Source 7

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 68, No. 3, 222–251 1065-9293/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000065
EVALUATING FIT IN EMPLOYEE

SELECTION: BELIEFS ABOUT HOW,
WHEN, AND WHY
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Kevin P. Nolan Kristina Langhammer

Hofstra University Stockholm University
Nicholas P. Salter
Ramapo College of New Jersey
Research strongly supports the use of standardized assessment methods, like structured
interviews, to evaluate applicants. Many practitioners, however, continue to prefer
unstructured and intuition-based approaches to employee selection. Nonstandardized
assessment methods compromise the reliability and predictive validity of employee-
selection systems and expose the hiring process to the idiosyncratic beliefs and biases of
decision makers. To better understand practitioners’ beliefs about decision making for
employee selection, this study examines (a) the effects of standardization on the
perceived usefulness of assessment methods for evaluating applicants fit with the job
(person–job [PJ] fit) and the organization (person– organization [PO] fit); (b) the effects
of work proximity on beliefs about the importance of evaluating PJ and PO fit for
employee selection; and (c) beliefs about the work-related outcomes that are influenced
by PJ and PO fit. Study results provide insight concerning how, when, and why those
who make hiring decisions believe these forms of compatibility should be evaluated
during employee selection. Suggestions for how this information may be used to help
consulting psychologists design employee-selection systems that are more attractive to
use, yet retain the predictive validity and legal defensibility of traditional standardized
approaches, are offered.
Keywords: employee selection, person– organization fit, person–job fit
Research strongly supports the use of standardized assessment methods, like structured interviews,
to evaluate applicants (Highhouse & Kostek, 2010; McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994;
Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Many practitioners,1 however, continue to prefer unstructured and
intuition-based approaches to hiring (Boatman & Erker, 2012; Ryan, McFarland, & Shl, 1999;
Kevin P. Nolan, Department of Psychology, Hofstra University; Kristina Langhammer, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Stockholm University; Nicholas P. Salter, Department of Psychology, Ramapo College of New Jersey.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kevin P. Nolan, Department of Psychology,
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549. E-mail: kevin.p.nolan@hofstra.edu
1
The term “practitioners” is used to refer to those who practice employee selection. Positions subsumed
under this term include, but are not limited to, front-line supervisors, managers, and HR professionals.
222
FIT IN EMPLOYEE SELECTION 223
Simola, Taggar, & Smith, 2007; van der Zee, Bakker, & Bakker, 2002). The unstructured interview,
for example, has remained the predominate approach to employee selection for over a century
(Buckley, Norris, & Wiese, 2000; Dana, Dawes, & Peterson, 2013; Dipboye, 1997; Ryan et al.,
1999). Likewise, organizations that formally adopted standardized hiring practices commonly report
that their practitioners are not adhering to the structure of the practices as intended (Boatman &
Erker, 2012). Rynes (2012) reviewed the gaps between research and practice in industrial-
organizational psychology, human-resource management, and other related fields, and concluded
that “one of the most widely documented and persistent of these gaps involves practitioner
preferences for using intuitive methods of selection, particularly nonstandardized employment
interviews, over standardized predictors” (p. 412).
The lack of structure that characterizes nonstandardized approaches to hiring compromises the
reliability and predictive validity of employee-selection systems (Conway, Jako, & Goodman, 1995;
Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994) and exposes the hiring process to the idiosyncratic beliefs and biases of
decision makers (Arthur, Bell, Villado, & Doverspike, 2006; Judge, Cable, & Higgins, 2000).
Consequently, it is in the best interest of consulting psychologists to understand the factors that
contribute to practitioners’ continued preference for nonstandardized employee-selection practices.
Few inroads, however, have been made to understanding practitioners’ beliefs about hiring methods
and processes (Anderson, 2005; Diab, Pui, Yankelevich, & Highhouse, 2011).
This study examines practitioners’ beliefs about evaluating person–job (PJ) fit and person–
organization (PO) fit for employee selection. PJ fit refers to the compatibility or match between an
applicant’s attributes (e.g., knowledge, skills, abilities) and the attributes that are required to perform
job demands (Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996). This form of congruence is the basis for traditional
approaches to employee selection in which hiring decisions are determined by the extent to which
applicants possess requisite qualities (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). The standardized methods
of assessment that are supported by empirical research are typically designed to provide information
about PJ fit (Anderson, Lievens, van Dam, & Ryan, 2004; Arthur et al., 2006; Bowen, Ledford, &
Nathan, 1991; Guion, 1998). PO fit, on the other hand, refers to the level of congruence between an
applicant’s attributes (e.g., personality, values, goals) and the attributes that characterize an orga-
nization’s unique work environment (Chatman, 1989; Ryan & Schmit, 1996; Vancouver & Schmitt,
1991). This form of congruence addresses the compatibility between an applicant and an organi-
zation’s culture/climate (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). It has been suggested that
practitioners’ preference for nonstandardized methods of assessment can be attributed to their desire
to evaluate PO fit (Dipboye, 1994).2
By examining (a) the effects of standardization on the perceived usefulness of assessment
methods for evaluating PJ and PO fit, (b) the effects of work proximity on the perceived importance
of evaluating PJ and PO fit, and (c) the work-related outcomes that are perceived to be influenced
by PJ and PO fit, this study provides insight into practitioners’ beliefs about how, when, and why
these forms of congruence should be evaluated during employee selection. Understanding practi-
tioners’ beliefs about decision making for employee selection is an important first step toward
effectively promoting the adoption of standardized hiring practices (Diab et al., 2011; Highhouse,
2008). This information can help consulting psychologists design and implement employee-
selection systems that are more attractive to use, yet retain the predictive validity and legal
defensibility of traditional standardized approaches (Kuncel, 2008).
How to Evaluate PJ and PO Fit
Employee selection is governed by a set of legal and practical guidelines that require assessment
methods to be validated using criteria that represent “important or critical work behavior(s) or work
outcomes” (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], Civil Service Commission,
2
Although several standardized measures of PO fit have been developed, the use of these methods for
employee selection is quite limited (e.g., Arthur et al., 2006; Kristof, 1996).
224 NOLAN, LANGHAMMER, AND SALTER
Department of Labor, & Department of Justice, 1978, Section 14, B.3). Consequently, the kinds of
assessment methods that are supported by empirical research are those that evaluate attributes, like
cognitive ability and conscientiousness, which predict “work performance” and “production rate”
(Civil Rights Act [CRA], 1991; EEOC et al., 1978). Because they evaluate attributes that are
required to perform job demands, these assessments provide information about PJ fit (Anderson et
al., 2004; Arthur et al., 2006; Bowen et al., 1991; Guion, 1998). For the evaluation of PJ fit, research
has consistently demonstrated that assessment methods with standardized formats (e.g., structured
interviews, personality inventories) are more reliable and have greater predictive validity than their
nonstandardized counterparts (Conway et al., 1995; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994; Schmidt & Hunter,
1998).
Although the guidelines of employee selection require hiring decisions to be based on infor-
mation pertaining to PJ fit, research has shown that these decisions are also influenced by
practitioners’ evaluations of PO fit (Kristof-Brown, 2000; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990; Sekiguchi &
Huber, 2011). PO fit is related to a variety of work outcomes that are important to practitioners,
including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the quality of coworker relationships
(Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). These outcomes, however, are not
considered appropriate criteria for the validation of employee-selection practices according to the
guidelines of employee selection (Arthur et al., 2006; CRA, 1991; EEOC et al., 1978). Conse-
quently, the employee-selection practices that are supported by empirical research are not designed
to evaluate PO fit. For this reason, practitioners’ continued preference for nonstandardized methods
of assessment has been attributed to their desire to “achieve a good fit between hires and the context
of the job” (i.e., evaluate PO fit; Dipboye, 1994, p. 100).
A variety of factors have been offered to explain practitioners’ preference for nonstandardized
employee-selection practices (Highhouse, 2008; Johns, 1993). However, empirical research has
primarily examined a single factor— beliefs about effectiveness (Diab et al., 2011; Furnham, 2008;
König, Klehe, Berchtold, & Kleinmann, 2010; Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002; Ryan & Sackett,
1987; Terpstra, 1996; Terpstra & Rozell, 1997). Research on effectiveness beliefs has produced two
consistent findings. The first of these findings is that practitioners generally believe than nonstan-
dardized approaches to hiring are more useful than standardized alternatives. Terpstra (1996), for
example, surveyed 201 Human Resources (HR) executives and found that the traditional unstruc-
tured interview was perceived as a better predictor of future job performance than a variety of
standardized assessment methods with greater demonstrated predictive validity (e.g., structure
interviews, cognitive ability tests). Likewise, Diab et al. (2011) found that nonstandardized decision-
making practices were perceived as more useful and comprehensive than standardized practices for
employee selection. The second of these findings is that practitioners’ beliefs about the effectiveness
of employee-selection practices significantly influence their use of these practices to make hiring
decisions (Furnham, 2008; König et al., 2010; Ryan & Sackett, 1987; Rynes et al., 2002; Terpstra,
1996; Terpstra & Rozell, 1997).
Studies examining practitioners’ beliefs about effectiveness have typically defined the construct
in general terms. Diab et al. (2011), for example, operationalized the perceived usefulness of
assessment methods as “the hiring procedure’s ability to identify qualified and unqualified candi-
dates” (p. 211). Research, however, suggests that practitioners make meaningful distinctions
between applicants’ general employability, their PJ fit, and their PO fit (Adkins, Russell, & Werbel,
1994; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990). Evaluations of both PJ and PO fit are regularly formed during
employee selection (Cable & Judge, 1997; Kristof-Brown, 2000; Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011), and
each dimension of fit has been shown to account for a unique portion of the variance in practitioners’
hiring decisions (Kristof-Brown, 2000; Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011). The perceived usefulness of
assessment methods for evaluating PJ and PO fit, however, has not been empirically investigated.
Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that nonstandardized methods of assessment are perceived
as more useful for evaluating PO fit than standardized alternatives.
Research examining the influence of PO fit on hiring decisions has primarily evaluated this form
of compatibility using three nonstandardized assessment methods: resumes, social-networking
websites, and unstructured employment interviews. With resumes, information about extracurricular
activities is used to make inferences about applicants’ personality, interests, values, and behavioral
tendencies (Cable & Gilovich, 1998; Cole, Feild, Giles, & Harris, 2004; Kirkwood & Ralston, 1999;
Nemanick & Clark, 2002; Tsai, Chi, Huang, & Hsu, 2011). Similar dispositional inferences are
made from information about applicants’ appearance, endorsements, and activities posted on
social-networking websites (Brown & Vaughn, 2011; Caers & Castelyns, 2011; Davison, Maraist,
Hamilton, & Bing, 2012; SHRM Staffing Research, 2008). Unstructured employment interviews are
widely considered the preeminent approach for evaluating PO fit (Bowen et al., 1991; Judge &
Ferris, 1993). During these interviews, practitioners form perceptions of PO fit based on applicants’
physical appearance, self-monitoring tendencies, and their own idiosyncratic liking of applicants
(Adkins et al., 1994; Chen, Lee, & Yeh, 2008; Kristof-Brown, 2000).
Practitioners claim that the subjective nature of nonstandardized assessment methods allows
them to read between the lines and spot idiosyncrasies in applicants’ profiles that make them
inappropriate to hire (Highhouse, 2008; Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998). These assessments provide
information that is both job-relevant (e.g., experience) and job-irrelevant (e.g., physical appearance)
according to the guidelines of employee selection (CRA, 1991; EEOC et al., 1978), and they place
limited restrictions on what information can be used to evaluate applicants. Consequently, a wide
range of attributes relating to both PJ and PO fit may be subjectively considered. The information
provided by standardized methods of assessment, on the other hand, is typically limited to objective
measures of specific job-related attributes (Gatewood & Feild, 2001; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994).
Based on these differences, nonstandardized methods of assessment are expected to be perceived as
more useful for evaluating PO fit than standardized methods of assessment.
Hypothesis 1: Assessment methods with nonstandardized formats will be perceived as more

useful for evaluating PO fit than assessment methods with standardized formats.
Standardization has generally been recognized for its negative effects on practitioners’ evalu-
ations and use of employee-selection practices (Lievens & De Paepe, 2004; Lievens, Highhouse, &
De Corte, 2005; Lodato, Highhouse, & Brooks, 2011; van der Zee et al., 2002). Concerns have been
expressed regarding cost (König et al., 2010), lack of autonomy (Nolan & Highhouse, 2014), and
the ability to efficiently develop standardized techniques (Lievens & De Paepe, 2004). Research,
however, suggests that practitioners’ beliefs about the practicality and validity of hiring practices are
only moderately related (Furnham, 2008). The few studies that have examined practitioners’ beliefs
about validity indicate that standardization may have a positive effect on the perceived usefulness
of assessment methods for evaluating PJ fit. Furnham (2008), for example, asked practitioners to rate
the “validity” of 12 different assessment methods. The four methods of assessment perceived to be
most valid (i.e., assessment centers, cognitive-ability tests, work samples, job-knowledge tests) all
had standardized formats. Likewise, a survey conducted by Rynes et al. (2002) found that 70% of
HR professionals correctly endorsed the statement, “The most valid employment interviews are
designed around each candidate’s unique background” (i.e., are unstructured) as false. These
findings suggest that practitioners generally recognize the usefulness of professionally designed
assessment methods that use standardized formats and formal rating scales to objectively evaluate
job-related knowledge, skills, and abilities. Standardized methods of assessment are therefore
expected to be perceived as more useful for evaluating PJ fit than nonstandardized methods of
assessment.
Hypothesis 2: Assessment methods with standardized formats will be perceived as more

useful for evaluating PJ fit than assessment methods with nonstandardized formats.
When to Evaluate Fit

Information about both PJ and PO fit is generally valued during employee selection. The relative
levels of importance assigned to these dimensions of fit, however, can vary along with the
characteristics of job openings (Sekiguchi, 2007; Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). Sekiguchi and Huber
(2011), for example, found that the weight assigned to information about PJ fit was affected by the
contract duration and knowledge intensiveness of positions, whereas the weight assigned to
information about PO fit was only affected by contract duration. Literature on person– environment
fit has provided little guidance concerning the effects of workplace characteristics on the perceived
importance of fit dimensions during employee selection (Sekiguchi, 2007). The tenets of fit theory,
however, suggest that work proximity may affect the perceived importance of PJ and PO fit for
hiring purposes.
Arguments supporting the consideration of PO fit for employee selection typically address
outcomes that benefit organizations. These outcomes include increased organizational commitment
and citizenship behavior, as well as decreased absenteeism and turnover (Arthur et al., 2006; Bowen
et al., 1991; McCulloch & Turban, 2007). The social psychology theories used to explain the
benefits of PO fit, however, address personal rather than professional outcomes. They suggest that
people find it desirable to interact with others who share similar psychological characteristics
because doing so verifies their own beliefs, expressed behavior, and affect (Swann, 1987; Swann,
Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). Research generally supports these tenets, suggesting that PO fit is
positively related to people’s satisfaction with coworkers and supervisors (Kristof-Brown et al.,
2005).
Professionally, practitioners may value information about PO fit because it helps them hire
satisfied, committed workers. Personally, practitioners may value information about PO fit because
it helps them hire coworkers with whom they enjoy working. If PO fit is valued for purely
professional reasons, then the perceived importance of this dimension of fit should not be affected
by work proximity. That is, the same level of importance should be assigned to PO fit regardless of
whether practitioners expect to work together with or apart from the people they hire. However, if
PO fit is valued for personal reasons, then practitioners should assign a greater level of importance
to this dimension of fit when they expect to work together with rather than apart from the people they
hire. In accordance with the social psychological theories used to explain the benefits of PO fit (e.g.,
Swann, 1987), this form of congruence is expected to be perceived as more important when
practitioners believe they will work together with rather than apart from the applicants they hire.
Hypothesis 3: Information about PO fit will be perceived as more important when practitio-
ners expect to work together with rather than apart from the people they hire.
Proximity is expected to have the opposite effect on the perceived importance of PJ fit.
Practitioners who work together with the applicants they hire have opportunities to personally
mentor and provide them with on-the-job training. Under these circumstances, practitioners may be
willing to lower standards relating to PJ fit in order to hire applicants with whom they expect to
enjoy working (Guion, 1998). Practitioners who work apart from the applicants they hire, however,
are not capable of personally providing them with the same developmental opportunities. Conse-
quently, holding applicants to a high standard of PJ fit is essential for ensuring that newly hired
employees are able to perform the demands of their jobs well. For this reason, PJ fit is expected to
be perceived as more important when practitioners believe they will work apart from rather than
together with the applicants they hire.
Hypothesis 4: Information about PJ fit will be perceived as more important when practitio-
ners expect to work apart from rather than together with the people they hire.
Why Evaluate Fit

PJ fit refers to the level of congruence between a person’s knowledge, skills, and abilities and the
knowledge, skills, and abilities that are required to perform the demands of a job (Kristof-Brown &
Guay, 2011). Accordingly, practitioners are expected to value information about this form of
congruence because they believe it will help them predict aspects of work related to applicants’
future job performance (e.g., task performance, involvement with work). PO fit, on the other hand,
addresses trait and value congruence. The social psychology theories used to explain the benefits of
PO fit suggest that people enjoy interacting with others who share similar psychological character-
istics (Swann, 1987). Consequently, this form of congruence is expected to be valued for its ability
to help practitioners predict aspects of work related to applicants’ affective well-being (e.g., job
satisfaction, coworker relationships).
Hypothesis 5: PJ fit will be perceived as having a greater influence on work outcomes

pertaining to job performance than PO fit.
Hypothesis 6: PO fit will be perceived as having a greater influence on work outcomes

pertaining to affective well-being than PJ fit.
Method
Sample
A sample of 419 working Americans from over 30 occupations was recruited via Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing website that coordinates the supply and demand of tasks
requiring human intelligence (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Participants who reported
having no experience with employee selection (n ⫽ 223) were first removed from the data set. Then,
participants who failed to correctly respond to one or more of the reading-check items embedded in
the survey (n ⫽ 14) were also removed from the data set (Barger, Behrend, Sharek, & Sinar, 2011).
The final sample (n ⫽ 182) was primarily male (51%) and Caucasian (70%), with an average age
of 34 years and average job tenure of 5 years. Most participants (68%) reported working for small
organizations (i.e., ⬍500 employees), with approximately 56% indicating they held supervisory
positions (i.e., supervisor, assistant manager, manager). Although all participants in the final sample
reported having experience with employee selection, only 22% indicated they had received formal
training on the subject.3 The demographic characteristics of this sample are consistent with research
suggesting that most hiring decisions are made by supervisors who work for small organizations
(Aldrich & Von Glinow, 1991; Cardon & Stevens, 2004; Headd, 2010; Heneman & Berkley, 1999).
Design and Procedure

Following the procedure outlined by Nolan and Highhouse (2014), we randomly assigned partici-
pants to view one of two hiring scenarios which used the same introduction: “Imagine yourself in
the following situation . . . your company is looking to hire a new employee and they have asked
you to make this hiring decision.” In one scenario, participants were informed they would be
working side by side with the person they hired on a daily basis. In the other scenario, participants
were told they would have little or no interaction with the person they hired on a daily basis. This
methodology encourages participants to reference aspects of work that are most salient to them
while making the hiring decision, rather than imposing upon them detailed descriptions of a
hypothetical job at a hypothetical organization (Higgins, 1987; Nolan & Harold, 2010). After
reading the scenarios, participants reported their beliefs about the importance of evaluating PJ and
PO fit, the usefulness of assessment methods for evaluating PJ and PO fit, and the extents to which
work-related outcomes are influenced by PJ and PO fit. Study materials (i.e., stimuli and measures)
are provided in the Appendix.
Measures
Importance of evaluating fit. A 6-item measure was created to evaluate participants’ beliefs
about the importance of evaluating candidates’ fit with the employment opportunity. Participants
were presented with the introductory stem, “When making this hiring decision, how important is it
3
Hypotheses were tested twice—with and without controlling for self-reported formal training. No
substantive differences were found between the analyses. Because of the low base rate of formal training among
participants, the analyses conducted without controlling for formal training are reported.
to consider the level of fit between applicants’ . . .” The importance of evaluating PJ fit was
measured using a 3-item scale (␣ ⫽ .92) based on Kristof-Brown and Guay’s (2011) definition of
demands–abilities fit, which included the following items: “knowledge and the knowledge required
by the job,” “abilities and the abilities required by the job,” and “skills and the skills required by the
job.” The importance of evaluating PO fit was measured using a 3-item scale (␣ ⫽ .84) based on
Kristof-Brown and Guay’s definition of PO fit, which included the following items: “traits and the
traits of the people in the organization,” “values and the values of the people in the organization,”
and “goals and the goals of the people in the organization.” All responses were made using a 5-point
scale (1 ⫽ unimportant to 5 ⫽ very important).
Usefulness of assessment methods for evaluating fit. Participants were given written de-
scriptions of eight different assessment methods. These descriptions were modeled after those found
in popular textbooks on employee selection (Gatewood & Feild, 2001; Guion & Highhouse, 2006;
Landy & Conte, 2008). Four of the assessment methods were described as having standardized
formats (i.e., structured interviews, work samples, personality inventories, cognitive-ability tests),
whereas the other four methods were described as having nonstandardized formats (i.e., unstructured
interviews, resumes/cover letters, reference checks, social-networking websites). Participants were
asked to rate the usefulness of each assessment method for evaluating both PJ and PO fit. Beliefs
about the usefulness of the assessment methods for evaluating PJ fit were measured by asking, “To
what extent do you agree that the following methods are useful for evaluating the fit (or match)
between applicants’ qualities and the qualities that are required to perform the demands of a job?”
Beliefs about the usefulness of the assessment methods for evaluating PO fit were measured by
asking, “To what extent do you agree that the following methods are useful for evaluating the fit (or
match) between applicants’ characteristics and the characteristics that describe your organization’s
unique work environment (culture)?” Responses were made using two 5-point scales (1 ⫽ strongly
disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree), one for each dimension of fit.
Outcomes influenced by fit. Participants were given a list of 11 work-related outcomes and
asked to report their beliefs about the extents to which each outcome is influenced by workers’ levels
of PJ and PO fit. Four of the outcomes addressed aspects of work related to job performance (i.e.,
performance on formal job requirements, involvement with work, leadership, and physical health
[e.g., work-related illnesses, injuries]), whereas the other seven outcomes addressed aspects of work
related to affective well-being (i.e., job satisfaction, satisfaction with the organization, commitment
to the goals of the organization, tenure [i.e., years on the job], mental health [e.g., stress, depression],
prosocial behaviors performed outside one’s formal job requirements, and the quality of relation-
ships with coworkers). Beliefs about the influence of PJ fit on work outcomes were measured by
asking, “To what extent do you agree that the following on-the-job outcomes are influenced by the
fit (or match) between applicants’ qualities and the qualities that are required to perform job
demands?” Beliefs about the influence of PO fit on work outcomes were measured by asking, “To
what extent do you agree that the following on-the-job outcomes are influenced by the fit (or match)
between applicants’ characteristics and the characteristics that describe organizations’ unique work
environments (cultures)?” Responses were made using two 5-point scales (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to
5 ⫽ strongly agree), one for each dimension of fit. Bivariate correlations among study measures are
provided in Table 1.
Results
Hypothesis 1 posited that assessment methods with nonstandardized formats (e.g., unstructured
interviews) would be perceived as more useful for evaluating PO fit than assessment methods with
standardized formats (e.g., structured interviews). Hypothesis 2 posited that assessment methods
with standardized formats would be perceived as more useful for evaluating PJ fit than assessment
methods with nonstandardized formats. Given the nested nature of the data (i.e., assessment methods
nested within levels of standardization), a multilevel mixed-effect model was used to test the
hypotheses. In order to perform the analysis, the data set was arranged in person–period format
(Bliese & Ployhart, 2002). The model analyzed the extents to which participants’ beliefs about
usefulness were affected by the types of fit being evaluated, the assessment methods being used to
evaluate fit, and the levels of standardization within which the assessment methods were nested.
Results (see Table 2) suggest that perceptions of usefulness were significantly affected by the type
of fit being evaluated, F(1, 2847) ⫽ 11.49, p ⬍ .01, and the assessment method being used to
evaluate fit, F(6, 2847) ⫽ 27.68, p ⬍ .01. These main effects, however, were superseded by
significant interactions between type of fit and level of standardization, F(1, 2847) ⫽ 49.47, p ⬍ .01,
as well as type of fit and assessment method, F(6, 2847) ⫽ 52.61, p ⬍ .01. Regarding the interaction
between type of fit and level of standardization, simple effects analyses4 suggest that the nonstan-
dardized assessment methods (M ⫽ 3.61, SD ⫽ 1.12) were generally perceived as more useful for
evaluating PO fit than the standardized assessment methods (M ⫽ 3.39, SD ⫽ 1.15, d ⫽ .20, p ⬍
.05) and that the standardized assessment methods (M ⫽ 3.80, SD ⫽ 1.11) were generally perceived
as more useful for evaluating PJ fit than the nonstandardized assessment methods (M ⫽ 3.47, SD ⫽
1.18, d ⫽ .29, p ⬍ .05). These results provide support for Hypotheses 1 and 2, respectively.
Although the nonstandardized methods of assessment were generally perceived as more useful
for evaluating PO fit than the standardized methods of assessment, and the standardized methods of
assessment were generally perceived as more useful for evaluating PJ fit than the nonstandardized
methods of assessment, the significant interaction between type of fit and assessment method
suggests that these trends were not consistent across all of the individual assessment methods nested
within the levels of standardization. Simple effects analyses were therefore conducted to examine
differences in perceptions of usefulness within each type of fit across the various assessment
methods. Several comparisons that contradict the general effects of standardization on perceptions
of usefulness were identified.
Results suggest that personality inventories (M ⫽ 3.85, SD ⫽ 1.09)—a standardized method of
assessment—were perceived as significantly more useful for evaluating PO fit than resumes/cover
letters (M ⫽ 3.36, SD ⫽ 1.10) or social-networking websites (M ⫽ 3.37, SD ⫽ 1.23)— both of
which are nonstandardized methods of assessment. Furthermore, participants did not perceive
resumes/cover letters or social-networking websites to be any more useful for evaluating PO fit than
structured interviews (M ⫽ 3.40, SD ⫽ 1.19) or cognitive ability tests (M ⫽ 3.35, SD ⫽ .99)— both
of which are standardized assessment methods (see Table 3). Regarding perceptions of usefulness
for evaluating PJ fit, results (see Table 4) suggest that personality inventories (M ⫽ 2.93, SD ⫽ 1.15)
were perceived as significantly less useful than resumes/cover letters (M ⫽ 3.91, SD ⫽ 1.04),
reference checks (M ⫽ 3.81, SD ⫽ .98), and unstructured interviews (M ⫽ 3.60, SD ⫽ 1.04) for
evaluating this form of compatibility. Likewise, participants did not perceive structured interviews
(M ⫽ 3.87, SD ⫽ .99) or cognitive ability tests (M ⫽ 4.02, SD ⫽ .93) as any more useful for
evaluating PJ fit than resumes/cover letters or reference checks.
These findings suggest that standardization is not the only factor influencing practitioners’
beliefs about the usefulness of assessment methods for evaluating PJ and PO fit. Rather, perceptions
of usefulness are likely to depend on multiple factors including the level of standardization
characterizing the format of the assessment methods, the specific attributes the assessment methods
are designed to evaluate, and the medium through which evaluation occurs (e.g., observation,
interaction, survey). To provide further insight into practitioners’ beliefs about the usefulness of
assessment methods, simple effects analyses were also conducted examining differences across the
types of fit within each of the individual assessment methods. Results (see Table 5) suggest that
structured interviews, work samples, intelligence tests, and resumes/cover letters were perceived as
significantly more useful for evaluating PJ than PO fit. Conversely, social-networking websites,
unstructured interviews, and personality inventories were perceived as significantly more useful for
evaluating PO than PJ fit. The perceived usefulness of reference checks for evaluating these
dimensions of fit did not significantly differ (see Figure 1).
4
All simple effects analyses were conducted using the Bonferroni correction for family-wise alpha
inflation.
Table 1
Bivariate Correlations Among Study Measures
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Importance of evaluating
1. PJ fit —
2. PO fit ⫺.20ⴱ —
Useful for evaluating PJ fit
3. Structured interviews .18ⴱ .13 —
4. Work samples .30ⴱ .07 .31ⴱ —
5. Personality inventories .14 .18ⴱ .21ⴱ .04 —
6. Cognitive-ability tests ⫺.01 ⫺.02 ⫺.10 ⫺.08 .04 —

7. Unstructured interviews .23ⴱ .17ⴱ .12 .28ⴱ .23ⴱ .03 —

8. Resumes/Cover letters .29ⴱ .05 .35ⴱ .45ⴱ .06 ⫺.07 .06 —
9. Reference checks .26ⴱ .07 .07 .29ⴱ .18ⴱ ⫺.06 .11 .28ⴱ —
10. Networking websites ⫺.10 .18ⴱ ⫺.01 .01 .38ⴱ ⫺.05 .09 ⫺.02 .04 —
Useful for evaluating PO fit
11. Structured interviews .26ⴱ .09 .32ⴱ .11 .36ⴱ .06 .05 .16ⴱ .07 .12
12. Work samples .14 .25ⴱ .05 ⫺.04 .48ⴱ .04 .23ⴱ ⫺.01 .10 .31ⴱ
13. Personality inventories .20ⴱ ⫺.04 .37ⴱ .31ⴱ .08 ⫺.03 .11 .27ⴱ .30ⴱ ⫺.07
14. Cognitive-ability tests .09 .04 .06 .11 .05 ⫺.02 .12 ⫺.08 .08 .01
15. Unstructured interviews .17ⴱ .09 .25ⴱ .40ⴱ ⫺.16ⴱ .08 .23ⴱ .24ⴱ .15ⴱ ⫺.13
16. Resumes/Cover letters .27ⴱ .18ⴱ .18ⴱ .26ⴱ .26ⴱ .02 .26ⴱ .34ⴱ .19ⴱ .18ⴱ
17. Reference checks .14 .16ⴱ .17ⴱ
.32ⴱ
.17ⴱ ⫺.03 .13 .31ⴱ .38ⴱ
.14
18. Networking websites ⫺.01 .03 .15ⴱ .20ⴱ .01 ⫺.03 .05 .22ⴱ .20ⴱ .43ⴱ
Influence of PJ fit
19. Job performance .25ⴱ .08 .21ⴱ .49ⴱ ⫺.02 .04 .14 .40ⴱ .18ⴱ ⫺.11
20. Work involvement .33ⴱ .11 .16ⴱ .42ⴱ .13 ⫺.17ⴱ .10 .42ⴱ .31ⴱ .07
21. Leadership .21ⴱ .17ⴱ .13 .15ⴱ .19ⴱ .03 .10 .14 .21ⴱ .11
22. Physical health .14 .16ⴱ .12 .30ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.07 .17ⴱ .28ⴱ .20ⴱ ⫺.06
23. Job satisfaction .21ⴱ .31ⴱ .14 .34ⴱ .16ⴱ ⫺.06 .33ⴱ .20ⴱ .16ⴱ .03
24. Org satisfaction .14 .25ⴱ .06 .19ⴱ
.19ⴱ .07 .18ⴱ .10 ⫺.02 .25ⴱ
25. Org commitment .15ⴱ .31ⴱ .09 .16ⴱ .37ⴱ .06 .29ⴱ .13 .14 .15ⴱ
26. Job tenure .24ⴱ .16 .22ⴱ .46ⴱ
.08 ⫺.05 .26ⴱ .24ⴱ .21ⴱ ⫺.01
27. Coworker relationships .14 .20ⴱ .03 .04ⴱ .31ⴱ ⫺.01 .13 .07 .07 .28ⴱ
28. Prosocial behaviors .09 .20ⴱ .06 .02ⴱ .35ⴱ ⫺.07 .06 ⫺.07 .01 .27ⴱ
29. Mental health .09 .09 .15ⴱ .37ⴱ
.11 ⫺.04 .24ⴱ .22ⴱ
.21ⴱ
.01
Influence of PO fit
30. Job performance .25ⴱ .23ⴱ ⫺.10 .01 .23ⴱ .01 .24ⴱ .01 ⫺.01 .15ⴱ
31. Work involvement .28ⴱ .29ⴱ .13 .32ⴱ
.11 ⫺.02 .26ⴱ .18ⴱ .15ⴱ .10
32. Leadership .26ⴱ .12 .37ⴱ .31ⴱ .04 ⫺.01 .10 .28ⴱ .10 .14
33. Physical health .19ⴱ .19ⴱ
.08 .05 .21ⴱ ⫺.14 .05 .06 .07 .14
34. Job satisfaction .32ⴱ .17ⴱ .19ⴱ .36ⴱ .08 ⫺.03 .20ⴱ .21ⴱ .21ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱ
35. Org satisfaction .30ⴱ .18ⴱ .26ⴱ .49ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.01 .24ⴱ .33ⴱ .17ⴱ .01
36. Org commitment .27ⴱ .15ⴱ
.26ⴱ .51ⴱ ⫺.10 .02 .11 .27ⴱ
.17 ⫺.15ⴱ
37. Job tenure .15ⴱ .17ⴱ .23ⴱ .44ⴱ ⫺.01 .03 .27ⴱ .18ⴱ .13 ⫺.08
38. Coworker relationships .30ⴱ .06 .20ⴱ .34ⴱ .03 ⫺.08 .16ⴱ .26ⴱ .30ⴱ ⫺.09
39. Prosocial behaviors .14 .06 .18ⴱ .23ⴱ .11 .15 .21ⴱ .14 .20ⴱ .01
40. Mental health .24ⴱ .09 .16ⴱ .22ⴱ .07 .06 .13 .18ⴱ .11 ⫺.01
Note. PJ ⫽ person-job; PO ⫽ person-organization; Org ⫽ organizational.

ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
—
.32ⴱ —
.20ⴱ ⫺.11 —
.07 ⫺.02 .03 —
.11 ⫺.16ⴱ .30ⴱ .19ⴱ —
.38ⴱ .33ⴱ .05 .08 .15ⴱ —
.22ⴱ .08 .26ⴱ .04 .16ⴱ .30ⴱ —
.05 ⫺.08 .34ⴱ .06 .16ⴱ .07 .26ⴱ —
⫺.04 ⫺.18ⴱ .25ⴱ .07 .34ⴱ .09 .24ⴱ .18ⴱ —

.13 .15ⴱ .29ⴱ .08 .19ⴱ .19ⴱ .22ⴱ .12 .37ⴱ —
.21ⴱ .25ⴱ .10 ⫺.02 ⫺.01 .17ⴱ .19ⴱ .08 .22ⴱ .29ⴱ
.01 ⫺.01 .10 .09 .10 .16ⴱ .22ⴱ .16ⴱ .28ⴱ .27ⴱ
.21ⴱ .25ⴱ .17ⴱ .06 .25ⴱ .27ⴱ .25ⴱ .07 .31ⴱ .41ⴱ
.14 .32ⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 .11 .15ⴱ .02 .17ⴱ .13
.13 .43ⴱ ⫺.10 .01 ⫺.13 .19ⴱ .19ⴱ ⫺.10 .17ⴱ .31ⴱ
.10 .05 .29ⴱ .07 .16ⴱ .14 .23ⴱ .18ⴱ .34ⴱ .35ⴱ
.21ⴱ .40ⴱ ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.10 .13 .06 ⫺.05 ⫺.01 .21ⴱ
.13 .30ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.10 .06 ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.05 .09
.13 .05 .33ⴱ .09 .20ⴱ .11 .24ⴱ .11 .21ⴱ .34ⴱ
.11 .42ⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.06 .17ⴱ .08 ⫺.12 ⫺.07 .11
.17ⴱ .23ⴱ .11 .05 .21ⴱ .27ⴱ .22ⴱ .01 .23ⴱ .20ⴱ
.17ⴱ .14 .20ⴱ ⫺.04 .22ⴱ .28ⴱ .11 .21ⴱ .25ⴱ .24ⴱ
.16ⴱ .45ⴱ ⫺.10 ⫺.01 ⫺.07 .26ⴱ .18ⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.03 .13
.17ⴱ .10 .23ⴱ .06 .39ⴱ .24ⴱ .15 .01 .38ⴱ .31ⴱ
.11 .07 .24ⴱ .07 .34ⴱ .25ⴱ .24ⴱ .26ⴱ .44ⴱ .40ⴱ
.14 ⫺.04 .37ⴱ .02 .40ⴱ .18ⴱ .18ⴱ .17ⴱ .49ⴱ
.37ⴱ
.05 ⫺.05 .28ⴱ .05 .26ⴱ .11 .15ⴱ .15ⴱ .41ⴱ .22ⴱ
.00 .01 .31ⴱ ⫺.10 .30ⴱ .22ⴱ .26ⴱ .20ⴱ .39ⴱ
.38ⴱ
.11 ⫺.06 .39ⴱ ⫺.03 .38ⴱ .15ⴱ .24ⴱ .32ⴱ .30ⴱ .21ⴱ
.02 .15ⴱ .09 .06 .23ⴱ .16ⴱ .18ⴱ .05 .16ⴱ .16ⴱ
(table continues)
Table 1 (continued)
Measures 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Importance of evaluating
1. PJ fit
2. PO fit
Useful for evaluating PJ fit
3. Structured interviews
4. Work samples
5. Personality inventories
6. Cognitive-ability tests
7. Unstructured interviews
8. Resumes/Cover letters
9. Reference checks
10. Networking websites
Useful for evaluating PO fit
11. Structured interviews
12. Work samples
13. Personality inventories
14. Cognitive-ability tests
15. Unstructured interviews
16. Resumes/Cover letters
17. Reference checks
18. Networking websites
Influence of PJ fit
19. Job performance
20. Work involvement
21. Leadership —
22. Physical health .21ⴱ —
23. Job satisfaction .31ⴱ .26ⴱ —
24. Org satisfaction .20ⴱ .19ⴱ .39ⴱ —
25. Org commitment .20ⴱ .09 .29ⴱ .43ⴱ —
26. Job tenure .27ⴱ .25ⴱ .38ⴱ .28ⴱ .18ⴱ —
27. Coworker relationships .22ⴱ .06 .17ⴱ .30ⴱ .25ⴱ ⫺.01 —
28. Prosocial behaviors .09 ⫺.04 .12 .23ⴱ .26ⴱ .06 .42ⴱ —
29. Mental health .02 .28ⴱ .38ⴱ .20 .06 .30ⴱ .04 .16ⴱ —
Influence of PO fit
30. Job performance .10 .10 .21ⴱ .35ⴱ .36ⴱ .04 .40ⴱ .25ⴱ .16ⴱ —
31. Work involvement .30ⴱ .16ⴱ .40ⴱ .29ⴱ .28ⴱ .33ⴱ .09 ⫺.02 .20ⴱ .32ⴱ
32. Leadership .30ⴱ .27ⴱ .26ⴱ .22ⴱ .08 .34ⴱ .10 .06 .21ⴱ .12
33. Physical health .12 .18ⴱ .15ⴱ .27ⴱ .20ⴱ .04 .31 .26ⴱ .06 .45ⴱ
34. Job satisfaction .31ⴱ .27ⴱ .55ⴱ .25ⴱ .21ⴱ .47ⴱ ⫺.04 .02 .30ⴱ .11
35. Org satisfaction .27ⴱ .36ⴱ .41ⴱ .19ⴱ .10 .38ⴱ .08 ⫺.02 .37ⴱ .14
36. Org commitment .23ⴱ .29ⴱ .37ⴱ .16ⴱ .02 .36ⴱ .06 ⫺.14 .29ⴱ .04
37. Job tenure .27ⴱ .22ⴱ .36ⴱ .22ⴱ .05 .37ⴱ .05 .13 .28ⴱ .06
38. Coworker relationships .24ⴱ .23ⴱ .32ⴱ .01 .16ⴱ .35ⴱ ⫺.08 ⫺.01 .23ⴱ .11
39. Prosocial behaviors .12 .16ⴱ .17ⴱ .07 ⫺.01 .29ⴱ ⫺.05 .06 .30 ⫺.10
40. Mental health .14 .10 .30ⴱ .19ⴱ .11 .15ⴱ .09 .21ⴱ .41ⴱ .22ⴱ
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
—
.27ⴱ —
.22ⴱ .20ⴱ —
.50ⴱ .34ⴱ .12 —
.37ⴱ .38ⴱ .06 .47ⴱ —
.33ⴱ .41ⴱ .03 .48ⴱ .66ⴱ —
.26ⴱ .30ⴱ .06 .37ⴱ .40ⴱ .30ⴱ —
.42ⴱ .38ⴱ .10 .49ⴱ .52ⴱ .48ⴱ .27ⴱ —
.18ⴱ .29ⴱ .01 .26ⴱ .32ⴱ .33ⴱ .31ⴱ .35ⴱ —
.37ⴱ .29ⴱ .25ⴱ .34ⴱ .33ⴱ .22ⴱ .25ⴱ .32ⴱ .21ⴱ —
Table 2
Multilevel Mixed-Effect Model Results Examining the Effects of Standardization,
Assessment Method Nested Within Levels of Standardization, and Type of Fit on
Perceptions of Usefulness
Dependent variable Fixed effects F df p
Perceptions of usefulness Intercept 32,680.30 1 ⬍.01

Standardization 2.33 1 .13
Assessment (Standardization)a 27.68 6 ⬍.01
Fit 11.49 1 ⬍.01
Standardization ⫻ Fit 49.47 1 ⬍.01

Assessment (Standardization) ⫻ Fit 52.61 6 ⬍.01

Error 2,847
Note. Participant ID was entered as the SUBJECT term of the model to account for nonindependence in the
data set and to allow for each participant to have a unique set of parameter estimates.
a
Term indicates that the individual assessment methods were nested within levels of standardization. Due to the
small sample of assessment methods included in the study (i.e., four per level of standardization), this term was
used as a fixed, rather than random, effect adjusting for possible differences between assessment methods.
Hypothesis 3 posited that information about PO fit would be perceived as more important
when practitioners expected to work together with rather than apart from the people they hire.
Hypothesis 4 posited that information about PJ fit would be perceived as more important when
practitioners expected to work apart from rather than together with the people they hire. Using the
data set arranged in one-subject-per-row format, a mixed-model ANOVA was conducted to examine
the effects of work proximity and type of fit on practitioners’ beliefs about the importance of
evaluation. Results (see Table 6) suggest that perceptions of importance significantly differed
between the types of fit, F(1, 180) ⫽ 51.31, p ⬍ .01. This main effect, however, was superseded by
a significant interaction between work proximity and type of fit, F(1, 180) ⫽ 16.52, p ⬍ .01 (see
Figure 2). Simple effects analyses suggest that PO fit was perceived as significantly more important
to evaluate when practitioners expected to work together with (M ⫽ 3.79, SD ⫽ .78) rather than
apart from (M ⫽ 3.29, SD ⫽ 1.05, d ⫽ .54, p ⬍ .05) the person being hired and that PJ fit was
perceived as significantly more important to evaluate when practitioners expected to work apart
from (M ⫽ 4.41, SD ⫽ .71) rather than together with (M ⫽ 4.10, SD ⫽ .97, d ⫽ .37, p ⬍ .05) the
person being hired. These results provide support for Hypotheses 3 and 4, respectively.
Hypothesis 5 posited that PJ fit would be perceived as having a greater influence on work
outcomes pertaining to job performance than PO fit. Hypothesis 6 posited that PO fit would be
perceived as having a greater influence on work outcomes relating to affective well-being than PJ
fit. Given the nested nature of the data (i.e., specific outcomes, such as job satisfaction, nested within
categories of outcomes, such as affective well-being), a multilevel mixed-effect model was used to
test the hypotheses. The analysis was once again performed using the data set in person–period
format. This model examined the extent to which perceptions of influence were affected by the types
of fit, the individual work outcomes, and the categories within which the individual work outcomes
were nested (i.e., aspects of work relating to job performance, aspects of work relating to affective
well-being). Results suggest that perceptions of influence were significantly affected by the indi-
vidual work outcomes, F(9, 3982) ⫽ 26.47, p ⬍ .01 (see Table 7). This main effect, however, was
superseded by significant interactions between the types of fit and work-outcome categories, F(1,
3982) ⫽ 256.74, p ⬍ .01, as well as the types of fit and individual work outcomes, F(9, 3982) ⫽
32.90, p ⬍ .01. Regarding the interaction between the types of fit and work-outcome categories,
simple effects analyses suggest that PJ fit (M ⫽ 4.08, SD ⫽ .93) was generally perceived as having
a greater influence on work outcomes pertaining to job performance than PO fit (M ⫽ 3.58, SD ⫽
1.08, d ⫽ .50, p ⬍ .05) and that PO fit (M ⫽ 4.13, SD ⫽ .97) was generally perceived as having
a greater influence on work outcomes pertaining to affective well-being than PJ fit (M ⫽ 3.62, SD ⫽
1.08, d ⫽ .50, p ⬍ .05). These results provide support for Hypotheses 5 and 6, respectively.
Table 3
Simple Effects Analyses Examining Perceptions of Usefulness for Evaluating PO Fit Across Assessment Methods (I-J Mean Differences)
Assessment method (j)
Cover Social-networking Unstructured Structured Personality Intelligence
letters/Resumes Reference checks websites interviews interviews Work samples inventories tests
Assessment method (i) Mean (SD) 3.36 (1.10) 3.71 (1.04) 3.37 (1.23) 3.99 (.97) 3.40 (1.19) 2.97 (1.15) 3.85 (1.09) 3.35 (.99)
Cover letters/Resumes 3.36 (1.10) —

Reference checks 3.71 (1.04) .35 —
Social-networking websites 3.37 (1.23) .01 ⫺.34 —
Unstructured interviews 3.99 (.97) .63ⴱ .29 .62ⴱ —
Structured interviews 3.40 (1.19) .04 ⫺.31 .03 ⫺.59ⴱ —
Work samples 2.97 (1.15) ⫺.40ⴱ ⫺.74ⴱ ⫺.41ⴱ –1.03ⴱ ⫺.44ⴱ —
Personality inventories 3.85 (1.09) .49ⴱ ⫺.14 .48ⴱ ⫺.15 .45ⴱ .88ⴱ —
FIT IN EMPLOYEE SELECTION
Cognitive-ability tests 3.35 (.99) ⫺.01 ⫺.36ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.64ⴱ ⫺.05 .39ⴱ ⫺.50ⴱ —
Note. Analyses performed using Bonferroni correction for family-wise alpha inflation.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
235
236
Table 4
Simple Effects Analyses Examining Perceptions of Usefulness for Evaluating PJ Fit Across Assessment Methods (I-J Mean Differences)
Assessment method (j)
Cover Social-networking Unstructured Structured Personality Intelligence
letters/Resumes Reference checks websites interviews interviews Work samples inventories tests
Assessment method (i) Mean (SD) 3.91 (1.04) 3.81 (.98) 2.55 (1.14) 3.60 (1.04) 3.87 (.99) 4.40 (.79) 2.93 (1.15) 4.02 (.93)
Cover letters/Resumes 3.91 (1.04) —

Reference checks 3.81 (.98) ⫺.10 —
Social-networking websites 2.55 (1.14) ⫺1.36ⴱ ⫺1.26ⴱ —
Unstructured interviews 3.60 (1.04) ⫺.31 ⫺.21 1.05ⴱ —
Structured interviews 3.87 (.99) ⫺.04 .06 1.32ⴱ .27 —
Work samples 4.40 (.79) .49ⴱ .59ⴱ 1.85ⴱ .80ⴱ .53ⴱ —
Personality inventories 2.93 (1.15) ⫺.98ⴱ ⫺.88ⴱ .39ⴱ ⫺.67ⴱ ⫺.94ⴱ ⫺1.46ⴱ —
Cognitive-ability tests 4.02 (.93) .11 .21 1.47ⴱ .42ⴱ .15 ⫺.38ⴱ 1.08ⴱ —
NOLAN, LANGHAMMER, AND SALTER
Note. Analyses performed using Bonferroni correction for family-wise alpha inflation. PJ ⫽ person-job.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
Table 5
Simple Effects Analyses Examining Perceptions of Usefulness for Evaluating PJ and
PO Fit Within Assessment Methods
Mean difference
Assessment method PJ Fit (M, SD) PO Fit (M, SD) (PJ – PO) p
Cover letters/Resumes 3.91 (1.04) 3.36 (1.10) .55 ⬍.01

Reference checks 3.81 (.98) 3.71 (1.04) .10 .37
Social-networking websites 2.55 (1.14) 3.37 (1.23) ⫺.83 ⬍.01
Unstructured interviews 3.60 (1.04) 3.99 (.97) ⫺.40 ⬍.01
Structured interviews 3.87 (.99) 3.40 (1.19) .47 ⬍.01
Work samples 4.40 (.79) 2.97 (1.15) 1.43 ⬍.01

Personality inventories 2.93 (1.15) 3.85 (1.09) ⫺.92 ⬍.01

Cognitive-ability tests 4.02 (.93) 3.35 (.99) .66 ⬍.01
Note. Analyses performed using Bonferroni correction for family-wise alpha inflation. PJ ⫽ person-job; PO ⫽
person-organization.
Although PJ fit was generally perceived as having a greater influence on work outcomes
pertaining to job performance than PO fit, and PO fit was generally perceived as having a greater
influence on work outcomes pertaining to affective well-being than PJ fit, the significant interaction
between the types of fit and individual work outcomes suggests that these trends were not consistent
across all of the individual work outcomes nested within the work-outcome categories (see Figure
3). Simple effects analyses were therefore conducted to examine differences across the types of fit
within each of the individual work outcomes. Results (see Table 8) suggest that PJ fit was perceived
as having a greater influence on performance on formal job requirements, involvement with work,
and physical health (e.g., work-related illnesses, injuries) than PO fit. Conversely, PO fit was
perceived as having a greater influence on prosocial behaviors performed outside one’s formal job
3.35
Intelligence Tests
4.02
3.85
Personality Inventories
Standardized
2.93
2.97
Work Samples
4.40
3.40
Structured Interviews
3.87
PO Fit
3.99 PJ Fit
Unstructured Interviews
3.60
Nonstandardized
3.37
Social-Networking Websites
2.55
3.71
Reference Checks
3.81
3.36
Resumes/Cover Leers
3.91
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Figure 1. The perceived usefulness of assessment methods for evaluating PJ and PO fit. PJ ⫽
person-job; PO ⫽ person-organization.
Table 6
Mixed-Model ANOVA Results Examining the Effects of Work Proximity and Type of
Fit on Perceptions of Importance
Dependent variable Source SS df MS F p ␩2
Perceived importance Between-subjects effects

Proximity .86 1 .86 1.30 .26 .01
Error 118.88 180 .66
Within-subjects effects
Fit 47.15 1 47.15 51.31 ⬍.01 .22
Proximity ⫻ Fit ⬍.01
15.18 1 15.18 16.52 .08

Error 165.40 180 .92
requirements, satisfaction with the organization, commitment to the goals of the organization, and
the quality of relationships with coworkers than PJ fit. The perceived influence of PJ and PO fit on
job satisfaction, leadership, mental health (e.g., stress, depression), and job tenure (i.e., years on the
job) did not significantly differ.
Discussion
Few inroads have been made to understanding practitioners’ beliefs about employee-selection
methods and processes (Anderson, 2005; Diab et al., 2011). This study examined (a) the effects of
standardization on the perceived usefulness of assessment methods for evaluating PJ and PO fit, (b)
the effects of work proximity on the perceived importance of evaluating PJ and PO fit, and (c) the
perceived influence of PJ and PO fit on a variety of work outcomes. Results provide insight into
practitioners’ beliefs about how, when, and why these forms of compatibility should be evaluated
during employee selection. Understanding practitioners’ beliefs about decision making for employee
5.00
4.41
4.50
4.10
4.00 3.79
3.50 3.29
3.00
2.50
PJ Fit
2.00 PO Fit
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Together Apart
Proximity
Figure 2. The effect of proximity on the perceived importance of evaluating PJ and PO fit. PJ ⫽
person-job; PO ⫽ person-organization.
Table 7
Multilevel Mixed-Effect Model Results Examining the Effects of Work-Outcome
Categories, Individual Outcomes Nested Within Work-Outcome Categories, and Type
of Fit on Perceptions of Influence
Dependent variable Fixed effects F df p
Perceived influence Intercept 61,115.38 1 ⬍.01

Category 2.16 1 .14
Outcome (Category)a 26.47 9 ⬍.01
Fit .94 1 .33
Category ⫻ Fit 256.74 1 ⬍.01

Outcome (Category) ⫻ Fit 32.90 9 ⬍.01

Error 3,982
Note. Participant ID was entered as the SUBJECT term of the model to account for nonindependence in the
data set and to allow for each participant to have a unique set of parameter estimates.
a
Term indicates that the individual work outcomes were nested within categories of work outcomes. Due to the
small sample of outcomes included in the study, this term was used as a fixed, rather than random, effect
adjusting for possible differences between the individual outcomes.
selection is an important first step toward effectively promoting the adoption of standardized hiring
practices (Diab et al., 2011; Highhouse, 2008).
How to Evaluate PJ and PO Fit

Research has consistently demonstrated that practitioners’ use of assessment methods is meaning-
fully influenced by their beliefs about the effectiveness of the methods (Diab et al., 2011; Furnham,
2008; Terpstra, 1996). The results of this study provide a more nuanced understanding of these
beliefs by delineating overall perceptions of effectiveness into perceptions of effectiveness for
evaluating PJ and PO fit. Findings suggest that assessment methods with nonstandardized formats
were generally perceived as more useful for evaluating PO fit than assessment methods with
standardized formats and that assessment methods with standardized formats were generally
perceived as more useful for evaluating PJ fit than assessment methods with nonstandardized
formats. Several noteworthy exceptions to these trends, however, were observed when beliefs about
the usefulness of the individual assessment methods nested within the levels of standardization were
examined. The majority of these exceptions involved a single assessment method: personality
inventories.
Personality inventories—a standardized method of assessment—were perceived as significantly
less useful for evaluating PJ fit than resumes/cover letters, reference checks, and unstructured
interviews, and as significantly more useful for evaluating PO fit than resumes/cover letters and
social-networking websites—all of which are nonstandardized methods of assessment. These
discrepancies suggest that the level of standardization characterizing the format of assessment
methods is not the only factor influencing practitioners’ beliefs about the usefulness of the methods
for evaluating PJ and PO fit. Rather, these beliefs are likely to be influenced by the interplay of
multiple factors including the level of standardization characterizing the assessment format, the
attributes the assessment method is designed to evaluate, and the medium through which evaluation
occurs (e.g., observation, conversation, survey). Although personality inventories are a standardized
method of assessment, the attributes they evaluate (i.e., personality traits) are a core component of
PO fit. Consequently, practitioners’ perceptions of usefulness may have been more greatly influ-
enced by the attributes the assessment method was designed to evaluate than the level of standard-
ization that characterizes the method’s assessment format.
With the exception of personality inventories, results suggest that the nonstandardized assess-
ment methods were all perceived as either equal or better than the standardized assessment methods
for evaluating PO fit, and the standardized assessment methods were all perceived as either equal or
Task Performance 3.31

4.48
Job Performance
Involvement 3.97
4.26
Leadership 3.95
3.79
Physical Health 3.08

3.77
Job Sasfacon 4.12

4.15
Org Sasfacon 4.49 PO Fit

3.60
PJ Fit
Org Commitment 4.51

Aﬀecve Well-Being
3.48
Mental Health 3.80

3.96
Pro social Behaviors 3.90

2.87
Coworker Relaonships 4.31

3.34
Job Tenure 3.79

3.91
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Figure 3. Perceived influence of PJ and PO fit on work outcomes. PJ ⫽ person-job; PO ⫽ person-
organization; Org ⫽ organizational.
better than the nonstandardized assessment methods for evaluating PJ fit. These findings provide
some support for the idea that practitioners’ continued preference for nonstandardized assessment
methods is (at least partially) motivated by their desire to evaluate applicants’ fit with the “context
of the job” (Dipboye, 1994, p. 100). Furthermore, standardization has been typically recognized for
its negative effects on practitioners’ evaluations of employee-selection practices (Lievens & De
Paepe, 2004; van der Zee et al., 2002). The results of this study, however, suggest that standard-
ization was generally perceived to benefit the assessment of job-related knowledge, skills, and
abilities. Whereas nonstandardized assessment methods may be valued for their ability to help
practitioners “read between the lines to size up job candidates” (Highhouse, 2008, p. 337), the results
of this study suggest that standardized assessment methods are valued for their ability to help
practitioners establish the lines that distinguish qualified from unqualified candidates.
When to Evaluate PJ and PO Fit

The legal and practical guidelines that govern employee selection require hiring decisions to be
based on information pertaining to PJ fit (e.g., Arthur et al., 2006). Consistent with prior research,
however, the results of this study suggest that information about both PJ and PO fit was considered
important to evaluate during employee selection. Furthermore, the relative levels of importance
assigned to these forms of compatibility were found to be meaningfully affected by practitioners’
expectations about work proximity. PO fit was perceived as significantly more important to evaluate,
and PJ fit was perceived as significantly less important to evaluate, when practitioners expected to
work together with rather than apart from the person being hired. These findings are consistent with
the tenets of fit theory (e.g., Swann et al., 1992) and suggest that practitioners’ motives for
Table 8
Simple Effects Analyses Examining the Perceived Influence of PJ and PO Fit Within
Work Outcomes
Mean difference
Work outcomes PJ Fit (M, SD) PO Fit (M, SD) (PJ – PO) p
Task performance 4.48 (.79) 3.31 (1.04) 1.17 ⬍.01

Involvement 4.26 (.77) 3.97 (.83) .29 ⬍.01
Leadership 3.79 (.95) 3.95 (.96) ⫺.16 .11
Physical health 3.77 (.99) 3.08 (1.17) .70 ⬍.01
Job satisfaction 4.15 (.87) 4.12 (.86) .04 .70
Org satisfaction 3.60 (1.00) 4.49 (.78) ⫺.89 ⬍.01

Org commitment 3.48 (1.06) 4.51 (.80) –1.03 ⬍.01

Mental health 3.96 (.99) 3.80 (1.11) .16 .11
Prosocial behaviors 2.87 (1.14) 3.90 (1.10) –1.03 ⬍.01
Coworker relationships 3.34 (1.07) 4.31 (.81) ⫺.97 ⬍.01
Job tenure 3.91 (.90) 3.79 (.95) .12 .23
Note. Analyses performed using Bonferroni correction for family-wise alpha inflation. PJ ⫽ person-job; PO ⫽
person-organization; Org ⫽ organizational.
evaluating PO fit are not purely professional. Rather, standards pertaining to candidates’ ability to
perform job demands may be lowered in order for practitioners to hire people with whom they
expect to enjoy working.
Why Evaluate PJ and PO Fit

Beliefs about the work-related outcomes that are influenced by PJ and PO fit were examined to
provide greater insight into the factors that motivate practitioners to evaluate these forms of
compatibility during employee selection. PJ fit was generally believed to have a greater influence on
aspects of work pertaining to job performance than PO fit, and PO fit was generally believed to have
a greater influence on aspects of work relating to affective well-being than PJ fit. More specifically,
PJ fit was perceived as having a greater influence on performance on formal job requirements,
involvement with work, and physical health (e.g., work-related illnesses, injuries) than PO fit, and
PO fit was perceived as having a greater influence on prosocial behaviors performed outside one’s
formal job requirements, satisfaction with the organization, commitment to the goals of the
organization, and the quality of relationships with coworkers than PJ fit. Practitioners generally
agreed that job satisfaction, leadership, mental health (e.g., stress, depression), and job tenure (i.e.,
years on the job) were influenced by both PJ and PO fit to an approximately equal extent. These
findings provide insight into the outcomes that motivate practitioners to evaluate PJ and PO fit
during employee selection and suggest that these outcomes are considerably more varied than the
criteria that are considered acceptable by the guidelines of employee selection (Arthur et al., 2006;
CRA, 1991; EEOC et al., 1978).
Summary and Suggestions for Practice

Employee selection is governed by a set of legal and practical guidelines that require assessment
methods to be validated using criteria that represent “important or critical work behavior(s) or work
outcomes” (EEOC et al., 1978, Section 14 B.3). Consequently, the kinds of assessment methods that
are supported by empirical research are designed to evaluate PJ fit (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004). For
the evaluation of PJ fit, research has consistently demonstrated that assessment methods with
standardized formats are more reliable and have greater predictive validity than assessment methods
with nonstandardized formats (e.g., Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994). Many practitioners, however, con-
tinue to prefer nonstandardized approaches to employee selection (e.g., Rynes, 2012).
The results of this study suggest that practitioners are not necessarily opposed to assessment
methods with standardized formats. Standardization was generally perceived to have a positive
effect on the usefulness of assessment methods for evaluating PJ fit, and PJ fit was perceived to
influence a variety of important work outcomes including job performance and work involvement.
Rather, it appears that practitioners consider standardized assessment methods to be somewhat
limited with regard to the information they provide. In addition to PJ fit, practitioners also believed
it was important to evaluate PO fit when making the hiring decision— especially when they expected
to work together with rather than apart from the person being hired. Whereas PJ was perceived to
influence aspects of work related to job performance, PO fit was perceived to influence outcomes
relating to affective well-being, such as work attitudes and the quality of coworker relationships.
Regarding the evaluation of PO fit, practitioners generally believed that the nonstandardized
assessment methods were more useful than the standardized assessment methods.
Nonstandardized assessment methods may allow practitioners to subjectively evaluate a wide
range of information pertaining to PO fit. However, subjective evaluations of PO fit have been
historically used as surrogates for prejudice and bigotry in employee selection. Guion (1998)
reminds us that before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many employers and government officials
systematically denied employment to women and ethnic groups on the grounds that they would not
“fit in” their organizations (p. 360). For the consulting psychologists who design and implement
employee-selection systems, it is important to recognize both practitioners’ desire to evaluate PO fit
as well as the problems inherent with allowing hiring decisions to be based on subjective evaluations
of compatibility. Several suggestions for how employee-selection systems may be designed to
address practitioners’ desire to evaluate PO fit while minimizing opportunities for personal biases
to compromise the quality of hiring decisions are offered. These suggestions, however, should be
viewed as avenues for future research. The suggestions are as follows:
● Include standardized assessment methods that are both valid predictors of job performance
and perceived as useful for evaluating PO fit in employee selection systems. The results of
this study, for example, suggest that personality inventories—a standardized assessment
method with well-established relationships to job performance (Judge & Zapata, 2014)—
were perceived as highly useful for evaluating PO fit. Using these methods to evaluate
candidates adheres to the guidelines of employee selection and may lessen practitioners’
desire to evaluate PO fit using nonstandardized methods of assessment that expose the
hiring process to the idiosyncratic beliefs and biases of decision makers.
● Incorporate objective measures of PO fit in the application process. Dineen, Ash, and Noe
(2002) found that providing job seekers with objective feedback about PO fit significantly
affected their attraction to employment opportunities. Using objective measures of PO fit
during this stage of staffing adheres to the guidelines of employee selection, encourages job
seekers who lack fit with the culture of organizations to self-select out of the hiring process,
and may signal to practitioners that candidates have already been vetted for this form of
compatibility.
● Limit the extent to which hiring decisions are made by people who expect to work together
with the candidates who are hired. The results of this study suggest that practitioners’
motives for evaluating PO fit are not purely professional. Rather, standards relating to PJ fit
may be lessened in order for practitioners to hire candidates with whom they expect to enjoy
working. Allowing employee-selection decisions to be made solely by practitioners who
will work together with the people they hire may compromise the quality of staffing
decisions.
● Broaden the scope of traditional validation studies to include measures of the outcomes that
practitioners believe are influenced by PO fit (i.e., work attitudes, prosocial behaviors,
quality of coworker relationships). Research by Borman and Motowidlo (1997), for exam-
ple, suggests that the Hogan Personality Inventory—a standardized assessment—predicts a
variety of contextual criteria including teamwork and conflict resolution (i.e., relationships
among coworkers). Being able to demonstrate to practitioners that standardized methods of
assessment are useful for predicting not only job performance but also other criteria that are
important to them may serve to increase the attractiveness of standardized methods and
decrease their motivation to use nonstandardized approaches to hiring.
● In situations with adequate selection ratios, incorporate measures of PO fit (preferably

objective measures) into the later stages of employee-selection systems that use a multiple-
hurdle approach to hiring (Kuncel, 2008). Standardized methods of assessment should be
used during the early stages of these systems to objectively evaluate candidates’ job-related
knowledge, skills, and abilities. Those who advance to the later stages of these systems
should all have high levels of PJ fit—meaning they are all capable of performing job
demands well. Evaluations of PO fit taken during the later stages of the selection systems
could then be appropriately weighted and combined with information acquired during the
earlier stages to form overall evaluations of the candidates (Gatewood & Feild, 2001).
Limitations and Future Directions

Decision making is characterized by the data-collection methods and data-combination techniques

that are used to make predictions (Meehl, 1954; Sawyer, 1966). The results of this study are limited
to the influence of PJ and PO fit on data-collection practices (i.e., how information about candidates
is gathered). Similar research examining the influence of PJ and PO fit on decision making for
employee selection has focused exclusively on data combination (i.e., how information gathered
about candidates is coalesced to form overall evaluations; Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011). Future
research that integrates both aspects of decision making into a single study is needed to provide a
more holistic understanding of how employee selection is influenced by practitioners’ desires to
evaluate these forms of compatibility.
Fit theory has identified multiple forms of person– environment compatibility, including person–
vocation, person– organization, person–job, person– group, and person–person fit. This study is
limited to the two dimensions of fit believed to be most pertinent to employee selection (Jansen &
Kristof-Brown, 2006). Other dimensions of fit, however, may also influence practitioners’ hiring
decisions. Future research is needed to examine the extent to which these other dimensions of fit
affect employee-selection practices. Likewise, additional research is needed to understand how
practitioners form evaluations of the “environment” side of person– environment fit (e.g., organi-
zational attributes). The findings of this study are limited to the practices used to evaluate the
“person” side of person– environment fit.
Research has consistently demonstrated that practitioners’ use of employee-selection practices
is meaningfully influenced by their beliefs about the effectiveness of the practices (Diab et al., 2011;
Furnham, 2008; Terpstra, 1996). The extent to which practitioners’ use of employee-selection
practices is uniquely influenced by their beliefs about the usefulness of the practices for evaluating
PJ and PO fit, however, is unknown. The findings of this study are limited by a lack of behavioral
measures. Future research should include measures of behavior to provide a better understanding of
the extent to which use of employee-selection practices is influenced by beliefs about the effec-
tiveness of the practices for evaluating PJ and PO fit.
The level of standardization characterizing the format of assessment methods is unlikely to be
the only factor influencing practitioners’ beliefs about the usefulness of the methods for evaluating
PJ and PO fit. Rather, beliefs about usefulness are likely influenced by the interplay of multiple
factors including the level of standardization characterizing the format of assessment methods, the
attributes assessment methods are designed to evaluate, and the medium through which evaluation
occurs. Future research is needed to better understand how these factors combine to affect
practitioners’ evaluations and use of employee-selection practices.
References
Adkins, C. L., Russell, C. J., & Werbel, J. D. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection process: The role of work value
congruence. Personnel Psychology, 47, 605–623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01740.x
Aldrich, H., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1991). Business start-ups: The HRM imperative. In S. Subramony (Ed.),
International perspectives on entrepreneurship research (Vol. 18, pp. 233–253). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Anderson, N. (2005). Relationship between practice and research in personnel selection: Does the left hand know
what the right is doing? In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of
personnel selection (pp. 1–24). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Anderson, N., Lievens, F., van Dam, K., & Ryan, A. M. (2004). Future perspectives on employee selection: Key
directions for future research and practice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 487–501.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00183.x
Arthur, W., Jr., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-organization fit in
employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 786 –801.
Barger, P., Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., & Sinar, E. F. (2011). IO and the crowd: Frequently asked questions
about using Mechanical Turk for research. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49, 11–17.
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficients models: Model building,
testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 362–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
109442802237116
Boatman, J., & Erker, S. (2012). Global selection forecast: Know more: Guess less. Pittsburg, PA: Develop-
mental Dimensions International.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for
personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99 –109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327043hup1002_3
Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the job. The Executive,
5, 35–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.1991.4274747
Brown, V. R., & Vaughn, E. D. (2011). The writing on the (Facebook) wall: The use of social networking sites
in hiring decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 219 –225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-
011-9221-x
Buckley, M. R., Norris, A. C., & Wiese, D. S. (2000). A brief history of the selection interview: May the next
100 years be more fruitful. Journal of Management History, 6, 113–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000005329
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive,
yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1745691610393980
Cable, D. M., & Gilovich, T. (1998). Looked over or overlooked? Prescreening decisions and postinterview
evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 501–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.501
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of persons-organization fit and organizational
selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546 –561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.82.4.546
Caers, R., & Castelyns, V. (2011). LinkedIn and Facebook in Belgium: The influences and biases of social
network sites in recruitment and selection procedures. Social Science Computer Review, 29, 437–448.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439310386567
Cardon, M. S., & Stevens, C. E. (2004). Managing human resources in small organizations: What do we know?
Human Resource Management Review, 14, 295–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.06.001
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. The
Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349.
Chen, C. H. V., Lee, H. M., & Yeh, Y.-J. Y. (2008). The antecedent and consequence of person-organization fit:
Ingratiation, similarity, hiring recommendations and job offer. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 16, 210 –219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00427.x
Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102–166, 105 Stat. 1071 (Nov. 21,1991).
Cole, M. S., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Harris, S. G. (2004). Job type and recruiters’ inferences of applicant
personality drawn from resume biodata: Their relationships with hiring recommendations. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 363–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00291.x
Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F. (1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency
reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.80.5.565
Dana, J., Dawes, R., & Peterson, N. (2013). Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion.
Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 512–552.
Davison, H. K., Maraist, C. C., Hamilton, R. H., & Bing, M. N. (2012). To screen or not to screen? Using the
internet for selection decisions. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10672-011-9178-y
Diab, D. L., Pui, S., Yankelevich, M., & Highhouse, S. (2011). Lay perceptions of selection decision aids in U.S.
and non-U.S. samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 209 –216. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00548.x
Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A Web of applicant attraction: Person-organization fit in the
context of Web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 723–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0021-9010.87.4.723
Dipboye, R. L. (1994). Structured and unstructured selection interviews: Beyond the job-fit model. In G. Ferris
(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 12, pp. 79 –123). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Dipboye, R. L. (1997). Structured selection interviews: Why do they work? Why are they underutilized? In N.
Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 455–473). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique.
Oxford, England: Wiley.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department
of Justice. (1978). Adoption by four agencies of uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures.
Federal Register, 43, 38290 –38315.

Furnham, A. (2008). HR professionals’ beliefs about, and knowledge of, assessment techniques and psycho-
metric tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 300 –305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-2389.2008.00436.x
Gatewood, R. D., & Feild, H. S. (2001). Human resource selection. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College.
Guion, R. M. (1998). Some virtues of dissatisfaction in the science and practice of personnel selection. Human
Resource Management Review, 8, 351–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00004-2
Guion, R. M., & Highhouse, S. (2006). Essentials of personnel assessment and selection. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Headd, B. (2010). An analysis of small business and jobs. Washington, DC: Small Business Administration,
Office of Advocacy. Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/an%20analysis%20of%20
small%20business%20and%20jobs(1).pdf
Heneman, H. G., & Berkley, R. A. (1999). Applicant attraction practices and outcomes among small businesses.
Journal of Small Business Management, 37, 53–74.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319 –340.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 333–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1754-9434.2008.00058.x
Highhouse, S., & Kostek, J. A. (2010). Holistic assessment for selection and placement. In K. F. Geisinger, B. A.
Bracken, J. F. Carlson, J. C. Hansen, N. R. Kuncel, S. P. Reise, & M. C. Rodriguez (Eds.), APA handbook
of testing and assessment in psychology: Vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 565–577). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/14047-031
Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level
jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184 –190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.184
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 28, 193–212.
Jeanneret, R., & Silzer, R. (1998). An overview of psychological assessment. In R. Jeanneret & R. Silzer (Eds.),
Individual psychological assessment: Predicting behavior in organizational settings (pp. 3–26). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johns, G. (1993). Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from organizational
innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46, 569–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00885.x
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). The elusive criterion of fit in human resources staffing decisions. Ithaca,
NY: ILR Press, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2000). The employment interview: A review of recent research
and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 383–406. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00033-4
Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. (2014). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait
activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 58, 1149 –1179. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0837
Kirkwood, W. G., & Ralston, S. M. (1999). Inviting meaningful applicant performances in employment
interviews. Journal of Business Communication, 36, 55–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002194369903600103
König, C. J., Klehe, U., Berchtold, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Reasons for being selective when choosing
personnel selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 17–27. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00485.x
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and
implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person-
job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643–671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2000.tb00217.x
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person– environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American Psycho-
logical Association handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 3–50). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work:
A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 281–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Kuncel, N. (2008). Some new (and old) suggestions for improving personnel selection. Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 343–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-

9434.2008.00059.x
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2008). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational
psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lievens, F., & De Paepe, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of interviewer-related factors that discourage the
use of high structure interviews. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 29 –46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
job.246
Lievens, F., Highhouse, S., & De Corte, W. (2005). The importance of traits and abilities in supervisors’
hirability decisions as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78, 453–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26093
Lodato, M. A., Highhouse, S., & Brooks, M. E. (2011). Predicting professional preferences for intuition-based
hiring. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 352–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111138985
McCulloch, M. C., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Using person– organization fit to select employees for high-turnover
jobs. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 63–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2389.2007.00368.x
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment
interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599 –616.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.599
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Nemanick, R. C., Jr., & Clark, E. M. (2002). The differential effects of extracurricular activities on attributions
in resume evaluation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 206 –217. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/1468-2389.00210
Nolan, K. P., & Harold, C. M. (2010). Fit with what? The influence of multiple self-concept images on
organizational attraction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 645–662. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X465452
Nolan, K. P., & Highhouse, S. (2014). Need for autonomy and resistance to standardized employee selection
practices. Human Performance, 27, 328 –346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.929691
Ryan, A. M., McFarland, L., & Shl, H. B. (1999). An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture
as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 52, 359 –392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1744-6570.1999.tb00165.x
Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1987). A survey of individual assessment practices. Personnel Psychology, 40,
455–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00610.x
Ryan, A. M., & Schmit, M. J. (1996). An assessment of organizational climate and P-E fit: A tool for
organizational change. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4, 75–95. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/eb028842
Rynes, S. L. (2012). The research-practice gap in industrial/organizational psychology and related fields:
Challenges and potential solutions. In S. W. J. Koslowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial-
organizational psychology (pp. 409 –452). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource
practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41, 149 –174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10029
Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant “fit”: An exploratory investigation.
Personnel Psychology, 43, 13–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02004.x
Sawyer, J. (1966). Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 178 –200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0023624
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:
Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Sekiguchi, T. (2007). A contingency perspective of the importance of PJ fit and PO fit in employee selection.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 118 –131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710726384
Sekiguchi, T., & Huber, V. L. (2011). The use of person-organization fit and person-job fit information in making
selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 203–216. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.04.001
SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) Staffing Research. (2008). Online technologies and their
impact on recruitment strategies. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/
Documents/SNS%2520PresentationFinal.ppt
Simola, S. K., Taggar, S., & Smith, G. W. (2007). The employment selection interview: Disparity among
research-based recommendations, current practices and what matters to human rights tribunals. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 24, 30 –44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjas.4

Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 1038 –1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1038
Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 392–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.392
Terpstra, D. E. (1996). The search for effective methods. HRFocus, 73, 16 –17.
Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. J. (1997). Why some potentially effective staffing practices are seldom used. Public
Personnel Management, 26, 483–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009102609702600405
Tsai, W. C., Chi, N. W., Huang, T. C., & Hsu, A. J. (2011). The effects of applicant resume contents on
recruiters’ hiring recommendations: The mediating roles of recruiter fit perceptions. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 60, 231–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00434.x
Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: Organizational goal
congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00962.x
van der Zee, K. I., Bakker, A. B., & Bakker, P. (2002). Why are structured interviews so rarely used in personnel
selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 176 –184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.176
Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). Person-environment fit in the selection process. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 17, pp. 209 –243). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
(Appendix follows)
Appendix
Study Materials
Experimental Stimuli
Together Apart
Imagine yourself in the following situation . . . your Imagine yourself in the following situation . . . your
company is looking to hire a new employee and company is looking to hire a new employee and
they have asked you to make this hiring decision. they have asked you to make this hiring decision.
The person you hire will work side-by-side with You will have little or no interaction with the
you on a daily basis. person you hire on a daily basis.
Measures
Importance of Evaluating PJ and PO Fit

When making this hiring decision, how important is it to consider the level of fit between applicants’ . . .
knowledge and the knowledge required by the job? 1 2 3 4 5
abilities and the abilities required by the job? 1 2 3 4 5
skills and the skills required by the job? 1 2 3 4 5
traits and the traits of the people in the organization? 1 2 3 4 5
values and the values of the people in the organization? 1 2 3 4 5
goals and the goals of the people in the organization? 1 2 3 4 5
(Appendix continues)
Usefulness for Evaluating PJ Fit

To what extent do you agree that the following methods are useful for evaluating the fit (or match) between
applicants’ qualities and the qualities that are required to perform the demands of the job?
Cover Letters and Resumes do not necessarily follow a standardized
format. Cover letters communicate applicants’ beliefs about why
they should be hired for a job, and resumes provide information
about applicants’ educational backgrounds and work-related
experiences. You would review these documents and use the
information they provide to evaluate how well-suited each
applicant is for the job. 1 2 3 4 5
The format of an Unstructured Employment Interview is not at all
standardized. You decide which interview questions to ask to

applicants. You could ask different interview questions to
different applicants and could ask as many follow-up questions as

you like. During the interview, you could engage in as much or
as little “small talk” as you want with applicants. 1 2 3 4 5
There is no standardized approach for using Social-Media Websites
like Facebook.com or LinkedIn.com to evaluate applicants.
Instead, you would look through the applicants’ posts and
pictures and try to get a feeling for how well-suited each
applicant is for the job using the information that you collect
from these sources. 1 2 3 4 5
With Reference Checks, you would collect information about job
applicants from former employers or personal references.
Reference checks do not necessarily follow a standardized format.
You could ask questions about applicants’ character, experiences,
abilities, and/or willingness to rehire. Reference checks can be
conducted inperson, over the phone, or through letters and emails. 1 2 3 4 5
The format of a Structured Employment Interview is very
standardized. The interview questions that you ask to applicants
would be based on the results of a formal job analysis. You
would ask the same questions in the same order to each
applicant. During the interview, you would not ask follow-up
questions or engage in “small talk” with applicant. 1 2 3 4 5
Work Samples are assessments that require applicants to complete
some activity, either behavioral or verbal, under standardized
testing conditions. These activities are representative of job tasks,
equipment, etc. that are actually part of the job. 1 2 3 4 5
Personality Inventories are standardized assessments that are
designed to evaluate specific aspects of applicants’ character like
integrity, extroversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability.
These assessments typically ask respondents to use a multiple-
choice answer format to indicate personal information about
thoughts, emotions, and past experiences. 1 2 3 4 5
Cognitive-Ability Tests are standardized assessments that allow
individuals to show what they know, remember, understand, or
can work with mentally. They include problem identification,
problem-solving tasks, the development or evaluation of ideas,
and remembering what one has learned through general
experience or specific training. 1 2 3 4 5
Usefulness for Evaluating PO Fit

To what extent do you agree that the following methods are useful for evaluating the fit (or match) between
applicants’ characteristics and the characteristics that describe your organization’s unique work
environment (culture)?
Cover Letters and Resumes do not necessarily follow a standardized
format. Cover letters communicate applicants’ beliefs about why
they should be hired for a job, and resumes provide information
about applicants’ educational backgrounds and work-related
experiences. You would review these documents and use the
information they provide to evaluate how well-suited each
applicant is for the job. 1 2 3 4 5
The format of an Unstructured Employment Interview is not at all

standardized. You decide which interview questions to ask to
applicants. You could ask different interview questions to

different applicants and could ask as many follow-up questions as
you like. During the interview, you could engage in as much or
as little “small talk” as you want with applicants. 1 2 3 4 5
There is no standardized approach for using Social-Media Websites
like Facebook.com or LinkedIn.com to evaluate applicants.
Instead, you would look through the applicants’ posts and
pictures and try to get a feeling for how well-suited each
applicant is for the job using the information that you collect
from these sources. 1 2 3 4 5
With Reference Checks, you would collect information about job
applicants from former employers or personal references.
Reference checks do not necessarily follow a standardized format.
You could ask questions about applicants’ character, experiences,
abilities, and/or willingness to rehire. Reference checks can be
conducted inperson, over the phone, or through letters and emails. 1 2 3 4 5
The format of a Structured Employment Interview is very
standardized. The interview questions that you ask to applicants
would be based on the results of a formal job analysis. You
would ask the same questions in the same order to each
applicant. During the interview, you would not ask follow-up
questions or engage in “small talk” with applicant. 1 2 3 4 5
Work Samples are assessments that require applicants to complete
some activity, either behavioral or verbal, under standardized
testing conditions. These activities are representative of job tasks,
equipment, etc. that are actually part of the job. 1 2 3 4 5
Personality Inventories are standardized assessments that are
designed to evaluate specific aspects of applicants’ character like
integrity, extroversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability.
These assessments typically ask respondents to use a multiple-
choice answer format to indicate personal information about
thoughts, emotions, and past experiences. 1 2 3 4 5
Cognitive-Ability Tests are standardized assessments that allow
individuals to show what they know, remember, understand, or
can work with mentally. They include problem identification,
problem-solving tasks, the development or evaluation of ideas,
and remembering what one has learned through general
experience or specific training. 1 2 3 4 5
Outcomes Influenced by PJ Fit

To what extent do you agree that the following on-the-job outcomes are influenced by the fit (or match)
between applicants’ qualities and the qualities that are required to perform job demands?
Performance on formal job requirements 1 2 3 4 5
Involvement with work 1 2 3 4 5
Leadership 1 2 3 4 5
Physical health (e.g., work-related illnesses, injuries) 1 2 3 4 5
Job satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction with the organization 1 2 3 4 5
Commitment to the goals of the organization 1 2 3 4 5
Job tenure (i.e., years on the job) 1 2 3 4 5

The quality of relationships with coworkers 1 2 3 4 5

Prosocial behaviors performed outside one’s formal
job requirements 1 2 3 4 5
Mental health (e.g., stress, depression) 1 2 3 4 5
Outcomes Influenced by PO Fit

To what extent do you agree that the following on-the-job outcomes are influenced by the fit (or match)
between applicants’ characteristics and the characteristics that describe organizations’ unique work
environments (cultures)?
Performance on formal job requirements 1 2 3 4 5
Involvement with work 1 2 3 4 5
Leadership 1 2 3 4 5
Physical health (e.g., work-related illnesses, injuries) 1 2 3 4 5
Job satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction with the organization 1 2 3 4 5
Commitment to the goals of the organization 1 2 3 4 5
Job tenure (i.e., years on the job) 1 2 3 4 5
The quality of relationships with coworkers 1 2 3 4 5
Prosocial behaviors performed outside one’s formal
job requirements 1 2 3 4 5
Mental health (e.g., stress, depression) 1 2 3 4 5
Note. All items rated on a five-point scale, where 1 ⫽ Unimportant and 5 ⫽ Very Important.
Received November 4, 2015

Latest revision received February 19, 2016
Accepted April 26, 2016 䡲

Source 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2016 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 68, No. 3, 222–251 1065-9293/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000065

EVALUATING FIT IN EMPLOYEE

Kevin P. Nolan Kristina Langhammer

Keywords: employee selection, person– organization fit, person–job fit

How to Evaluate PJ and PO Fit

Hypothesis 1: Assessment methods with nonstandardized formats will be perceived as more

Hypothesis 2: Assessment methods with standardized formats will be perceived as more

When to Evaluate Fit

Why Evaluate Fit

Hypothesis 5: PJ fit will be perceived as having a greater influence on work outcomes

Hypothesis 6: PO fit will be perceived as having a greater influence on work outcomes

Design and Procedure

6. Cognitive-ability tests ⫺.01 ⫺.02 ⫺.10 ⫺.08 .04 —

7. Unstructured interviews .23ⴱ .17ⴱ .12 .28ⴱ .23ⴱ .03 —

Note. PJ ⫽ person-job; PO ⫽ person-organization; Org ⫽ organizational.

⫺.04 ⫺.18ⴱ .25ⴱ .07 .34ⴱ .09 .24ⴱ .18ⴱ —

Perceptions of usefulness Intercept 32,680.30 1 ⬍.01

Standardization ⫻ Fit 49.47 1 ⬍.01

Assessment (Standardization) ⫻ Fit 52.61 6 ⬍.01

Cover letters/Resumes 3.36 (1.10) —

Cover letters/Resumes 3.91 (1.04) —

Cover letters/Resumes 3.91 (1.04) 3.36 (1.10) .55 ⬍.01

Work samples 4.40 (.79) 2.97 (1.15) 1.43 ⬍.01

Personality inventories 2.93 (1.15) 3.85 (1.09) ⫺.92 ⬍.01

Perceived importance Between-subjects effects

15.18 1 15.18 16.52 .08

Error 165.40 180 .92

Perceived influence Intercept 61,115.38 1 ⬍.01

Category ⫻ Fit 256.74 1 ⬍.01

Outcome (Category) ⫻ Fit 32.90 9 ⬍.01

How to Evaluate PJ and PO Fit

Task Performance 3.31

Physical Health 3.08

Job Sasfacon 4.12

Org Sasfacon 4.49 PO Fit

Org Commitment 4.51

Mental Health 3.80

Pro social Behaviors 3.90

Coworker Relaonships 4.31

Job Tenure 3.79

When to Evaluate PJ and PO Fit

Task performance 4.48 (.79) 3.31 (1.04) 1.17 ⬍.01

Org satisfaction 3.60 (1.00) 4.49 (.78) ⫺.89 ⬍.01

Org commitment 3.48 (1.06) 4.51 (.80) –1.03 ⬍.01

Why Evaluate PJ and PO Fit

Summary and Suggestions for Practice

● In situations with adequate selection ratios, incorporate measures of PO fit (preferably

Limitations and Future Directions

Decision making is characterized by the data-collection methods and data-combination techniques

mental Dimensions International.

context of Web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 723–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

Federal Register, 43, 38290 –38315.

nizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 343–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-

Journal of Administrative Sciences, 24, 30 –44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjas.4

Importance of Evaluating PJ and PO Fit

Usefulness for Evaluating PJ Fit

standardized. You decide which interview questions to ask to

different applicants and could ask as many follow-up questions as

Usefulness for Evaluating PO Fit