Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work - A Meta-Analysis of Person–Job, Person–Organization, Person–Group, and Person–Supervisor Fit

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by ahduag

A meta-analysis synthesizes 172 usable studies with 836 effect sizes on how person–job (PJ), person–organization (PO), person–group, and person–supervisor fit relate to preentry outcomes (applicant attraction, job acceptance, intent to hire, job offer) and postentry individual criteria such as attitudes, performance, withdrawal behaviors, strain, and tenure. Credibility intervals rarely included 0, supporting broad generalizability. Fit conceptualization and measurement plus study design issues are evaluated as moderators, with polynomial regression studies analyzed separately and interrelationships among fit types meta-analyzed to guide future research.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages62

Reading Time2 h 36 min

AccessFree to download

Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work

Scope of fit domains and outcomes

Search results and effect-size synthesis

Moderators in fit conceptualization, measurement, and design

Polynomial regression and separate review

Interrelationships among fit types

Implications for future research

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 2005, 58, 281–342 CONSEQUENCES OF INDIVIDUALS’ FIT AT WORK: A META-ANALYSIS OF PERSON–JOB, PERSON–ORGANIZATION, PERSON–GROUP, AND PERSON–SUPERVISOR FIT AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN, RYAN D. ZIMMERMAN, ERIN C. JOHNSON Henry B. Tippie College of Business Department of Management & Organizations University of Iowa This meta-analysis investigated the relationships between person–job (PJ), person–organization (PO), person–group, and person–supervisor ﬁt with preentry (applicant attraction, job acceptance, intent to hire, job offer) and postentry individual-level criteria (attitudes, performance, withdrawal behaviors, strain, tenure) . A search of published articles, conference presentations, dissertations, and working papers yielded 172 usable studies with 836 effect sizes. Nearly all of the credibility intervals did not include 0, indicating the broad generalizability of the relationships across situations. Various ways in which ﬁtwas conceptualized and measured, as well as issues of study design, were examined as moderators to these relationships in studies of PJ and PO ﬁt. Interrelationships between the various types of ﬁt are also meta-analyzed. 25 studies using polynomial regression as an analytic technique are reviewed separately, because of their unique approach to assessing ﬁt. Broad themes emerging from the results are discussed to generate the implications for future research on ﬁt. Theories of person-environment (PE) interaction have been prevalent in the management literature for almost 100 years (e.g., Ekehammer, 1974; Lewin, 1935; Murray, 1938; Parsons, 1909; Pervin, 1968), making it “oneof the more venerable lines of psychological theorizing”(Dawis, 1992) . It is against this interactionist backdrop that the concept of PE ﬁt emerged. Described as a “syndrome with many manifestations”(Schneider, 2001, p. 142), PE ﬁtis broadly deﬁned as the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched. Despite, or perhaps because of, the simplicity of this deﬁnition, several distinct types of ﬁt have garnered attention. Much emphasis has The authors are indebted to the encouragement & feedback provided by SAPS and Frank Schmidt. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to AmyL. Kristof-Brown, University of Iowa, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, Department of Management & Organizations, 108 Pappajohn Business Building, Iowa City, IA 52242; amy-kristof[brown@uiowa.edu](brown@uiowa.edu). COPYRIGHT 2005 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC. 282 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY been placed on the match between peoples’ interests and those of others in a vocation (e.g., Holland, 1985) . However, other types of ﬁt, such as an individual’s compatibility with his or her job, organization, work group, and supervisors have also emerged as important research domains. Although research on these other types of ﬁt has been proliﬁc, rarely has it been synthesized to draw conclusions about the true impact of ﬁton individual-level outcomes. Some progress toward integration has been made. However, most reviews have been nonquantitative, not differentiated between various types of ﬁt, or focused solely on single types of PE ﬁt. Edwards (1991) provided a comprehensive qualitative review of PE ﬁt studies published between 1960 and 1989, but did not include a quantitative analysis of the strength of the reported relationships. Furthermore, his review did not distinguish between ﬁt with the job, group, organization, or vocation, which have been shown to have unique relationships with attitudes and behaviors (Cable & DeRue, 2002) . Another qualitative review conducted almost 10 years ago by Kristof (1996) focused exclusively on the person–organization ﬁt literature. A portion of this literature was recently meta-analyzed but only for a limited range of criteria (job attitudes) and a small number of effect sizes (k = 21; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003) .

FAQs

What fit types does the meta-analysis examine at work?

It investigates person–job (PJ), person–organization (PO), person–group, and person–supervisor fit.

Which outcomes are linked to fit in the study?

Fit is related to preentry outcomes such as applicant attraction and job offer, and to postentry criteria including attitudes, performance, withdrawal behaviors, strain, and tenure.

How does the study handle differences in how fit is conceptualized and measured?

It evaluates conceptualization, measurement approaches, and study design issues as moderators of fit–outcome relationships, and reviews polynomial regression studies separately due to their distinct analytic approach.

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by ahduag