It seems that organizational fit has more to do with the ability for the applicant to adapt to the organization. It seems like selecting for fit doesn’t appear reasonable, do you think giving a situational adaptability measure might be more useful?
I'm still not quite sure how one would develop a measure of P-O, P-E fit as use it as a selection tool. The constructs (as defined) seem to be more related to motivational outcomes, and less directly to job performance. With that being said, it seems important to assess P-O, P-J, P-E fit to potentially decrease problems with turnover. Should we be using these constructs as predictors? How might they add incremental validity to a different selection battery? Would they be more appropriate to assess during training of new employees or during the employee’s first few months on the job?
Does this sound like an excuse to anyone else about why people aren't hired for a job; that they aren't a good "fit" for the job. How might organizations help to mitigate this negative conception?
How might high unemployment levels and the difficulty of finding any job influence people's evaluations of their fit with an organization and their willingness to self-select out of the applicant pool for jobs and organizations with which their fit is low?
I learned a couple of things that I"m taking away, the importance of the objective measure (and being aware of the three types), and the importance of the different kinds of 'fit' and the different outcomes they predict. Even with the cautions of some of the articles, I was left with the conviction that fit matters both to performance, contextual perf, turnover and 'satifaction.
•I’m confused, is this a legal tool to sue for selection? Some studies showed the relationship b/w P-O fit and job performance and not others.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that organizational fit has more to do with the ability for the applicant to adapt to the organization. It seems like selecting for fit doesn’t appear reasonable, do you think giving a situational adaptability measure might be more useful?
ReplyDeleteI'm still not quite sure how one would develop a measure of P-O, P-E fit as use it as a selection tool. The constructs (as defined) seem to be more related to motivational outcomes, and less directly to job performance. With that being said, it seems important to assess P-O, P-J, P-E fit to potentially decrease problems with turnover. Should we be using these constructs as predictors? How might they add incremental validity to a different selection battery? Would they be more appropriate to assess during training of new employees or during the employee’s first few months on the job?
ReplyDeleteDoes this sound like an excuse to anyone else about why people aren't hired for a job; that they aren't a good "fit" for the job. How might organizations help to mitigate this negative conception?
ReplyDeleteHow might high unemployment levels and the difficulty of finding any job influence people's evaluations of their fit with an organization and their willingness to self-select out of the applicant pool for jobs and organizations with which their fit is low?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think is the best way in which our understanding of organizational fit can be applied in the workplace?
ReplyDeleteI learned a couple of things that I"m taking away, the importance of the objective measure (and being aware of the three types), and the importance of the different kinds of 'fit' and the different outcomes they predict.
ReplyDeleteEven with the cautions of some of the articles, I was left with the conviction that fit matters both to performance, contextual perf, turnover and 'satifaction.