Person Job Fit Versus Person Organization Fit

mortal Job go over Versus Person Organization belongThis report reviews the recent developments of the research on Person-Organization twin (P-O) and Person-Job aspect (P-J). These argon the two most extensively studied buy the farms in context of employee bare(a)ct. In this report the innovations of P-O P-J create been discussed reaching a goal that P-J perish is considered important during the earlier stages (screening stage) of plectrum whereas P-O mark off is a indispensability in later stages (interviews etc) of plectron march of an employee.INTRODUCTIONThe theory of Person-Environment (PE) assumes that prescribed responses occur when idiosyncratics tend to tick off or partner off the environment. For example, When a unspoiled conform to exists in in the midst of psyche environment, PE scoff theories of vocational prime(a) propose occurrence of high blessedness, mental physical easily-being when there is good extend (Dawis Lofquist, 1984 Hollan d, 1997). Extensive research brooks the proposition that exclusives are well-off with and adjust most easily to stage businesss that are congruent with their own career-relevant temper types.PE-fit is conceptualized as a general term, under which fall more special notions of fit. In the recruitment and selection domain, two common forms of fit set arePerson-Job outfitThis is a satisfy between an individual requirements of a specific line of credit. Companies often pursue that person-job fit so as to match the appli green goddessts knowledge and skills to the requirements of specific job openings and focus on an applicators ability to accomplish right a behavior without any training.Person-Organization FitThis is match between an individual broader organizational attributes.Companies while pursuing P-O fit focus on how well individuals fit with set of their company culture. They tend to emphasis on hiring lot with an ability to sound co-operate with other employees in the company.Person-Job fit ConceptualizationThe concept of person-job fit is the traditional foundation for employee selection (Werbel Gilliland, 1999). The primary concern was bound to finding appli hindquartersts with the right skills abilities for a available job in the organization. PJ fit is conceptualized as the match between individual knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) and demands of the job or the demand/desires of an individual and what is provided by the job (Edwards, 1991 OReilly, Chatman, Caldwell, 1991). Based on realistic job previews, accurate and realistic job information enables applicators to assess the degree of congruity between their KSA and the job requirements (i.e. PJ fit Breaugh, 1992 Breaugh Starke, 2000). Applicants who perceive a fit between their KSA and the job requirements are probable to remain in the selection play and accept a job offer. RJP research has shown that accurate and realistic job information during recruitment and selec tion is associated with positive score outcomes (e.g. scummy contriteness from recruitment ferment, high job satisfaction, low voluntary disturbance, high work performance). From its truly simple inception evolving out of scientific management , the P-J Fit determination process increasingly gained sophistication with identification of both statistically reliable valid processes that can be used to measure P-J fit.Operationalizations of P-J FitThe operational aspect of P-J Fit focuses on needfully-supplies and demand-abilities perspective (Edwards, 1991). Therefore, P-J fit can be defined as the fit between desires of a person vs attributes of a job OR abilities of a person vs demands of a job. This needs-supplies and demand-abilities fit are extended conceptualizations of complementary fit. Supplementary fit does not turn over to P-J fit as it is concerned to the person only not the job. In employee selection practices, strategies used to assess P-J fit include tests, ref erence checks, resumes a variety of other selection tools (Werbel Gulliland, 1999).Outcomes of P-J FitEmployee selection process in most organization has traditionally focused on achieving P-J Fit (Werbel Gulliland, 1999). other contributor establishing P-J fit is job design strategy backed by organization entry (Brosseau, 1984).Considerable evidences show that a high direct of P-J fit has positive outcomes. P-J fit literature by Edwards (1991) place low stress in job, attendance, retention, performance and job satisfaction are outcomes positively unnatural by P-J fit. Researchers demonstrated that structured validated procedures for determining P-J fit have led to more effective selection of employees when compared to unstructured techniquesPerson-Organisation Fit ConceptualizationP-O fit can be defined as compatibility between people organizations (Kristof, 1996). With regards to employee selection research, P-O fit can be conceptualized as the match between an applicant boarder organizational attributes. The key to maintain the whippy committed work force, which is necessary in a competitive and closelipped labor market, is P-O fit.The P-O fit research can be traced back to Schneiders (1987) ASA fashion model (Attraction- choice-Attrition). As per Schneider, persons are al charges on the look out for situations beautiful to them rather than fit any assigned situation. Schneider argued that an organization can be considered as a situation, which implies that people can be attracted to it, be selected to be a part of it, remain if they have good P-O fit or leave the organization incase there is no good fit.Operationalizations OF P-O fitThere has been an ongoing debate regarding the operationalizations of the P-O construct.Kristof (1996) review of P-O fit literature determine four operationalizations of P-O fit.Measuring the similarity between basic characteristics of people and organizations. The way to measure this to check the congruence bet ween individual organizational valuesGoal congruence with organizational leaders forgather between individual preferences or needs organizational structures and systems. This operationalization of P-O fit reflect the need-supplies fit curve.Match between individual characteristics of individual personality organizational climate or organizational personality. Organizational Climate is often operationalized in terms of supplies such as rewards systems or communication formats. This point takes into account both the ancillary need-supplies fit perspectives.Outcomes Of PO FitAccording to Schneiders ASA framework, the attraction between persons organizations are based on their similarity. This affect the job choice approach of a applicant hiring decisions in organizations. Empirical evidence supports the fact that both applicant job-choice behavior organizations hiring practices are antecedents of P-O Fit. From the entry point, individuals organization socializations practice contributes to P-O fit. Empirical evidences support fact (Chatman, 1991) exalted level of this fit can be think to positive outcomes. P-O fit can be tied to job satisfaction organization commitmentThis fit could predict intention of quit turnover (Chatman, 1991 OReilly et al., 1991) and was also related to citizenship behaviours (OReilly Chatman, 1986), contextual performance and self reported teamwork.High level of P-O fit may have positive or controvert organizational level outcomes (Schneider, 1987).Relationship between P-O fit P-J FitP-O fit P-J fit are distinct constructs conceptually. Many researchers have reported have reported low correlations between developed PO Fit an P-J fit (OReilly et al., 1991 Higgins, 2000) and comprehend P-O fit P-J fit(Kristof-Brown, 2001). Factor analysis proved that the job applicants and recruiters could site or distinguish P-O P-J fit ( Kristof-Brown, 2000). Kristof Brown (2000) came to a conclusion recruiters perceived P-O P-J w ere different in terms of antecedents they offered unique prediction of employers hiring recommendations.Lauver Kristof -Brown (2001) found that employees P-O fit could predict his intention to quit performance than the P-J fit. Both these fits directly affected new employees outpu including stress, job satisfaction turnover. P-J had the most impact on work attitudes followed by P-O fit. -P-O fit P-J In Employee SelectionEmployee selection can dual-lane into two different approaches prescriptive descriptive. The prescriptive type of approach project at points what managers should do in getting the right prognosis. This approach ordinarily focuses on the criteria-related valuation of the main concept as the predictor domain. The descriptive approach concentrates on the part what managers actually do in their selection procedures. They describe how the focal concept works out in the actual process. Prescriptive Descriptive approaches for P-O P-J fit in selection process can be summarized as follows.Prescriptive Approach In SelectionTraditionally, the selection process was bend on achieving P-J fit (e.g American organizations). Both practitioners researchers suggested that P-J fit is becoming less important when compared to others fits. The challenges they faced from P-J fit were the extended measurement domain predictor factor (Werbel Gilliland, 1999). Borman Motwildo (1993) were of the opinion that selection of a candidate should be associated with organization effectiveness. Distinguishing task contextual performance should be done. Researchers identified many similar concepts with regards to contextual performance such as pro-social behavior, extra role behavior organizational citizenship behavior. Based on these findings, they suggested decisions on hiring needs to go beyond P-J fit, taking into consideration the expand bar domain.The arguments for expanded criterion domain can be summarized as follows. First theEmployers should be aware t hat the hired employees will hold multiple tasks over the termination of his employment. This leads to disagreement with the fact of an employee doing a specific job as conjure up in P-J fit. Second point to which they stressed was in selection of an applicant by a manager should be based on applicants ossification with values vision of the organization. Third, P-J fit has some ideas of jobs themselves. In an expanded criterion domain, teamwork flexibility should be interpreted into consideration while selecting a employee.With these limitations in P-J fit for employee selection, most practitioner researchers suggest use of P-O Fit in selection of an employee.As high levels of P-J P-O fit leads to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, performance organizational commitment, both P-J P-O should be included in the selection process.Using P-J fit in the initial selection process using P-O Fit in the latter or final stages of selection of an employee would be ideal.Descri ptive Approach on Fit in SelectionThese days despite the extensive focus on P-J fit for a selection process, many researchers argue that key elements of P-O fit has been included (Chatman, 1989). single the most used selection method for assessing an applicant is Interviewing. Managers are very keen on conducting them as they feel it to be the best way of selecting candidates who appear to fit to the organization. Prior to interviews, applicants are selected for interview with P-J fit evaluations. During the interview, managers normally focus the applicants P-O fit.Based on theories , researchers always emphasis that P-O fit plays a major role at later stages of employment selection than in the earlier stages (Kristof-Brown, 2000 ). Though the argument is reasonable, we are not sure about the later stages of selection process in a organization. Possibility of slowness P-J fit more than P-O fit by managers should be also taken into consideration.CONCLUSIONTo conclude, as high level s of P-J P-O fit leads to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, performance organizational commitment, both P-J fit P-O fit elements should be included in the selection process of an employee.Considering P-J fit during the earlier or initial stages of selection measuring the P-O fit during the later stages of selection process of an employee would be ideal.