scores.
Table 1 shows that there were five items that had an rwg of .70 or higher and 15 with a
score of .60 or higher. This group had a reliability score of  = .81 with a mean interrater correlation of .19. However, analysis of the relevant characteristics of this group
suggested that it did not show a clear identity. The employees in this group represented
several different business areas but did not show consistency on many of the other
variables. Less than half worked for one of the department’s sister departments (these
departments previously performed some of the functions that are now handled by the
department being examined before it was formed), only half had been promoted since
44
Table 1
Organizational Culture Profile rwg Analysis for Employees Working in the Department
More Than 1 Year and Factor 1 Group
More than 1 year
Item
Factor 1
M
SD
rwg
M
SD
rwg
Flexibility
6.06
2.01
0.39
6.72
1.84
0.49
Adaptability
5.14
1.67
0.58
5.33
1.50
0.66
Stability
5.20
2.19
0.28
5.61
2.28
0.22
Predictability
4.74
1.82
0.50
4.50
1.95
0.43
Being innovative
4.89
1.71
0.56
4.67
1.68
0.58
Being quick to take advantage 4.43
1.67
0.58
4.28
1.45
0.69
of opportunities
A willingness to experiment
4.57
1.54
0.64
4.11
1.28
0.76
Risk taking
4.34
1.80
0.52
3.83
1.58
0.63
Being careful
4.69
1.94
0.44
5.00
1.85
0.49
Autonomy
4.57
1.61
0.61
4.33
2.03
0.38
Being rule oriented
4.77
2.10
0.34
4.83
2.07
0.36
Being analytical
6.11
2.00
0.40
6.50
1.76
0.54
Paying attention to detail
5.54
1.63
0.60
5.72
1.56
0.63
Being precise
4.66
1.68
0.58
4.17
1.69
0.57
Being team oriented
5.77
1.46
0.68
6.22
1.48
0.67
Sharing information freely
5.00
1.61
0.61
5.39
1.91
0.45
45
More than 1 year
Item
rwg
M
SD
rwg
4.43 1.82
0.50
4.89
1.68
0.58
Being people oriented
5.74 1.67
0.58
6.61
1.20
0.79
Fairness
5.49 1.54
0.64
5.89
1.53
0.65
Respect for the individual’s right 5.31 1.68
0.58
5.61
1.79
0.52
Tolerance
5.00 1.51
0.66
5.67
1.50
0.66
Informality
4.83 1.71
0.56
4.78
1.70
0.57
Being easy going
5.29 1.81
0.51
5.61
1.75
0.54
Being calm
4.69 1.78
0.53
4.89
1.71
0.56
Being supportive
5.89 1.62
0.61
6.06
1.47
0.67
Being aggressive
3.89 1.71
0.56
3.83
1.82
0.50
Decisiveness
4.60 1.50
0.66
4.72
1.49
0.67
Action orientation
5.77 1.75
0.54
5.39
1.85
0.49
Taking initiative
5.31 1.39
0.71
4.94
1.51
0.66
Being reflective
4.23 1.52
0.66
4.22
1.48
0.67
Achievement orientation
5.54 1.79
0.52
4.89
2.00
0.40
Being demanding
4.11 1.91
0.46
4.44
1.98
0.41
Emphasizing a single culture
M
SD
Factor 1
throughout the organization
46
More than 1 year
Item
Factor 1
M
SD
rwg
M
SD
rwg
Taking individual responsibility 5.60
1.87
0.48
5.72
1.87
0.47
Having expectations for high
6.34
1.78
0.52
6.00
1.78
0.52
4.17
2.54
0.03
3.28
2.30
0.21
High pay for good performance
3.00
2.00
0.40
2.33
1.68
0.58
Security of employment
6.49
1.69
0.57
6.61
1.61
0.61
Offers praise for good
5.31
2.01
0.39
5.28
1.93
0.44
Low level of conflict
5.14
1.70
0.57
5.06
1.63
0.60
Confronting conflict directly
4.37
1.61
0.61
3.72
1.23
0.77
Developing friends at work
4.83
2.01
0.40
4.67
2.17
0.29
Fitting in
4.74
2.15
0.31
4.72
2.27
0.23
Working in collaboration with
6.14
1.63
0.60
6.50
1.69
0.57
Enthusiasm for the job
5.29
1.98
0.41
5.22
1.63
0.60
Working long hours
3.86
2.35
0.17
3.50
1.92
0.45
Not being constrained by many
3.74
1.48
0.67
3.78
1.22
0.78
performance
Opportunities for professional
growth
performance
others
rules
More than 1 year
Factor 1
47
Item
M
SD
rwg
M
SD
rwg
An emphasis on quality
5.77
1.86
0.48
5.78
1.83
0.50
Being distinctive – different
4.11
1.78
0.53
3.83
1.50
0.66
Having a good reputation
5.31
1.92
0.45
5.61
2.00
0.40
Being socially responsible
5.03
2.15
0.31
5.00
1.14
0.81
Being results oriented
6.17
1.72
0.55
6.17
1.69
0.57
Having a clear guiding
4.66
1.92
0.44
5.00
1.78
0.52
Being competitive
4.29
1.82
0.50
3.83
1.69
0.57
Being highly organized
5.03
2.35
0.18
4.72
1.93
0.44
from others
philosophy
a
n = 35. bn = 18.
48
joining the department, and half marked “other” when asked when they see themselves
leaving the department.
The Factor 2 group (with 11 employees) appeared to be the strongest candidate
for defining the organization’s profile. As seen in Table 2, this group showed an rwg of
.70 or higher on 10 of the items, and .60 or higher on an additional six items. The
Spearman-Brown formula was used to step up the reliability as if this group had the
same number of employees as Factor 1. The reliability using Spearman-Brown formula
was  = .43. The employees in this group previously worked for one of the
department’s sister departments, they had been in their current positions and
classifications for one to two years, they had never been promoted, do not plan to leave
the department before five years from now, and all worked in the same business area.
The Factor 3 group only had 6 employees. In Table 2, this group showed an rwg
of .70 or higher for 20 items, and six items had a score of .60 or higher. The SpearmanBrown reliability for this factor was  = .59. Although this group showed the best rwg
scores, this group was not large enough to base the organization’s profile on. The
Factor 2 group’s responses were chosen as the organization’s profile based on the rwg
scores and the interpretability of the group.
Model 1 – Antecedents of Person-Organization Fit
The OCP responses of the employees who had worked in the department for
less than one year were compared to the organization profile defined by the Factor 2
group of employees who had worked in the department for more than one year. In
Table 3, only one of the newer employees showed statistically significant moderate
49
Table 2
Organizational Culture Profile rwg Analysis for Factor 2 and Factor 3 Groups
Factor 2a
Item
Factor 3b
M
SD
rwg
Flexibility
5.09
2.34
.018
Adaptability
5.18
1.99
Stability
4.36
Predictability
M
SD
rwg
5.83
1.17
0.80
0.41
4.50
1.64
0.60
2.01
0.39
5.50
2.17
0.30
4.82
1.94
0.44
5.33
1.21
0.78
Being innovative
4.64
1.96
0.42
6.00
0.89
0.88
Being quick to take
4.27
1.49
0.67
5.17
2.56
0.02
A willingness to experiment
5.27
1.62
0.61
4.67
1.86
0.48
Risk taking
4.55
2.11
0.33
5.50
1.38
0.72
Being careful
4.73
1.85
0.49
3.67
2.34
0.18
Autonomy
4.64
1.12
0.81
5.17
0.75
0.92
Being rule oriented
5.27
2.45
0.10
3.67
1.21
0.78
Being analytical
5.27
2.49
0.07
6.50
1.38
0.72
Paying attention to detail
5.18
1.99
0.41
5.67
1.21
0.78
Being precise
4.82
1.66
0.59
5.83
1.17
0.80
Being team oriented
5.55
1.29
0.75
4.83
1.33
0.74
Sharing information freely
4.91
0.83
0.90
4.00
1.41
0.70
advantage of opportunities
50
Factor 2a
Item
Factor 3b
M
SD
rwg
SD
rwg
3.91
1.81
0.51
4.00
2.19
0.28
Being people oriented
4.91
1.76
0.54
4.67
1.51
0.66
Fairness
5.00
1.67
0.58
5.17
1.17
0.80
Respect for the individual’s
5.55
1.57
0.63
4.00
0.89
0.88
Tolerance
4.82
0.98
0.86
3.33
1.03
0.84
Informality
5.18
1.78
0.53
4.33
1.75
0.54
Being easy going
5.55
1.69
0.57
3.83
1.72
0.56
Being calm
5.09
1.76
0.54
3.33
1.63
0.60
Being supportive
5.55
1.86
0.48
6.00
1.79
0.52
Being aggressive
4.09
1.64
0.60
3.67
1.75
0.54
Decisiveness
4.27
1.35
0.73
4.83
1.94
0.44
Action orientation
6.00
1.18
0.79
6.50
2.26
0.24
Taking initiative
5.55
1.04
0.84
6.00
1.41
0.70
Being reflective
4.18
1.66
0.59
4.33
1.63
0.60
Achievement orientation
5.82
1.25
0.77
7.00
0.89
0.88
Being demanding
4.09
1.81
0.51
3.17
1.83
0.50
Emphasizing a single culture
M
throughout the
organization
right
51
Factor 2a
Item
Factor 3b
SD
rwg
6.33
2.88
-0.24
0.48
7.00
1.67
0.58
2.28
0.22
7.17
1.33
0.74
3.27
2.20
0.28
4.50
1.87
0.48
Security of employment
6.09
1.87
0.48
6.83
1.72
0.56
Offers praise for good
5.55
1.97
0.42
5.00
2.61
-0.02
Low level of conflict
5.73
2.00
0.40
4.33
1.03
0.84
Confronting conflict directly
5.36
1.50
0.66
4.50
2.07
0.36
Developing friends at work
4.91
1.87
0.48
5.17
2.04
0.38
Fitting in
5.36
1.96
0.42
3.67
1.97
0.42
Working in collaboration
6.18
1.40
0.71
5.00
1.55
0.64
Enthusiasm for the job
5.55
2.25
0.24
5.00
2.68
-0.08
Working long hours
4.45
3.17
-0.51
3.83
1.94
0.44
Taking individual
M
SD
rwg
5.00
1.00
0.85
6.55
1.86
4.00
M
responsibility
Having expectations for high
performance
Opportunities for
professional growth
High pay for good
performance
performance
with others
52
Factor 2a
Item
Factor 3b
M
SD
rwg
SD
rwg
3.82
2.09
0.35
3.50
1.05
0.84
An emphasis on quality
5.45
2.34
0.18
6.33
0.82
0.90
Being distinctive – different
3.91
1.70
0.57
5.33
2.42
0.12
Having a good reputation
5.36
1.80
0.51
4.33
1.86
0.48
Being socially responsible
5.64
3.07
-0.42
4.00
2.45
0.10
Being results oriented
6.09
1.64
0.60
6.33
2.25
0.24
Having a clear guiding
3.82
1.72
0.56
5.17
2.48
0.08
Being competitive
4.73
2.15
0.31
4.83
1.47
0.68
Being highly organized
5.09
3.05
-0.39
5.83
2.23
0.26
Not being constrained by
M
many rules
from others
philosophy
a
n = 11. bn = 6.
53
Table 3
Person-Organization Fit Scores for Employees That Had Been Working in the
Department for Less Than 1 Year Correlated with the Department’s Profile
Employee
r
p
1
.112
.419
2
-.099
.478
3
.018
.899
5
.242
.078
6
.126
.364
10
.119
.392
11
.307*
.024
17
.244
.075
33
.252
.066
34
.002
.988
38
.107
.442
43
.083
.550
45
.131
.344
Department profile
*p < .05 (2-tailed).
n = 13.
1.000
_
54
person-organization fit (r=.307, p=.024). The other employees showed low fit, but it
was not statistically significant.
A regression analysis was conducted to see if time worked in the department
could explain a significant amount of variance in person-organization fit. Table 4 shows
that it did not explain a statistically significant amount of variance in personorganization fit, R2 = .004, F(1,47) = .173, p = .680. The analysis did not reveal a
statistically significant regression weight ( = -.061, p = .680). As seen in Table 5, the
correlation of person-organization fit and time worked in the department was not
statistically significant r = -.06, p = .680. This suggests that time worked in the
department does not have an effect on person-organization fit.
Model 2 – Antecedents of Affective Commitment
The correlation between person-organization-fit (r = .161, p = .275) and
affective commitment was not statistically significant, but Table 5 shows it was positive
as predicted. A regression analysis, illustrated in Table 4, shows that personorganization fit and time worked in the department did not account for a significant
amount of variance in affective commitment, R2 = .028, F(2,47) = .655, p = .524. The
regression weights for person-organization fit ( = .164, p = .272) and time worked in
the department ( = .050, p = .738) were not statistically significant.
Model 3 – Antecedents of Normative Commitment
Table 5 shows the correlation between person-organization-fit and normative
commitment was positive, but not statistically significant r = .027, p = .064. A
regression analysis, illustrated in Table 4, shows that person-organization fit and time
55
Table 4
Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for the Models
Model
1
Variables Entered
DV: Person-organization fit
R2 (Adj. R2)
3
4
DV: Affective commitment
-.061
r
sr2
.680 -.061
.004
.023
.028 (-.015)
Person-organization fit
.164
.272
.161
Time in department
.050
.738
. 040 .003
Person-organization fit
.270
.067
.269
.072
Time in department
.009
.952 -.008
.000
.133
.369 -.133
.018
-.088
.553 -.088
.008
DV: Normative commitment
.072 (.031)
DV: Continuance commitment .018 (-.004)
Time since promotion
5
p
.004 (-.018)
Time in department
2

DV: Turnover intention
Person-organization fit
.008 (-.014)
56
Model
5

p
r
Time since promotion
.050
.707
.153
.003
Person-organization fit
.054
.668 -.088
.004
Affective commitment
-.638
.000 -.650
.401
.261
.160
.031
-.072
.567 -.057
.008
.029
.822 -.002
.001
Variables Entered
DV: Turnover intention
Continuance commitment
Normative commitment
Time in department
R2 (Adj. R2)
sr2
.444 (-.362)
.139
57
Table 5
Correlation and Descriptive Statistics of Regression Variables
Correlations
Variable
1. Person-organization fit
M
.14
SD
2
.11 -.09
3
4
5
6
7
.27
-.15
.16
-.06
-.21
-.06
.16
-.65** -.00
-.12
2. Turnover intention
2.38
1.00
3. Normative commitment
3.76
.64
4. Continuance commitment
3.77
.91
5. Affective commitment
3.91
.58
6. Time in department
1.73
.45
.12
7. Time since promotion
1.77
.43
1.00
**
p < 0.01 (2-tailed)
N = 48
.10
.03
-.01
-.02
-.07
-.16
.14
.01
.21
58
worked in the department did not account for a significant amount of variance in
normative commitment, R2 = .072, F(2,47) = 1.758, p = .184. The regression weights
for person-organization fit ( = .270, p = .067) and time worked in the department ( =
.009, p = .952) were not statistically significant.
Model 4 – Antecedents of Continuance Commitment
An ANOVA analysis, displayed in Table 6, shows that time since promotion
(less than one year ago or more than one year ago) did not have a statistically
significant effect on continuance commitment F(1,45) = .916, p = .344. This indicates
that the probationary period that comes along with a promotion does not have any
affect on an employee’s continuance commitment.
A regression analysis was conducted to see if time since promotion could
explain a significant amount of variance in continuance commitment. Table 4 shows
that it did not explain a statistically significant amount of variance in continuance
commitment, R2 = .018, F(1,47) = .823, p = .369. The analysis did not reveal a
statistically significant regression weight ( = -.133, p = .369).
Model 5 – Antecedents of Turnover Intentions
Based on the fact that most promotions in state service come with a 12-month
probationary period, it was believed that employee turnover intentions during this time
should be low. The ANOVA analysis, results in Table 6, shows that time since
promotion (less than one year ago or more than one year ago) did not have a
statistically significant effect on turnover intentions, F(1,45) = .642, p = .427.
59
Table 6
Analysis of Variance Summaries for Antecedents of Continuance Commitment and
Turnover Intentions
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
Time since promotion and continuance commitment
Between-Groups
.734
1
.734
.801
Within-Groups
36.036
45
Total
36.770
46
.916
.344
Time since promotion and turnover intentions
Between-Groups
.670
1
.670
1.043
Within-Groups
46.957
45
Total
47.626
46
Descriptive Statistics
Turnover
N
M
SD
Less Than 1 Year
11
2.62
.80
More Than 1 Year
36
2.32
1.08
Total
47
2.39
1.02
Less Than 1 Year
11
4.00
.829
More Than 1 Year
36
4.30
.913
Total
47
4.23
.894
Continuance Commitment
.642
.427
60
It was hypothesized that all three types of commitment would correlate
negatively with turnover intentions. The correlation analysis in Table 5 revealed a
strong, statistically significant negative relationship with affective commitment (r = .65, p = .000). The relationship between normative commitment and turnover intentions
was negative, but it was not strong or statistically significant (r = -.06, p = .700). The
relationship between continuance commitment and turnover intentions revealed a weak,
positive relationship that was not statistically significant (r = .16, p = .279).
It was believed that person-organization fit should affect turnover intentions. If
the employee has high fit then they would not want to leave. A regression analysis was
conducted to see if person-organization fit could explain a significant amount of
variance in turnover intentions. Table 4 shows that person-organization fit did not
account for a significant amount of variance, R2 = .008, F(1,47) = .358, p = .553. The
analysis did not reveal a statistically significant regression weight ( = -.088, p = .553).
A regression analysis was conducted to see if time since promotion, personorganization fit, affective, normative, and continuance commitment, and time worked
in the department could explain a significant amount of variance in turnover intentions.
Table 4 shows that together they explained a statistically significant amount of
variance, R2 = .444, F(6,47) = 5.454, p = .000. Table 4 shows that affective
commitment showed a statistically significant regression weight ( = -.638, p = .000).
None of the other variables had a statistically significant regression weight.
61
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
This study was looking at person-organization fit as a potential method of
selection based on values since many studies have shown that person-organization fit
has positive effects for both organizations and employees (Boxx et al., 1991; Balazs,
1990; Chatman, 1989, 1991; Meglino et al., 1989; O’Reilly et al., 1991). Some of those
positive effects include higher affective and normative commitment to the organization
and lower turnover intentions. The effect affective, normative, and continuance
commitment have on turnover intentions was also tested. It was believed that time since
promotion would have an effect on continuance commitment since government
employees must serve a probationary period after being hired or promoted. This study
also investigated the effect of time since promotion on turnover intentions since an
employee would have to start the probationary period over if they changed positions
during the probationary period. Only one hypothesis, the negative correlation between
affective commitment and turnover intentions was supported. The results suggest that
the OCP should not be used as a selection tool in this department at this time.
A major problem seems to be that the department did not have a clear culture.
The lack of a crystallized culture profile is possibly a major explanation for why none
of the hypotheses involving person-organization fit were supported. Chatman (1989)
found that only highly crystallized profiles are reliable. According to the results, there
was no crystallized profile for the employees who have been with the department for
62
one year or longer. The rwg score did not turn out significant for that group. After a Qfactor analysis a homogenous group was found that could serve as the organization’s
profile. This group was very unique and had some qualities that would make it difficult
to really generalize across the entire organization. For one, the nature of the work of
this group was different than the majority of the organization. This was illustrated by
the fact that only one employee showed moderate fit with the organization. The rest of
the employees had low fit that was not significant.
The department examined in this study was still relatively young at the time of
the study and it focused on creating a statewide-automated system uniting all 58
California counties for the first several years of its existence. The department had
several directors in a short amount of time. It seems these factors might have lead to the
department not having a unified culture. At the time of the study, the department was
just beginning to work on developing employee programs and had not yet developed a
clearly defined culture.
Finnegan’s study (2000) showed that commitment is highly affected by personorganization fit. The results of this study did not support his findings. This is likely due
to the fact that the organization’s profile was not reliable and none of the employees
showed strong fit. This does not mean that Finnegan’s findings were incorrect but
shows that unless there is clear fit between the employees and a reliable profile it is
difficult to support this hypothesis.
The nature of continuance commitment is that an employee stays in their current
job because they have to. It was thought that employees who were recently promoted,
63
and are therefore serving a probationary period, would show higher continuance
commitment and lower turnover intentions because they would have to start the
probationary period over if they were to leave before they completed it. The results do
not support this idea. Most of the employees who showed higher continuance
commitment scores had never been promoted. There was no clear pattern for employees
with high turnover intentions; they ranged from never being promoted to seven years or
more since last promotion.
The study found that employees who have higher affective commitment show
lower turnover intentions as Chen et al. (1998), Parè and Tremblay (2007), and Jaros et
al. (1993) found. However, the results did not support their findings when it came to
normative and continuance commitment. This likely relates to the fact that there was
not a clearly defined culture that could tell employees what to expect from the
department. This might be different in this study because it is harder for government
employees to be fired than private industry employees. It is easier to move from one
state department to another than it is to move from one company to a completely
different one. The pay and benefits stay the same. There is always another department
to seek employment with and there are always more positions at the same classification
level. This ties in with Schneider’s (1987) idea that individuals who feel misfit with an
organization might only leave if they believe an alternate job exists.
Griffeth et al. (2000) found that employees with poor person-organization fit
were more likely to leave the organization. This study did not support those findings or
those of Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) who found that high person-organization fit tends
64
to result in lower intent to turnover. These results could likely be due to the lack of a
crystallized profile. It is hard to determine since none of the employees showed
significantly high person-organization fit.
The past studies on person-organization fit using the OCP have been conducted
using junior audit staff at accounting firms (Chatman, 1991), production supervisors in
a large consumer product company and first level claims adjustment supervisor from
the headquarters of large insurance companies (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990), graduates
of university accounting programs employed by eight of the largest public accounting
firms (Caldwell et al., 1990), and first year MBA students (O’Reilly et al., 1991). All of
the participants are college graduates or are in positions equivalent to college graduates.
And in each study, the participants have all been the same classification.
In this study, the participants ranged from entry-level positions to supervisor
and managers. The nature of the work that the employees in the different business areas
perform is also different, ranging from a call center to professional, analytical staff.
Although the education level of each employee was not obtained, a college degree is
not required for any of the classifications involved in the study. These differences could
also indicate why a clear profile was not found. Employees who work in the different
areas share different values.
At the time of the study no research was available that indicated that anyone had
ever attempted to conduct the OCP via a Web-based survey. However, an article was
found after the study was conducted where researchers (Steinmetz, Brunner, Loarer, &
Houssemand, 2010) looked at the measurement equivalence between the electronic and
65
the manual administration of another card sorting test, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
(WCST). This test assesses executive and frontal lobe function. Their study suggested
that there was incomplete psychometric equivalence between the manual and electronic
versions of the WCST. Since the test administration is similar, this might also be true
for the differences found in this study. It would be interesting to see if there is a
difference in the scores when this test is administered electronically and manually.
There were difficulties in administering the OCP via a Web-based survey. It
seemed that the instructions and steps to complete the OCP were straightforward.
However, participant feedback indicated that some of them “felt stupid” because they
did not understand what was being asked and what the goal of the study was. This
frustration, along with the lack of ability to save and return to the same spot in the
survey, led several participants to give up and not complete the survey. It is assumed
that many of the participants might not have ever participated in a study like this before
and this led to their feelings of insecurity.
The fact that the entire study was done via email and an online survey could
have added to their frustration. It might have been better if the participants were asked
to report to a specified room to participate and a proctor could have explained the intent
of the study and the instructions. This was not possible because management and the
employees were highly concerned with keeping the participants’ identities anonymous.
This could have reduced the amount of frustration and potentially increased the number
of participants who completed the survey.
66
The OCP part of the survey had to be revised after a small group of individuals
attempted to complete it and found it very difficult. Additional instructions were added
to the sorting portion of the survey and a counter was included to indicate the number
of times the participant had used a specific rating. Although it was explained why the
rating criteria was restricted, the participants indicated that they did not like being
restricted to a using a specific rating a certain number of times. If someone wanted to
attempt to deliver the OCP electronically again, they would need to make sure that the
group of participants they would be working with can understand the instructions. It is
also suggested that the survey be administered by a proctor rather than remotely like
this study.
The term organization mentioned in the surveys could have also caused
confusion for the participants in this study. To the private sector, organization is the
company that the people work for. In the public sector, especially state government, the
term organization can mean many different things. To a state government employee,
organization could be the department they work for, the division within the department,
the section within the division, or the business unit. It is also conceivable that some
state employees would see the state government itself as the organization they work for.
Since there was not a clear definition for the participants in this study as to what to
consider as the organization, they could all have had a different idea of organization
when they were formulating their responses.
In conclusion there are many differences from this study to the other studies that
used the OCP. Some of the key differences include government department versus large
67
private industry companies, the level of education of the participants, and the make up
of the participants (all doing similar tasks with similar educational backgrounds). The
administration method of the OCP was also new. Any of these could easily impact the
results. Since this study included so many differences from the previous studies, it is
not surprising that the results did not support the hypotheses. This study did show that
the OCP might not be as broadly applicable as the research seemed to lead other people
to believe. It seems that before using the OCP, an organization must consider the group
they would like to administer the survey to and the nature of the work that they
perform. Maybe a different profile needs to be created for each business area. This
would be another great area of research in relation to the applicable nature of the OCP.
68
APPENDIX A
Web-Based Survey: Organizational Culture Profile – For Employees that Had Been
Working for the Department for Less Than 1 Year
69
Web-based Survey: Organizational Culture Profile – For Employees that Had Been
Working for the Department for More Than 1 Year
70
APPENDIX B
Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment Scales
Affective Commitment Scale
1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization.
2. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
3. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.
4. I think I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this
one. (R)
5. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization. (R)
6. I do not feel “emotionally attached”
7. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
8. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (R)
Continuance Commitment Scale
1. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one
lined up. (R)
2. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.
3. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my
organization right now.
4. It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave my organization in the near future. (R)
5. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
6. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.
71
7. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be scarcity
of available alternatives.
8. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving
would require considerable personal sacrifice; another organization may not match
the overall benefits I have here.
Normative Commitment Scale
1. I think that people these days move from company to company too often.
2. I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization. (R)
3. Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me. (R)
4. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe
loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.
5. If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere, I would not feel it was right to leave
my organization.
6. I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization.
7. Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of
their careers.
8. I do not think that wanting to be a “company man” or “company woman” is sensible
anymore. (R)
72
NOTE: Responses to each item are made on a 7-point scale with anchors labeled (1)
strongly disagree and (7) strongly agree. R indicates a reverse-keyed item (scoring
is reversed).
From Meyer & Allen 1997
73
APPENDIX C
Turnover Intentions Measure
1. I think a lot about leaving the organization.
2. I am actively searching for an alternative to the organization.
3. As soon as it is possible, I will leave the organization.
Scored on a 5 point scale where 1 is never and 5 is constantly.
Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978.
74
APPENDIX D
Employee Demographics Questions
Gender
_____ Male
_____ Female
Age _____
Ethnic Group
_____ African-American/Black
_____ Asian-American/Asian
_____ EuropeanAmerican/Caucasian/White
_____ Hispanic-American/Latino
_____ Native American
_____ Other (_________________)
How long have you worked for DCSS?
_____ Less than 1 year ____ 5- 6 years
_____ 1-2 years
____7 years or more
_____ 3-4 years
How long have you worked in your current position?
_____ Less than 1 year
_____ 5- 6 years
_____ 1-2 years
_____ 7 years or more
_____ 3-4 years
What unit do you work in?
_____ Contact Center Unit 1
_____ Contact Center Unit 2
_____ Contact Center Unit 3
_____ Contact Center Unit 4
_____ Discovery
_____ EDF
_____ SDU
_____ LIPS
_____ NSF
_____ CFW
_____ MAC Unit 1
_____ MAC Unit 2
_____ CCR
_____ Managers
_____ Statewide Customer Service
Support & Analysis
75
Have you been promoted since being hired by DCSS?
_____ Yes
_____ No
How long ago did you receive you last promotion?
_____ Never
_____ 3-4 years
_____ Less than 1 year
_____ 5- 6 years
_____ 1-2 years
_____ 7 years or more
How long have you been in your current classification?
_____ Less than 1 year
_____ 5- 6 years
_____ 1-2 years
_____ 7 years or more
_____ 3-4 years
Do you see yourself leaving DCSS…?
_____ in the next 6 months
_____ other
_____ in the next year
_____ never
_____ within the next 5 years
_________
Have you worked in more than one business unit in DCSS?
_____ Yes
_____ No
Did you work for Franchise Tax Board, Department of Social Services, or a Local Child
Support Agency before coming to work at DCSS?
_____ Yes
_____ No
Think back to when you first interviewed for your first job within the Operations Division.
Do you feel that DCSS’s organizational values were clearly conveyed during the
recruitment process?
_____ Yes
_____ No
Do you feel that you understood the organizational values during the selection process?
_____ Yes
_____ No
Did you feel like the organization’s values were thoroughly conveyed during the first few
months you were with the organization?
_____ Yes
_____ No
76
REFERENCES
Adkins, C.L., Russel, C.J., & Werbel, J.D. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection
process: The role of work value congruence. Personnel Psychology, 47, 605-623.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to
the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 49, 252-276.
Alliger, G.M., & Dwight, S.A. (2000). A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility
of integrity tests to coaching and faking. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60, 59-72.
Arthur, W. Jr., Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of personorganization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterionrelated validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 786-801.
Balazs, A.L. (1990). Value congruence: The case of the “socially responsible” firm.
Journal of Business Research, 20, 171-181.
Barley, S.R., Meyer, G.W., & Gash, D.C. (1988). Cultures of culture: Academics,
practitioners, and the pragmatics of normative control. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 33, 24-60.
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
77
Bowen, D.E., Ledford, G.E., & Nathan, B.R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the
job. The Executive: An Academy of Management Publication, 5, 35-51.
Boxx, W.R., Odom, R.Y., & Dunn, M.G. (1991). Organizational values and value
congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An
empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management,
20, 195-205.
Breaugh, J.A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Boston: PWS-Kent.
Cable, D., & Judge, T.A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and
organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546-561.
Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
67, 294-311.
Caldwell, D.F., Chatman, J.A., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1990). Building organizational
commitment: A multi firm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245261.
Caldwell, D.F., & O’Reilly III, C.A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profilecomparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648-657.
Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.
Chatman, J.A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
78
Chen, X.P., Hui, C., & Sego, D.J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior
in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 922-931.
Deal, T.R., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and
organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.
Academy of Management Review, 21, 619-654.
Donovan, J.J., Dwight, S.A., & Hurtz, G.M. (2003). An assessment of the prevalence,
severity, and verifiability of entry-level applicant faking using the randomized
response technique. Human Performance, 16, 81-106.
Edwards, J.R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review and
methodological critique. International Review of Industrial/Organizational
Psychology, 6, 283-357.
Finegan, J.E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on organizational
commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 149169.
Graham, W. (1976). Commensurate characterization of persons, groups, and
organizations: Development of the trait ascription questionnaire (TAQ). Human
Relations, 29, 607-622.
79
Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and
correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research
implications of the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.
Heneman, H. G., Judge, T.A., & Heneman, R.L. (2000). Staffing Organizations (3rd ed.).
Middleton, WI: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Hurtz, G.M., & Alliger, G.M. (2002). Influence of coaching on integrity test performance
and unlikely virtues scale scores. Human Performance, 15, 255-273.
Hurtz, G.M., & Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality and job performance: the big five
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 8598.
Jaros, S.J., Jermier, J.M., Koehler, J.W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance,
affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of
eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951-995.
Judge, T.A., & Bretz, R.D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 261-271.
Karren, R.J., & Graves, L.M. (1994). Assessing person-organization fit in personnel
selection: Guidelines for future research. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 2, 146-156.
80
Kristof, A.L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 149.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of
individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,
person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
Kozlowski, S.W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement:
Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 161-167.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. NY: Harper and Row.
Lindell, M.K., & Brandt, C.J. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators
of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 331-348.
McDonald, P., & Gandz, J. (1991). Identification of values relevant to business research.
Human Resource Management, 30, 217-236.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q-methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Meglino, B.M., & Ravlin, E.C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts,
controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351-389.
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, 424-432.
81
Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C., & Adkins, C.L. (1992). The measurement of work value
congruence: A field study comparison. Journal of Management, 18, 33-43.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61,
20-52.
Mobley, W.H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O., & Hollingsworth, A.T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors
of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414.
O’Reilly III, 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.
Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources
practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship
behaviors of information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group &
Organization Management, 32, 326-357.
82
Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E., III, & Hackman, J.R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Posner, B.Z. (1992). Person-organization values congruence: No support for individual
differences as moderating influences. Human Relations, 45, 351-361.
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.
Premack, S.L., & Wanous, J.P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview
experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 706-719.
Ravlin, E.C., & Meglino, B.M. (1987). Issues in work values measurement. Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 9, 153-183.
Rosse, J.G., Stecher, M.D., & Miller, J.L., & Levin, R.A. (1998). The impact of response
distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 634-644.
Rynes, S.L. (1993). When recruitment fails to attract: Individual expectations meet
organizational realities in recruitment. In H. Schuler, J.L. Farr, & M. Smith
(Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment – Individual and organizational
perspectives (pp. 1-5). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
83
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climate: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447479.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Schneider, J. (1976). The greener grass phenomenon: Differential effects of a work
context alternative on organizational participation and withdrawal intentions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 308-333.
Schuler, H., Farr, J.L., & Smith, M. (1993). The individual and organizational sides of
personnel selection and assessment. In H. Schuler, J.L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.),
Personnel selection and assessment – Individual and organizational perspectives
(pp. 1-5). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steinmetz, J.P., Brunner, M., Loarer, E., & Houssemand, C. (2010). Incomplete
psychometric equivalence of scores obtained on the manual and the computer
version of the Wisconsin card sorting test? Psychological Assessment, 22, 199202.
Thornton, G.C., III. (1993). The effect of selection practices on applicants’ perceptions of
organizational characteristics. In H. Schuler, J.L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.),
Personnel selection and assessment – Individual and organizational perspectives
(pp. 1-5). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wakhlu, B. (1986). The importance of values in organization. Management & Labour
Studies, 11, 262-265.
Wanous, J.P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of
newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
84
Wheeler, A.R., Buckley, M.R., Haldesleben, J.R., Brouer, R.L., & Ferris, G.R. (2005).
The elusive criterion of fit revisited: Toward an integrative theory of
multidimensional fit, in Martocchio, J. (Ed) Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, 24, Elsevier/JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 265-304.
Wheeler, A.R., Gallacher, V.C., Brouer, R.L., & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When personorganization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22, 203-219.
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organization: A normative view. Academy of
Management Review, 7, 418-428.