Perceived similarity and complementarity as ... - Wiley Online Library

Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

341

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2007), 80, 341–354 q 2007 The British Psychological Society

The British Psychological Society www.bpsjournals.co.uk

Short research note

Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective person–organization fit Kelly A. Piasentin* and Derek S. Chapman University of Calgary, Canada We examined whether subjective person–organization (P-O) fit arises from perceptions of similarity, complementarity or some combination of both. Data were collected from 209 employees of various occupational and organizational backgrounds. Results indicated that individuals distinguish between fit that occurs through similarity and complementarity, and that both explain unique variance in subjective P-O fit. Subjective fit was associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and reduced turnover intentions. Furthermore, the results suggest that subjective fit mediates the relationship between perceived similarity/complementarity and work attitudes.

Identifying and selecting individuals who fit into the organization (known as person– organization or P-O fit) has been noted as a key ingredient to retaining a productive and committed workforce (Kristof, 1996). Although P-O fit research has successfully improved the prediction of important work outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003), knowledge of how employees experience fit is incomplete. Most of our knowledge about employees’ fit perceptions comes from assessing the extent to which individuals perceive that their personal characteristics are similar to organizational characteristics (i.e. supplementary fit). Despite a general consensus in the literature that P-O fit may also occur from complementarity between individual and organizational characteristics (i.e. when an individual’s characteristics ‘serve to “make whole” or complement the characteristics of an environment’; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p. 271), this type of fit has been subjected to minimal empirical investigation and what entails a ‘complementary’ fit remains elusive (Kristof, 1996). In fact, many researchers do not distinguish complementary fit from needs-supplies fit (i.e. when an individual’s needs are met by

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois. * Correspondence should be addressed to Kelly A. Piasentin, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4 (e-mail: [email protected]). DOI:10.1348/096317906X115453


342 Kelly A. Piasentin and Derek S. Chapman

the organization) or demands-abilities fit (i.e. when an individual’s characteristics meet the demands of the organization) and, often, the construct pertains to fit with the job (i.e. person-job or P-J fit) as opposed to fit with the organization (e.g. Cable & DeRue, 2002; Cable & Edwards, 2004). To our knowledge, no empirical research has directly examined perceptions of complementarity as a distinct form of P-O fit. To this end, in the current study we further develop the concept of complementary fit and specify two important criteria that distinguish complementary fit from other types of fit: first, an individual must perceive that he or she is dissimilar to existing organizational characteristics on important criteria (e.g. abilities, knowledge, personality traits); second, the individual must also perceive that this dissimilarity makes him or her unique in the organization and, therefore, of value to the organization. Thus, we define complementary fit as occurring when an individual possesses unique characteristics that are perceived to be different from other employees’ characteristics, yet valuable to the organization. Based on this conceptual definition, in this study we compare the extent to which complementary and supplementary fit are conceptually distinct from each other as well as the extent to which each contributes unique variance to overall judgments of fit and work attitudes.

Distinguishing between perceived similarity, perceived complementarity and subjective fit An overarching assumption in the literature is that perceptions of P-O fit will be experienced to the extent that an individual perceives him/herself to be similar to existing organizational characteristics. For example, the individual might perceive that his or her personality is congruent with the overall culture or image of the organization, or might determine that his/her values match the values of other employees in the organization. Whatever the source of individual–organizational congruence, the similar-to-me phenomenon (i.e. the finding that individuals are more likely to be attracted to, join and remain in organizations when they are similar to organizational members; Byrne, 1971; Schneider, 1987) is thought to be the primary driving force in how individuals evaluate their P-O fit. For instance, social psychological research explains that people find it more desirable to interact with others who have similar psychological characteristics because these individuals help to verify and reinforce a person’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviours (Swann, 1987; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). Implicit in these findings is the assumption that individuals place value on being similar to others and that it is this feeling of being similar that leads to overall perceptions of fit with the organization. However, is perceived similarity a necessary antecedent of subjective P-O fit? Since measures of perceived similarity and overall subjective fit are often confounded in the same scale (e.g. Cable & DeRue, 2002; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001), we currently have no understanding of whether all individuals use similarity to gauge their fit with an organization. The complementary model of fit suggests that individuals do not need to be similar to experience fit, but that fit can also occur through complementarity. As mentioned previously, we define complementary fit as stemming from individuals’ perceptions that their differences serve to complement organizational characteristics. Implicit in this definition is the notion that being different is perceived as desirable and is valued by the organization. Thus, whereas some individuals might perceive that being different prevents them from fitting in, others may perceive that being different makes them


Person–organization fit

343

unique, therefore enabling them to fit in (albeit in a complementary way). In this sense, feeling different may only result in low levels of subjective fit when individuals do not perceive that their differences add value to the organization. Snyder and Fromkin’s (1977) theory of uniqueness may be useful for explaining what seems to be the paradoxical nature of ‘fitting in by being different’. An underlying assumption of this theory is that feeling unique is important for one’s sense of self-worth. According to this theory, people derive intrinsic satisfaction from the perception that they are unique, special and distinguishable from ‘the masses’. Snyder and Fromkin acknowledge, however, that individuals have varying degrees of uniqueness motivation. Individuals with a high need for uniqueness are thought to be particularly sensitive to the degree to which they are seen as similar to others and will strive to fulfill their desire to be unique through various means, including their appearance, style of personal interaction and domains of knowledge in which they establish expertise. In sum, we expect that individuals may experience fit as either similarity or complementarity; thus, we predict that perceptions of similarity and complementarity will both predict subjective fit. Hypothesis 1a. Individuals who perceive that their personal characteristics are similar to organizational characteristics will report higher levels of subjective P-O fit. Hypothesis 1b. Individuals who perceive that their personal characteristics are complementary to organizational characteristics will report higher levels of subjective P-O fit.

Outcomes of perceived fit Based on previous research findings that P-O fit contributes to positive work attitudes (e.g. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer et al., 2003), we expect that individuals reporting high levels of subjective fit – regardless of whether this is derived from perceived similarity, perceived complementarity, or both – will report higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and lower turnover intentions. Hypothesis 2. Individuals with high levels of subjective P-O fit will report (a) higher levels of job satisfaction, (b) higher levels of organizational commitment, and (c) lower turnover intentions.

We also propose that fit perceptions mediate the relationship between perceived similarity or complementarity and work outcomes; that is, perceiving that one’s personal characteristics are similar or complementary to organizational characteristics may predict job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions, but only as it is subjectively interpreted as fit with the organization. Hypothesis 3a. Perceived similarity will be positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and negatively related to turnover intentions. Hypothesis 3b. Perceived complementarity will be positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and negatively related to turnover intentions. Hypothesis 3c. The relationships between (a) perceived similarity and job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions, and between (b) perceived complementarity and job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions, are mediated by subjective P-O fit.



Method Sample and procedure Data were collected from employees of various organizational and occupational backgrounds, which was intended to generate a large amount of variance on the variables of interest. E-mails were initially sent to employees of four different organizations inviting them to complete a survey on-line. All four organizations were located in mid-size to large Canadian cities. Two of these organizations represented local divisions of Fortune 500 companies in the manufacturing and technology sectors, which employ approximately 900 and 80 employees, respectively. The third organization was a small manufacturing company of 220 employees, and the fourth was an administrative department (N ¼ 38) of a hospital. To supplement the number of participants, the survey was also advertised on three professional research websites, whereby employed individuals were invited to complete the survey. Respondents received one of four versions of the survey (the order of scales was varied in each version). One-way analyses of variance of survey order indicated no significant differences in the predictor or criterion variables. Data from completed surveys were returned directly to the researchers, thereby preserving participant anonymity with respect to their employers. In total, 209 individuals completed the survey. Of the respondents 60% were female, 89% were Caucasian and 84% were employed full-time. The mean age of participants was 36 years, mean organizational tenure was 7.4 years and participants had worked for an average of 3.6 different organizations in their lifetime. Respondents came from various industries including education (23%), manufacturing (20%), government (12%), service (11%), health care (6%), not-for-profit (4%), telecommunications (4%) and transportation (3%). Respondents also worked in various job types including research and development (16%), human resources (14%), administration (13%), education (10%), sales (8%), engineering (5%), information technology (5%), customer service (3%) and finance (2%). Measures Subjective P-O fit In order to test our hypotheses, it was necessary to develop a measure of subjective fit that was not confounded with similarity items. Four items pertaining to employees’ global perceptions of fit were used to assess subjective fit (a ¼ :83). Items included, ‘I fit in well with other people who work for this company’, ‘This organization is a good fit for me in terms of what I look for in an employer’, ‘I think other people would say that I fit into this organization’, and ‘I would probably fit in better at another organization than the one I currently work for’ (reverse scored). Items were rated on a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Perceived similarity and complementarity Bretz, Boudreau, and Judge (1994) have pointed out that there are numerous dimensions that could be used to assess organizational fit (e.g. values, personality and knowledge, skills and abilities or KSAs). Furthermore, according to Bretz, Rynes, and Gerhart (1993) ‘there is little empirical basis for choosing among these orientations’ (p. 313) or for ‘studying one aspect to the exclusion of others’ (p. 324). In order to capture a wide domain of possible antecedents of fit perceptions, we constructed a variety of items that



345

assess different types of perceived similarity or complementarity, including perceived value, personality and KSA similarity or complementarity. Additional items reflecting more general perceptions of similarity or complementarity were also included to ensure that respondents’ perceptions were not entirely restricted to researcher-derived orientations of fit. All items were rated on a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.1 We developed six items to assess the extent to which respondents perceive that their personal characteristics are similar to organizational characteristics or to others in the organization. Sample items include, ‘My personality is similar to the employees I work with’ and ‘I have the general qualities this organization looks for in employees’. We also developed nine items to assess the extent to which employees perceive that their personal characteristics complement the organization or people in the organization. Sample items include, ‘My knowledge, skills, and abilities offer something that other employees in this organization do not have’ and ‘Even though my personality differs from my co-workers, it seems to complement their personalities’. Finally, to better understand the distinction between being ‘different’ and being ‘complementary’, we created four items that assess perceived difference. These items include, ‘My personal values are different from those of my coworkers’, ‘My level of knowledge and ability differs from most of the employees I work with’, ‘I feel like I stand out in this organization’ and ‘The values I possess distinguish me from other employees in this organization’. Unlike the items designed to measure perceived complementarity, these items are not inherently positive, but may be interpreted as the opposite of similarity. As such, we included these items to determine whether they would reflect (reverse-keyed) perceived similarity or perceived complementarity. Work outcomes We measured three different work outcomes and all responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Job satisfaction was assessed using Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) five-item job satisfaction scale (a ¼ :92). Organizational commitment was measured with Allen and Meyer’s (1990) affective commitment scale (a ¼ :80). Turnover intentions were measured with two items, including ‘I frequently think about quitting my job’ and ‘I doubt that I will be here in a few months’ (a ¼ :90). Organizational tenure We controlled for the length of time each participant had been employed with his or her current organization because tenure is thought to be indicative of stable correspondence between the person and the work environment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Furthermore, various empirical studies have documented that tenure is positively correlated with P-O fit (e.g. Bretz & Judge, 1994).

Results and discussion To determine whether items measuring perceived similarity and complementarity would result in distinct constructs, we conducted a principal components analysis with varimax rotation forcing two factors on the 19 items developed to measure perceived 1

Since more items were initially developed than are ultimately used in the analyses, internal consistencies of the final scales are reported in the Results section.



similarity and complementarity. Combined, the two factors that emerged accounted for 40% of the variance in item responses. A total of 17 items were included in the final factor structure, as two items did not load cleanly on either factor (i.e. ‘My level of knowledge and ability differs from most of the employees I work with’ and ‘I seem to get along best with employees who have personality traits that are different from my own’) and, thus, were excluded from the final scales. The items and their factor loadings are reported in Table 1. Item loadings were generally consistent with the proposed underlying factor structure. The first factor, perceived similarity, included nine items (a ¼ :80). Interestingly, two of the perceived difference items and one of the perceived complementarity items loaded negatively on this factor, all three of which pertain to having dissimilar values. The second factor, perceived complementarity, included eight items (a ¼ :79), one of which was originally developed as a measure of perceived difference (i.e. ‘I feel like I stand out in this organization’). Table 1. Varimax rotated factor matrix for person–organization fit items Item Perceived similarity 1. The underlying philosophy of this organization reflects what I value in a company. 2. My personality is similar to the employees I work with. 3. I share a lot in common with people who work for this company. 4. My values make me feel unique because they are different from the company’s values. 5. My personal values are different from those of my co-workers. 6. My personality is well suited for the personality or ‘image’ of this company. 7. My skills and abilities match the sills and abilities this organization looks for in employees. 8. The values I possess distinguish me from other employee in this organization. 9. My ability level is comparable to those of my co-workers. Perceived complementarity 10. I feel that I am important to this company because I have such different skills and abilities than my co-workers. 11. My co-workers rely on me because I have competencies that they do not have. 12. When key decisions are made, my co-workers consult me because I have a different perspective than they do. 13. I feel like I stand out in this organization. 14. My knowledge, skills, and abilities offer something that other employees in this organization do not have. 15. I feel that I am a unique piece of the puzzle that makes this organization work. 16. Even though my personality differs from my co-workers, it seems to complement their personalities. 17. People in my organization seem to value that I am different from the ‘typical’ employee. Eigenvalue Percentage of variance accounted for

1

2

.73 .71 .69 2 .67

.23 .12 .25 .12

2 .64 .57 .51

.16 .26 .05

2 .48 .45

.33 2.17

2 .10

.68

2 .03 .09

.67 .66

2 .15 2 .12

.66 .65

.28 .08

.62 .49

.05

.49

3.90 20.16

3.70 19.83

Overall, the factor structure suggests that individuals do indeed distinguish between perceptions of similarity and complementarity. The finding that these two variables have an almost zero correlation (r ¼ :03, p . :05) provides further evidence that it is possible



347

for these two types of fit to coexist. Thus, complementarity is not simply the absence of perceived similarity, but appears to be a distinct construct that includes perceptions of being different from others in the organization, and valuing those differences. Although individuals were able to distinguish between similarity and complementarity of personality and KSAs, as well as more general feelings of similarity or complementarity, they did not distinguish between similarity and complementarity of values; rather, values seemed to be viewed only along a continuum of similar vs. dissimilar. This suggests that perhaps values cannot be complementary, but are necessarily either congruent or incongruent with organizational values.

Hypothesis testing To test Hypothesis 1, that perceived similarity and complementary both predict overall subjective P-O fit, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis. Specifically, we examined whether each predictor has a unique positive impact on subjective fit after controlling for the other. The results indicated that both perceived similarity (DR 2 ¼ :55, b ¼ 0:74, p , :001) and perceived complementarity (DR 2 ¼ :06, b ¼ 0:23, p , :001) accounted for significant incremental variance in subjective fit when they were entered hierarchically into the regression equation; after controlling for organizational tenure, the two predictors combined accounted for 61.4% of the variance in subjective P-O fit (p , :001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Although these findings imply that, collectively, both dimensions capture the fit construct better than either type alone, the relatively small effect size obtained for perceived complementarity suggests that, across individuals, it may be a much weaker predictor of subjective fit than perceived similarity. We do not believe that these findings suggest complementarity is unimportant to fit perceptions, but offer three explanations for the lower predictive ability of this construct. First, it is possible that our measure of perceived complementarity requires further refinement to ascertain the true relationship between complementarity and subjective fit. Second, and perhaps more likely, is the possibility that a smaller proportion of individuals value being different – a necessary component of complementarity (see Table 2). A third explanation for the relatively weaker effect of perceived complementarity is that perhaps individuals do not experience true complementarity, but that a combination of similarity and complementarity is important to individuals. To examine this possibility, we tested the interactive effects of perceived similarity and complementarity on subjective fit. Specifically, we computed an interaction term between perceived similarity and perceived complementarity and then entered this variable into a hierarchical regression analysis. After controlling for the main effects of perceived similarity and perceived complementarity, the interaction between these two variables in predicting subjective fit was statistically significant, adj. R 2 ¼ .55, DR 2 ¼ :11, b ¼ 0:60, p , :001. As can be seen in Figure 1, perceptions of complementarity appear to be particularly important for subjective fit when perceived similarity is low. When perceived similarity is high, perceived complementarity appears to have little impact on subjective fit. Overall, the findings of this study seem to suggest that similarity is central to fit, but that complementarity may be an important source of fit perceptions when perceived similarity is low. Hypothesis 2 tested whether subjective P-O fit significantly predicts job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that, after controlling for organizational tenure, all three predictions were

36.35 – – 7.35 3.57 5.14 2.78 4.07 4.99 4.59 4.53

M

11.10 – – 7.75 3.64 1.51 2.04 1.24 1.33 .96 .98

SD – 2 .06 2 .15 .60 .21 .34 2 .30 .21 .12 .01 .14

1

– .04 2.14 .12 2.06 .27 2.13 2.10 .02 2.11

2

– 2 .16 2 .15 .05 .01 .09 .09 .13 .01

3

– 2 .23 .19 2 .25 .27 .16 2 .05 .14

4

– .01 .14 2.19 2.16 2.07 2.15

5

(.92) 2 .60 .60 .67 .22 .51

6

(.90) 2 .56 2 .59 2 .06 2 .49

7

(.80) .71 .27 .59

8

(.83) .24 .78

9

(.79) .03

10

(.80)

11

Note. Values greater than .13 are significant at p , :05, values greater than .18 are significant at p , :01 and values greater than .24 are significant at p , :001. Owing to missing data, Ns range from 200 to 209. Gender was coded as 1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female. Ethnicity was coded as 1 ¼ Caucasian, 2 ¼ other. Cronbach’s coefficient alphas appear on the diagonal in parentheses for scale scores.

1. Age 2. Gender 3. Ethnicity 4. Organizational tenure 5. Number of organizations 6. Job satisfaction 7. Turnover intentions 8. Organizational commitment 9. Subjective fit 10. Perceived complementarity 11. Perceived similarity

Variable

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations between study variables

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society




349

Figure 1. Interactive effect of perceived similarity and complementarity on subjective P-O fit.

supported. Specifically, subjective fit accounted for 41.3% of the variance in job satisfaction ( p , :001), 46.1% of the variance in organizational commitment ( p , :001) and 29.3% of the variance in turnover intentions ( p , :001). To test Hypothesis 3, that perceived similarity and perceived complementarity are related to work outcomes, but that subjective fit mediates these relationships, we conducted mediation analyses based upon the recommendations of Baron and Kenny (1986) and Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998) for establishing mediation. As indicated in the analyses for Hypothesis 1, perceived similarity and complementarity each accounted for significant variance in subjective fit. Furthermore, subjective fit accounted for significant unique variance in job satisfaction (adj. R 2 ¼ :42, DR 2 ¼ :13, b ¼ 0:61, p , :001), organizational commitment (adj. R 2 ¼ :54, DR 2 ¼ :12, b ¼ 0:57, p , :001) and turnover intentions (adj. R 2 ¼ :33, DR 2 ¼ :09, b ¼ 20:51, p , :001) after controlling for perceived similarity and complementarity in addition to organizational tenure. When controlling only for tenure, perceived similarity significantly predicted job satisfaction (adj. R 2 ¼ :27, DR 2 ¼ :23, b ¼ 0:48, p , :001), organizational commitment (adj. R 2 ¼ :38, DR 2 ¼ :31, b ¼ 0:56, p , :001) and turnover intentions (adj. R 2 ¼ :27, DR 2 ¼ :20, b ¼ 20:45, p , :001); however, after subjective fit was also controlled for, perceived similarity no longer significantly predicted these three work outcomes (DR 2 ¼ :000, p ¼ :80, DR 2 ¼ :002, p ¼ :35 and DR 2 ¼ :003, p ¼ :37, respectively). Furthermore, the significant relationships between perceived complementarity and job satisfaction (adj. R 2 ¼ :08, DR 2 ¼ :06, b ¼ 0:24, p ¼ :001) and between perceived complementarity and organizational commitment (adj. R 2 ¼ :13, DR 2 ¼ :07, b ¼ 0:27, p , :001) both became non-significant after controlling for subjective fit (DR 2 ¼ :006, p ¼ :16 and DR 2 ¼ :009, p ¼ :059, respectively).2 These findings suggest that subjective Since the relationship between perceived complementarity and turnover intentions was not significant (adj. R2 ¼ :05, DR2 ¼ :005, b ¼ 20:07, p ¼ :298), a mediation analysis was not tested for this criterion variable. 2



fit fully mediates the relationship between perceived similarity and work attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions), as well as between perceived complementarity and work attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction and organizational commitment).

Post hoc analyses The primary purpose of this study was to establish whether perceived similarity and perceived complementarity predict unique variance in outcome measures of interest to researchers as well as to examine the relative contributions of these variables to a more general perception of subjective fit. In the past, many researchers have confounded similarity with subjective fit, thus making it difficult to explore other potential mechanisms by which employees develop a sense of fit with the organization. Here, we present two sets of post hoc confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) that examine the issue of whether the constructs of perceived similarity and subjective fit should be discussed as separate constructs. The relevant fit indices for each of the models, including GFI, AGFI, CFI and RMSEA, are provided in Table 3. We first conducted a structural equation model (SEM) analysis to examine the relationships among perceived similarity, perceived complementarity and subjective fit. We constructed two models that fit with the theory we were interested in testing. In the first model, we predicted that perceived similarity and perceived complementarity would each account for unique variance in subjective fit. In the second model, we predicted that only perceived similarity would account for variance in subjective fit perceptions by constraining the path from complementarity to subjective fit to zero. Initially, the SEM analyses resulted in an unacceptable fit for either solution making the results difficult to interpret. Accordingly, we engaged in exploratory post hoc model fitting by using modification indices to correlate some of the error terms among scale items and removing one problematic item (i.e. ‘People in my organization seem to value that I am different from the “typical” employee’) in an attempt to provide a better solution. This post hoc fitting resulted in a more acceptable solution, thereby enabling the comparison of the two models. The first two columns of Table 3 show that the proposed model, which contains both complementary and supplementary predictors of subjective fit, was a significantly better fit than the model wherein only perceived similarity predicted subjective fit (Dx2 ¼ 7:29, p , :01). Thus, these analyses show evidence of divergent validity wherein two uncorrelated predictors add unique predictive variance to subjective fit perceptions. Next, we conducted an exploratory CFA in an attempt to demonstrate the independence of perceived similarity and subjective fit. Although this issue is nested within the first set of models tested, it was felt that further analyses would be of interest to readers. We tested three models: (i) a two-factor orthogonal model, (ii) a two-factor correlated model, and (iii) a single factor model. The results of the CFA (presented in the last three columns of Table 3) reveal that none of the three models could be considered an acceptable fit to the data. However, Dx2 tests indicate that both the correlated twofactor model and the single factor model fit better than a two-factor orthogonal model but that there was no difference in fit between the two-factor correlated model and the single factor model. Since both of these models estimated the same number of parameters, a statistical Dx2 test is not meaningful. However, observing the fit indices and x2 indicates that both of these models fit equally well. Thus, the results are somewhat inconclusive in that neither of these models were a good fit for the data. The



351

Table 3. Post hoc SEM and CFA analyses Similarity and Similarity and Similarity and Similarity only complementarity subjective fit One-factor subjective fit model (with model (with modification indices) modification indices) (uncorrelated) (correlated) subjective fit x2 Df P GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA Dx2

304.60 159 .00 .87 .83 .90 .07 N/A

311.89 160 .00 .87 .83 .89 .07 7.29**

428.75 64 .00 .78 .70 .63 .17 N/A

214.11 65 .00 .84 .78 .85 .11 214.64**

214.20 65 .00 .85 .78 .85 .11 .09 ns

**p , :01.

single factor solution estimates the same number of parameters as the two-factor correlated model making them equally parsimonious; however, the single factor is more appealing as a simple solution. In addition, the correlation between the two factors is very high in the two-factor correlated solution, which could cast doubt on the utility of having two factors.3 These analyses pose significant challenges in that they come to an ambiguous conclusion regarding the issue of the independence of constructs in the study. Researchers have warned that reporting post hoc CFAs arrived at using modification indices yields unusable and possibly misleading results (see Chin, 1998 or MacCallum, 1995). Accordingly, we feel more confident in the planned statistical analyses presented in the Results section and warn against making strong conclusions based on the CFA analyses.

Strengths and limitations We believe that the strength of this study derives from the fact that it provides the first investigation of the antecedents of subjective fit, including both complementary and supplementary predictors. Moreover, it examines these antecedents across a wide range of jobs and organizations. Perhaps the greatest strength of this study is the contribution it makes to the existing P-O fit literature by demonstrating that perceptions of fit do not only arise from perceived similarity. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that perceptions of complementarity contribute to the prediction of subjective P-O fit, above and beyond the effects of perceived similarity. This issue has remained contentious in the literature (Kristof, 1996), and the present findings represent a first attempt at resolving the debate over whether perceptions of complementarity truly exists as a dimension of subjective fit. Some caution is warranted, however, due to inherent limitations of the design. First, the common method used to collect participant data in this study raises the possibility that the relationships among the fit constructs are exaggerated. Given the likelihood that correlations between complementarity and supplementarity are somewhat inflated by 3

The full details of the post hoc analyses are available from the authors upon request.



common method bias, this study represents a conservative test of the orthogonality of these constructs. Nonetheless, because it is individuals’ perceptions of fit that were of interest, self-report measures of fit were both necessary and desirable. In addition, the absolute size of the parameters (which is more susceptible to common method bias) is less important than their relative contributions in predicting (directly) subjective fit and (indirectly) work outcomes. Furthermore, respondent anonymity was protected in this study, which may have reduced the common method bias associated with evaluation apprehension (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).4 Nevertheless, reported effect sizes should be interpreted cautiously. Another potential limitation pertains to our use of a web-based survey. Although several researchers have voiced concerns regarding the quality of data collected over the Internet, recent evidence suggests that collecting data over the Internet is equivalent to traditional data collection methods (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004), and should be considered no more risky than traditional observational, survey or experimental methods. Implications and directions for future research Examining different ways that individuals experience organizational fit may be an important consideration in today’s diverse workforce. Increasingly, organizations comprise individuals from diverse backgrounds, cultures, value-systems and personalities (Richard, 2000). Keeping in line with legislative requirements in many countries, it is not always practical or possible to hire based on a traditional model of supplementary fit. The future of organizations may be better able to accommodate the notion of ‘fitting in by being different’; that is, each individual complementing existing organizational characteristics, while adding their own unique contributions to the organization. The study findings may also have implications for recruitment and selection practices. Recruiters tend to make hiring decisions on the basis of their perceptions of applicants’ fit (Cable & Judge, 1997). Understanding that fit can include both similarity and complementarity components can assist recruiters in making hiring decisions that avoid the potential pitfalls associated with selection practices that result in organizational homogeneity (e.g. Schneider, 1987). There are also potential practical implications for the management of personnel in order to reduce employee turnover and increase employee commitment and satisfaction. This study provides evidence to support managerial behaviours that recognize employee differences as adding value to the organization. Verbal praise from managers recognizing the value that diverse knowledge, skills, abilities and values bring to the organization may prove to be an effective way to reduce turnover and increase satisfaction among diverse employees. As such, organizations might benefit from improved understanding of how to measure applicant fit, and from greater insight regarding how applicants actually experience fit. Although the findings of our study demonstrate that employees distinguish between perceptions of similarity and complementarity and that these perceptions contribute uniquely to the experience of subjective fit, this research is preliminary; further attempts to develop and validate a measure of perceived complementarity are needed to 4 Podsakoff et al. (2003) also recommend partialling out the effects of affectivity as a means of controlling for method biases. In our initial analyses, we controlled for negative affect and found that it did not substantially reduce the effect sizes of the relationships of interest.



353

better understand the relationship between complementarity and fit. There may also be systematic variability in how strongly individuals’ subjective fit perceptions are influenced by supplementary and complementary dimensions. For instance, individual differences in personality, need motivations and self-construal may play an important role in explaining this variability; specifically, individuals high in openness to experience and those with high needs for achievement and independent self-construals may be more likely to perceive fit from a complementary perspective, whereas individuals who are lower in openness to experience and who have high needs for affiliation and interdependent self-construals may be more likely to perceive fit from a supplementary perspective. By disentangling subjective fit from perceived similarity, we believe that future research will have the opportunity to examine more closely these potential moderators of the relationships among personality, identity, needs, values and fit perceptions.

References 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. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311. Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Job search behavior of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47, 275–301. Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32–54. Bretz, R. D., Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (1993). Recruiter perceptions of applicant fit: Implications for individual career preparation and job search behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 310–327. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884. Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. F. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822–834. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person–organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546–561. Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22, 7–16. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based surveys? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–28.


354 Kelly A. Piasentin and Derek S. Chapman Kristof–Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of Individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person– supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454–470. MacCallum, R. C. (1995). Model specification: Procedures, strategies, and related issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling, concepts, issues and applications (pp. 16–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person–environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164–177. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518–527. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identify negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051. Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, B. R. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392–401. Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person– organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–489. Received 25 October 2005; revised version received 25 April 2006