Content uploaded by Jennifer A. Chatman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer A. Chatman on Apr 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academy of Management Review, 1989, Vol. 14, No. 3, 333-349.
Improving
Interactional
Organizational
Research:
A
Model
of
Person-Organization
Fit
JENNIFER A. CHATMAN
Northwestern University
In order for researchers to understand and predict behavior, they
must consider both person and situation factors and how these fac-
tors interact. Even though organization researchers have developed
interactional models, many have overemphasized either person or
situation components, and most have failed to consider the effects that
persons have on situations. This
paper presents criteria for improving
interactional models and a model of person-organization fit, which
satisfies these criteria. Using a Q-sort
methodology, individual value
profiles are compared to organizational value profiles to determine fit
and to predict changes in values, norms, and behaviors.
Researchers in organizational behavior are
concerned with understanding and predicting
how people behave in organizational settings.
Although they may agree about the importance
of understanding behavior, their research has
traditionally
taken two very different
forms-the
individual difference approach and the situa-
tional approach. The individual difference ap-
proach proposes that a person's behavior can
best be predicted by measuring his or her per-
sonality traits, values, motives, abilities, and af-
fect because such elements are both stable and
are reflected in behavior (e.g., Allport, 1937,
1966; Block, 1978; Bowers, 1973; Staw & Ross,
1985;
Weiss & Adler, 1984). In contrast, the situ-
ationist approach proposes that a person's be-
havior can best be predicted by assessing the
characteristics of his or her situation (e.g., Mis-
chel, 1968;
Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977, 1978;
Skin-
ner, 1971;
Thorndike, 1906).
The basic question
underlying the well-known person-situation de-
bate has been whether persons or situations ac-
count for more variation in behavior (cf. Epstein
& O'Brien, 1985; Kenrick & Funder, 1988;
Rowe,
1987;
Sarason, Smith, & Diener, 1975).
Most
behavioral scientists agree that both per-
sonal and situational characteristics influence
behavior (e.g., Lewin, 1951;
Magnusson & End-
ler, 1977;
Schneider, 1983;
Terborg, 1981).
How-
ever, the challenge has been to develop con-
cepts and methods that not only determine if
person and situation variables are valid predic-
tors of behavior but also determine when and to
what extent person and situation variables pre-
dict behavior (cf. Schneider, 1987). This is no
easy task, however, because interactive re-
search must accurately represent both person
elements and situation elements. A laboratory
experiment by psychologists Monson, Hesley,
and Chernick (1982) underscored the impor-
tance of simultaneously considering the effects
that person and situation characteristics have
on behavior. They attempted to discover when
extroversion predicted talkativeness by placing
333
extroverts and introverts in either a strong or
weak situation. Drawing on Mischel's (1977)
dis-
tinction, a strong situation is one in which ev-
eryone construes the situation similarly, the sit-
uation induces uniform
expectancies, the incen-
tives of the situation induce a response to it, and
everyone has the skills to perform in the situa-
tion. Results showed that extroversion
predicted
talkativeness only when the situation
was weak.
In strong situations, extroverts were no more
talkative
than introverts. As this study illustrates,
we can gain more refined information
by pay-
ing serious attention to both person and situa-
tion elements.
However, when we move out of the lab into
the real world, examining interactive issues be-
comes complex and difficult. For example, the
strength of a situation may not be enduring,
multiple values and norms may define a situa-
tion, and even a single individual's traits, abili-
ties, and motives may interact and change over
time (cf. McClelland, 1985).
However, organiza-
tion researchers, many of whom have expertise
in conducting research in real-world settings,
are in a good position to contribute to the devel-
opment of both balanced and realistic interac-
tive explanations because organizational set-
tings are highly complex contexts in which peo-
ple spend a great deal of time.
Consider the following real-world problem:
Assume that you are a personnel recruiter for a
firm that conducts its business through teams.
Your
dilemma is, How should you allocate your
resources? Should you invest heavily in tradi-
tional selection procedures, such as applica-
tions, inteviews, recommendations, and person-
ality tests? Or, should you spend your resources
developing an extensive employee socialization
program that emphasizes the importance of co-
operation and conveys the specific norms of the
organization to newcomers? A person theorist
would argue that you should devote your re-
sources to selection activities. The person theo-
rist
assumes that once you've identified a highly
cooperative person, he or she will be coopera-
tive across most organizational contexts (cf. Ep-
stein & O'Brien, 1985). A situational theorist
would argue that regardless of how the person
has scored on a personality scale, if your orga-
nizational context
promotes cooperation you can
expect new entrants to engage in cooperative
activities. Therefore, you should make sure that
newcomers understand that the culture of your
organization emphasizes cooperation (cf. Louis,
1980; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
In contrast, an interactional theorist would ar-
gue that the above plans are incomplete and
that you need information both about the person
and the situation. An interactionist
would point
out that a cooperative person would be most co-
operative in an organization that emphasizes
cooperation, but he or she might be competitive
in an organization that strongly promotes com-
petitive behavior. Conversely, a competitive
person would be most competitive in an organi-
zation that emphasizes competition, but he or
she might engage in cooperative activities if the
organization strongly promoted such activities.
Furthermore,
a truly
interactive model would in-
clude the effects that people have on situations
(Schneider, 1987). Therefore, when a mis-
match occurs, for example, when a coopera-
tive organization hires a competitive person, the
organization may change over time-in this
case, a norm for competition may begin to over-
shadow the previous norm for cooperation (Bet-
tenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Nemeth &
Wachtler, 1983).
Clearly, models that indicate the joint contri-
butions of persons and situations are not new in
organizational research. For example, models
have been developed of leader traits and tasks
(e.g., Fiedler, 1976),
personality traits
and voca-
tions (e.g., Holland, 1985), abilities and jobs
(e.g., Dunnette, 1976), and personality traits
and
job characteristics (e.g., Hackman & Oldham,
1980).
However, three limiting features of previ-
ous work are apparent. First, person and situa-
tion characteristics have not been as accurately
conceptualized as they, perhaps, could be. Re-
searchers on the person side have criticized re-
search that fails to consider how person charac-
teristics
are uniquely patterned within individu-
als and research that fails to use multiple act
334
criteria to track a person's behavior over time
and during situations (cf. Luthans
&
Davis, 1982;
Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986; Weiss & Adler,
1984).
Likewise, little
attention has been devoted
to conceptualizing situations (cf. Moos, 1973).
To
meaningfully test person-situation interactions,
we must consider the extent to which a situation
either induces conformity
or is ambiguous (Mis-
chel & Peake, 1982),
and we must find ways of
making meaningful comparisons between situ-
ations and persons (Lewin, 1951).
Thus, the em-
pirical results of previous interactive models
may be clouded by inaccuracies in conceptual-
izations of either person or situation contribu-
tions to behavior.
A second problem is that few researchers
have considered the effects that people have on
situations (Bell & Staw, in press; Schneider,
1987). This is perhaps the greatest strength of
interactional models when compared to contin-
gency models (e.g., Fiedler, 1976). Although
contingency theorists consider person factors
such as leader style and situation factors
such as
how routine the task is, they fail to consider that
the task itself may change over time (e.g., be-
come more exceptional) because of the leaders'
or subordinates' personal characteristics. The
effects that people have on situations
are difficult
to document because this may require many
data collection periods and highly sensitive
measurement instruments. However, the few
empirical studies that have been conducted re-
veal that people do affect their situations (Kohn
& Schooler, 1978;
Miner, 1987). A final problem
with current models is that their conceptualiza-
tions of persons and situations have been lim-
ited. For example, few researchers have consid-
ered the importance of the context at the orga-
nization level, such as an organization's system
of norms and values that have a great deal of
influence over people's behavior (cf. Jackson,
1966;
Katz & Kahn, 1978).
The next section of this paper reviews previ-
ous approaches in terms of the criteria estab-
lished above. A person-organization fit
model is
then proposed to illustrate how interactional
models in organizational research can begin to
fulfill
these criteria. Drawing on the conceptual
distinction
between strong and weak situations,
the person-organization fit model treats organi-
zation values and norms as the situational side
of the model. On the person side, individual val-
ues and some personality characteristics are ex-
amined. Higher levels of person-organization fit
exist when there is congruence between the
norms and values of organizations and the val-
ues of persons. Selection and socialization pro-
cesses are seen as the antecedents to person-
organization fit. Once person-organization fit is
assessed, predictions can be made about spe-
cific outcomes (e.g., changes in values), global
behavioral outcomes (e.g., extra-role
behavior),
and changes in organization norms and values.
The methods for measuring the components are
described. In particular, Q-sorts (Block, 1978)
may be appropriate for measuring interactions
between persons and situations over time.
Interactional Concepts and Methods
Interactional researchers incorporate the ele-
ments of both persons and environments (cf.
Fredericksen, 1972;
Ekehammar, 1974;
Magnus-
son &
Endler, 1977;
Moos, 1973).
This view has a
fairly long theoretical tradition, beginning with
Lewin's (1951) proposition that behavior is a
function of the person and the environment. To
be accurate and complete, interactional re-
searchers in organizations must (a) accurately
conceptualize and measure persons and situa-
tions, (b) document the reciprocal effects of per-
sons on situations and situations on persons,
and (c) be comprehensive and externally valid.
Although an exhaustive review of explicitly and
implicitly interactional research is beyond the
scope of this paper, particular approaches that
illustrate strengths or common weaknesses are
evaluated in light of each of these requirements.
Conceptualizing Persons and
Situations Accurately
Person Research. Two weaknesses have been
mentioned on the person side (cf. Schneider,
1983;
Staw & Ross, 1985; Weiss & Adler, 1984).
First, one individual may differ from another in
335
the way his or her traits, values, abilities, and
motives are related to each other. Also, a given
trait may or may not be relevant for the person
in question. Therefore, we should use idio-
graphic methods, which can capture the rele-
vance of individual differences. The well-known
job characteristics model (cf. Hackman & Old-
ham, 1980) illustrates this issue. According to
Hackman and Oldham, some ideal configura-
tion of task elements exists for each person, de-
pending on that person's growth need strength
(GNS). However, the outcome of their analyses
takes on a prescriptive and nomothetic quality
(Roberts & Glick, 1981). They provided only a
limited set of options for task design, and by pro-
viding the same solution (job enrichment) for ev-
eryone, they underemphasized the extent to
which GNS is differentially relevant across peo-
ple. Therefore, low correlations between en-
riched jobs and outcome behaviors may be at-
tributed to GNS's not being particularly impor-
tant for a certain individual. This criticism also
can be directed at many contingency models
that isolate either one or a few individual differ-
ences without measuring how relevant those
characteristics are to the particular respondent
(Weiss & Adler, 1984). Whether traits, motives,
values, or attitudes are being examined, we
should recognize that these may be patterned
differently across people and that such differen-
tial relevance will affect research results.
The larger problem in interactional research
is that even though we should capture the dif-
ferential relevance of traits through idiographic
methods, we also should compare people either
to one another or to themselves over time, and
these comparisons require nomothetic methods
(Luthans & Davis, 1982). Two techniques that
can work in this capacity include standardized
personality profiles (e.g., Gough, 1976) and Q-
sorts (e.g., Block, 1978; Stephenson, 1953). The
template matching approach, for example,
draws on the Q-sort methodology (Bem & Allen,
1974; Bem & Funder, 1978). First, templates are
based on expert ratings of how a hypothetical
person who is high on a specific trait (e.g., dom-
inance, achievement) would behave in a spe-
cific situation (e.g., a job interview). Next, real
people are given personality tests, and their be-
havior is predicted on the basis of how similar or
different their scores are from the hypothetical
person's scores. The closer the real person is to
the hypothetical profile, the more likely it is that
the real person's behavior can be predicted by
the situation-specific template. The strength of
this method is that both a profile of traits and the
relevance of any particular trait to a particular
individual are considered.
The second major problem with many current
interactional models is that often individual
characteristics are not collected across a num-
ber of situations. This is important because even
though it may not be possible to predict single
instances of behavior from individual differ-
ences, it is possible to predict behavior aver-
aged over a sample of situations (Epstein, 1979).
Because the data are cross-situational, system-
atic longitudinal research designs must be used
(e.g., Buss & Craik, 1983; Staw et al., 1986), and
a taxonomy of important situational components
must be developed so that one situation can be
compared to another.
Situation Research. As Terborg (1981) noted,
the interactional perspective allows researchers
to conceptualize the situation in a variety of
ways. In models that include both aspects of per-
sons and aspects of situations, organizational
situations have been variously and, in many
cases, elaborately defined as the characteristics
of a task or a job (e.g., Dunnette, 1976; Kohn &
Schooler, 1978; Miner, 1987; O'Reilly, 1977), and
as the characteristics of a profession (e.g., Hol-
land, 1985), but only rarely as the characteristics
of the organization (Feldman, 1976; Jones, 1983).
However, researchers have not identified what
the important parameters of situations are. Uni-
fying dimensions that can guide future concep-
tualizations of situations, regardless of the spe-
cific situation element being examined, would
help researchers to build a comprehensive
framework of interactions in organizations (Fred-
eriksen, 1972; Moos, 1973).
336
One construct that may cut across all, or at
least many, such conceptualizations is the
strength of the situation in question. For exam-
ple, if a situation is defined in terms of occupa-
tions, job holders of strong or conformity-
inducing occupations may have salient values
that can be transmitted in the form of objective
standards of work, binding codes of ethics, li-
censing requirements, and a strong professional
association (cf. Van Maanen & Barley, 1984;
Wilensky, 1964). In contrast, weak occupations
would be characterized by a lack of consensus
among job holders about values and either few
or no mechanisms to transmit such information.
By using the strong/weak distinction, we can
move toward a more comprehensive organiza-
tion taxonomy of situations. As Bell and Staw (in
press, p. 11) asked, "are organizations (actually)
powerful situations capable of homogenizing
behavior in the face of individual differ-
ences?" To answer this question, we need to as-
sess the relative strengths and weaknesses of
important organization factors.
A second criterion for accurately representing
situations was suggested by Lewin in 1951, but it
has been difficult to address. Lewin suggested
that the relevance of persons to situations would
be maximized if we could conceptualize and
measure them in commensurate terms. Accord-
ing to Lewin's criteria, one potential problem
with Bem and Allen's (1974) template-matching
procedure is that the person is overemphasized.
In other words, situations are construed only in
terms of the personality characteristics of indi-
viduals acting within them. By assuming that
the only important elements about a situation
are how a person would behave in it, we may
overlook aspects of situations that cannot be de-
scribed in person terms. Tom (1971) developed a
measure to investigate the similarities between
people's self-profiles and the profiles of their
most preferred organization. By using two per-
sonality profiles, Tom showed that people pre-
ferred organizations that were most similar to
their self-descriptions. However, Tom's work has
the same problem as Bem's-the personality
items can be only metaphorically applied to or-
ganizations because the items were designed to
measure personality. Graham (1976) also recog-
nized the importance of measuring both person
and organization characteristics. He attempted
to create a scale (the Trait Ascription Question-
naire) that could characterize persons and orga-
nizations in similar terms, so the two could be
compared. However, the problem with Gra-
ham's work is that it is not clear if his scale char-
acterizes people within firms or the firm as an
entity.
In sum, the problem with each of these ap-
proaches is that situations are anthropomor-
phized because they are defined in the same
terms as individuals. Organizations are different
than people; therefore, the same adjective may
have a very different meaning when applied to
an organization, rather than a person. For ex-
ample, describing an individual as cooperative
may be very different than describing an orga-
nization as cooperative. The term a cooperative
individual refers to a person who tends to assist
others in order to achieve some joint benefit,
whereas the term a cooperative organization
may refer to the actual financial structure (jointly
owned by the consumers or members) of that
organization. Therefore, we need to find ways of
characterizing persons and situations in mutu-
ally relevant and comparative forms.
How Persons and Situations Affect
Each Other
If we do not consider the influence that people
have on situations, our interactive models will
be sorely incomplete. People are not passive
agents subject to environmental forces. First,
there is evidence that people actively choose
their situations (cf. Emmons & Diener, 1986;
Swann, 1983). In fact, the tendencies exist for
people both to choose situations and to perform
best in situations that are most compatible to
themselves. For example, high achievers are
more comfortable in and prefer challenging sit-
uations which require high levels of achieve-
ment. "People tend to be happier when they are
337
in settings that meet their particular needs or are
congruent with their dispositions" (Diener,
Larsen, & Emmons, 1984, p. 582).
Second, there is evidence to suggest that peo-
ple change situations. For example, Kohn and
Schooler (1978) gathered two decades' worth of
data to determine the relative effects of a person
characteristic (intellectual flexibility) and a situ-
ation characteristic (work complexity). They
found that people influenced their jobs more
than their jobs influenced them-people who
were more intellectually flexible enhanced the
complexity of their work. Along the same lines,
Miner (1987) showed that the unique interests
and abilities of a job incumbent evolved into for-
malized job descriptions, which were subse-
quently used by later job incumbents. Taken to-
gether, these studies send a clear message: Peo-
ple have pervasive and enduring effects on
situations, which we must continue to investi-
gate.
Relevant Situations and
Comprehensive Coverage
From the above review, we might believe that
many relevant situation and person factors have
been tested interactively; however, this is only
partly true. For example, although person-job
interactions (cf. Neiner & Owens, 1985; O'Reilly,
1977; Seybolt, 1976) and person-vocation inter-
actions (cf. Holland, 1985) have been examined
extensively, person-organization interactions
have not been examined as thoroughly. Two re-
searchers have conceptualized such organiza-
tion-level issues. Schneider (1987) developed a
promising theoretical model (the Attraction-
Selection-Attrition model) that attempted to
identify the process through which people and
organizations become more similar to each
other over time. House (1988) presented a com-
prehensive interactive conceptualization of or-
ganizational power. In House's scheme, organi-
zations are described in terms of their struc-
tural characteristics. Structure is predicted to
interact with people's power-striving predisposi-
tions. When the structural constraints are weak,
House hypothesized that people with power-
striving predispositions will acquire power. No
direct empirical tests of House's hypotheses
have been made.
Jones (1986) and Feldman (1976) presented two
of the few explicitly interactional and empiri-
cally tested models at the organization level.
They both examined the extent to which per-
sonal characteristics and socialization tactics
contribute to new members' adjustment to their
organizations. These two studies are relatively
unique because they also consider how people
influence organizations. Feldman (1976) found
that employees were more likely to suggest
changes at the accommodation stage of social-
ization, whereas Jones (1986) found that institu-
tionalized socialization tactics resulted in stron-
ger conformity when individuals possessed low,
rather than high, levels of self-efficacy. How-
ever, neither of these studies tracked the extent
to which employees' making suggestions and
conforming to the organization influenced orga-
nizational values.
In sum, interactional research in organization
settings has generated some concrete findings,
but improvements can be made. First, concep-
tualizations of both persons and situations must
be simultaneously idiographic and nomothetic.
On the person side, attention to the differential
relevance of characteristics and cross-situa-
tional data is essential. On the situation side,
we may need to assess the relative strengths
and weaknesses of a situation and to compare
situations and persons in mutually relevant and
commensurate terms. Second, complete models
should include how people choose and influ-
ence their situations. Finally, interactive organi-
zational research should be more comprehen-
sive.
A Model of Person-Organization Fit
This section describes one illustration of an in-
teractional model, person-organization fit. Be-
338
cause organization factors provide an important
contextual level, the third criterion for interac-
tive models, relevance and comprehensiveness,
is automatically addressed. The model draws
on the Q-sort method, which is both nomothetic
and idiographic, and through it the differential
relevance of individual characteristics are con-
sidered. Additionally, the Q-sort allows for both
a distinction between strong and weak situa-
tions and for comparisons to person character-
istics. Finally, the design of the model is explic-
itly longitudinal; therefore, both the effects that
people have on organizations and the effects
that organizations have on people are consid-
ered.
Defining Person-Organization Fit
The impact that organizational membership
has on people and the impact that people have
on organizations are predicted through informa-
tion gathered about people and information
gathered about organizations. The questions
become, what aspects of people and what as-
pects of organizations are important to consider?
Although many aspects of organizations and
people are important in determining behavior
(e.g., abilities, job requirements, personality
characteristics, and vocations), a fundamental
and enduring aspect of both organizations and
people is their values (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
On the person side, individual values are de-
fined as enduring beliefs through which a spe-
cific mode of conduct or end-state is personally
preferable to its opposite (Rokeach, 1973). Val-
ues are a type of social cognition that facilitate a
person's adaptation to his or her environment,
and values have implications for his or her be-
havior (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen 1975;
Weiner, 1988).
On the organization side, value systems provide
an elaborate and generalized justification both
for appropriate behaviors of members and for
the activities and functions of the system (Enz,
1988; Katz & Kahn, 1978; McCoy, 1985). Norms
are closely related to values in that they make
explicit the forms of behavior that are appropri-
ate for members of that system (Kilmann, Sax-
ton, & Serpa, 1985). Organizational norms and
values are a group product; even though all
members of the group would not have the same
values, a majority of active members would
agree on them and members of the group would
be aware of the group's support for a given
value (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Weiner, 1988).
In addition to a description of their content,
both organizational and individual values can
be described in terms of their intensity, or how
strongly held they are, relative to other values.
Organizational value systems also can be de-
scribed in terms of crystallization, or how widely
shared they are (Jackson, 1966; O'Reilly, 1983).
Strong organizational values are both intensely
held and widely shared, which is how many
researchers define strong culture firms (e.g.,
Davis, 1984; Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Drawing
again on the strong/weak distinction (Mischel,
1977), we can explain organizations that have
intense and crystallized values as strong situa-
tions.
Person-organization fit is defined here as the
congruence between the norms and values of
organizations and the values of persons. In or-
der to determine the effects that organizational
membership will have on an individual's values
and behaviors and the effects that an individual
will have on an organization's norms and val-
ues, we must first assess the extent of agreement
between the person's values and the organiza-
tion's values. Additionally, much of the interac-
tional research discussed previously has exam-
ined personality traits as important determi-
nants of behaviors. However, as mentioned
above, if personality traits are compared di-
rectly to organization contexts, there is a risk of
misrepresenting (anthropomorphizing) organi-
zations. Therefore, particular traits (e.g., self-
monitoring) are seen here as determinants of the
particular behavioral manifestation of person-
organization fit. A model of person-organization
fit is presented in Figure 1, and the ways of mea-
339
a) U
0
0
0 Z d G
oa))
0~~~~
(1)~~~~~
-4- U)~~~~~~-
O ul~~~
340
suring each of the components are discussed
below.
Measuring Person-Organization Fit
According to the conceptual requirements for
interactional research listed above, the assess-
ment of individual and organizational values
should be both idiographic, so that the rele-
vance of particular values and the uniqueness
of patterns of values across people and organi-
zations are represented, and nomothetic, so that
person and situation factors can be compared.
In addition, the situation should be assessed in
terms of how strong or weak it is. The Q-sort
method is one viable method for developing a
simultaneously idiographic and nomothetic in-
strument to assess values and for determining
whether an organization's value system pre-
sents a strong or weak situation to individuals.
Although the Q-sort method traditionally has
been used to assess personality characteristics
(Block, 1978), organizational researchers have
developed two Q-sort item sets. The Organiza-
tional Culture Profile (OCP) assesses person-
organization fit, and the Knowledge, Skills, and
Abilities Profile, which will not be discussed
here, assesses person-job fit (Chatman, 1988;
O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1988). The OCP
contains 54 value statements (e.g., quality, re-
spect for individuals) that can generically cap-
ture individual and organizational norms and
values. The OCP can be used to measure per-
son-organization fit in the following way: To as-
sess an individual's values, job seekers or new
firm members are asked to sort the 54 items into
9 categories, with a specified number of cards in
each category. Fewer cards are allowed at ex-
treme categories, and more cards are allowed
in the central, more neutral, categories. The
question new members are asked to keep in
mind while sorting the deck is, "How important
is it for this characteristic to be a part of the or-
ganization I work for?"
The anchors given for the
9 categories range from the most desirable val-
ues to the most undesirable values, and the mid-
dle category is neutral. The result is an individ-
ual profile that represents the person's values in
any organizational context.
To assess an organizational value system, a
broad representation of organization members
who have been with the organization for at least
1 or 2 years (so they are familiar with whatever
value system exists) are asked to sort the same
54 value statements. The only differences be-
tween the individual profile and the member
profiles are that the anchors are labeled most
characteristic to most uncharacteristic (as op-
posed to most desirable and most undesirable)
and the question they are asked is, "How much
does this attribute characterize your organiza-
tion's values?" Member profiles are then com-
bined by averaging each item to form an orga-
nization profile.
Crystallization of organizational values is as-
sessed by calculating a reliability coefficient for
the mean organization profile. A strong organi-
zational value system would be indicated by a
high reliability coefficient (e.g., above .70, ac-
cording to Nunnally, 1967), which shows that or-
ganization members perceive the content and
ordering of the organizational value system sim-
ilarly. Intensity and content of both individual
and organizational values are gauged by exam-
ining the top and bottom ranked items. (As a rule
of thumb, the top and bottom three categories
represent intensely held values, Block, 1978.)
Person-organization fit is measured by first
comparing the organization profile to the indi-
vidual profile and then calculating the correla-
tion between them. Two cautions should be
noted. First, if organizational values are not
highly crystallized (e.g., the alpha is below .70),
the organization profile will not be reliable. Low
crystallization is equated with a weak situation;
therefore, the organizational values cannot be
represented with a single profile. Of course, low
crystallization at the organization level may in-
dicate that strong factions exist within the orga-
nization. To determine this, member crystalliza-
tion could be calculated according to various
subgroups, such as departments, job levels, or
divisions. Second, an overall high correlation
341
between an organizational value profile and an
individual profile would indicate a general con-
gruence between the person and the organiza-
tion. However, an item-by-item comparison of
the top and bottom 12 items also is warranted.
Large disparities (e.g., greater than 3 catego-
ries) between top firm values and top individual
values should be noted-these may be the ones
in which the most individual or organizational
change occurs over time.
In sum, the Q-sort method allows for a rich
assessment of individual and organizational
values. First, the breadth and complexity of val-
ues are captured because a large number of
items are used in the OCP (Chatman, 1988), and
each item is implicitly compared to each other
item (Cattell, 1944). Thus, a distinct advantage of
the Q-sort method is that more items can be used
reliably. (Ranking the 54 items would be too cog-
nitively complex to generate reliable results.)
Second, the personal relevance of values is rep-
resented because the ordering of items reflects
the relative importance of values for a specific
person or organization. Third, situation strength
can be assessed. Crystallization, or the extent to
which the members perceive the value system
similarly, is captured by looking at the alpha
coefficient for organizational values, and the in-
tensity with which values are held is captured
by examining the pivotal items (the top and bot-
tom 12). Taken together, crystallization and in-
tensity reflect how strong or weak an organiza-
tional value system is. Finally, comparisons be-
tween profiles are made possible by using the
same set of items for individual and organiza-
tional values and by varying the anchor and
question associated with individual versus orga-
nization raters.
Although the Q-sort method can address
many of the criteria for assessment, research still
must be designed to capture the dynamic as-
pects of person-organization fit. Changes in a
person's values over time can be assessed by
comparing a person's value profile at one pe-
riod to his or her value profile at other periods.
Likewise, changes in organizational value pro-
files can be assessed by comparing an organi-
zation's profile at one time period to subsequent
periods. Thus, changes in person-organization
fit can be assessed in terms of whether the per-
son or the organization has changed and in
terms of the direction of the change. Further,
specific changes can be assessed by examining
specific changes in the placement of items. For
example, if a person who highly values risk tak-
ing enters an organization that values risk aver-
sion, subsequent value profiles can be exam-
ined to see who the change agent was: If the
person subsequently rates risk-taking signifi-
cantly lower, the organization has influenced
the person. If, however, according to the orga-
nization profile risk taking is rated significantly
higher and the profile is still highly crystallized,
the person has influenced the organization
value system. More formal propositions of these
issues are discussed in the following section.
Outcomes of Person-Organization Fit
What can we learn by knowing the extent to
which a person's values are similar to an orga-
nization's shared values? Person-organization fit
is useful because it enhances our ability to pre-
dict the extent to which a person's values will
change as a function of organizational member-
ship and the extent to which he or she will ad-
here to organizational norms. Organization
membership can shape and modify people's
values (Whyte, 1959). For example, Mortimer
and Lorence (1979) found that various work
values (e.g., people orientation, autonomy)
changed as a function of work experiences. Spe-
cifically, people adopted the values that were
rewarded in previous organizations or occupa-
tions. Similarly, Weiss (1978) found that people
aligned their values with the values of their
leaders if they perceived their leader to be con-
siderate, competent, and successful. Calibrat-
ing person-organization fit also allows us to de-
termine the likelihood of particular individuals'
causing an organization's values to change. For
example, when strong organizational values
and important individual values conflict, so that
342
what the organization thinks is important is dif-
ferent than what the individual thinks is impor-
tant (low person-organization fit), a number of
predictions could be made. Low person-
organization fit could have at least three imme-
diate outcomes: The person's values could
change and become more similar to the organi-
zation's value system, the organization's values
could change, or the person could leave the or-
ganization. This general prediction is not as spe-
cific as one would hope for. By considering other
individual differences, we may be able to spec-
ify which of the three outcomes is likely to occur.
Although space constraints prevent a consider-
ation of all relevant individual differences (e.g.,
ability, demographic characteristics, etc.) a few
personality characteristics that directly influ-
ence person-organization fit will be used as il-
lustrations of how individual differences could
be integrated into the model.
Proposition 1: When a person with discrepant
values enters an organization characterized by
strong values, the person's values are likely to
change if that person is open to influence. Fur-
thermore, this person is more likely to behave in
accordance with specified norms of the organi-
zation.
Proposition 2: When a person with discrepant
values enters an organization characterized by
strong values, the person's values will not be
expected to change if the person is not open to
influence. This person would be likely to leave
the organization.
Proposition 3: When a person with discrepant
values enters an organization characterized by
strong values and he or she scores high on self-
efficacy (Jones, 1986) or personal control (Bell &
Staw, in press), or when many new members
enter at once who share the same values with
one another, but not with the organization, the
organization's values and norms will become
more like the individual's over time.
Proposition 4 follows through with the logic of
the distinction between strong and weak situa-
tions:
Proposition 4: In organizations characterized by
weak values (low crystallization and intensity),
a person's values are likely to remain the same;
that is, his or her values will not change as a
function of organizational membership.
In addition to individual or organizational
value change and exit, another relevant type of
outcome might be extra-role behaviors. Extra-
role behaviors are defined as prosocial acts that
are not directly specified by an individual's job
description and that primarily benefit the orga-
nization as opposed to the individual. People
who share organizational values may be more
likely to contribute to the firm in constructive
ways. O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) found that
congruence between individual and organiza-
tional values predicted a higher likelihood of ex-
tra-role behaviors, such as individuals pledging
money to a university or helping others, even
when it was not required by their formal job
descriptions. In a similar vein, Van Maanen and
Schein (1979, p. 228) argued that creative indi-
vidualists are people who score high on person-
organization fit. A creative individualist is a re-
former who "rarely seeks to change the [values]
of the [organization], but rather may seek to im-
prove or make more efficient or less corrupt the
existing . . . strategies." This suggests the fol-
lowing proposition:
Proposition 5: Person-organization fit will be
positively related to extra-role
behavior.
Thus, high levels of person-organization fit
are beneficial for individuals and organizations.
High person-organization fit increases the likeli-
hood that both extra-role behaviors will occur
and individuals will feel more comfortable and
competent in organizations that have similar
values (Morse, 1975; Swann, 1983). However,
extremely high levels of person-organization fit
among numerous organizational members may
lead to ineffective individual and organizational
behavior. For example, person-organization fit
may lead to conformity, homogeneity, and low-
ered innovation as people and organizations
become unable to adapt to new environmental
contingencies (cf. Janis & Mann, 1977; Kanter,
1988). In fact, low fit between people and orga-
nizations may be desirable because "mis-fit"
343
may cause a person to grow and learn, and the
act of bringing in people who do not have the
same- values as the organization may slow or
reverse ineffective inertia and allow an organi-
zation to adapt to or take advantage of new op-
portunities (cf. Brown, 1982). Therefore, some
optimal level of person-organization fit may exist
both in terms of how close the fit is for any one
individual and in terms of the proportions of
high and low "fitters"
within an organization. Of
course, a lower boundary exists as well, and
extremely low (negative) person-organization fit
may result in sabotage or dissent (Graham,
1986). Using the methods and model presented,
researchers could explore this notion of what
constitutes an optimal level, or mix, of person-
organization fit.
Antecedents to Person-Organization Fit
Organizations enhance person-organization
fit by both selecting and socializing employees
to handle more than a specific job. That is, they
find potential employees who will be responsive
to organizational practices, and by molding
them to abide by prevailing norms and values,
they provide a more robust and stable attach-
ment between the person and the organization.
Likewise, on the person side, we have seen that
people search for and prefer when organiza-
tions' situational norms and values match those
they believe are important, and they perform
better in such situations (Diener et al., 1984).
Therefore, people have such characteristics in
mind when they select organizations, and once
they are members, they may try to change
norms either through personal control (Bell &
Staw, in press) or through power (Enz, 1988;
House, 1988) in order to establish congruence
with their own values.
Selection. Selection is the set of procedures
through which an organization chooses its
members. According to traditional views, the
selection processes should assess a candidate's
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), so that
organizations hire persons whose KSAs are
compatible with the job requirements. Although
consideration of a candidate's abilities is impor-
tant, selection processes may be more loosely
linked to person-job fit than industrial psycholo-
gists have claimed. Selection processes partly
serve a more subtle function-for recruiting
firms, the screening out of people who have val-
ues that are incompatible with the organiza-
tion's norms and values and for job seekers, the
screening out of firms that have undesirable
norms and values. Why, for example, do orga-
nizations continue to interview job candidates,
even though this process is a poor predictor of
how well a person will perform a particular job
(Arvey & Campion, 1982)?
One reason is that an
interview may assess how well a person's val-
ues fit the organization's values and norms
(Dawes, 1988;
Rothstein & Jackson, 1980; Snyder,
Berscheid, & Matwychk, 1988).
It is proposed here that a major function of
selection processes is to select individuals who
have values that are compatible with the orga-
nization's values. Further, for incoming recruits
whose values are more closely aligned with
their hiring firm before joining the firm, their val-
ues may become more similar to the organiza-
tion's values and, ultimately, they may achieve
a closer fit with the organization. This is because
of the committing nature and salience of choos-
ing an organization-high person-organization
fit at entry may become even more stable after a
person spends more time with the hiring orga-
nization. Further, individuals who have more of-
fers to choose from initially may cognitively re-
evaluate their values as more similar to the val-
ues of the organization they join (cf. O'Reilly &
Caldwell, 1981; Salancik, 1977). Of course, se-
lection is not merely a process of organizations
selecting people; people actively seach for and
choose an organization to join. From the per-
son's perspective, time, effort, initiative, and
breadth of information may predict person-
organization fit. Although industrial psycholo-
gists have looked at personnel selection almost
exclusively from the point of view of the organi-
zation selecting employees, some organiza-
tional researchers have acknowledged the im-
344
portance of the individual selecting an organi-
zation (cf. Kulik & Rowland, 1986). Empirical
research conducted among teachers (Betz &
Jud-
kins, 1975), newspaper reporters (Sigelman,
1975), and forest service workers (Hall, Schnei-
der, & Nygren, 1970) has shown that people tend
to choose organizations on the basis of the sim-
ilarity between their values and those espoused
by the organization they are considering. More
formally, the following propositions are sug-
gested:
Proposition 6: Potential recruits who either initi-
ate or are asked to spend more time with an
organization and who are involved in a variety
of organizational activities (e.g., interviews,
phone calls, receptions) before being hired will
have profiles of values similar to those of the
firm upon entry.
Proposition 7: The behavioral outcome of high
person-organization fit at entry will be that the
person conforms to the pivotal norms of the or-
ganization. Further, changes in individual val-
ues will be negatively associated with high per-
son-organization fit at entry.
Socialization. Organizational socialization is
the process through which an individual comes
to understand the values, abilities, expected be-
haviors, and social knowledge that are essential
for assuming an organizational role and for par-
ticipating as an organizational member (Louis,
1980;
Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). According to
traditional theories, socialization processes lead
directly to various desirable organizational out-
comes (cf. Fisher & Weekley, 1982). In contrast, it
is proposed here that person-organization fit
mediates the relationship between socialization
experiences and outcome variables. In other
words, socialization processes actually teach
employees the norms and values of the organi-
zation.
Louis (1980) described socialization activities
as opportunities for newcomers to make sense
out of their organizational experiences. These
activities also are opportunities for organizations
to influence the values of members. Further, the
influence of socialization programs will be espe-
cially pronounced in the early stages of organi-
zational membership (cf. Berlew & Hall, 1966).
The following proposition is suggested:
Proposition 8: In organizations that have strong
values, a greater variety and number of social-
ization processes, which include such activities
as social and recreational events, formal train-
ing, and mentor programs, will be positively as-
sociated with person-organization fit and will
bring about greater changes in individual val-
ues, resulting in a closer fit over time.
Integrating Selection and Socialization. Orga-
nization researchers have recognized that the
costs of selecting new employees can partly off-
set the costs of the socialization processes (Etzi-
oni, 1975; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981). If an organi-
zation is highly selective (assuming that clear
and valid criteria for selection have been estab-
lished), socialization costs, such as training, ori-
entation, and other informal methods of teach-
ing new employees how things are done in the
organization, are presumably lowered. Con-
versely, as selection ratios become less favor-
able to the organization (due to fewer qualified
applicants), socialization mechanisms will need
to be enhanced so that those entering the orga-
nization will become appropriately assimilated.
It is argued here that selection and socialization
are not competitive hypotheses; these processes
operate jointly to shape a firm's work force. That
is, organizations may seek out and select indi-
viduals whose values are already similar to cur-
rent members' values (Schneider, 1987), making
it easier to socialize them. Thus, the following
hypothesis is suggested:
Proposition 9: At early stages in organization
membership (0-1 year), selection experiences
will explain more variance in person-organi-
zation fit than socialization experiences. How-
ever, as the recruit becomes "less new" in the
organization, the number and type of socializa-
tion experiences will explain more variance in
person-organization fit than person variables
will.
Conclusion
Person-organization fit provides an initial in-
dex that can signal what specific values and
345
norms we should investigate further. Specifi-
cally, we can begin to predict changes both in
individual values and behavior and in organi-
zational values and norms. The following aca-
demic example summarizes the contributions of
a model of person-organization fit. Consider
what would happen when a new professor, who
values research more than teaching, enters a
university department in which members co-
hesively and intensely value teaching more
than research. The first contribution of the model
and methods described here is that we can iden-
tify initial discrepancies in values. Once large
discrepancies of important values have been
identified, the model would then help to deter-
mine what behaviors to focus on-will the new
professor's values change (research begins to
decline as a priority)? Will his or her behaviors
change (e.g., he or she begins to spend more
time on teaching preparations and in office
hours with students than he or she has in the
past)? Or, will the new professor inspire his or
her colleagues to begin research projects and,
eventually, to recruit more research-oriented
candidates for the department? The person-
organization fit model can identify discrepan-
cies and similarities between people and orga-
nizations, can track such changes over time,
and can identify what kinds of behavior and
normative changes may occur.
The goal of this paper has been to identify
specific criteria with which we can construct
meaningful and useful interactional models in
organizational research. By paying more atten-
tion to how we conceptualize people and orga-
nizations, through specific methods and longitu-
dinal research designs, we will be able to an-
swer important questions. Using an illustration
of one such model, this paper may have raised
more questions than it answered. For example,
how enduring are individual characteristics?
How strong must organizational values be in or-
der to influence different types of people? How
likely is it that individual characteristics will
shine through despite strong values? Are there
optimal combinations of heterogeneity and ho-
mogeneity among organization members? How-
ever, it is hoped that by clarifying important cri-
teria for conducting interactional organization
research, we can come closer to understanding
how organizational membership can have en-
during and dramatic effects on people and how
people can have enduring and dramatic effects
on organizations.
References
Allport, G. (1937) Personality: A psychological interpretation.
New York:
Holt.
Allport, G. W. (1966)
Traits revisited. American
Psychologist,
21, 1-10.
Arvey, R., & Campion, J. (1982)
The employment interview:
A summary
and review of recent research. Personnel
Psy-
chology, 35, 281-322.
Bell, N., & Staw, B. (in press) People as sculptors versus
sculptor: The roles of personality and personal control in
organizations. In M. Arthur, D. Hall, & B. Lawrence (Eds.),
The handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge
University
Press.
Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974) On predicting some of the
people some of the time: The search for cross-sectional
consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506-
520.
Berm,
D. J., & Funder, D. C. (1978)
Predicting more of the
people more of the time: Assessing the personality of sit-
uations. Psychological Review, 85, 485-501.
Berlew, D., & Hall, D. (1966) The socialization of managers:
Effects of expectations on performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 11, 207-223.
Bettenhausen, K., &
Murnighan,
K. (1985)
The emergence of
norms in competitive decision-making groups. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 30, 350-372.
Betz, M., & Judkins, B. (1975) The impact of voluntary asso-
ciation characteristics on selective attraction and social-
ization. The Sociological Quarterly, 16, 228-240.
346
Block,
J. (1978)
The Q-sort
method in personality assessment
and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologist Press.
Bowers, K. (1973)
Situationism
in psychology: An analysis
and critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307-336.
Brown, M. C. (1982)
Administrative
succession and organi-
zational performance:
The succession effect. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly,
29, 245-273.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983)
The act frequency ap-
proach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105-126.
Cattell, R. B. (1944)
Psychological measurement: Ipsative,
normative, and interactive. Psychological Review, 51,
292-303.
Chatman, J. (1988)
Matching
people and organizations:
Se-
lection and socialization in public accounting firms. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University
of California,
Berkeley.
Davis, S. M. (1984) Managing corporate culture. Cam-
bridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Dawes, R. (1988)
Rational choice in an uncertain
world. Or-
lando, FL:
Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982)
Corporate cultures.
Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Diener, E., Larsen, R., & Emmons, R. (1984)
Person X situa-
tion interactions:
Choice of situations
and congruence re-
sponse models. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychol-
ogy, 47, 580-592.
Dunnette, M. D. (1976) Aptitudes, abilities, and skills. In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook
of industrial
and organi-
zational psychology (pp. 473-520). Chicago: Rand Mc-
Nally.
Ekehammar, B. (1974)
Interactionism
in personality from a
historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1026-
1048.
Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. (1986)
Situation
selection as a
moderator of response consistency and stability. Journal
of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1013-1019.
Enz, C. (1988)
The role of value congruity in intraorganiza-
tional power. Administrative
Science Quarterly,
33, 284-
304.
Epstein, S. (1979)
The stability of behavior: I. On predicting
most of the people much of the time. Journal
of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126.
Epstein, S., & O'Brien,
E. J. (1985)
The person-situation
de-
bate in historical
and current
perspectives. Psychological
Bulletin, 98, 513-537.
Etzioni,
A. (1975)
A comparative analysis of complex orga-
nizations:
Revised and enlarged edition. New York:
Free
Press.
Feldman, D. (1976)
A contingency theory of socialization.
Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21, 433-452.
Fiedler, F. (1976)
The leadership game: Matching
the man to
the situation. Organizational
Dynamics, 4(3), 6-16.
Fishbein, M., &
Ajzen, I. (1975)
Belief, attitude,
intention
and
behavior. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, C., & Weekley, J. (1982)
Socialization in work orga-
nizations. Working
paper, Texas A&M
University,
Depart-
ment of Management and Department
of Psychology, Col-
lege Station.
Frederiksen, N. (1972) Toward a taxonomy of situations.
American Psychologist, 27, 114-123.
Gough, H. (1976)
Personality
and personality
assessment. In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organi-
zational psychology (pp. 571-608). Chicago: Rand Mc-
Nally.
Graham, J. (1986)
Principled
organizational dissent: A theo-
retical essay. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Re-
search in organization
behavior (Vol.
8, pp. 1-52). Green-
wich, CT:
JAI
Press.
Graham, W. (1976) Commensurate characterization of per-
sons, groups, and organizations:
Development of the trait
ascription questionnaire (TAQ). Human Relations, 29,
607-622.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980) Work redesign.
Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970)
Personal
factors in organizational
identification.
Administrative
Sci-
ence Quarterly, 15, 176-190.
Holland, J. (1985)
Making vocational choices: A theory of
vocational
personalities and work
environments
(2nd
ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
House, B. (1988) Power and personality in complex organi-
zations. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research
in organizational
behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 305-358). Green-
wich, CT:
JAI
Press.
Jackson,
J. (1966)
A conceptual and measurement model for
norms and roles. Pacific Sociological Review, 9, 35-47.
Janis,
I., &
Mann, L. (1977)
Decision making: A psychological
analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment.
New York:
Free Press.
Jones,
G. R. (1983)
Psychological orientation
and the process
of organizational socialization:
An interactionist
perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464-474.
Jones, G. R. (1986) Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and
newcomers' adjustments to organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 29, 262-279.
Kanter, R. (1988)
When a thousand flowers bloom: Struc-
tural, collective, and social conditions
for
innovation
in an
347
organization. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Re-
search in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp 169-211).
Greenwich, CT:
JAI
Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of orga-
nizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988)
Profiting from contro-
versy: Lessons from the person-situation
debate. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 43, 23-35.
Kilmann, R. J., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (Eds.)
(1985)
Gain-
ing control of the corporate culture. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Kohn, M., & Schooler, C. (1978)
The reciprocal
effects of the
substantive complexity
of work and intellectual
flexibility:
A longitudinal assessment. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 84, 24-52.
Kulik, C., &
Rowland, K. (1986,
August) College seniors'
job
search: An attributional approach. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science. New York:
Harper
& Row.
Louis, M. (1980)
Surprise and sense making: What newcom-
ers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational set-
tings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.
Luthans, F., & Davis, T. (1982) An idiographic approach to
organizational behavior research: The use of single case
experimental designs and direct measures. Academy of
Management Review, 7, 380-391.
Magnusson, D., & Endler, N. (1977) Interactional
psychol-
ogy: Present status and future
prospects. In D. Magnusson
& N. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current
issues in interactional psychology (pp. 3-35). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
McClelland, D. (1985) How motives, skills, and values deter-
mine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-
825.
McCoy, C, (1985) Management of values. Marshfield, MA:
Pitman.
Miner, A. (1987)
Idiosyncratic
jobs in formal organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 327-351.
Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and assessment. New York:
Wiley.
Mischel, W. (1977)
The interaction of person and situation.
In
D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the
crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp.
333-352). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1982)
Beyond d6j& vu in the
search for
cross-situational
consistency. Psychological Re-
view, 89, 730-755.
Monson, T. C., Hesley, J. W., & Chernick, L. (1982) Specify-
ing when personality traits can and cannot predict
behav-
ior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict
single-act criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 43, 385-399.
Moos, R. H. (1973) Conceptualizations of human environ-
ments. American Psychologist, 28, 652-665.
Morse, J. (1975)
Person-job congruence and individual ad-
justment. Human Relations, 28, 841-861.
Mortimer,
J., & Lorence, J. (1979)
Work
experience and oc-
cupational value socialization. American Journal
of Soci-
ology, 84, 1361-1385.
Neiner, A., &
Owens, W. (1985)
Using biodata to predict job
choice among college graduates. Journal
of Applied Psy-
chology, 70, 127-136.
Nemeth, C., & Wachtler,
J. (1983)
Creative problem solving
as a result
of majority
versus minority
influence. European
Journal
of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.
Nunnally,
J.
(1967) Psychometric
theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
O'Reilly,
C. (1977) Personality-job
fit:
Implications
for individ-
ual attitudes and performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 18, 36-46.
O'Reilly, C. (1983, August) Corporations,
cults and organi-
zational culture: Lessons from Silicon Valley firms. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management,
Dallas.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1981)
The commitment
and job tenure of new employees: Some evidence of post-
decisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26, 597-616.
O'Reilly,
C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986) Organization com-
mitment and psychological attachment: The effects of
compliance, identification, and internalization on proso-
cial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1988)
People, jobs, and organizational culture. Working paper,
University
of California at Berkeley.
Roberts,
K. H., &
Glick,
W. (1981)
The job characteristics ap-
proach to task
design: A critical review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 66, 193-217.
Rokeach, M. (1973)
The nature of human values. New York:
Free Press.
Rothstein, M., & Jackson, D. (1980) Decision making in the
employment interview: An experimental approach. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 65, 271-283.
Rowe, D. (1987)
Resolving the person-situation
debate: Invi-
tation to an interdisciplinary
dialogue. American Psychol-
ogist, 42, 218-227.
348
Salancik, G. (1977)
Commitment
and the control of organi-
zational behavior and belief. In B. Staw & G. Salancik
(Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1-
54). Chicago: St. Clair.
Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1977)
An examination of need-
satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 22, 427-456.
Salancik, G., &
Pfeffer,
J.
(1978)
A social information
process-
ing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Sarason, I., Smith, R., & Diener, E. (1975)
Personality re-
search: Components of variance attributed to the person
and the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 32, 199-204.
Schneider, B. (1983)
Interactional
psychology and organiza-
tional behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1-31).
Greenwich, CT:
JAI
Press.
Schneider, B. (1987)
The people make the place. Personnel
Psychology, 14, 437-453.
Schmidt, F. L., &
Hunter,
J. E. (Eds.)
(1981)
Public
personnel
administration: Policies and procedures for personnel.
New York:
Prentice-Hall.
Seybolt, J. W. (1976)
Work
satisfaction as a function of the
person-environment interaction. Organization Behavior
and Human Performance, 17, 66-75.
Sigelman, L. (1975)
Reporting
the news: An organizational
analysis. American Journal
of Sociology, 79, 132-151.
Skinner, B. F. (1971) Beyond freedom and dignity. New York:
Knopf.
Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Matwychk,
A. (1988) Orienta-
tions toward personnel selection: Differential
reliance on
appearance and personality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 972-979.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986)
The disposi-
tional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal
test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-77.
Staw, B. M., &
Ross, J.
(1985)
Stability in the midst
of change:
A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 70, 469-480.
Stephenson, W. (1953)
The study of behavior. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Swann, B. (1983)
Self verification:
Bringing
social reality into
harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.),
Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 132-
151).
Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Terborg,
J. R. (1981)
Interactional
psychology and research
on human behavior in organizations. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 6, 569-576.
Thorndike, E. (1906)
Principles of teaching. New York:
Seiler.
Tom, V. (1971) The role of personality and organizational
images in the recruiting process. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 6, 573-592.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1984)
Occupational commu-
nities:
Culture
and control in organizations. In B. M. Staw
& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational be-
havior (Vol. 6, pp. 287-365). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979)
Toward a theory of or-
ganizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research
in organizational behavior, (Vol. 1, pp. 209-264). Green-
wich, CT: JAI
Press.
Weiner, Y. (1988)
Forms of value systems: A focus on orga-
nizational
effectiveness and culture
change maintenance.
Academy of Management Review, 13, 534-545.
Weiss, H. (1978)
Social learning of work values in organiza-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 711-718.
Weiss, H., &
Adler, S. (1984)
Personality
and organizational
behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Re-
search in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 711-718).
Greenwich, CT:
JAI
Press.
Whyte, W. F. (1959)
Man and organization. Homewood, IL:
Irwin.
Wilensky,
H. (1964)
The professionalization
of everyone? The
American Journal of Sociology, 70, 137-158.
Jennifer A. Chatman (Ph.D., University of California,
Berkeley) is an Assistant Professor of Organization Be-
havior at Northwestern University. Correspondence
regarding this article can be sent to her at the Kellogg
Graduate School of Management, Northwestern Uni-
versity, Evanston, IL 60208. The author would like to
thank Robert Bies, Elizabeth Mannix, and Denise
Rousseau for their insightful comments on earlier
drafts of this paper.
349
