People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit

Abstract

This article brings together three current themes in organizational behavior: (1) a renewed interest in assessing person-situation interactional constructs, (2) the quantitative assessment of organizational culture, and (3) the application of "Q-sort," or template-matching, approaches to assessing person-situation interactions. Using longitudinal data from accountants and M.B.A. students and cross-sectional data from employees of government agencies and public accounting firms, we developed and validated an instrument for assessing personorganization fit, the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP). Results suggest that the dimensionality of individual preferences for organizational cultures and the existence of these cultures are interpretable. Further, person-organization fit predicts job satisfaction and organizational commitment a year after fit was measured and actual turnover after two years. This evidence attests to the importance of understanding the fit between individuals' preferences and organizational cultures.

Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance

“…Mitchell et al (2001) argue that the better the fit, the higher the likelihood that an employee will feel professionally and personally tied to (or embedded in) the organization. People who do not fit tend to leave the organization rapidly (cf: O'Reilly et al, 1991). Having a good fit, of course does not guarantee better employee or work unit performance.…”

On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness.

“…Measures of variability of behavior are as readily available as measures of means and should also be reported in cross-cultural studies. The notion that organizational cultures differ on the extent to which they emphasize rules and predictability versus flexibility and experimentation has a long history in the organizational sciences (Litwin & Stringer, 1968;O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991;O'Reilly & Chatman, 1996;Quinn, 1988;Rousseau, 1990 shown that flexibility and experimentation versus rule orientation is a central dimension of organizational culture (Dastmalchian, Lee, & Ng, 2000;Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990;Verberg, Drenth, Koopman, van Muijen, and Wang, 1999).…”

“…The notion that individuals in tight societies are acutely affected by a lack of fit can be tested with multilevel modeling techniques wherein societal tightness-looseness moderates the relationship between person-organization fit and/or person-team fit and satisfaction, stress, and turnover intentions (e.g., O'Reilly et al, 1991).…”

Management innovation, pro-innovation organisational culture and enterprise performance: testing the mediation effect

“…Researchers are particularly interested in determining which type of culture stimulates or hampers innovation. Even though many types of organizational culture have been established since this concept first appeared in the literature (Frohman 1998a, b;Schein 1996a, b;O'Relly et al 1991), the most widespread and used in many empirical studies is Cameron and Quinn's model (1999), the competing values framework (CVF), from which four cultures-adhocracy, clan, market and hierarchy-emerge. The clan culture is based on flexibility and internal focus.…”