Testing the Effect of Person-Environment Fit on Employee Perceptions of Organizational Goal Ambiguity

Sun, Rusi; Peng, Shuzhen; Pandey, Sanjay K.

doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576370306

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with previous findings (Frumkin and Galaskiewicz ) and claims, we found that public organizations have higher levels of centralized decision‐making authority compared with nonprofit organizations. Our findings are in line with the finding in Sun, Peng, and Pandey () that nonprofit employees have lower levels of organizational goal ambiguity compared with public employees.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Lan and Rainey (1992) do not fi nd statistically signifi cant diff erences in organizational goal clarity between public and nonprofi t managers. Sun, Peng, and Pandey (2014), however, fi nd that nonprofi t employees are more likely to report lower levels of organizational goal ambiguity than public employees. In light of this, we propose the following hypotheses:…”

Section: Figure 1 Study Modelmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Lan and Rainey () do not find statistically significant differences in organizational goal clarity between public and nonprofit managers. Sun, Peng, and Pandey (), however, find that nonprofit employees are more likely to report lower levels of organizational goal ambiguity than public employees. In light of this, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: Nonprofit organization employees, compared with public employees, will report lower levels of external control. Hypothesis 3: Nonprofit organization employees, compared with public employees, will report lower levels of centralization. Hypothesis 4: Nonprofit organization employees, compared with public employees, will report lower levels of organizational goal ambiguity.…”

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is There a Nonprofit Advantage? Examining the Impact of Institutional Context on Individual–Organizational Value Congruence

Peng

Pandey

2015

Public Administration Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses an important question: do nonprofit organizations have an advantage over public organizations in fostering individual–organizational value congruence? The authors argue that nonprofit organizations do have an advantage. This is because institutional differences between the two sectors become manifest through nonprofit status and the extent of external control, which influences the organization and the individual. External control and sector status (nonprofit versus public) determine the extent of centralization, organizational goal ambiguity, and work autonomy. In turn, these three organizational characteristics shape individual–organizational value congruence. Although the results provide support for the nonprofit advantage thesis, it is worth noting that organizational effects on individual–organizational value congruence are more powerful. Indeed, the results suggest that managerial and organizational actions, compared with sector status, are more likely to influence individual–organizational value congruence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Figure 1 Study Modelmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is There a Nonprofit Advantage? Examining the Impact of Institutional Context on Individual–Organizational Value Congruence

Peng

Pandey

2015

Public Administration Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is generally assessed by comparing the same basic dimensions, such as job demands and the person's ability to deal with them. The High levels of P-E fit higher levels of the different dimensions of P-E fit contribute to variance in attitudes and behaviors such asare related to many work attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction (Gabriel et al, 2014;Hardin and Donaldson, 2014;Yu, 2016) organizational citizenship and perceived organizational support (Cable and DeRue, 2002), well-being (Ostroff and Schutlle, 2007), organizational commitment (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2009;O'Reilly III et al, 1991), work performance (Ostroff and Schutlle, 2007) and organizational goal ambiguity (Sun et al, 2014).…”

Section: Person-environment (P-e) Fitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridge employment and full retirement intentions: the role of person-environment fit

Lahlouh

Lacaze

Huaman-Ramirez

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between different categories of person–environment (P–E) fit and two types of retirement intentions (i.e. full retirement and bridge employment). Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from a convenience sample of 357 executives aged 50 and over, employed in French private sector companies. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling. Findings Perceptions of value congruence at vocational level and needs and supplies fit at organizational and job levels were positively related to the intention to hold bridge employment after retirement. The fit between older worker’s abilities and job demands was positively related to the two types of retirement intentions. Originality/value The complexity of retirement transition is taken into account with the introduction of two types of retirement intentions. P–E fit is shown to be an antecedent of career intentions after retirement.

show abstract

“…In addition, studies indicate that fit promotes interpersonal communication and trust, team cohesion, and increased identification with the organization (Demir, Demir & Nield, 2015;Kristof-Brown et al, 2014;Oh et al, 2014;Sun, Peng, & Pandey, 2014;Peng, Lee & Tseng, 2014;Glew, 2012;Cable & Edwards, 2004;Kristof-Brown, 2000). Fit is based on the individual's perceptions and it is this subjective understanding of the fit that influences the meaning which the person attaches to the fit (Saks & Ashforth, 1997).…”

Section: The Factors: the Fit Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Our Quest for a Great Place to Work: Meaning in and at Work through the Fit Perspective

Kar¹,

Elangovan²

2018

Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many of us our relationship with our work defines our life (Gini, 2000). We spend large portions of our life at work and/or thinking about issues concerning work. The work provides us with an identity, a community, a social status, and a means of livelihood (Chalofsky, 2010; Haavisto, 2010, as cited in Soininen, 2013; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Our work influences and shapes the way we behave and live. The perceived pleasantness or the bitterness of the experiences in our work spill over to our lives outside of work, to our families, to other interests, and even to

show abstract

Testing the Effect of Person-Environment Fit on Employee Perceptions of Organizational Goal Ambiguity

Cited by 23 publications

References 83 publications

Is There a Nonprofit Advantage? Examining the Impact of Institutional Context on Individual–Organizational Value Congruence

Is There a Nonprofit Advantage? Examining the Impact of Institutional Context on Individual–Organizational Value Congruence

Bridge employment and full retirement intentions: the role of person-environment fit

Our Quest for a Great Place to Work: Meaning in and at Work through the Fit Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About