Newcomer and OC

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 2000.
53
PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT: THE MATCH BETWEEN NEWCOMERS AND RECRUITERS PREFERENCES FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES
ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
This study examined the effects of two measures of fit on newcomers commitment and turnover intentions, P-0 fit and P-P fit. Newcomers preferences for organizational cultures were compared with supervisors and peers perceptions of organizational culture (P-0 fit) and with their preferences for Organizational culture (P-P fit). The supervisors and peers that were involved had been the newcomers recruiters during the selection procedure and they had hired the newcomer. Subjects culture preferences and perceptions yielded two dimensions of organizational culture: concern for people and concern for goal accomplishment. Results revealed that newcomers concern for people P-P fit with their supervisor was related to organizational commitment and turnover intentions. P-0 fit measures for both dimensions of organizational culture were not related to newcomer affective outcomes.
Research on person-organization ( P a ) fit has shown important implications for individual well-being and organizational outcomes. For instance, fit between a persons values and organizational values is associated with behavioral and affective outcomes, such as longer tenure, greater organizational commitment and better job performance (OReilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). A review of P-O fit studies showed that these studies used different conceptualizations and operationalizations of P-0 fit, resulting in different effect sizes (Kristof, 1996). Most of the operationalizations of fit, however, can be incorporated into the definition of P-O fit, as proposed by Kristof (1996): The compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at least one entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c) both.
This research was financiallysupported by a grant from the University of Amsterdam. I thank Danielle Galdeij, Suzanne de Haan, Margot Roozen, Larissa Wladimiroff, and Mirjam van der Zande for collecting the data, and Benjamin Schneider, Carsten De Dreu, Agneta Fischer, Daan van Knippenberg, the editor, and the reviewersfor their suggestions. Correspondenceand requests for reprints should be addressed to Annelies E.M. Van Manen, University of Amsterdam, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (+31) 205256856; Fax (+31) 206390531; ao-vianen@macmail.psy.uva.nl.
COPYRIGHT 0 2wO PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC.
113
114
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
This study specifically focused on those operationalizations of fit that are applicable in personnel selection situations. There are three domains of human characteristics which are important for personnel selection (Smith, 1994). The first domain concerns characteristics that are relevant to all work, such as cognitive ability and work motivation. The second domain concerns characteristics that are relevant to particular jobs or occupations, such as job specific cognitive abilities, knowledge, and personality traits. The third domain involves characteristics that are relevant to the way a person relates to a particular work setting, that is, whether individual characteristics match the characteristics of the organization. Instruments used in selection procedures mostly concern the first and the second domain. We, therefore, focused on the third domain. Individual characteristics may include aspects such as personality, attitudes, and values. Organizational characteristics may involve aspects such as structures, tasks, technology, and organizational culture. Many P-O fit studies emphasized the match between peoples values and the values of the organization, because values are conceived of as fundamental and relatively enduring (Chatman, 1991). Value congruence and person-culture fit are often treated as equivalent terms (Kristof, 1996; OReilly, et al., 1991). In this study, we operationalized individual characteristics as individual preferences for organizational cultures. Characteristics of the organization were operationalized in two ways. First, as (perceptions of) existing organizational culture, referring to part (a) of the P-0 fit definition presented above. Second, as the preferences for organizational cultures of people in the work setting, referring to part (b) of the P-0 fit definition. With this approach we wanted to come close to the notion that persons and situations need to be compared in commensurate terms. Asking people in what organizational culture they prefer to work and comparing this with the existing culture is a direct way for establishing P-0 fit. Of course, people choose work environments also based on other factors, such as their abilities and the characteristics of the job. These components of fit are, however, already emphasized in selection procedures, while less attention is paid to establishing cultural fit. We wanted to fill in this gap by examining what possibilities there are for assessing the match between peoples cultural preferences and organizational culture during selection procedures.
Culture and climate are complimentary topics (Schneider, 1987). The operationalizations used in this study refer both to organizational practices and basic values underlying these practices. However, because our operationalizationswere comparable with the operationalizationsused in previous studies on person-culture fit (OReilly, et al., 1991), we decided to use the concept of organizational culture. We do, however, realize that the conceptualization of organizational culture (see Schein, 1990) is far more comprehensive than the one used in this study.
ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN
115
One of the P-O fit models that has initiated much empirical research in the past decade is Schneiders attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework (Schneider, 1987). This framework describes the mechanism of mutual adaptation between the person and the organization. People are not randomly assigned to organizations, but they select themselves into and out of organizations. This selection process includes several steps. First, people find organizations differentially attractive as a function of their judgment of the congruence between the characteristics of the organization and their own characteristics (Cable & Judge, 1997; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). A second step in the matching process is the selection procedure through which those people are hired who have the attributes the organization desires. Finally, once people have become citizens of the organization and find that they do not fit their work environment, they will tend to leave. A basic issue in measuring P-0 fit is how to conceptualize and operationalize the components of the fit measure, especially the O-component of this measure. Organizational culture is usually operationalized by measuring the shared perceptions of organizational citizens, for instance, by asking people what they experience as the basic values of their organization. Schneider et al. (1995) emphasized that persons make environments (p. 751) and that situations should not be conceptualized as separate and distinct from the individuals behaving in them. The personality attributes and attitudes of people in a setting are considered to be the fundamental defining characteristics of that setting. Hence, should organizational culture be measured based on peoples perceptions about the existing culture, as was done in most P-O fit studies, or should organizational culture be assessed in terms of characteristics of people in the setting? In short, do peoples characteristics (the P-component) need to match the shared perceptions of others about organizational characteristics or do they need to match other peoples characteristics in the organization? The central assumption of the ASA model that people make the place was tested recently (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998). Schneider et al. revealed that organizations are relatively homogeneous with respect to the personality attributes of their managers. This test of ASA theory offers an empirical argument to incorporate individual characteristics for assessing P-0 fit. However, the culture of a work setting is not only constituted by means of the characteristics of people. Many aspects of organizational life may be influenced by the personality and attitudes of people in the organization, but this does not mean that the culture of a work setting origins in the characteristics of people. The organizations strategic position and environment are, for instance, important determinants of shared culture perceptions because they impose
116
constraints on structure and control systems within organizations (Joyce & Slocum, 1990). Both explanations for developing organizational culture, that is, individual characteristics or environment, are tenable and do not exclude each other. Because of environmental determinism, it is likely that organizations with similar external environments share at least some aspects of organizational culture. Van Vianen and Kmieciak (1998) showed, for instance, that the branch of industry was related to organizational culture perceptions of recruiters selecting candidates for management positions. This relationship, however, concerned only some and not all dimensions of organizational culture. Recruiters from comparable branches assessed their organizational culture similar with respect to culture dimensions which were directly related to their goal orientation, such as productivity and efficiency. They differed, however, with respect to aspects concerning human relations, internal processing, and innovation. These culture dimensions were not determined by the environmental context. From these findings we could hypothesize that cultural dimensions that are related to the human side of organizational life are more adaptable to characteristics of people while cultural dimensions that concern the production side of organizational life are more determined by organizational goals and the external environment. It still can be argued, however, that the attraction-selection-attrition cycle operates in organizations. Given the existing organizational culture, individuals with specific characteristics are attracted and selected by the organization. As a consequence, organizational culture operationalized as the aggregation of characteristics of people may, to a certain extent, reflect organizational culture. For measuring organizational culture, researchers traditionally relied on methods such as the shared perceptions of organizational citizens. Measures of organizational culture that are based on agreement among organizational members are specifically used when objective measures are not available, which is often the case (Starbuck & Mezias, 1996). High interrater agreement, however, is not always feasible. The level of agreement will, for instance, depend on factors such as organizational structure (i.e., high task specialization will decrease the level of agreement), selection, and socialization practices and the amount of social interactions (Koene, Boone, & Soeters, 1997). Furthermore, the literature on organizational culture recognizes the existence of subcultures rather than a single, unitary organizational culture (Saffold, 1988). Both the strength of organizational culture and the existence of subcultures are neglected issues in P-0 fit research. Many researchers solved this problem by focusing almost exclusively on the consequences of subjective, rather than objective measures of P-0 fit for individual outcomes (Kristof, 1996). This approach makes sense be-
ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIAIWN
117
cause outcomes such as commitment and turnover intentions are based on cognitions of the person, and these cognitions are primarily determined by the subjective experiences of the person. There are, however, many situations in which subjective P-0 fit measures are not available. For instance, recruiters want to predict applicantsfuture fit with the organization, while most applicants do not have a good perception of the existing organizational culture. In that case, they need to establish actual fit by comparing applicants culture preferences with the culture of the organization. Studies that examined actual P-0 fit used the aggregating of individual perceptions as described above and these fit measures were Reilly et al., 1991). However, found to be related to work outcomes (0 only a relatively small number of organizations and only those with high interrater agreement scores were involved in these studies. Moreover, the results of these studies are ambiguous because of the methods that were used for establishing P-0 fit. The struggle with finding valid measures for the O-component of the fit measure could be partly relieved by taking the characteristics of people into account. Matching the characteristics of the person with characteristics of salient others in the work setting could complement assessment of shared perceptions of organizational culture for establishing PO fit. Thus far, we have suggested two rationales for why researchers should not focus exclusively on the match between the person and the organization (P-0 fit), but also on the match between characteristics of people (a measure of P-P fit). The first rationale concerned the relationship between characteristics of people (i.e., preferences, attitudes, personality) and organizational culture. The second rationale referred to methodological problems with traditional measures of P-0 fit and specifically the measurement of the O-component of the fit measure. We add another rationale which is grounded in theories and empirical studies on interpersonal similarity and attraction. As argued above, P-P fit actually refers to homogeneity of characteristics of people, that is, interpersonal similarity. P-P fit corresponds to the similarity-attraction hypothesis, which states that people are drawn to similar others. Both Festingers theory of social comparison and Heiders balanced state theory (Byrne, 1971; Lott & Lott, 1965) suggest that people are looking for consensual validation of their opinions and abilities and seek to maximize the consistency among the elements of their belief system. They therefore will be more attracted to people who are closer regarding their opinions, which in turn will enhance their social identification with other group members (Van Knippenberg & Van Schie, in press). Previous studies on the relationship between similarity and interpersonal attraction included similarity of attitudes (Shaikh & Kanekar, 1994; Singh
118
& ?an, 1992; Tan & Singh, 1995), similarity of values (Johnson, 1989) and similarity of personality (Byrne, Griffit, & Stefaniak 1967; Dyce & OConner, 1992; Moskowitz & CotC, 1995). Studies on attitude and value similarity, however, showed the most unequivocal results: People like those who hold similar attitudes and opinions more than those with dissimilar attitudes (Byrne, Clore & Smeaton, 1986; Condon & Crano, 1988; Shaikh & Kanekar, 1994). Moreover, interpersonal attraction among members of a work group was found to be related to group cohesion and job satisfaction of those work groups (Colarelli & Boos, 1992). Support was also found for the positive relationship between value similarity and individual job satisfaction and commitment (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). In this study, we therefore hypothesized that P-P fit, conceptualized as the similarity between an individuals culture preferences and those preferences of others, would affect individual outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of two different measures of fit on individual outcomes. First, we compared organizational culture preferences of newcomers in the organization with organizational culture as perceived by others in the work setting (P-O fit). Second, we compared organizational culture preferences of newcomers in the organizationwith culture preferences of others in the work setting (P-P fit). Both fit measures were related to newcomers organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Because there are several possible functional forms of the relationship between fit and outcomes, we also tested each of these forms for both fit measures.
Conceptualizationsof P-0 F i t
P-0 fit has been conceptualized in several ways (Kristof, 1996). Distinctions are made between supplementary and complementary fit and between supplies-values and demands-abilities fit. Supplementary fit occurs when an individual possesses characteristics that are similar to those of others in the environment. For instance, when a person has similar preferences and attitudes as the other members of his or her work team. Complementary fit occurs when an individuals characteristics add to the environment what is missing. This is the case when a person has special skills that are beneficial for functioning of the work team. Other researchers distinguished between supplies-valuesand demandsabilities fit (French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982; Schuler, 1980). From the supplies-values perspective, P-0 fit occurs when an organization satisfies individuals values. Values represent conscious desires held by the person and encompass preferences, interests, motives, and goals (Edwards, 1996). For instance, when an employee has high preferences
119
for growth and these preferences are fulfilled by opportunities for growth offered by the organization. The demands-abilities perspective suggests that P-0 fit occurs when an individual has the skills and abilities to meet organizational demands. This study integrates the supplies-values and the supplementary perspectives of P-0 fit. Newcomers values were operationalized as their culture preferences (I like to work in an organization in which competition is encouraged). Organizational supplies were operationalized as cultural characteristics (Competition is encouraged in this organization). Supplies-values fit was examined by comparing organizational supplies with the preferences of newcomers (Osupplies - P p r e f e r e n c e s f i t ) . Supplementary fit was examined by comparing the preferences of other individuals in the work setting with the preferences of neWCOmefS (Ppre f e r e n c e s others - p p r e ferences newcomer). Supplies-Value Fit Extensive theory and research indicate that people are attracted to situations that fulfill their values (Locke, 1976). Several researchers operationalized P-0 fit as congruence between individual work values and organizational work values or as congruence between individuals culture preferences and existing organizational culture (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Chatman, 1991; OReilly et al., 1991; Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991). These studies indicated that the match between individuals culture preferences and organizational culture supplies is important for individual outcomes. Those who fit display greater work motivation and job involvement, and show less turnover intentions. Furthermore, it was found that the P-0 fit measure is a better predictor of organizational commitment and tenure than either the person and the organization components of the fit measure alone (Chatman, 1991). As was argued above, most studies used the aggregation of individual perceptions for establishing the 0-component of the P-0 fit measure. However, a high level of interrater agreement (to justify aggregation of individual ratings) does not guarantee a measurement of actual organizational culture. The level of interrater agreement depends, for instance, on the specific sample of subjects that are asked about their organizational culture. Asking members of different hierarchical positions about their organizational culture will result in different views. Vancouver and Schmitt (1991), for instance, found low agreement between principals and teachers on organizational goals. Thus, it is often difficult to determine who to ask about organizational culture and how to consider the views of the different parties. An aggregated measure of the perceptions of different parties could be a more valid measure
120
of organizational culture than the shared perceptions of only one party. Researchers and practitioners often use the culture perceptions of individuals that are most relevant for the focal person. For newcomers, perceptions of immediate peers and supervisors are most relevant for their own perceptions of organizational culture. We therefore decided to use peers and supervisors perceptions as an indicator of organizational culture supplies. A further restriction was made by including only the supervisor and peer who had been involved in the selection procedure of the newcomer, that is, the recruiters. They had made the decision to hire the newcomer and they are the ones from which the newcomer is most likely to assess the values of the organization. Moreover, the socialization of newcomers, that is, their understanding of the culture of the organization, is accomplished after several months after entry (Van Vianen & Prins, 1997). Hence, the perspective of their most salient organizational members (e.g., recruiters and supervisors) may be most important in evaluating initial fit. Person-culture fit was defined here as the similarity between a newcomers culture preferences and organizational culture supplies as perceived by his or her recruiters. In accordance with the results of previous P-0 fit studies, we expected relationships between the person-culture fit measure and newcomers organizational commitment and turnover intentions.
Supplementay P-P Fit

We argued that organizational culture is partly reflected in the homogeneity of characteristics (i.e., personality, attitudes, preferences) of organizational members. Only those people whos preferences fit the organizational environment, such as the preferences of others in the work setting, are likely to stay because they feel attracted towards others. Moreover, these people have also proven to fit aspects of organizational culture that are less influenced by the characteristics of people. It is likely then that newcomers whose preferences are similar to those of organizational citizens will also fit this environment. Subsequently, newcomers whose preferences match the preferences of others will show higher organizational commitment and lower turnover intentions than newcomers whos preferences do not match the preferences of others. This assumption was supported by a study of Meglino, Ravlin, and AdEns (1989, 1992). They examined work value congruence between supervisors, subordinates and coworkers. Congruence was associated with positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Similar results were found by Jackson et al. (1991). They examined team members demographics and revealed that the more different
ANNELIESE.M. VAN WANEN
121
an individual is from the other members of the team the more likely is his or her turnover. In the present study, we operationalized individual characteristics as individuals organizational culture preferences (see Judge & Cable, 1997). We investigated the congruence between newcomers and recruiters organizational culture preferences (P-P fit). Based on similarity-attraction theories and previous empirical studies we hypothesized that P-P fit between newcomers preferences and recruiters preferences would be related to newcomers organizational commitment and turnover intentions.
Functional Forms of the Relationship Between Fit and Outcomes
There are several hypothetical relationships between fit and affective outcomes (Edwards & Van Harrison, 1993). The first consists of the algebraic difference between P and 0 (0-P), assuming a monotonic relationship with outcomes. This relationship is expected, for instance, when commitment increases as supplies increases towards preferences and decreases as supplies decreases towards preferences. Discrepancy scores have been criticized in the P-0 fit literature (Edwards, 1994) because they conceal the unique contribution of each of the components to the overall score and information regarding the magnitude of the components is lost. The second relationship represents an asymptotic relationship between fit measure and affective outcomes. This relationship can be labeled in two ways: deficiency and excess. Deficiency represents a positive relationship with commitment only when organizational supplies are less than the persons preferences. Increasing supplies enhance commitment up to the point of satiation (P = 0),but have little effect thereafter (when organizational supplies are greater than individuals preferences). Excess represents a negative relationship with commitment only when organizational supplies are greater than persons preferences. Decreasing supplies enhance commitment up to the point of satiation (P = 0),but have little effect thereafter (when organizational supplies are less than individuals preferences). The third and fourth relationships concern the absolute diflerence (1 0- P I) and the quadratic - PI2), representing curvilinear relationships with comdineereme ([0 mitment. Information regarding the direction of the difference score is neglected, because both these relationships are expected when either deficiency or excess are harmful. Which functional form adequately represents the relationship between the person, the organization and individual outcomes depend on a variety of factors, such as the content of the dimension upon which fit is assessed and the content of the components of the fit measure.
122
Hypotheses ConcerningMult@leDimensions of Culture F i t
In most culture fit research a profile comparison approach was adopted for establishing P-0 culture fit, using O'Reilly et al.'s (1991) Organizational Culture Profile. The Q-sort technique applied in these studies implies a holistic comparison of persons and situations across multiple dimensions rather than the comparison of persons and situations on specific dimensions. Edwards (1993), however, noted that profile similarity indices discard information on direction of misfit and rely on the assumption that each dimension of fit contributes equally to outcome measures. In our study, we therefore focused on assessingmultiple dimensions of organizational culture preferences and perceptions. Although there is considerable agreement about the basic dimensions of organizational culture, there is also little conceptual clearness in this area (Furnham & Gunter, 1993). Quinn (1988) made an attempt to link organizational culture to organization theory (Van Vianen & Kmieciak, 1998). His competing values framework distinguishes between different facets of organizational culture and covers most of the dimensions of organizational culture found in the literature. Quinn related organizational culture to four models in organization theory: the human relations model, the open systems model, the rational goal model, and the internal process model. Cohesion (internal focus) and human resource development are stressed in the human relations model. The open systems model emphasizes flexibility as well as growth, innovation, and external support. In the rational goal model organizations are especially concerned with planning, goal setting, productivity, and efficiency. Information management and communication in addition to stability and control are the main elements of the internal process model in organization theory. This framework doesn't suggest that elements of the four models cannot mutually exist in real organizations. Rather, it illustrates four basic orientations and it offers a framework for diagnosing organizations. We adapted the competing values framework of Quinn (1988) as a tool for developing hypotheses about the specific relationships of P-0 and P-P fit with commitment and turnover intentions. The preceding discussion of supplies-values fit suggests that insufficient supplies will be associated with decreased commitment and increased turnover intentions. Empirical evidence for deficiency effects, however, is sparse. Most studies that tested different functional forms of the relationship between fit and outcomes concerned stress as the dependent variable and were focused on specific dimensions of fit (Edwards, 1996). Van Vianen and Prins (1997) were one of the few that examined fit between culture preferences and perceptions of newcom-
123
ers (i.e., subjective P-0 fit) for different culture dimensions. They revealed that actual turnover was related to fit indices for only some dimensions of organizational culture. These dimensions mainly concerned elements of the open systems model and the rational goal model of Quinns (1988) framework, that is, risk orientation and work pressure. Moreover, quadratic difference indices yielded significantresults for the (curvilinear) relationships between cultural dimensions (i.e., risk orientation, reward, and work pressure) and affective outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions). In the present study we therefore hypothesized that commitment would decrease (Hypothesis 1) and turnover intentions would increase (Hypothesis 2) as culture supplies exceed or fall short of culture preferences for culture dimensions concerning the open systems model and the rational goal model. These hypotheses assume the highest outcomes along the line of perfect fit. The longitudinal study of Van Vianen and Prins (1997), however, showed that the magnitude of newcomers preferences also contributed to actual turnover. Newcomers with high preferences for risk orientation more often changed their job than newcomers with low preferences for risk orientation, but these preferences were not associated with turnover intentions as these were assessed in the first months of employment. Because very few empirical evidence is available about the combined effects of optimal fit and the magnitude of its components, we decided to develop hypotheses about the main functional forms as discussed above (Le., monotonic, asymptotic, or curvilinear relationships). Our data will be analyzed with using polynomial regression, which implies a further exploration of specific aspects of fit, such as the relationships between the components of the fit measure and outcomes. The human relations model of organizational culture includes culture facets such as the amount of peer support, feedback, and participation. These aspects of organizational life are highly valued by employees. Peer cohesion, for instance, received the highest preferences ratings in the study of Van Vianen and Prins (1997). Their results revealed a main effect for organizational supplies (as perceived by,the newcomer). Newcomers perceiving fewer peer support were less satisfied and less committed to the organization and showed higher turnover intentions than those experiencing more peer support. Weak evidence was found for the relationship between an algebraic fit index for peer support and commitment, which actually can be labeled as deficiency. Further support for a deficiency relationship between fit measure and affective outcomes concerning the human relations dimension of organizational culture can be found in a study of Downey, Hellriegel, and Slocum (1975). They revealed that individuals requiring social contact
124
and interdependence with others were more satisfied in organizations with open and empathic cultures than those with closed and impersonal cultures. Based on these previous studies we assumed that newcomers preferences for the human relations dimension of organizational culture would be high and that organizational supplies would seldom exceed their preferences. Moreover, in the few cases in which organizational supplies would be greater than newcomers preferences, we expected this to have little effect on newcomers affective outcomes. Hence, in this study we hypothesized that commitment would decrease (Hypothesis 3) and turnover intentions would increase (Hypothesis 4) as culture supplies fall short of culture preferences for culture dimensions concerning the human relations model. The internal process model represents the stability and control part of organizational culture. It emphasizes that information management and communication are organized along the line of strict regulation. People differ in the amount of regulation they prefer. Newcomers with low regulation preferences showed higher turnover intentions and more actual turnover than those with high regulation preferences (Van Vianen & Prins, 1997). No specific P, 0 and P-0 fit relationships were found with commitment and job satisfaction. Because we used a comparable operationalization of the internal process model as in the Van Vianen and Prins study, we hypothesized that newcomers preferences concerning the internal process model of organizational culture would be negatively related to turnover intentions (Hypothesis 5). The theoretical base underlying supplementary fit (P-P fit) emphasizes effects of similarity (i.e., the optimal fit between preferences of people) or dissimilarity and considers the direction of dissimilarity to be irrelevant. Supplementary fit, therefore, assumes a curvilinear relationship with outcomes (i.e., an absolute or quadratic fit measure). Hence, for all cultural dimensions we expected that newcomers commitment would decrease (Hypothesis 6 ) and newcomers turnover intentions would increase (Hypothesis 7) as their culture preferences exceed or fall short of the culture preferences of others in the work setting. Two recruiters who both had selected the newcomer were involved in the present study: newcomers supervisor and a peer. Several studies point to the supervisor as one of the most salient persons in the work setting (Russell, Altmaeir, & Van Velzen, 1987; Yukl, 1994). We therefore expected that P-P fit with the supervisor would be more important for newcomers commitment and turnover intentions than P-P fit with a peer.
125
Method Participants
Subjectswere 154 newcomers, 104peers, and 101 supervisors from 68 different organizations in The Netherlands. Among these organizations there were four large companies with 10 to 22 newcomers. These newcomers, however, were employed in different departments, located in different areas of the country. The organizations and participants were asked for their participation by a Dutch personnel selection consultancy which had been involved in selecting the newcomers. Newcomers were 97 males and 52 females, subjects sex was missing for 5 subjects. Average age of newcomers was 29.8 (SD = 5.4). They were all higher educated and employed fulltime. Mean job tenure was 6 months (SD = 3.9). Peers were 69 males and 34 females, sex of one subject was missing. Average age of peers was 34.6 (SD = 9.5). They were all higher educated and employed fulltime. Mean job tenure was 7.2 years (SD = 10.9). Supervisors were 88 males and 13 females. Mean age was 42.2 (SD = 7.7). They were all higher educated and employed fulltime. Mean job tenure was 10.5 years (SD = 11.9).
Procedure and Measures

Two questionnaires were administered to 160 newcomers, their peers, and supervisor. The first questionnaire was handed out by the researcher; the second questionnaire was sent by mail 3 weeks after completing the first questionnaire. One questionnaire contained questions about culture preferences (the preferences questionnaire), the other questionnaire contained questions about perceived culture supplies, commitment, and turnover intentions (the supplies questionnaire). In order to control for order effects, one-third of the sample received the supplies questionnaire first and the others received the preferences questionnaire first. No order effects were found. One hundred fortysix (91.3%) newcomers, 83 (51.9%) peers, and 101 (63.1%) supervisors filled in the preferences questionnaire. The supplies questionnaire was completed by 124 (77.5%)newcomers, 86 (53.8%) peers and 62 (38.8%) supervisors. Culturepreferences and culture supplies were measured with 12 scales covering the different facets of organizational culture of the competing values framework (Quinn, 1988). These scales were developed for a Dutch population and were validated in previous studies, showing good reliabilities (Van Vianen & Kmieciak, 1998). It appeared that some quadrants contained more scales than others. We, however, wanted to
126
be as exhaustive as possible rather than to seek symmetry in the number of scales in each quadrant. The items of culture preferences and culture supplieswere commensurate. This allows a direct comparison of the person and the organization components (Caplan, 1987). Concerning culture preferences, subjects were asked to respond to the question: Are the following statements applicable to the organization in which you prefer to work? I like to work in an organization in which.. .[statement]. Responses ranged from not at all applicable (1) to very applicable (7). Concerning culture supplies, subjects were asked to answer the question: Are the following statements applicable to the organization in which you are employed? Responses ranged from not at all applicable (1) to v e y applicable (7). Human relations aspects of organizational culture were operationalized with five scales: positive feedback, peer cohesion, human development, participation, and conflict tolerance. Positive feedback was measured with 5 items, such as: . ..employees get recognition for their performances. Cronbachs alphas were .84 (preferences) and .93 (supplies). Peer cohesion was measured with 10 items concerning the cohesiveness of teams and the amount of support from coworkers, such as: . ..there is a peer supportive atmosphere. Cronbachs alphas were .84 and 239. Human development was measured with 6 items, such as: . . .employees get the opportunity to develop themselves. Cronbachs alphas were .80 and .88. Participation consisted of 6 items, such as: . ..employees participate in decision making. Cronbachs alphas were .71 and 33. Conflict tolerance was measured with 6 items, such as: . ..employees express their thoughts and emotions in conflict situations. Cronbachs alphas were .81 and .88. The open system aspect of organizational culture was operationalized with an innovation scale. This scale consisted of 7 items, such as: . ..challenges are taken up. Cronbachs alphas were .79 and 34. Internal processes were operationalized with two scales: regulation and communication. The regulation scale consisted of 8 items, such as: . . .fixed procedures are followed. Cronbachs alphas of this scale were .87 and .86, respectively. Communication consisted of 4 items, such as: . ..employees are kept well informed about decisions and about what is going on in the organization. Cronbachs alphas were .75 and .71. Organizational goal orientation was operationalized with four scales: reward, work pressure, effort, and competition. Reward was measured with 4 items concerning the relationship between performance and reward, such as: . .. a relationship exists between performance and reward. Cronbachs alphas were .83 and .86. Workpressurewas measured with 6 items concerning the amount of pressure that is put on performance, such as: . . .there are clear standards of performance. Cron-
127
bachs alphas were .78 and 35. Effort was measured with 5 items concerning the amount of effort that is expected from the employees and work morale, such as: . ..it is expected that employees put more effort into their work than they are paid for. Cronbachs alphas were .78 and 3 5 . Competition consisted of 7 items, such as: . .. employees are expected to compete with each other. Cronbachs alphas were .85 and .89. Twofit measureswere used in this study. P-0 fit was assessed by comparing newcomers culture preferences with organizational culture supplies, as perceived by the recruiters. P-P fit was assessed by comparing newcomers culture preferences with recruiters preferences. The two fit measures were estimated with different fit indices. Furthermore, we tested the data on the amount of deficiency or excess, that is, the proportion of negative and positive scores. Finally, polynomial regression was used in order to avoid methodological problems with P-0 fit measures (Edwards, 1994,1996). Affective outcomes were commitment and turnover intentions. Commitment was measured with 7 items, selected from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). These items can be described as affective commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). One of the items is: I have this organization very much at heart. Cronbachs alpha was 39. Turnover intentions were measured with 3 items derived from Ten Horn (1983). Cronbachs alpha was .81. One of the items is: When I have the opportunity to work in another organization, I will take that opportunity. Results Correlation coefficients among the culture preferences and supplies scales were explored. Substantial correlations were found between some scales of each of the preferences and supplies questionnaires. In order to parsimoniously capture organizational culture we used factor analyses to reduce the number of scales into a small number of underlying dimensions. Two factor analyses (varimax rotation) werezonducted with the preferences scales and the supplies scales, respectively. Both factor analyses identified comparable solutions. A 3-factor solution was found for the preferences scales (Eigenvalues > 1, accounting for 71.6% of the variance) and a 2-factor solution was found for the supplies scales (Eigenvalues > 1, accounting for 66.9% of the variance). The first factor in both factor analyses consisted of the scales: positive feedback (.73 and .72), peer cohesion (233 and .84), communication (.76 and .85), human development ( 3 8 and .70), participation (.85 and .85) and conflict tolerance (.84 and .77). This factor reflects a concern for people dimension,
128
with internal consistencies of .90 (preferences scales) and .91 (supplies scales). The second factor in both analyses included the scales: reward (.68 and .59 ), work pressure (.88 and .88 ), effort (.76 and -85 ) and competition (. 83 and .86). This factor appears to reflect a concern for goal accomplishment dimension, with internal consistencies of .79 (preferences scales) and .82 (supplies scales). The innovation scales (preferences and supplies) loaded both on Factor 1 (.65 and .49) and Factor 2 (.49 and .73). The regulation preferences scale loaded on the third factor (.92) and the regulation supply scale loaded on the first factor (.47). Because 10 culture scales loaded on two reliable factors, the number of scales was reduced to two dimensions. These dimensions, concern for people and concern for goal accomplishment, were used in the further analyses. These dimensions are comparable to some dimensions of the Organizational Culture Profile (OReilly et al., 1991), an instrument often used in the P-0 fit literature (but not available in a Dutch version): supportiveness and team orientation, and outcome orientation. Moreover, concern for people and concern for goal accomplishment reflect two basic leadership styles found in many studies on leadership behavior (Yukl, 1994) and are key factors in determining peoples behavior in conflict situations (De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999). a b l e 1reports the means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients among the measures of preferences, supplies, and affective outcomes. In order to control for the independent measurement of preferences and supplies correlations between both components were inspected. According to French et al. (1982) a moderate level of correlation will occur because of the tendencies for individuals to seek out jobs and organizations which meet their preferences. Therefore, correlations lower than .40 are acceptable. As can be seen in Table 1, Pearson product-moment correlations between the commensurate scales for peers and supervisors respectively were .17 (ns) and .39 (p < .01) for concern for people and .29 (p < .05) and .40 (p < .01) for concern for goal accomplishment. These results show acceptable levels of correlation between preferences and supplies.
RecruitersPerceptions and Preferences
First, we compared supervisors and peers perceptions of organizational culture in order to establish the amount of interrater agreement between both recruiters concerning the O-component of the P-O fit measure. Interrater agreement coefficients were calculated for each pair of recruiters using T , ~of James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984). A T , ~ of .70 is conceived of as an acceptable level of interrater agreement. For
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statktics and Zero-OrderCorrelationsFor Measures of Preferences, Supplies, and Affective Outcomes
1
8
9
in
M S D
11
12
.56 .55
.03 -
5.91 5.86 5.88
.02 S O -.12
.20 .02
.06
4.47 4.42 4.84

-
.83 .15 .85 -.22 .61 -.06
.03 -.03 .21 -.17 .14 .22*
.29*' .33**
4.41 4.97
.05
.90 .01 .72 -.03 .86 -.26*

.80 -.16
.09 .17 -.01 .39** -.21
.06 -.06
.11
2 b
.15 .49**
.35* .ll
4.22 4.50
.02 .07
.02 .23
.23* -.15 .29* .03
.36** .40** .40** -.13
.OO
.08
.01 -.07
-.15
Preferences: Concern for people 1. Newcomers 2. Peers 3. Supervisors Preferences: Goal accomplishment 4. Newcomers 5. Peers 6. Supervisors Supplies: Concern for people 7. Peers 8. Supervisors Supplies: Goal accomplishment 9. Peers 10. Supervisors Affective outcomes 11. Commitment 12. Turnover intentions .01 -.02 .14 -.03 .07 .02 .30** -.06 .02 -.07
.19* 3.72 .78 2.38 1.15 -.08
-.07 -.07
-.71**
Note: * * p < .01
*p<
.05 (two-tailed).
130
concern for people, interrater agreement coefficients ranged from -SO to 1.00, with 20% of the coefficients below .70. For concern for goal accomplishment, coefficients ranged from .19 to 1.00, with 11% below .70. Because only two ratings were involved for establishing interrater agreement we also inspected the absolute differences between both ratings (Schmidt & Hunter, 1989). For concern for people, differences between the two recruiters ranged from .017 to 3.462 with a mean of .899 (SD= .785). For concern for goal accomplishment, differences ranged from .008 to 2.541 with a mean of .782 (SD = S99). The gap between the two ratings was more than one scale point for, respectively, 38% and 25% of the recruiter pairs. These results underline our previous notion that high interrater agreement among recruiters depends on the specific organizational context and differences in hierarchical positions. Based on these results, we decided to treat supervisorsand peers ratings separately in the further analyses. We also examined similarity of supervisors and peers culture preferences. For concern for people, interrater agreement coefficients ( T ~ ranged from .62 to 1.00, with only one pair of recruiters below .70. For concern for goal accomplishment, coefficients ranged from .27 to 1.00, with 17% below .70. Absolute differences between the two recruiters ranged from .011 to 1.833 with a mean of .586 (SO = .462) for the concern for people dimension. For concern for goal accomplishment, differences ranged from .011 to 2.425 with a mean of .837 (SD = .650). The gap between the two ratings was more than one scale point for, respectively, 21% and 30% of the recruiter pairs. Note that the rwSsfor concern for people preferences were good and that the mean and standard deviations were reasonably low. Supervisors and peers were more similar with respect to their concern for people preferences than to their concern for goal accomplishmentpreferences. In line with the treatment of recruiters perceptions, we decided to treat supervisors and peers preference ratings separately in the further analyses.
~ )
P-0 and P-P Discrepancies

We examined the proportion of positive and negative scores of the simple algebraic differences between PpreferenCeS and Osvpplies and between Ppreferences n e w c o m e r and Ppreferences others for assessing deficiency or excess. The proportions of positive and negative scores for the P-O algebraic differences were unequal for the concern for people dimension. Overall, newcomers preferences were higher than supervisors and peers perceptions of cultural supplies (86% and
AJWELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN
131
93%, respectively), showing concern for people deficiency. The proportions of positive and negative scores for the P-0 algebraic differences for the concern for goal accomplishment dimension were, however, rather equal. Deficiency concerned 47% and 60% of the newcomers, for the comparison with O s u p e r v i s o r and Ope,, respectively. The proportions of positive and negative scores were also quite equal for the P-P algebraic differences. Compared to the preferences of supervisors and peers, 43% and 46% of the newcomers showed lower concern for people preferences, and 63% and 49% of the newcomers showed lower concern for goal accomplishment preferences.
Tests of the Functional Forms of Newcomers P-0 Fit and Outcomes
Relationships between fit measures, their components and affective outcomes were tested with polynomial regression. Regression analyses, as shown in Table 2, concern the unconstrained regression equations. We hypothesized that commitment would decrease (Hypothesis 1) and turnover intentions would increase (Hypothesis 2) as culture supplies exceed or fall short of culture preferences for culture dimensions concerning the open systems model and the rational goal model. Hypotheses could be tested for the rational goal model (i.e., goal accomplishment) only. No significant multiple correlations for the unconstrained regression equations were found for concern for goal accomplishment predicting commitment and turnover intentions. Hence, Hypothesis 1and 2 could not be confirmed. We hypothesized deficiencyrelationships with commitment and turnover intentions for the human relations model (Hypothesis3 and 4). The concern for people dimension was significantly related to commitment for the comparison with both O s u p e r v i s o r and O p e e r (R = .286; F (5,57) = 4.089, p < -01 and R2 = .332; F ( 5 , 75) = 6.874, p < .01) and to ( R 2 = .20; F ( 5 7 5 ) turnover intentions for the comparison with Opeer = 3.454, p < .01). Surfaces for the three equations (see Figures lalc) show linear and asymptotic relationships between the component measures and outcomes. To interpret the results for each surface we applied procedures described by Edwards and Parry (1993). The surface for concern for people preferences and supervisor supplies predicting newcomer commitment (Figure la) was almost linear. The slope along the Y = -X line was positive and essentially linear (a, = 6.374, p < .01; uz = -.611, ns). The slope along the Y = X line was negative and linear (a, = -3.240, ns; us = .345, ns). These results
See for an extensive explanation Edwards and Parry (1993).
TABLE 2 UnconstrainedEquations for AJrmptotic and Optimal P - 0 and P - P Models

Commitment Goal accomplishment Supervisor Peer People Supervisor Peer Turnover intentions Goal accomplishment Supervisor Peer
1.131
Concern for:
People Supervisor Peer
P-0
PNewcomer
P5ewcomer
2.398' -1.229 -0.368.'
- 1.843
PO
0.468**
-0.160* .332**
O2
R2
1.567 -4.807* -0.339* 0.478 0.206 .286** -6.206 4.059 0.613' -0.186 -0.315 .172
-1.989 -2.444. 0.179 0.072 0.240' ,139
-0.953 0.802 0.101 -0.004 -0.074 .05 1
-3.601' 2.060 0.553** -0.665* * 0.209 .200**
1.904 2.459 -0.176 0.013 -0.296 ,167
0.053 -0.049 0.214 ,136
P-P
PNewcomer
0.973 2.992 1.686 0.486 -1.410 0.141 -4.007* 7.783 0.314 0.109 -0.124 0.399 P5cwcomer -0.777 -1.277 -0.499 0.189 P N e w c o m e r P o t h e r person 0.501 0.191 0.382 0.018 '&her person .161* .047 .174* R2 .084 Note For all rows except those labeled R2, table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients for equations with all predictors entered simultaneously; P = preferences, 0 = culture perceptions of supervisor or peer. * * p < .01 * p < .05
P 0 t h . r person
1.834 2.780 -0.242. 0.194 -0.330 .186** -0.609 -0.293 0.070 -0.013 0.043 .011
2.875 -4.504 -0.327 0.176 0.297 .086
-1.874 -0.967 0.063 0.274 0.025 .035
133
134
135
a,
136
indicate that newcomer commitment was lowest when preferences were low and supplies were high. Commitment increased as newcomer preferences increased towards supervisor supplies and decreased as preferences decreased towards supplies. Commitment was also somewhat higher when both newcomer preferences and supervisor supplies were low. From our analyses regarding the direction of discrepancy scores we already know that in 86% of the cases newcomers preferences were higher than supervisors perceptions of cultural supplies, showing concern for people deficiency. We expected that deficiency would be detrimental for commitment (Hypothesis 3). We found, however, that low supervisor supplies actually enhanced newcomer commitment. The surface for concern for people preferences and peer supplies predicting newcomer commitment (Figure lb) is somewhat concave, because the downward curvature is least along the first principal axis (a: = -.027, ns) and greatest along the second principal axis (uz = -.740, p < .05). The surface is slightly positive, but not significant, along the Y = X line (a, = 1.169, ns; a: = -.060, ns). The slope along the Y = -X line is also positive and curved downward (a, = 3.627, p < .05.; a: = -.996, p < .01). These results indicate that commitment was lowest when newcomer preferences were low and supplies (as perceived by peers) were high. The increase in commitment along the Y = -X line became smaller when newcomer preferences increased and supplies decreased. However, from our preceding analyses we know that in 93% of the cases newcomer preferences exceeded peer supplies. Overall, these results show two effects. First, newcomer commitment was lowest when both newcomer preferences and peer supplies were low. Second, commitment increased somewhat when newcomer preferences increased. Similar results were found for the surface for concern for people preferences and peer supplies predicting newcomer turnover intentions (Figure lc). This surface is convex since the upward curvature is greatest along the first principal axis (a: = 1.035, p < .05) and least along the ns). As one moves along the Y = -X second principal axis (us = .025, line, the surface is sloped downward (a, = -5.661, p < .05). An increase in newcomers preferences together with a decrease in peer supplies had a diminishing effect on newcomer turnover intentions as indicated by the downward curvature along the Y = -X line (a: = 1.427, p < .01). The slope along the Y = X line is slightly negative, but not significant ( a , = -1.541, ns; a: = .097, ns). Because in most cases newcomer preferences exceeded peer supplies, we specifically inspected that part of the surface that lies at the right side from the line of perfect fit. The surface of Figure l c then shows two effects. First, turnover intentions are highest when both newcomer preferences and peer supplies are low. Second,
ANNELIES E.M. VAN WANEN
137
turnover intentions decreased somewhat when newcomer preferences increased. With these results we could not confirm our deficiency Hypotheses 3 and 4. Using the supervisor as a point of reference for the organizations concern for people supplies, we found low supplies to be beneficial for newcomer commitment. When we used the concern for people perceptions of peers, we found low supplies to be detrimental for newcomer commitment and turnover intentions only when newcomer preferences were low.
Relationships Between P-P Fit and Outcomes

Regression coefficients for the P-P fit measures are shown in Table 2. We hypothesized similarity effects, that is, newcomers commitment would decrease (Hypothesis 6) and newcomers turnover intentions would increase (Hypothesis 7) as their culture preferences exceed or fall short of the culture preferences of others. Moreover, we assumed that P-P fit with the supervisor would be more important for newcomers commitment and turnover intentions than P-P fit with a peer. Table 2 reveals significant multiple correlations for the unconstrained regression equations for the comparisons of concern for people preferences of newcomers and supervisors predicting newcomer commitment = .186; F (5,87) = 3.694, p < .01 and R2 and turnover intentions (R2 = .161; F (5, 87) = 3.119, p < . 0 5 ) . No significant relationships were found for concern for people P-P fit with peers. However, the regression equations for the goal accomplishment dimension predicting newcomer turnover intentions showed significant results for the comparison with = .174; F (5,68) = 2.607, p < . 0 5 ) . Surfaces for peer preferences (R2 the three significant equations (see Figures 2a-2c) show the relationships between the component measures and outcomes. The surface for supervisor and newcomer concern for people preferences predicting commitment (Figure 2a) is somewhat concave, because the downward curvature is least along the first principal axis (a: = -.254, n s ) and greatest along the second principal axis (a: = -1.338, ns). The slope along the Y = X line is positive (a, = 4.614, ns), indicating that commitment is higher when supervisor and newcomer preferences are both high than when both are low. The slope along the Y = -X line is slightly negative and curved downward (a, = -.946, ns; a: = -.766, p < . 0 5 ) . These results show that commitment decreased somewhat more at the right side of the line of perfect fit, thus when newcomer concern for people preferences exceeded those of the supervisor than when it fell short of supervisor preferences. Hypothesis 6 was only partly supported, that is, commitment was highest when supervisor and
138
3 E
E
I
a,
139
newcomer concern for people preferences were both high. Commitment decreased as newcomer preferences exceeded or fell short of supervisor preferences and as both preferences decreased. Hypothesis 6 was not confirmed with respect to the concern for goal accomplishment dimension. The surface for supervisor and newcomer concern for people preferences predicting turnover intentions (Figure 2b) is almost flat along the Y = X line (a, = -.437, ns; a: = .038, n s ) . Newcomer turnover intentions were relatively low along the line of perfect fit. In order to examine whether turnover intentions were minimized at the point of perfect fit, we tested whether the second principal axis was running along the Y = X line. The intercept of the second principal axis was greater than zero, but not significantly (p20 = 1.348) and the slope was slightly less than 1 (pzl = 0.788). In addition, the quantity did not significantly differ from zero (- 0.754). The slope along the Y = -X line, however, is positive and curved upward (a, = 2.383, ns; a: = 1.592,p < .01). These results indicate that turnover was lowest when newcomer and supervisor concern for people preferences matched or when supervisor preferences exceeded those of the newcomer. Turnover intentions increased at an increasing rate as supervisor concern for people preferences fell short of newcomer concern for people preferences. The surface for peer and newcomer concern for goal accomplishment preferences predicting turnover intentions (Figure 2c) shows a negative slope and an upward curvature along the Y = X line (a, = -3.521, p < .05; u: = .447, p < .05). The surface along the Y = -X line is positively sloped and linear (a, = 4.493, p < .05; a: = .069, at = .069, ns). These results indicate two effects. First, newcomer turnover intentions increased as peer concern for goal accomplishment preferences decreased. Second, newcomer turnover intentions decreased along the line of perfect fit when both newcomer and peer concern for goal accomplishment preferences increased. Hypothesis 7 was partly supported for the comparison between newcomer and supervisor concern for people preferences, but not for their concern for goal accomplishment preferences. The results for the comparison between newcomer and peer preferences, however, did not confirm Hypothesis 7. No significant results were found for the concern for people dimension and the results for concern for goal accomplishment indicated a positive similarity effect only when both newcomer and peer preferences were high.
140
141
142
Discussion
Most P-0 fit research has been primarily concerned with the match between persons and organizations. The purpose of the present study was to address some limitations of this approach to person-organization fit. We argued that matching persons with organizations is a restricted operationalization of the theoretical assumptions underlying the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model (Schneider, 1987;Schneider et al., 1995). ASA theory assumes that individuals characteristics are the basic ingredients of existing organizational culture. This implies that the match between individuals and their organization also should refer to the match between individuals characteristics and the characteristics of others in the organization. Schneider et al. (1998) provided empirical support for this assumption underlying M A theory by showing that organizations are relatively homogeneous with respect to personality attributes. Thus, the mechanism of mutual attraction between the person and the organization can partly be predicted by similarity of people. In addition to personality attributes, P-0 fit researchers emphasize that values (often operationalized as preferences) are also important components on which to evaluate fit because they are fundamental and relatively enduring. Moreover, they guide individuals attitudes, judgments, and behaviors (Chatman, 1989, 1991). In the present study, we therefore focused on the role of individuals preferences for organizational cultures. We compared the culture preferences of newcomers with organizational supplies (the traditional approach). In addition, we compared newcomers culture preferences with the preferences of salient others in their work setting. There were two main reasons to expect that this second operationalization of fit would be an important predictor for affective outcomes. First, if newcomersculture preferences are similar to the preferences of salient others these newcomers probably will match the organizational culture, because those similar others already have proven to match (they did not leave). Second, if newcomers show similar preferences as others in the work setting, they will feel attracted towards those others. Feelings of similarity and attraction will affect their individual work attitudes. The results of this study lend some support for the hypothesized role of P-P fit for newcomers commitment and turnover intentions, but only for the comparison between newcomers and supervisors. Newcomers P-P fit with their supervisors concerning the concern for people dimension of culture preferences appeared to be related to newcomers affective outcomes. When both newcomers and supervisors showed high concern for people preferences newcomers were more committed. Overall, incongruency between the supervisor and the newcomer
143
decreased newcomers commitment. However, when both preferences matched and they were low, newcomer commitment was low. Hence, P-P fit with the supervisor for the concern for people dimension enhanced newcomer commitment, but only when both preferences were relatively high. Newcomer-supervisor P-P fit effects were also found for newcomer turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were relatively low when supervisor concern for people preferences matched or exceeded those of the newcomer. P-P fit with respect to the concern for goal accomplishment dimension was, however, less related to newcomers commitment and turnover intentions. Our results revealed that onlywhen newcomer and peer preferences were both high newcomer turnover intentions were low. For this dimension of organizational culture we found that peers preferences affected newcomers turnover intentions. Overall, newcomer turnover intentions were lower when peer preferences were high. For establishing P-0 fit, we focused on the match between newcomers preferences and organizational supplies as perceived by their supervisor and one of their peers (i.e., the recruiters). With this approach we simulated a selection situation in which recruiters were the only source of information about organizational supplies. We expected to find P-O fit effects for the concern for goal accomplishment dimension. However, our results revealed no significant relationships with affective outcomes for this dimension. Apparently, the match between newcomer preferences and recruiters perceptions of the concern for goal accomplishment dimension of organizational culture is not a good predictor of newcomers affective outcomes. Different results were found with the concern for people dimension. We hypothesized that P-0 fit for this dimension would be beneficial for newcomer affective outcomes and, specifically, that supplies should not fall short of newcomer preferences. Surprisingly, we found that as supervisor concern for people perceptions decreased towards newcomer preferences, newcomer commitment increased. Most of all, newcomer concern for people preferences were higher than their recruiters perceptions. This discrepancy, however, was not detrimental for newcomer affective outcomes. Combining the results for the P-P fit measures with those of the P-0 fit measures, these results suggest that the relatively high concern for people preferences of newcomers have to match supervisor preferences, but not necessarily supervisor perceptions of existing organizational culture. For explainingthe results with our P-0 and P-P fit measures we refer to research on social information processing. Social information processing (SIP) theory suggests that individual attitudes are likely to be influenced by the opinion and information of others (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). The primary sources of social information in the work set-
144
ting are those with whom one communicates frequently, that is, newcomers peers and their supervisors. The similarity-attraction perspective assumes that newcomers who hear others express their preferred culture values will feel more committed to their work setting than newcomers who hear others express different culture values. SIP theory, however, proposes that other peoples preferences will affect newcomers attitudes only if newcomers consider the values of others to be relevant. The results of this study suggest that for the concern for goal accomplishment dimension of organizational culture newcomers use their peers preferences as a frame of reference. For the concern for people dimension they rely more on the preferences of their supervisor. Newcomers may expect the concern for goal accomplishment preferences of their supervisors to be high and they therefore focus on the preferences of their peers. If their peers show high concern for goal accomplishment preferences-such as high preferences for competition-this may hold a promise for a challengingwork environment. Furthermore, newcomers may expect the concern for people preferences of their peers to be high and comparable to their own preferences. The concern for people preferences of their supervisor, however, may be conceived of as less predictable. Newcomers probably do realize that the concern for people preferences of their supervisor are one of the main sources for creating (and changing) the human side of organizational culture (Schein, 1985), such as the amount of supportive feedback and opportunities for participation. They therefore put weight to the concern for people preferences of their supervisors. This is one of the first studies that examined P-P fit measures in the context of personal selection. Our findings have some implications for the application of fit measures in personnel selection procedures. Practitioners may hesitate to include P-O fit measures in their selection procedures, because of problems with measuring organizational culture. Moreover, incorporating a measure of applicantsvalues into the personnel selection maybe risky in applied organizational settings. Such measures are fakable and there is no clear evidence that a persons values are related to the ability to perform the job. The results of the present study indicate that comparing applicants preferences with the preferences of their recruiters (i.e., supervisor and peers) is a way to establish fit. This would be applied in developing realistic job previews or in the establishment of recruitment and retention programs. Of course, more research is needed in order to confirm and extend our P-P fit findings. Our results for the P-0 fit measures did not collaborate with previous studies showing P-0 fit effects. This is probably due to our operationalization of P-0 fit. Other P-0 fit studies used aggregated measures of organizational culture based on the perceptions of a large number of
145
organizational citizens. In this study, only two persons were involved in establishing organizational culture. We argued that choosing the right number and type of persons for assessing organizational culture is rather arbitrary. Most studies relied on specific samples with high interrater agreement in only a few organizations. We focused on measuring organizational culture and cultural preferences in many organizations. For practical reasons, such a design imposes restrictions on the number of people that could be involved in each of the organizations. Moreover, with our design we wanted to come close to the daily practice of personnel selection and socialization processes in organizations. Because the supervisors and peers were the recruiters, these recruiters are the ones from which newcomers are most likely to assess the values of the organization. Further, the socialization literature indicates that newcomers tend not to fully learn about and understand the culture of the organization until later in the socialization process. Hence, the perspective of their most salient organizational members may be most important in evaluating initial fit. However, for establishing newcomer P-0 fit in the long term, more valid measures of organizational culture are needed. Two more limitations of this study should be noted. First, an important limitation of this study concerns the absence of longitudinal data. The causal relation between fit measures and affective outcomes is best understood by first measuring fit and subsequently assessing affective outcomes at a later point in time. Future research should examine the relationship between applicantsP-P and P-0 fit measures with affective and performance outcomes of selected applicants, a few months after they have entered the organization. Our newcomers were already appointed for 6 months. During this period they may have changed their cultural preferences. Previous studies, however, showed that socialization processes account for changes in fit but these are not due to changes in cultural preferences (Saks & Ashforth 1997; Van Vianen & Prins, 1997). We therefore expect that our results will be replicated with a longitudinal design. A second important criticism of this study concerns our operationalization and measurement of organizational culture. Initially, we operationalized organizational culture with 12 scales, based on the competing values framework (Quinn, 1988). This framework is a theoretical framework for integrating models of organizational culture and leadership from four perspectives derived from organization theory. It is, however, not an empirical model of the basic dimensions of organizational culture and how different elements of organizational culture are related. For this reason we used exploratory rather than confirmatory factor analysis for examining relationships between the scales and for reducing the number of scales. The resulting two dimensions may raise
146
some doubts about the construct that was measured. Although both concern for people and concern for goal accomplishment dimensions reflect some basic values underlying organizational culture (see Schein, 1990) we do recognize that these two dimensions do not cover organizational culture. Future research should adopt a broader approach to organizational culture. This study has shown some important implications for future P-0 fit studies. The comparisons between newcomers, peers, and supervisors yielded relative homogeneity with respect to the concern for people preferences of organizational citizens. Note, for instance, that supervisors and peers were most similar regarding their concern for people preferences. This result is in line with the conclusion of Schneider et al. (1998) that organizations are relatively homogeneous with regard to personality characteristics. However, the personality characteristics used in their study referred to social behavior and interpersonal relationships (thinking-feeling, sensing-intuition, extraversionintroversion, judging-perceiving). Personality characteristics such as conscientiousness and achievement motivation that are related to the concern for goal accomplishment dimension of organizational life were not included. These latter personality characteristics may be less homogeneous in organizations, because they are, for instance, more related to specificjobs or positions. Future studies, therefore, should consider dimensions of organizational and individual values that are specifically relevant for effects of supplementary, complementary, or supplies-values fit on individual and organizational outcomes.
REFERENCES
Allen NJ, Meyer JP (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational PsycholOU, 63, 1-18. Bretz RD Jr, Judge TA. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of VocationalBehavior; 44,32-54. Byrne D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York Academic press. Byrne D, Clore GL, Smeaton G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social PsycholoU, 51,1167-1 170. Byrne D, Griffit WB, Stefaniak D. (1967). Attraction and similarity of personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5,82-90. Cable DM, Judge TA. (1997). Interviewers perceptions of person-rganization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal ofApplied Psycholom, 82,546-561. Caplan RD. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavioc 31,248-267. Chatman JA. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14,333-349.
147
Chatman JA. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterb 36,459-484. Colarelli SM, Boos AL. (1992). Sociometric and ability-based assignment to work groups: Some implications for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavioc 13, 187-196. Condon JW, Crano WD.(1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,789-797. De Dreu CKW, Harinck F, Van Vianen AEM. (1999). Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. In Robertson IT, Cooper CL (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 369414). West Sussex: Wiley. Downey HK, Hellriegel D, Slocum JW. (1975). Congruence between individual needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18,149-155. Dyce J, OConner BP. (1992). Personality complementarity as a determinant of group cohesion in bar bands. Small Group Research, 23,185-198. Edwards JR. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 46,641-665. Edwards JR. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58,51-100. Edwards JR. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39,292-339. Edwards JR, Van Harrison R. (1993). Demands and worker health: Three-dimensional reexamination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain. Journal ofApplied Psycholop, 78,628-648. Edwards JR, Parry ME. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36,1577-1613. French JRP Jr, Caplan RD, Harrison RV (1982). The mechanisms ofjob stress and strain. London: Wiley. Furnham A, Gunter B. (1993). Corporate culture: Definition, diagnosis, and change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psycholop, 8,233-261. Jackson SE, Brett JF, Sessa VI, Cooper DM, Julin JA, Peyronnin K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 76,675-689. James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal ofApplied Psycholop, 69,85-98. Johnson MA. (1989). Variables associated with friendship in an adult population. Journal O f Social Psycholop, 129,379-390. Joyce WF, Slocum JW. (1990). Strategic context and organizational climate. In Schneider B (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 130-150). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Judge TA, Cable DM. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY,50,359-394. Koene BA, Boone CAJJ, Soeters JL. (1997). Organizational factors influencing homogeneity and heterogeneity of organizational cultures. In Sackmann SA (Ed.), Cultural complexity in organizations: Inherent contrasts and contradictions(pp. 273-293). Thousand Oaks, C A Sage. Kristof AL. (1996). Person+xganization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 4 9 , 1 4 9 .
148
Locke EA. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette MD (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1350). Chicago: Rand McNally. Lott AJ,Lott BE. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309. Meglino BM, Ravlin EC, Adkins CL. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,424-432. Meglino BM, Ravlin EC, Adkins CL. (1992).The measurement of work value congruence: A field study comparison. Journal of Management, 18,33-43. Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of VocationalBehavior; 14,224-247. Moskowitz DS, Cot6 S . (1995). Do interpersonal traits predict affect? A comparison of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,915-924. OReilly CA, Chatman J, Caldwell DE (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person+rganization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34,487-516. Quinn RE. (1988).Beyond mtional management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Russell DW, Altmaeir E, Van Velzen D. (1987). Job-related stress, social support, and burnout among classroom teachers. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72,269-274. Saffold GS. (1988). Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving beyond strong culture. Academy of Management Review, 13,546-558. Saks AM, Ashforth BE. (1997).A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions o f fit, and work outcomes. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 50,395-426. Salancik GR, Pfeffer J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarter& 23,224-253. Schein EH. (1985).Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein EH. (1990).Organizationalculture. American Pvchologist, 45,109-119. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. (1989). Interrater reliability coefficients cannot be computed when only one stimulus is rated. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74,368-370. Schneider 3 . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The people make the place. PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY, 40,437453. Schneider B, Goldstein HW, Smith DB. (1995). he ASA framework An update. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48,747-773. Schneider B, Smith DB, Dylor S, Fleenor J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Pqzhofogy, 83, 462-470. Schuler RS. (1980).Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Petformance, 25,184-215. Shaikh T, Kanekar S .(1994). Attitudinal similarityand affiliation need as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 134,257-259. Singh R, Tin LSC. (1992).Attitudes and attraction: A test of the similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychofom, 54, 798810. Smith M. (1994). A theory of the validity of predictors in selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,13-31. Starbuck WH, Mezias JM. (1996). Opening Pandoras box: studying the accuracy of managers perceptions. Journal of Organizationalbehavior; I7,99-117. Tin DTY, Singh R. (1995). Attitudes and attraction: A developmental study of the similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,975-986.
149
2 n Horn LA. (1983). Behoepen, werksituatie en arbeidsbeleving. Pijnacker: Dutch Efficiency Bureau. Vancouver JB, Schmitt NW. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44,333-352. Van Knippenberg D, Van Schie ECM. (in press). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Organizationaland Occupational Psychology. Van Vianen AEM,Kmieciak YE. (1998). The match between recruiters perceptions of organizational climate and personality of the ideal applicant for a management position. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6,153-163. Van Vianen AEM, Prins MG. (1997). Changes in newcomers person4imate fit following the first stage of socialization. InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 101-114. Yukl G. (1994). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Newcomer and OC

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Newcomer and OC

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 2000.

COPYRIGHT 0 2wO PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC.

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIAIWN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

Supplementay P-P Fit

ANNELIESE.M. VAN WANEN

Hypotheses ConcerningMult@leDimensions of Culture F i t

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

Procedure and Measures

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

5.91 5.86 5.88

4.47 4.42 4.84

.83 .15 .85 -.22 .61 -.06

.03 -.03 .21 -.17 .14 .22*

.90 .01 .72 -.03 .86 -.26*

.09 .17 -.01 .39** -.21

.23* -.15 .29* .03

.36** .40** .40** -.13

.19* 3.72 .78 2.38 1.15 -.08

Note: * * p < .01

P-0 and P-P Discrepancies

AJWELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

TABLE 2 UnconstrainedEquations for AJrmptotic and Optimal P - 0 and P - P Models

People Supervisor Peer

2.398' -1.229 -0.368.'

-1.989 -2.444. 0.179 0.072 0.240' ,139

-0.953 0.802 0.101 -0.004 -0.074 .05 1

-3.601' 2.060 0.553** -0.665* * 0.209 .200**

1.904 2.459 -0.176 0.013 -0.296 ,167

0.053 -0.049 0.214 ,136

2.875 -4.504 -0.327 0.176 0.297 .086

-1.874 -0.967 0.063 0.274 0.025 .035

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN WANEN

Relationships Between P-P Fit and Outcomes

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN

Potrebbero piacerti anche

.36 .40 .40** -.13