This chapter is an expansion of the introductory chapter which provides an overview of the concept of Person-Organization fit, Employee Commitment and Job Satisfaction. In this chapter, a relationship between the variables were established that leads to the development of the hypothesis.
Person-Organization Fit
Person-organization fit is generally defined as the compatibility between people and organizations (Kristof, 1996). In the employee selection research, Person-organization fit can be conceptualized as the match between an applicant and broader organizational attributes (Judge & Ferris, 1992, Rynes & Gerhart, 1990). Researchers and practitioners contend that person-organization fit is the key to maintaining the flexible and committed workforce that is necessary for a competitive business environment and a tight labour environment (Bowen, Ledford & Nathan, 1991, Kristof, 1996).
Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA)
The foundation for Person-organization fit research can be traced back to Schneider’s (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) framework. Schneider in his arguments stated that people are not randomly assigned to situations, they instead seek out situations that are attractive to them. If they select to be part of the situation, it means they will help to determine it. In terms of attraction, people can be attracted to an organization thereby choosing to be part of it and if they remain, it means they are a good fit with that organization and verse versa.
Conventional selection process in an organization is mainly centred with work-oriented analysis and the KSAOs required for in-role behaviours but recent research is looking beyond the job to identify extra-role behaviours. Selection priority is beginning to shift from conventional models which primarily based on “KSAO’s” for “jobs” to hiring for organizational compatibility as manifest through a fit between an individual’s personality, beliefs and values and the organization’s espoused culture, norms and values.
Schneider (2001) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model proposed that work values are a core means by which individuals judge their Person-organization fit and individuals are attracted to and seek employment with organizations that exhibit characteristics similar to their own and organizations in turn tend to select individuals who are most similar to the organization.
8
Values are an important aspect of both individuals and organizations that can be compared
“directly and meaningfully” (Cable & Judge, 1997). Arthur (2006) note that if organization fit is going to be used for employment decision making, then measures of Person-organization fit must be held to the same psychometric and legal standards as are other selection tests. To clarify the concept of “fit”, Kristof (1996) described two main types of fit:
supplementary and complementary.
Complementary fit is when a person’s characteristics “make whole” the environment or add what it is missing (Kristof, 1996). “Needs-supplies fit” and “demand-abilities fit” are types of complementary fits. According to the perspective of needs-supplies fit (value-supplies), fit occurs when an organization satisfies individuals’ requirements. The demand-abilities perspective suggests that fit occurs when an individual has the demand-abilities demanded by an organization. This approach emphasizes an individual’s knowledge and skills in terms of how well the individual succeeds in situations (Pervin, 1989). Person-Job fit is also based on this type of complementary fit (Werbel & Demarie, 2005) and has been used as one of the main criteria in the employee selection process for many years. Person-Job fit looks at the fit between KSAOs of an individual and the job demands.
Supplementary fit is when a person “supplements, embellishes or possesses characteristics which are similar to other individuals” in an environment (Kristof, 1996).
Person-organization fit is a form of supplementary fit which can be describe as congruence between the norms and values of organizations and the values of individuals (Chatman, 1989).
There are many dimensions that have been studied in the context of supplementary fit, such as personality congruence and goal congruence (Westerman & Cyr, 2004). Value congruence is believed to be the most suitable predictor of important outcomes such as commitment, organizational identification, job satisfaction, citizenship behaviour and intention to quit (Schneider, 1987; Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Schneider, 1995; Kristof, 1996; Saks
& Ashforth, 1997; Werbel & Gilliland, 1999; Cable & Edwards, 2004; Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, 2008).
Kristof-Brown (2000) indicated that employers evaluate mostly candidates’ Knowledge Skills Abilities (KSAOs) in Job fit, but personality characteristics and values in Person-Organization fit.
9 Figure
2.1
Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) frameworkOrganizational Commitment
Studies in employee commitment is continuing to be a major focus of research as it is a predicative power on employee, and organisational, relevant outcomes (Meyer, 2002). In a traditional employer-employee relationship, employee perceptions of human resource (HR) practices of their employing organisation influence their commitment to the organisation (Kinnie, 2005). Organizations have seen a growing trend and scale of change therefore, managers should be constantly seeking ways to generate employee’s commitment and to gain competitive advantage.
In this study, organizational commitment as a dependent variable has been a focus of extensive discussion and empirical investigation by many authors. Allen and Meyer (1990) proposed a well-known model that, there are three components of organizational commitment, which are, affective, continuous and normative.
Selection Individuals are recruited and selected who are believed to ‘fit’
with an organization
Attraction Applicants are drawn to an organization they like for a variety of reasons
Attrition Individuals who do not fit with an organization leaves voluntarily or involuntarily
10
Affective Commitment
Affective commitment is a measures of an individual’s emotional feeling and how they identified with his or her organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Affective commitment relates to “the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organisation” (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Organisational members who are committed to an organisation on an affective basis, continue working for the organisation because they want to (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Employees who are committed on an affective level stay with the organisation because they view their personal employment relationship as congruent to the goals and values of the organisation (Beck & Wilson, 2000). The organisational commitment model of Meyer and Allen (1997) indicated that affective commitment is influenced by factors such as job challenge, role clarity, goal clarity, and goal difficulty, receptiveness by management, peer cohesion, equity, personal importance, feedback, participation, and dependability. In general, affective organisational commitment is concerned with the extent to which an individual identifies with the organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
Continuous Commitment
Continuance commitment is “the extent to which employees feel committed to their organisations by virtue of the costs that they feel are associated with leaving” (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Continuance commitment can be regarded as an instrumental attachment to the organisation, where the individual's association with the organisation is based on an assessment of economic benefits gained (Beck & Wilson, 2000).
Organisational members develop commitment to an organisation because of the positive extrinsic rewards obtained through the effort-bargain without identifying with the organisation's goals and values. This commitment can be seen as an attachment only for individual interest but most not positively reflect to his or her desire for the good of the organization. Employees evaluate their perceived costs of leaving the organization (Meyer &
Allen, 1984). “Continuance organisational commitment will therefore be the strongest when availability of alternatives is few and the number of investments are high.
Normative Commitment
Normative commitment is when a person feels that staying with the organization is a responsibility (Yao & Wang, 2006). It can also be created as a drive to repay the benefits presented in advance or the costs related to work incurred by the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Scholl, 1981). In simple terms, it entails reciprocity of obligation. People stay with an
11 organization with the feeling that they ethically obliged for the expenses the organization invested on them, it could be training, recruitment cost etc.
Employees who have normative commitment continue with their organizations since they feel they have to. In this context, research has also pointed out that affective commitment and normative commitment scales are likely to exhibit a similar pattern of correlation with antecedents and outcomes (Meyer, 1997), and therefore are likely to be influenced by the same background. Moreover, human nature is such that one will embrace the positive conduct of a person who enhances a positive feeling.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction assessment was initially cognisant by Edwin Locke’s Range of affect theory in 1976, and transformed through several other theories such as the Dispositional Theory and Herzberg’s Two-factor theory (motivator-hygiene theory), among others (Weiss, 2002).
These models spawned the use of employee job satisfaction surveys by organizations to determine the level of job satisfaction.
Many attempts have been made to define “satisfaction” some recognising that satisfaction is the “final state of a psychological process” (Garcia-Bernal et al., 2005). There is no single definition of “job satisfaction”, but it can be thought of as a multi-dimensional concept that includes a set of favourable or unfavourable feelings in terms of which employees perceive their jobs (Davis & Newsroom, 1999). (Spector, 1997) defined employee satisfaction as the satisfaction of employees with their jobs or the degree to which employees like their jobs.
Research have indicated that job satisfaction can significantly influence job performance, absenteeism, turnover, and psychological distress (Andrisani, 1978; Davis, 1992;
Spector (1997). Employees who are dissatisfied with their work are prone to excessive turnover and absenteeism. Job satisfaction therefore, may be linked to performance, organisational productivity and other matters, which includes labour turnover (Dickter et al., 1996; Lee et al., 1999; Melamed et al., 1995; Jauch & Sekoran, 1978). Employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction can both influence organisational performance.
Indirect costs associated with job dissatisfaction include training, recruiting and learning curve inefficiencies, as well as reduction in the client base (Brown & Mitchell, 1993).
Conversely, employee satisfaction can improve productivity, reduce staff turnover and enhance creativity and commitment.
12 Table 2.1
Definitions of Job Satisfaction Author (s) Definitions
Locke, (1976) Job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience.
Rice et al. (1989) Proposed that “satisfaction is determined, in part, by the discrepancies resulting from a psychological comparison process involving the appraisal of current job experiences against some personal standards of comparison.”
Le´vy-Garboua &
Montmarquette, (2004)
Defined Employee Satisfaction as “an index of preference for the experienced job against outside opportunities conditional on information available at time”.
Hulin and Judge (2003)
Multidimensional psychological responses to one's job.
It could be cognitive (evaluative), affective (emotional), and behavioural components.
Workplace Influences on Job Satisfaction
The following are factors widely reported to affect job satisfaction:
o working conditions reflected in the physical environment, organizational culture and company policies;
o procedural justice – the extent to which employees’ perceptions of actions that affect them in areas such as pay, schedules and advancement opportunities are fair;
o supportive colleagues;
o leaders who respect their employees and are concerned for their welfare;
o trust in management;
o leaders who show that they appreciate and support employees; and
o individual perceptions of the discrepancy between the pay an employee receives and the pay the person believes he or she should receive.
13
Relationship Among the Variables
This section presents a review of the relationship between and among the research variables.
The Relationship between Person-Organization Fit and Job Satisfaction
The relationship that exist between person-organization fit and job satisfaction has been established by researchers in the domain of person-organization fit to necessitate the degree of overlapping between the needs of an individual and the needs of an organization’s values, is termed as value-goal congruence (Chatman, 1991), the more satisfied the employee will be in his or her job (Kristof, 1996). On the contrary, if there is no value-goal congruence, between an employee and his or her organization, the employee’s job satisfaction will be reduced. Un-met expectations of the employees by the organization can be a contributing factor to this effect (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer et al., 2003).
‘Fit’ can be evaluated through a number of different dimensions. Previous studies have been carried out using value as a measurement to meet the criteria for the operationalization of fit, this is due to the fact that values have a reliable measure to understanding an extensive scope of related work attitudes and behaviours. O’Reilly et al. (1991) established that this fit between an individual’s preference for a particular culture and the culture of the organization the person joins, is related to commitment, and satisfaction.
Job satisfaction in broad sense is the attitude employees get about their job which have a direct effect on the individual needs that encompasses challenging work, justifiable rewards and a supportive work environment and co-workers (Ostroff, 1992). Job satisfaction is related to personality-job fit, which is one of the components of the person-organization fit (Kristof, 1996). Job satisfaction has also been linked to productivity (Katzell et al., 1992). Greater productivity implies that many non-material costs will remain the same while output and profits should increase (Stiles et al., 1997).
Individuals come to appreciate the values, the expected behaviours, and social knowledge that are essential for effective organizational behaviour. Organizations should try to improve organizational effectiveness by engaging their employees by exploring issues about the influence of person-organization fit and job satisfaction. In this regard, hypothesis 1 was established as follows:
Hypothesis 1. Person-organization fit is correlated to job satisfaction.
14
The Relationship between Person-Organization Fit and Organizational Commitment
Employees who have similar values with their organizations are more committed and satisfied with their jobs, and are less likely to quit their jobs (Bretz & Judge, 1993; Chatman, 1989, 1991; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989; O’Reilly et al., 1991). Past conceptualizations of fit assume that congruence between employees (in terms of values, demographics, or experiences) affects job attitudes due to stronger interpersonal relationships (e.g., Byrne, 1969;
Mael, 1991; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). These conceptualizations permit values congruence to affect work outcomes implicitly (e.g., through improved communication with co-workers), without necessitating employees’ explicit awareness that they share the values of their organization and its members (e.g., Jackson et al., 1991). Schneider’s (1987) ASA approach, conversely, suggests that employees are cognizant of their values congruence with their organizations, and can be expected to leave organizations where they perceive a mismatch (Wanous, 1992). Accordingly, an important expansion of person-organization fit research is to examine whether employees’ organizational commitment, and job satisfaction, are a function of their explicit person-organization fit perceptions. In that regard, this study develops hypothesis 2 as follows:
Hypothesis 2. Person-organization fit is correlated to organizational commitment.
The Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction
Most of the research has treated job satisfaction as an independent and organizational commitment as a dependent variable (Gaertner, 1999; Lok & Crawford, 2001; Mowday et al., 1982). As Mowday et al. (1982) suggest, commitment and job satisfaction may be seen in several ways. Job satisfaction is a kind of response to a specific job or job-related issues;
whereas, commitment is a more global response to an organization. Therefore, commitment should be more consistent than job satisfaction over time and takes longer after one is satisfied with his/her job. Some researchers have admitted that organizational commitment may be an independent variable with job satisfaction as an outcome (Bateman & Strasser, 1984;
Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). Although most of the research studies claim just the opposite, Bateman and Strasser (1984) suggest that organizational commitment has an effect on job satisfaction. (Lau & Chong, 2002) argued that employees who are highly committed to the organizations may experience higher levels of job satisfaction.
15 The relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction has been studied extensively by previous studies such as, Bedeian and Armenakis (1981); Dubinsky and Borys (1981); Oliver and Brief (1977-1978); Porter and Steers (1973); Rizzo, 1970, DeConinck and Bachmann (1994); McNeilly and Russ (1992); Clark and Larkin (1992); Baugh and Roberts (1994); Igbaria and Guimaraes (1993); Fletcher and Williams (1996); and Bhuian et al. (1996) all of who have found a positive association between the two variables.
In contrast, Curry et al. (1986) found no relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Vandenberg and Lance (1992) investigated the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. They found that organizational commitment causes job satisfaction. Russ and McNeilly (1995) looked into the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction using experience, gender and performance as moderators. Given the conflicting results between the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction, this studies established hypothesis 3 for this studies as follows:
Hypothesis 3. Organizational commitment is correlated to job satisfaction.
Organizational Commitment Mediating between Person-Organization Fit and Job Satisfaction
Different studies on the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction has been done on my literatures (e.g. Savery, 1994; Zeffane, 1994; Wilson, 1995;
Liou, 1995; Wong et al., 2002; Brett etal., 1995; Kalleberg & Marsden; 1995; Fletcher &
Williams, 1996; Benkhoff, 1997) but few or no studies has been done on the mediating effect of organizational commitment on person-organization fit and job satisfaction. Except for the mediating role of organizational commitment in the relationship of leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and job performance there is little attention in previous research on this studies variables despite the importance of this topic. Little or no previous studies has explicitly study the mediating role of organizational commitment on perceived person-organization Fit and job satisfaction. Additionally, some researchers have emphasized the need to study the relationships between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance taking into consideration variables such as leadership style, gender and work experience (Al‐Meer, 1989). Inconsistent results are prevalent among many previous studies, thus making further investigation in this direction necessary. Similarly, organizational commitment was chosen as
16 a mediator because of its significant influences, as mentioned earlier, on individuals’ attitudes such as job satisfaction. In that regard, hypothesis 4 for this study was developed as follows:
Hypothesis 4. Organizational commitment has a mediating effect on person-organization fit and job satisfaction.
17