The influence of person-organization fit on
communication and job-related outcomes
Examining interaction effects with need to belong and belongingness and with need to be unique and authenticity on communication climate, voice, humour, trust,
job satisfaction and turnover
Ellen Brussee, 10205578 Master Thesis, Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Corporate Communication Joep Hofhuis 19-01-2016 9406 words
Abstract
Employees are not only concerned with choosing the appropriate job, but are also searching for an organization that fits with their needs. Person-organization (P-O) fit occurs when two fundamental human needs, the need to belong and the need to be unique, are satisfied by the organization through belongingness and authenticity. This research examined the influence of this P-O fit on communication outcomes, such as communication climate, voice, humour, and trust. In addition, the influence of P-O fit on the job-related outcomes, job satisfaction and turnover are examined. A convenience sample was used to gather respondents who were 18 years of age or older and working for an organization. Respondents received an email with the link to the online survey. Twelve hypotheses were tested by hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The results show that P-O fit, based on need to belong and
belongingness, has a positive influence on communication climate, voice, trust and a negative influence on turnover. In addition, P-O fit based on need to be unique and authenticity has a positive influence on voice and trust as well as a negative influence on turnover. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Introduction
The nature of work is changing, and with it, the relationship between employers and employees (Resick, Baltes, Shantz, Walker, 2007). Where it used to be good to even find a suitable job, it becomes more and more important with which organization a contract is signed (Rynes & Cable, 2003).
From the organizational perspective, employees are hired to fit the characteristics of an organization, not just the requirements of a particular job (Bowen, Ledford & Nathan, 1991). Specifically, the focus will not only be on work-oriented analysis and the determination of sets of knowledge, skills and abilities, but also have to be concerned about the fit between an individuals personality, values and beliefs and the organizations’ espoused culture, norms, and values (Morley, 2007). This fit between employees and their organization is referred to as person-organization (P-O) fit (Guan, Deng, Risavy, Bond & Li, 2011).
P-O fit can occur when an organization satisfies the needs of their employees (Kristof, 1996). Two fundamental needs that every human being has are the need to belong and the need to be unique (Brewer 1991). Working in an organization can satisfy these needs by providing employees with a sense of belonging and authenticity (Cable & Edwards, 2004).
This paper examines P-O fit that is based on the need to belong and belongingness as well as the need to be unique and authenticity. Every human being has these needs and is therefore relevant for organizations to be able to predict attitude and behavioural differences that can be attributed to the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of these needs. In addition, this specific type of P-O fit has not been examined yet, and therefore, this research expands the current literature. Different types of P-O fit will lead to different relationships (Kristof, 1996), and studying a new type of P-O fit will help understand the total mechanism through which P-O fit influences attitude and behavioural outcomes.
In general, a high degree of P-O fit is viewed as desirable in terms of positive work-related outcomes (Ng & Burke, 2005). P-O fit has been associated with advantageous outcomes such as job satisfaction, job performance, turnover (Morley, 2007; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson, 2005), organizational citizenship behaviour (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006), and
organizational commitment (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). It is not known yet what the role of communication plays within these relationships. The first step in filling this knowledge gap is examining the influence of P-O fit on communication outcomes. This study will take this step by examining four communication outcomes: communication climate, employee voice, humour and trust. In addition, two job-related outcomes, job satisfaction and turnover, will be included in the research. The primary purpose of this paper is to extent previous research and to assess the relationship between P-O fit and communication outcomes (communication climate, employee voice, humour, and trust) and job-related outcomes (job satisfaction and turnover). The following research question will be examined:
RQ: What is the relationship of person-organization, based on the need to belong and belongingness and on the need to be unique and authenticity, on communication climate, voice, humour, trust, as well as on job satisfaction and turnover?
In order to answer this question, the relevant aspects of the P-O literature will be reviewed, followed with the specific needs of the personal aspect of P-O fit and satisfying these needs from the organization aspect of P-O fit. Subsequently, literature will be used to integrate P-O fit with the communication and job-related outcomes. Empirically testable hypotheses and a conceptual model (Figure 1) will be presented, which will then be assessed with a field study using a convenience sample.
Theoretical Framework Person-organization fit
Person-situational interactions resulting in fit and congruence have been discussed in the organizational science literatures for more than two decades (Guan, Deng, Risavy, Bond & Li, 2011). Person-environment (P-E) fit is a broad umbrella term encompassing various lower-levels of fit constructs, such as person-organization (P-O) fit and person-job (P-J) fit. The different constructs are statistically distinct from one another, and therefore, a clear conceptualization and operationalization should be provided while doing research (Kristof, 1996). This current paper focuses on the P-O construct of the P-E fit.
P-O fit is broadly defined as the compatibility between an organizational member and the organization where he or she works (Chatman, 1989; Guan et al., 2011). Specifically, Kristof (1996) defines P-O fit as ‘the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when at least one entity provides what the other needs or they share similar fundamental characteristics, or both’. Two distinctions have been made for the different types of fit between employees and their organization. The first distinction is between supplementary and complementary fit (Kristof, 1996; Guan et al., 2011). Supplementary fit has been conceptualised as the similarity of characteristics between individual employees and the corresponding characteristics that are present in the work environment. This fit exists when a person and an organization posses similar or matching characteristics. Complementary fit includes the characteristics of individual employees that are needed or that complement those characteristics that are currently possessed by the organizations. This could mean that an employee has a skill set that an organization requires, or it could mean that an organization offers the rewards that an individual wants (Cable & Edwards, 2004). The complementary fit tradition is exemplified by research on psychological need fulfillment, which focuses on how people’s attitudes are affected by the fit between their desires and the supplies in the work environment available to meet those desires. This is in line with the second distinction of P-O fit, the abilities and need-supplies perspective (Kristof, 1996). The
demands-abilities perspective suggests that fit occurs when an individual has the demands-abilities to meet organizational demands. In contrast, the needs-supplies perspective states that fit occurs when an organization has satisfied the needs, desires, or preferences of the individual. This paper will examine P-O fit from the needs-supplies perspective. The next section will discuss the personal aspect of P-O fit, followed by the organizational aspect of P-O fit.
Person
There are two fundamental needs that are found across all cultures and different people: the need to belong and the need to be unique (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Two theories that specifically address the interplay between the need to belong and the need to be unique are optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) and self-determination theory (SDT). According to the optimal-distinctiveness theory (ODT), the need to belong and the need to be unique are two opposing needs. The need to belong is the motivation to form and maintain strong and stable relationship with others. Maslow (1968) acknowledges the importance of belongingness by placing the need to form social bonds directly above the primary needs. Social bonds are associated with positive emotions and when social bonds are broken, it causes pain and protest (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). The drive to form intimate bonds with others is universal and is strongest under conditions of adversity of threat, pointing out the likelihood that belongingness is an evolutionary advantage. In order to satisfy the need to belong, frequent and affectively pleasant interactions in a temporally stable group should take place
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
In addition, the need to be unique is the motivation to have a distinctive self-concept. People with a low need to be unique have a desire to be ‘just like everybody else’ and people with a high need to be unique want to be as different and distinct as possible (Ruvio, 2008). This motivation derives from the importance of distinctiveness for meaningful self-definition (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). On a cognitive level, people will emphasize the distinctiveness of aspects in their identities and will perceive those aspects as more central to their identity (Vignoles, Chryssochoou & Breakwell, 2000). According to the need for uniqueness theory, people constantly evaluate their degree of similarity or dissimilarity to others and act on such evaluations (Ruvio, 2008). People with a high need to be unique will act especially in ways that show their distinctiveness to others. Specifically, they can make different choices or distinguish themselves from those around them (Maimaran & Wheeler, 2008).
Similar to ODT, the self-determination theory also identifies two needs that closely resemble the needs of ODT. The need for relatedness from SDT, which is the desire to feel connected to others (Deci & Ryan, 2000), can be seen as equivalent to the need to belong from ODT (Jansen et al., 2014), whereas the need for autonomy, which is the desire to experience choice, and the wish to behave in accordance with one’s integrated sense of self (Deci & Ryan, 2000), can be seen as equivalent to the need to be unique (Jansen et al., 2014). SDT
states that individuals can simultaneously satisfy belonging and uniqueness by assuming a specific role within the group (Bettencourt, Molix, Talley & Sheldon, 2006) or by joining a group that encourages the members to express their individuality (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). Thus, the challenge is to find a balance between these two needs and satisfying both needs within a social group. The next section will elaborate on the role of the organization in satisfying these needs.
Organization
Employees will be motivated and display well-being in organizations to the extent that they experience psychological need satisfaction within these organizations (Deci, Ryan, Gagné, Leone, Usunov & Kornazheve, 2001). Theories of psychological need fulfillment state that people become dissatisfied when the supplies provided by the environment fall short of what the person desires (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Supplies refer to the environmental
determinants of behaviour, specifically, how the work environment helps or hinders the fulfillment of employees’ needs (Westerman & Cyr, 2004). An organization may be thought of as a relational community that offers opportunities for employees to fulfill their needs. A work environment that allows satisfaction of employees’ needs facilitates
person-organization fit.
Employees with a strong need to belong are motivated to form and maintain social bonds with their colleagues. Satisfying employees’ need to belong requires providing the employee with a sense of mutual respect, caring and reliance with others (Deci et al., 2001).
Employees’ need to belong will be more likely to be satisfied in a work environment that provides belongingness. This is the extent to which a group member perceives that he or she is a member of a group and is appreciated as a member of the group (Jansen et al., 2014).
Employees that have a strong need to be unique want to be ‘different’ and want to make their own choices (Wood, Matlby, Baliousis, & Linley, 2008). In order for the organization to satisfy the need of these employees, they have to experience choice and feeling like the initiator of one’s own actions (Deci et al., 2001). The employees’ need to be unique will be more likely to be satisfied by an organization that has a culture that can provide an employee with authenticity. Perceived authenticity is the extent to which a group member perceives that he or she is allowed and encourages by the group to remain true to oneself (Jansen et al., 2014).
Thus, person-organization fit occurs when an organization satisfies the needs of an
individual. Two fundamental needs that are discussed are the need to belong and the need to be unique. In order to satisfy these two needs, organizations have to provide the employees with belongingness and authenticity. The organization has to provide a work environment that can provide an employee with a sense of mutual respect, caring and reliance with others on the one hand and a sense of choice and feeling like the initiator of one’s own actions on the other hand. This paper will focus on P-O fit that is based on satisfying the need to belong and the need to be unique by the organization by providing the employees with
belongingness and authenticity. According to P-O fit literature, employees with a high P-O fit are more likely to experience positive work-related outcomes (Ng & Burke, 2005), such as job performance (Morley, 2007). It is not known yet what the role of communication is within these relationships. The first step is to examine the relationship between P-O fit and communication outcomes. An employee, which need is satisfied by the organization, might communicate different than an employee from which his or her need is not satisfied. The next section will elaborate on the influence of P-O fit, based on need to belong and belongingness and on the need to be unique and authenticity, on communication outcomes.
Communication outcomes
Four communication outcomes will be examined that can be assumed to be influenced by P-O fit, based on need to belong and belongingness and on the need to be unique and
authenticity. First, communication climate will be examined. The second variable is employee voice. Third, the influence of P-O fit on humour will be discussed and the fourth variable is trust. The next section elaborates on how P-O fit could influence these variables.
Communication climate
The first outcome variable that will be examined is communication climate, which is crucial for an effective organization (Bartels, Pruyn, de Jong, & Joustra, 2007) and has been
identified as a critical link between the members of an organization and the organization itself (Guzley, 1992). It has been widely recognized as a requirement for healthy work relationships and organizational success. Communication climate is defined as the subjective experienced quality of the internal environment of the organization (Bartels et al., 2007). The concept of communication climate includes horizontal information flow, openness, vertical information, and reliability information. A supportive communication climate is
cooperative interactions and an overall culture of knowledge sharing (Van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004).
In general, employees with a high P-O fit are more likely to experience better communication with other members of the organization (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). It can be expected that employees with a high need to belong and who perceive belongingness, are more likely to be open and supportive in their communication than when no belongingness is perceived. An employee’s need to belong can be satisfied by frequent and affectively pleasant interaction in a temporally stable group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Socialization between colleagues will give employees a much more open and comfortable climate (Jian & Hanling, 2009).
Individuals that spent time with each other become more inclined to embrace the beliefs and demonstrate the values that epitomize their group (Terry & Hogg, 2001). People with congruent value systems tend to view external stimuli and behave in similar ways, which leads to easier communication and coordination (Kristof-Brown, 2000). Without belonging, people can have difficulties communicating with and relating to their surroundings (Fiske, Rosenblum & Travis, 2009).
In addition, it can be expected that employees with a high need to be unique and who
perceive authenticity, are more likely to be open and supportive in their communication than employees that do not experience authenticity. Authenticity provides the employees with a feeling of acceptance of their authentic self (Jansen et al. 2014). Acceptance of an employee as a valued co-worker has been proven to be associated with a supportive communication climate (Smidts et al., 2001). Acceptation could be especially important for employees with a high need to be unique, since they find a unique personal identity important. Being part of a group could mean a shift towards a social identity and away from the personal identity (Brewer, 1991). Thus, acceptation of the authentic self could provide employees with a high need to be unique to be accessible and cooperative without having to conform to the
standards in the group. Employees that perceive that their work group accepts them as a member of a team and are appreciated, and therefore fit in the group, would be more open in their communication. It can be suggested that P-O fit, based on the need to belong and belongingness as well as the need to be unique and authenticity, has a positive relation with communication climate. Based on the above, it is hypothesised that:
H1a) The positive relationship between need to belong and communication climate is moderated by perceived belongingness. Communication climate is highest when need to belong and perceived belongingness are both high.
H1b) The positive relationship between need to be unique and communication climate is moderated by perceived authenticity. Communication climate is highest when need to be unique and perceived authenticity are both high.
Employee voice
The second variable that will be examined and which is critical to performance is employees’ comments and suggestions intended to improve organizational functioning (Detert & Burris, 2007). Speaking up about thoughts and ideas about critical work processes facilitate learning in various types of teams. Employee voice is the promotive behaviour that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Voice behaviour is an important component of extra role behaviour, which concerns positive and discretionary behaviour that are not required by the organization but that are necessary to facilitate effective organizational functioning (Organ, Podsakof & MacKenzie, 2006). However, not many individuals perceive their work environment as safe to raise their voice (Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003).
It can be assumed that employees who fit with the organization would be more likely to use voice behaviour than employees that do not fit with the organization. Specifically, employees with a high need to belong and who experience belongingness will be more likely to use voice than employees that do not experience belongingness. Voice behaviour may cause adverse reactions from those who control rewards and opportunities, such as team members (Seong & Kristof-Brown, 2012). Perceived belongingness gives the employees a sense of fitting in (Jansen et al., 2014). The feeling of fitting provides an employee with the necessary support and psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) to express voice. Voice behaviour involves taking a personal risk, since many employees in organizations are comfortable with things they way they are (Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). It can be stated that employees will be more likely to take the risk ‘to speak up’ when they feel supported and reinforced by colleagues.
In addition, it can be assumed that employees with a high need to be unique and who experience authenticity are more likely to speak up than employees that do not experience authenticity. Employees with a high need to be unique behave in a way that accentuates their distinctiveness to others (Ruvio, 2008) and are not influenced by the opinions of others (Wood et al., 2008). Therefore, it can be assumed that people with a strong need to be unique are more likely to express their opinion, especially when this opinion challenges the status quo. Therefore, it can be suggested that when employees perceive person-organization fit, they will more likely engage in voice behaviour. Based on the above, it is hypothesised that:
H2a): The positive relationship between need to belong and voice behaviour is moderated by perceived belongingness. Voice behaviour is highest when need to belong and perceived belongingness are both high.
H2b): The positive relationship between need to be unique and voice behaviour is moderated by perceived authenticity. Voice behaviour is highest when need to be unique and perceived authenticity are both high.
Humour
The third variable humour is a common element of human interaction and has its impact on work groups and organizations (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). As a form of communication, humour is indirect and ambiguous (Lang & Lee, 2010). Different types of humour construct different types of work relationships. The use of humour is defined as the degree to which a person takes action or makes comments intended to invoke levity, jocularity, and laughter (Dubinsky, Yammarino & Jolson, 1995). The proper use of organizational humour can provide valuable benefits to organization (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Humour has been associated with improving morale among workers, creating a more positive organizational culture, enhancing group cohesiveness, stimulating individual and group creativity,
increasing motivation, enhancing communication, and higher levels of productivity (Avolio et al., 1999; Romero & Cruthirds, 2000).
It can be assumed that employees who fit with the organization would be more likely to use humour than employees that do not fit with the organization. Specifically, employees with a high need to belong and who experience belongingness are more likely to use humour than employees that do not experience belongingness. Employees with a high need to belong
would do things that will make other people like them (Leary et al., 2005). Humour can be used as an attempt to increase their attractiveness in they eyes of others (Cooper, 2005). Funny, witty employees use humour in order to develop pleasant relationships, relieve tension in certain situations, enhance listeners’ attention, or make their messages more memorable (Avolio et al., 1999). Humour can function to construct and sustain relationships and contribute to workplace harmony by expressing solidarity (Holmes & Marra, 2002). People like others who enhance their good feelings and thus, people use humour to enhance one’s relationship with others (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003).
In addition, it can be assumed that employees with a high need to be unique and who
experience authenticity are more likely to use humour than employees that do not experience authenticity. People with a high need to be unique could use humour to express their
distinctiveness to others. According to the superiority theory, humour can be used to separate itself from a group (Lynch, 2002). Since they act in ways that show their uniqueness
(Maimaran & Wheeler, 2008), people with a high need to be unique can make the choice to use humour to distinguish themselves from those around them. Based on the above, it is hypothesised that:
H3a): The positive relationship between need to belong and humour is moderated by perceived belongingness. Humour is highest when need to belong and perceived belongingness are both high.
H3b): The positive relationship between need to be unique and humour is moderated by perceived authenticity. Humour is highest when need to be unique and perceived authenticity are both high.
Trust
The fourth outcome variable that will be examined is trust in colleagues. Employees that have trust feel free to propose unconventional ideas and introduce conflicting opinions without fear of reprisal. Trust can be defined as the willingness to be vulnerable to another party when that party cannot be controlled (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). In the workplace, trust has been associated with job satisfaction and organizational effectiveness (Jackson, 2008). Trust has been identified as the very ‘essence of colleagueship’ (Jackson, 2008) and trust in colleagues has been cited as a key element of successful teams (McCallin, 2001).
It can be assumed that employees who fit with their organization would have more trust in their colleagues than employees who are not included in the organization. The social exchange explanation (Blau, 1964) states that employees exhibit positive or negative behaviours as a response to the treatment received from their organizations. An employee may reciprocate in favour of the organization to the extent he or she perceives an occurrence of P-O fit. In effect, given that P-O fit is able to satisfy several of her needs, desires, and preferences (Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996), P-O fit would bring out positive sentiments of employees, such as trust (Zorghbi-Manrique de Lara, 2008). Employees who feel known and cared for by their colleagues are much more likely to work and learn in part out of a genuine respect and trust for their colleagues (Chhuon & Wallace, 2014). The more we connect with other people, the more we trust them, and vice versa (Shah, 1998). Conversely, P-O misfit leads to a lack of trust (Zorghbi-Manrique de Lara, 2008). Based on the above, it is
hypothesised that:
H4a): The positive relationship between need to belong and trust is moderated by perceived belongingness. Trust is highest when the need to belong and perceived belongingness are both high.
H4b): The positive relationship between need to be unique and trust is moderated by
perceived authenticity. Trust is highest when the need to be unique and perceived authenticity are both high.
Job related outcomes
The current study also included job-related outcomes. Previous literature has shown that P-O fit is positively related to job satisfaction (Chatman, 1991) and negatively related to turnover (Bretz & Judge, 1994). However, P-O fit that specifically concerns satisfying the need to belong with belongingness and the need to be unique with authenticity has not been
examined yet. The next section will elaborate on the influence of P-O fit, based on the need to belong and belongingness and the need to be unique and authenticity on job satisfaction and turnover.
Job satisfaction
Strong support has been found for the positive effect of P-O fit on individual work attitudes (Kristof, 1996). Job satisfaction is ‘the pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from
the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences’ (Locke, 1976). Previous research showed that P-O fit correlates with job satisfaction (Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991). High levels of fit between organizational climates and people’s preferences for them (Tziner, 1987) as well as climates and personality characteristics (Downey, Hellriegel & Slocum, 1975) can predict high levels of satisfaction (Kristof, 1996).
It can be assumed that employees who fit with their organization would be more satisfied with their job than employees who do not fit with their organization. Locke’s Affect Theory states that job satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what the person wants in a job and what the person has in a job (Locke, 1976). The theory states that how much is valued in a given facet of work (e.g. belongingness) moderates how satisfied or dissatisfied the person becomes when expectations have or have not met. Individuals requiring social contact and interdependence with others are more satisfied in organizations with open and empathic climates than those with closed, bureaucratic, and impersonal climates (Downey et al., 1975). For the same reason it can be assumed that individuals with a high need to belong are more satisfied in an organization wherein they receive belongingness, whereas
individuals with a high need to be unique would be more satisfied in an organization that provides them with authenticity. Based on the above, it is hypothesised that:
H5a): The positive relationship between need to belong and job satisfaction is moderated by perceived belongingness. Job satisfaction is highest when the need to belong and perceived belongingness are both high.
H5b): The positive relationship between need to be unique and job satisfaction is moderated by perceived authenticity. Job satisfaction is highest when the need to be unique and
perceived authenticity are both high.
Turnover
Voluntary turnover occurs when an employee voluntarily chooses to resign from the
organization (Hofhuis, Van der Zee & Otten, 2014). Previous research stated that a long-term outcome that is attributed to P-O fit includes turnover (Schneider, 1987). Moreover, multiple conceptualizations of P-O fit have a strong direct effect on organizational turnover (Bretz & Judge, 1994). It can be assumed that employees that fit with their organization would be less likely to leave their organization than employees that do not fit with their organization.
Employees that perceive belongingness are less likely to leave the organization than
employees that do not experience belongingness, especially for employees with a high need to belong. It can be assumed that when an employee wants to belong to the organization and the organization doesn’t include him or her, the employee will leave the organization and try another organization that will satisfy his or her need to belong. Conversely, employees who develop a good fit with their organization become committed and wish to remain in the organization (Bretz & Judge, 1994).
In addition, employees that have a high need to be unique and that perceive authenticity are more likely to stay with their organization than when authenticity is not perceived. It can be assumed that employees, which need to be unique is not satisfied by their current
organization, will look for another organization that will. Based on the above, it is hypothesised that:
H6a): The negative relationship between need to belong and turnover is moderated by perceived belongingness. Turnover is lowest when the need to belong and perceived belongingness are both high.
H6b): The negative relationship between need to be unique and turnover is moderated by perceived authenticity. Turnover is lowest when the need to be unique and perceived authenticity are both high.
Figure 1: The conceptual model
Method Procedure
To conduct the analyses, a dataset was obtained from an online survey among respondents. A convenience sample was used and the criteria were that respondents had to be 18 years of age or older and had to work for an organization. Family and friends received the link to the online survey via Facebook messenger. Also, social events were used to fill in the survey. In addition, LinkedIn was used to invite professionals to participate in the survey. Four
companies cooperated with the research by sending the email with the survey link to their employees. One of those companies also forwarded the email to clients and one company shared the link on their Facebook and Twitter account. The respondents were asked to
participate in a study on the fit between them and their organization. Beforehand, respondents received an informed consent. Data-collection was completed in November 2015.
Respondents
In total, 205 respondents participated in this study. Before analyzing the data, the dataset was checked for inaccuracies. In total, 129 respondents completed the whole survey, including 64
males (49.6%) and 65 females (50.4%). The age of these respondents varied between 20 and 64 year. The participants’ mean age was 33.4 years (SD=13.2). The respondents have been working for their organization on average for 5.4 years (SD=7.5; range 0-51). The
organizations of the respondents existed on average 40 years (SD=73.6; range 1-760). 68.6 % of the respondents worked at an organization with less than 1000 employees. On average the respondents worked 36.7 hours a week (SD=15.1; range 0-95). The participants’ mean team size was 20.2 people (SD=26.6; range 2-200). The respondents were generally well educated, 65.4% of the respondents possessed a Bachelor Degree, Master Degree or a Doctor’s Degree.
Measures
A five-point Likert-scale, as used by Smidts et al. (2001), was used varying from 1=totally disagree and 5=totally agree. Need to belong (α = 0.73) was measured using nine items (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2005). An example of an item is ‘I want other people to accept me’. Need for authenticity (α = 0.85) was measured using 12 items (Wood, Matlby, Baliousis, & Linley, 2008). An example of an item is ‘I always stand by what I believe in’. Perceived belongingness (α = 0.97) was measured using 8 items (Jansen et al., 2014). An example of an item is ‘My work group gives me the feeling that I belong’.
Perceived authenticity (α = 0.96) was measured with 8 items, as used by Jansen et al. (2014).
An example of an item is ‘My work group allows me to be authentic’. Voice (α = 0.94) was measured using 6 items (Van Dyne and LePine’s, 1998). An example of an item is ‘I speak up in this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures’. Communication
climate (α = 0.85) was measured using 15 items, as used by Smidts et al. (2001). An example
of an item is ‘When my colleagues tell me something, I trust them to tell me the truth’. Trust (α = 0.81) was measured using 10 items (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). An example of an item is ‘If a colleague asked why a problem happened, I would speak freely even if I were partly to blame’. Use of humour (α = 0.90) was measured using 5 items (Dubinsky, Yammarino & Jolson, 1995). An example of an item is ‘I use humour to take the edge off during stressful periods’. Turnover (α = 0.78) was measured using 3 items (Camman, Fichman, Jenkins & Klesh, 1979). One item was deleted which resulted in 2 items with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,87. One of those items was ‘It is very possible that I will look for a new job next year’. Job
satisfaction (α = 0.95) by De Witte (2000) consisted of 6 items. An example of an item is
Results
Analyses of the data will be reported in six different sections. Every hypothesis consists of two sub questions. To test all twelve hypotheses, separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted.
Person-organization fit and communication climate
In order to test hypothesis 1a that perceived belongingness moderates the relationship between need to belong and communication climate, two variables were included in the first step of the regression: need to belong and belongingness. These variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in communication climate, ΔR2 = .49, F(2, 130) = 62.03, p < .001. Next, the interaction term was added to the regression model, which accounted for a significant proportion of the variance of communication climate, ΔR2 = .02, ΔF(1, 129) = 6.31, p < .05, b = .13, t(129) = 2.39, p = .02. This means that belongingness has a weak positive influence on the relationship between need to belong and communication climate. Examination of the interaction plot shows an enhancing influence that as need to belong and belongingness increases communication climate increases. The relationship between the need to belong and communication climate is stronger for people with high belongingness than for people with low belongingness (figure 1). Therefore, hypothesis 1a is confirmed.
Figure 1: Regression of need to belong on communication climate
Next, testing hypothesis 1b, it was predicted that perceived authenticity moderates the relationship between need to be unique and communication climate. Two variables were included in the first step: need to be unique and authenticity. These variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in communication climate, ΔR2 = .57, F(2, 128) = 83.00, p < .001. Next, the interaction term between need to be unique and authenticity was added to the
regression model. There was no significant interaction found. Authenticity does not have a significant influence on the relationship between need to be unique and communication climate and thus, hypothesis 1b is rejected.
Person-organization fit and voice
Hypothesis 2a stated that perceived belongingness moderates the relationship between need to belong and voice. The need to belong and belongingness were included in the first step of the regression. These variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in voice, ΔR2 = .51, F(2, 130) = 67.41, p < .001. Consequently, the interaction term between need to belong and belongingness was added to the regression model, which accounted for a significant proportion of the variance of voice, ΔR2 = .03, ΔF(1, 129) = 7.36, p = .008, b = .19, t(129) = 2.71, p = .008. This means that there is a significant, weak positive influence of
belongingness on the relationship between need to belong and voice. Examination of the interaction plot showed an enhancing effect that as need to belong and belongingness
increased, voice increased. The relationship between need to belong and voice is stronger for people that experience high belonging than for people that experience low belonging (figure 2). Thus, hypothesis 2a is confirmed.
Figure 2: Regression of need to belong on voice.
Next, hypothesis 2b expected that perceived authenticity moderates the relationship between need to be unique and voice. Need to be unique and authenticity accounted for a significant amount of variance in voice ΔR2 = .49, F(2, 128) = 62.60, p < .001. Next, the interaction term between need to be unique and authenticity was added, which accounted for a significant proportion of the variance of voice ΔR2 = .05, ΔF(1, 127) = 15.16, p < .001, b = .21, t(127)
=3.89, p < .001. This means that there is a significant, weak positive influence of authenticity on the relationship between need to be unique and voice. The plot shows that as need to be unique and authenticity increased, voice increased (figure 3). The relationship between need to be unique and voice is stronger for people with high authenticity than for people with low authenticity. Thus, hypothesis 2b is confirmed.
Figure 3: Regression of need to be unique on voice
Person-organization fit and humour
Hypothesis 3a stated that perceived belongingness moderates the relationship between need to belong and humour. The need to belong and belongingness were included in the first step of the regression. These variables did not account for a significant amount of variance in humour. After adding the interaction there was no significant relationship found. Thus, there is no interaction of need to belong and belongingness on humour and hypothesis 3a will be rejected.
Next, hypothesis 3b predicted that perceived authenticity moderates the relationship between need to be unique and humour. Need to be unique and authenticity did not accounted for a significant amount of variance in humour. The model is not significant and also after adding the interaction there was not a significant relationship. Therefore, hypothesis 3b will also be rejected.
Person-organization fit and trust
Hypothesis 4a stated that perceived belongingness moderates the relationship between need to belong and trust. In the first step of the regression, need to belong and belongingness were
included. These variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in trust, ΔR2 = .57,
F(2, 130) = 87.21, p < .001. The interaction term between need to belong and belongingness
was added and accounted for a significant proportion of the variance of trust, ΔR2 = .06, ΔF(1, 129) = 20.48, p < .001, b = .20, t(129) = 4.53, p < .001. This means that there is significant, positive weak influence of belongingness on the relationship of need to belong and trust. Examination of the interaction plot shows that as need to belong and belongingness increases trust increases. The relationship between need to belong and trust is stronger for people that experience high belonging then for people that experience low belonging (figure 4). Thus, hypothesis 4a is confirmed.
Figure 4: Regression of need to belong on trust
Hypothesis 4b expected that authenticity moderate the relationship between need to be unique and trust. The first step of the regression shows that need to be unique and
authenticity accounted for a significant amount of variance in voice ΔR2 = .56, F(2, 128) = 82.69, p < .001. Next, the interaction term between need to be unique and authenticity was added to the regression model, which accounted for a significant proportion of the variance of trust ΔR2 = .07, ΔF(1, 127) = 25.95 p < .001, b = .18, t(127) =5.09, p < .001. This means that there is significant, positive weak influence of authenticity on the relationship of need to be unique and trust. The plot shows an enhancing effect that as need to be unique and
authenticity increased, trust increased. The relationship between need to be unique and trust is stronger for people with high authenticity than for people with low authenticity (figure 5). Therefore, hypothesis 4b is confirmed.
Figure 5: Regression of need to be unique on trust
Person-organization fit and job satisfaction
Hypothesis 5a expected that perceived belongingness moderates the relationship between need to belong and job satisfaction. The need to belong and belongingness account for a significant amount of variance in job satisfaction ΔR2 = .40, F(2, 130) = 42.35, p < .001. After adding the interaction term, there was no significant influence found. This means that belongingness does not moderate the relationship between need to belong and job satisfaction and therefore, hypothesis 5a is rejected.
In addition, hypothesis 5b stated that perceived authenticity moderates the relationship between need to be unique and job satisfaction. Need to be unique and authenticity account for a significant amount of the variance in job satisfaction ΔR2 = .40, F(2, 128) = 41.72, p < .001. The interaction term was added and was not significant. This means that authenticity does not influence the relationship between need to be unique and job satisfaction. Thus, hypothesis 5b is rejected.
Person-organization fit turnover
Hypothesis 6a stated that perceived belongingness moderates the relationship between need to belong and turnover. Need to belong and belongingness accounted for a significant amount of variance in turnover, ΔR2 = .10, F(2, 130) = 7.23, p = .001. Next, the interaction term between need to belong and belongingness was added to the regression model, which accounted for a significant proportion of the variance of turnover, ΔR2 = .15, ΔF(1, 129) = 7.31, p < .05, b = -.41, t(129) = -2.71, p = .008 This means that there is significant,
moderately strong negative influence of belongingness on the relationship between need to belong and turnover. The interaction plot (figure 6) shows that as need to belong and belongingness increased, turnover decreased. In addition, the relationship between need to belong and turnover is stronger for people that experience low belonging than for people that experience high belonging. Therefore, hypothesis 6a is confirmed.
Figure 6: Regression of need to belong on turnover
Hypothesis 6b stated that perceived authenticity moderates the relationship between need to be unique and turnover. Need to be unique and authenticity accounted for a significant amount of variance in voice ΔR2 = .11, F(2, 128) = 7.99, p = .001. Consequently, the interaction term between need to be unique and authenticity was added to the regression model, which accounted for a significant proportion of the variance of turnover, ΔR2 = .05, ΔF(1, 127) = 8.01, p < .05, b = -.34, t(127) =-2.83, p = .005. This means that there is
significant, moderately strong negative influence of authenticity on the relationship between need to be unique and turnover. The interaction plot shows that as need to be unique and authenticity increased, turnover decreased. In addition, the relationship between need to be unique and turnover is stronger for people with low authenticity than for people with high authenticity (figure 7). Therefore, hypothesis 6b is confirmed.
Figure 6: Regression of need to be unique on turnover
Conclusion & Discussion
This paper examined person-organization fit that occurs when an organization satisfies the needs of employees. Two fundamental needs that have been at the forefront are the need to belong and the need to be unique. An organization can satisfy the need to belong by
providing the employees with a sense of belongingness, whereas satisfying the need to be unique includes employees experiencing authenticity. Accordingly, the present study was intended to examine the influence of this type of P-O fit on communication and job-related outcomes. Specifically, the study aimed to discover the relationship between P-O fit, based on the need to belong and belongingness and on the need to be unique and authenticity, and communication climate, voice, humour, trust, job satisfaction and turnover. A survey was conducted and twelve hypotheses were tested. Results will now be discussed.
Person-organization fit and communication outcomes
First, it was hypothesized that person-organization fit positively influences the
communication climate. The influence of the need to belong on communication climate is stronger for employees that experience high belongingness than for employees that experience low belongingness. Specifically, for employees with a high need to belong, belongingness is likely to have more impact on their communication than for employees with a low need to belong. This finding confirms previous research of Smidts et al. (2001) who concluded that there is a relationship between the value of a co-worker and a supportive communication climate. Authenticity did not influence the relationship between need to be unique and communication climate. Specifically, whether an employee experiences a high or
low authenticity does not seem to affect the extent to which the need to be unique influences the communication climate. A possible explanation for this could be that employees with a high need to belong find it important to be part of a group. Assimilating to be part of a group facilitates communication of desired social identities (Berger & Health, 2007). Thus,
satisfying the need to belong with belongingness will have a positive influence on the communication climate. Contrary, satisfying with need to be unique with authenticity does not have an influence on the communication climate.
Furthermore, person-organization fit has a positive influence on employee voice. Specifically, fit that is based on need to belong and belongingness positively influences employee voice. Employees who experience a high belongingness are more likely to ‘speak up’ than employees that do not receive belongingness, especially employees with a high need to belong. This is consistent with the literature by Edmonson (1999), who argued that the feeling of support and reinforcement by colleagues caused by P-O fit can make employees feel ‘safe’ to speak up. It can now be argued that this is also the case for the fit that occurs when an organization provides belongingness and therefore satisfies the employees’ need to belong. This type of fit positively influence employee voice, which means that employees that have a strong need to be unique and work in a team that value and encourages the team members to be themselves will be more likely to express their voice than employees that do not fit with their team. Voice behaviour is critical to organizational performance (Detert & Burris, 2007) and therefore it is important to know what influences voice behaviour. By satisfying the fundamental need(s) of employees by providing them with belongingness and/or authenticity, voice behaviour can be stimulated.
Through the present study, it can be concluded that P-O fit does not influence humour. Specifically, whether an employee has a high or low belongingness does not affect the extent to which the need to belong influence their humour. In addition, there is no relationship between the fit, based on the need to be unique and authenticity, and humour. Although these relationships haven’t been researched before, the results are contrary to what was expected by theory. A possible explanation for this is that the type of humour used in this study is not influenced by whether an employee’s needs are satisfied or not. Moreover, it could be possible that including specific types of humour show different results. Affiliative humour, which is the style of humour used to enhance one’s relationship with others in a benevolent, positive manner, (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) would be more influenced by P-O fit, based on
need to belong and belongingness, whereas aggressive humour might have a relationship with P-O fit, based on the need to be unique and authenticity. Future research should examine the influence of P-O fit on these specific types of humour.
As hypothesized and in line with previous literature, trust is positively influenced by the fit based on need to belong and belongingness. Employees with a high need to belong and that felt belongingness at work are more likely to trust their colleagues than employees that do not feel belongingness on the work floor. It was also found that the relationship between need to be unique and trust is stronger for people with high authenticity than for people with low authenticity. This means that an employee with a high need to be unique that is member of a team that value and encourages uniqueness, is more likely to trust his or her colleagues. This is consistent with previous research by Chhuon and Wallace (2014) who stated that
employees that feel known and cared for by co-workers are more likely to respect and trust their colleagues. Trust in colleagues is critical for successful teams (McCallin, 2001), and it can be concluded that employees which needs are satisfied by the organization are more likely to trust their colleagues than employees which needs are not met.
Person-organization fit and job-related outcomes
Besides the influence of P-O fit on communication outcomes, two job-related outcomes, job satisfaction and turnover, were included in this research. Previous literature has concluded that P-O fit has a positive influence with job satisfaction (Chatman, 1991). However, no significant relationship was found between P-O fit, based on the need to belong and belongingness, and job satisfaction. Thus, whether an employee experiences high or low belongingness, does not affect the extent to which need to belong influences job satisfaction. Also, satisfaction of the need to be unique with authenticity does not influence job
satisfaction. Through the present paper, it can be concluded that employees, which need to be unique is satisfied by the organization, are not per se more satisfied with their job than
employees which need is not satisfied.
Results of the current study also showed a negative influence of P-O fit on turnover. It was found that employees with a high need to belong and high belongingness are less likely to quit their jobs than employees with low belongingness. Furthermore, employees with a high need to be unique and high authenticity are less likely to quit their jobs than employees with low authenticity. This is in line with previous research by Bretz & Judge (1994) who stated
that employees who develop a good fit with their organization become committed and wish to remain in the organization. This paper contributes by concluding that when employees’ need to belong and need to be unique are satisfied by the organization, they will less likely leave the organization than employees whose needs are not satisfied.
The main aim of this study was to examine the influence of person-organization fit, based on need to belong and belongingness and/or need to be unique and authenticity, on
communication outcomes like communication climate, voice, humour and trust and to the job-related outcomes job satisfaction and turnover. This paper has shown that person-organization fit, based on need to belong and belongingness, has a positive influence on communication climate, voice, trust and a negative influence on turnover. In addition, P-O fit, based on need to be unique and authenticity, has a positive influence on voice and trust and a negative influence on turnover. The next section will discuss limitations, future directions and implications.
Limitations, future research directions
This study has several limitations. First, a convenience sample was used, which makes generalization difficult. For example, the respondents in this study were relatively new to the organization they worked for (5.4 years on average). Results could differ for people that are working for the organization for a longer time. Future research should examine the issues studied here with a representative sample of the population. In addition, no causal effects can be tested in cross-sectional studies. Previous literature assumed causality in the predicted direction; however, this cannot be proven using this type of study. This study presents a first step in examining the role of P-O fit on communication and job-related outcomes by showing that there are significant relationships. Future research could further explore these
relationships by testing causal order by using a longitudinal design. In addition, since significant results have been found, mediation effects can be examined. For example: the influences of P-O on job performance through voice behaviour. This will be a step forward in explaining how P-O fit influence attitudes and behaviours in the work place. In addition, this paper focussed on the P-O fit construct of P-E fit. Other constructs of P-E fit, such P-J fit, Person-Vocation (P-V) fit, and Person-Group (P-G) were not included and are worthy of further inquiry. It is relevant to distinguish the different constructs and their outcomes, since the lines between types of fit are blurred (Kristof, 1996). This paper used an
match between individual needs and organizational systems and structures (Cable & Judge, 1994). However, other conceptualizations of P-O fit, such as demands-abilities perspective, have different outcomes (Kristof, 1996). Future research should focus on whether fit that occurs when an individuals has the abilities required to meet organizational demands influences communication and job-related outcomes. Also, differences in measurement procedures result in different outcomes. This research used self-reports of P-O fit, which could have influenced the results. However, the perceptions the employees might be more important than actual fit (Boon et al., 2011). Actual fit is one predictor of perceived fit, however, research has consistently demonstrated that the two constructs are distinct, and it is the perception of fit that best predicts individual outcomes (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001).
Practical implications
Through the present study, it has been established that P-O fit, based on the need to belong and belonging and the need to be unique and authenticity, influences communication and job-related outcomes. The current study helps understand the consequences of high or low P-O fit. An employee that has a low fit with his or her organization is less likely to trust
colleagues, experiences a weaker communication climate, less likely to speak up and is more likely to leave the organization than an employee with a high fit with the organization. The most important implication of our findings is that it is critical for organizations to have a good fit with their employees. It is worthy for organizations to take the needs of potential employees into account, since not being able to meet these needs will have consequences for the communication on the work floor and turnover rates. The first step for organizations in order to stimulate P-O fit is communicating their norms and values in their job vacancies, in pursuance of attracting the right talent. This provides a good initial screening mechanism by sending a clear message to those looking for a company to work for. An employee with a strong need to belong should work for an organization that can provide that employee with a strong sense of belonging and inclusion, whereas an employee with a strong need to be unique should work for an organization that gives the employees autonomy and freedom of choice. Furthermore, organizations should included P-O fit as part of their hiring process. To bring people aboard that fit with the organization, a P-O fit test, interview or other form of selection tool should be used wherein the needs of the potential employee should be the point of focus. The organization should identify the need of the potential employees in an early stage, since finding out afterwards that it is not a good fit could result in losing an employee, which cost time and money. An indication of the needs of the employee can help manager to
optimize teams when making internal assignments. Assigning an employee to a work group that can satisfy those needs could have a positive impact on that work group. Employees with a high need to belong will be more likely to trust colleagues, speak up, communicate better, and will be less likely to turnover when they work in a work group that can satisfy this need by including them within the group and form social bonds, whereas employees with a high need to be unique will be more likely to trust colleagues, speak up, and will be less likely to turnover when they work in a work group that can satisfy this need by joining a group that encourages the members to express their individuality. Furthermore, monthly meetings should be used to evaluate whether the organization provides sufficient
belongingness or/and authenticity in order to fulfill the personal needs of the employee. In sum, working for an organization that can satisfy employees’ needs is crucial for
communication on the work floor. Finding the right fit can result in a long-term relationship between the employee and the organization, perhaps living happily ever after?
Literature
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(2), 219-227.
Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., & Joustra, I. (2007). Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 173-190.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121-134.
Bettencourt, B. A., Molix, L., Talley, A. E., & Sheldon, K. M. (2006). Psychological need satisfaction through social roles. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.) Individuality and the
group: Advances in social identity (pp.196-214), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of person–
organisation and person–job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22(1), 138-162.
Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the job. The Executive, 5(4), 35-51.
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20(3), 531-551.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and social psychology bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of applied psychology, 89(5), 822.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical: Combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer research, 39(3), 561-573.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
Chhuon, V., & Wallace, T. L. (2014). Creating connectedness through being known fulfilling the need to belong in US high schools. Youth & Society, 46(3), 379-401.
Cooper, C. D. (2005). Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an ingratiatory behavior. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 765-776.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1975). Environmental uncertainty: The construct and its application. Administrative science quarterly, 20(4), 613-629.
Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Jolson, M. A. (1995). An examination of linkages between personal characteristics and dimensions of transformational leadership. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 9(3), 315-335.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of management Journal, 41(1), 108-119.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Fiske, S. T., Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. M. C. (2009). Social beings: A core motives
approach to social psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Guan, Y., Deng, H., Risavy, S. D., Bond, M. H., & Li, F. (2011). Supplementary Fit, complementary fit, and work related outcomes: The role of self construal. Applied
Guzley, R. M. (1992). Organizational climate and communication climate predictors of commitment to the organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(4), 379-402.
Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing.
Journal of knowledge management, 8(6), 117-130.
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person–organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 389-399.
Hofhuis, J., Van der Zee, K. I., & Otten, S. (2014). Comparing antecedents of voluntary job turnover among majority and minority employees. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
International Journal, 33(8), 735-749.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of pragmatics, 34(12), 1683-1710.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 248-264.
Jackson, D. (2008). Editorial: collegial trust: crucial to safe and harmonious workplaces.
Journal of clinical nursing, 17(12), 1541-1542.
Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., Zee, K. I., & Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: Conceptualization and measurement. European journal of social psychology, 44(4), 370-385.
Jian, Y., & Hanling, L. (2009). Psychological capital as mediator in relationship among organizational socialization, knowledge integration and sharing. Management and Service
Johansson, C., & Heide, M. (2008). Speaking of change: three communication approaches in studies of organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
13(3), 288-305.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person‐organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel psychology, 49(1), 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 643-671.
Kristof‐Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual fit at work: a meta-analysis of job, organization,
person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
Lang, J. C., & Lee, C. H. (2010). Workplace humor and organizational creativity. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(1), 46-60.
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees' perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 454-470.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of personality
assessment, 95(6), 610-624.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Lynch, O. H. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication research. Communication theory, 12(4), 423-445.
Lyttle, J. (2007). The judicious use and management of humor in the workplace. Business
Maimaran, M., & Wheeler S.C. (2008). Circles, squares, and choice: The effect of shape arrays on uniqueness and variety seeking. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 731–40.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual
differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of research in personality, 37(1), 48-75.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss?. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874-888.
McCallin, A. (2001). Interdisciplinary practice–a matter of teamwork: an integrated literature review. Journal of clinical nursing, 10(4), 419-428.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of management, 24(3), 351-389.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why*. Journal of management
studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
Morley, M. J. (2007). Person-organization fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 109-117.
Ng, E. S., & Burke, R. J. (2005). Person–organization fit and the war for talent: does diversity management make a difference?. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16(7), 1195-1210.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of management
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage Publications.
Resick, C. J., Baltes, B. B., & Shantz, C. W. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-related attitudes and decisions: examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1446.
Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. The Academy
of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58-69.
Ruvio, A. (2008). Unique like everybody else? The dual role of consumers' need for uniqueness. Psychology and Marketing, 25(5), 444.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Recruiting research in the 21st Century: Moving to a higher level. The Complete Handbook of Psychology, 1(4), 55-76.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
Seong, J.Y., & Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2012). Testing multidimensional models of person–group fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(6), 536–556.
Shah, D. V. (1998). Civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and television use: An individual-level assessment of social capital. Political Psychology, 19(3), 469-496.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of
