Abstract
This article proposes that in the future, P-E fit studies should use objective (as opposed to subjective) measures of the environment, such as the group size, in order to avoid numerous methodological problems. Several hypotheses were formulated in this article. Group size was hypothesised to moderate the following relationships: apprehension, sensitivity, social boldness and extroversion with co-worker satisfaction, sensitivity with pay satisfaction, liveliness with performance, intelligence (g) with pay satisfaction, and, intelligence (g), with overall job satisfaction. This article also proposes that the current supplementary fit model can be extended in the future, to measure superior-subordinate fit also. It was hypothesised that higher superior-subordinate congruence would lead to higher satisfaction and performance of the subordinate.
Highlights
The nature and importance of P-E Fit was summarised by Edwards (1996:292) as follows:“In essence, P-E fit embodies the premise that attitudes, behaviour and other individual level outcomes result not from the person or environment separately, but rather from the relationship between the two (Lewin, 1951; Murray, 1938; Pervin, 1989)”
Have Piasentin and Chapman (2006) when they conducted a meta-analytic review of 46 studies examining various conceptualisation of person-organisation fit and Verquer, Beehr and Wagner (2003) when they conducted a meta-analytic review of 21 studies of involving the relationship between person-organisation fit, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intent
H8: The association between “g” scores and overall job satisfaction scores will be moderated by group size such that the association will be negative for large groups and positive for small groups
Summary
The nature and importance of P-E Fit was summarised by Edwards (1996:292) as follows:. “In essence, P-E fit embodies the premise that attitudes, behaviour and other individual level outcomes result not from the person or environment separately, but rather from the relationship between the two (Lewin, 1951; Murray, 1938; Pervin, 1989)”. The environmental demands and person abilities fit underlies most models of personnel selection, in which the generally accepted paradigm is to analyse job demands, define abilities required to meet these demands and hire individuals with the requisite abilities (Schneider, 1987). The environment in the supplementary model is described according to the people who inhabit it. The environment is defined apart from its inhabitants, for example according to the work demands and requirements. Kristof (1996) expanded Muchinsky & Monahan’s (1987) definition of complementary fit to include S-V fit in addition to the Demand-Abilities fit (D-A fit). The concept of P-E fit has been described as, “so pervasive as to be one of, if not the dominant conceptual forces in the field” (Schneider, 2001: 142)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
