AcademyofManagementReview,1989, Vol.14, No.3,333-349. ImprovingInteractionalOrganizational Research:A Modelof Person-OrganizationF it JENNIF ERA. CHATMAN NorthwesternUniversity In order for researchersto understand andpredict behavior,they must consider both person andsituation factors andhowthesefac- tors interact. Even though organization researchers havedeveloped interactional models,manyhaveoveremphasizedeither personor situationcomponents, and most have failed to consider the effects that persons haveon situations. Thispaper presents criteria for improving interactional modelsandamodelof person-organization fit, which satisfies these criteria. Using aQ-sort methodology, individual value profiles are compared to organizational value profiles to determine fit andto predict changesin values,norms, andbehaviors. Researchersinorganizationalbehaviorare concernedwithunderstandingandpredicting howpeoplebehaveinorganizational settings. Although they may agreeabout the importance ofunderstandingbehavior,their researchhas traditionallytaken two very differentforms-the individualdifferenceapproachandthesitua- tional approach.The individual difference ap- proachproposesthat aperson's behaviorcan best bepredicted bymeasuring his or her per- sonality traits, values,motives, abilities, and af- fect becausesuch elements are both stable and arereflectedinbehavior(e.g.,Allport,1937, 1966; Block,1978; Bowers,1973; Staw& Ross, 1985;Weiss & Adler,1984).In contrast, the situ- ationist approachproposesthat aperson's be- haviorcanbestbepredicted byassessingthe characteristics of his or her situation (e.g.,Mis- chel,1968; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977, 1978;Skin- ner,1971;Thorndike, 1906).The basicquestion underlying the well-known person-situation de- bate has beenwhether persons or situations ac- count for more variation in behavior (cf. Epstein & O'Brien, 1985;Kenrick& F under,1988;Rowe, 1987;Sarason,Smith, & Diener,1975). Mostbehavioral scientists agreethat both per- sonalandsituational characteristics influence behavior (e.g.,Lewin,1951;Magnusson & End- ler,1977;Schneider,1983;Terborg, 1981). How- ever,thechallengehasbeentodevelopcon- ceptsandmethodsthatnotonlydetermineif person andsituation variables are valid predic- tors of behavior but also determine whenand to what extent person andsituation variablespre- dictbehavior(cf.Schneider,1987). This isno easytask,however,becauseinteractivere- searchmust accuratelyrepresent bothperson elementsandsituation elements.Alaboratory experimentbypsychologistsMonson,Hesley, andChernick(1982) underscoredtheimpor- tanceof simultaneously consideringtheeffects that personandsituation characteristics have on behavior.They attempted to discoverwhen extroversion predicted talkativeness byplacing 333 extroverts andintroverts ineitherastrongor weak situation. Drawing on Mischel's (1977)dis- tinction, astrong situation isoneinwhichev- eryoneconstrues the situation similarly, the sit- uation induces uniform expectancies,the incen- tives of the situation induce a response to it, and everyonehasthe skills to perform in the situa- tion. Results showedthat extroversion predicted talkativeness only when the situation was weak. Instrongsituations,extroverts werenomore talkative than introverts.As this study illustrates, wecangainmore refined information bypay- ingseriousattention to both personandsitua- tion elements. However,whenwemoveout of thelabinto the real world, examining interactive issues be- comescomplexanddifficult. F or example,the strengthofasituationmaynotbeenduring, multiple valuesandnorms maydefine asitua- tion, andevenasingleindividual's traits, abili- ties, and motives may interact and changeover time (cf. McClelland, 1985).However, organiza- tion researchers, many of whom haveexpertise inconductingresearchinreal-world settings, are in a good position to contribute to the devel- opment of both balancedandrealistic interac- tiveexplanationsbecauseorganizationalset- tings are highly complex contexts in which peo- plespendagreat dealof time. Considerthefollowingreal-worldproblem: Assume that you are a personnel recruiterfor a firm that conductsits businessthrough teams. Your dilemma is,How should you allocate your resources? Shouldyouinvestheavilyintradi- tionalselectionprocedures,suchasapplica- tions, inteviews, recommendations, and person- ality tests? Or, should you spend your resources developinganextensive employeesocialization program that emphasizesthe importance of co- operation and conveysthe specific norms of the organizationtonewcomers?Apersontheorist wouldarguethat youshoulddevoteyourre- sourcesto selection activities. The person theo- rist assumesthat once you've identified a highly cooperative person,heor shewill becoopera- tive across most organizational contexts (cf. Ep- stein& O'Brien,1985). Asituationaltheorist would arguethat regardlessof howthe person hasscored on apersonality scale,if your orga- nizational context promotes cooperation you can expectnewentrants toengageincooperative activities. Therefore, you should make sure that newcomersunderstand that the culture of your organization emphasizescooperation (cf. Louis, 1980;Van Maanen& Schein,1979). In contrast, an interactional theorist would ar- guethat theaboveplansareincompleteand that you need informationboth about the person andthe situation. An interactionist would point out that a cooperative person would be most co- operativeinanorganizationthatemphasizes cooperation, but he or shemight be competitive in anorganization that strongly promotes com- petitivebehavior.Conversely,acompetitive person would bemost competitive in an organi- zationthat emphasizescompetition, butheor she might engagein cooperative activities if the organization strongly promoted suchactivities. F urthermore,a truly interactive model would in- cludethe effects that peoplehaveon situations (Schneider,1987).Therefore,whenamis- matchoccurs,for example,whenacoopera- tive organization hires a competitive person, the organizationmaychangeovertime-inthis case,a norm for competition may beginto over- shadowthe previous norm for cooperation (Bet- tenhausen&Murnighan,1985;Nemeth& Wachtler, 1983). Clearly, modelsthat indicatethe joint contri- butions of persons and situations are not new in organizationalresearch.F or example,models havebeendevelopedof leadertraits andtasks (e.g.,F iedler, 1976),personality traits and voca- tions(e.g.,Holland,1985), abilitiesandjobs (e.g.,Dunnette, 1976),and personality traits and jobcharacteristics (e.g.,Hackman & Oldham, 1980).However, three limiting features of previ- ous work are apparent.F irst, person andsitua- tion characteristics havenot beenasaccurately conceptualized asthey,perhaps,could be.Re- searchers on the person sidehavecriticized re- search that fails to consider how person charac- teristics are uniquely patterned within individu- alsandresearchthat failstousemultiple act 334 criteria totrack aperson's behaviorovertime and during situations (cf. Luthans & Davis,1982; Staw,Bell,& Clausen,1986; Weiss& Adler, 1984).Likewise, little attention has beendevoted to conceptualizing situations (cf. Moos, 1973).To meaningfullytest person-situation interactions, wemust consider the extent to which a situation either induces conformity or is ambiguous(Mis- chel& Peake,1982), andwemust find waysof making meaningful comparisons betweensitu- ations and persons (Lewin, 1951).Thus, the em- piricalresultsofpreviousinteractivemodels may beclouded by inaccuracies in conceptual- izationsofeitherpersonorsituation contribu- tions to behavior. Asecondproblemisthatfewresearchers haveconsidered the effects that peoplehaveon situations(Bell& Staw,inpress;Schneider, 1987). This isperhapsthegreateststrength of interactional modelswhencompared to contin- gencymodels(e.g.,F iedler,1976). Although contingencytheoristsconsiderpersonfactors such as leader style and situation factors such as how routine the task is, they fail to consider that thetask itself maychangeovertime (e.g.,be- comemore exceptional) becauseof the leaders' orsubordinates'personalcharacteristics.The effects that people have on situations are difficult todocumentbecausethismayrequiremany datacollectionperiodsandhighlysensitive measurementinstruments.However,thefew empirical studies that havebeenconducted re- vealthat peopledo affect their situations (Kohn & Schooler,1978;Miner, 1987).A final problem with current modelsis that their conceptualiza- tions of personsandsituations havebeenlim- ited. F or example,few researchers have consid- eredthe importance of the context at the orga- nization level,such asanorganization's system of norms andvaluesthat haveagreatdealof influenceoverpeople'sbehavior(cf. Jackson, 1966;Katz& Kahn, 1978). The next section of this paperreviewsprevi- ousapproachesinterms of thecriteria estab- lished above.A person-organization fit model is thenproposedtoillustratehowinteractional models in organizational research canbeginto fulfill thesecriteria. Drawing on the conceptual distinction betweenstrong andweak situations, the person-organization fit model treats organi- zation valuesandnorms asthe situational side of the model. On the person side, individual val- ues and some personality characteristics are ex- amined.Higher levelsof person-organization fit existwhenthereiscongruencebetweenthe norms and valuesof organizations andthe val- uesof persons.Selection andsocialization pro- cessesareseenastheantecedentsto person- organization fit. Onceperson-organization fit is assessed,predictions canbemadeaboutspe- cific outcomes (e.g.,changesin values),global behavioral outcomes (e.g.,extra-role behavior), and changesin organization norms and values. The methods for measuring the components are described.Inparticular,Q-sorts(Block,1978) maybeappropriate for measuringinteractions betweenpersons andsituations over time. InteractionalConceptsandMethods Interactional researchers incorporate the ele- mentsofbothpersonsandenvironments(cf. F redericksen, 1972;Ekehammar, 1974;Magnus- son & Endler, 1977;Moos, 1973).This viewhas a fairly longtheoretical tradition, beginningwith Lewin's(1951) propositionthatbehaviorisa function of the person andthe environment. To beaccurateandcomplete,interactionalre- searchersinorganizations must (a) accurately conceptualize andmeasurepersonsandsitua- tions, (b) document the reciprocal effects of per- sonsonsituationsandsituationsonpersons, and(c) becomprehensiveandexternally valid. Although an exhaustive review of explicitly and implicitly interactional researchisbeyondthe scopeof this paper,particular approachesthat illustrate strengths or common weaknessesare evaluated in light of eachof these requirements. ConceptualizingPersonsand SituationsAccurately PersonResearch.Two weaknesseshavebeen mentionedonthepersonside(cf.Schneider, 1983;Staw& Ross,1985;Weiss& Adler,1984). F irst, oneindividual maydiffer from another in 335 thewayhisorhertraits,values,abilities,and motivesarerelatedto eachother.Also,agiven trait mayormaynotberelevantfor theperson inquestion.Therefore,weshoulduseidio- graphicmethods,whichcancapturetherele- vanceof individualdifferences.The well-known jobcharacteristicsmodel(cf.Hackman& Old- ham,1980)illustratesthisissue.Accordingto HackmanandOldham,someidealconfigura- tionoftaskelementsexistsfor eachperson,de- pendingonthatperson'sgrowthneedstrength (GNS).However,theoutcomeoftheiranalyses takesonaprescriptiveandnomotheticquality (Roberts&Glick,1981).Theyprovidedonlya limitedsetof optionsfor task design,andbypro- vidingthesamesolution(job enrichment)for ev- eryone,theyunderemphasizedtheextentto whichGNSisdifferentiallyrelevantacrosspeo- ple.Therefore,lowcorrelationsbetweenen- richedjobsandoutcomebehaviorsmaybeat- tributedtoGNS'snotbeingparticularlyimpor- tantforacertainindividual.Thiscriticismalso canbedirectedatmanycontingencymodels thatisolateeitheroneor afewindividualdiffer- enceswithoutmeasuringhowrelevantthose characteristicsaretotheparticularrespondent (Weiss& Adler,1984). Whethertraits,motives, values,orattitudesarebeingexamined,we shouldrecognizethatthesemaybepatterned differentlyacrosspeopleandthatsuchdifferen- tialrelevancewillaffectresearchresults. Thelargerproblemininteractionalresearch isthateventhoughweshouldcapturethedif- ferentialrelevanceof traits throughidiographic methods,wealsoshouldcomparepeopleeither tooneanotherortothemselvesovertime,and thesecomparisonsrequirenomotheticmethods (Luthans&Davis,1982).Twotechniquesthat canworkinthiscapacityincludestandardized personalityprofiles(e.g.,Gough,1976) andQ- sorts(e.g.,Block,1978; Stephenson,1953). The templatematchingapproach,forexample, drawsontheQ-sort methodology(Bem & Allen, 1974; Bem& F under,1978). F irst,templatesare basedonexpertratingsofhowahypothetical personwhois highonaspecifictrait (e.g.,dom- inance,achievement)wouldbehaveinaspe- cificsituation(e.g.,ajobinterview).Next,real peoplearegivenpersonalitytests,andtheir be- havioris predictedonthebasisof howsimilaror differenttheirscoresarefromthehypothetical person'sscores.Theclosertherealpersonisto thehypotheticalprofile,themorelikelyit isthat therealperson'sbehaviorcanbepredictedby thesituation-specifictemplate.Thestrengthof this methodis that bothaprofileof traits andthe relevanceofanyparticulartrait toaparticular individualareconsidered. The secondmajorproblemwithmanycurrent interactionalmodelsisthatoftenindividual characteristicsarenotcollectedacrossanum- berof situations.This is importantbecauseeven thoughit maynotbepossibletopredictsingle instancesofbehaviorfromindividualdiffer- ences,itispossibletopredictbehavioraver- agedoverasampleof situations(Epstein,1979). Becausethedataarecross-situational,system- aticlongitudinalresearchdesignsmustbeused (e.g.,Buss& Craik,1983; Stawetal.,1986), and ataxonomyof importantsituationalcomponents mustbedevelopedsothatonesituationcanbe comparedto another. SituationResearch.AsTerborg(1981) noted, theinteractionalperspectiveallowsresearchers toconceptualizethesituationinavarietyof ways.In modelsthat includeboth aspectsof per- sonsandaspectsofsituations,organizational situationshavebeenvariouslyand,inmany cases,elaboratelydefinedasthecharacteristics of ataskorajob(e.g.,Dunnette,1976; Kohn& Schooler,1978; Miner,1987; O'Reilly,1977), and asthecharacteristicsofaprofession(e.g.,Hol- land,1985), but onlyrarelyasthecharacteristics of theorganization(F eldman,1976; Jones,1983). However,researchershavenotidentifiedwhat theimportantparametersof situationsare.Uni- fyingdimensionsthatcanguidefutureconcep- tualizationsofsituations,regardlessofthespe- cificsituationelementbeingexamined,would helpresearcherstobuildacomprehensive frameworkof interactionsinorganizations(F red- eriksen,1972; Moos,1973). 336 Oneconstructthatmaycutacrossall,orat leastmany,suchconceptualizationsisthe strengthofthesituationinquestion.F orexam- ple,if asituationisdefinedintermsofoccupa- tions,jobholdersofstrongorconformity- inducingoccupationsmayhavesalientvalues thatcanbetransmittedintheformofobjective standardsofwork,bindingcodesofethics,li- censingrequirements,andastrongprofessional association(cf.VanMaanen&Barley,1984; Wilensky,1964). Incontrast,weakoccupations wouldbecharacterizedbyalackofconsensus amongjobholdersaboutvaluesandeitherfew or nomechanismsto transmitsuchinformation. Byusingthestrong/weakdistinction,wecan movetowardamorecomprehensiveorganiza- tion taxonomyof situations.AsBell andStaw(in press,p.11) asked,"are organizations(actually) powerfulsituationscapableofhomogenizing behaviorinthefaceofindividualdiffer- ences?"To answerthis question,weneedto as- sesstherelativestrengthsandweaknessesof importantorganizationfactors. Asecondcriterionfor accuratelyrepresenting situationswassuggestedby Lewinin1951, but it hasbeendifficulttoaddress.Lewinsuggested that therelevanceof personsto situationswould bemaximizedifwecouldconceptualizeand measurethemincommensurateterms.Accord- ingtoLewin'scriteria,onepotentialproblem withBemandAllen's(1974) template-matching procedureis that thepersonis overemphasized. In otherwords,situationsareconstruedonlyin termsofthepersonalitycharacteristicsofindi- vidualsactingwithinthem.Byassumingthat theonlyimportantelementsaboutasituation arehowapersonwouldbehaveinit,wemay overlookaspectsof situationsthatcannotbede- scribedin personterms.Tom (1971) developeda measuretoinvestigatethesimilaritiesbetween people'sself-profilesandtheprofilesoftheir mostpreferredorganization.Byusingtwoper- sonalityprofiles,Tomshowedthatpeoplepre- ferredorganizationsthatweremostsimilarto their self-descriptions.However,Tom's work has thesameproblemasBem's-thepersonality itemscanbeonlymetaphoricallyappliedto or- ganizationsbecausetheitemsweredesignedto measurepersonality.Graham(1976) alsorecog- nizedtheimportanceofmeasuringbothperson andorganizationcharacteristics.Heattempted tocreateascale(theTrait AscriptionQuestion- naire)that couldcharacterizepersonsandorga- nizationsinsimilarterms,sothetwocouldbe compared.However,theproblemwithGra- ham'swork is that it is not clearif hisscalechar- acterizespeoplewithinfirmsorthefirmasan entity. Insum,theproblemwitheachoftheseap- proachesisthatsituationsareanthropomor- phizedbecausetheyaredefinedinthesame terms asindividuals.Organizationsaredifferent thanpeople;therefore,thesameadjectivemay haveaverydifferentmeaningwhenappliedto anorganization,ratherthanaperson.F orex- ample,describinganindividualascooperative maybeverydifferentthandescribinganorga- nizationascooperative.Thetermacooperative individualrefersto apersonwhotendsto assist othersinordertoachievesomejointbenefit, whereasthetermacooperativeorganization mayrefer to the actualfinancialstructure(jointly ownedbytheconsumersormembers)ofthat organization.Therefore,weneedto find waysof characterizingpersonsandsituationsinmutu- allyrelevantandcomparativeforms. How PersonsandSituationsAffect Each Other If wedonot considertheinfluencethat people haveonsituations,ourinteractivemodelswill besorelyincomplete.Peoplearenotpassive agentssubjecttoenvironmentalforces.F irst, thereisevidencethatpeopleactivelychoose theirsituations(cf.Emmons&Diener,1986; Swann,1983).Infact,thetendenciesexistfor peoplebothto choosesituationsandto perform bestinsituationsthataremostcompatibleto themselves.F orexample,highachieversare morecomfortableinandpreferchallengingsit- uationswhichrequirehighlevelsofachieve- ment."Peopletendto behappierwhentheyare 337 in settingsthat meettheir particularneedsor are congruentwiththeirdispositions"(Diener, Larsen,& Emmons,1984, p.582). Second,thereisevidenceto suggestthat peo- plechangesituations.F orexample,Kohnand Schooler(1978) gatheredtwodecades'worthof datato determinetherelativeeffectsof aperson characteristic(intellectualflexibility)andasitu- ationcharacteristic(workcomplexity).They foundthatpeopleinfluencedtheirjobsmore thantheirjobsinfluencedthem-peoplewho weremoreintellectuallyflexibleenhancedthe complexityoftheirwork.Alongthesamelines, Miner(1987)showedthattheuniqueinterests andabilitiesof ajob incumbentevolvedinto for- malizedjobdescriptions,whichweresubse- quentlyusedbylaterjobincumbents.Takento- gether,thesestudiessendaclearmessage:Peo- plehavepervasiveandenduringeffectson situations,whichwemustcontinuetoinvesti- gate. RelevantSituationsand ComprehensiveCoverage F rom theabovereview,wemightbelievethat manyrelevantsituationandpersonfactors have beentestedinteractively;however,thisisonly partlytrue.F orexample,althoughperson-job interactions(cf. Neiner& Owens,1985; O'Reilly, 1977; Seybolt,1976) andperson-vocationinter- actions(cf.Holland,1985) havebeenexamined extensively,person-organizationinteractions havenot beenexaminedasthoroughly.Two re- searchershaveconceptualizedsuchorganiza- tion-levelissues.Schneider(1987) developeda promisingtheoreticalmodel(theAttraction- Selection-Attritionmodel)thatattemptedto identifytheprocessthroughwhichpeopleand organizationsbecomemoresimilartoeach otherovertime.House(1988) presentedacom- prehensiveinteractiveconceptualizationofor- ganizationalpower.In House'sscheme,organi- zationsaredescribedintermsoftheirstruc- turalcharacteristics.Structureispredictedto interactwithpeople'spower-strivingpredisposi- tions.Whenthestructuralconstraintsareweak, Househypothesizedthatpeoplewithpower- strivingpredispositionswillacquirepower.No directempiricaltestsofHouse'shypotheses havebeenmade. Jones (1986) andF eldman(1976) presentedtwo ofthefewexplicitlyinteractionalandempiri- callytestedmodelsattheorganizationlevel. Theybothexaminedtheextenttowhichper- sonalcharacteristicsandsocializationtactics contributeto newmembers'adjustmenttotheir organizations.Thesetwostudiesarerelatively uniquebecausetheyalsoconsiderhowpeople influenceorganizations.F eldman(1976)found thatemployeesweremorelikelytosuggest changesattheaccommodationstageofsocial- ization,whereasJones(1986) foundthatinstitu- tionalizedsocializationtacticsresultedinstron- gerconformitywhenindividualspossessedlow, ratherthanhigh,levelsofself-efficacy.How- ever,neitherof thesestudiestrackedtheextent towhichemployees'makingsuggestionsand conformingto theorganizationinfluencedorga- nizationalvalues. In sum,interactionalresearchinorganization settingshasgeneratedsomeconcretefindings, butimprovementscanbemade.F irst,concep- tualizationsof bothpersonsandsituationsmust besimultaneouslyidiographicandnomothetic. Onthepersonside,attentiontothedifferential relevanceofcharacteristicsandcross-situa- tionaldataisessential.Onthesituationside, wemayneedtoassesstherelativestrengths andweaknessesofasituationandtocompare situationsandpersonsinmutuallyrelevantand commensurateterms.Second,completemodels shouldincludehowpeoplechooseandinflu- encetheir situations.F inally,interactiveorgani- zationalresearchshouldbemorecomprehen- sive. A Model of Person-OrganizationF it This sectiondescribesoneillustrationof anin- teractionalmodel,person-organizationfit.Be- 338 causeorganizationfactorsprovideanimportant contextuallevel,thethirdcriterionforinterac- tivemodels,relevanceandcomprehensiveness, isautomaticallyaddressed.Themodeldraws ontheQ-sortmethod,whichisbothnomothetic andidiographic,andthroughit thedifferential relevanceofindividualcharacteristicsarecon- sidered.Additionally,theQ-sort allowsfor both adistinctionbetweenstrongandweaksitua- tionsandfor comparisonstopersoncharacter- istics.F inally,thedesignof themodelisexplic- itlylongitudinal;therefore,boththeeffectsthat peoplehaveonorganizationsandtheeffects thatorganizationshaveonpeopleareconsid- ered. DefiningPerson-Organization F it Theimpactthatorganizationalmembership hasonpeopleandtheimpactthatpeoplehave onorganizationsarepredictedthroughinforma- tiongatheredaboutpeopleandinformation gatheredaboutorganizations.Thequestions become,whataspectsofpeopleandwhatas- pectsof organizationsareimportantto consider? Althoughmanyaspectsoforganizationsand peopleareimportantindeterminingbehavior (e.g.,abilities,jobrequirements,personality characteristics,andvocations),afundamental andenduringaspectofbothorganizationsand peopleistheirvalues(Katz& Kahn,1978). Onthepersonside,individual valuesarede- finedasenduringbeliefsthroughwhichaspe- cificmodeofconductorend-stateispersonally preferabletoitsopposite(Rokeach,1973). Val- uesareatypeof socialcognitionthat facilitatea person'sadaptationtohisorherenvironment, andvalueshaveimplicationsfor hisorherbe- havior(cf. F ishbein& Ajzen1975; Weiner,1988). Ontheorganizationside,valuesystemsprovide anelaborateandgeneralizedjustificationboth forappropriatebehaviorsofmembersandfor theactivitiesandfunctionsofthesystem(Enz, 1988; Katz& Kahn,1978; McCoy,1985). Norms arecloselyrelatedtovaluesinthattheymake explicittheformsof behaviorthatareappropri- ateformembersofthatsystem(Kilmann,Sax- ton,& Serpa,1985). Organizationalnormsand valuesareagroupproduct;eventhoughall membersof thegroupwouldnothavethesame values,amajorityofactivememberswould agreeonthemandmembersof thegroupwould beawareofthegroup'ssupportforagiven value(Katz& Kahn,1978; Weiner,1988). Inadditiontoadescriptionoftheircontent, bothorganizationalandindividualvaluescan bedescribedintermsoftheirintensity,orhow stronglyheldtheyare,relativetoothervalues. Organizationalvaluesystemsalsocanbede- scribedin termsof crystallization,or howwidely sharedtheyare(Jackson,1966; O'Reilly,1983). Strongorganizationalvaluesarebothintensely heldandwidelyshared,whichishowmany researchersdefinestrongculturefirms(e.g., Davis,1984; Deal&Kennedy,1982).Drawing againonthestrong/weakdistinction(Mischel, 1977), wecanexplainorganizationsthathave intenseandcrystallizedvaluesasstrongsitua- tions. Person-organizationfit isdefinedhereasthe congruencebetweenthenormsandvaluesof organizationsandthevaluesofpersons.In or- dertodeterminetheeffectsthatorganizational membershipwillhaveonanindividual'svalues andbehaviorsandtheeffectsthatanindividual willhaveonanorganization'snormsandval- ues,wemustfirst assesstheextentof agreement betweentheperson'svaluesandtheorganiza- tion's values.Additionally,muchof theinterac- tionalresearchdiscussedpreviouslyhasexam- inedpersonalitytraitsasimportantdetermi- nantsofbehaviors.However,asmentioned above,ifpersonalitytraitsarecompareddi- rectlytoorganizationcontexts,thereisarisk of misrepresenting(anthropomorphizing)organi- zations.Therefore,particulartraits(e.g.,self- monitoring)areseenhereasdeterminantsof the particularbehavioralmanifestationofperson- organizationfit. Amodelof person-organization fit is presentedin F igure1, andthewaysof mea- 339 a) U 0 0 0ZdG oa)) 0~~~~ (1)~~~~~ -4-U)~~~~~~- O ul~~~ 340 suringeachofthecomponentsarediscussed below. Measuring Person-Organization F it Accordingto theconceptualrequirementsfor interactionalresearchlistedabove,theassess- mentofindividualandorganizationalvalues shouldbebothidiographic,sothattherele- vanceofparticularvaluesandtheuniqueness of patternsof valuesacrosspeopleandorgani- zationsarerepresented,andnomothetic,sothat personandsituationfactorscanbecompared. In addition,thesituationshouldbeassessedin termsofhowstrongorweakitis.TheQ-sort methodisoneviablemethodfor developinga simultaneouslyidiographicandnomotheticin- strumenttoassessvaluesandfordetermining whetheranorganization'svaluesystempre- sentsastrongorweaksituationto individuals. AlthoughtheQ-sortmethodtraditionallyhas beenusedtoassesspersonalitycharacteristics (Block,1978),organizationalresearchershave developedtwoQ-sortitemsets.TheOrganiza- tionalCultureProfile(OCP)assessesperson- organizationfit, andtheKnowledge,Skills,and AbilitiesProfile,whichwillnotbediscussed here,assessesperson-jobfit(Chatman,1988; O'Reilly,Chatman,& Caldwell,1988). The OCPcontains54valuestatements(e.g.,quality,re- spectforindividuals)thatcangenericallycap- tureindividualandorganizationalnormsand values.TheOCPcanbeusedtomeasureper- son-organizationfit inthefollowingway:To as- sessanindividual'svalues,jobseekersornew firm membersareaskedto sort the54 itemsinto 9 categories,with aspecifiednumberof cardsin eachcategory.F ewercardsareallowedatex- tremecategories,andmorecardsareallowed inthecentral,moreneutral,categories.The questionnewmembersareaskedtokeepin mindwhilesortingthedeckis,"How important isit for thischaracteristictobeapartoftheor- ganizationI work for?"The anchorsgivenfor the 9 categoriesrangefrom themostdesirableval- uesto the mostundesirablevalues,andthe mid- dlecategoryisneutral.Theresultisanindivid- ualprofilethatrepresentstheperson'svaluesin anyorganizationalcontext. Toassessanorganizationalvaluesystem,a broadrepresentationoforganizationmembers whohavebeenwiththeorganizationfor at least 1 or 2 years(sotheyarefamiliarwithwhatever valuesystemexists)areaskedtosortthesame 54valuestatements.Theonlydifferencesbe- tweentheindividualprofileandthemember profilesarethattheanchorsarelabeledmost characteristictomostuncharacteristic(asop- posedtomostdesirableandmostundesirable) andthequestiontheyareaskedis,"How much doesthisattributecharacterizeyourorganiza- tion'svalues?"Memberprofilesarethencom- binedbyaveragingeachitemto formanorga- nizationprofile. Crystallizationoforganizationalvaluesisas- sessedbycalculatingareliabilitycoefficientfor themeanorganizationprofile.Astrongorgani- zationalvaluesystemwouldbeindicatedbya highreliabilitycoefficient(e.g.,above.70,ac- cordingto Nunnally,1967), whichshowsthat or- ganizationmembersperceivethecontentand orderingof theorganizationalvaluesystemsim- ilarly.Intensityandcontentofbothindividual andorganizationalvaluesaregaugedby exam- iningthe top andbottom rankeditems.(As arule ofthumb,thetopandbottomthreecategories representintenselyheldvalues,Block,1978.) Person-organizationfitismeasuredbyfirst comparingtheorganizationprofiletotheindi- vidualprofileandthencalculatingthecorrela- tionbetweenthem.Twocautionsshouldbe noted.F irst,iforganizationalvaluesarenot highlycrystallized(e.g.,thealphais below.70), theorganizationprofilewillnot bereliable.Low crystallizationisequatedwithaweaksituation; therefore,theorganizationalvaluescannotbe representedwithasingleprofile.Of course,low crystallizationattheorganizationlevelmayin- dicatethatstrongfactionsexistwithintheorga- nization.To determinethis,membercrystalliza- tioncouldbecalculatedaccordingtovarious subgroups,suchasdepartments,joblevels,or divisions.Second,anoverallhighcorrelation 341 betweenanorganizationalvalueprofileandan individualprofilewouldindicateageneralcon- gruencebetweenthepersonandtheorganiza- tion.However,anitem-by-itemcomparisonof thetopandbottom12 itemsalsoiswarranted. Largedisparities(e.g.,greaterthan3catego- ries) betweentop firm valuesandtop individual valuesshouldbenoted-thesemaybetheones inwhichthemostindividualororganizational changeoccursovertime. Insum,theQ-sortmethodallowsforarich assessmentofindividualandorganizational values.F irst, thebreadthandcomplexityof val- uesarecapturedbecausealargenumberof itemsareusedin theOCP(Chatman,1988), and eachitemisimplicitlycomparedtoeachother item(Cattell,1944). Thus,adistinct advantageof the Q-sort methodis that moreitemscanbeused reliably.(Rankingthe 54 itemswouldbetoo cog- nitivelycomplextogeneratereliableresults.) Second,thepersonalrelevanceof valuesis rep- resentedbecausetheorderingofitemsreflects therelativeimportanceofvaluesfor aspecific personor organization.Third, situationstrength canbeassessed.Crystallization,or theextentto whichthemembersperceivethevaluesystem similarly,iscapturedbylookingatthealpha coefficientfor organizationalvalues,andthein- tensitywithwhichvaluesareheldiscaptured byexaminingthepivotalitems(the top andbot- tom12). Takentogether,crystallizationandin- tensityreflecthowstrongor weakanorganiza- tionalvaluesystemis.F inally,comparisonsbe- tweenprofilesaremadepossiblebyusingthe samesetofitemsforindividualandorganiza- tionalvaluesandbyvaryingtheanchorand questionassociatedwith individualversusorga- nizationraters. AlthoughtheQ-sortmethodcanaddress manyof the criteria for assessment,researchstill mustbedesignedtocapturethedynamicas- pectsofperson-organizationfit.Changesina person'svaluesovertimecanbeassessedby comparingaperson'svalueprofileatonepe- riodtohisorhervalueprofileatotherperiods. Likewise,changesinorganizationalvaluepro- filescanbeassessedbycomparinganorgani- zation'sprofileatonetimeperiodto subsequent periods.Thus,changesinperson-organization fit canbeassessedintermsofwhethertheper- sonortheorganizationhaschangedandin termsofthedirectionofthechange.F urther, specificchangescanbeassessedbyexamining specificchangesintheplacementofitems.F or example,if apersonwhohighlyvaluesrisk tak- ingentersanorganizationthat valuesrisk aver- sion,subsequentvalueprofilescanbeexam- inedtoseewhothechangeagentwas:If the personsubsequentlyratesrisk-takingsignifi- cantlylower,theorganizationhasinfluenced theperson.If, however,accordingtotheorga- nizationprofilerisktakingisratedsignificantly higherandtheprofileisstill highlycrystallized, thepersonhasinfluencedtheorganization valuesystem.Moreformalpropositionsof these issuesarediscussedinthefollowingsection. Outcomes of Person-Organization F it Whatcanwelearnbyknowingtheextentto whichaperson'svaluesaresimilartoanorga- nization'ssharedvalues?Person-organizationfit isusefulbecauseit enhancesourabilityto pre- dicttheextenttowhichaperson'svalueswill changeasafunctionof organizationalmember- shipandtheextenttowhichheorshewillad- heretoorganizationalnorms.Organization membershipcanshapeandmodifypeople's values(Whyte,1959).F orexample,Mortimer andLorence(1979)foundthatvariouswork values(e.g.,peopleorientation,autonomy) changedasafunctionof work experiences.Spe- cifically,peopleadoptedthevaluesthatwere rewardedinpreviousorganizationsoroccupa- tions.Similarly,Weiss(1978) foundthatpeople alignedtheirvalueswiththevaluesoftheir leadersif theyperceivedtheirleaderto becon- siderate,competent,andsuccessful.Calibrat- ingperson-organizationfit alsoallowsusto de- terminethelikelihoodofparticularindividuals' causinganorganization'svaluesto change.F or example,whenstrongorganizationalvalues andimportantindividualvaluesconflict,sothat 342 whattheorganizationthinksisimportantisdif- ferentthanwhattheindividualthinksisimpor- tant(lowperson-organizationfit), anumberof predictionscouldbemade.Lowperson- organizationfit couldhaveatleastthreeimme- diateoutcomes:Theperson'svaluescould changeandbecomemoresimilarto theorgani- zation'svaluesystem,theorganization'svalues couldchange,or thepersoncouldleavetheor- ganization.This generalpredictionis not asspe- cific asonewouldhopefor. By consideringother individualdifferences,wemaybeableto spec- ify whichof thethreeoutcomesis likelyto occur. Althoughspaceconstraintspreventaconsider- ationof allrelevantindividualdifferences(e.g., ability,demographiccharacteristics,etc.)afew personalitycharacteristicsthatdirectlyinflu- enceperson-organizationfit willbeusedasil- lustrationsofhowindividualdifferencescould beintegratedintothemodel. Proposition1:Whenapersonwithdiscrepant valuesentersanorganizationcharacterizedby strongvalues,theperson'svaluesarelikelyto changeifthat personisopento influence.F ur- thermore,this personis morelikelyto behavein accordancewithspecifiednormsoftheorgani- zation. Proposition2:Whenapersonwithdiscrepant valuesentersanorganizationcharacterizedby strongvalues,theperson'svalueswillnotbe expectedto changeifthe personisnotopento influence.This personwouldbelikelyto leave theorganization. Proposition3:Whenapersonwithdiscrepant valuesentersanorganizationcharacterizedby strongvaluesandheor shescoreshighonself- efficacy(Jones,1986) or personalcontrol(Bell & Staw,inpress),orwhenmanynewmembers enteratoncewhosharethesamevalueswith oneanother,butnotwiththeorganization,the organization'svaluesandnormswillbecome moreliketheindividual'sovertime. Proposition4followsthroughwiththelogicof thedistinctionbetweenstrongandweaksitua- tions: Proposition4: In organizationscharacterizedby weakvalues(lowcrystallizationandintensity), a person'svaluesarelikelyto remainthe same; that is,hisor hervalueswill not changeasa function of organizational membership. Inadditiontoindividualororganizational valuechangeandexit,anotherrelevanttypeof outcomemightbeextra-rolebehaviors.Extra- rolebehaviorsaredefinedasprosocialactsthat arenotdirectlyspecifiedbyanindividual'sjob descriptionandthatprimarilybenefittheorga- nizationasopposedtotheindividual.People whoshareorganizationalvaluesmaybemore likelytocontributetothefirminconstructive ways.O'ReillyandChatman(1986) foundthat congruencebetweenindividualandorganiza- tionalvaluespredictedahigherlikelihoodof ex- tra-role behaviors,suchasindividualspledging moneytoauniversityorhelpingothers,even whenitwasnotrequiredbytheirformaljob descriptions.In asimilarvein,VanMaanenand Schein(1979,p.228)arguedthatcreativeindi- vidualistsarepeoplewhoscorehighonperson- organizationfit. Acreativeindividualistisare- former who"rarely seeksto changethe[values] of the[organization],butrathermayseekto im- proveor makemoreefficientorlesscorruptthe existing...strategies."Thissuggeststhefol- lowingproposition: Proposition 5:Person-organizationfitwillbe positively related to extra-role behavior. Thus,highlevelsofperson-organizationfit arebeneficialfor individualsandorganizations. Highperson-organizationfit increasesthelikeli- hoodthatbothextra-rolebehaviorswilloccur andindividualswillfeelmorecomfortableand competentinorganizationsthathavesimilar values(Morse,1975;Swann,1983).However, extremelyhighlevelsofperson-organizationfit amongnumerousorganizationalmembersmay leadto ineffectiveindividualandorganizational behavior.F orexample,person-organizationfit mayleadto conformity,homogeneity,andlow- eredinnovationaspeopleandorganizations becomeunabletoadapttonewenvironmental contingencies(cf.Janis& Mann,1977; Kanter, 1988). In fact,lowfit betweenpeopleandorga- nizationsmaybedesirablebecause"mis-fit" 343 maycauseapersonto growandlearn,andthe actofbringinginpeoplewhodonothavethe same-valuesastheorganizationmayslowor reverseineffectiveinertiaandallowanorgani- zationto adaptto or takeadvantageof newop- portunities(cf.Brown,1982).Therefore,some optimallevelof person-organizationfit mayexist bothintermsofhowclosethefit isfor anyone individualandintermsoftheproportionsof highandlow"fitters"withinanorganization.Of course,alowerboundaryexistsaswell,and extremelylow(negative)person-organizationfit mayresultinsabotageordissent(Graham, 1986). Usingthemethodsandmodelpresented, researcherscouldexplorethisnotionofwhat constitutesanoptimallevel,ormix,ofperson- organizationfit. Antecedentsto Person-Organization F it Organizationsenhanceperson-organization fit bybothselectingandsocializingemployees to handlemorethanaspecificjob.That is,they find potentialemployeeswhowillberesponsive toorganizationalpractices,andbymolding themto abidebyprevailingnormsandvalues, theyprovideamorerobustandstableattach- mentbetweenthepersonandtheorganization. Likewise,onthepersonside,wehaveseenthat peoplesearchforandpreferwhenorganiza- tions'situationalnormsandvaluesmatchthose theybelieveareimportant,andtheyperform betterinsuchsituations(Dieneretal.,1984). Therefore,peoplehavesuchcharacteristicsin mindwhentheyselectorganizations,andonce theyaremembers,theymaytrytochange normseitherthroughpersonalcontrol(Bell& Staw,inpress)orthroughpower(Enz,1988; House,1988) inordertoestablishcongruence withtheirownvalues. Selection.Selectionisthesetofprocedures throughwhichanorganizationchoosesits members.Accordingtotraditionalviews,the selectionprocessesshouldassessacandidate's knowledge,skills,andabilities(KSAs),sothat organizationshirepersonswhoseKSAsare compatiblewiththejob requirements.Although considerationof acandidate'sabilitiesisimpor- tant,selectionprocessesmaybemoreloosely linkedto person-jobfit thanindustrialpsycholo- gistshaveclaimed.Selectionprocessespartly serveamoresubtlefunction-forrecruiting firms, thescreeningout of peoplewhohaveval- uesthatareincompatiblewiththeorganiza- tion's normsandvaluesandfor jobseekers,the screeningoutoffirmsthathaveundesirable normsandvalues.Why,for example,doorga- nizationscontinuetointerviewjobcandidates, eventhoughthisprocessisapoorpredictorof howwellapersonwillperformaparticularjob (Arvey& Campion,1982)? Onereasonis that an interviewmayassesshowwellaperson'sval- uesfittheorganization'svaluesandnorms (Dawes,1988; Rothstein& Jackson,1980; Snyder, Berscheid,& Matwychk,1988). It isproposedherethatamajorfunctionof selectionprocessesistoselectindividualswho havevaluesthatarecompatiblewiththeorga- nization'svalues.F urther,for incomingrecruits whosevaluesaremorecloselyalignedwith their hiringfirm beforejoiningthefirm, their val- uesmaybecomemoresimilartotheorganiza- tion'svaluesand,ultimately,theymayachieve acloserfit withtheorganization.This is because of thecommittingnatureandsalienceof choos- inganorganization-highperson-organization fit at entrymaybecomeevenmorestableafter a personspendsmoretimewiththehiringorga- nization.F urther,individualswhohavemoreof- ferstochoosefrominitiallymaycognitivelyre- evaluatetheir valuesasmoresimilarto theval- uesoftheorganizationtheyjoin(cf.O'Reilly& Caldwell,1981; Salancik,1977).Ofcourse,se- lectionisnotmerelyaprocessoforganizations selectingpeople;peopleactivelyseachfor and chooseanorganizationtojoin.F romtheper- son'sperspective,time,effort,initiative,and breadthofinformationmaypredictperson- organizationfit.Althoughindustrialpsycholo- gistshavelookedatpersonnelselectionalmost exclusivelyfrom thepointof viewof theorgani- zationselectingemployees,someorganiza- tionalresearchershaveacknowledgedtheim- 344 portanceoftheindividualselectinganorgani- zation(cf.Kulik&Rowland,1986).Empirical researchconductedamongteachers(Betz& Jud- kins,1975),newspaperreporters(Sigelman, 1975), andforestserviceworkers(Hall,Schnei- der,& Nygren,1970) hasshownthat peopletend tochooseorganizationsonthebasisof thesim- ilaritybetweentheir valuesandthoseespoused bytheorganizationtheyareconsidering.More formally,thefollowingpropositionsaresug- gested: Proposition6: Potentialrecruitswhoeitheriniti- ateorareaskedtospendmoretimewithan organizationandwhoareinvolvedinavariety oforganizationalactivities(e.g.,interviews, phonecalls,receptions)beforebeinghiredwill haveprofilesofvaluessimilartothoseofthe firmuponentry. Proposition7: Thebehavioraloutcomeofhigh person-organizationfit atentrywillbethatthe personconformsto thepivotalnormsoftheor- ganization.F urther,changesinindividualval- ueswillbenegativelyassociatedwithhighper- son-organizationfit atentry. Socialization.Organizationalsocializationis theprocessthroughwhichanindividualcomes to understandthevalues,abilities,expectedbe- haviors,andsocialknowledgethat areessential for assuminganorganizationalroleandfor par- ticipatingasanorganizationalmember(Louis, 1980; VanMaanen& Schein,1979). Accordingto traditionaltheories,socializationprocesseslead directlyto variousdesirableorganizationalout- comes(cf. F isher& Weekley,1982). In contrast,it isproposedherethatperson-organizationfit mediatestherelationshipbetweensocialization experiencesandoutcomevariables.Inother words,socializationprocessesactuallyteach employeesthenormsandvaluesof theorgani- zation. Louis(1980) describedsocializationactivities asopportunitiesfornewcomerstomakesense outoftheirorganizationalexperiences.These activitiesalsoareopportunitiesfor organizations to influencethevaluesof members.F urther,the influenceof socializationprogramswillbeespe- ciallypronouncedintheearlystagesof organi- zationalmembership(cf.Berlew& Hall,1966). Thefollowingpropositionissuggested: Proposition8: In organizationsthathavestrong values,agreatervarietyandnumberof social- izationprocesses,whichincludesuchactivities associalandrecreationalevents,formaltrain- ing,andmentor programs,will bepositivelyas- sociatedwithperson-organizationfitandwill bringaboutgreaterchangesinindividualval- ues,resultinginacloserfit overtime. IntegratingSelectionandSocialization.Orga- nizationresearchershaverecognizedthatthe costsof selectingnewemployeescanpartlyoff- setthecostsofthesocializationprocesses(Etzi- oni,1975; Schmidt& Hunter,1981). If anorgani- zationishighlyselective(assumingthatclear andvalidcriteriafor selectionhavebeenestab- lished),socializationcosts,suchastraining,ori- entation,andotherinformalmethodsofteach- ingnewemployeeshowthingsaredoneinthe organization,arepresumablylowered.Con- versely,asselectionratiosbecomelessfavor- abletotheorganization(duetofewerqualified applicants),socializationmechanismswillneed to beenhancedsothatthoseenteringtheorga- nizationwillbecomeappropriatelyassimilated. It isarguedherethatselectionandsocialization arenotcompetitivehypotheses;theseprocesses operatejointly to shapeafirm's work force.That is,organizationsmayseekoutandselectindi- vidualswhosevaluesarealreadysimilarto cur- rent members'values(Schneider,1987), making iteasiertosocializethem.Thus,thefollowing hypothesisissuggested: Proposition9:Atearlystagesinorganization membership(0-1year),selectionexperiences willexplainmorevarianceinperson-organi- zationfitthansocializationexperiences.How- ever,astherecruitbecomes"lessnew"inthe organization,thenumberandtypeof socializa- tionexperienceswillexplainmorevariancein person-organizationfitthanpersonvariables will. Conclusion Person-organizationfit providesaninitialin- dexthatcansignalwhatspecificvaluesand 345 normsweshouldinvestigatefurther.Specifi- cally,wecanbegintopredictchangesbothin individualvaluesandbehaviorandinorgani- zationalvaluesandnorms.Thefollowingaca- demicexamplesummarizesthecontributionsof amodelofperson-organizationfit.Consider whatwouldhappenwhenanewprofessor,who valuesresearchmorethanteaching,entersa universitydepartmentinwhichmembersco- hesivelyandintenselyvalueteachingmore thanresearch.The first contributionof themodel andmethodsdescribedhereis that wecaniden- tifyinitialdiscrepanciesinvalues.Oncelarge discrepanciesofimportantvalueshavebeen identified,themodelwouldthenhelptodeter- minewhatbehaviorsto focuson-willthenew professor'svalueschange(researchbeginsto declineasapriority)? Willhisorherbehaviors change(e.g.,heorshebeginstospendmore timeonteachingpreparationsandinoffice hourswithstudentsthanheorshehasinthe past)?Or,willthenewprofessorinspirehisor hercolleaguestobeginresearchprojectsand, eventually,torecruitmoreresearch-oriented candidatesforthedepartment?Theperson- organizationfitmodelcanidentifydiscrepan- ciesandsimilaritiesbetweenpeopleandorga- nizations,cantracksuchchangesovertime, andcanidentifywhatkindsofbehaviorand normativechangesmayoccur. Thegoalofthispaperhasbeentoidentify specificcriteriawithwhichwecanconstruct meaningfulandusefulinteractionalmodelsin organizationalresearch.By payingmoreatten- tiontohowweconceptualizepeopleandorga- nizations,throughspecificmethodsandlongitu- dinalresearchdesigns,wewillbeabletoan- swerimportantquestions.Usinganillustration of onesuchmodel,thispapermayhaveraised morequestionsthanit answered.F or example, howenduringareindividualcharacteristics? Howstrongmustorganizationalvaluesbein or- dertoinfluencedifferenttypesofpeople?How likelyisitthatindividualcharacteristicswill shinethroughdespitestrongvalues?Arethere optimalcombinationsofheterogeneityandho- mogeneityamongorganizationmembers?How- ever,it ishopedthatbyclarifyingimportantcri- teriaforconductinginteractionalorganization research,wecancomecloserto understanding howorganizationalmembershipcanhaveen- duringanddramaticeffectsonpeopleandhow peoplecanhaveenduringanddramaticeffects onorganizations. References Allport,G.(1937) Personality:A psychologicalinterpretation. New York:Holt. Allport,G. W. (1966)Traitsrevisited.American Psychologist, 21, 1-10. Arvey, R., & Campion, J. (1982)The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psy- chology, 35, 281-322. Bell, N.,& Staw,B.(in press) Peopleassculptors versus sculptor:The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In M. Arthur,D. Hall, &B. Lawrence (Eds.), Thehandbookofcareertheory.NewYork: Cambridge UniversityPress. Bem,D. J., & Allen,A.(1974) Onpredicting someofthe peoplesomeof thetime: The searchfor cross-sectional consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506- 520. Berm,D. J., & F under, D. C.(1978)Predicting more of the peoplemore of the time: Assessingthe personality of sit- uations.PsychologicalReview,85,485-501. Berlew, D., & Hall, D. (1966)The socialization of managers: Effects ofexpectationsonperformance. Administrative ScienceQuarterly,11, 207-223. Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, K. (1985)The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Adminis- trativeScienceQuarterly,30,350-372. Betz, M., & Judkins,B. (1975)The impact of voluntary asso- ciation characteristics onselectiveattraction andsocial- ization.TheSociologicalQuarterly,16, 228-240. 346 Block, J. (1978)The Q-sortmethod in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy- chologist Press. Bowers, K. (1973) Situationism inpsychology: Ananalysis and critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307-336. Brown, M. C.(1982)Administrativesuccession and organi- zational performance:The succession effect. Administra- tive ScienceQuarterly, 29, 245-273. Buss,D. M.,& Craik, K. H.(1983)The actfrequency ap- proach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105-126. Cattell, R. B.(1944) Psychological measurement: Ipsative, normative,andinteractive.PsychologicalReview,51, 292-303. Chatman, J. (1988)Matching peopleand organizations:Se- lection andsocialization in public accounting firms. Un- published doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Davis,S.M.(1984) Managingcorporateculture.Cam- bridge, MA: Ballinger. Dawes, R. (1988)Rational choice in an uncertain world. Or- lando, F L:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich. Deal,T. E.,& Kennedy,A. A.(1982) Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Diener, E., Larsen, R., & Emmons, R. (1984)Person X situa- tion interactions:Choice of situations and congruence re- sponse models. Journalof Personalityand Social Psychol- ogy,47, 580-592. Dunnette,M. D.(1976) Aptitudes, abilities,andskills. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrialand organi- zational psychology(pp.473-520).Chicago:Rand Mc- Nally. Ekehammar, B. (1974)Interactionismin personality from a historical perspective.PsychologicalBulletin, 81,1026- 1048. Emmons, R. A.,& Diener, E. (1986)Situation selection asa moderator of response consistency andstability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1013-1019. Enz, C. (1988)The role of valuecongruity in intraorganiza- tional power. AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, 33, 284- 304. Epstein, S.(1979)The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126. Epstein, S.,& O'Brien, E. J. (1985)The person-situationde- bate in historical and currentperspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 513-537. Etzioni, A.(1975)Acomparative analysisof complex orga- nizations: Revised and enlargededition. New York:F ree Press. F eldman,D.(1976)Acontingencytheory ofsocialization. AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, 21, 433-452. F iedler, F . (1976)The leadership game: Matchingthe man to the situation. Organizational Dynamics, 4(3), 6-16. F ishbein, M., &Ajzen, I. (1975)Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. F isher, C.,& Weekley, J. (1982)Socialization in work orga- nizations. Workingpaper, Texas A&MUniversity,Depart- ment of Management and Departmentof Psychology, Col- legeStation. F rederiksen, N.(1972) Toward ataxonomyofsituations. American Psychologist, 27, 114-123. Gough, H. (1976)Personalityand personality assessment. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organi- zational psychology(pp.571-608).Chicago:RandMc- Nally. Graham, J. (1986)Principled organizational dissent: A theo- retical essay.In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Re- search in organizationbehavior (Vol. 8, pp.1-52). Green- wich, CT:JAIPress. Graham, W. (1976)Commensurate characterizationof per- sons, groups, and organizations:Development of the trait ascriptionquestionnaire(TAQ). HumanRelations,29, 607-622. Hackman, J. R.,& Oldham,G. R.(1980) Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hall, D. T., Schneider, B.,& Nygren, H. T. (1970)Personal factorsin organizationalidentification.AdministrativeSci- enceQuarterly, 15, 176-190. Holland, J. (1985)Making vocationalchoices: Atheory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. House, B. (1988)Power andpersonality in complex organi- zations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp.305-358). Green- wich, CT:JAIPress. Jackson,J. (1966)A conceptual and measurement model for norms androles. Pacific Sociological Review, 9, 35-47. Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977)Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice,andcommitment. New York: F ree Press. Jones, G. R. (1983)Psychological orientationand the process of organizational socialization: An interactionistperspec- tive. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464-474. Jones, G. R.(1986) Socialization tactics,self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments toorganizations. Academyof Management Journal, 29, 262-279. Kanter, R.(1988)When athousand flowers bloom: Struc- tural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in an 347 organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Re- searchinorganizationalbehavior(Vol.10,pp169-211). Greenwich, CT:JAIPress. Katz,D.,& Kahn,R.(1978). Thesocialpsychologyoforga- nizations (2nd ed.).New York: Wiley. Kenrick,D. T., & F under, D. C. (1988)Profitingfrom contro- versy: Lessons from theperson-situation debate.Ameri- canPsychologist,43,23-35. Kilmann,R. J., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (Eds.)(1985)Gain- ingcontrolof thecorporateculture.SanF rancisco:Jossey- Bass. Kohn, M., & Schooler, C. (1978)The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibility: Alongitudinal assessment.American Journal ofSociol- ogy,84, 24-52. Kulik,C., & Rowland, K. (1986,August) College seniors' job search:Anattributionalapproach.Paperpresentedat the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago. Lewin,K.(1951) F ieldtheoryinsocialscience.NewYork: Harper & Row. Louis, M. (1980)Surpriseand sense making: What newcom- ers experiencein entering unfamiliar organizational set- tings.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,25,226-251. Luthans, F .,& Davis, T. (1982)An idiographic approach to organizational behavior research: The useof single case experimental designsanddirect measures. Academy of ManagementReview,7,380-391. Magnusson,D.,& Endler, N.(1977)Interactionalpsychol- ogy: Present status and futureprospects. In D. Magnusson & N.Endler(Eds.),Personalityatthecrossroads:Current issuesin interactionalpsychology(pp.3-35).Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum. McClelland, D. (1985)How motives, skills, and values deter- minewhatpeopledo.AmericanPsychologist,40,812- 825. McCoy,C,(1985) Managementofvalues.Marshfield,MA: Pitman. Miner, A.(1987)Idiosyncraticjobs in formal organizations. AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,32,327-351. Mischel,W.(1968) Personalityandassessment.NewYork: Wiley. Mischel, W. (1977)The interactionof person and situation. In D.Magnusson& N. S.Endler (Eds.), Personality atthe crossroads:Current issuesin interactionalpsychology(pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum. Mischel, W.,& Peake,P. K. (1982)Beyond d6j&vuinthe search for cross-situationalconsistency. Psychological Re- view,89, 730-755. Monson, T. C., Hesley, J. W., & Chernick, L. (1982)Specify- ing when personality traitscan and cannot predict behav- ior: An alternative to abandoningthe attempt to predict single-act criteria. Journal of Personality andSocial Psy- chology, 43, 385-399. Moos, R. H.(1973) Conceptualizations ofhumanenviron- ments. American Psychologist, 28, 652-665. Morse, J. (1975)Person-job congruenceandindividual ad- justment.Human Relations, 28, 841-861. Mortimer,J., & Lorence, J. (1979)Work experience andoc- cupational valuesocialization. American Journal of Soci- ology, 84, 1361-1385. Neiner, A.,& Owens, W. (1985)Using biodata to predict job choice among collegegraduates. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 70, 127-136. Nemeth, C.,& Wachtler, J. (1983)Creative problem solving as a resultof majorityversus minorityinfluence. European Journal of Social Psychology,13, 45-55. Nunnally, J. (1967)Psychometrictheory. New York:McGraw- Hill. O'Reilly,C. (1977)Personality-jobfit:Implicationsfor individ- ual attitudes andperformance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 36-46. O'Reilly, C.(1983, August) Corporations,cults andorgani- zational culture:Lessons from Silicon Valley firms. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas. O'Reilly, C. A.,& Caldwell,D. F .(1981)The commitment and job tenure of new employees: Some evidence of post- decisional justification.AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 26, 597-616. O'Reilly, C. A.,& Chatman, J. A.(1986)Organization com- mitment andpsychologicalattachment:Theeffectsof compliance,identification, andinternalization onproso- cial behavior. Journalof Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. O'Reilly, C. A.,Chatman,J. A.,& Caldwell,D. F .(1988) People, jobs, and organizational culture. Workingpaper, Universityof California at Berkeley. Roberts,K. H., & Glick, W. (1981)The job characteristicsap- proach to task design: A criticalreview. Journalof Applied Psychology, 66, 193-217. Rokeach, M. (1973)The nature of human values.New York: F ree Press. Rothstein, M., & Jackson, D.(1980)Decision making in the employment interview: An experimental approach. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 65, 271-283. Rowe, D. (1987)Resolving the person-situationdebate: Invi- tation to an interdisciplinarydialogue. American Psychol- ogist, 42, 218-227. 348 Salancik, G.(1977)Commitmentandthe control of organi- zational behavior andbelief.In B.Staw& G.Salancik (Eds.),Newdirectionsinorganizationalbehavior(pp.1- 54). Chicago: St. Clair. Salancik, G.,& Pfeffer, J. (1977)Anexamination of need- satisfaction modelsofjob attitudes. Administrative Sci- enceQuarterly,22,427-456. Salancik, G., & Pfeffer,J. (1978)A social informationprocess- ingapproach to job attitudes andtask design.Adminis- trativeScienceQuarterly,23,224-253. Sarason,I.,Smith, R.,& Diener, E.(1975)Personality re- search: Components of variance attributedto the person andthesituation.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsy- chology,32,199-204. Schneider, B. (1983)Interactionalpsychology and organiza- tional behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Researchinorganizationalbehavior(Vol.5,pp.1-31). Greenwich, CT:JAIPress. Schneider, B. (1987)The peoplemake the place.Personnel Psychology,14, 437-453. Schmidt, F . L., & Hunter,J. E. (Eds.) (1981)Public personnel administration:Policiesandproceduresforpersonnel. New York:Prentice-Hall. Seybolt, J. W.(1976)Work satisfaction asafunction of the person-environment interaction. Organization Behavior andHumanPerformance,17, 66-75. Sigelman,L. (1975)Reporting the news: An organizational analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 132-151. Skinner,B.F .(1971) Beyondfreedomanddignity.NewYork: Knopf. Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Matwychk, A.(1988)Orienta- tions toward personnel selection: Differentialreliance on appearanceandpersonality.JournalofPersonalityand SocialPsychology,54,972-979. Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986)The disposi- tional approachtojob attitudes: Alifetime longitudinal test.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,31,56-77. Staw, B. M., &Ross, J. (1985)Stabilityin the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Ap- pliedPsychology,70,469-480. Stephenson, W. (1953)The study of behavior. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Swann, B. (1983)Self verification:Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A.Greenwald (Eds.), Psychologicalperspectivesontheself(Vol.2,pp.132- 151).Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum. Terborg, J. R. (1981)Interactionalpsychology andresearch on human behavior in organizations. Academyof Man- agementReview,6,569-576. Thorndike,E. (1906)Principlesof teaching. New York:Seiler. Tom, V.(1971)The role ofpersonality andorganizational imagesin therecruitingprocess.OrganizationalBehavior andHumanPerformance,6,573-592. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S.(1984)Occupational commu- nities: Cultureand control in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L.Cummings(Eds.),Researchinorganizationalbe- havior (Vol. 6, pp. 287-365). Greenwich, CT:JAIPress. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979)Toward atheory of or- ganizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research inorganizationalbehavior,(Vol.1, pp.209-264).Green- wich, CT:JAIPress. Weiner, Y. (1988)F orms of valuesystems: A focus on orga- nizational effectiveness and culture changemaintenance. AcademyofManagementReview,13, 534-545. Weiss, H. (1978)Social learning of work valuesin organiza- tions.Journalof AppliedPsychology,63,711-718. Weiss, H., & Adler, S. (1984)Personality and organizational behavior.In B. M.Staw& L. L. Cummings(Eds.), Re- searchinorganizationalbehavior(Vol.6,pp.711-718). Greenwich, CT:JAIPress. Whyte, W. F . (1959)Man and organization. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Wilensky,H. (1964)The professionalizationof everyone? The AmericanJournalofSociology,70,137-158. JenniferA.Chatman(Ph.D.,UniversityofCalifornia, Berkeley)is an AssistantProfessorof OrganizationBe- havioratNorthwesternUniversity.Correspondence regardingthis articlecanbesentto heratthe Kellogg GraduateSchoolof Management,NorthwesternUni- versity,Evanston,IL 60208.Theauthorwouldliketo thankRobertBies,ElizabethMannix,andDenise Rousseaufortheirinsightfulcommentsonearlier draftsofthis paper. 349