This review addresses the three basic principles of person–environment fit theory: () The person and the environment together predict human behavior better than each of them does separately; () outcomes are most optimal when personal attributes (e.g., needs, values) and environmental attributes (e.g., supplies, values) are compatible, irrespective of whether these attributes are rated as low, medium, or high; and () the direction of misfit between the person and the environment does not matter. My review of person–job and person–organization fit research that used polynomial regression to establish fit effects provides mixed support for the explanatory power of fit. Individuals report most optimal outcomes when there is fit on attributes they rate as highest, and they report lowest outcomes when the environment offers less than they need or desire. Linking these findings to individuals' abilities and opportunities to adapt, I reconsider fit theory and outline options for future research and practice.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Arthur W, Bell ST, Villado AJ, Doverspike D. 2006. The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: an assessment of its criterion-related validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:786–801 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. 2014. Burnout and work engagement: the JD–R approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1:389–411 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50:248–87 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradley-Geist JC, Landis RS. 2012. Homogeneity of personality in occupations and organizations: a comparison of alternative statistical tests. J. Bus. Psychol. 27:149–59 [Google Scholar]
  5. Byrne D, Clore GL, Smeaton G. 1986. The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes affect anything?. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51:1167–70 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cable DM, DeRue DS. 2002. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:875–84 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cameron KS, Quinn RE. 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
  8. Cha J, Chang YK, Kim TY. 2014. Person-organization fit on prosocial identity: implications on employee outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 123:57–69 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chatman J, Flynn F. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Acad. Manag. J. 44:956–74 [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi JN, Price RH. 2005. The effects of person-innovation fit on individual responses to innovation. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 78:83–96 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chuang A, Sackett PR. 2005. The perceived importance of person-job fit and person-organization fit between and within interview stages. Soc. Behav. Personal. 33:209–26 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cooper CL, Dewe P, O'Driscoll M. 2001. Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique of Theory, Research, and Applications Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  13. Crawford ER, Lepine JA, Rich BL. 2010. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:834–48 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahm P, Glomb T, Manchester C, Leroy S. 2015. Work-family conflict and self-discrepant time allocation at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:767–92 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. 1984. A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minnesota Press
  16. De Goede MEE, Van Vianen AEM, Klehe UC. 2013. A tailored policy‐capturing study on PO fit perceptions: the ascendancy of attractive over aversive fit. Int. J. Select. Assess. 21:85–98 [Google Scholar]
  17. De Haas MJOM, Van Eerde W. 2015. Archetypes and person-organization fit in law firms. J. Prof. Org. 2:168–86 [Google Scholar]
  18. De Waal FBM, Davis JM. 2003. Capuchin cognitive ecology: cooperation based on projected returns. Neuropsychologia 41:221–28 [Google Scholar]
  19. Deci E, Ryan RM. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11:227–68 [Google Scholar]
  20. Devloo T, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A. 2011. Do managers use feedback seeking as a strategy to regulate demands-abilities misfit? The moderating role of implicit person theory. J. Bus. Psychol. 26:453–65 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dineen BR, Ash SR, Noe RA. 2002. A web of applicant attraction: person-organization fit in the context of web-based recruitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:723–34 [Google Scholar]
  22. Edwards JR. 1994. The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique and a proposed alternative. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 58:51–100 [Google Scholar]
  23. Edwards JR. 1996. An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Acad. Manag. J. 39:292–339 [Google Scholar]
  24. Edwards JR. 2008. Person-environment fit in organizations: an assessment of theoretical progress. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2:167–230 [Google Scholar]
  25. Edwards JR, Cable DM. 2009. The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:654–77 [Google Scholar]
  26. Edwards JR, Cable DM, Williamson IO, Lambert LS, Shipp AJ. 2006. The phenomenology of fit: linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:802–27 [Google Scholar]
  27. Edwards JR, Cooper CL. 1990. The person-environment fit approach to stress: recurring problems and some suggested solutions. J. Organ. Behav. 11:293–307 [Google Scholar]
  28. Edwards JR, Rothbard NP. 1999. Work and family stress and well-being: an examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 77:85–129 [Google Scholar]
  29. Elliot AJ. 2006. The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motiv. Emot. 30:111–16 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ertürk A. 2012. The role of person-organization fit in TQM: influence of values and value congruence on TQM orientation. Quality Management and Practices K-S Ng 231–54 Rijeka, Croat.: INTECH [Google Scholar]
  31. Fehr E, Fischbacher U. 2003. The nature of human altruism. Nature 425:785–91 [Google Scholar]
  32. Festinger L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7:117–40 [Google Scholar]
  33. Finegan JE. 2000. The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 73:149–69 [Google Scholar]
  34. French JRP Jr., Caplan RD, Harrison RV. 1982. The Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain London: Wiley
  35. Gabriel AS, Diefendorff JM, Chandler MM, Moran CM, Greguras GJ. 2014. The dynamic relationships of work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Personal. Psychol. 67:389–420 [Google Scholar]
  36. Giberson TR, Resick CJ, Dickson MW. 2005. Embedding leader characteristics: an examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:1002–10 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goffin RD, Gellatly IR. 2001. A multi-rater assessment of organizational commitment: Are self-report measures biased?. J. Organ. Behav. 23:437–51 [Google Scholar]
  38. Harrison DA. 2007. Pitching fits in applied psychological research: making fit methods fit theory. Perspectives on Organizational Fit C Ostroff, TA Judge 389–416 New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hecht TD, Allen N. 2005. Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the perspective of person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time?. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 98:155–78 [Google Scholar]
  40. Heider F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations New York: Wiley
  41. Herrbach O, Mignonac K. 2007. Is ethical P–O fit really related to individual outcomes? A study of management-level employees. Bus. Soc. 46:304–30 [Google Scholar]
  42. Higgins ET. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52:1280–300 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hitlin S. 2003. Values as the core of personal identity: drawing links between two theories of self. Soc. Psychol. Quart. 66:118–37 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hoffman BJ, Woehr DJ. 2006. A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 68:389–99 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hogg MA. 2000. Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: a motivational theory of social identity processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 11:223–55 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hogg MA, Terry DJ. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25:121–40 [Google Scholar]
  47. Holland JL. 1985. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  48. Idson LC, Liberman N, Higgins ET. 2000. Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: a regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 36:252–74 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ifie K. 2014. Customer orientation of frontline employees and organizational commitment. Serv. Ind. J. 34:699–714 [Google Scholar]
  50. Irving PG, Montes SD. 2005. Met expectations: the effects of expected and delivered inducements on employee satisfaction. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82:431–51 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jansen KJ, Kristof-Brown AL. 2005. Marching to the beat of a different drummer: examining the impact of pacing congruence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 97:93–105 [Google Scholar]
  52. Joshi A, Knight A. 2015. Who defers to whom and why? Dual mechanisms linking demographic differences to dyadic deference and team effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 58:59–84 [Google Scholar]
  53. Judge TA, Bono JE. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:80–92 [Google Scholar]
  54. Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:530–41 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–91 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kalliath TJ, Bluedorn AC, Strube MJ. 1999. Person-organization value congruence: a test of value congruence effects. J. Organ. Behav. 20:1175–98 [Google Scholar]
  57. King DD, Ott-Holland CJ, Ryan AM, Huang JL, Wadlington PL, Elizondo F. 2017. Personality homogeneity in organizations and occupations: considering similarity sources. J. Bus. Psychol. 32:641–53 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kristof-Brown AL, Billsberry J. 2013. Fit for the future. Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions AL Kristof-Brown, J Billsberry 1–18 Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  59. Kristof-Brown AL, Guay RP. 2011. Person-environment fit. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 3 MD Dunnette, LM Hough 3–50 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kristof-Brown AL, Seong JY, Degeest DS, Park WW, Hong DS. 2014. Collective fit perceptions: a multilevel investigation of person-group fit with individual-level and team-level outcomes. J. Organ. Behav. 35:969–89 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kristof-Brown AL, Stevens CK. 2001. Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members' personal mastery and performance goals matter. ? J. Appl. Psychol. 86:1083–95 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC. 2005. Consequences of individuals' fit at work: person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personal. Psychol. 58:281–342 [Google Scholar]
  63. Krumm S, Grube A, Hertel G. 2013. No time for compromises: age as a moderator of the relation between needs-supply fit and job satisfaction. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 22:547–62 [Google Scholar]
  64. Krupp DB, Debruine LM, Barclay P. 2008. A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29:49–55 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lambert LS, Tepper BJ, Carr JC, Holt DT, Barelka AJ. 2012. Forgotten but not gone: an examination of fit between leader consideration and initiating structure needed and received. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:913–30 [Google Scholar]
  66. Lance CE, Mallard AG, Michalos AC. 1995. Tests of the causal directions of global–life facet satisfaction relationships. Soc. Indic. Res. 34:69–92 [Google Scholar]
  67. Larsen RJ, Prizmic Z. 2004. Affect regulation. Handbook of Self-Regulations: Research, Theory, and Applications RF Baumeister, KD Vohs 40–60 New York: Guilford Press [Google Scholar]
  68. Lecky P. 1968. The theory of self-consistency. The Self in Social Interaction C Gordon, KJ Gergen 297–98 New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  69. Lee Y, Antonakis J. 2012. When preference is not satisfied but the individual is: how power distance moderates person-job fit. J. Manag. 40:1–53 [Google Scholar]
  70. Lewin K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science New York: Harper
  71. Livingstone LP, Nelson DL, Barr SH. 1997. Person-environment fit and creativity: an examination of supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit. J. Manag. 23:119–46 [Google Scholar]
  72. Longua J, DeHart T, Tennen H, Armeli S. 2009. Personality moderates the interaction between positive and negative daily events predicting negative affect and stress. J. Res. Personal. 43:547–55 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lusk J, MacDonald K, Newman J. 1998. Resource appraisals among self, friend and leader: implications for an evolutionary perspective on individual differences. Personal. Indiv. Differ. 24:685–700 [Google Scholar]
  74. Marstand AF, Martin R, Epitropaki O. 2017. Complementary person-supervisor fit: an investigation of supplies-values (S-V) fit, leader-member exchange (LMX) and work outcomes. Leadersh. Quart. 28:418–37 [Google Scholar]
  75. Meyer JP, Hecht TD, Gill H, Toplonytsky L. 2010. Person-organization (culture) fit and employee commitment under conditions of organizational change: a longitudinal study. J. Vocat. Behav. 76:458–73 [Google Scholar]
  76. Newton CJ, Mazur AK. 2016. Value congruence and job-related attitudes in a nonprofit organization: a competing values approach. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27:1013–33 [Google Scholar]
  77. Nye CD, Su R, Rounds J, Drasgow F. 2017. Interest congruence and performance: revisiting recent meta-analytic findings. J. Vocat. Behav. 98:138–51 [Google Scholar]
  78. Oh IS, Guay RP, Kim K, Harold CM, Lee JH. et al. 2014. Fit happens globally: a meta-analytic comparison of the relationships of person-environment fit dimensions with work attitudes and performance across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Personal. Psychol. 67:99–152 [Google Scholar]
  79. Ostroff C, Shin YY, Kinicki AJ. 2005. Multiple perspectives of congruence: relationships between value congruence and employee attitudes. J. Organ. Behav. 26:591–623 [Google Scholar]
  80. Park HI, Beehr TA, Han K, Grebner SI. 2012. Demands-abilities fit and psychological strain: moderating effects of personality. Int. J. Stress Manag. 19:1–33 [Google Scholar]
  81. Ployhart RE, Weekley JA, Baughman K. 2006. The structure and function of human capital emergence: a multilevel examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model. Acad. Manag. J. 49:661–77 [Google Scholar]
  82. Rani N, Samuel A. 2016. A study on generational differences in work values and person-organization fit and its effect on turnover intention of Generation Y in India. Manag. Res. Rev. 39:1695–719 [Google Scholar]
  83. Rounds JB, Dawis R, Lofquist LH. 1987. Measurement of person-environment fit and prediction of satisfaction in the theory of work adjustment. J. Vocat. Behav. 31:297–318 [Google Scholar]
  84. Sackett PR, Lievens F. 2008. Personnel selection. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:1–32 [Google Scholar]
  85. Schaubroeck J, Ganster DC, Jones JR. 1998. Organization and occupation influences in the attraction-selection-attrition process. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:869–91 [Google Scholar]
  86. Schein EH. 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership London: Wiley
  87. Schmeichel BJ, Vohs KD. 2009. Self-affirmation and self-control: Affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:770–82 [Google Scholar]
  88. Schneider B. 1987. The people make the place. Pers. Psychol. 40:437–53 [Google Scholar]
  89. Schneider B, Smith DB, Taylor S, Fleenor J. 1998. Personality and organizations: a test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:462–70 [Google Scholar]
  90. Schuh SC, Van Quaquebeke N, Keck N, Göritz AS, de Cremer D, Xin KR. 2017. Does it take more than ideals? How counter-ideal value congruence shapes employees' trust in the organization. J. Bus. Ethics. In press
  91. Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25 MP Zanna 1–65 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  92. Seong JY, Kristof-Brown AL. 2012. Testing multidimensional models of person-group fit. J. Manag. Psychol. 27:536–56 [Google Scholar]
  93. Shaikh T, Kanekar S. 1994. Attitudinal similarity and affiliation need as determinants of interpersonal attraction. J. Soc. Psychol. 134:257–59 [Google Scholar]
  94. Slocombe TE, Bluedorn AC. 1999. Organizational behavior implications of the congruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unit polychronicity. J. Organ. Behav. 20:75–99 [Google Scholar]
  95. Sluss DM, Ployhart RE, Cobb MG, Ashforth BE. 2012. Generalizing newcomers' relational and organizational identifications: processes and prototypicality. Acad. Manag. J. 55:949–75 [Google Scholar]
  96. Spanjol J, Tam L, Tam V. 2015. Employer-employee congruence in environmental values: an exploration of effects on job satisfaction and creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 130:117–30 [Google Scholar]
  97. Steel P, Schmidt J, Shultz J. 2008. Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 134:138–61 [Google Scholar]
  98. Steele CM. 1988. The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21:261–302 [Google Scholar]
  99. Takase M, Maude P, Manias E. 2006. The impact of role discrepancy on nurses' intention to quit their jobs. J. Clin. Nurs. 15:1071–80 [Google Scholar]
  100. Taris R, Feij J. 2001. Longitudinal examination of the relationship between supplies-values fit and work outcomes. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 50:52–80 [Google Scholar]
  101. Tooby J, Cosmides L. 1989. Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Part I: theoretical considerations. Ethol. Sociobiol. 10:29–49 [Google Scholar]
  102. Tranberg M, Slane S, Ekeberg SE. 1993. The relation between interest congruence and satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 42:253–64 [Google Scholar]
  103. Tsabari O, Tziner A, Meir EI. 2005. Updated meta-analysis on the relationship between congruence and satisfaction. J. Career Assess. 13:216–32 [Google Scholar]
  104. Van Iddekinge CH, Putka DJ, Campbell JP. 2011. Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selection: the validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:13–33 [Google Scholar]
  105. Van Vianen AEM. 2000. Person-organization fit: the match between newcomers' and recruiters' preferences for organizational cultures. Personal. Psychol. 53:113–49 [Google Scholar]
  106. Van Vianen AEM, Hamstra MRW, Koen J. 2016. Person-environment fits as drivers of commitment. The Handbook of Employee Commitment J Meyer 275–88 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ. [Google Scholar]
  107. Van Vianen AEM, Shen CT, Chuang A. 2011. Person-organization and person-supervisor fits: employee commitments in a Chinese context. J. Organ. Behav. 32:906–26 [Google Scholar]
  108. Van Vianen AEM, Stoelhorst JW, De Goede MEE. 2013. The construal of person-organization fit during the ASA stages: content, source, and focus of comparison. Key Issues and New Directions in Organizational Fit AL Kristof-Brown, J Billsberry 145–69 Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  109. Van Vuuren M, Veldkamp BP, De Jong MD, Seydel ER. 2007. The congruence of actual and perceived person-organization fit. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 18:1736–47 [Google Scholar]
  110. Vansteenkiste M, Neyrinck B, Niemiec CP, Soenens B, De Witte H, Van Den Broeck A. 2007. On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: a self-determination theory approach. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 80:251–77 [Google Scholar]
  111. Vecchione M, Schwartz S, Alessandri G, Döring AK, Castellani V, Caprara MG. 2016. Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood: an 8-year longitudinal study. J. Res. Personal. 63:111–22 [Google Scholar]
  112. Verquer ML, Beehr TA, Wagner SH. 2003. A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. J. Vocat. Behav. 63:473–89 [Google Scholar]
  113. Vogel RM, Rodell JB, Lynch JW. 2016. Engaged and productive misfits: how job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Acad. Manag. J. 59:1561–84 [Google Scholar]
  114. Wille B, Tracey TJG, Feys M, De Fruyt F. 2014. A longitudinal and multi-method examination of interest-occupation congruence within and across time. J. Vocat. Behav. 84:59–73 [Google Scholar]
  115. Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. 2001. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26:179–201 [Google Scholar]
  116. Yang LQ, Che H, Spector PE. 2008a. Job stress and well-being: an examination from the view of person-environment fit. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 81:567–87 [Google Scholar]
  117. Yang LQ, Levine EL, Smith MA, Ispas D, Rossi ME. 2008b. Person-environment fit or person plus environment: a meta-analysis of studies using polynomial regression analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 18:311–21 [Google Scholar]
  118. Yu KYT. 2012. Person-environment fit in non standard work: insights from workers with limited expectations of continued employment. J. Organ. Psychol. 12:115–32 [Google Scholar]
  119. Yu KYT. 2013. A motivational model of person-environment fit: psychological motives as drivers of change. Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions AL Kristof-Brown, J Billsberry 19–49 Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  120. Yu KYT, Davis HM. 2016. Autonomy's impact on newcomer proactive behaviour and socialization: a needs-supplies fit perspective. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 89:172–97 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error