Critically Analyzing Research Studies
November 21, 2018
In the first study, “Person-Organization fit”, the author seems to look at relationships between organization values and the work values of employees using the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) and person-organization fit (PO). Past research showed that when the priorities and values of an employee matched their organization, they are happy and likely to remain (Ostross, Shin & Kinick, 2015; DeCooman, DeGieter, Pepermans, Hermans, DuBois, Caers, & Jegers, 2009). More so, as an organization matures it will be occupied by people with similarities. After the initial organizational entry, there are three methods that can produce fit perception changes (Cooper-Thomas, van Vianen & Anderson, 2004; DeCooman et al., 2009). First, the value of employees can vary from socialization results, the perception of an organization’s values may change, and people can switch organizations (DeCooman et al., 2009). People can change their personality and value to the direction of the organization and may create an identity value, behavior, and attitude that corresponds with the culture of the organization.
In using the ASA model, people are attracted to organizations that present similar values as theirs, while organizations pick those who share this value, and those people who don’t fit into the organization will leave. The results from this process will govern the kind of employees wanted in a company. Nonetheless, attrition and socialization work together in shaping the work force of a firm, while socialization labels a force leading to departure and misfit (DeCooman et al., 2009). In other words, depending on the environment of the organization values in socialization theory while depending on their values, the individual leaves or stays in an organization with the attrition model (DeCooman et al., 2009).
In the second study, “Comparing Person Organization fit and Person Job fit”, the relationships between person-organization fit and person-job fit were examined as to which fit is related stronger to individual outcome. This study was established to see which type of fit has stronger relations with individual outcomes: person job fit (PJF) or person organization fit (POF) (Ard?ç, Oymak, Ozsoy, Uslu & Ozsoy, 2016). Despite the rising amount of studies done on PJF and POF, there isn’t enough findings about comparing them in relationship context on organization and individual outcomes. More so, not much is known about which fit has a stronger relation with individual variables. PJF can be defined as the match or congruence between an individual’s characteristics and those of the task or job achieved at work (Lee, Reiche & Song 2010; Ardic et al., 2016). PJF is also studied in two main viewpoints with one fitting an employee’s desire, preference and need with the job and the other matching the employee’s ability, skills, and knowledge with requirements of the job.
In the third study, “Linking person-job fit to job stress”, the authors look at the detail of person-job fit and the importance of person-organization fit to assist organizations in reducing high amount of individuals being poorly fit to a job (Deniz, Noyan, & Ertosun, 2015). Work commitment was previously shown to be related with organizational and individual functions positively. However, when suitability of an employee isn’t matched to a job, elevations in stress can cause damage mentally. This can also decrease the capability of the individual executing the tasks. Work stress and employee performance are common today. When people change jobs, it is sometimes linked to high stress that can affect their well-being. This stress may be rooted in the individual’s incompatibility on the job requirement and actually performing the job (Deniz et al., 2015). To reduce this issue using careful attention was given to person-organization fit at the time of assessment/interview phase and employees can be selected to adapt to change and efficiently work in preventing the negatives of high stress (Deniz et al., 2015).
Hypothesis of the Study
In the first study, three hypotheses were formulated that compared the values of employees across various points in time thus indicating the degree of socialization. These hypothesis from DeCooman et al., (2009) are as follows:
Work values at entry differs from work values after staying with an organization for two years. 2) Compared to entry, the P-O fit is higher after staying with an organization for two years and 3) the likelihood that an individual leaves an organization relates inversely to the perceived P-O fit when entering.
The second study had two hypothesis that were formulated to answer the question: which type of fit associates stronger with individual outcome (Ard?ç et al., 2016). The hypotheses of this study are as follows:
Hypothesis 1 states POF is associated with PIP (perceived individual performance) and stronger than POF and hypothesis 2 states the relationships of POF and PJF with IQJ are not statistically different.
The third study showed that relevant literature was analyzed along with statistical techniques and models to test similarities in the variables of job stress, person-job fit and the outcome of organization-person (Deniz et al., 2015). With that being said, the question arose of “is there any relationship between job-stress and person job fit and what is the mediating role of the perceived organization-person fit on this relation?” (Deniz, 2015, p. 30). More so, it’s vital fora companies to thoroughly consider each candidates requirements and what will be the outcome. From this, the authors created two main hypothesis for testing and formulating as listed below.
Hypothesis 1 states there is significant relationship between person-job fit and job stress while hypothesis 2 states the perceived organization-person fit has a mediating role on the relation between person-job fit and job stress (Deniz, 2015).
In assessing the research design “Person-Organization fit” article used 140 respondents in a two-year time interval using a longitudinal study (DeCooman et al., 2009). The study collected data using a two-stage process. In November 2004, 241 young women and men were questioned using a postal questionnaire about demographic and work values on context of research on a teacher’s occupational interest (DeCooman et al., 2009). These men and women had recently graduated in summer of 2004 as teachers and were questioned within the first months of working. Time 2 began in February of 2007 and 142 respondents had submitted a follow-up questionnaire either by mail or phone. Two of the questionnaires were incorrectly submitted and removed from the study, leaving 140 respondents in the time 2 study. As DeCooman et al., (2009) notes, “this time frame to be long enough to identify results of either ASA or socialization processes” (p. 104). The respondents vary in ages 23-37 with majority of the sample (72%) being female. More so, the time 2 questionnaire included items about the person-organization fit and in regard to the work situation, there were 100 respondents who stayed in the same company, 32 changed organizations, and 8 who were unemployed and no longer included as respondents in the analysis (DeCooman et al., 2009).
In assessing the research design for “Comparing Person Organization fit and Person Job fit”, data was collected through valid scales that were previously used, the questionnaires contained 19 items and the samples taken from security officers in the civil aviation safety sector in a private security company (Ard?ç et al., 2016). The questionnaires were handed to voluntary workers only and 98 questionnaires were attained. More so, only security workers who had one year or more working experience with the same organization and same job were intentionally included. To collect data, the random sampling method was used (Ard?ç et al., 2016). Results in meta-analysis indicate POF has low correlations with task performance and job performance but has moderate correlational with contextual performance (Kristof-Brown, 2006; Ard?ç et al., 2016). Furthermore, the research suggests it useful to compare person-organization fit and person job fit with individual outcome instead of looking solely at their relationships. It also expected that “PIP should be associating with PJF stronger than POF” (Ard?ç et al, 2016, p. 7) and it’s believed more context studies will assist in understanding the two variables concept better. Lastly, most participants that held a high school degree were less than 35 years of age, over half were male, and 25% were new at their job (Ard?ç et al., 2016).
In assessing the research design for “Linking person-job fit to job stress”, data was collected of various sectors and sizes from organizations with 135 questionnaires completed. Frequency analysis revealed the demographics with the respondent’s gender close to equal in men and women, 29% of them married, and only 8.1% of the participants aged 41 and above, with 88.9% having at least a bachelor’s degree (Deniz et al., 2015). Furthermore, most of the participants working as supervisors or middle managers. The researchers also prepared the demographic properties which were asked to the participants and the questionnaire established from previous studies. The constructs were taken with a 5-point Likert scale extending from strongly disagree to strongly agree and the scales composed of nine dimensions (Deniz et al., 2015).
Interpretation of Data
In evaluating the study’s design for “Person-Organization fit”, the three hypothesis were tested. In hypothesis 1, a paired samples T-test was used with results indicating the “stayers” in an organization had statistically differed from the Time 1 and Time 2 on four dimensions (DeCooman et al., 2009). Those dimensions were financial security, recognition, career and leadership, and social science, Hypothesis 2 was also tested with paired samples T-test and it was assumed the person-organization fit for people who stayed at the same job would increase in Time 2 than Time 1. The results from this indicated “statistically significant difference in perceived P-O fit between T1R and T2” (DeCooman et al., 2009, p. 104) and the ones who stayed in the organization P-O fit rose with tenure, as expected by the socialization perspective. With hypothesis 3, a one predictor logistics version fitted with the data that regarded relationships of the likelihood an individual left the organization and their insight of P-O fit at the Time 1R. Logistic regression analysis was best used for testing and describing hypotheses on the relations of continuous predictor variable and categorical outcome variable. The model showed the odds of a person leaving their organization was related negatively to the perceived person-organization fit (DeCooman et al., 2009). In other words, if the perceived P-O fit is lower when starting in the organization, the higher the chance that somebody left. Since the off ratio was found to be .489, this illustrates people with low P-O fit were 2.045 times likely to leave the company than people with a higher perceived P-O fit. (DeCooman et al., 2009).
In evaluating the study’s design for “Comparing Person Organization fit and Person Job fit”, the findings showed that hypothesis 1 was not supported and hypothesis 2 was supported (Ard?ç et al., 2016). It was expected that PJF has a stronger association with PIP than POF and that the PIP was not the same as task performance. This may be the reason why hypothesis 1 was a reject. The analysis also showed complication in distinguishing PJF ; POF as the correlation coefficient for both when PIP was similar (Ard?ç et al., 2016). Nonetheless, even with the difference levels of PJF ; POF, the individual outcome relationship isn’t considerably different. Aside from the fit consequences, no new discoveries were gathered other than the comparison of PJF and POF, which is critical for individuals and organizations. The only limitation of the study according to Ardiç et al (2016) “was the sample size” (p. 10). Due to limited employees in the company’s safety department it is difficult to raise the size of the sample. More so, the questionnaire was short in length on purpose and focused on not losing motivation from the participants. With that being said, there can be measurement issues due to the limited amount of items however, the PIP was assessed on the employee’s own perception which can result in subjective participant evaluation (Ardiç et al., 2016).
In evaluating the design for “Linking person-job fit to job stress”, the SPSS software 18.0 was used for the evaluation of data (Deniz et al., 2015). Regression and correlation analysis were conducted to determine the study’s hypothesis. For validity, factor analysis was used (Deniz et al., 2015) and reliability of scales estimated by the Cronbach alpha scale. When mediating relationships were viewed, hypothesis 1 and 2 were supported. Findings illustrate workload and person-organization fit have zero effect on one another but job stress and person-job fit have a significant relationship statistically (Deniz et al., 2015). In other words, person-job fit (PJF) has direct possession on the dimensions of job stress while social support is only affected by the unfitness of person-job. The results also show that a substantial factor is regarded to person-job fit for employee adjustment to a company and minimizing job stress. The organizations that look at “person-job fit and thorough adjustment programs of employees will experience increased performance levels and low staff dissatisfaction and turnover” (Deniz et al., 2015, p. 375).
Upon interpretation of the data, a few critical questions have arisen. First, if the samples were larger, do the researcher believe the data may have a significant change? More so, what made the researchers chose this select or limited group? Could there have been another sector to choose from to yield better results? Lastly, will the data be retested again in a few years to see how much or little the results have changed? To me, the research study that seems to make the strongest claim is “Person-Organization fit”. My reason is because this article used more than one model (ASA and P-O fit) to look at relationships. This study also did a follow up two years later with the same respondents to compare how the new results weighed up to the older results and seemed to have better detail and knowledge with their test/sample subjects.
Purposed Future Research
With the purposed future research for “Person-Organization fit”, the emphasis on new career entrants can make different separate organizational socialization effects on one hand and work socialization in general on the other (DeCooman et al., 2009). This study did leave unanswered questions and the desire for intricate longitudinal designs. Answering these findings can provide understanding of organizational memberships having durable and sizeable effects on individuals. It also can show how individuals can have enduring and considerable effects on companies and can possibly steer future research (DeCooman et al., 2009).
The future research of “Comparing Person Organization fit and Person Job fit” factors prompting workers to stay at the company should be evaluated by equating blue and white collar workers. A quantitative research may be valuable to obtain a better understanding on factors that influence performances in the workplace. This kind of study may assist in understanding role factors such as “probability of finding a job and role of financial issues of employees to keep working for an organization” (Ard?ç et al., 2016, p.11).
For the proposed future research of “Linking person-job fit to job stress”, it should be important to stipulate that various organization output relationships be tested in relation to person-organization fit and person-fit. This should include such outputs as performance, well-being and satisfaction. Therefore, future studies may be able to focus on organizational roles and offer supple work conditions depending on the varied employee’s needs (Deniz et al., 2015). One can also use a larger sample in other workforce sectors and take notice of similarities on the industry and sectors that can be established.
In conclusion, three article were analyzed and their results given. The first study seems to look at relationships between organization values and the work values of employees using the P-O and ASA models. The second study compared the relationships between person-organization fit and person-job fit and the third study looked at detail of person-job fit and the importance of person-organization fit. Data was collected form all three using small sample groups and formulated hypotheses. The first study resulted in statistical difference between the Time 1 and Time 2 studies. In the second study, hypothesis 2 was supported while hypothesis 1 was not. The third study showed hypothesis 1 and 2 were supported when mediating relationships were viewed. All three studies did leave unanswered questions, with one being a desire for intricate longitudinal designs. A quantitative research may be valuable to get a better understanding on factors that influence performances in the workplace. Lastly, a larger sample should be tested in other sectors.
Ard?ç, K., Oymak, Ö., Özsoy, T., Uslu, O., & Özsoy, E. (2016). Comparing person organization fit and person job fit. Journal of Economics & Management, 25(3), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.22367/jem.2016.25.01
DeCooman, R., DeGieter, S., Pepermans, R., Hermans, S., DuBois, C., Caers, R., & Jegers, M. (2009). Person-organization fit: Testing socialization and attraction-selection-attrition hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 102-107.
Deniz, N., Noyan, A., & Ertosun, Ö. G. (2015). Linking Person-job Fit to Job Stress: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Person-organization Fit. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.107