[2] Due to its important implications in the workplace, person–environment fit has maintained a prominent position in Industrial and organizational psychology and related fields.
[5] Person–environment fit can be understood as a specific type of person–situation interaction that involves the match between corresponding person and environment dimensions.
[15] This high value congruence would in turn reap benefits for the organization itself, including reduced turnover, increased citizenship behaviors, and organizational commitment.
[16][17] The attraction–selection–attrition theory states that individuals are attracted to and seek to work for organizations where they perceive high levels of person–organization fit.
This includes the traditional view of selection that emphasizes the matching of employee KSAs and other qualities to job demands.
Since person–group fit is so new, limited research has been conducted to demonstrate how the psychological compatibility between coworkers influences individual outcomes in group situations.
Training can be used as a socialization method, or as a way of making the employee aware of the organization's desired values, which would aid in increasing person–organization fit.
[15] As people learn about the organization they are working for through either company-initiated or self-initiated socialization, they should be able to be more accurate in their appraisal of fit or misfit.
Recognizing and supporting this achievement would build trust in the idea that everyone is contributing to the collective for the greater good, and aid in increasing person–group fit.
[15] Schneider (1987) proposed attraction–selection–attrition (ASA) model which addresses how attraction, selection and attrition could generate high levels of fit in an organization.
[27] Additionally, in accordance with supplementary fit models, an applicant will seek out and apply to organizations that they feel represent the values that he or she may have.
This theory is exemplified through a study by Bretz and Judge (1994), which found that individuals who scored high on team orientation measures were likely to pick an organization that had good work–family policies in place.
[29] The last process in ASA model is attrition, which outlines that the misfitting employee would be more likely to make errors once hired, and therefore leave the organization.
Lastly, the research suggests that for a better fit between an employee and a job, organization, or group to be more probable, it is important to spend an adequate amount of time with the applicant.
[27] Furthermore, if there are more extensive HR practices in place in the selection phase of hiring, then people are more likely to report that they experience better fits with their job and the organization as a whole.
[3] Person–environment fit has been linked to a number of affective outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to quit.
Examples of questions in direct measures are “How well do you think you fit in the organization?” or “How well do your skills match the requirements of your job?” An assumption is made such that individuals assess P and E characteristics and then determine how compatible they are.
By retaining E, P, and Z as separate variables, results from polynomial regression equations can be translated into three-dimensional surfaces, whose properties can be formally tested using procedures set forth by Edwards and Parry.
These findings have provided a foundation for developing fit hypotheses that are more refined than those considered in prior research, such as considering whether the effects of misfit are asymmetric and whether outcomes depend on the absolute levels of the person and environment (e.g., the effects of fit between actual and desired job complexity are likely to vary depending on whether job complexity is low or high).
Companies use a substantial amount of resources when recruiting new employees, and it is crucial for them to ensure that these new hires will align with the environment they are thrust into.