Journal of Business Economics and Management

ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433

2015 Volume 16(2): 369–386
doi:10.3846/16111699.2013.785975

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSON-ORGANIZATION

FIT, ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION AND
WORK OUTCOMES

Mahmut DEMIR1, Sirvan Sen DEMIR2, Kevin NIELD3

1,2EgirdirSchool of Tourism & Hotel Management,
Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
3Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

E-mails: [email protected](corresponding author);

[email protected]; [email protected]

Received 18 January 2013; accepted 12 March 2013

Abstract. The purpose of this research is to analyse the relationship of person-organization

fit in hotels through organizational identification, job performance, production deviance
behavior, and the intention to remain. To achieve this, first the literature was consulted
to provide a conceptual model. Through conducting a face-to-face interview, a total of
582 questionnaires were collected from employees who were full-time employees of the
five-star hotels operating within the Mugla region of Turkey. The data obtained from
the survey was analysed via the statistics program; within this explanatory and con-
firmatory factor analyses were performed within the framework of Structural Equation
Modelling. The study concluded and identified, that external factors, namely “person-
organization fit”, have an effect on internal factors such as “organizational identification”,
“job performance”, “production deviance” and the “intention to remain”. The empirical
results indicate that person-organization fit has a significant and positive influence on
organizational identification, job performance and intention to remain, while has a sig-
nificant and negative influence on production deviance behavior. The results also indicate
that the organizational identification has an important effect on job performance, intention
to remain and production deviance behavior.
Keywords: person-organization fit, organizational identification, job performance, pro-
duction deviance behavior, intention to remain, work outcomes.
JEL Classification: M12, M51, M54.

Introduction

Many researchers focus on the notion that in working life, the congruence an individual
builds with the job that individual performs, and the organization they work for is sub-
stantially influential on work outcomes. Findings obtained from research on organiza-
tional behavior indicate that the personal traits of an employee, and the organizational
characteristics are positively effective on outcomes such as ensuring organizational
commitment (Da Silva et al. 2010), increasing employee performance (Kristof-Brown

Copyright © 2015 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press

 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

et al. 2005), providing job satisfaction (Liu et al. 2010), organizational citizenship be-
havior (Vogel, Feldman 2009), diminishing work stress (Fox et al. 2001; Sekuguchi
2004), decreasing the intention to leave (Demir 2010) or strengthening the intention
to remain (Da Silva et al. 2010), alleviating organizational deviance behavior (Demir
2011). Person-organisation (P-O) fit is not only related to work outcomes or organiza-
tional success; it is also beneficial due to the positive atmosphere it may create through
reciprocal interaction in terms of work environments, social environments, and the voca-
tion leading to an increased organizational commitment from employees.
The organizational identification (O-Id) concept, which has been analysed in the current
research in respect to its mediator role between external factors and work outcomes, in
fact creates a psychological effect in reflecting the relationship between the individual
and organization. Reaching beyond the organizational commitment of employees, this
concept, which also includes organizational integration with vision, mission and its
members, is interrelated to job satisfaction, motivation, personal and organizational
success, perceived justice, career planning, organizational citizenship behavior and or-
ganizational trust (Demir 2011; Shamir, Kark 2004). The findings obtained from the
literature review show that O-Id has both a direct and partial influential role in em-
ployee behaviors (Dutton et al. 1994; Miller et al. 2000). O-Id plays a positive role in
elevating employees’ intention to remain in, and be committed to the organization and
organizational commitment, as well as creating a trust which will inevitably influence
negative employee attitudes (Da Silva et al. 2010; Sekuguchi 2004). The significance of
this bond becomes even more salient when it is identified that acting in unison within
an organization and making decisions corresponding to organizational objectives, the
identification of employees with the organization is greatly effective.

1. Literature review
1.1. Person-organization fit (P-O fit)

The integration of an organization with employees’ demands and expectations, cultural

structure and performance of individuals may be positively effective in organizational
behavior. Person-job fit is defined as the congruence between an individuals’ interests
and abilities and the characteristics and requirements of their vocation (Carless 2005;
Christensen, Wright 2011; Edwards 1991), and is considered to be among the major de-
terminants of work outcomes and the components of working life, which has the power
to directly affect organizational success (Nikolaou 2003). It is reasonable to assert that
employees whose special abilities, background knowledge and cognitive skills, beliefs
and values are in accord with the characteristics of their job can, compared to others,
attain greater job satisfaction (Vogel, Feldman 2009). It is expected that P-O fit, par-
ticularly the physical and mental state and abilities of employees, must be sufficient to
meet the job requirements, since in the employee selection process, the match between
personal characteristics and job requirements is thought to be the primary factor in en-
suring a person-vocation fit (Demir 2010). Selecting the best candidate to meet the job
specifications is not only vital in composing effective and productive work teams, but
370
 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2015, 16(2): 369–386

also in preventing potential losses and damages during production and service presenta-
tion, and increasing financial profitability (Demir 2010; Sekuguchi 2004).
Described as the congruence between personal and organizational value sets (Chatman
1991; Sekuguchi 2004), P-O fit is analysed within an interactive relationship or a value-
based approach in respect to the theoretical organizational culture aspect. It matters
greatly in terms of work outcomes that there is congruence between personal attitudes
and behaviors formed through individuals’ decisions, beliefs and organizational values
(Chatman 1991; O’Reilly et al. 1991). The compatibility between personal values and
priorities, and organizational values and priorities, is the key to a happier and safer work
life, and an indicator of the desire to remain within the same organization (Ambrose et al.
2008; Song, Chathoth 2011). In that case, the person, whose internalized organizational
values perform in a manner that prioritizes organizational gains, while working in har-
mony with the organization strengthens his/her position, offers advantages in domes-
tic competition, and may be effective in the formation of organizational commitment.
Supporting a similar approach, O’Reilly et al. (1991) argue that P-O fit is among one
of the significant determinants of variables such as value (normative) commitment, job
satisfaction, and intention to remain.
1.2. Organizational identification (O-Id)

O-Id, which is generally defined as the subjective description level of employees with
organizational characteristics (Dutton et al. 1994) and, a unique form of social identity
(Mael, Ashforth 1992) can change in respect to different individuals. Where beliefs and
values of individuals fail to fit with organizational norms and regulations, an O-Id is
likely to arise. It has been shown that O-Id factors in working life acts as a mediator
between employee characteristics and organizational outcomes in terms of attitudes
and behaviors (Dutton et al. 1994). The O-Id concept bears great potential in forming
the attitudes and behaviors of an individual as a psychological component within the
employee-organization relationship (Edward 2005).
When including the cooperation and common action between employees and an organiza-
tion, the common values shared by all its members through the support of organizational
behavior and mutual interaction (Miller et al. 2000; Sluss et al. 2008) assumes, that
individuals with O-Id may be more inclined to work longer in order to support work
outcomes. As the O-Id level of individuals’ increases, they prioritize their organizational
interests and act accordingly, which in turn enables an increase in their organizational
thinking levels (Dutton et al. 1994). In some studies (Miller et al. 2000; Shamir, Kark
2004), O-Id is thought of as the image of a person’s social identity, which is an output
of organizational identity. Organizationally identified people view themselves in their
social life as the agents of an organization, and are more likely to protect organizational
interests.
1.3. Job performance (J-Perf)

In terms of employees, the concept of J-Perf is defined as the qualitative and quantita-
tive achievement level of a job, and the evaluation of all related efforts and the resulting
371
 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

ratio of realizing the set target or mission (Johari, Yahya 2009; Vogel, Feldman 2009).
As J-Perf is a basic phenomenon in attaining organizational and personal goals, it mat-
ters equally to organizations as well as employees. High performance indicators of
an employee as a source of personal pride and honour, motivate that person more at
work, and in the end may be effective in increasing job satisfaction, obtaining a higher
income, achieving a better career and gaining social dignity (Vogel, Feldman 2009). In
order to build an organizational culture, and within that context to heighten J-Perf, it
is necessary to set certain standards and plans because it is envisaged that the driving
power behind the J-Perf of employees is organizational culture. There are also some
research (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005) findings demonstrating that organization culture
enhances the J-Perf of individuals, the service quality and work life quality, while at the
same time diminishing labour turnover and costs.
One of the main indicators in measuring J-Perf is employees’ discharging their tasks on
time, and to the required quality, amount and cost. Further in J-Perf, P-O fit is highly
effective in aiding high J-Perf (Janssen, Van Yperen 2004). The active role job-employee
fit plays an important role in decreasing production deviance, and is also effective in
taking J-Perf to a higher level. In J-Perf, the job descriptions matching the employee’s
characteristics and the fulfilment of their responsibilities are also crucial elements.
1.4. Production deviance behavior (PDB)

Hollinger and Clark (1982), who analysed deviation behavior within the framework of
workplace regulations under two groups as property and production deviance in an or-
ganizational dimension, alleged that these two deviance behaviors are indicators of P-O
misfit. Property deviation (equipment, tools, material etc.) includes negative behaviors
towards an organization’s resources and entities and the organization itself, while pro-
duction deviance contains employees’ behaviors that violate organizational norms on the
quality and quantity of the work to be performed, hence causing failure in the process
and model related to the job (Demir 2011). PDBs include leaving earlier than scheduled
work time, taking excessive and longer amounts of break, causing a decrease in work
and performance by slowing down the production. The extravagance in the consumption
of organizational resources is also examined under this context.
The PDB is also described as threatening conduct against the positive structure of the
organization, its members, or both through violating the organizational norms and regu-
lations (Bennett, Robinson 2003; Aquino et al. 2004). Lawrence and Robinson (2007)
explained deviance behavior also as intentional behaviors employees perform to hinder
routine operations in the organization. Likewise, Vardi and Wiener (1996) have reported
that deviance behavior is stopping the activities conducted to reach organizational goals.
It is acknowledged that the reason for this high level of deviance behavior largely stems
from the failure of employees to build O-Id.
1.5. Intention to remain (IntR)

IntR, described as the choice of an employee to stay in their existing job or quit (Demir
2011), can affect positively in achieving both organizational and personal goals, and
372
 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2015, 16(2): 369–386

forming organizational behavior. IntR is determined according to an individual’s work-

related attitudes, behaviors and outcomes (Olkkonen, Lipponen 2006). Person-job fit,
in other words, the non-presence of a situation necessitating the leave of an employee,
intention to continue being a member of the same organization are accepted to be the
indicators of fulfilment of personal expectations and demands to a large extent (Demir
2011; Mowday et al. 1982).
IntR, as an indicator of responsibility awareness of employees, largely eliminates the
occurrence of arriving late to work, leaving early, neglecting the tasks, habitual absen-
teeism-excused or arbitrary (Morrow et al. 1999; Van Dick et al. 2004). The intention of
employees to remain is perceived as an indicator that they feel satisfied with their job,
and that they possess self-identify with the organization (Demir 2010; Liu et al. 2010).
In the same way, it is also considered a sign that job-employee fit has been achieved.
Employees’ IntR can affect both sides positively through both its social and financial
contributions.

2. Conceptual model and hypotheses

Based on the data obtained from literature, nine hypotheses within three main groups
have been established to form the conceptual model used in this study. By handling the
data that might contribute to hypotheses from different perspectives, the direction of
the relationship between the factors has been effective in significant level and model
setting. In Figure 1, conceptual model of research, comprises one external factor, three
internal factors and one mediator factor.
The studies exhibiting the effect of P-O fit on work outcomes indicate that P-O fit is
directly associated with J-Perf, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior,
organizational commitment, IntR, absenteeism, intention to leave (De Clercq et al.
2008; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Additionally it is witnessed that P-O fit bears the
role of mediator among certain variables-e.g. for instance person-vocation fit and

dev.

org.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model

373
 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

work outcomes, creating self-respect and job satisfaction (Song, Chathoth 2011; Vogel,
Feldman 2009).
On the other hand, as positive, strong and significant relationship between person-
vocation fit and job satisfaction (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005), it is concluded that in
employee selection, consideration of person and job-supervisor-environment fit has a
positive impact on work outcomes (Chatman 1991; Da Silva et al. 2010). Person-job
fit enables an employee to build better relationships with the director and colleagues
and reach higher J-Perf. It is agreed that in work life employees’ characteristics play
a vital role in the congruent interaction they can build with social environment (Ryan,
Schmit 1996). It is furthermore suggested that while person-environment fit is positively
related to personal career development, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and
J-Perf but it is negatively related to resignations (Chatman 1991; Vogel, Feldman 2009).
Some researchers who analyzed person-director fit based on leader-member interaction
(e.g. Kristof-Brown et al. 2005) state that such congruence can, starting from the hir-
ing process, affect work outcomes of individuals positively through the effective and
productive performance of individuals. From this point onwards, it is feasible to list the
hypotheses narrating the effect of P-O fit on work outcomes as below:
H1a: P-O fit has a positive effect on organizational identification.
H1b: P-O fit has a positive effect on employees’ job performance.
H1c: P-O fit has a negative effect on employees’ production deviance behavior.
H1d: P-O fit has a positive effect on employees’ intention to remain.
In some research, the O-Id concept, is seen as the same as organizational commitment.
In this research, O-Id is defined as possessing deeper attachment to the organization.
Some researchers aiming to detect the effect of O-Id on J-Perf (Carmeli et al. 2007)
have reported that the attitudes and behaviors an employee is engaged in work life can
affect work outcomes positively. Aside from this other research also indicates, that O-Id
is connected to job satisfaction, motivation, organizational commitment, organizational
citizenship behavior, organizational communication, teamwork, and J-Perf (Shamir,
Kark 2004).
Some studies (Olkkonen, Lipponen 2006; Wan-Huggins et al. 1998) related to O-Id has
the positive and significant effect on IntR, show that organizational commitment has a
crucial role on employees’ behavioral intentions. In person-organization relations, where
identification is high, there exists a more positive and motivating approach. In that case
the perceiving work-related problems not only organizational but equally personal is
the outcome of O-Id. Hence, in the formation of IntR there is at first common action
and adoption in problem solving. In a study conducted by Van Dick et al. (2004) it has
been detected that O-Id negatively and significantly affects employees’ tendency to
leave job. To put it differently, O-Id may be the hidden actor in strengthening the IntR.
Nonetheless there are some studies (Van Knippenberg, Sleebos 2006) positing that there
is no significant relationship between O-Id and IntR. Robinson and Bennett (1995) have
defined organizational deviance behavior as the qualitative and quantitative damages done

374
 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2015, 16(2): 369–386

to production. Indeed certain relevant studies (Nair, Bhatnagar 2011; Olkkonen, Lipponen
2006) have also pointed to the negative effect of O-Id on employee deviation behavior and
the significant relationship between both variables. Within the framework of these data,
hypotheses on the effect of O-Id on work outcomes are stated as follows:
H2a: O-Id has positive effect on job performance of employees.
H2b: O-Id has negative effect on production deviance behavior of employees.
H2c: O-Id has positive effect on employees’ intention to remain.

3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and procedures

The data used in this research was obtained via a survey that was prepared through
face-to-face interviews conducted among employees, who had been working for a mini-
mum one year in 5-star hotels belong to different chains within the Mugla region of
Turkey, between May and October 2012. In this research a pre-test was conducted
among 63 people. Finally, a total 841 surveys were distributed and 629 were completed
and returned. 47 surveys were not assessed due to a lack of reliability; similarities in
responses, all the answers are the same sleek etc. The number of evaluated surveys was
582; giving a return ratio of 69.2%.
LISREL 8.80 program was used for the analysis. This analysis, constructed upon SEM,
was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, reliability and structural validity analyses
was performed. In the second stage, the procedures to measure the hypotheses were
actualized. To that end, the first explanatory factor analysis was made in order to reveal
average values, factor loads and standard values of factor groups within themselves. Fi-
nally, in order to analyse the factor groups’ relationship to each other, and the structural
validity of the model, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted.

3.2. Measures and variables

3.2.1. P-O fit

P-O fit scale was developed by employing Cable and DeRue (2002), Saks and Ashforth
(2002)’s studies. The scale represented by a total of 5 variables was formed through a
5-point Likert type (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). In the scale there are
questions related to the congruency of an individual, and his/her personal worth with the
director, colleagues, the performed job and offered benefits. A pre-test was conducted to
measure the structural validity of the P-O fit scale, and upon finding the acceptable ratio
for social sciences it was then put into use. The reliability level of this scale (Cronbach
Alpha) was determined as 0.91.

3.2.2. Organizational identification

The variables related to the O-Id factor were adapted from the research of Van Dick et al.
(2004), Mael and Ashforth (1992) in order to be appropriate for the current research.

375
 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

The O-Id scale prepared in a 5-point Likert type (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disa-
gree) and consisted of 13 variables initially was reduced to 10 variables, as pre-test
results indicated that 3 variables were a misfit with the factor structure. The reliability
level of this scale (Cronbach Alpha) was determined as 0.88.

3.2.3. Job performance

J-Perf assessment can be conducted by the superiors, subordinates, colleagues or em-

ployees themselves. In this approach, the employees’ J-Perf is evaluated in respect to
scores that reflect a certain ratio of quality and quantity (Katzell et al. 1992; Robbins
1998). In this research, previous studies were benefited (Nagy 2002; Williams, Anderson
1991) and based on the self-evaluation of the employees, a question set was formed. The
J-Perf scale prepared in a 5-point Likert type (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree)
and consisting of 11 variables initially was reduced to 7 variables, as the pre-test results
indicated that 4 variables were a misfit with factor structure. The reliability level of this
scale (Cronbach Alpha) was determined as 0.86.

3.2.4. Production deviance behavior

Production deviance related variables adapted by Demir (2011) from Robinson and
Bennett (1995) are listed under 4 titles as leaving early, taking excessive amounts
of breaks, performance slowdown, and wasting organizational resources. The scale
represented with a total of 4 variables was put together through 5-point Likert type
(5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). The reliability level of this scale (Cronbach
Alpha) was determined as 0.82.

3.2.5. Intention to remain

The survey questions measuring the employees’ IntR were modelled with the help
of other previous research (Demir 2011; Lee, Way 2010; Van Dick et al. 2004). The
scale represented by a total of 5 variables was formed through a 5-point Likert type
(5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). The reliability level of this scale (Cronbach
Alpha) was determined as 0.94.

4. Results

In Table 1, the results of the correlation analysis demonstrate the inter-factor relation-
ships. As the relationship of P-O fit with other factors is examined it is seen that P-O fit
has significant, positive and a high degree of relationship to employees’ IntR (r = .67;
p < .01). Thus, it can reasonably be argued that in an employees’ choice to remain or quit,
the level of congruency with the organization may be among the major determinants. The
person- organization fit has also a positive and significant relationship with O-Id (r = .42;
p < .01) and J-Perf (r = .51; p < .01), but a significant, yet negative relationship with PDB
(r = –.41; p < .01). The fact that organizational fit contributes positively to a person’s
identification with the organization and J-Perf can also be regarded as positive outcomes.
Achieving a person’s fit with the organization may eradicate or alleviate PDBs. On the

376
 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2015, 16(2): 369–386

Table 1. Correlation analysis, mean and standard deviance

Factors No. of Mean Std. 1 2 3 4 5

variables dev.
1. Person-organization Fit 5 4.08 0.81 .91
2. Organizational 10 3.91 1.06 .42** .88
identification
3. Job performance 7 3.85 1.18 .51** .44** .86
4. Production deviance 4 2.87 1.82 –.41** –.33** –.18* .82
behavior
5. Intention to remain 5 4.26 0.79 .67** .59** .24* –.47** .94

Notes: N = 582, *0.05 (Pearson Correlation-two tailed), ** 0.01 (Pearson Correlation-two tailed),
Values in bold are reliability (alpha coefficient).

other hand, while O-Id has a positive linear and significant relationship with J-Perf (r = .44;
p < .01), and IntR (r = .59; p < .01), it has a significant, yet negative relationship with
PDB (r = –.33; p < .01). It was concluded that employees who are identified with the
organization have elevated intentions to remain; hence, their J-Perf is positively affected.
In SEM, the condition of accepting measurement model analysed on data set as a whole
within the general structure depends on the fact that goodness-of-fit statistics are on
expected level. In evaluating model fit there are various fit indices and certain statistical
functions possessed by such indices (Bentler 1990; Jöreskog, Sörbom 2004). The indi-
ces used in current research are chi-square statistics (χ²), RMSEA, GFI, CFI and NFI.
In fit indices measures, RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and χ² ≤ 2 of ideal values indicates a perfect fit.
Likewise, if GFI, CFI and NFI values are between 0–1 and the approach of this value
to 1 also indicate a better congruence of the model (Browne, Cudeck 1993; Jöreskog,
Sörbom 2004). In current research, the values pertaining to fit indices have been on ac-
ceptable levels. At the end of analysis chi-square measurement has been found 557.26
and degree of freedom as (df) 294 (x²/df = 1.89; p < .001), obtained results have been
RMSEA = .062, GFI = .90, CFI = .86 and NFI = .91. The smallness of CFI from 0.90
does not point that the model is misfit. Hart (1994) argues that in mixed models the fit
measure higher than 0.80 values is sufficient.
The findings of P-O fit has a positive and significant effect on employees’ O-Id (t = 5.62;
p < .001). The positive effect on mutual communication and interaction, which relies on the
compatibility of individuals with their vocation, environmental components and directors,
can be positively influential on work outcomes also. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue
that P-O fit is a viable element in terms of organizational behavior issues. P-O fit is equally
effective on J-Perf too, in addition to O-Id. This fact is indicated via the positive and
significant relationship between these two factors as demonstrated by the analysis results.
The increase in the P-O fit positively affects his/her J-Perf (t = 6.44; p < .001). None-
theless, it is witnessed that P-O fit has a significant yet negative directed effect on em-
ployees’ potential behaviors towards production deviance (t = –4.31; p < .001). Yet the

377
 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

Table 2. The measurement values of factor groups

Standardized
Scale items M SD t-value factor
loadings
Person-organization fit: α = 0.91; AVE = 0.68; CCR = .76
There is congruence between my own values and
4.24 .77 13.57*** .95
the values of the organization I work for
In this organization, there is congruence between
my own values and the values of the other 4.18 .78 12.68*** .93
employees
In this organization there is congruence between
4.08 .81 11.14*** .88
my own values and the values of the directors
In this e organization there is congruence between
my own values and the characteristics of the work 3.98 .83 10.52*** .85
I perform
In this organization there is congruence
between my personal expectations and provided 3.92 .86 9.33*** .81
opportunities
Organizational identification: α = 0.88; AVE = 0.63; CCR = .74
In this organization, I can find my own personality 4.17 .96 13.35*** .94
It gives great pleasure to work in this organization 4.11 .98 13.28*** .94
I work in this organization, because of external
4.03 1.01 12.02*** .90
necessities (R)
There are times I avoid mentioning that I work for
4.01 1.03 11.27*** .89
this organization (R)
This organization means everything to me 3.94 1.04 10.18*** .84
I take the criticisms against my organization
3.87 1.06 9.42*** .81
personally
I value the thoughts of other people regarding my
3.81 1.10 9.08*** .79
organization
While mentioning my organization I generally
3.75 1.12 8.83*** .77
prefer to say “we” rather than “they”
I cherish my organization’s success as if my own 3.72 1.14 8.14*** .74
I take the compliments towards my organization
3.69 1.16 7.37*** .72
personally
Job performance: α = 0.86; AVE = 0.57; CCR = .71
I am aware of the responsibilities listed under my
4.03 1.02 11.56*** .88
job definition
I finish an assigned task timely 3.98 1.05 11.24*** .87
I finish an assigned task thoroughly 3.92 1.13 10.55*** .84

378
 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2015, 16(2): 369–386

(End of Table 2)
I assist my colleagues in my free time 3.86 1.19 9.74*** .80
Neglecting my task adversely affects other
3.83 1.25 9.02*** .78
employees
I ask for help in tasks that I cannot handle alone 3.71 1.29 8.61*** .76
I do my best to perform my job in the best
3.62 1.33 8.39*** .75
possible way
Production deviance behavior: α = 0.82; AVE = 0.51; CCR = .69
It is normal for me to leave work before I finish a
3.11 1.68 10.34*** .83
task (R)
I am free to take breaks for lunch and rest as much
2.81 1.77 9.86*** .81
as I want (R)
I do not stress myself to finish an assigned task
2.79 1.90 9.68*** .80
(R)
I am not very careful with the tools, equipment
2.77 1.93 7.76*** .74
and materials I use at work (R)
Intention to remain: α = 0.94; AVE = 0.71; CCR = .79
I am happy to be a member of this organization 4.35 .69 15.54*** .97
I plan to work here in the future as well 4.29 .73 12.46*** .92
The opportunities provided in this organization are
4.28 .80 11.25*** .90
satisfactory enough
There is no negative situation that forces me to
4.23 .85 10.44*** .86
leave this organization
In this organization, everyone likes/respects me 4.15 .88 9.65*** .83

Notes: Based on a scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), (R) Reverse-
scored. *** p < .001, AVE = average variance extracted, CCR = composite construct
reliability.
negative direction hereby does not mean a negation all together. To put simply, P-O fit
has a preventive or diminishing effect in the emergence of PDBs. Such positive contri-
bution of inter-factor relations can be at the same time be determinants of employees’
intentions to remain. According to the analysis results, this approach is supported by
the positive and significant relationship between P-O fit and the employees’ IntR and
in general has a positive effect on the will of the employee to stay within the same
organization, and the same assigned tasks (t = 9.16; p < .001). Accordingly, H1a, H1b,
H1c and H1d hypotheses were supported.
Some salient findings were reached in measuring second-group hypotheses as well.
Positively directed and significant relationship of the findings indicate that O-Id has
substantial effect on J-Perf is also parallel to conceptual data (t = 6.22; p < .001). It
is seen that a person’s identification with the organization is not only related to his/
her J-Perf, but is also effective in preventing the occurrence of PDBs. The negative
and significant relationship between these two factors is an indicator of this finding
379
 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

Table 3. The result of hypotheses

Standardized
Factors t-value Result
coefficient
Person-organization Organizational identification .37 5.62 Supported***
fit (H1a)
Job performance (H1b) .48 6.44 Supported***
Production deviance behavior
(H1c) –.34 –4.31 Supported***
Intention to remain (H1d) .61 9.16 Supported***
Organizational Job performance (H2a) .48 6.22 Supported***
identification Production deviance behavior
(H2b) –.31 –3.25 Supported***
Intention to remain (H2c) .64 9.78 Supported***
χ2 557.26
df 294
x²/df 1.89
GFI .90
AGFI .90
NFI .91
NNFI .92
CFI .86
IFI .94
RMSEA .062
SRMR .071

Notes: ***p < .001. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI =
normed fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental
fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean
residual.

(t = –3.25; p < .001). This also affects in the end whether employees choose or not
choose to remain in the same organization. An employee self-identified with the organi-
zation has congruence with colleagues, management and other components hence his/
her IntR is strengthened and a positive effect is created (t = 9.78; p < .001). According
to the findings H2a, H2b, and H2c hypotheses were supported.

Discussions and conclusions

It has thus been concluded that in reaching organizational goals as much as personal
goals employees’ fit with their job, vocation, colleagues, management and other intra-
organization elements have a noteworthy effect. In P-O fit the basic approach under-
scores that employee qualities and abilities should match organizational values. It means
that in ensuring organizational success, a fair and ethical procedure, distribution and a
management free from stress and conflict that can fulfil employees’ job satisfaction, in
addition to P-O fit matter substantially. The clear manifestation that P-O fit is related to
both O-Id and the remaining internal factors proves that remarkable findings have been
obtained in this research.

380
 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2015, 16(2): 369–386

It was detected that the findings obtained thereby correspond greatly to the data con-
tained in the relevant literature. However, due to the restricted number of studies spe-
cifically analysing the research of hospitality, the current research could be misleading
at this stage in arriving at a conclusion through comparison. Still a comparison with
general research indicates that there are some similarities in addition to differences.
Previous studies (e.g. Ambrose et al. 2008; Andrews et al. 2011; Jung, Yoon 2013;
Song, Chathoth 2011) highlighted that P-O fit has major effects on work outcomes,
yet its connection with some organizational deviance behaviors has been neglected.
Distinguished from other studies, the present research has illustrated that, as in work
outcomes, PDBs are also affected by P-O fit. It is a fact that PDBs, which are con-
stituents of organizational deviance behaviors, matter greatly for organizational goals.
Alleviating such behaviors by means of P-O fit can provide remarkable financial and
social contributions to enterprises. J-Perf can be assessed in a variety of ways. In this
research, the individuals were asked to self-evaluate their J-Perf via question state-
ments associated with certain measures such as time, quality and quantity within the
framework of the performed job, mission and responsibility. The findings demonstrated
that P-O fit has a salient effect on the increase in J-Perf. The factors influential on the
intentions of employees to remain can differ on both a personal and organizational level
(Lee, Way 2010; Van Dick et al. 2004). Based on these different elements stated in
the literature, there are some cases related to a P-O misfit. As indicated in the findings
section of the analysis results, P-O fit is positively influential on employees’ intentions
to remain. It is considered normal that an employee, who has a high quality of work
life, job satisfaction, and obtains financial and social support, will have no intention to
leave his/her current job.
In this research, a finding parallel to the relevant literature (Kim et al. 2013; Nikolaou
2003; Song, Chathoth 2011; Vogel, Feldman 2009) revealing that P-O fit has a posi-
tive effect on organizational commitment and identification with the employees was
obtained. It is not reasonable to argue that O-Id stems from a relatively few number of
agents. Once identification is defined as a further dimension of commitment level, it
can be understood that identification is shaped through various agents in many different
ways. Thus, the multidimensionality provided by P-O fit can also be perceived by O-Id
also. As obviously evident through the results of the analysis obtained in this research,
P-O fit has a positive effect on the identification of the employees with the organiza-
tion. This finding points to the fact that to reach organizational goals, success is easier
to achieve by motivating the employees.
In the literature, there are some results in different ways and levels explaining the re-
lationship of O-Id with work outcomes. As explained in the theoretical framework and
conceptual section, as well in previous research, O-Id has been associated with different
dimensions of work outcomes. However, there are a restricted number of studies dealing
with hospitality organizations, and its relationship with employee deviance behavior.
Even so, it has been concluded that O-Id has a substantial effect on work outcomes.
Particularly in J-Perf, it is acknowledged that the individuals who fail to identify with
the organization cannot work effectively and productively enough. For this reason, in

381
 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

securing J-Perf it should be highlighted that the interaction and identification between
the organization and individual matter considerably.
Research findings show that O-Id is among the factors influential on employees’ J-Perf.
It is not probable that an employee identified with the organization will be engaged in
deviant behaviors. From this perspective, O-Id assumes a major role in creating a suit-
able setting to prevent the emergence of this type of behavior. The results of the analysis
put forth, that O-Id is effective in alleviating PDBs. It is assumed that in organizations
with elevated work life quality, O-Id is also an influential factor. In that case, the inten-
tion of the employee to remain does not lessen. In other words, it is clear that O-Id has
a huge bearing on the employees’ IntR. As a result, the findings obtained in this research
are parallel to the information available in the related literature, which also indicates
that the created conceptual model was structured correctly and validly.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study has some limitations. One of them is related to survey respondents and
interviewees were all based in a tourism region of Turkey. It is restricted to hospitality
organizations operating in the Mugla region of Turkey; hence, the obtained findings
cannot be generalized to the businesses operating in other regions or in different sec-
tors. Analysing the prospective research from different dimensions to include hospitality
organizations operating in different regions bears importance in terms of conducting
comparisons with similar studies. The second, all respondents were full-time work sta-
tus and had been working for a minimum one year in 5-star hotels. A third limitation
is that the relation between demographic factors and main factors in research (P-O fit,
O-Id, J-Perf, PDB, and the IntR). The demographic characteristics of the participants
are not directly related to the aim of this research; therefore, it was excluded from the
context of the research.
Future research in hospitality organizations could examine whether demographic char-
acteristics of the participants are associated with P-O fit and work outcomes. Future re-
search could also investigate the relationships among the P-O fit, justice perceptions and
organizational commitment. Further research could be conducted to compare and gain a
general outcome of study in travel, airline, entertainment, food and beverage organiza-
tions and others in tourism sector and also in different tourism regions and countries.

References
Ambrose, M. L.; Arnaud, A.; Schminke, M. 2008. Individual moral development and ethical
climate: the influence of person–organization fit on job attitudes, Journal of Business Ethics 77:
323–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9352-1
Andrews, M. C.; Baker, T.; Hunt, T. G. 2011. Values and person-organization fit: does moral
intensity strengthen outcomes?, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32(1): 5–19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111099256
Aquino, K.; Galperin, B. L.; Bennett, R. J. 2004. Social status and aggressiveness as moderators
of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 34(5): 1001–1029.

382
 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2015, 16(2): 369–386

Bennett, R. J.; Robinson, S. L. 2003. The past, present, and future of workplace deviance re-
search, in J. S. Greenberg (Ed.). Organizational behavior: the state of the science. USA: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associate, 247–282.
Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin 107:
238–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Browne, M. W.; Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternate ways of assessing model fit, in K. A. Bollen,
J. S. Long (Eds.). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
136–162.
Cable, D. M.; DeRue, D. S. 2002. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(5): 875–884.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875
Carless, S. A. 2005. Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of organizational
attraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study, Journal of Occupational and Or-
ganizational Psychology 78: 411–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X25995
Carmeli, A.; Gilat, G.; Waldman, D. A. 2007. The role of perceived organizational performance
in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance, Journal of Management Studies
44(6): 972–992.
Chatman, J. 1991. Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public ac-
counting firms, Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 459–484.
Christensen, R. K; Wright, B. E. 2011. The effects of public service motivation on job choice
decisions: disentangling the contributions of person-organization fit and person-job fit, Journal
Public Administration Research Theory 21(4): 723–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq085
Da Silva, N.; Hutcheson, J.; Wahl, G. D. 2010. Organizational strategy and employee outcomes:
a person–organization fit perspective, The Journal of Psychology 144(2): 145–161.
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.
Demir, M. 2010. The effects of emotional intelligence on human resources selection: a research
on managers of accommodation enterprises, International Journal of Human Sciences 7(1):
1066–1081.
Demir, M. 2011. Effects of organizational justice, trust and commitment on employees’ devi-
ant behavior, Anatolia: an International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 22(2):
204–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2011.597934
Dutton, J. E.; Dukerich, J. M.; Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and member identi-
fication, Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2): 239–263.
Edward, M. R. 2005. Organizational identification: a conceptual and operational review, Inter-
national Journal of Management Reviews 7(4): 207–230.
Edwards, J. R. 1991. Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, and methodo-
logical critique, in C. L. Cooper, I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of industrial and
organizational psychology. New York: Wiley, 283–357.
Fox, S.; Spector, P. E.; Miles, D. 2001. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to
job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and
emotions, Journal of Vocational Behavior 59(3): 291–309.
Hart, P. M. 1994. Teacher quality of work life: integrating work experiences, psychological dis-
tress and morale, Journal of Occupational Psychology 67(2): 109–32.
Hollinger, R. C.; Clark, J. P. 1982. Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance,
The Sociological Quarterly 23(3): 333–343.

383
 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

Janssen, O.; Van Yperen, N. W. 2004. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member
exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction, Academy of Management
Journal 47(3): 368–384.
Johari, J.; Yahya, K. K. 2009. Linking organizational structure, job characteristics, and job per-
formance constructs: a proposed framework, International Journal of Business and Management
4(3): 145–152.
Jöreskog, K. G.; Sörbom, D. 2004. LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood,
IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
Jung, H. S.; Yoon, H. H. 2013. The effects of organizational service orientation on person–
organization fit and turnover intent, The Service Industries Journal 33(1): 7–29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.596932
Katzell, R. A.; Thompson, D. E.; Guzzo, R. A. 1992. How job satisfaction and job performance
are and are not linked, in C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, E. F. Stone (Eds.). Job satisfaction. New
York: Lexington Books, 195–218.
Kim, T. Y.; Aryee, S.; Loi, R.; Kim, S. P. 2013. Person–organization fit and employee outcomes:
test of a social exchange model, The International Journal of Human Resource Management
24(19): 3719–3737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.781522
Kristof-Brown, A. L.; Zimmerman, R. D.; Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit
at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor
fit, Personnel Psychology 58(2): 281–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Lawrence, T. B.; Robinson, S. L. 2007. Ain’t misbehavin: workplace deviance as organizational
resistance, Journal of Management 33(3): 378–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300816
Lee, C.; Way, K. 2010. Individual employment characteristics of hotel employees that play a role
in employee satisfaction and work retention, International Journal of Hospitality Management
29(3): 344–353.
Liu, B.; Liu, J.; Hu, J. 2010. Person-organization fit, job satisfaction, and turnover intention: an
empirical study in the Chinese public sector, Social Behavior and Personality 38(5): 615–626.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.5.615
Mael, F.; Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification, Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(2): 103–123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
Miller, V. D.; Allen, M.; Casey, M. K.; Johnson, J. R. 2000. Reconsidering the organizational
identification questionnaire, Management Communication Quarterly 13(4): 626–658.
Morrow, P .C.; McElroy, J. C.; Laczniak, K. S.; Fenton, J. B. 1999. Using absenteeism and
performance to predict employee turnover: early detection through company records, Journal of
Vocational Behavior 55(3): 358–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1687
Mowday, R.; Porter, L.; Steers, R. 1982. Employee-organization linkages: the psychology of
commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Nagy, M. S. 2002. Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75(1): 77–86.
Nair, N.; Bhatnagar, D. 2011. Understanding workplace deviant behavior in nonprofit organiza-
tions, Nonprofit Management and Leadership 21(3): 289–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.20026
Nikolaou, I. 2003. Fitting the person to the organisation: examining the personality-job perfor-
mance relationship from a new perspective, Journal of Managerial Psychology 18(7): 639–648.
Olkkonen, M. E.; Lipponen, J. 2006. Relationships between organizational justice, identification
with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes 100(2): 202–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.007

384
 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2015, 16(2): 369–386

O’Reilly, C. A.; Chatman, J.; Caldwell, D. F. 1991. People and organizational culture: a pro-
file comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit, Academy of Management Journal
34(3): 487–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256404
Robbins, S. P. 1998. Organizational behavior. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robinson, S. L.; Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimen-
sional scaling study, Academy of Management Journal 38: 555–572.
Ryan, A. M.; Schmit, M. J. 1996. An assessment of organizational climate and P-E fit: a tool for
organizational change, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 4(1): 75–95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028842
Saks, A. M.; Ashforth, B. E. 2002. Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends
on the fit, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 646–654.
Sekuguchi, T. 2004. Person-organization fit and person job fit in employee selection: a review of
literature, Osaka Keidei Ronshu 54(6): 179–196.
Shamir, B.; Kark, R. 2004. A single-item graphic scale for the measurement of organizational
identification, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77(1): 115–123.
Sluss, D. M.; Klimchak, M.; Holmes, J. J. 2008. Perceived organizational support as a mediator
between relational exchange and organizational identification, Journal of Vocational Behavior
73(3): 457–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.001
Song, Z.; Chathoth, P. K. 2011. Intern newcomers’ global self-esteem, overall job satisfaction,
and choice intention: person-organization fit as a mediator, International Journal of Hospitality
Management 30(1): 119–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.03.003
Van Dick, R.; Wagner, U.; Stellmacher, J.; Christ, O. 2004. The utility of a broader conceptualiza-
tion of organizational identification: which aspects really matter?, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 77(2): 171–191.
Van Knippenberg, D.; Sleebos, E. 2006. Organizational identification versus organizational com-
mitment: self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes, Journal of Organizational Behavior
27(5): 571–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.359
Vardi, Y.; Wiener, Y. 1996. Misbehavior in organizations: a motivational framework, Organiza-
tion Science 7(2): 151–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.151
Vogel, R. M.; Feldman, D. C. 2009. Integrating the levels of person-environment fit: the roles of
vocational fit and group fit, Journal of Vocational Behavior 75(1): 68–81.
Wan-Huggins, V. N.; Riordan, C. M.; Griffeth, R. W. 1998. The development and longitudinal
test of a model of organizational identification, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(8):
724–749.
Williams, L. J.; Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predic-
tors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours, Journal of Management 17(3): 601–617.

Mahmut DEMIR, Dr, is Associate Professor of Tourism Management in the Department of Hospitality
Management, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey. He has BBA, MBA and PhD in Tour-
ism Management. His current research interests are: tourism management, human resources manage-
ment, organizational behaviour, tourism education and research method for business. He has published
books, book chapters and articles in national and international journals and presentations in conference
books. He teaches Tourism and Business administration courses at graduate and undergraduate levels.
He serves as a reviewer and on editorial boards of national and international journals of tourism.

Şirvan Şen DEMIR, Dr, is Head of Department of Hospitality Management and Assistant Professor
of Tourism Management in the Department of Hospitality Management, Suleyman Demirel University,

385
 M. Demir et al. The relationship between person-organization fit …

Isparta, Turkey. She has BBA, MBA and PhD in Tourism Management. Her current research inter-
ests are: tourism management, tourism marketing, consumer behavior, communication techniques and
public relations, and customer relation management. She has published books and articles in national
and international journals and presentations in conference books. She teaches Tourism course at un-
dergraduate levels. She serves as a reviewer of national and international journals of tourism.

Kevin NIELD, Dr, is Head of Department of Service Sector Management in Sheffield Business
School. Before taking up his present position at SHU Kevin has worked in a wide variety of positions
within the catering and retail industries and in further education. He has co-researched three editions
of the British Hospitality Association’s annual British Hospitality: Trends and Statistics and is joint
author of Contemporary Issues in Hospitality and Tourism in China and India. Kevin has a particular
interest in education and is a honorary associate of the HE Academy network for Hospitality, Leisure,
Tourism, Sport and Food and the Director of Education for EuroCHRIE. He has represented the sector
on QAA working groups and panels.

386