Tomoki Sekiguchi PERSON - ORGANIZATION FIT AND PERSON - JOB FIT IN EMPLOYEE SELECTION : A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This manuscript reviews the recent advancement of the research on person-organization (PO) fit and person-job (P-J) fit, the two most extensively studied fit constructs in the employee selection context. First, various conceptualizations of person-environment (P-E) fit, which is an overarching concept of P-O fit and P-J fit, are reviewed. Then, research on P-O fit and P-J fit is reviewed with greater emphasis on the employee selection context. Finally, some unexplored topics in this field are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered. situation in determining human behavior. One group of researchers have argued that it is the situation which is primarily responsible for individual behaviors (Mischel, 1968 ; Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989), while another group of researchers believe that the personal characteristics are primarily responsible for behavior (Epstain, 1979 ; House, Shane, & Herold, 1996). The concept of person-environment (P-E) fit is grounded in the interactionist theory of behavior (Chatman, 1989, Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). The interactionist perspective has a fairly long theoretical tradition, beginning with Lewin’s (1951) proposition that behavior is a function of the person and the environment. This view asserts that neither personal characteristics nor the situation alone adequately explain the variance in behavioral and attitudinal variables. Instead, the interaction of personal and situational variables accounts for the greatest variance. P-E fit is defined as the degree of congruence or match between personal and situational variables in producing significant selected outcomes (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Conceptualizations of P-E fit Researchers traditionally have conceptualized P-E fit as a complex and multidimensional concept. As a result, several different dimensions to conceptualize P-E fit have evolved. The first dimension is the supplementary versus complementary distinction. Supplementary fit occurs when a person supplements, embellishes, or possesses characteristics which are similar to other individuals in an environment. People perceive themselves as fitting in because they are alike or similar to other people possessing these characteristics. Therefore, it is essentially a model of person-person fit (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Complementary fit occurs when a person’s characteristics make whole the environment or add to it what is missing. With complementary P-E fit, the basis for a good fit is the mutually offsetting pattern of relevant characteristics between the person and the environment (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). An essential difference between the supplementary and complementary model is in the definition of environment. The environment in the supplementary model is described according to the people who inhabit it. In the complementary model, the environment is defined apart from its inhabitants. Instead, it is described according to its demands and requirements. The second dimension is the needs-supplies versus demands-abilities distinction. An environment supplies financial, physical, and psychological resources as well as taskrelated, interpersonal, and growth opportunities that are demanded by individuals. When such resources from the environment meet an individual’s needs, needs-supplies fit is achieved. On the other hand, an environment may demand contributions from individuals in terms of time, effort, commitment, knowledge, skills, and abilities. Demands-abilities fit is achieved when the individuals’ contribution (supply) meets environmental demands. In short, needs-supplies fit occurs when an environment satisfies individuals’ needs, desires, or preferences. Demands-abilities fit occurs when an individual has the abilities required 180 Osaka Keidai Ronshu, Vol. 54 No. 6