PERCEPTIONS OF FIT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT FOR
DEVELOPMENT/PERCEIVED CAREER OPPORTUNITIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND THE DIRECT AND MODERATING EFFECTS OF
PERSON-JOB AND PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT.
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Author:
Sabine Anne Lieke Hamer S1859943
s.a.l.hamer@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: David S. DeGeest, MBA, PhD 2nd Supervisor: Prof. Dr. H.B.M. Molleman
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to further examine the relationship between Organizational Support for Development/Perceived Career Opportunities and Organizational Citizenship Behavior and to investigate the direct and the rather unexplored moderating effects of Person Job and Person Organization fit. It was hypothesized that both Person Job and Person Organization fit would have a direct effect on employees’ engagement in Organizational Citizenship Behavior and that both constructs would also have a positive moderating effect on the main relationships of this study. Regression analyses were administered with data gathered from an online questionnaire conducted among various Dutch employees (n = 114). Results have indicated that the direct effects of Perceived Career Opportunities and high levels of Person Job fit could influence OCB. Moreover, employees’ engagement in OCB increased most when perceptions of high levels of Organizational Support for Development were moderated by high perceptions of Person Organization fit. The findings of this study add to theoretical and practical understanding of the determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and to the growing literature on fit perceptions.
INTRODUCTION
The last few decades a lot of research has been conducted on training and development of employees. Organizations are implementing more and more employee development programs to add value to organizations, to maintain a competitive advantage and to enhance organizational effectiveness through development of the workforce (Hurtz & Williams, 2009). The American Society for Training and Development (2009) estimated that in 2008 the organizations from the United States only, spent around $134.1 billion on training and employee development. Training and developmental programs have proved to bring forward various organizational outcomes (organizational performance, effectiveness, profitability and sales, etc.) and individual outcomes for the employees (tacit skills, innovation, communication, empowerment, etc.) (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).
Organizations thus spend a lot of time and money on the development of their employees. The major reason for this is that ‘organizations hope to shape and tailor employees behaviors to the organization’s needs and develop an engaged and motivated workforce by investing in HR practices’ (Gavino, Wayne & Erdogan, 2012). That is, to the level to which training and development signal to employees that the organization puts effort in them, cares about them and value their contributions, training and development would be instrumental in shaping the quality of the relationship between the employee and the organization, and thereby have an impact on employee behaviors (Gavino, Wayne & Erdogan, 2012; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Corresponding to the Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and its important norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), many researchers have proven that employees feel obligated to repay the organization for provided benefits, which in turn can be beneficial for the organization (Meeker, 1971).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is recognized as a very important term of beneficial behavior towards the organization based on social exchange relationships (Gavino, Wayne & Erdogan, 2012). OCB is recognized for its direct manifestation on beneficial organizational outcomes and is defined by Organ (1988, p.4) as ‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization’. Based on previous research it is argued that two certain types of employee perceptions matter as predictors of OCB.
OCB. These perceptions are the overall perceptions of an individual employee that the organization provides programs and opportunities that help employees develop their functional skills and capabilities (Kraimer et al., 2011). Past studies have shown that there is a close connection between perceived OSD and OCB (Pierce & Maurer, 2009). This occurs because OSD is perceived by employees as symbolic of their organization’s commitment to them and indicates that the organization is seeking a social exchange relationship with its employees and thereby contributes to the OCB (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 2003).
Second, employees might have perceptions that within the organization they work for, there are jobs or positions available that match their interests and own career goals (Kraimer et al., 2011). Many organizations provide programs for career advancement, but to what extent are the employees feeling that there are opportunities for them to expand their careers? The provision of satisfying and rewarding career development opportunities to employees has been fairly well proved to have advantages for organizations (Crawshaw, van Dick & Brodbeck, 2012), results on previous research show evidence for a social exchange relationship between employees perceptions of Perceived Career Opportunities (hereafter, referred to as PCO) and OCB (Okurame, 2011).
Perceptions of OSD and PCO are both predictive for OCB associated to the aspects of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). However, the value of this study lies in its discussion on how to strengthen factors that lead to OCB. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether Person Job (PJ) fit and Person Organization (PO) fit -two types of Person Environment fit- could increase employees display of OCB. Researchers suggest that OCB arises as a consequence of Person Environment (PE) fit (Wat & Schaffer, 2005, Chaing & Hsieh, 2012), which has be confirmed as it has been proved that employees’ perceptions of PO fit enhances employees’ engagement in OCB (O’Reilly et al., 1991; Chen & Chiu, 2008). Moreover, Greguras and Diefendorff (2009) stated that OCB is directly affected by the degree to which employees get the feeling that their skills and abilities match the demands and the requirements of the job. Besides, these arguments for the direct influence of PJ and PO fit on OCB, in this study it will be argued that both constructs will moderate the relationship between OSD/PCO and OCB as well.
--- Insert Figure 1 about here ---
This study would provide the literature with an additional step towards the increasing relevance of the person environment fit theories to models of career opportunities and development. The first important contribution of this study is the fact that this study focuses on specific types of PE fit and its moderating roles. Many researchers have implicated that future research on PE fit should focus more on the different types of PE fit in single studies. Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2001) for example stated that PJ and PO fit are distinguishable to employees and explain unique variance in behaviors. Important elements to predict individual outcomes might include various aspects of their work environments, jobs and organizations. Moreover, better understandings of individual fit perceptions will help to predict organizational level consequences as it has been proved that individual fit perceptions influence organizational level consequences (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). Second, many researchers have pointed out that it is important to get a better understanding of the determinants of OCB, because as also mentioned in the meta-analysis by Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff and Blume (2009), OCB is not only related to organizational outcomes such as customer satisfaction and cost reduction, but also to important individual outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover and employee performance. Thus, besides the insights in individual PE fit perceptions this study also contributes to the literature by getting a better understanding of moderating factors on OCB.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Organizational Support for Development and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Organizational Support for Development (OSD) is in this study defined, based on earlier research by Kraimer et al. (2011), as the overall perceptions of an individual employee that the organization provides programs and opportunities that help employees develop their functional skills and capabilities. Past research on OSD was especially focused on
organizational policies and practices (Dubin, 1977; Kozlowski & Farr, 1988) and on social support from peers and supervisors (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe, 1996). Nowadays most researchers are focused on employee work attitudes and behaviors resulting of OSD (Maurer & Lippstreu, 2008; Kraimer et al., 2011).
Previous studies have shown that there is a close relationship between perceived OSD and OCB (Pierce & Maurer, 2009). This close relationship is in congruence with the social exchange theory, which is a well-known theory with the perspective of the organization’s contributions into the social exchange relationship between individual employees and their employers (Blau, 1964; Roades & Eisenberger, 2002). Central to this theory is the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), which makes individuals respond positively to favorable treatment received from others (Blau, 1964; Pierce & Maurer, 2009). Employees feel
obligated to repay the organization for provided benefits, which in turn can be beneficial for the organizations (Meeker, 1971). Research has proposed that the social exchange theory is explanatory for OCB (Organ, 1990). OCB was introduced by Organ (1988) and refers to individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization’(Organ, 1988, p.4).
Hypothesis 1: Organizational Support for Development is positively related to OCB.
Perceived Career Opportunities and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The relationship between PCO and OCB is also based on the social exchange theory (Okurame, 2011) and is similar to the relationship between OSD and OCB. PCO can be explained ‘as employees’ perception that within the organization there are jobs or positions available that match their interests and own career goals’(Kraimer et al, 2011, p.488). The provision of satisfying and rewarding career development opportunities to employees has proved to have advantages for organizations (Crawshaw, van Dick & Brodbeck, 2012). Previous research has shown that perceived career opportunities (PCO) are related to many workplace attitudes and behaviors. For example, past research has highlighted the relatedness between perceived career opportunities and positive work attitudes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Birdi et al., 1997; Blau et al., 2001). Employees’ perceptions of career opportunities might differ depending on the opportunities that organizations offer them and are also dependent of contextual and situational factors, such as career planning and goal setting or the signals that the employees receive from organizational representatives regarding their career potential (Kraimer, et al., 2011). At last, jobs need to be challenging and provide opportunities to career enhancement, as employees who are no longer challenged by their jobs provide significantly reduced OCB (Jawahar, 2012). In sum, it is predicted that PCO is positively related to OCB and, therefore, the second main relationship is stated as following:
Hypothesis 2: Perceived Career Opportunities are positively related to OCB.
Based on the above delineation of the relationships between OCB with OSD and PCO, this study next develops hypotheses linking the direct and moderating effects of PJ and PO fit to employees’ display of OCB.
Person-Environment fit
employees (Kristof-Brown & Billsberry, 2012). The employees’ perceptions of PJ and PO fit are central to this particular study.
Edwards (1991) has defined PJ fit as ‘a match between the abilities or the needs of an employee and the demands of a job or what is provided by a job’. Integrated within this definition is the aspect of complementary fit, which refers to occasions in which one entity completes the other (Kristof-Brown & Billsberry, 2012). At one side, the complementary aspect of PJ fit represents the level to which a person possesses the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the task-related demands of a job (also called demands-abilities fit) (Edwards et al, 2006; Resick, Baltes & Walker Shantz, 2007). On the other side, it shows to what extent the job’s characteristics and rewards fulfill an individual’s psychological preferences or needs (often referred to as needs-supplies fit)(Edwards et al, 2006; Resick, Baltes & Walker Shantz, 2007).
PO fit in contrast, is related to the insight of how an employee matches with an organization’s values, mission, and goals. Therefore, Kristof (1996) defined PO fit as ‘the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when at least one entity provides what the other needs, they share similar fundamental characteristics, or both’ (Kristof, 1996, p4-5). Central to the literature on PO fit is the aspect of value congruence and similarity between the employee and organization, which is often referred to as supplementary fit (Kristof, 1996).
Focal point of this study are the employees’ perceptions of PJ and PO fit. In the literature scholars often refer to objective and perceived fit, which is also called subjective fit. Objective fit involves gathering information about the person and the organization, then assessing their relatedness (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Resick, Baltes & Walker Shantz, 2007). In contrast, perceived fit involves information gathering by asking people whether or not they believe they are a good fit with an organization and its members (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001; Resick, Baltes & Walker Shantz, 2007). In this study
perceptions of fit are be used as previous research proved that larger effect sizes can be found for perceived fit and perceptions of fit are more proximately related to attitudes and decisions in comparison to objective fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Resick, Baltes & Walker Shantz, 2007). The direct and interaction effect of PJ fit.
before, Greguras and Diefendorff (2009) argue that OCB is directly affected by the degree to which employees get the feeling that their skills and abilities match the requirements of the job. This could be due to the complementary aspect of PJ fit, as employees who perceive high levels of complementary PJ fit feel that their uniqueness is valued by the organization by special offers in terms of developmental opportunities or specific tasks of the organization and they have the feeling that they stand out in the organization (Piasentin & Chapman, 2007). In turn this could result in the reciprocal beneficial behavior of OCB. Hence, the first hypothesis of this study states that high perceptions of PJ fit are positively related to OCB.
Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of PJ fit are positively related to OCB.
With regard to the moderating role of PJ fit, it is expected to find a positive interaction effect of PJ fit on the relationships of OSD/PCO and OCB. According to Cable and DeRue (2002) it is argued that employees are less attracted to their occupations when they do not perceive it to be a fit between their skills and their jobs’ demands. However, when employees do perceive it as good fit with their occupations, they are more likely to engage in personal development seeking behaviors and more likely to create situations that support higher levels of achievements and job performance (Ballout, 2007). This implies that employees with high levels of PJ fit would probably attach more value to and make better use of perceived OSD. In this influence, taken together the above literature, it is argued that high levels of PJ fit will have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between OSD and OCB, which results in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4a: Perceptions of PJ fit moderate the relationship between OSD and OCB such that the relationship will be stronger when PJ fit is perceived high compared to when it is low.
Furthermore, Kraimer et al. (2011) argue that many scholars have discussed that the boudaryless career attitude of these days has led employees to evaluate their career success not just in terms of promotion and salary but in terms of their own subjective criteria for career success (Heslin, 2005). Employees might for example want to work in specific
opportunities come up to their preferences or needs and perceive a good match with the job’s characteristics and rewards (Edwards et al, 2006; Resick, Baltes & Walker Shantz, 2007) they might have the feeling that their careers can unfold within the organization (Kraimer et al., 2011). Arguably, employees with high levels of PJ fit could thus value PCO to a larger extent, which would increase the levels of OCB. Therefore, based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4b: Perceptions of PJ fit moderate the relationship between PCO and OCB such that the relationship will be stronger when PJ fit is perceived high compared to when it is low.
The direct and interaction effect of PO fit.
Past research has stated that employees’ perceptions of PO fit may lead to close relationships, positive affect and attachment with the organization (O’Reilly et al., 1991) and might thus, enhance employees’ engagement in OCB (Chen & Chiu, 2008). Moreover, research also provided evidence for the relationship between PO fit and OCB resulting in significant connections that were investigated by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) and by Hoffman and Woehr (2006). The measured significant relatedness is based on the ideas of
supplementary fit that an employee who shares the values and goals of the organization will be more likely to engage in OCB to help the larger cause of the organization (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Moreover, because PO fit reflects whether employees regard themselves as compatible with the organization (Guan et al, 2010) it is argued that PO fit may have a direct influence on employees’ engagement in OCB. Based on these arguments it is hypothesized that PO fit is positively related to OCB.
Hypothesis 5: Perceptions of PO fit are positively related to OCB.
Furthermore, this study proposes that PO fit will also moderate the relationships of OCB with OSD and PCO. First, high PO fit enhances an employee’s feeling of being
Thus, employees with high PO fit will probably better understand and make use of perceived OSD as a consequence of shared values with the organization. In sum, it is therefore predicted that high perceptions of PO fit could strengthen the relationships of OSD with OCB, which leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6a: Perceptions of PO fit moderate the relationship between OSD and OCB such that the relationship will be stronger when PO fit is perceived high compared to when it is low.
Considering the relationship between PCO and OCB it is argued that PO fit might have a positive moderating effect on this relationship as well. As mentioned before, high PO fit enhances an employee’s feeling of being personally tied to the organization (Wei, 2015). Employees could be able to recognize that their fit with their organization (in terms of value congruence) allows them to make full use of their abilities in pursuit of career success, satisfying their achievement motivation (Elder, 1968; Freund and Holling, 2011; Wei, 2015). That is, employees who perceive a good match with their organization and who have the feeling that their careers can unfold within the organization (Kraimer et al., 2011) will attach more importance to PCO. When it is also taken into account that employees with high perceptions of PO fit will have a better understanding of organizational goals in terms of wants and needs (Boon et al., 2011) it can thus be hypothesized that high levels of PO fit will moderate the relationship between PCO and OCB in a positive way.
Hypothesis 6b: Perceptions of PO fit moderate the relationship between PCO and OCB such that the relationship will be stronger when PO fit is perceived high compared to when it is low.
METHOD Sample and Procedure
In order to test the hypotheses a survey was conducted among Dutch employees working at diverse Dutch organizations. The participating employees were contacted face-to-face, by phone and by e-mail to arouse their interest for this research and to acquire their cooperation. After they were contacted they all received an e-mail with a link to the online questionnaire from Qualtrics. The questionnaire started with some general information on the subject and was provided in Dutch and English, to ensure that all employees were able to understand and answer the questions. The questionnaire took amongst fifteen minutes and participants were able to safe their answers to fulfill the rest of the questionnaire at a later time. The questionnaire was organized per subject (OSD, PCO, OCB, PJ fit and PO fit) and each subject was introduced with a short informational text. Next the participants were requested to indicate their personal level of agreement or disagreement with the statements by responding to them on a Likert-scale ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘fully agree’. Participating was entirely voluntary and to protect the confidentiality of the participants, the questionnaire was anonymous.
The total response rate of the data was seventy-one percent, however participants that had too many missing values were deleted from the data file in SPSS (28 respondents were deleted) in order to get the most reliable results. From the remaining sample of 114 employees sixty-three percent were female and thirty-seven percent were males. The age of all the employees was categorized in four categories; 1. 20-30, 2. 30-40, 3. 40-50 and 4. 50+. The mean of the age categories was 1.89 (SD= 1.15) and fifty-seven percent of the employees filled in that they were between 20-30 years old.
Measures
The variables in this study were OSD, PCO, OCB, PJ and PO fit. The online questionnaire consisted of 34 test items (see Table 1) and all items were measured on a 7 point Likert-scale ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘fully agree’.
organization is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability’), (α = .823).
Perceived Career Opportunities. PCO was measured by making use of the article of Kraimer et al. (2011) who based their measurement items on a pilot study. The 3 items that were measured are; ‘ There are career opportunities within this organization that are attractive to me’, ‘There are job opportunities available within this organization that are of interest to me’, and ‘This organization offers many job opportunities that match my career goals’ (α = .861). Organizational Citizenship Behavior. OCB is often measured by supervisors, however in this study employees themselves were requested on their organizational citizenship behavior. This was measured by using 8 items (for example: ‘I make creative work related suggestions to co-workers’ or ‘I participate in activities that are not required but that help the image of the organization’) selected from a list of 25 items on OCB measured in a study by Coyle-Shapiro (2002) (α = .769).
Person Job Fit. PJ fit was measured using 8 items integrated from studies by Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2001) and Piasentin and Chapman (2007). The 8 items that were used contained 5 statements about fitting the job in terms of skills (‘My abilities fit the demands of this job’, ‘I have the right skills and abilities for doing this job’, and ‘There is a good match between the requirements of this job and my skills’) and also in terms of personality/temperament (‘My personality is a good match for this job’ and ‘I am the right type of person for this type of work’) ( Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001, p.p. 460). The reason for looking at both job fit in terms of skills and in terms of personality was the fact that it has been proved that both are very important to PJ fit (Kristof, 1996) (α = .850). In order capturing the complementary aspect of PJ fit as well, 3 more items were added from a study of Piasentin and Chapman (2007). Included were for instance the statements ‘I feel like I stand out in this organization’ and ‘My knowledge, skills, and abilities offer something that other employees in this organization do not have’ (Piasentin and Chapman, 2007). The 3 items from the list of 8 items of Piasentin and Chapman (2007) were selected, as at face value they appeared to represent the PJ fit construct. Cronbach’s alpha was .78.
fairness’). Moreover, 5 additional (at face value selected) items were incorporated from the study of Piasentin and Chapman (2007) to depict the supplementary aspect of PO fit as well. A sample item is: ‘The underlying philosophy of this organization reflects what I value in a company’. Cronbach’s alpha was .86.
Data analyses
First of all, the reliability of the scale items of the different conceptual constructs were tested by the calculation of the Cronbach’s Alpha. All measurement scales had a Cronbach’s Alpha higher than .70 and no scale items were deleted. Because the scale items were internally consistent, the items of each scale were averaged to compute combined variables for the constructs of OSD, PCO, OCB, PJ fit and PO fit. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for these computed variables. In the second step Pearson correlations were measured for all the conceptual variables and the control variables (see Table 2).
Furthermore, in order to test the hypotheses, multiple moderated ordinary least square (OLS) regression analyses were conducted using the statistical software SPSS. All the predictor variables were standardized, and interaction effects were computed by multiplying the corresponding standardized predictor variables as recommended by Aiken and West (1991).
The first and second hypotheses were tested to assess the main effects of perceived OSD and PCO on employees’ display of OCB. Using the standardized variables, a regression of both dependent variables (OSD and PCO) on the independent variable OCB was run controlling for the variables age and gender.
The third and fifth hypotheses were tested to assess the main effects of perceptions of PJ and PO fit on employee’s display of OCB. In this influence, another regression was performed using the standardized variables to test the effects of PJ and PO fit on OCB controlling for age and gender.
RESULTS
The results are divided into two different sections. The first section depicts the descriptive statistics and the Pearson correlations among the study variables. In the second section the hypotheses are tested via multiple linear regressions.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics (means (M) and standard deviations (SD) and the Pearson correlations of the control variables (gender and age), the dependent variable (OCB), the independent variables (OSD and PCO) and the moderator variables (PJ and PO fit).
OSD is positively correlated with OCB (r = .29, p < .01), and a significant positive correlation is also found between PCO and OCB (r = .38, p < .01). OSD and PCO highly significantly correlate (r = .62, p < .01), which could be due to the fact that both variables are individual perceptions of similar constructs concerning training and career development. The inclusion of the control variables has shown that there is a positive correlation between age and OCB (r = .25, p < .01), however there has not been found a significant correlation between gender and OCB. This implies that age might influence the employee’s reciprocal behavior, whereas gender might have no influence on OCB. Furthermore, PJ fit and PO fit are both positively significantly correlated to OSD, PCO and OCB. Noticeable is the high significant correlation between PO fit and OSD (r = .64, p < .01), which indicates that these were very similar constructs. All the results can be viewed in Table 2.
--- Insert Table 2 about here --- Hypotheses testing
In this section the results of the regression analyses from z-scored variables are summarized and related to the predicted hypotheses.
First of all, a separate OLS regression was administered including the control variables gender and age to test the relationships of OCB with OSD and PCO. The results of this
regression are shown in Table 3. Hypothesis 1 proposed a positive relationship between OSD and OCB, however the regression results (B = .05, SE = .06, p = .37) displayed to be
proven to be significant (B = .18, SE = .06, p < .01), which indicates that the displayed levels of OCB will be higher when employees have the feeling that there are career opportunities available for them within the organization (PCO). Consequently, hypothesis 2 is therefore confirmed.
--- Insert Table 3 about here ---
Secondly, another separate OLS regression analysis has been conducted in order to measure the direct relatedness of PJ and PO fit on OCB controlling for age and gender. The results of this regression are depicted in Table 4. Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between PJ fit and OCB and the results showed that this relationship can be confirmed (B = .21, SE = .05, p < .01). This result indicates that employees tend to engage more in OCB when they perceive high levels of PJ fit. Furthermore, hypothesis 5 stated that PO fit should have a positive relationship with OCB. The results of the regression revealed insignificant results for the existence of this relationship (B = .04, SE = .05, p = .43). Thus, no evidence was found that is in support of hypothesis 5, given the insignificant results.
--- Insert Table 4 about here --- The interaction effects of PJ and PO fit
In order measuring the interaction effects of PJ and PO fit on the relationships between OSD/PCO and OCB (controlling for age and gender) a final regression analysis was administered of which the results are presented in Table 5.
--- Insert Table 5 about here ---
Furthermore, hypothesis 4b predicted to find a strengthening moderating effect for high perceptions of PJ fit on the relationship between PCO and OCB. The results (B = .03, SE = .06, p = .67) revealed no support for this hypothesis, as the interaction was not significant (see also Figure 3). Thus, hypothesis 4b was not supported.
Secondly, hypotheses 6a and 6b were tested to indicate the moderating role of PO fit. Hypothesis 6a stated that high perceptions of PO fit would strengthen the relationship between OSD and OCB. The results showed that, in congruence with the expectations, this interaction was measured to be significant (B = .14, SE = .06, p < .05). Moreover, the simple slopes of the positive interaction (graphically depicted in Figure 4) revealed that the relationship between OSD and OCB is stronger when perceptions of PO fit are high, rather than when PO fit is perceived low. Thus, the results did show evidence for the moderating effect of PO fit and, therefore, hypothesis 6a is supported.
The last hypothesis, hypothesis 6b, proposed to find a positive moderating effect of PO fit on the relationship between PCO and OCB. Based on the results it can be concluded that there was not found a significant interaction effect for PO fit (B = .06, SE = .06, p = .32) and therefore hypothesis 6b was not supported.
DISCUSSION
The overall aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between perceived OSD/PCO and OCB, through the direct and moderating effects of PJ and PO fit. In addition to recent research on the roles of perceived OSD and PCO on OCB (Pierce & Maurer, 2009; Okurame, 2011) mainly based on the Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) this study proved the relations to be more complex due to the differential effects of PJ and PO fit.
The aim was to test the moderating effects of PJ fit and PO fit to contribute to the growing body of literature on OCB and fit perceptions (Farzaneh et al., 2013). First of all, the main relationships showed opposite results from the initially hypothesized expectations. In contrast with the recent literature (Pierce & Maurer, 2009; Riggle et al., 2009) no evidence was found in support of the relationship between OSD and OCB. However, the final regression analysis including the interaction effects showed that OSD was marginally significantly related to OCB, which could probably be explained by the suppression effect of the additional variables in this model (Conger, 1974). The relationship between OSD and OCB thus revealed to be more complex than previously envisaged. In contrast to the unexpected findings on the relationship between OSD and OCB, the results showed in consistency with the literature on PCO (Okurame, 2011) that the relationship between PCO and OCB revealed to be highly significant. This implies that employees who perceive that their careers can unfold to their preferences and needs within the organization feel more obligated to repay the organization for its provided benefits.
Secondly, it was predicted and tested whether PJ and PO fit could have a direct influence on employees’ engagement in OCB. As hypothesized, the results displayed a direct significant relationship between PJ fit and OCB, which is in line with the current literature (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009). Insignificant results were however found for the relationship between PO fit and OCB, which is in contrast with the current literature on PO fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006).
Theoretical and practical implications
This study extends prior research by linking the relationship between different perceptions of training and development (OSD & PCO) to OCB, through the moderating effects of PJ and PO fit. Based on the findings of this study some theoretical and practical implications are suggested.
First of all, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on the determinants of OCB and thereby also to research on the various organizational and individual outcomes of OCB. Most scholars argue, as mentioned before, that employees feel obligated to repay the organization for provided benefits (Meeker, 1971). The results of this study implied that this is however not the case in all situations. It can be concluded that the extent to which an employee perceives PCO from the organization generates a greater social exchange relationship, which results in increasing OCB (Rhoades et al., 2001; Okurame, 2011). Moreover, the strong significant relationship between PCO and OCB could be explained by the fact that employees who perceive possible career growth prospects feel the need to pay more attention to their work responsibilities, thereby enhancing their engagement in OCB (Okurame, 2011). However, OSD seems to be more complex related to OCB and is dependent on other factors. This finding was unexpected as it contradicts the social exchange relationship (Blau, 1964). A possible explanation for the insignificant relationship between OSD and OCB could be found in the study of Jawahar (2012). According to the results of this study it was measured that opportunities of OSD were negatively related to personal accomplishment. It could thus be that employees do not value OSD in all situations as a positive provided organizational benefit, which could cause the insignificant relationship. In addition, it was mentioned by Okurame (2011) that perceived OSD led to increasing OCB directed to individuals (sportsmanship, courtesy and altruism) rather than to organizational OCB, which was tested in this study. Other possible explanations might be the quality of the provided OSD (for example the quality of a mentoring relationship) (Kwan et al., 2011). Recommendations for future research would thus include better investigation of both OSD and PCO in relation to the specific types of OCB.
organization for provided benefits when their skills and abilities highly match the demands and requirements of the job rather than for high value congruence with the organization. This suggestion is interesting and could be caused by the fact that the participants in this study were all young employees who are probably focusing more on individual skills and abilities as to the organization as a whole. Moreover, as a result of the many young respondents measures of PO fit might have been systematically biased by the degree of employees’ PJ fit. Employees in general, but especially young employees, might have been unable to distinguish the characteristics of their organization from the characteristics of their job (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006). Future research should thus focus on the investigation of the nature of the relationship between PJ and PO fit as also mentioned by Hoffman and Woehr (2006).
A third addition to the literature is the examination of fit perceptions as moderators in relation to OSD/PCO and OCB. High levels of PO fit were found to strengthen the relationship between perceived OSD and OCB. This implies, as hypothesized, that employees who highly value their organizational compatibility, have a better understanding and make better use of perceived OSD (Boon et al., 2011). However, no evidence was found in support of the other predicted interaction effects of hypothesis 4a, 6a and 6b. PO fit did moderate the relationship between OSD and OCB, but did not moderate the relationship between PCO and OCB. PO fit highly correlated with OSD and correlated less high with PCO, which could be one possible reason for the found significant interaction of PO fit on OSD and OCB. Moreover, PJ fit did not show moderating effects for both main relationships, which implies that the extent to which employees have the feeling that their skills and abilities match the demands and requirements of the job does not matter to perceived OSD or PCO. Future research should further investigate these interactions.
knowledge that could be used during the selection process for new employees. In sum, it might be useful to develop strategies to encourage and promote the motivation of employees to provide OCB by considering OSD and PCO and get a better understanding of individual perceptions of PJ and PO fit in enhancing the impact of perceptions of training and developmental opportunities on OCB.
Limitations and future directions
There are several limitations of this study that should be taken into account. First of all, the sample consisted of cross-sectional and single source data, which makes it difficult to make causal inferences. Moreover, the sample consisted of many young employees all at the beginning of their various careers. Older employees with varying degrees of tenure and at different career stages might have more relevant experience with OSD and PCO and might indicate better perceptions of fit. People become more experienced with their jobs and organizations they worked for as they mature and enhance their self-sight (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert & Shipp, 2006).
A second potential limitation of this study could have been the subjective measurement of fit perceptions. While some researchers, as mentioned before, argue that larger effect sizes can be found for subjective perceptions of fit (Cable, & DeRue, 2002; Resick, Baltes & Walker Shantz, 2007)) other researchers argue that measures of perceptions of fit could be more prone to measurement problems, for instance common method variance and reliability issues (Edwards, 1991; Piasentin & Chapman, 2007). And in addition it has also been suggested from empirical findings that objective measures (especially on PO Fit) are more strongly related to behavioral outcomes (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; van Vianen, De Pater & Van Dijk, 2007). Besides these contradicting arguments and the fact that self-report measures have limitations in terms of common method bias (Podsakoff et al, 2003), the measurements used in this particular study were appropriate for the invested research phenomena. However, in order to make the results of this study more reliable and valid future research should also consider objective measures of fit.
dimensions and which are operationalized by a large variety of different measures. The usage of different measurement models and scales will make it difficult for researchers to integrate their research findings across empirical studies when there is no common model or framework (De Clerq, Fontaine & Anseel, 2008). Future research should take these issues into account and improve and formulate models more clearly and similarly.
Finally, suggestions for future research would include research on team level. It could be very interesting to investigate if there is some kind of supplementary or complementary ‘fit climate’ as Kristof-Brown et al. (2014) mentioned. Based on the predictions and outcomes of this study it would be useful to find out if moderating effects will have similar outcomes on team level as HR systems could try to have influence on the predictors of the perceptions of the measured types of PE fit.
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H. & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations and society. Annual review of psychology, 60, 451-474.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29, 99–118.
American Society for Training and Development (2009). State of the industry report. Alexandia, VA: Author.
Ballout, H.I. (2007). Career success: The effects of human capital, person-environment fit and organizational support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(8), 741-765.
Birdi, K., Allan, C. & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee development activity. Journal of applied psychology, 82, 845-57.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. Blau, G., Merriman, K., Tatum, D. & Rudmann, S. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of basic versus career enrichment benefit satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 669–689.
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-organization and person-job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 138-162.
Cable, D.M. and Parsons, C.K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1-23.
Chen, C.C. & Chiu, S. (2008). An Integrative Model Linking Supervisor Support and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1/2), 1-10. Chiang, C.-F. and Hsieh, T.-S. (2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 180-190. Conger, A.J. (1974). A revised definition or suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational Psychology Measurement, 34, 35-46.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 23, 927-946.
Crawshaw, J. R., van Dick, R. & Brodbeck, F. C. (2012). Opportunity, fair process and relationship value: career development as a driver of proactive work behavior. Human resource management journal, 22(1), 4-20.
De Clercq, S., Fontaine, J.R.J. & Anseel, F. (2008) In search of a comprehensive value model for assessing supplementary person-organization fit. The Journal of Psychology, 142(3), 277-302.
Dubin, S. S. (1977). A learning model for updating older technical and professional persons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Edwards, J.R., Cable, D.M., Williamson, I.O., Lambert, L.S. & Shipp, A.J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-7.
Elder, G.H. (1968). Achievement motivation and intelligence in occupational mobility: a longitudinal analysis. Sociometry, 31(4), 327-354.
Farzaneh, J., Farashah, A.D., Kazemi, M. (2014). The impact of job fit and person-organization fit on OCB. Personnel Review, 43(5), 672-691.
Freund, P.A. & Holling, H. (2011). Who wants to take an intelligence test? Personality and achievement motivation in the context of ability testing. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50(5), 723-728.
Gavino, M.C., Wayne, S.J. & Erdogan, B. (2012). Discretionary and transactional human resources practices and employee outcomes: The role of perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 665-686.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
sociological review, 25, 161–177.
Greguras, G.J. & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using
self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477.
Guan, Y., Deng, H., Bond, M.H., Chen, S.X. & Chan, C.C. (2010). Person-job fit and work related attitudes among Chinese employees: Need for cognitive closure as moderator. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 250-260.
Hoffman, B. & Woehr, D. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person– organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 389–399. Hurtz, G.M. & Willams, K.J. (2009). Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of participation in voluntary employee development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 635-653.
Jawahar, I.M. (2012). Mediating role of satisfaction with growth opportunities on the relationship between employee development opportunities and citizenship behaviors and burnout. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2257-2284.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Farr, J. L. (1988). An integrative model of updating and performance.
Human Performance, 1, 5–29.
Kraimer, M.L., Seibert, S.E., Bravo, J., Wayne, S.J. & Liden, R.C. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 485-500.
Kristof, A.L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49
Kristof-Brown AL, Billsberry J. (2012). Fit for the future. In Kristof-Brown AL, Billsberry J (Eds.), Organizational fit: Key issues and new directions (pp. 1–18). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Seong, J.Y., DeGeest, D.S., Park, W. & Hong, S. (2014). Collective fit perceptions: A multilevel investigation of person-group fit with individual-level and team-level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 969-989.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of
Kwan, H.K., Liu, J., Liu, J. & Hong-Kit Yim, F. (2011). Effects of mentoring functions on receivers’ organizational citizenship behavior in a Chinese context; a two-study
investigation. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 363-370.
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454–470.
Maurer, T. J. & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activities by employees. Journal of applied psychology, 79, 3-14
Maurer, T. J., & Lippstreu, M. (2008). Who will be committed to an organization that provides support for employee development? Journal of management development, 27, 328 – 347.
Meeker, B. F. (1971). Decisions and exchange. American Sociological Review, 36, 485–495. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person–environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, T.W. & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,44(6), 1102-1121.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O. & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of marketing, 61(3), 85-98.
Okurame, D. (2011). Impact of career growth prospects and formal mentoring on
organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(1), 66 – 85.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.
O’Reilly, C.A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516
Piasentin, K.A., & Chapman, D.S. (2007). Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective person–organization fit. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80, 341–354.
Pierce, H.R. & Maurer, T.J. (2009). Linking employee development activity, social exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Training & Development, 13(3), 139-147.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. & Blume, B.D. (2009). Individual and organizational level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141.
Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature/ Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698-714.
Riggle, R.J., Edmondson, D.R., and Hansen, J.D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of business research, 62, 1027-1030.
Van Vianen, A. E. M., De Pater, I. E., & Van Dijk, F. (2007). Work value fit and turnover intention: Same source or different-source fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 188– 202.
Wat, D. and Shaffer, M.A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behaviors: the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34 (4), 406-422.
Table 1
Survey of all questionnaire items Item
Items on organizational support for development.
1. The organization is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability.
2. The organization strongly considers my goals and values. 3. The organization tries to make my job as interesting as possible. 4. The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. 5. Help is available from the organization when I have a problem. 6. The organization gives me the opportunity to move up the ranks.
Items on perceived career opportunities.
7. There are career opportunities within this organization that are attractive to me. 8. There are job opportunities available within this organization that are of interest to me. 9. This organization offers many job opportunities that match my career goals.
Items on organizational citizenship behavior.
10. I make creative work related suggestions to co-workers.
11. I participate in activities that are not required but that help the image of the organization. 12. I pursue additional training to improve my performance.
13. I make innovative suggestions to improve the functioning of the department. 14. I help others who have heavy workloads.
15. I work beyond what is expected from me.
16. I take care of extra duties and responsibilities at work. 17. I represent the organization favorably to outsiders.
Items on person job fit.
18. My abilities fit the demands of this job.
19. I have the right skills and abilities for doing this job.
20. There is a good match between the requirements of this job and my skills. 21. My personality is a good match for this job.
22. I am the right type of person for this type of work. 23. I feel like I stand out in this organization.
do not have.
25. I feel that I am a unique piece of the puzzle that makes this organization work.
Items on person organization fit.
26. I feel that my personal values are a good fit with this organization.
27. This organization has the same values as I do with regards to concern for others. 28. This organization has the same values as I do with regard to honesty.
29. This organization has the same values as I do with regard to fairness.
30. The underlying philosophy of this organization reflects what I value in a company. 31. My personality is similar to the employees I work with.
32. I share a lot in common with people who work for this company.
33. My skills and abilities match the skills and abilities this organization looks for in employees. 34. My ability level is comparable to those of my co-workers.
Table 2: Pearson Correlation Matrix Variable M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Age 1.89 1.15 2. Gender 1.63 .49 -.39** 3. OCB 3.84 .53 .25** -.16 4. OSD 3.75 .63 -.03 -.10 .29** 5. PCO 3.31 1.04 -.03 -.15 .38** .62** 6. PJ Fit 3.73 .54 .36** -.10 .47** .32** .32** 7. PO Fit 3.72 .59 .07 -.05 .25** .64** .48** .41** ªNote: N= 114. Gender (1=male, 2= female), Age (1= 20-30, 2= 30-40, 3= 40-50, and 4= 50+). **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
Table 3: Regression analysis
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Variable B S.E. p Constant 3.840 .04 .00** Age .14 .05 .01** Gender .00 .05 .98 OSD .05 .06 .37 PCO .18 .06 .00** R² .22 ªNote: N= 114. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05. Table 4: Regression analysis
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Variable B S.E. p Constant 3.840 .04 .00** Age .03 .05 .53 Gender -.05 .05 .32 PJ fit .21 .05 .00** PO fit .04 .05 .43 R² .22 ªNote: N= 114. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05. Table 5: Regression analysis
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Figure 2: Plot of OSD x PJ Fit on OCB
Figure 4: Plot of OSD x PO Fit on OCB
Figure 5: Plot of PCO x PO Fit on OCB
