Content uploaded by Annelies E.M. van Vianen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Annelies E.M. van Vianen on Feb 01, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior
Person–Environment Fit:
A Review of Its Basic Tenets
Annelies E.M. van Vianen
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1001 NK
Amsterdam, Netherlands; email: a.e.m.vanvianen@uva.nl
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.
5:75–101
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior is online at
orgpsych.annualreviews.org
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
032117-104702
Copyright c
2018 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
Keywords
person–environment fit, polynomial regression, surface plot analysis,
individual outcomes
Abstract
This review addresses the three basic principles of person–environment fit
theory: (a) The person and the environment together predict human behav-
ior better than each of them does separately; (b) outcomes are most optimal
when personal attributes (e.g., needs, values) and environmental attributes
(e.g., supplies, values) are compatible, irrespective of whether these attributes
are rated as low, medium, or high; and (c) the direction of misfit between the
person and the environment does not matter. My review of person–job and
person–organization fit research that used polynomial regression to establish
fit effects provides mixed support for the explanatory power of fit. Individu-
als report most optimal outcomes when there is fit on attributes they rate as
highest, and they report lowest outcomes when the environment offers less
than they need or desire. Linking these findings to individuals’ abilities and
opportunities to adapt, I reconsider fit theory and outline options for future
research and practice.
75
Click here to view this article's
online features:
• Download figures as PPT slides
• Navigate linked references
• Download citations
• Explore related articles
• Search keywords
ANNUAL
REVIEWS
Further
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
INTRODUCTION
Finding or having a fitting job matters. People exert substantial time and effort in seeking a suit-
able job, that is, a job that matches their qualifications, fulfills their specific needs, and meets
their goals and values. In a similar vein, organizations spend substantial effort on selecting ap-
plicants who fit the job and on socializing newcomers so as to create fit with the organizational
environment.
Person–environment fit (hereafter fit) is generally defined as the compatibility between in-
dividuals and their environment. Influential fit theories have been developed in the domains of
health and stress (Edwards & Cooper 1990), work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist 1984), vocational
choice (Holland 1985), and organizational culture (Schneider 1987). A search using relevant terms
of the fit literature in the Scopus abstract and citation database learns that, since the launch of
these theories, the number of studies about fit has rapidly increased. Specifically, fit-related terms
were in the titles, abstracts, or keywords of 33 publications until the year 1990, in 101 publications
until the year 2000, and in 1,083 publications until April 2017. This increase exemplifies the fact
that fit research has conquered a central place in organizational psychology.
In a world where people have the freedom to choose their goals, activities, and relationships,
they may regularly ask themselves whether their environment (opportunities, demands, social
context) offers what they wish for. The reality, however, is that a perfect fit seldom exists, as people
make suboptimal choices and individuals and their environments change over time. In particular,
the current economy and related changes in organizations force employees into situations that
they may not have desired at first, which may cause an increase in misfits at work (Vogel et al.
2016). These developments give rise to the questions of whether and when suboptimal fit harms
individual well-being and functioning.
In this article, I provide a review of extant fit research with these broad questions in mind.
Although fit has been shown to relate to important outcomes (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al. 2005), the
study of fit has been criticized for its ambiguous conceptualizations and measures. Importantly,
these ambiguities have hindered the testing of the basic tenets of fit theory.
Fit theories are built on three basic principles. First, fit theories (e.g., Schneider 1987) claim
that fit is a more powerful predictor of individual outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) than either of its
components (the person and the environment) alone. Second, fit theory proposes that outcomes
are most optimal when personal attributes (e.g., needs, abilities, values) and environmental at-
tributes (e.g., supplies, demands, values) are compatible regardless of the level of these attributes.
That is, individuals with low, medium, and high attributes are expected to respond similarly to sit-
uations of fit. Third, fit theories postulate that discrepancies between personal and environmental
attributes (misfits) reduce positive outcomes irrespective of the direction of the discrepancies. That
is, individuals with low, medium, and high attributes are assumed to respond similarly negatively
to comparable levels of experienced deficiency (the environment offers less than the individual
needs) and excess (the environment offers more than the individual needs). Moreover, as discrep-
ancies are largest for employees who rate extremely high or low on an attribute but receive the
opposite from their environment, fit theory in fact claims that individuals who experience a surplus
of work attributes that they try to avoid suffer as much as individuals who experience a lack of
work attributes that they try to attain.
In this review, I discuss how research has progressed in finding empirical support for these
basic principles of fit theory. First, I show that the fit measures used in fit research vary greatly,
impact the fit–outcome relationship differently, and are mostly inadequate to test fit theory. Then,
I focus on research that uses a more adequate technique to establish fit effects. The findings of
these latter studies allow me to review the basic tenets of fit theory.
76 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
PERSON–ENVIRONMENT FIT
Fit theory assumes that people have an innate need to fit their environments and to seek out envi-
ronments that match their own characteristics. Individuals strive to fit because they generally prefer
consistency, wish to exert control over their life and to reduce uncertainty, have a need to belong,
and want happiness and life satisfaction (Yu 2013). Self-consistency theory (Lecky 1968), the the-
ory of social comparison (Festinger 1954), balanced state theory (Heider 1958), self-affirmation
theory (Steele 1988), and the similarity attraction hypothesis (Byrne et al. 1986) all argue that
people seek validation of their opinions and want to maximize the consistency among aspects of
the self, such as attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Additionally, individuals strive for certainty and
predictability, which can be achieved if their own beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors converge with
those of others (e.g., Hogg 2000). Fit allows individuals to better understand the behaviors of
others and facilitates interpersonal interactions (Edwards & Cable 2009). Finally, people have a
fundamental need to belong (e.g., Deci & Ryan 2000), and because of this need, they compare
themselves with other people in the social environment. A feeling of belonging is most likely when
individuals perceive that they share their characteristics with others (e.g., Hogg & Terry 2000).
The organizational psychology literature refers to fit as the degree to which individual and
organizational attributes are compatible (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Fit can take two forms:
Individual and environmental attributes are similar (e.g., individual values match with those of
the organization) or individual attributes are complemented by the organizational environment
(e.g., individual skills are complemented by those of other team members) and vice versa. The fit
literature conceptualizes these two forms of compatibility as supplementary and complementary
fit, respectively (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005).
In a work context, fit includes a wide range of fit concepts, such as person–vocation fit (the
congruence between individual vocational interests and vocational characteristics), person–job
fit (fit between individual abilities and needs and the demands and supplies of the job), person–
organization fit (fit between individual and organizational values), person–team fit (fit between
individual attributes and those of the work group), and person–supervisor fit (fit between individual
attributes and those of the supervisor). Person–vocation and person–job fit are considered comple-
mentary types of fit because they relate to attributes such as preferences, needs, and abilities that
are complemented by environmental supplies and demands or vice versa. Person–organization
fit, person–team fit, and person–supervisor fit are generally conceived of as supplementary fits
concerning attributes such as personalities, values, and goals.
COMPLEMENTARY FITS
The fit theories that have dominated research on complementary fit are Holland’s (1985) model
of vocational personality types, the theory of work adjustment (TWA) (Dawis & Lofquist 1984),
and fit models of stress (Edwards & Cooper 1990).
Person–Vocation Fit
The theory of vocational personality types (Holland 1985) argues that individuals are drawn
to work environments in which they can express their interests. This theory distinguishes six
personality profiles of individuals and jobs: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and
conventional (RIASEC).
Person–vocation fit research has shown a mixed pattern of relationships between fit and indi-
vidual outcomes such as satisfaction and performance. Early meta-analytic work (Tranberg et al.
1993) revealed that the overall fit–satisfaction relationship was nonsignificant. Analyses for each
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 77
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
vocational personality type showed that fit was moderately related to satisfaction for the social
personality type but that this relationship did not exist for the realistic personality type. These
findings suggest that fit matters for some but not all vocational personality types. A similar con-
clusion was reached in a meta-analysis by Tsabari and colleagues (2005). The overall correlation
between person–vocation fit and satisfaction was, again, nonsignificant, although small but signif-
icant correlations were found in this case for the enterprising and conventional personality types.
Finally, a longitudinal study (Wille et al. 2014) found that, although individuals’ interests and
occupation scores remained relatively stable across a period of 15 years, person–vocation fit and
job satisfaction were unrelated.
While person–vocation fit seems less important for job satisfaction, it does relate moderately
positively to task performance and organizational citizenship behavior and negatively to counter-
productive work behavior (Nye et al. 2017, Van Iddekinge et al. 2011). Individuals who have a
genuine interest in their profession are engaged in their tasks and are willing to help others who
perform similar tasks. There may be several reasons why only small person–vocation fit effects
have been found. First, person–vocation fit research is hampered by theoretical, methodological,
and measurement issues. Holland’s theory conceptualizes persons and environments with a re-
stricted set of broad personality constructs (e.g., Sackett & Lievens 2008). These constructs may
only weakly cover important task components of specific jobs. For example, a social personality
type may work in a social type of job but may primarily perform conventional tasks. Furthermore,
researchers have used different methods to establish person–vocation fit. Some researchers have
measured fit by focusing on individuals’ main interest, whereas other researchers included more
personality variables to compare the person with the vocation. Generally, fit studies in the voca-
tional domain lack the robust methodologies that are necessary for testing fit effects and that have
been employed in other domains.
A second reason for the relatively small vocation fit effects may relate to processes of adaptation.
When employees perceive a lack of fit, they may craft the job to improve fit by, for example,
changing the tasks they do, the roles they have, their relationships with others, or the way in
which they organize their work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton 2001). This job crafting, in turn, may
promote job satisfaction but may, at the same time, undermine employee performance as assessed
by the organization.
Person–Job Fit
The study of person–job fit, including needs–supplies fit and demands–ability fit, is largely built
on the TWA and theories related to stress. The TWA posits that a satisfying job is the result of
individual and organizational adjustments intended to create correspondence between individual
and environmental attributes. TWA researchers (e.g., Rounds et al. 1987) have emphasized that
person–job fit can be established only if individual and environmental attributes are commensurate,
that is, when they belong to similar conceptual domains, are logically related to and interdependent
on one another, and are measured with similar rating scales.
As stress and burnout are prominent negative outcomes of work, researchers have extensively
studied the determinants of these negative outcomes (e.g., Cooper et al. 2001). Stress and burnout
have been thought to result from a given situation, the characteristics of an individual, or the
interaction between these factors (e.g., Longua et al. 2009). The person–job fit literature (e.g.,
French et al. 1982) views stress and strain as the outcomes of a discrepancy between individual
and job characteristics.
Person–job fit research has typically been focused on job attributes such as demands and work-
load, job insecurity, (lack of ) promotion opportunities, role ambiguity, (lack of ) supervisor support,
78 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
and autonomy. Several studies have provided evidence that needs–supplies and demands–abilities
misfits cause strain (Hecht & Allen 2005, Yang et al. 2008a). Furthermore, while both of these
fits relate to job attitudes (satisfaction, commitment, and intentions to quit), needs–supplies fit
has the greatest impact on job attitudes (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Demand–abilities fit seems
relatively more important for performance and less important for job attitudes and strain because
employees may tend to overestimate their abilities and demands–abilities fit as to preserve their
self-esteem (Cable & DeRue 2002), and their personality characteristics (e.g., optimism, locus of
control, self-efficacy) may mitigate the mental consequences of misfit (Park et al. 2012).
SUPPLEMENTARY FITS
Theories on supplementary fit—including person–organization fit, person–team fit, and person–
supervisor fit—are rooted in evolutionary approaches to human behavior (e.g., Tooby & Cosmides
1989) and cognitive theories developed in social psychology (e.g., Byrne et al. 1986, Hogg & Terry
2000). Both theoretical perspectives postulate that humans have a strong tendency to assess their
similarities with others. Evolutionary scholars provided evidence that similarity assessments are
universal and automatic (e.g., Krupp et al. 2008) and concluded that people are hardwired to estab-
lish a fit with social environments. In addition, individuals prefer to collaborate with others if the re-
lationship is based on reciprocity (Fehr & Fischbacher 2003). Reciprocity is more likely to emerge
when the interaction partners are similar to each other than when they are dissimilar (Lusk et al.
1998). Finally, feelings of similarity promote perspective taking (imagining others’ feelings), expec-
tations of cooperativeness from others, and the division of rewards (e.g., De Waal & Davis 2003).
Social-psychological research on social categorization and the similarity attraction hypothesis
supports the notion that people seek similarity with others. People categorize their social world
into similar and dissimilar individuals (e.g., Hogg & Terry 2000), and they are attracted to others
who hold similar attitudes and opinions (Byrne et al. 1986, Shaikh & Kanekar 1994). All in
all, the human tendency to value similarity is functional because it sustains cooperation, social
relationships, certainty, consistency, and control (Yu 2013).
Person–Organization Fit
One theory in organizational psychology that has dominated research on supplementary fit is the
attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework (Schneider et al. 1998). As opposed to fit theories
that focus on individuals and their fit with the environment, ASA theory focuses on organizations
as defined by the characteristics of the people in them. The ASA framework theorizes that people
are attracted to, selected by, and stay in organizations that match their personal attributes. Conse-
quently, people within an organization will be relatively homogeneous with regard to their needs,
values, and personalities, which, in turn, define organizational structures, processes, and culture.
Although some homogeneity of personalities in organizations has indeed been found (Bradley-
Geist & Landis 2012, Giberson et al. 2005, King et al. 2017, Ployhart et al. 2006, Schaubroeck
et al. 1998), no studies have found direct evidence for the ASA cycle because researchers used
between-person designs rather than a within-person design following individuals and their de-
cisions (applying for or accepting a job, leaving the organization) through all stages of the ASA
process. Fit research investigating each of the stages separately showed reasonable fit effects on
organizational attraction (e.g., Dineen et al. 2002), selection (Chuang & Sackett 2005), and attri-
tion (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). However, fit had a relatively weak relationship with actual job
choice decisions, job offers, and turnover (Kristof-Brown & Guay 2011), which indicate that also
other factors than fit (e.g., financial, economic reasons) affect these types of decisions.
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 79
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Person–organization fit is generally established by comparing personal values with those of
the organization. Personal values are “abstract beliefs about desirable, trans-situational goals that
serve as guiding principles in people’s lives” (Vecchione et al. 2016, p. 111). Values are central to
individuals’ self-concepts, are relatively stable across situations and over time, and direct attitudes
and behavior. At the organizational level, values are the basic assumptions that are central to an
organization’s culture (Schein 2004). Value fit was found to be relatively strongly related to job
attitudes, less strongly related to contextual performance, and only marginally related to overall
and task performance and actual turnover (Arthur et al. 2006, Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). The
weak relationships between value fit and performance and actual turnover tend to be mediated by
job attitudes (Arthur et al. 2006).
Person–Team Fit
Person–team fit refers to the match between the person and their immediate coworkers in terms
of demographics, values, goals, personality, and skills. Studies examining surface-level attributes
such as demographics in teams are inspired by theories of social categorization (e.g., Chatman
& Flynn 2001) and literatures on team diversity (e.g., Joshi & Knight 2015). These stud-
ies investigated team-level outcomes (e.g., team processes, coherence, and functioning) rather
than individual-level outcomes. Studies examining deep-level attributes such as goals and val-
ues are rooted in fit theory and mainly focus on predicting individual-level (Seong & Kristof-
Brown 2012) and occasionally team-level outcomes (Kristof-Brown et al. 2014). In these stud-
ies, personal attributes (e.g., goals, personality) are compared with the attributes of other team
members (Kristof-Brown & Stevens 2001). Person–team fit was found to be moderately re-
lated to coworker satisfaction, job attitudes, and organizational citizenship behaviors and some-
what more weakly related to task performance (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Other factors than
person–team fit (e.g., capacities, work conditions) may affect individual task performance more
strongly.
Person–Supervisor Fit
Person–supervisor fit refers to the match between employees’ characteristics and those of their
supervisor. Supervisors are important for employees because they can provide rewards and career
opportunities. Moreover, supervisors transmit organizational values to the daily work environment
(Schein 2004) and thus shape their employees’ environmental experiences through their own values
and actions.
According to the similarity attraction hypothesis, similarity with the supervisor fosters feelings
of inclusion and certainty, high leader–member exchange, and trust in the supervisor (Van Vianen
et al. 2011). Because supervisors tend to fit with the values of the organization (e.g., Giberson et al.
2005), similarity with the supervisor may promote work behaviors that concur with the values
and goals of the organization (Sluss et al. 2012), which will result in positive performance and
reward.
Although person–supervisor fit and person–organization fit are associated, these fits are concep-
tually distinct. Person–supervisor fit concerns a comparison process on individual-level attributes,
whereas person–organization fit concerns a comparison process on organization-level attributes.
Moreover, person–supervisor fit primarily impacts employees’ attitudes toward the proximal work
context, whereas person–organization fit impacts employees’ attitudes toward the distal organi-
zational context (Van Vianen et al. 2011). Supervisor fit was found to relate most strongly to
supervisor and job satisfaction and less strongly to organizational commitment and performance
(Kristof-Brown et al. 2005).
80 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Overview of Fit Findings
Taken together, fit research seems to support the contentions that individuals strive toward fit
and that fit is associated with positive individual outcomes. Fit relates most strongly to attitu-
dinal outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) and less strongly to behavioral outcomes (e.g., performance,
turnover, job choice). Furthermore, the strength of the fit–outcome relationship varies by fit do-
main. Person–job fit relates most strongly to job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and occupational
commitment; person–organization fit relates most strongly to organizational commitment, orga-
nizational identification, and perceived support; person–team fit relates particularly strongly to
attitudes toward peers; and person–supervisor fit relates most strongly to attitudes regarding the
supervisor (Van Vianen et al. 2016).
Importantly, meta-analytical work (Hoffman & Woehr 2006, Kristof-Brown et al. 2005,
Verquer et al. 2003) has revealed that there are large differences in effect sizes among fit studies.
Part of the variation in effect sizes relates to differences in content and focus of the fit studies, but
the largest part is due to differences in operationalization of the fit construct.
FIT OPERATIONALIZATIONS
Researchers use different operationalizations to examine fit. Some conceptualize fit as a personal
experience or feeling and measure perceived fit (“There is a good fit between what my job offers me
and what I am looking for in a job”; e.g., Cable & DeRue 2002, p. 879) or perceived discrepancy
(“Rate your own life right now in terms of your life approaching what you want”; e.g., Lance
et al. 1995, p. 76), whereas other researchers measure personal and environmental attributes and
calculate the discrepancy between them.
Perceived Fit
Perceived fit reflects a psychological construct in an individual’s mind and concerns a holistic
type of fit assessment. Perceived fit is the most proximal and strongest predictor of employees’
decisions and behaviors (e.g., Kristof-Brown & Billsberry 2013). However, measures of perceived
fit have been criticized for being a weak conceptualization of fit theory. First, as perceived fit exists
in one’s mind, we do not know which, if any, personal and environmental attributes individuals
process and how they combine beliefs about themselves and their environment into perceptions of
fit. Second, the correlations between perceived fit and job attitudes are so high that fit researchers
have questioned the distinctiveness of these concepts (Edwards et al. 2006). Perceived fit may be
less likely to originate in a cognitive comparison between personal and environmental attributes
but may rather reflect a direct affective response of satisfaction (Edwards et al. 2006). Finally,
a measure of perceived fit does not necessarily correspond negatively to a measure of perceived
discrepancy or misfit (Edwards et al. 2006). Apparently, perceived fit and misfit represent different
concepts and cognitive processes. For example, individuals’ reflections on their fit may trigger
thoughts about attributes they want to approach, whereas their reflections on misfit may elicit
thoughts about attributes they want to avoid. Thus, perceived fit may relate to other attributes
than perceived misfit.
Calculated Fit
Calculated fit measures aim to establish the discrepancy between personal and environmental
attributes: The lower is the discrepancy, the higher is the fit. Researchers calculate a fit index by
comparing individuals’ personal attributes with a commensurate set of environmental attributes
derived from individuals themselves (subjective fit) or from other sources (objective fit). The fit
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 81
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
index may be based on the algebraic, absolute, or quadratic difference between a single personal
attribute and a single environmental attribute or on the correlation between a set of personal and
environmental attributes (a profile similarity index).
Although calculated fit measures seem to reflect the comparison processes proposed in fit the-
ories, these measures have been criticized for their methodological and statistical inadequacy. In
essence, discrepancy measures are unreliable, conceal the direction of person–environment dis-
crepancies, ignore the direct effects of personal and environmental attributes, and do not allow
a test of theoretical assumptions. In addition, a profile similarity fit index obscures important
information about the underlying personal and environmental attributes and reduces a multidi-
mensional phenomenon to a single index (Edwards 1994).
Perceived and calculated fit measures each have their shortcomings (e.g., Edwards 1994). More-
over, these measures are only moderately related (Edwards et al. 2006, Kristof-Brown & Guay
2011) and are differently associated with outcomes (Arthur et al. 2006, Hoffman & Woehr 2006,
Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Consequently, different and inappropriate conclusions about fit effects
may be drawn from the studies using these measures. Most importantly, fit measures are often
inadequate for testing fit theory.
TESTING THE BASIC TENETS OF FIT THEORY
Fit theory is rooted in Lewin’s (1951) notion that behavior (B) is a function of the person (P) and the
environment (E), expressed as B =f(P,E). Fit theory proposes that the fit between the person and
the environment rather than the person and the environment separately predicts human behavior.
This proposition reflects the first and most essential assumption of fit theory (proposition 1).
At its core, fit theory postulates that individuals differ in personal attributes and seek environ-
ments that best match their unique levels of personal attributes. According to fit theory, individuals
who have, for example, a high need for structure will prefer jobs that offer a large amount of struc-
ture, whereas individuals who have a medium or low need for structure will prefer jobs with a
medium or low level of structure, respectively. Each of these individuals will be optimally satisfied
if the job meets their high, medium, or low levels of personal attributes. Thus, a second basic
assumption of fit theory is that outcomes are most optimal when there is fit, regardless of whether
this fit concerns high, medium, or low levels of personal attributes (proposition 2).
In addition, fit theory proposes that individual outcomes are most optimal if the person and the
environment are congruent and that outcomes decrease as the discrepancy between the person
and the environment increases (Harrison 2007). Moreover, larger discrepancies are more detri-
mental for individual outcomes than smaller ones, and the direction of the discrepancy, whether it
is positive or negative, does not matter. Because larger discrepancies between individual and envi-
ronmental attributes (misfits) are more detrimental than smaller ones, extreme levels of personal
attributes and opposite levels of environmental attributes will cause the most negative outcomes.
For example, individuals rating extremely high on a specific attribute (e.g., high need for structure)
in an environment that lacks this attribute (e.g., a low-structured job), or the reverse, individuals
rating extremely low on a specific attribute working in an environment that favors this attribute,
will suffer similarly from these misfits. Therefore, a third basic assumption of fit theory is that
deficiency (environmental attributes are less than personal attributes) and excess (environmental
attributes are greater than personal attributes) are similarly harmful for individuals at extreme
levels (proposition 3). This proposition is interesting as it claims that not getting what one greatly
desires is as detrimental as getting what one detests.
The three basic tenets of fit theory and possible alternative propositions regarding fit and misfit
effects can be adequately tested by means of polynomial regression and surface plot analyses.
82 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
x
y
z
–6
–4
–2
0
2
4
6
–3
–3 –1.8 –0.6 0.6 1.8 3
–1.2
0.6
2.4
Figure 1
Surface plot of polynomial regression analysis demonstrating a fit–outcome relationship. The xaxis displays
the levels of a personal attribute (P), the yaxis displays the levels of an environmental attribute (E), and the z
axis displays the outcome (e.g., job satisfaction). Derived from http://public.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/
faculty/edwardsj/.
Polynomial Regression and Surface Plot Analysis
The fit concept requires a fit measure that reflects the discrepancy between the person and the
environment. Because of the methodological problems discussed above, discrepancy measures
are inadequate to test fit theory. These methodological problems can be overcome by the use of
polynomial regression and surface plot analysis.1The equation for a polynomial regression is
Z=b0+b1P+b2E+b3P2+b4PE +b5E2,
where P represents the personal attribute (e.g., need for structure), E the commensurate environ-
mental attribute (e.g., structure in the job), and Z the individual outcome (e.g., job satisfaction).
This regression equation enables researchers to explore the precise relationships among the per-
son, the environment, and the outcomes. In addition, a surface plot of the relationships and the
statistical estimates of the precise form of this plot further facilitate the testing of possible fit effects.
Figure 1 shows the three-dimensional surface plot of a perfect fit effect. The xaxis displays
the levels of a personal attribute (P), the yaxis displays the levels of an environmental attribute
(E), and the zaxis displays the outcome (e.g., job satisfaction). The solid line on the bottom of this
figure (the P =E line) runs between two points representing optimal fit: the point where P and E
are both high (3) and the point where P and E are both low (−3). The dotted line on the bottom
(the P =−E line) runs between two points representing misfit: the point where P is high (3) and
E is low (−3) and the point where P is low (−3) and E is high (3). The outcome Z is maximized
along the fit (P =E) line and decreases to the extent that E falls short of P (the right side of the
figure) or E exceeds P (left side). Fit theory is supported when the surface plot meets the following
conditions. First, the response surface should be curved downward or upward along the misfit line
(the dotted line on the bottom). That is, the surface should be concave (a reverse U shape) or convex
1It should be noted that polynomial regression is not without limitations. First, because many terms are entered into the regres-
sion equation, this regression requires relatively large samples. Second, the terms in the regression equation are conceptually
related, which may cause multicollinearity. Third, when multiple fit dimensions and, thus, a larger number of significance
tests are involved, the chance of Type 1 errors may increase.
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 83
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
(a U shape), depending on the proposed positive or negative fit–outcome relationship. Second,
the first principle axis of the surface, which is the line along which the surface’s upward curvature
is greatest, should be parallel with the congruence (P =E) line. Third, the slope along the P =E
fit line should be flat, whereas the slope along the P =−E fit line should be curved. Finally, the
endpoints of the P =−E fit line should have the lowest (or highest, depending on the direction
of the fit–outcome relationship) level of the outcome variable (e.g., Edwards & Cable 2009).
A REVIEW OF FIT RESEARCH USING POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION
Since the first seminal publications on polynomial regression in fit research (e.g., Edwards 1994),
more researchers have been using this regression technique to estimate fit effects. The first meta-
analysis (Yang et al. 2008b) of these studies found minimal support for the relationship between
fit and employee attitudes and no support for a relationship between fit and employee perfor-
mance. Notably, however, this meta-analysis included a relatively small number of studies and a
mixture of fit domains (person–person fit, person–team fit, person–supervisor fit, person–job fit)
and outcomes, which makes it difficult to determine what may have caused these modest findings.
More importantly, this meta-analysis did not address the precise functional form of relationships,
as shown (if available) in the surface plot analysis (see Figure 1) of the studies involved. Although
surface plots of fit studies cannot be tested meta-analytically, they can be reviewed using the basic
tenets of fit theory as a guideline.
In this article, I provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of fit studies (published
between 1995 and April 2017) that tested the functional forms of fit–outcome relationships. I
focus my review on studies concerning person–job fit, specifically needs–supplies fit, and person–
organization fit because the number of studies in these domains outweighs those in other domains.
Moreover, this focus allows me to combine and discuss the findings of studies that are relatively
comparable with regard to the fit attributes and outcomes that were examined. To this end,
I conducted a literature search of published papers through PsycINFO, ERIC, Business Source
Premier, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. This resulted in a final set of 42 published studies, 23
person–job fit studies, and 19 person–organization fit2studies that included commensurate person
and environment measures and information on polynomial regression or surface plot analyses.
Most of these studies concern employee (same-source) measures of personal and environmental
attributes at one point in time.
Proposition 1: The Incremental Value of Testing Fit–Outcome Relationships
Important theories in organizational psychology argue that personal and environmental factors
each affect employee well-being, motivation, and functioning. With regard to personal factors, re-
search has demonstrated that personality traits (e.g., big five traits, positive and negative affectivity,
locus of control) impact employee job satisfaction (e.g., Judge et al. 2002), subjective well-being
(e.g., Steel et al. 2008), and performance (e.g., Judge & Bono 2001). Additionally, significant rela-
tionships were found between employee’s value orientations and job attitudes (e.g., Vansteenkiste
et al. 2007). With regard to environmental factors, the job demands–resources ( JD-R)
perspective (Bakker et al. 2014) proposes that job demands (physical, social, or organizational
2One study on work values (Rani & Samuel 2016) was published as a person–organization fit study, but the organizational
attribute was operationalized as “the extent to which your organization provides you with.... . ” For this reason and to be
consistent in categorizing comparable attributes (see Taris & Feij 2001), I included this study as a person–job fit study.
84 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
aspects of the job) and job resources (e.g., job control, task variety, feedback, opportunities for
development, autonomy, and a supportive environment) are associated with stress-related and
motivation-related outcomes, respectively. Meta-analytic research has provided substantial sup-
port for the JD-R model (e.g., Crawford et al. 2010). These lines of research clearly indicate that
personal and environmental attributes influence individual outcomes irrespective of how individ-
uals score on personal attributes or how they perceive the work environment, respectively. In
other words, some personal and work attributes are beneficial or detrimental to all employees,
regardless of whether there is fit between these attributes.
Fit studies using polynomial regression provide estimates of the associations among the per-
son (P), the environment (E), and the outcome (the linear model) and the extent to which the
quadratic and interaction terms of the polynomial regression equation (P2,E
2,P×E) explain
additional variance in the outcome (the nonlinear model). The quadratic and interaction terms
being nonsignificant could mean that main person and environment rather than fit effects apply.
Person–job fit findings. Two out of 23 person–job fit studies found only main person– and
job–outcome relationships. These studies did not find relationships between innovation fit and
outcomes (Choi & Price 2005) or between creativity fit and outcomes (Livingstone et al. 1997).
Nine studies showed inconsistent fit–outcome relationships depending on the specific fit attribute
or type of outcome. For example, Dahm et al. (2015) examined relationships between (actual
and preferred) time allocation fit across work activities and outcomes such as work satisfaction
and psychological and physical well-being. Fit effects on satisfaction and physical well-being were
found for some work activities but not for others. In a similar vein, Edwards (1996) found fit effects
of supplies-values (S-V) fit on satisfaction but not tension. Tension was primarily influenced by
supplies rather than S-V fit.
However, about half of the person–job fit studies showed significant nonlinear associations be-
tween fit attributes and outcomes; these results point to an incremental value of testing nonlinearity
and fit. Additionally, these studies found that job attributes were associated with outcomes rela-
tively more often than were personal attributes. Moreover, the associations between job attributes
and outcomes were generally stronger than those between personal attributes and outcomes. For
example, Lambert et al. (2012) showed that received leader behaviors (consideration and initiat-
ing structure) were associated with employees’ work-related attitudes (i.e., trust in the supervisor,
job satisfaction, and affective commitment) more strongly than were needed leader behaviors.
Altogether, although job attributes in particular tend to be associated with outcomes, person–job
fit studies have shown that the nonlinear combination of personal and job attributes can explain
additional variance in outcomes.
Person–organization fit findings. The majority of the estimated fit–outcome relationships in
person–organization fit studies showed significant linear relationships between organizational
attributes and outcomes. In about half of these instances, significant linear relationships were also
found between personal attributes and outcomes, but organizational attributes were generally
more strongly related to outcomes than were personal attributes.
Three of the 19 studies reported only main personal and organizational effects, thus rejecting
nonlinearity of the relationships between fit attributes and outcomes. However, 11 studies found
partial support for nonlinearity. For example, Ostroff et al. (2005) found that culture fit related
to job satisfaction and commitment but not to turnover intentions for three out of four cultural
dimensions.
Six studies found full support for nonlinear relationships, explaining additional variance in
outcomes above and beyond the direct relationships of personal and organizational attributes
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 85
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
with outcomes. Notably, five studies included personal and organizational values derived from the
competing values model (Cameron & Quinn 1999) encompassing the culture dimensions: human
relations (e.g., team oriented, sharing information), open systems (e.g., flexibility, innovation),
rational goal (e.g., excellence; a good reputation), and internal process (e.g., initiative, results focus).
Two of these studies (Kalliath et al. 1999, Van Vuuren et al. 2007) did not reveal any fit–outcome
relationships, whereas the other three studies (Meyer et al. 2010, Newton & Mazur 2016, Ostroff
et al. 2005) found inconsistent relationships for the different value dimensions. Evidence of fit
relationships for the rational goal dimension (i.e., goal attainment and competitiveness) was found
in only one study (Meyer et al. 2010). The other four studies found that the strongest relationships
were between the organizational component of the rational goal dimension and outcomes.
All in all, nonlinear relationships between person–organization fit attributes and outcomes
emerged for about half of the estimated fit–outcome relationships. Because the outcome variables
in many of the person–organization fit studies concern job attitudes such as commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover intentions, nonlinearity of the person–organization fit–outcome rela-
tionship seems to depend primarily on the specific content of person–organization fit attributes.
Some organizational values, such as human relations values, humanity values, and relationships
values, are positively related to job attitudes irrespective of employees’ own values (e.g., Finegan
2000, Meyer et al. 2010, Newton & Mazur 2016, Yu 2012).
The person–job and person–organization fit studies together show the incremental value of
testing nonlinear relationships. However, nonlinearity does not necessarily reflect fit effects, as I
show in the following sections addressing propositions 2 and 3.
Proposition 2: Optimal Fit Outcomes at All Levels of Personal Attributes
Fit theory posits that fit is associated with positive outcomes regardless of whether the attributes
of the person and the environment are low, medium, or high in absolute terms. However, it is
possible that fit on extreme (low or high) personal attributes may result in higher outcomes than fit
on neutral attributes because extreme scores reflect the strength of one’s needs and values. Schuh
et al. (2017) found that ideal value congruence (i.e., beliefs about behaviors and end states that both
employees and organizations see as desirable) and counterideal value congruence (beliefs about
behaviors and end states that both employees and organizations see as undesirable) were related to
employees’ trust in the organization. Furthermore, they found that ideal and counterideal value
congruencies were less strongly related to trust when employees attached medium importance to
a (counter)ideal value than when they attached high or low importance to a (counter)ideal value.
These results suggest that fit on personal attributes of extremely low or high importance have the
most impact on outcomes.
However, literatures on personal identity, job choice, and approach avoidance orientations
challenge the view that fit on extreme (high and low) personal attributes would result in similar
optimal positive outcomes. Literature on personal identity argues that personal identity is formed
by values that are at the core of an individual’s self (Hitlin 2003). Individuals protect the integrity
of the self by self-affirmation, that is, through reflecting on positive and central aspects of the
self (Schmeichel & Vohs 2009). Research demonstrating the positive effects of self-affirmation
induced self-affirmation by asking study participants to rank order a list of values and to write
about the importance of their top-ranked values. Consequently, participants were actually invited
to reflect on values they rated as highest and not on those they rated as lowest or opposed to their
values. This may mean that personal identity and self-affirmation tend to concern strong ideal
rather than counterideal values.
Research on job choice (De Goede et al. 2013) has shown that job seekers indeed tend to focus
on ideals. When searching for a job, individuals may try to assess whether they will fit a future job
86 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
and organization based on the information in the vacancy advertisement or on an organization’s
website. By nature, individuals are motivated to approach the positive and avoid the negative
(Elliot 2006). Thus, while reflecting on a possible job, one would expect individuals to consider
both the features of the job that they find attractive and want to attain and those that they find
aversive and want to avoid. Balancing the fits on attractive and unattractive job attributes would
ultimately lead to a decision either to apply for the job or not. However, job seekers do not weigh
the job information regarding attractive and unattractive job features equally. Instead, they tend
to narrow their focus to information about attributes they wish to attain and to focus to a lesser
extent on information about attributes they wish to avoid. This one-sided focus may also apply
to individuals’ fit assessment once they have arrived on the job. When assessing their fit, they
may primarily weigh the presence of attractive attributes rather than the presence of unattractive
attributes. Fit on attractive attributes would then lead to higher individual outcomes than fit on
unattractive attributes.
A within-person longitudinal study on the reciprocal relationships between fit and work affect
supports this idea (Gabriel et al. 2014). In this study, fit perceptions were primarily associated with
approach-based positive affect rather than avoidance-based negative affect, and the researchers
concluded that “the experience of fitting may be more similar to the experience of striving for a
desired (i.e., approach-based) goal than the experience of avoiding an undesired goal” (Gabriel
et al. 2014, p. 412).
The approach–avoidance distinction seems highly relevant to the dynamics of fit. Prospect
theory (Kahneman & Tversky 1979) and regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1997) may shed further
light on how individuals’ fit outcomes are affected by their approach and avoidance orientations.
Prospect theory concerns people’s responses to losses and gains and proposes that individuals
experience losses more strongly than gains. Regulatory focus theory concerns people’s motiva-
tional orientations and argues that individuals may focus primarily on either the presence or
absence of positive outcomes or desired end states (promotion focus)—reflecting an approach
motivation—or the presence or absence of negative outcomes or undesired end states (prevention
focus)—reflecting an avoidance motivation.
Combining prospect theory with regulatory focus theory, Idson and colleagues (2000) distin-
guish two types of accomplishments: gain and nonloss. Gain refers to the positive outcomes that
individuals want to attain, whereas nonloss refers to the negative outcomes that individuals want
to avoid. In terms of fit (see Table 1), gain concerns the fit that individuals experience when they
encounter attributes they prefer in their work, i.e., when there is fit on high personal attributes
(e.g., an individual with a high need for structure in a high-structure job). Nonloss concerns the fit
that individuals experience when the attributes they dislike are absent at work, i.e., when there is fit
on low personal attributes (e.g., an individual with a low need for structure in a low-structure job).
According to Idson et al. (2000), a gain should provide more pleasure than a nonloss because a
gain reflects success in attaining a maximum goal, which generates cheerfulness-related emotions.
Table 1 Fit and misfit on high and low personal attributes in terms of loss and gain
Personal attributes Fit Misfit
Low Nonloss Loss
Excess
High Gain Nongain
Deficiency
Adapted from Idson et al. (2000).
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 87
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Outcome
Nonloss Gain Loss Nongain
Fit Mist
Figure 2
Proposed outcomes of different fits and misfits.
Attaining a highly wished-for goal yields a sense of accomplishment, which in itself contributes to
feelings of mastery, competence, and self-worth (Edwards & Rothbard 1999). However, a nonloss
reflects realization of a minimal goal, which generates quiescence-related emotions (Idson et al.
2000). In terms of fit, this would mean that fit on high personal attributes is proposed to result in
higher job attitudes than fit on low personal attributes, consistent with the results of De Goede
et al.’s (2013) study on job choice.
Altogether, fit theory posits positive outcomes of fit irrespective of whether personal attributes
are extremely high or extremely low, whereas prospect and regulatory focus theories suggest that
fit on high personal attributes (gain) results in more positive outcomes than fit on low personal
attributes (nonloss) (see Figure 2).
Person–job fit findings. A nonsignificant slope and curve of the fit line in Figure 1 indicates
that outcomes are similar at different levels of personal and corresponding job or organizational
attributes, supporting the proposition that outcomes are most optimal when there is fit, regardless
of the level of personal attributes. Although several person–job fit studies have shown positive fit
outcomes at all levels of personal attributes, many studies found significant slopes of the fit lines,
indicating that most optimal outcomes occur when personal and environmental attributes are both
high. For example, examining the effects of polychronicity fit, Slocombe & Bluedorn (1999) found
that individuals’ willingness to exert effort was highest when both the person and the job were high
on polychronicity, whereas their intention to stay was most optimal when there was fit (irrespective
of an individual’s level of polychronicity). In most of the studies that found significant slopes of the
fit lines, higher positive outcomes were attained when personal and environmental attributes were
both high than when they were both low. Only very few studies (e.g., Edwards 1996, Hecht &
Allen 2005) found positive outcomes at both extreme (high and low) levels of personal attributes.
Thus, outcomes tend to be high when there is fit, particularly when individuals experience fit
on high personal needs. These findings provide partial support for fit theory and prospect and
regulatory focus theories. Most likely, the fit level at which outcomes are most optimal will depend
on the specific attribute under study.
Person–organization fit findings. In most studies, higher positive outcomes were attained when
personal and environmental attributes were both high than when they were both low. A study from
88 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Edwards & Cable (2009), for example, found that individuals rated the trust they placed in their
organization and the communication among employees as highest if their strong personal values
were met. A smaller number of person–organization fit studies showed positive outcomes at all
levels of personal and organizational attributes (e.g., Van Vianen 2000). These findings indicate
that the organizational environment should particularly fit individuals’ highest-rated values. Fur-
thermore, these findings provide support for prospect and regulatory focus theories, which argue
that gain (fit on high personal attributes) results in more positive outcomes than nonloss (fit on
low personal attributes).
Together, the person–job and person–organization fit studies show the importance of fit at high
levels of personal attributes and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the importance of fit at all levels.
Proposition 3: Deficiency and Excess Are Similarly Harmful
Fit theory proposes that positive and negative discrepancies between personal and environmental
attributes impact outcomes equally negatively. A positive discrepancy or deficiency occurs when
personal attributes are greater than environmental attributes, whereas a negative discrepancy or
excess occurs when personal attributes are less than environmental attributes.
Prospect and regulatory focus theories (Higgins 1997, Kahneman & Tversky 1979) may help to
explain how individuals will respond to different types of misfits, i.e., deficiency versus excess. Based
on these theories, two types of failure in achieving preferred outcomes can be distinguished (Idson
et al. 2000): nongain and loss. Nongain refers to failure to attain positive outcomes, whereas loss
refers to failure to avoid negative outcomes. In terms of misfit (see Table 1), nongain concerns the
misfit individuals experience when the attributes they prefer are absent in the work environment
(e.g., an individual with a high need for structure in a low-structure job), i.e., misfit because of
deficiency. Loss concerns the misfit individuals experience when they encounter environmental
attributes they dislike (e.g., an individual with a low need for structure in a high-structure job),
i.e., misfit because of excess.
Idson et al. (2000) hypothesized that a loss would be more harmful than a nongain because loss
reflects failure to avoid a minimal outcome, which generates agitation-related emotions, whereas
nongain reflects failure to attain a maximal outcome, which generates dejection-related emotions.
In terms of fit, this would mean that misfit on low personal attributes (excess) will result in lower
outcomes (e.g., job attitudes) than misfit on high personal attributes (see Figure 2).
Altogether, fit theory posits negative outcomes of misfit irrespective of whether personal at-
tributes are higher (deficiency) or lower (excess) than environmental attributes, whereas prospect
and regulatory focus theories suggest that excess results in lower outcomes than deficiency. Ac-
cording to fit theory, outcomes will be lowest at the two extreme points of the misfit line, thus
when misfit is largest, i.e., when the personal attribute is extremely high and the environmental
attribute is extremely low or when the personal attribute is extremely low and the environmental
attribute is extremely high (Figure 1,left and right corners). Furthermore, fit theory proposes a
significant curve of the misfit line. This means that (a) a positive outcome increases to the extent
that an environmental attribute increases toward a personal attribute, and (b) a positive outcome
decreases to the extent that an environmental attribute exceeds a personal attribute. According
to prospect and regulatory focus theories, outcomes will be lowest when the personal attribute is
extremely low and the environmental attribute is extremely high (extreme excess).
Person–job fit findings. Fit theory is largely supported when outcomes are lowest at extreme
levels of misfit, increase with decreasing deficiency of job attributes, and decrease with increasing
excess of job attributes (see Figure 1). Many of the nonlinear person–job fit–outcome relationships
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 89
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
show these indicators of person–job fit relationships. For example, Jansen & Kristof-Brown (2005)
examined how fit between individual and work group hurriedness was related to job satisfaction.
They found that job satisfaction was lowest at extreme levels (personal and job attributes are
opposite), increased when work group hurriedness increased toward individual hurriedness, and
decreased to the extent that work group hurriedness exceeded individual hurriedness.
However, some studies showed that misfit on high personal attributes (deficiency or nongain)
was more detrimental than misfit on low personal attributes (excess or loss). For example, leader
member exchange was found to be lowest when the leader did not fulfill employees’ high work
values (Marstand et al. 2017). In addition, several studies showed that positive outcomes continued
to increase (after the point of fit) when organizational attributes exceeded individual attributes
and eventually leveled off or decreased at extreme excess. Lambert et al. (2012), for example,
revealed that leader consideration continued to be positively associated with employee attititudes
and organizational citizenship behaviors when this leader behavior exceeded employee needs, but
trust in the leader slightly declined at extreme excess. Thus, excess of organizational attributes
can lead to better outcomes than fit, except when excess is extreme. All in all, some person–job
fit research provides support for the assumption that deficiency and excess are similarly harmful.
However, in contrast to the predictions of prospect and regulatory focus theories, research also
reveals that deficiency can be worse than excess, particularly at higher levels of misfit, and that
excess can be more beneficial than fit.
Person–organization fit findings. Several person–organization fit studies (e.g., Vogel et al.
2016) showed that (a) outcomes were most negative at extreme levels of misfit, (b) positive out-
comes increased with decreasing deficiency, and (c) positive outcomes increased with decreasing
excess. However, other person–organization fit studies reported that outcomes were most negative
at high levels of personal attributes and low levels of organizational attributes, reflecting extreme
deficiency or nongain. For example, Finegan (2000) found that affective commitment was lowest
for employees who strongly valued development, initiative, creativity and openness but did not
experience these values in the organization. Furthermore, excess was less harmful than deficiency
except at an extreme level. A few studies showed that excess was beneficial, such as when organiza-
tional self-transcendence values surpass employees’ self-transcendence values (Schuh et al. 2017).
Finally, a few studies (e.g., Cha et al. 2014) found that misfit at extreme levels did not lead to
negative outcomes as long as the personal or organizational attribute (e.g., prosocial identity) was
high. Cha et al.’s study even showed that person–organization fit can be detrimental: employees
showed lowest organizational citizenship behaviors to their colleagues when their low prosocial
identity matched with the low prosocial values of the organization.
Altogether, some person–organization fit research confirms that deficiency and excess are
similarly harmful, supporting fit theory. However, in contrast to the predictions of prospect and
regulatory focus theories, person–organization fit research also indicates that deficiency can be
worse than excess, particularly at higher levels of misfit.
Summary of Findings
This review of person–job and person–organization fit studies that used polynomial regression
and surface plot analyses reveals other and more complicated relationships than the symmetrical
relationships that fit theory proposes. First, although there is evidence for the incremental value
of fit (proposition 1), organizational attributes are also independently associated with individual
outcomes and to a greater extent than personal attributes. Furthermore, the incremental value of fit
seems to depend on the specific content of personal and environmental attributes. Second, optimal
90 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
outcomes at all levels of fit (proposition 2) do occur—more often in person–job than in person–
organization fit research—but outcomes are optimal particularly when individuals experience fit
on high personal attributes. Fit at higher levels of an attribute is generally superior to fit at lower
levels. Thus, our findings show support for prospect and regulatory focus theories proposing that
gain (i.e., fit on high personal attributes) results in more optimal outcomes than nonloss (i.e., fit on
low personal attributes). The findings regarding person–job fit also provide support for fit theory
and indicate that the fit level at which optimal outcomes occur depends on the specific content of
the fit attribute. The findings regarding person–organization fit show more support for optimal
fit outcomes at high rather than at all levels of personal attributes.
Third, deficiency and excess misfit can be equally harmful (proposition 3), but the fit studies
included in this review reveal that deficiency tends to be more harmful than excess. Moreover,
depending on the fit attribute under study, excess can be as beneficial as fit. These findings partly
support fit theory, but do not support prospect and regulatory focus theories proposing that loss
(i.e., excess misfit on low personal attributes) results in more harmful outcomes than nongain (i.e.,
deficiency misfit on high personal attributes).
Note that the fit studies involved in this review are based on self-reports, which seems an
appropriate choice when measuring attitudes as the outcome variable (e.g., Goffin & Gellatly
2001). However, my review findings may not generalize to studies that use multiple source mea-
sures. Additionally, as I focused on person–job and person–organization fits, the findings may not
generalize to other fit domains (e.g., person–supervisor fit).
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
This review is inspired by the question of how important (mis)fit is for the functioning and
well-being of individuals in volatile work environments. I have addressed seminal theories and
research showing that humans have a strong tendency to strive for fit with the environment.
In reality, however, optimal fit seldom exists, cannot be realized, and may even undermine the
human capacity to learn, develop, and adapt, as discrepancies tend to motivate people to move
(e.g., Bandura 1991).
The general fit literature has shown that fit, particularly perceived fit, has a greater impact
on job attitudes than on job performance when fit concerns one’s needs and social environment
(organization, team, supervisor). The reverse is true for vocational and demand–abilities fit: These
fits are weakly related to job attitudes but moderately related to performance. These findings
suggest that individuals have relatively more difficulties with adapting affectively to environments
that do not meet their needs and values than to misfits regarding their vocational interests and
abilities. Vocational interests are established with broad personality categories that, given the
changes in jobs, may apply to a large variety of jobs. For example, the jobs of an information
technology specialist and a nurse may both contain social and technical work activities.
Vocational fit theory seems no longer adequate for today’s labor market. Moreover, the state
of the art of vocational fit research lags behind analytical approaches recently used in other re-
search domains. The vocational field is in great need of new theoretical approaches, new research
questions, and new methodologies (see the first research theme/question in the sidebar titled Sug-
gestions for Research and Practice). Future theory development and research in the vocational
domain could focus on the inherent tension between people’s wish to fit and their natural ca-
pacity to adapt. Individuals may craft their job so as to attain a better fit or may overestimate
their abilities (Cable & DeRue 2002). Future vocational fit research could, for instance, study the
conditions under which vocational fit would promote or hinder individual performance and career
development (see the second research theme/question in the sidebar).
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 91
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
The following are research themes and questions:
1. Vocational fit theory and research require new approaches to create a better link to current labor market
developments and new methodologies.
2. Does fit relate to performance? What are the possible moderators of this relationship?
3. Which personal and environmental attributes are meaningful to unique individuals rather than universally
shared?
4. Which personal and environmental attributes are relevant for fit perceptions?
5. Future fit research requires a careful selection of fit attributes and outcomes, and theory to connect both.
6. To what extent and under what conditions do individuals use environmental or personal attributes as a reference
to establish their fit?
7. When focusing on organizational values to establish fit effects, researchers could incorporate values that are
central to specific firms rather than derived from general frameworks of organizational cultures.
8. When focusing on individual values to establish fit effects, researchers could incorporate values that individuals
consider most important to them.
9. Future research could use an intraindividual approach in which individuals report their main interests, needs,
and values or those of the environment.
10. How do individuals adapt to environments that do not meet their needs and values and to misfits regarding
their vocational interests and abilities?
11. Which environmental and individual factors mitigate experienced misfits?
The following are suggestions for practice:
1. Recruiters could assess the fit between applicants’ values and those that are central to their organization.
2. Recruiters could assess the values that applicants consider most important to them and compare these values
with those of the organization.
3. Recruiters could assess the fit between applicants’ task and role preferences and the (time allocation of ) specific
activities in the job.
4. Recruiters could assess applicants’ fit regarding hurriedness and (leader-initiated) structure in the job.
5. Recruiters could assess whether applicants tend to respond proactively to misfits.
6. Organizations could offer employees freedom to craft their job.
7. Organizations could assess the adaptability of applicants’ minds.
8. Organizations could create an organizational culture that promotes incremental views among employees and
leaders.
The findings of person–job and person–organization fit studies that used polynomial regression
and surface plot analyses showed that fit can add to explaining differences in individual outcomes
above and beyond personal and job or organizational factors and is typically preferable to misfit,
but the functional forms of fit relationships found by these studies did not always support the
basic tenets of fit theory. Altogether, this review points to several voids in fit theory and research
that warrant further investigation. Important directions for future research are the formation and
content of fit perceptions and adaptation to and buffers of misfits.
Formation and Content of Fit Perceptions
Fit research has treated fit perceptions as an independent variable predicting individual outcomes.
However, we lack fundamental knowledge on how fit perceptions are formed and what they
92 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
encompass. In 2008, Jeffrey Edwards concluded that fit theories tend to ignore the possibility that
some constructs are more relevant to fit judgments than others (Edwards 2008). Almost 10 years
later, I arrive at a similar conclusion: More work has to be done on the personal and environmental
attributes relevant for fit perceptions (see the third research theme/question in the sidebar titled
Suggestions for Research and Practice). When forming fit perceptions, people may not make the
precise comparison between personal and environmental attributes, as described by fit theory.
As this review has shown, exact congruence between personal and environmental attributes is
not always needed for attaining positive outcomes, and incongruence does not always result in
negative outcomes. In addition, not all studies found fit–outcome relationships, which illustrates
that researchers were only modestly successful in selecting relevant fit constructs.
Fit perceptions may encompass a large set of possible personal and environmental attributes.
Corroborating JD-R theory, some studies involved in this review showed that perceptions of
environmental attributes were more likely than fit to be related to outcomes. Apparently, these
studies included environmental attributes that all individuals seem to appreciate, irrespective of
personal needs and values. Deficiency misfit on these attributes was generally detrimental, whereas
excess misfit resulted in even higher outcomes than fit. These effects were found for person–job
fit attributes such as support (Irving & Montes 2005), leader consideration (Lambert et al. 2012),
relationships at work (Yang et al. 2008a), intrinsic growth needs (Krumm et al. 2013), interesting
and challenging work, access to information and training, salary and benefits (Marstand et al.
2017), and security (Edwards & Rothbard 1999), and for person–organization fit attributes such
as self-transcendence values (Ert ¨
urk 2012, Schuh et al. 2017) and ethical values (Herrbach &
Mignonac 2007).
According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan 2000), individuals will thrive in orga-
nizations that fulfill the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Similarly, individuals feel attached to organizations that adhere to values such as consideration,
fairness, and integrity (e.g., Finegan 2000). As most individuals share these fundamental needs and
values, they experience fit when the work environment fulfills these needs and values.
Fit theory is built on the notion that people vary in their needs and values and that environments
should therefore match these varying attributes. However, fit perceptions likely concern two
different types of attributes: attributes that are generally desirable and those that are uniquely
desirable by only some individuals. To date, the content dimensions used to test fit theory have been
based neither on theoretical notions about significant individual variances in personal attributes
nor on knowledge about job resources and organizational values that typically benefit all individuals
(e.g., JD-R and self-determination theory). These generally desirable attributes are obviously less
relevant to fit research. Instead of treating fit as a general concept that includes diverse content
dimensions, fit theory could specify the attributes that are meaningful to unique individuals rather
than universally shared (see the fourth research theme/question in the sidebar titled Suggestions
for Research and Practice).
The findings of this review provide a hint to the types of attributes that seem relevant for
measuring fit. Fit–outcome relationships were found for person–job fit attributes such as task
and role preferences and perceptions (Edwards 1996, Takase et al. 2006) and time allocation to
work activities (Dahm et al. 2015). Thus, although person–vocation fit does not greatly affect
job attitudes, fit with concrete work roles and activities does. Therefore, in practice, recruiters
could assess the fit between applicants’ task and role preferences and the (time allocation of )
specific activities in the job (see the first suggestion for practice in the sidebar titled Suggestions
for Research and Practice). Furthermore, person–job fit appears relevant for attributes such as
hurriedness, extrinsic work needs, career advancement, and leader initiating structure. Misfits on
these attributes are detrimental for job attitudes and well-being because they can thwart other
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 93
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
basic needs, such as competence and security needs. Therefore, recruiters could assess applicants’
fit regarding hurriedness and (leader-initiated) structure in the job (see the second suggestion for
practice in the sidebar).
The findings of person–organization fit studies in this review are ambiguous with regard to
the relevance of specific value attributes. The two studies (Ert¨
urk 2012, Schuh et al. 2017) that
incorporated values derived from Schwartz’s (1992) model on basic human values revealed incon-
sistent results, which is probably due to the different outcomes that were examined in these studies.
Thus, fit effects depend not only on the content of the fit attribute but also on the type of outcome.
Other fit studies did not use theoretical models of individual values but instead focused on organi-
zational values. Some of these studies were based on the competing values model of organizational
cultures (e.g., Cameron & Quinn 1999), while other studies selected organizational values that
were central to specific firms (De Haas & Van Eerde 2015, Ifie 2014, Spanjol et al. 2015). Only
these latter studies found significant fit–outcome relationships. Finally, despite differences in fit
attributes and outcomes, the majority of person–organization fit studies showed that fit on high
personal values resulted in highest individual outcomes, whereas fit on low personal values were
often as detrimental as misfits.
Altogether, these person–organization fit results suggest three implications for future research
and practice. First, future research and organizational practice will require a careful selection of
fit attributes and outcomes, and theory to connect both (see the fifth research theme/question in
the sidebar titled Suggestions for Research and Practice). Moreover, as we know little about the
formation of fit perceptions, more research could examine fit perceptions (instead of job attitudes)
as the focal outcome. It would be interesting to investigate the process underlying people’s fit
perceptions, including the question of whether individuals use environmental or personal attributes
as a reference to establish their fit (see the sixth research theme/question in the sidebar). This
reference may, in turn, depend on the goal of fit assessment. For example, individuals may focus
on their own values as the main source for fit assessment when searching for a job, whereas they
may mainly use the organization’s (dominant) values as a reference once they are employed (Van
Vianen et al. 2013). Second, if researchers and practitioners focus on organizational values to
measure fit, they could incorporate values that are central to specific firms rather than derived
from general frameworks of organizational cultures (see research theme/question 7 and suggestion
for practice 3). Third, fit researchers and practitioners focusing on individual values could pay
specific attention to the values that individuals consider most important to them (see research
theme/question 8 and suggestion for practice 4).
One study included in this review measured individuals’ most important values to establish
fit (Vogel et al. 2016). The researchers first asked participants to rate a set of eight personal and
organizational values (on a Likert scale) and then to rank order the values on importance (from
1 to 8). The values that received the highest ratings in the first step were not always the ones
ranked as highest in the second step. This could be because individuals may rate multiple values
similarly high. Therefore, the forced rank ordering was necessary to determine the individual’s
most important values. Apparently, value importance is not necessarily captured by a high rating
of personal values. Person–organization fit studies have operationalized personal values in terms
of preferences (e.g., De Haas & Van Eerde 2015) or importance (e.g., Edwards & Cable 2009).
For theoretical and practical reasons, I recommend researchers and practitioners to operationalize
personal values as value importance and to use different methods to assess value importance.
In addition, fit researchers mostly employ an interindividual approach, assessing individuals
on a similar set of fit attributes. However, the set of attributes may not incorporate the needs and
values that matter. Future research could use an intraindividual approach in which individuals
report their main interests, needs, and values or those of the environment (see the ninth research
94 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
theme/question in the sidebar titled Suggestions for Research and Practice). The content of the
fit measure will then vary among study participants, which will enhance the ecological validity of
fit research.
Adaptation to and Buffers of Misfits
When experiencing misfit, individuals will try to adapt to it. Future research could examine how
individuals adapt to different types of misfits (see the tenth research theme/question in the sidebar
titled Suggestions for Research and Practice). Adaptation may include the typical regulatory strate-
gies uncovered by research on self-regulation and coping, such as thoughts or actions to change
the self or the situation (e.g., Larsen & Prizmic 2004). An individual’s adaptation strategy will
depend on the specific content of the misfit perception, the opportunities to repair the misfit, and
environmental and individual factors that mitigate the experienced misfit. Regarding the content
of misfits, this review has shown that some misfits are more detrimental for a person’s well-being
or functioning than others. Demands–abilities and vocational misfits seem relatively easier to cope
with than needs–supplies misfits. Additionally, misfit—particularly deficiency misfit—on strong
personal values has a greater impact on one’s well-being than misfit on values that are relatively
less strongly held. Apparently, misfits with regard to one’s most fundamental needs and values are
difficult to deal with. These misfits may motivate individuals to leave the job rather than trying
to cognitively or actually change the self or the environment. This may occur particularly when
there are no opportunities to change the environment by, for example, crafting the content of
one’s job.
Future research could explore which environmental and individual factors may mitigate ex-
perienced misfits (see the eleventh research theme/question in the sidebar titled Suggestions for
Research and Practice). Some environments are more restrictive than others with regard to em-
ployees’ options for crafting the job. For example, employees have less room for job crafting in
organizations where jobs are more formalized (i.e., where rules and procedures prescribe behav-
iors). Notably, the relationship between person–job fit and job attitudes was found to be weaker
in cultures high on power distance because individuals in these cultures tend to value conformity
more than individual autonomy (Lee & Antonakis 2012, Oh et al. 2014). However, even within
individualistic cultural contexts such as Western societies, organizations differ in formalization and
hierarchy. Employees who—against their will—experience job formalization and hierarchy will
pursue leaving the job when any effort at job crafting is undermined. In less formalized contexts,
misfit tends to induce proactive behaviors to create better-fitting work experiences (Yu & Davis
2016). Thus, to enhance employees’ fit while also retaining sufficient diversity in the workforce,
organizations could offer employees a certain freedom to craft their jobs (see the fifth suggestion
for practice in the sidebar titled Suggestions for Research and Practice) and select applicants who
are capable of proactively coping with misfits (Vogel et al. 2016).
Indeed, also individual factors may alleviate experienced misfits. Although some individuals may
require a high level of fit to feel well, others can endure lower levels of fit. Individual characteristics
that mitigate misfits are, for example, core self-evaluations and self-theory (incremental or entity).
Employees with higher core self-evaluations (a combination of high self-esteem, self-efficacy, and
locus of control and low neuroticism) react more strongly to fits and misfits than employees with
low core self-evaluations (De Haas & Van Eerde 2015). That is, employees who have a positive
self-image report more positive job attitudes when experiencing fit but also stronger negative job
attitudes when experiencing misfit than employees who have a less positive self-image. Employees
with high core self-evaluations may perceive misfit as a threat to their self-image, which may
trigger adaptation responses such as efforts to change the work environment or to find another
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 95
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
job. Employees with low core self-evaluations, on the other hand, may blame themselves for the
misfit and thus may try to cognitively diminish its existence.
In addition, individuals holding an incremental person theory (who believe that personal charac-
teristics and abilities are malleable) seek feedback to a greater extent when experiencing demands–
abilities misfit than individuals holding an entity person theory (who believe that personal char-
acteristics and abilities are fixed) (Devloo et al. 2011). Seeking feedback may help individuals to
better cope with misfit by putting effort into learning or adjusting to the job demands. In prac-
tice, organizations could assess whether applicants tend to respond proactively to misfits (see the
sixth suggestion for practice in the sidebar titled Suggestions for Research and Practice), select
applicants with adaptable minds (see the seventh suggestion for practice in the sidebar), and create
an organizational culture that promotes incremental views among employees and leaders (see the
eighth suggestion for practice in the sidebar).
CONCLUSION
Fit research has provided mixed support for the basic tenets of fit theory. Although individuals
appreciate experiencing fit and are hardwired to seek it, optimal fit is not always possible or needed.
Individuals flourish particularly when experiencing fit on attributes they find important and suffer
most when these attributes are not afforded in the work environment. There is a clear need to
reconsider fit theory by investigating relevant fit constructs, the formation of fit perceptions, and
the boundary conditions of fit and misfit effects.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Arthur W, Bell ST, Villado AJ, Doverspike D. 2006. The use of person-organization fit in employment
decision making: an assessment of its criterion-related validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:786–801
Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. 2014. Burnout and work engagement: the JD–R approach. Annu.
Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1:389–411
Bandura A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50:248–87
Bradley-Geist JC, Landis RS. 2012. Homogeneity of personality in occupations and organizations: a compar-
ison of alternative statistical tests. J. Bus. Psychol. 27:149–59
Byrne D, Clore GL, Smeaton G. 1986. The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes affect anything?
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51:1167–70
Cable DM, DeRue DS. 2002. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J. Appl.
Psychol. 87:875–84
Cameron KS, Quinn RE. 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.Reading,MA:
Addison-Wesley
Cha J, Chang YK, Kim TY. 2014. Person-organization fit on prosocial identity: implications on employee
outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 123:57–69
Chatman J, Flynn F. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences
of cooperative norms in work teams. Acad. Manag. J. 44:956–74
Choi JN, Price RH. 2005. The effects of person-innovation fit on individual responses to innovation. J. Occup.
Organ. Psychol. 78:83–96
Chuang A, Sackett PR. 2005. The perceived importance of person-job fit and person-organization fit between
and within interview stages. Soc. Behav. Personal. 33:209–26
96 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Cooper CL, Dewe P, O’Driscoll M. 2001. Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique of Theory, Research, and
Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Crawford ER, Lepine JA, Rich BL. 2010. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and
burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:834–48
Dahm P, Glomb T, Manchester C, Leroy S. 2015. Work-family conflict and self-discrepant time allocation
at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:767–92
Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. 1984. A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minnesota
Press
De Goede MEE, Van Vianen AEM, Klehe UC. 2013. A tailored policy-capturing study on PO fit perceptions:
the ascendancy of attractive over aversive fit. Int. J. Select. Assess. 21:85–98
De Haas MJOM, Van Eerde W. 2015. Archetypes and person-organization fit in law firms. J. Prof. Org.
2:168–86
De Waal FBM, Davis JM. 2003. Capuchin cognitive ecology: cooperation based on projected returns.
Neuropsychologia 41:221–28
Deci E, Ryan RM. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11:227–68
Devloo T, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A. 2011. Do managers use feedback seeking as a strategy to regulate
demands-abilities misfit? The moderating role of implicit person theory. J. Bus. Psychol. 26:453–65
Dineen BR, Ash SR, Noe RA. 2002. A web of applicant attraction: person-organization fit in the context of
web-based recruitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:723–34
Edwards JR. 1994. The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique and a proposed
alternative. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 58:51–100
Edwards JR. 1996. An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress.
Acad. Manag. J. 39:292–339
Edwards JR. 2008. Person-environment fit in organizations: an assessment of theoretical progress. Acad.
Manag. Ann. 2:167–230
Edwards JR, Cable DM. 2009. The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:654–77
Edwards JR, Cable DM, Williamson IO, Lambert LS, Shipp AJ. 2006. The phenomenology of fit: linking
the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. J. Appl. Psychol.
91:802–27
Edwards JR, Cooper CL. 1990. The person-environment fit approach to stress: recurring problems and some
suggested solutions. J. Organ. Behav. 11:293–307
Edwards JR, Rothbard NP. 1999. Work and family stress and well-being: an examination of person-
environment fit in the work and family domains. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 77:85–129
Elliot AJ. 2006. The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motiv. Emot. 30:111–16
Ert ¨
urk A. 2012. The role of person-organization fit in TQM: influence of values and value congruence on
TQM orientation. In Quality Management and Practices, ed. K-S Ng, pp. 231–54. Rijeka, Croat.: INTECH
Fehr E, Fischbacher U. 2003. The nature of human altruism. Nature 425:785–91
Festinger L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7:117–40
Finegan JE. 2000. The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment. J. Occup.
Organ. Psychol. 73:149–69
French JRP Jr., Caplan RD, Harrison RV. 1982. The Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain. London: Wiley
Gabriel AS, Diefendorff JM, Chandler MM, Moran CM, Greguras GJ. 2014. The dynamic relationships of
work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Personal. Psychol. 67:389–420
Giberson TR, Resick CJ, Dickson MW. 2005. Embedding leader characteristics: an examination of homo-
geneity of personality and values in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:1002–10
Goffin RD, Gellatly IR. 2001. A multi-rater assessment of organizational commitment: Are self-report mea-
sures biased? J. Organ. Behav. 23:437–51
Harrison DA 2007. Pitching fits in applied psychological research: making fit methods fit theory. In Perspectives
on Organizational Fit, ed. C Ostroff, TA Judge, pp. 389–416. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Hecht TD, Allen N. 2005. Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the perspective of
person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.
Process. 98:155–78
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 97
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Heider F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley
Herrbach O, Mignonac K. 2007. Is ethical P–O fit really related to individual outcomes? A study of
management-level employees. Bus. Soc. 46:304–30
Higgins ET. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52:1280–300
Hitlin S. 2003. Values as the core of personal identity: drawing links between two theories of self. Soc. Psychol.
Quart. 66:118–37
Hoffman BJ, Woehr DJ. 2006. A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and
behavioral outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 68:389–99
Hogg MA. 2000. Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: a motivational theory of social
identity processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 11:223–55
Hogg MA, Terry DJ. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 25:121–40
Holland JL. 1985. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Idson LC, Liberman N, Higgins ET. 2000. Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: a
regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 36:252–74
Ifie K. 2014. Customer orientation of frontline employees and organizational commitment. Serv. Ind. J.
34:699–714
Irving PG, Montes SD. 2005. Met expectations: the effects of expected and delivered inducements on employee
satisfaction. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82:431–51
Jansen KJ, Kristof-Brown AL. 2005. Marching to the beat of a different drummer: examining the impact of
pacing congruence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 97:93–105
Joshi A, Knight A. 2015. Who defers to whom and why? Dual mechanisms linking demographic differences
to dyadic deference and team effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 58:59–84
Judge TA, Bono JE. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis.
J. Appl. Psychol. 86:80–92
Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis.
J. Appl. Psychol. 87:530–41
Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–91
Kalliath TJ, Bluedorn AC, Strube MJ. 1999. Person-organization value congruence: a test of value congruence
effects. J. Organ. Behav. 20:1175–98
King DD, Ott-Holland CJ, Ryan AM, Huang JL, Wadlington PL, Elizondo F. 2017. Personality homogeneity
in organizations and occupations: considering similarity sources. J. Bus. Psychol. 32:641–53
Kristof-Brown AL, Billsberry J. 2013. Fit for the future. In Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions,
ed. AL Kristof-Brown, J Billsberry, pp. 1–18. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Kristof-Brown AL, Guay RP. 2011. Person-environment fit. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 3, ed. MD Dunnette, LM Hough, pp. 3–50. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Kristof-Brown AL, Seong JY, Degeest DS, Park WW, Hong DS. 2014. Collective fit perceptions: a multilevel
investigation of person-group fit with individual-level and team-level outcomes. J. Organ. Behav. 35:969–
89
Kristof-Brown AL, Stevens CK. 2001. Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members’
personal mastery and performance goals matter? J. Appl. Psychol. 86:1083–95
Kristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC. 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: person-
organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personal. Psychol. 58:281–342
Krumm S, Grube A, Hertel G. 2013. No time for compromises: age as a moderator of the relation between
needs-supply fit and job satisfaction. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 22:547–62
Krupp DB, Debruine LM, Barclay P. 2008. A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Evol.
Hum. Behav. 29:49–55
Lambert LS, Tepper BJ, Carr JC, Holt DT, Barelka AJ. 2012. Forgotten but not gone: an examination of fit
between leader consideration and initiating structure needed and received. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:913–30
Lance CE, Mallard AG, Michalos AC. 1995. Tests of the causal directions of global–life facet satisfaction
relationships. Soc. Indic. Res. 34:69–92
98 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Larsen RJ, Prizmic Z. 2004. Affect regulation. In Handbook of Self-Regulations: Research, Theory, and Applications,
ed. RF Baumeister, KD Vohs, pp. 40–60. New York: Guilford Press
Lecky P. 1968. The theory of self-consistency. In The Self in Social Interaction, ed. C Gordon, KJ Gergen,
pp. 297–98. New York: Wiley
Lee Y, Antonakis J. 2012. When preference is not satisfied but the individual is: how power distance moderates
person-job fit. J. Manag. 40:1–53
Lewin K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper
Livingstone LP, Nelson DL, Barr SH 1997. Person-environment fit and creativity: an examination of supply-
value and demand-ability versions of fit. J. Manag. 23:119–46
Longua J, DeHart T, Tennen H, Armeli S. 2009. Personality moderates the interaction between positive and
negative daily events predicting negative affect and stress. J. Res. Personal. 43:547–55
Lusk J, MacDonald K, Newman J. 1998. Resource appraisals among self, friend and leader: implications for
an evolutionary perspective on individual differences. Personal. Indiv. Differ. 24:685–700
Marstand AF, Martin R, Epitropaki O. 2017. Complementary person-supervisor fit: an investigation of
supplies-values (S-V) fit, leader-member exchange (LMX) and work outcomes. Leadersh. Quart. 28:418–37
Meyer JP, Hecht TD, Gill H, Toplonytsky L. 2010. Person-organization (culture) fit and employee commit-
ment under conditions of organizational change: a longitudinal study. J. Vocat. Behav. 76:458–73
Newton CJ, Mazur AK. 2016. Value congruence and job-related attitudes in a nonprofit organization: a
competing values approach. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27:1013–33
Nye CD, Su R, Rounds J, Drasgow F. 2017. Interest congruence and performance: revisiting recent meta-
analytic findings. J. Vocat. Behav. 98:138–51
Oh IS, Guay RP, Kim K, Harold CM, Lee JH, et al. 2014. Fit happens globally: a meta-analytic comparison
of the relationships of person-environment fit dimensions with work attitudes and performance across
East Asia, Europe, and North America. Personal. Psychol. 67:99–152
Ostroff C, Shin YY, Kinicki AJ. 2005. Multiple perspectives of congruence: relationships between value con-
gruence and employee attitudes. J. Organ. Behav. 26:591–623
Park HI, Beehr TA, Han K, Grebner SI. 2012. Demands-abilities fit and psychological strain: moderating
effects of personality. Int. J. Stress Manag. 19:1–33
Ployhart RE, Weekley JA, Baughman K. 2006. The structure and function of human capital emergence: a
multilevel examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model. Acad. Manag. J. 49:661–77
Rani N, Samuel A. 2016. A study on generational differences in work values and person-organization fit and
its effect on turnover intention of Generation Y in India. Manag. Res. Rev. 39:1695–719
Rounds JB, Dawis R, Lofquist LH. 1987. Measurement of person-environment fit and prediction of satisfaction
in the theory of work adjustment. J. Vocat. Behav. 31:297–318
Sackett PR, Lievens F. 2008. Personnel selection. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:1–32
Schaubroeck J, Ganster DC, Jones JR. 1998. Organization and occupation influences in the attraction-
selection-attrition process. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:869–91
Schein EH. 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership. London: Wiley
Schmeichel BJ, Vohs KD. 2009. Self-affirmation and self-control: Affirming core values counteracts ego
depletion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:770–82
Schneider B. 1987. The people make the place. Pers. Psychol. 40:437–53
Schneider B, Smith DB, Taylor S, Fleenor J. 1998. Personality and organizations: a test of the homogeneity
of personality hypothesis. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:462–70
Schuh SC, Van Quaquebeke N, Keck N, G¨
oritz AS, de Cremer D, Xin KR. 2017. Does it take more than
ideals? How counter-ideal value congruence shapes employees’ trust in the organization. J. Bus. Ethics.
In press
Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values. In Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, ed. MP Zanna, pp. 1–65. New York: Academic
Seong JY, Kristof-Brown AL. 2012. Testing multidimensional models of person-group fit. J. Manag. Psychol.
27:536–56
Shaikh T, Kanekar S. 1994. Attitudinal similarity and affiliation need as determinants of interpersonal attrac-
tion. J. Soc. Psychol. 134:257–59
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 99
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Slocombe TE, Bluedorn AC. 1999. Organizational behavior implications of the congruence between preferred
polychronicity and experienced work-unit polychronicity. J. Organ. Behav. 20:75–99
Sluss DM, Ployhart RE, Cobb MG, Ashforth BE. 2012. Generalizing newcomers’ relational and organizational
identifications: processes and prototypicality. Acad. Manag. J. 55:949–75
Spanjol J, Tam L, Tam V. 2015. Employer-employee congruence in environmental values: an exploration of
effects on job satisfaction and creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 130:117–30
Steel P, Schmidt J, Shultz J. 2008. Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being.
Psychol. Bull. 134:138–61
Steele CM. 1988. The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
21:261–302
Takase M, Maude P, Manias E. 2006. The impact of role discrepancy on nurses’ intention to quit their jobs.
J. Clin. Nurs. 15:1071–80
Taris R, Feij J. 2001. Longitudinal examination of the relationship between supplies-values fit and work
outcomes. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 50:52–80
Tooby J, Cosmides L. 1989. Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Part I: theoretical con-
siderations. Ethol. Sociobiol. 10:29–49
Tranberg M, Slane S, Ekeberg SE. 1993. The relation between interest congruence and satisfaction: a meta-
analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 42:253–64
Tsabari O, Tziner A, Meir EI. 2005. Updated meta-analysis on the relationship between congruence and
satisfaction. J. Career Assess. 13:216–32
Van Iddekinge CH, Putka DJ, Campbell JP. 2011. Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selec-
tion: the validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and
continuance intentions. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:13–33
Van Vianen AEM. 2000. Person-organization fit: the match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences
for organizational cultures. Personal. Psychol. 53:113–49
Van Vianen AEM, Hamstra MRW, Koen J. 2016. Person-environment fits as drivers of commitment. In The
Handbook of Employee Commitment, ed. J Meyer, pp. 275–88. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
Van Vianen AEM, Shen CT, Chuang A. 2011. Person-organization and person-supervisor fits: employee
commitments in a Chinese context. J. Organ. Behav. 32:906–26
Van Vianen AEM, Stoelhorst JW, De Goede MEE. 2013. The construal of person-organization fit during the
ASA stages: content, source, and focus of comparison. In Key Issues and New Directions in Organizational
Fit, ed. AL Kristof-Brown, J Billsberry, pp. 145–69. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Van Vuuren M, Veldkamp BP, De Jong MD, Seydel ER. 2007. The congruence of actual and perceived
person-organization fit. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 18:1736–47
Vansteenkiste M, Neyrinck B, Niemiec CP, Soenens B, De Witte H, Van Den Broeck A. 2007. On the relations
among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: a self-determination
theory approach. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 80:251–77
Vecchione M, Schwartz S, Alessandri G, D ¨
oring AK, Castellani V, Caprara MG. 2016. Stability and change
of basic personal values in early adulthood: an 8-year longitudinal study. J. Res. Personal. 63:111–22
Verquer ML, Beehr TA, Wagner SH. 2003. A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and
work attitudes. J. Vocat. Behav. 63:473–89
Vogel RM, Rodell JB, Lynch JW. 2016. Engaged and productive misfits: how job crafting and leisure activity
mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Acad. Manag. J. 59:1561–84
Wille B, Tracey TJG, Feys M, De Fruyt F. 2014. A longitudinal and multi-method examination of interest-
occupation congruence within and across time. J. Vocat. Behav. 84:59–73
Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. 2001. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 26:179–201
Yang LQ, Che H, Spector PE. 2008a. Job stress and well-being: an examination from the view of person-
environment fit. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 81:567–87
Yang LQ, Levine EL, Smith MA, Ispas D, Rossi ME. 2008b. Person-environment fit or person plus en-
vironment: a meta-analysis of studies using polynomial regression analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.
18:311–21
100 van Vianen
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05CH04-van_Vianen ARI 7 December 2017 13:46
Yu KYT. 2012. Person-environment fit in non standard work: insights from workers with limited expectations
of continued employment. J. Organ. Psychol. 12:115–32
Yu KYT. 2013. A motivational model of person-environment fit: psychological motives as drivers of change. In
Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions, ed. AL Kristof-Brown, J Billsberry, pp. 19–49. Chichester,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Yu KYT, Davis HM. 2016. Autonomy’s impact on newcomer proactive behaviour and socialization: a needs-
supplies fit perspective. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 89:172–97
www.annualreviews.org •Person–Environment Fit 101
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05_TOC ARI 21 December 2017 19:11
Annual Review
of Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational
Behavior
Volume 5, 2018
Contents
A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View
of Organizational Behavior
Terence R. Mitchell ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1
Advances in the Treatment of Context in Organizational Research
Gary Johns ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp21
Diversity and Inequality in Management Teams: A Review
and Integration of Research on Vertical and Horizontal
Member Differences
J. Stuart Bunderson and Gerben S. Van der Vegt pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp47
Person–Environment Fit: A Review of Its Basic Tenets
Annelies E.M. van Vianen pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp75
Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context:
The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences
Stevan E. Hobfoll, Jonathon Halbesleben, Jean-Pierre Neveu,
and Mina Westman pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp103
Protean Careers at Work: Self-Direction and Values Orientation
in Psychological Success
Douglas T. (Tim) Hall, Jeffrey Yip, and Kathryn Doiron pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp129
The Legal Context of the Management of Human Resources
Kevin R. Murphy pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp157
Status Dynamics
Corinne Bendersky and Jieun Pai pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp183
Transfer of Training: The Known and the Unknown
J. Kevin Ford, Timothy T. Baldwin, and Joshua Prasad ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp201
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
OP05_TOC ARI 21 December 2017 19:11
Women and Leadership in the United States: Are We Closing
the Gender Gap?
Karen S. Lyness and Angela R. Grotto ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp227
Physiological Measurement in the Organizational Sciences: A Review
and Recommendations for Future Use
Daniel C. Ganster, Tori L. Crain, and Rebecca M. Brossoit pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp267
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Recent Trends
and Developments
Dennis W. Organ ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp295
Cross-Cultural Interaction: What We Know and What We Need
to Know
Nancy J. Adler and Zeynep Aycan pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp307
Job Insecurity and the Changing Workplace: Recent Developments
and the Future Trends in Job Insecurity Research
Cynthia Lee, Guo-Hua Huang, and Susan J. Ashford pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp335
A Structural-Emergence Model of Diversity in Teams
Aparna Joshi and Brett H. Neely ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp361
The Dark Triad and Workplace Behavior
James M. LeBreton, Levi K. Shiverdecker, and Elizabeth M. Grimaldi pppppppppppppppp387
More Than Words? Computer-Aided Text Analysis in Organizational
Behavior and Psychology Research
Jeremy C. Short, Aaron F. McKenny, and Shane W. Reid ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp415
Emotional Dynamics in Conflict and Negotiation: Individual, Dyadic,
and Group Processes
Gerben A. van Kleef and St´ephane Cˆot´eppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp437
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/
orgpsych
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.5:75-101. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 01/31/18. For personal use only.
