Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit

Jennifer A. Chatman1

+ Author Affiliations

1Northwestern University

Next Section

Abstract

In order for researchers to understand and predict behavior, they must consider both person and
situation factors and how these factors interact. Even though organization researchers have developed
interactional models, many have overemphasized either person or situation components, or most have
failed to consider the effects that persons have on situations. This paper presents criteria for improving
interactional models and a model of person-organization fit, which satisfies these criteria. Using a Q-sort
methodology, individual value profiles are compared to organizational value profiles to determine fit
and to predict changes in values, norms, and behaviors.

Researchers in organizational behavior are concerned with understanding and predicting how people
behave in organizational settings. Although they may agree about the importance of understanding
behavior, their research has traditionally taken two very different forms—the individual difference
approach and the situational approach. The individual difference approach proposes that a person's
behavior can best be predicted by measuring his or her personality traits, values, motives, abilities, and
affect because such elements are both stable and are reflected in behavior (e.g., Allport, 1937, 1966;
Block, 1978; Bowers, 1973; Staw & Ross, 1985; Weiss & Adler, 1984). In contrast, the situationist
approach proposes that a person's behavior can best be predicted by assessing the characteristics of his
or her situation (e.g., Mischel, 1968; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977, 1978; Skinner, 1971; Thorndike, 1906). The
basic question underlying the well-known person-situation debate has been whether persons or
situations account for more variation in behavior (cf. Epstein & O'Brien, 1985; Kenrick & Funder, 1988;
Rowe, 1987; Sarason, Smith, & Diener, 1975).

Most behavioral scientists agree that both personal and situational characteristics influence behavior
(e.g., Lewin, 1951; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981). However, the challenge
has been to develop concepts and methods that not only determine if person and situation variables are
valid predictors of behavior but also determine when and to what extent person and situation variables
predict behavior (cf. Schneider, 1987). This is no easy task, however, because interactive research must
accurately represent both person elements and situation elements. A laboratory experiment by
psychologists Monson, Hesley, and Chernick (1982) underscored the importance of simultaneously
considering the effects that person and situation characteristics have on behavior. They attempted to
discover when extroversion predicted talkativeness by placing extroverts and introverts in either a
strong or weak situation. Drawing on Mischel's (1977) distinction, a strong situation is one in which
everyone construes the situation similarly, the situation induces uniform expectancies, the incentives of
the situation induce a response to it, and everyone has the skills to perform in the situation. Results
showed that extroversion predicted talkativeness only when the situation was weak. In strong
situations, extroverts were no more talkative than introverts. As this study illustrates, we can gain more
refined information by paying serious attention to both person and situation elements.

However, when we move out of the lab into the real world, examining interactive issues becomes
complex and difficult. For example, the strength of a situation may not be enduring, multiple values and
norms may define a situation, and even a single individual's traits, abilities, and motives may interact
and change over time (cf. McClelland, 1985). However, organization researchers, many of whom have
expertise in conducting research in real-world settings, are in a good position to contribute to the
development of both balanced and realistic interactive explanations because organizational settings are
highly complex contexts in which people spend a great deal of time.

Consider the following real-world problem: Assume that you are a personnel recruiter for a firm that
conducts its business through teams. Your dilemma is, How should you allocate your resources? Should
you invest heavily in traditional selection procedures, such as applications, inteviews, recommendations,
and personality tests? Or, should you spend your resources developing an extensive employee
socialization program that emphasizes the importance of cooperation and conveys the specific norms of
the organization to newcomers? A person theorist would argue that you should devote your resources
to selection activities. The person theorist assumes that once you've identified a highly cooperative
person, he or she will be cooperative across most organizational contexts (cf. Epstein & O'Brien, 1985). A
situational theorist would argue that regardless of how the person has scored on a personality scale, if
your organizational context promotes cooperation you can expect new entrants to engage in
cooperative activities. Therefore, you should make sure that newcomers understand that the culture of
your organization emphasizes cooperation (cf. Louis, 1980; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).

In contrast, an interactional theorist would argue that the above plans are incomplete and that you need
information both about the person and the situation. An interactionist would point out that a
cooperative person would be most cooperative in an organization that emphasizes cooperation, but he
or she might be competitive in an organization that strongly promotes competitive behavior.
Conversely, a competitive person would be most competitive in an organization that emphasizes
competition, but he or she might engage in cooperative activities if the organization strongly promoted
such activities. Furthermore, a truly interactive model would include the effects that people have on
situations (Schneider, 1987). Therefore, when a mismatch occurs, for example, when a cooperative
organization hires a competitive person, the organization may change over time—in this case, a norm
for competition may begin to overshadow the previous norm for cooperation (Bettenhausen &
Murnighan, 1985; Nemeth & Wachtler, 1983).

Clearly, models that indicate the joint contributions of persons and situations are not new in
organizational research. For example, models have been developed of leader traits and tasks (e.g.,
Fiedler, 1976), personality traits and vocations (e.g., Holland, 1985), abilities and jobs (e.g., Dunnette,
1976), and personality traits and job characteristics (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1980). However, three
limiting features of previous work are apparent. First, person and situation characteristics have not been
as accurately conceptualized as they, perhaps, could be. Researchers on the person side have criticized
research that fails to consider how person characteristics are uniquely patterned within individuals and
research that fails to use multiple act criteria to track a person's behavior over time and during
situations (cf. Luthans & Davis, 1982; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986; Weiss & Adler, 1984). Likewise, little
attention has been devoted to conceptualizing situations (cf. Moos, 1973). To meaningfully test person-
situation interactions, we must consider the extent to which a situation either induces conformity or is
ambiguous (Mischel & Peake, 1982), and we must find ways of making meaningful comparisons
between situations and persons (Lewin, 1951). Thus, the empirical results of previous interactive models
may be clouded by inaccuracies in conceptualizations of either person or situation contributions to
behavior.

A second problem is that few researchers have considered the effects that people have on situations
(Bell & Staw, in press; Schneider, 1987). This is perhaps the greatest strength of interactional models
when compared to contingency models (e.g., Fiedler, 1976). Although contingency theorists consider
person factors such as leader style and situation factors such as how routine the task is, they fail to
consider that the task itself may change over time (e.g., become more exceptional) because of the
leaders' or subordinates' personal characteristics. The effects that people have on situations are difficult
to document because this may require many data collection periods and highly sensitive measurement
instruments. However, the few empirical studies that have been conducted reveal that people do affect
their situations (Kohn & Schooler, 1978; Miner, 1987). A final problem with current models is that their
conceptualizations of persons and situations have been limited. For example, few researchers have
considered the importance of the context at the organization level, such as an organization's system of
norms and values that have a great deal of influence over people's behavior (cf. Jackson, 1966; Katz &
Kahn, 1978).
The next section of this paper reviews previous approaches in terms of the criteria established above. A
person-organization fit model is then proposed to illustrate how interactional models in organizational
research can begin to fulfill these criteria. Drawing on the conceptual distinction between strong and
weak situations, the person-organization fit model treats organization values and norms as the
situational side of the model. On the person side, individual values and some personality characteristics
are examined. Higher levels of person-organization fit exist when there is congruence between the
norms and values of organizations and the values of persons. Selection and socialization processes are
seen as the antecedents to person-organization fit. Once person-organization fit is assessed, predictions
can be made about specific outcomes (e.g., changes in values), global behavioral outcomes (e.g., extra-
role behavior), and changes in organization norms and values. The methods for measuring the
components are described. In particular, Q-sorts (Block, 1978) may be appropriate for measuring
interactions between persons and situations over time.

Interactional Concepts and Methods

Interactional researchers incorporate the elements of both persons and environments (cf. Fredericksen,
1972; Ekehammar, 1974; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Moos, 1973). This view has a fairly long theoretical
tradition, beginning with Lewin's (1951) proposition that behavior is a function of the person and the
environment. To be accurate and complete, interactional researchers in organizations must (a)
accurately conceptualize and measure persons and situations, (b) document the reciprocal effects of
persons on situations and situations on persons, and (c) be comprehensive and externally valid.
Although an exhaustive review of explicitly and implicitly interactional research is beyond the scope of
this paper, particular approaches that illustrate strengths or common weaknesses are evaluated in light
of each of these requirements.

Conceptualizing Persons and Situations Accurately

Person Research.

Two weaknesses have been mentioned on the person side (cf. Schneider, 1983; Staw & Ross, 1985;
Weiss & Adler, 1984). First, one individual may differ from another in the way his or her traits, values,
abilities, and motives are related to each other. Also, a given trait may or may not be relevant for the
person in question. Therefore, we should use idiographic methods, which can capture the relevance of
individual differences. The well-known job characteristics model (cf. Hackman & Oldham, 1980)
illustrates this issue. According to Hackman and Oldham, some ideal configuration of task elements
exists for each person, depending on that person's growth need strength (GNS). However, the outcome
of their analyses takes on a prescriptive and nomothetic quality (Roberts & Glick, 1981). They provided
only a limited set of options for task design, and by providing the same solution (job enrichment) for
everyone, they underemphasized the extent to which GNS is differentially relevant across people.
Therefore, low correlations between enriched jobs and outcome behaviors may be attributed to GNS's
not being particularly important for a certain individual. This criticism also can be directed at many
contingency models that isolate either one or a few individual differences without measuring how
relevant those characteristics are to the particular respondent (Weiss & Adler, 1984). Whether traits,
motives, values, or attitudes are being examined, we should recognize that these may be patterned
differently across people and that such differential relevance will affect research results.

The larger problem in interactional research is that even though we should capture the differential
relevance of traits through idiographic methods, we also should compare people either to one another
or to themselves over time, and these comparisons require nomothetic methods (Luthans & Davis,
1982). Two techniques that can work in this capacity include standardized personality profiles (e.g.,
Gough, 1976) and Q-sorts (e.g., Block, 1978; Stephenson, 1953). The template matching approach, for
example, draws on the Q-sort methodology (Bem & Allen, 1974; Bem & Funder, 1978). First, templates
are based on expert ratings of how a hypothetical person who is high on a specific trait (e.g., dominance,
achievement) would behave in a specific situation (e.g., a job interview). Next, real people are given
personality tests, and their behavior is predicted on the basis of how similar or different their scores are
from the hypothetical person's scores. The closer the real person is to the hypothetical profile, the more
likely it is that the real person's behavior can be predicted by the situation-specific template. The
strength of this method is that both a profile of traits and the relevance of any particular trait to a
particular individual are considered.

The second major problem with many current interactional models is that often individual
characteristics are not collected across a number of situations. This is important because even though it
may not be possible to predict single instances of behavior from individual differences, it is possible to
predict behavior averaged over a sample of situations (Epstein, 1979). Because the data are cross-
situational, systematic longitudinal research designs must be used (e.g., Buss & Craik, 1983; Staw et al.,
1986), and a taxonomy of important situational components must be developed so that one situation
can be compared to another.

Situation Research

As Terborg (1981) noted, the interactional perspective allows researchers to conceptualize the situation
in a variety of ways. In models that include both aspects of persons and aspects of situations,
organizational situations have been variously and, in many cases, elaborately defined as the
characteristics of a task or a job (e.g., Dunnette, 1976; Kohn & Schooler, 1978; Miner, 1987; O'Reilly,
1977), and as the characteristics of a profession (e.g., Holland, 1985), but only rarely as the
characteristics of the organization (Feldman, 1976; Jones, 1983). However, researchers have not
identified what the important parameters of situations are. Unifying dimensions that can guide future
conceptualizations of situations, regardless of the specific situation element being examined, would help
researchers to build a comprehensive framework of interactions in organizations (Frederiksen, 1972;
Moos, 1973).

One construct that may cut across all, or at least many, such conceptualizations is the strength of the
situation in question. For example, if a situation is defined in terms of occupations, job holders of strong
or conformity-inducing occupations may have salient values that can be transmitted in the form of
objective standards of work, binding codes of ethics, licensing requirements, and a strong professional
association (cf. Van Maanen & Barley, 1984; Wilensky, 1964). In contrast, weak occupations would be
characterized by a lack of consensus among job holders about values and either few or no mechanisms
to transmit such information. By using the strong/weak distinction, we can move toward a more
comprehensive organization taxonomy of situations. As Bell and Staw (in press, p. 11) asked, “are
organizations (actually) powerful situations capable of homogenizing behavior in the face of individual
differences?” To answer this question, we need to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of
important organization factors.

A second criterion for accurately representing situations was suggested by Lewin in 1951, but it has been
difficult to address. Lewin suggested that the relevance of persons to situations would be maximized if
we could conceptualize and measure them in commensurate terms. According to Lewin's criteria, one
potential problem with Bem and Allen's (1974) template-matching procedure is that the person is
overemphasized. In other words, situations are construed only in terms of the personality characteristics
of individuals acting within them. By assuming that the only important elements about a situation are
how a person would behave in it, we may overlook aspects of situations that cannot be described in
person terms. Tom (1971) developed a measure to investigate the similarities between people's self-
profiles and the profiles of their most preferred organization. By using two personality profiles, Tom
showed that people preferred organizations that were most similar to their self-descriptions. However,
Tom's work has the same problem as Bem's—the personality items can be only metaphorically applied
to organizations because the items were designed to measure personality. Graham (1976) also
recognized the importance of measuring both person and organization characteristics. He attempted to
create a scale (the Trait Ascription Questionnaire) that could characterize persons and organizations in
similar terms, so the two could be compared. However, the problem with Graham's work is that it is not
clear if his scale characterizes people within firms or the firm as an entity.

In sum, the problem with each of these approaches is that situations are anthropomorphized because
they are defined in the same terms as individuals. Organizations are different than people; therefore,
the same adjective may have a very different meaning when applied to an organization, rather than a
person. For example, describing an individual as cooperative may be very different than describing an
organization as cooperative. The term a cooperative individual refers to a person who tends to assist
others in order to achieve some joint benefit, whereas the term a cooperative organization may refer to
the actual financial structure (jointly owned by the consumers or members) of that organization.
Therefore, we need to find ways of characterizing persons and situations in mutually relevant and
comparative forms.

How Persons and Situations Affect Each Other

If we do not consider the influence that people have on situations, our interactive models will be sorely
incomplete. People are not passive agents subject to environmental forces. First, there is evidence that
people actively choose their situations (cf. Emmons & Diener, 1986; Swann, 1983). In fact, the
tendencies exist for people both to choose situations and to perform best in situations that are most
compatible to themselves. For example, high achievers are more comfortable in and prefer challenging
situations which require high levels of achievement. “People tend to be happier when they are in
settings that meet their particular needs or are congruent with their dispositions” (Diener, Larsen, &
Emmons, 1984, p. 582).

Second, there is evidence to suggest that people change situations. For example, Kohn and Schooler
(1978) gathered two decades' worth of data to determine the relative effects of a person characteristic
(intellectual flexibility) and a situation characteristic (work complexity). They found that people
influenced their jobs more than their jobs influenced them—people who were more intellectually
flexible enhanced the complexity of their work. Along the same lines, Miner (1987) showed that the
unique interests and abilities of a job incumbent evolved into formalized job descriptions, which were
subsequently used by later job incumbents. Taken together, these studies send a clear message: People
have pervasive and enduring effects on situations, which we must continue to investigate.

Relevant Situations and Comprehensive Coverage

From the above review, we might believe that many relevant situation and person factors have been
tested interactively; however, this is only partly true. For example, although person-job interactions (cf.
Neiner & Owens, 1985; O'Reilly, 1977; Seybolt, 1976) and person-vocation interactions (cf. Holland,
1985) have been examined extensively, person-organization interactions have not been examined as
thoroughly. Two researchers have conceptualized such organization-level issues. Schneider (1987)
developed a promising theoretical model (the Attraction-Selection-Attrition model) that attempted to
identify the process through which people and organizations become more similar to each other over
time. House (1988) presented a comprehensive interactive conceptualization of organizational power. In
House's scheme, organizations are described in terms of their structural characteristics. Structure is
predicted to interact with people's power-striving predispositions. When the structural constraints are
weak, House hypothesized that people with power-striving predispositions will acquire power. No direct
empirical tests of House's hypotheses have been made.

Jones (1986) and Feldman (1976) presented two of the few explicitly interactional and empirically tested
models at the organization level. They both examined the extent to which personal characteristics and
socialization tactics contribute to new members' adjustment to their organizations. These two studies
are relatively unique because they also consider how people influence organizations. Feldman (1976)
found that employees were more likely to suggest changes at the accommodation stage of socialization,
whereas Jones (1986) found that institutionalized socialization tactics resulted in stronger conformity
when individuals possessed low, rather than high, levels of self-efficacy. However, neither of these
studies tracked the extent to which employees' making suggestions and conforming to the organization
influenced organizational values.

In sum, interactional research in organization settings has generated some concrete findings, but
improvements can be made. First, conceptualizations of both persons and situations must be
simultaneously idiographic and nomothetic. On the person side, attention to the differential relevance
of characteristics and cross-situational data is essential. On the situation side, we may need to assess the
relative strengths and weaknesses of a situation and to compare situations and persons in mutually
relevant and commensurate terms. Second, complete models should include how people choose and
influence their situations. Finally, interactive organizational research should be more comprehensive.

A Model of Person-Organization Fit

This section describes one illustration of an interactional model, person-organization fit. Because
organization factors provide an important contextual level, the third criterion for interactive models,
relevance and comprehensiveness, is automatically addressed. The model draws on the O-sort method,
which is both nomothetic and idiographic, and through it the differential relevance of individual
characteristics are considered. Additionally, the O-sort allows for both a distinction between strong and
weak situations and for comparisons to person characteristics. Finally, the design of the model is
explicitly longitudinal; therefore, both the effects that people have on organizations and the effects that
organizations have on people are considered.

Defining Person-Organization Fit

The impact that organizational membership has on people and the impact that people have on
organizations are predicted through information gathered about people and information gathered
about organizations. The questions become, what aspects of people and what aspects of organizations
are important to consider? Although many aspects of organizations and people are important in
determining behavior (e.g., abilities, job requirements, personality characteristics, and vocations), a
fundamental and enduring aspect of both organizations and people is their values (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

On the person side, individual values are defined as enduring beliefs through which a specific mode of
conduct or end-state is personally preferable to its opposite (Rokeach, 1973). Values are a type of social
cognition that facilitate a person's adaptation to his or her environment, and values have implications
for his or her behavior (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen 1975; Werner, 1988). On the organization side, value
systems provide an elaborate and generalized justification both for appropriate behaviors of members
and for the activities and functions of the system (Enz, 1988; Katz & Kahn, 1978; McCoy, 1985). Norms
are closely related to values in that they make explicit the forms of behavior that are appropriate for
members of that system (Kilmann, Sax-ton, & Serpa, 1985). Organizational norms and values are a group
product; even though all members of the group would not have the same values, a majority of active
members would agree on them and members of the group would be aware of the group's support for a
given value (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Weiner, 1988).

In addition to a description of their content, both organizational and individual values can be described
in terms of their intensity, or how strongly held they are, relative to other values. Organizational value
systems also can be described in terms of crystallization, or how widely shared they are (Jackson, 1966;
O'Reilly, 1983). Strong organizational values are both intensely held and widely shared, which is how
many researchers define strong culture firms (e.g., Davis, 1984; Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Drawing again
on the strong/weak distinction (Mischel, 1977), we can explain organizations that have intense and
crystallized values as strong situations.
Person-organization fit is defined here as the congruence between the norms and values of
organizations and the values of persons. In order to determine the effects that organizational
membership will have on an individual's values and behaviors and the effects that an individual will have
on an organization's norms and values, we must first assess the extent of agreement between the
person's values and the organization's values. Additionally, much of the interactional research discussed
previously has examined personality traits as important determinants of behaviors. However, as
mentioned above, if personality traits are compared directly to organization contexts, there is a risk of
misrepresenting (anthropomorphizing) organizations. Therefore, particular traits (e.g., self-monitoring)
are seen here as determinants of the particular behavioral manifestation of person-organization fit. A
model of person-organization fit is presented in Figure 1, and the ways of measuring each of the
components are discussed below.

A model of person-organization fit.

Measuring Person-Organization Fit

According to the conceptual requirements for interactional research listed above, the assessment of
individual and organizational values should be both idiographic, so that the relevance of particular
values and the uniqueness of patterns of values across people and organizations are represented, and
nomothetic, so that person and situation factors can be compared. In addition, the situation should be
assessed in terms of how strong or weak it is. The Q-sort method is one viable method for developing a
simultaneously idiographic and nomothetic instrument to assess values and for determining whether an
organization's value system presents a strong or weak situation to individuals.

Although the Q-sort method traditionally has been used to assess personality characteristics (Block,
1978), organizational researchers have developed two Q-sort item sets. The Organizational Culture
Profile (OCP) assesses person-organization fit, and the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Profile, which will
not be discussed here, assesses person-job fit (Chatman, 1988; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1988). The
OCP contains 54 value statements (e.g., quality, respect for individuals) that can generically capture
individual and organizational norms and values. The OCP can be used to measure person-organization fit
in the following way: To assess an individual's values, job seekers or new firm members are asked to sort
the 54 items into 9 categories, with a specified number of cards in each category. Fewer cards are
allowed at extreme categories, and more cards are allowed in the central, more neutral, categories. The
question new members are asked to keep in mind while sorting the deck is, “How important is it for this
characteristic to be a part of the organization I work for?” The anchors given for the 9 categories range
from the most desirable values to the most undesirable values, and the middle category is neutral. The
result is an individual profile that represents the person's values in any organizational context.

To assess an organizational value system, a broad representation of organization members who have
been with the organization for at least 1 or 2 years (so they are familiar with whatever value system
exists) are asked to sort the same 54 value statements. The only differences between the individual
profile and the member profiles are that the anchors are labeled most characteristic to most
uncharacteristic (as opposed to most desirable and most undesirable) and the question they are asked
is, “How much does this attribute characterize your organization's values?” Member profiles are then
combined by averaging each item to form an organization profile.

Crystallization of organizational values is assessed by calculating a reliability coefficient for the mean
organization profile. A strong organizational value system would be indicated by a high reliability
coefficient (e.g., above .70, according to Nunnally, 1967), which shows that organization members
perceive the content and ordering of the organizational value system similarly. Intensity and content of
both individual and organizational values are gauged by examining the top and bottom ranked items. (As
a rule of thumb, the top and bottom three categories represent intensely held values, Block, 1978.)

Person-organization fit is measured by first comparing the organization profile to the individual profile
and then calculating the correlation between them. Two cautions should be noted. First, if
organizational values are not highly crystallized (e.g., the alpha is below .70), the organization profile will
not be reliable. Low crystallization is equated with a weak situation; therefore, the organizational values
cannot be represented with a single profile. Of course, low crystallization at the organization level may
indicate that strong factions exist within the organization. To determine this, member crystallization
could be calculated according to various subgroups, such as departments, job levels, or divisions.
Second, an overall high correlation between an organizational value profile and an individual profile
would indicate a general congruence between the person and the organization. However, an item-by-
item comparison of the top and bottom 12 items also is warranted. Large disparities (e.g., greater than 3
categories) between top firm values and top individual values should be noted—these may be the ones
in which the most individual or organizational change occurs over time.

In sum, the Q-sort method allows for a rich assessment of individual and organizational values. First, the
breadth and complexity of values are captured because a large number of items are used in the OCP
(Chatman, 1988), and each item is implicitly compared to each other item (Cattell, 1944). Thus, a distinct
advantage of the Q-sort method is that more items can be used reliably. (Ranking the 54 items would be
too cognitively complex to generate reliable results.) Second, the personal relevance of values is
represented because the ordering of items reflects the relative importance of values for a specific
person or organization. Third, situation strength can be assessed. Crystallization, or the extent to which
the members perceive the value system similarly, is captured by looking at the alpha coefficient for
organizational values, and the intensity with which values are held is captured by examining the pivotal
items (the top and bottom 12). Taken together, crystallization and intensity reflect how strong or weak
an organizational value system is. Finally, comparisons between profiles are made possible by using the
same set of items for individual and organizational values and by varying the anchor and question
associated with individual versus organization raters.

Although the O-sort method can address many of the criteria for assessment, research still must be
designed to capture the dynamic aspects of person-organization fit. Changes in a person's values over
time can be assessed by comparing a person's value profile at one period to his or her value profile at
other periods. Likewise, changes in organizational value profiles can be assessed by comparing an
organization's profile at one time period to subsequent periods. Thus, changes in person-organization fit
can be assessed in terms of whether the person or the organization has changed and in terms of the
direction of the change. Further, specific changes can be assessed by examining specific changes in the
placement of items. For example, if a person who highly values risk taking enters an organization that
values risk aversion, subsequent value profiles can be examined to see who the change agent was: If the
person subsequently rates risk-taking significantly lower, the organization has influenced the person. If,
however, according to the organization profile risk taking is rated significantly higher and the profile is
still highly crystallized, the person has influenced the organization value system. More formal
propositions of these issues are discussed in the following section.

Outcomes of Person-Organization Fit

What can we learn by knowing the extent to which a person's values are similar to an organization's
shared values? Person-organization fit is useful because it enhances our ability to predict the extent to
which a person's values will change as a function of organizational membership and the extent to which
he or she will adhere to organizational norms. Organization membership can shape and modify people's
values (Whyte, 1959). For example, Mortimer and Lorence (1979) found that various work values (e.g.,
people orientation, autonomy) changed as a function of work experiences. Specifically, people adopted
the values that were rewarded in previous organizations or occupations. Similarly, Weiss (1978) found
that people aligned their values with the values of their leaders if they perceived their leader to be
considerate, competent, and successful. Calibrating person-organization fit also allows us to determine
the likelihood of particular individuals' causing an organization's values to change. For example, when
strong organizational values and important individual values conflict, so that what the organization
thinks is important is different than what the individual thinks is important (low person-organization fit),
a number of predictions could be made. Low person-organization fit could have at least three immediate
outcomes: The person's values could change and become more similar to the organization's value
system, the organization's values could change, or the person could leave the organization. This general
prediction is not as specific as one would hope for. By considering other individual differences, we may
be able to specify which of the three outcomes is likely to occur. Although space constraints prevent a
consideration of all relevant individual differences (e.g., ability, demographic characteristics, etc.) a few
personality characteristics that directly influence person-organization fit will be used as illustrations of
how individual differences could be integrated into the model.

Proposition 1: When a person with discrepant values enters an organization characterized by strong
values, the person's values are likely to change if that person is open to influence. Furthermore, this
person is more likely to behave in accordance with specified norms of the organization.

Proposition 2: When a person with discrepant values enters an organization characterized by strong
values, the person's values will not be expected to change if the person is not open to influence. This
person would be likely to leave the organization.

Proposition 3: When a person with discrepant values enters an organization characterized by strong
values and he or she scores high on self-efficacy (Jones, 1986) or personal control (Bell & Staw, in press),
or when many new members enter at once who share the same values with one another, but not with
the organization, the organization's values and norms will become more like the individual's over time.
Proposition 4 follows through with the logic of the distinction between strong and weak situations:

Proposition 4: In organizations characterized by weak values (low crystallization and intensity), a

person's values are likely to remain the same; that is, his or her values will not change as a function of
organizational membership.

In addition to individual or organizational value change and exit, another relevant type of outcome
might be extra-role behaviors. Extra-role behaviors are defined as prosocial acts that are not directly
specified by an individual's job description and that primarily benefit the organization as opposed to the
individual. People who share organizational values may be more likely to contribute to the firm in
constructive ways. O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) found that congruence between individual and
organizational values predicted a higher likelihood of extra-role behaviors, such as individuals pledging
money to a university or helping others, even when it was not required by their formal job descriptions.
In a similar vein, Van Maanen and Schein (1979, p. 228) argued that creative individualists are people
who score high on person-organization fit. A creative individualist is a reformer who “rarely seeks to
change the [values] of the [organization], but rather may seek to improve or make more efficient or less
corrupt the existing … strategies.” This suggests the following proposition:

Proposition 5: Person-organization fit will be positively related to extra-role behavior.

Thus, high levels of person-organization fit are beneficial for individuals and organizations. High person-
organization fit increases the likelihood that both extra-role behaviors will occur and individuals will feel
more comfortable and competent in organizations that have similar values (Morse, 1975; Swann, 1983).
However, extremely high levels of person-organization fit among numerous organizational members
may lead to ineffective individual and organizational behavior. For example, person-organization fit may
lead to conformity, homogeneity, and lowered innovation as people and organizations become unable
to adapt to new environmental contingencies (cf. Janis & Mann, 1977; Kanter, 1988). In fact, low fit
between people and organizations may be desirable because “mis-fit” may cause a person to grow and
learn, and the act of bringing in people who do not have the same values as the organization may slow
or reverse ineffective inertia and allow an organization to adapt to or take advantage of new
opportunities (cf. Brown, 1982). Therefore, some optimal level of person-organization fit may exist both
in terms of how close the fit is for any one individual and in terms of the proportions of high and low
“fitters” within an organization. Of course, a lower boundary exists as well, and extremely low (negative)
person-organization fit may result in sabotage or dissent (Graham, 1986). Using the methods and model
presented, researchers could explore this notion of what constitutes an optimal level, or mix, of person-
organization fit.

Antecedents to Person-Organization Fit

Organizations enhance person-organization fit by both selecting and socializing employees to handle
more than a specific job. That is, they find potential employees who will be responsive to organizational
practices, and by molding them to abide by prevailing norms and values, they provide a more robust and
stable attachment between the person and the organization. Likewise, on the person side, we have seen
that people search for and prefer when organizations' situational norms and values match those they
believe are important, and they perform better in such situations (Diener et al., 1984). Therefore, people
have such characteristics in mind when they select organizations, and once they are members, they may
try to change norms either through personal control (Bell & Staw, in press) or through power (Enz, 1988;
House, 1988) in order to establish congruence with their own values.

Selection

Selection is the set of procedures through which an organization chooses its members. According to
traditional views, the selection processes should assess a candidate's knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSAs), so that organizations hire persons whose KSAs are compatible with the job requirements.
Although consideration of a candidate's abilities is important, selection processes may be more loosely
linked to person-job fit than industrial psychologists have claimed. Selection processes partly serve a
more subtle function—for recruiting firms, the screening out of people who have values that are
incompatible with the organization's norms and values and for job seekers, the screening out of firms
that have undesirable norms and values. Why, for example, do organizations continue to interview job
candidates, even though this process is a poor predictor of how well a person will perform a particular
job (Arvey & Campion, 1982)? One reason is that an interview may assess how well a person's values fit
the organization's values and norms (Dawes, 1988; Rothstein & Jackson, 1980; Snyder, Berscheid, &
Matwychk, 1988).

It is proposed here that a major function of selection processes is to select individuals who have values
that are compatible with the organization's values. Further, for incoming recruits whose values are more
closely aligned with their hiring firm before joining the firm, their values may become more similar to
the organization's values and, ultimately, they may achieve a closer fit with the organization. This is
because of the committing nature and salience of choosing an organization—high person-organization
fit at entry may become even more stable after a person spends more time with the hiring organization.
Further, individuals who have more offers to choose from initially may cognitively reevaluate their
values as more similar to the values of the organization they join (cf. O'Reilly & Caldwell, 1981; Salancik,
1977). Of course, selection is not merely a process of organizations selecting people; people actively
seach for and choose an organization to join. From the person's perspective, time, effort, initiative, and
breadth of information may predict person-organization fit. Although industrial psychologists have
looked at personnel selection almost exclusively from the point of view of the organization selecting
employees, some organizational researchers have acknowledged the importance of the individual
selecting an organization (cf. Kulik & Rowland, 1986). Empirical research conducted among teachers
(Betz & Judkins, 1975), newspaper reporters (Sigelman, 1975), and forest service workers (Hall,
Schneider, & Nygren, 1970) has shown that people tend to choose organizations on the basis of the
similarity between their values and those espoused by the organization they are considering. More
formally, the following propositions are suggested:

Proposition 6: Potential recruits who either initiate or are asked to spend more time with an
organization and who are involved in a variety of organizational activities (e.g., interviews, phone calls,
receptions) before being hired will have profiles of values similar to those of the firm upon entry.
Proposition 7: The behavioral outcome of high person-organization fit at entry will be that the person
conforms to the pivotal norms of the organization. Further, changes in individual values will be
negatively associated with high person-organization fit at entry.

Socialization

Organizational socialization is the process through which an individual comes to understand the values,
abilities, expected behaviors, and social knowledge that are essential for assuming an organizational role
and for participating as an organizational member (Louis, 1980; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). According
to traditional theories, socialization processes lead directly to various desirable organizational outcomes
(cf. Fisher & Weekley, 1982). In contrast, it is proposed here that person-organization fit mediates the
relationship between socialization experiences and outcome variables. In other words, socialization
processes actually teach employees the norms and values of the organization.

Louis (1980) described socialization activities as opportunities for newcomers to make sense out of their
organizational experiences. These activities also are opportunities for organizations to influence the
values of members. Further, the influence of socialization programs will be especially pronounced in the
early stages of organizational membership (cf. Berlew & Hall, 1966). The following proposition is
suggested:

Proposition 8: In organizations that have strong values, a greater variety and number of socialization
processes, which include such activities as social and recreational events, formal training, and mentor
programs, will be positively associated with person-organization fit and will bring about greater changes
in individual values, resulting in a closer fit over time.

Integrating Selection and Socialization

Organization researchers have recognized that the costs of selecting new employees can partly offset
the costs of the socialization processes (Etzioni, 1975; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981). If an organization is
highly selective (assuming that clear and valid criteria for selection have been established), socialization
costs, such as training, orientation, and other informal methods of teaching new employees how things
are done in the organization, are presumably lowered. Conversely, as selection ratios become less
favorable to the organization (due to fewer qualified applicants), socialization mechanisms will need to
be enhanced so that those entering the organization will become appropriately assimilated. It is argued
here that selection and socialization are not competitive hypotheses; these processes operate jointly to
shape a firm's work force. That is, organizations may seek out and select individuals whose values are
already similar to current members' values (Schneider, 1987), making it easier to socialize them. Thus,
the following hypothesis is suggested:

Proposition 9: At early stages in organization membership (0–1 year), selection experiences will explain
more variance in person-organization fit than socialization experiences. However, as the recruit
becomes “less new” in the organization, the number and type of socialization experiences will explain
more variance in person-organization fit than person variables will.
Conclusion

Person-organization fit provides an initial index that can signal what specific values and norms we should
investigate further. Specifically, we can begin to predict changes both in individual values and behavior
and in organizational values and norms. The following academic example summarizes the contributions
of a model of person-organization fit. Consider what would happen when a new professor, who values
research more than teaching, enters a university department in which members cohesively and
intensely value teaching more than research. The first contribution of the model and methods described
here is that we can identify initial discrepancies in values. Once large discrepancies of important values
have been identified, the model would then help to determine what behaviors to focus on—will the new
professor's values change (research begins to decline as a priority)? Will his or her behaviors change
(e.g., he or she begins to spend more time on teaching preparations and in office hours with students
than he or she has in the past)? Or, will the new professor inspire his or her colleagues to begin research
projects and, eventually, to recruit more research-oriented candidates for the department? The person-
organization fit model can identify discrepancies and similarities between people and organizations, can
track such changes over time, and can identify what kinds of behavior and normative changes may
occur.

The goal of this paper has been to identify specific criteria with which we can construct meaningful and
useful interactional models in organizational research. By paying more attention to how we
conceptualize people and organizations, through specific methods and longitudinal research designs, we
will be able to answer important questions. Using an illustration of one such model, this paper may have
raised more questions than it answered. For example, how enduring are individual characteristics? How
strong must organizational values be in order to influence different types of people? How likely is it that
individual characteristics will shine through despite strong values? Are there optimal combinations of
heterogeneity and homogeneity among organization members? However, it is hoped that by clarifying
important criteria for conducting interactional organization research, we can come closer to
understanding how organizational membership can have enduring and dramatic effects on people and
how people can have enduring and dramatic effects on organizations.
References

↵ Allport G. (1937) Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Google Scholar

↵ Allport G. W. (1966) Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Arvey R., Campion J. (1982) The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research.
Personnel Psychology, 35, 281–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Bell N., Staw B. (in press) People as sculptors versus sculptor: The roles of personality and personal
control in organizations. In Arthur M., Hall D., Lawrence B. (Eds.), The handbook of career theory. New
York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

↵ Bem D. J., Allen A. (1974) On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-
sectional consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506–520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Bem D. J., Funder D. C. (1978) Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the
personality of situations. Psychological Review, 85, 485–501. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Berlew D., Hall D. (1966) The socialization of managers: Effects of expectations on performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 207–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Bettenhausen K., Murnighan K. (1985) The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making

groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Betz M., Judkins B. (1975) The impact of voluntary association characteristics on selective attraction
and socialization. The Sociological Quarterly, 16, 228–240. Google Scholar

↵ Block J. (1978) The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologist Press. Google Scholar

↵ Bowers K. (1973) Situationism in psychology: An analysis and critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307–
336. CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

↵ Brown M. C. (1982) Administrative succession and organizational performance: The succession effect.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 245–273. Google Scholar

↵ Buss D. M., Craik K. H. (1983) The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90,
105–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Cattell R. B. (1944) Psychological measurement: Ipsative, normative, and interactive. Psychological

Review 51 292–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Chatman J. (1988) Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting
firms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
↵ Davis S. M. (1984) Managing corporate culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google Scholar

↵ Dawes R. (1988) Rational choice in an uncertain world. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Google
Scholar

↵ Deal T. E., Kennedy A. A. (1982) Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar

↵ Diener E., Larsen R., Emmons R. (1984) Person X situation interactions: Choice of situations and
congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580–592.
CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

↵ Dunnette M. D. (1976) Aptitudes, abilities, and skills. In Dunnette M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 473–520). Chicago: Rand McNally. Google Scholar

↵ Ekehammar B. (1974) Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological

Bulletin, 81, 1026–1048. CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

↵ Emmons R. A., Diener E. (1986) Situation selection as a moderator of response consistency and
stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1013–1019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Enz C. (1988) The role of value congruity in intraorganizational power. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 33, 284–304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Epstein S. (1979) The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Epstein S., O'Brien E. J. (1985) The person-situation debate in historical and current perspectives.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 513–537. CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

↵ Etzioni A. (1975) A comparative analysis of complex organizations: Revised and enlarged edition. New
York: Free Press. Google Scholar

↵ Feldman D. (1976) A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433–
452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Fiedler F. (1976) The leadership game: Matching the man to the situation. Organizational Dynamics,
4(3), 6–16. Google Scholar

↵ Fishbein M., Ajzen I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Google Scholar

↵ Fisher C., Weekley J. (1982) Socialization in work organizations. Working paper, Texas A&M University,
Department of Management and Department of Psychology, College Station. Google Scholar

↵ Frederiksen N. (1972) Toward a taxonomy of situations. American Psychologist, 27, 114–123.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar
↵ Gough H. (1976) Personality and personality assessment. In Dunnette M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 571–608). Chicago: Rand Mc-Nally. Google Scholar

↵ Graham J. (1986) Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In Staw B. M., Cummings L. L.
(Eds.), Research in organization behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 1–52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar

↵ Graham W. (1976) Commensurate characterization of persons, groups, and organizations:

Development of the trait ascription questionnaire (TAQ). Human Relations, 29, 607–622. Abstract

↵ Hackman J. R., Oldham G. R. (1980) Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar

↵ Hall D. T., Schneider B., Nygren H. T. (1970) Personal factors in organizational identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Holland J. (1985) Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar

↵ House B. (1988) Power and personality in complex organizations. In Staw B. M., Cummings L. L. (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 305–358). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar

↵ Jackson J. (1966) A conceptual and measurement model for norms and roles. Pacific Sociological
Review, 9, 35–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Janis I., Mann L. (1977) Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment.
New York: Free Press. Google Scholar

↵ Jones G. R. (1983) Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: An

interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464–474. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Jones G. R. (1986) Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Kanter R. (1988) When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in an organization. In Staw B. M., Cummings L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 10, pp 169–211. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar

↵ Katz D., Kahn R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Google
Scholar

↵ Kenrick D. T., Funder D. C. (1988) Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation
debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–35. CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

↵ Kilmann R. J., Saxton M. J., Serpa R. (Eds.) (1985) Gaining control of the corporate culture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
↵ Kohn M., Schooler C. (1978) The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and
intellectual flexibility: A longitudinal assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 24–52.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Kulik C., Rowland K. (1986, August) College seniors' job search: An attributional approach. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago. Google Scholar

↵ Lewin K. (1951) Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar

↵ Louis M. (1980) Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251. CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

↵ Luthans F., Davis T. (1982) An idiographic approach to organizational behavior research: The use of
single case experimental designs and direct measures. Academy of Management Review, 7, 380–391.
Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Magnusson D., Endler N. (1977) Interactional psychology: Present status and future prospects. In
Magnusson D., Endler N. (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology
(pp. 3–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar

↵ McClelland D. (1985) How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American
Psychologist, 40, 812–825. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ McCoy C. (1985) Management of values. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Google Scholar

↵ Miner A. (1987) Idiosyncratic jobs in formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 327–
351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Mischel W. (1968) Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar

↵ Mischel W. (1977) The interaction of person and situation. In Magnusson D., Endler N. S. (Eds.),
Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. Google Scholar

↵ Mischel W., Peake P. K. (1982) Beyond déjà vu in the search for cross-situational consistency.
Psychological Review, 89, 730–755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Monson T. C., Hesley J. W., Chemick L. (1982) Specifying when personality traits can and cannot
predict behavior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single-act criteria. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 385–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Moos R. H. (1973) Conceptualizations of human environments. American Psychologist, 28, 652–665.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Morse J. (1975) Person-job congruence and individual adjustment. Human Relations, 28, 841–861.
Abstract
↵ Mortimer J., Lorence J. (1979) Work experience and occupational value socialization. American Journal
of Sociology, 84, 1361–1385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Neiner A., Owens W. (1985) Using biodata to predict job choice among college graduates. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70, 127–136. CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

↵ Nemeth C., Wachtler J. (1983) Creative problem solving as a result of majority versus minority
influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunnally J. (1967) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar

↵ O'Reilly C. (1977) Personality-job fit: Implications for individual attitudes and performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 36–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ O'Reilly C. (1983, August) Corporations, cults and organizational culture: Lessons from Silicon Valley
firms. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas. Google Scholar

↵ O'Reilly C. A., Caldwell D. F. (1981) The commitment and job tenure of new employees: Some
evidence of post-decisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 597–616. CrossRefGoogle
Scholar

↵ O'Reilly C. A., Chatman J. A. (1986) Organization commitment and psychological attachment: The
effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 492–499. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ O'Reilly C. A., Chatman J. A., Caldwell D. F. (1988) People, jobs, and organizational culture. Working
paper, University of California at Berkeley. Google Scholar

↵ Roberts K. H., Glick W. (1981) The job characteristics approach to task design: A critical review. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 66, 193–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Rokeach M. (1973) The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar

↵ Rothstein M., Jackson D. (1980) Decision making in the employment interview: An experimental
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 271–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Rowe D. (1987) Resolving the person-situation debate: Invitation to an interdisciplinary dialogue.

American Psychologist, 42, 218–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Salancik G. (1977) Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In Staw B.,
Salancik G. (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1–54). Chicago: St. Clair. Google Scholar

↵ Salancik G., Pfeffer J. (1977) An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Salancik G., Pfeffer J. (1978) A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253. CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar
↵ Sarason I., Smith R., Diener E. (1975) Personality research: Components of variance attributed to the
person and the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 199–204.
CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

↵ Schneider B. (1983) Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In Staw B. M., Cummings L.
L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar

↵ Schneider B. (1987) The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 14, 437–453. Google Scholar

↵ Schmidt F. L., Hunter J. E. (Eds.) (1981) Public personnel administration: Policies and procedures for
personnel. New York: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar

↵ Seybolt J. W. (1976) Work satisfaction as a function of the person-environment interaction.

Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 66–75. Google Scholar

↵ Sigelman L. (1975) Reporting the news: An organizational analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 79,
132–151. Google Scholar

↵ Skinner B. F. (1971) Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf. Google Scholar

↵ Snyder M., Berscheid E., Matwychk A. (1988) Orientations toward personnel selection: Differential
reliance on appearance and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 972–979.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Staw B. M., Bell N. E., Clausen J. A. (1986) The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime
longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Staw B. M., Ross J. (1985) Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Stephenson W. (1953) The study of behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar

↵ Swann B. (1983) Self verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In Suls J.,
Greenwald A. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 132–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar

↵ Terborg J. R. (1981) Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 6, 569–576. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Thorndike E. (1906) Principles of teaching. New York: Seiler. Google Scholar

↵ Tom V. (1971) The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 573–592. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Van Maanen J., Barley S. (1984) Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. In
Staw B. M., Cummings L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287–365). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
↵ Van Maanen J., Schein E. (1979) Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In Staw B. M. (Ed.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar

↵ Weiner Y. (1988) Forms of value systems: A focus on organizational effectiveness and culture change
maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13, 534–545. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Weiss H. (1978) Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,
711–718. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Weiss H., Adler S. (1984) Personality and organizational behavior. Staw B. M., Cummings L. L. (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 711–718). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar

↵ Whyte W. F. (1959) Man and organization. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Google Scholar

↵ Wilensky H. (1964) The professionalization of everyone? The American Journal of Sociology, 70, 137–
158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jennifer A. Chatman (Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley) is an Assistant Professor of Organization

Behavior at Northwestern University. Correspondence regarding this article can be sent to her at the
Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208. The author
would like to thank Robert Bies, Elizabeth Mannix, and Denise Rousseau for their insightful comments
on earlier drafts of this paper.