The impact of person-job fit andperson-organization fit on OCB

The mediating and moderating effectsof organizational commitment and

psychological empowermentJaleh Farzaneh

Faculty of Management and Economics, S & B University, Zahedan, Iran

Ali Dehghanpour FarashahUmea School of Business and Economics, Umea University, Umea, Sweden, and

Mehdi KazemiFaculty of Management and Economics, S & B University, Zahedan, Iran

Abstract

Purpose – Drawing upon the social exchange theory and empowerment theory, the purpose of thispaper is to investigate the effect of perceived person-environment fit on organisational citizenshipbehaviour (OCB). Furthermore, this study assesses the roles of organisational commitment andpsychological empowerment (PE) in this relationship.Design/methodology/approach – Respondents of this study were employees of the Iran NortheastGas Transfer Company. Data were collected through conducting a survey on 500 employees, of which412 questionnaires were used for further analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis, structural equationmodelling, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure for examining mediator effect, and finally Zhao andCavusgil’s (2006) technique of evaluating moderator effect were utilised for the analyses.Findings – Results indicated that organisational commitment acts as a mediator between person-job(P-J) fit and person-organisation (P-O) fit and OCB. PE acts as a moderator between organisationalcommitment and OCB.Practical implications – This research has implications for approaches to human resourcemanagement in organisations.Originality/value – This study empirically synthesises the joint effect of P-O fit and P-J fit on abehavioural variable (OCB) in the social context of organisation and explains the mechanism of theeffect. The pattern of relationships tested is relatively novel.

Keywords Quantitative, Person-job fit, Psychological empowerment, Organizational commitment,Organizational citizenship behaviour, Person-organization fit

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionResearch on employee selection has traditionally focused on the assessment of thematch between job requirements and qualifications of candidates in terms of theirknowledge, skills, and abilities (Sekiguchi and Huber, 2011). Subsequently, however,researchers have become interested in the potential benefits of selecting employeesbased on their fit with the culture and goals of an organisation (Bowen et al., 1991;Elfenbein and O’Reilly III, 2007). Job candidate fit includes person-job (P-J) fit andperson-organisation (P-O) fit. P-O fit refers to an employee’s subjective beliefs abouthow well their personal values match the organisational culture (Cable and De Rue,2002; Cable and Parsons, 2001; Kristof, 1996). Researchers and practitioners contendthat P-O fit is the key to maintaining a flexible and committed workforce that is

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Received 2 July 2013Revised 11 December 2013Accepted 11 February 2014

Personnel ReviewVol. 43 No. 5, 2014pp. 672-691r Emerald Group Publishing Limited0048-3486DOI 10.1108/PR-07-2013-0118

672

PR43,5

necessary in a competitive business environment and a tight labour market (Bowenet al., 1991; Kristof, 1996). Similarly, there is a considerable amount of evidencethat a high level of P-J fit has a number of positive outcomes including higherlevels of job satisfaction (Sekiguchi, 2003; Edwards, 1991), higher motivation,performance, and attendance (Edwards, 1991) and higher organisational commitment(OC) (Sekiguchi, 2003).

While the main body of research on person-environment (P-E) fit has focused on P-Ofit (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2009), this study empirically synthesises the joint effectof P-O fit and P-J fit. This approach provides a stronger support of the effects of fit(Barber, 1998) and would enable us to evaluate the relative importance of perceived P-Ofit and P-J fit (Carless, 2005). From a theoretical perspective, the gap which this study isattempting to fill is examination of the effects of fit on behaviour itself, rather thanattitude towards behaviour (Werbel and Gilliland, 1999). Although meta-analyticalresearch supports a robust relationship between subjective P-E fit and attitudes(Verquer et al., 2003; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), different patterns of relationshipsbetween P-E fit and non-attitudinal variables are expected (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006).Attitude-behaviour relations in general, and especially in a social setting, areinconsistent and unspecified (Friedkin, 2010). Therefore, it is essential to extend theresearch beyond work attitudes to work behaviours in order to develop a richerunderstanding of the relationship between P-O fit and P-J fit. The study also considersthe general work setting and is not limited to the recruitment and selection contextwhich traditionally prevails in P-O studies (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006).

Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is observed as an important individualoutcome and a behavioural variable that promotes effectiveness in organisations(LePine et al., 2002; Organ, 1988). Organisational literature argues that it is likely thatP-O fit has an impact on OCB through job satisfaction (Van Dyne et al., 1994). It hasbeen noted that other mediating factors besides job satisfaction could exist (Netemeyeret al., 1997; Podsakoff et al., 1990). One variable that researchers have underlined as apotential mediator of this relationship is OC (Mackenzie et al., 1998; Menguc, 2000).Kim et al. (2013) posit that psychological empowerment (PE) has a positive impact onOCB. In addition, Harris et al. (2009) suggest that employees need to have theworkplace freedom to display OCB through empowerment. Wat and Shaffer (2005)suggest that empowered workers who perceive a high-quality social exchangerelationship with their managers are more likely to engage in OCB. Kim et al. (2013)also state that empowered employees consider their management trustworthy.

To summarise, this paper considers OCB as a form of employee behaviour that isaffected by P-J fit and P-O fit (Posner, 1992; Tziner, 1987; Vilela et al., 2008). Despiteinitial research on effects of fit on OCB, we know rather little about the mechanismsthrough which OCB can be encouraged. Scholars suggest that OCB arises as aconsequence of P-E fit (Wat and Shaffer, 2005; Chiang and Hsieh, 2012), OC (Batemanand Organ, 1983; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996; Smith et al., 1983), and PE (Kim et al.,2013; Wat and Shaffer, 2005). But, no research has yet revealed the pattern of therelationship between these variables. On the basis of theories and empirical research,our aim is to broaden researchers’ understanding of the complex, multifacetedmechanisms through which P-O and P-J promote OCB. Although the model rests onsome relations that have been previously asserted, the integration of these relationshipprovides an important extension of prior works.

In the sections that follow, first, theoretical rationales and empirical evidence of thedirect and mediatory and moderatory relationship between the variables (Figure 1), are

673

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

presented. Based on the results of the empirical analysis, the theoretical contributionof the proposed model, its practical implications and limitations and further researchare then discussed.

P-O fitThe notion of P-O fit takes different forms depending on the characteristics of theperson and the organisation (Muchinsky and Monahan, 1987). P-O fit describes theconnection between individual and organisational goals; individual preferences orneeds and organisational systems or structures; and individual personality andorganisational climate (Kristof, 1996). P-O fit is a sub-component of the broaderconcept of P-E fit (Vilela et al., 2008). Several different dimensions to conceptualise P-Efit have evolved. These include supplementary vs complementary distinction, theneeds-supplies vs demands-abilities distinction, and the perceived (subjective) vsactual (objective) distinction (Sekiguchi, 2004). In summary, therefore, P-O is a complexand multidimensional concept. In this study, we chose to focus on the perceivedor subjective (the third dimension of P-E), rather than making comparisons withmore objective indicators, because recognition of fit or misfit has the strongestand most direct effect on psychological reactions (Edwards and Cable, 2009;Vilela et al., 2008).

P-J fitWhile P-O fit refers to the match between the person and the organisational goal as awhole, P-J fit involves matching the person and the requirements that are directlyassociated with a specific job (Newton and Jimmieson, 2009). The concept of P-J fit isthe traditional foundation for employee selection (Werbel and Gilliland, 1999). Edwards(1991) proposed that P-J fit should be classified into a demand-abilities perspective anda need-supplies perspective. According to the demand-abilities perspective, the fit isachieved when individuals have sufficient knowledge, skill, and abilities to meet thejob demand. The needs-supplies fit exists when the supplies offered by jobs arecompatible to the needs, preferences, and desires of individuals. Thus, P-J fit can bedefined as the fit between the abilities of a person and the demands of a job or thedesires of a person and the attributes of a job (Sekiguchi, 2004). Consequently, anindividual would be satisfied with his or her job once the organisation policies orstructure fulfils their preferences (Kristof, 1996).

Conceptually, P-O fit and P-J fit are distinct constructs that are interrelated. Therelationship between P-J fit and P-O fit on work engagement might be explained usingthe field theory developed by Lewin (1951). Lewin proposed that the interactionbetween the person and the work environment would lead to certain behaviour.In this theory, human behaviour is based on individual perception towards the workenvironment. When individuals perceive their work environment positively, they tendto demonstrate positive behaviour. Therefore, when employees perceived fit with

Peceived person-organisation fit

Peceivedperson-job fit

Organisationalcommitment

Organisationalcitizenshipbehaviour

Psychologicalempowerment

Figure 1.Research model

674

PR43,5

their job and organisation, they tend to perform their jobs effectively by engagingtowards their role within the organisation’s mission and vision of success (Hamid andYahya, 2011).

P-O fit, P-J fit, and OCThe concept of OC refers to a person’s emotional reaction towards the characteristicsof the organisation for which they work, and their concern regarding the goals andvalues of that organisation (Cook and Wall, 1980). According to Buchanan (1974), OC ismade up of three components:

(1) identification – employees’ pride in the organisation, as well as internalisationof the organisation’s goals and values;

(2) involvement – employees’ willingness to invest personal effort for the sake ofthe organisation; and

(3) loyalty – affection for, and attachment to the organisation, a sense of belongingthat manifests itself in a desire to remain within organisation (Vilela et al.,2008).

Researchers and practitioners contend that this P-O fit is necessary in a competitivebusiness environment and a tight labour market (Bowen et al., 1991; Kristof, 1996).Empirical evidence has shown that a high level of P-O fit is related to a number ofpositive outcomes. A correlation was found between P-O fit and work attitudes suchas OC (Boxx et al., 1991; Bretz and Judge, 1994; Chatman, 1991). In addition, the recentmeta-analysis by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) and Vilela et al. (2008), confirmed that P-O fitis significantly linked to OC. In regard to this relationship, it was revealed that P-J fit iscorrelated with OC (Sekiguchi, 2004). The degree to which employees perceive that theirabilities match the requirements of the job or that the job provides them with their needs,directly affects their commitment to their organisations (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2009).Consequently, according to Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), OC correlates more strongly withP-O fit than P-J fit. Therefore, we formulate the following hypotheses:

H1. Perceived P-O fit would have a positive influence on employees’ OC.

H2. Perceived P-J fit would have a positive influence on employees’ OC.

OCBKatz (1964) identified three categories of employee behaviour and argued thatemployees should first be induced to enter and remain with an organisation, then toperform specific role requirements as expected and finally would engage in activitiesthat go beyond their job descriptions and expectations. Later, researchers dubbed thelast category OCB (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). According to Organ (1988), OCB isdefined as work-related behaviours that are discretionary, i.e. not related to the formalorganisational reward system, and, in aggregate, promote the effective functioning ofthe organisation. Moreover, OCB reflects those actions performed by employees thatsurpass the minimum role requirements expected by the organisation and thatpromote the welfare of co-workers, work groups, and/or the greater organisation(Lovell et al., 1999; Jehad et al., 2011). A great number of empirical studies show thepositive association of OCB and a broad range of individual level and organisational

675

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

level outcomes, including task performance, customer satisfaction, productivity(Podsakoff et al., 2009), OC (Ng and Feldman, 2011; Liu, 2009), and organisationaljustice (Ang et al., 2003).

Podsakoff et al. (2009) pointed out that, although many researchers use differentevaluation dimensions, the most common measurement method was the five dimensionsproposed by Organ (1988) which classifies OCB into the following dimensions:

. altruism – taking initiative to help members of an organisation resolve problems;

. conscientiousness – in addition to complying with organisational rules, goingbeyond minimum requirements through hard work;

. sportsmanship – obeying organisational regulations, tolerating imperfectsituations without complaint;

. courtesy – avoiding work problems by reminding and informing otherco-workers in advance; and

. civic virtue – remaining attentive and proactive when participating inorganisational activities.

Williams and Anderson (1991) divided OCB into two types: OCB-I and OCB-O. OCB-Irefers to behaviours directed at specific individuals such as courtesy and altruism,while OCB-O refers to behaviours concerned with benefiting the organisation as awhole such as conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. However, Hoffmanet al. (2007) and LePine et al. (2002) have investigated the dimensionality of theOCB construct and have demonstrated the overall validity and robustness of Organ’sclassification. Therefore, the present study employs Organ’s classification to achievethe research objective.

OC and OCBOC has been studied as an antecedent to OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995). Affectivecommitment is the emotional component of OC, characterised as the employees’psychological attachment to the organisation (employees stay with the companybecause they genuinely feel good at work) (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Previousresearch shows that employee characteristics (e.g. general affective moral factor),which Organ and Ryan (1995) view as underling employee satisfaction, OC,perceptions of fairness, and perceptions of leader supportiveness are one of the mainpredictors of OCB (Bateman and Organ, 1983; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Smithet al., 1983). These variables have been the most frequently investigated antecedentsof OCB, and all of them have a significant relationship with citizenship behaviours.Thus, these variables that compare employee morale appear to be importantdeterminations of citizenship behaviour. In addition, Brief and Motowidlo (1986),in their review of the literature on extra-role behaviour, agree that the componentsof commitment are predictive of pro-social or citizen behaviour. Consequently, thepositive association of affective OC and OCB is plausible (Moorman et al., 1993;Organ and Ryan, 1995). Therefore, we expect OCB to be a consequence of OC andformulate the following hypothesis:

H3. The employees’ OC will have a positive influence on his/her OCB.

According to the empirical evidence, a high level of P-O fit and P-J fit is relatedto pro-social behaviours such as OCBs, self-reported teamwork, and self-reported work

676

PR43,5

performance (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Posner, 1992; Tziner, 1987). Furthermore,P-O fit and P-J fit theory suggest that shared values between individuals andorganisations lead to job satisfaction for the employee and favourable outcomes withregard to achieving organisational goals through OCBs (Vilela et al., 2008).

It can be concluded that attitudes towards various aspects of the environmentand the job are most strongly related to the corresponding type of fit and mayinfluence OC. OC is an affective variable that, along with extra-role behaviours, isconnected to citizenship behaviour (Vilela et al., 2008). It can be noted thatcommitted employees are willing to give something of themselves in order toincrease the organisation’s well-being (Mowday et al., 1982, p. 27). Furthermore,regarding extra-role behaviour, Brief and Motowidlo (1986) argue that thecomponents of commitment are predictive of pro-social or citizenship behaviour.Therefore, in this study, OC is considered as a mediator in the relationship betweenP-O fit and P-J fit and OCB. The theoretical framework underlying this relationshipis social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Similarly, drawing on this theory, Konovskyand Pugh (1994) examined the mediating role of trust to supervisor in therelationship between organisational justice and OCB. The theory assumes thatemployee and the organisation, as two parties in an exchange, interact basedon reciprocity principle; one party’s actions are contingent on the other’s behaviour.The demand-abilities and needs-supplies perspective of P-E fit parallel thereciprocity principle and imply that parties in the exchange give benefit withthe expectation of receiving equivalent benefits (e.g. employee’s knowledge andskills vs job demands, organisational benefits vs employee’s needs and preferences).Under certain circumstances the transactions have the potential to generatehigh-quality relationship (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) in which two partiesinteract in a way that is not calculated and is beyond the agreed role requirement.The existence of OC provides such circumstances as employees perceive that theleaders of the organisation are supportive and the treatment of the organisation isfair, which leads to an increase in their responsiveness to organisational needs andan increase in self-sacrifice (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). OC transforms the nature ofthe contract between individuals and organisations from a purely economicexchange (quid pro quo) to a relational exchange. Relational exchange encourageemployees to spend more time and energy for the organisation and to behave in away that is beyond expectations and is not obliged by the employer (Rousseau andParks, 1992). As a result of social exchange theory, we argue that P-O and P-Jencourage a relational exchange between the individual and the organisation. Theextent of these social exchanges is manifested in OC which in turn prompts OCBs.Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H4. Through the mediating effect of OC, the perceived P-O fit enhances OCB.

H5. Through the mediating effect of OC, the perceived P-J fit enhances OCB.

Moderating role of PEPE is defined as “increased intrinsic task motivation, manifested in a set of fourcognitions, reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: meaningfulness,competence, self-determination and impact” (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).

The concept of PE is rooted in empowerment theory (Rappaport, 1987) whichsuggests mechanisms to promote the contribution of those living within a

677

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

community to meet their needs and defend their rights (Lee, 2001). Relying onempowerment theory, Spreitzer (1995) operationalise the multifaceted PE constructwithin the work context. The first dimension of PE, meaningfulness, refers to “thevalue of the task goal or purpose, judged in relation to the individuals’ ownideals or standards [y] the individuals’ intrinsic caring about a given task”(Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Individuals who do not believe their tasks havea meaningful purpose have a tendency to be apathetic and feel detached,while individuals who believe their tasks have meaningful purpose are committed,involved, and focused (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Competence (or self-efficacy)embodies “the degree to which a person can perform task activities skilfully whenhe or she tries” (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Self-determination connotes anindividual’s independence in the initiation and continuation of tasks (Spreitzer,1995). The fourth dimension, impact, refers to an individuals’ perceived influenceover important strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes (Liao et al., 2009).In fact, empowerment involves offering employees the control, freedom, andinformation to participate in decision making and organisational affairs (Daft, 2001).

Conger and Kanungo (1988) pointed out that PE is a type of internal motivationconducive to promoting OCB. Morrison (1996) proposed that empowerment ofemployees, increase their motivation, aspirations, and demonstration of organisationalcitizenship. Wat and Shaffer (2005) indicated that employees’ PE significantlyinfluences OCB. Wat and Shaffer (2005), Chiang and Hsieh (2012) also indicated that PEpositively affects OCB. Peccei and Rosenthal (2001) proposed that PE comprises workvalue and self-determination of work, therefore, when employees have more controland freedom in their work, they value their work and behave altruistically. Thus,discretion encourages employees to have a stronger OCB. Therefore, PE appearsto be a proper construct for increasing employee motivation to demonstrate OCB.Also, an individual with a greater level of PE would be more suited to showing a higherOC and consequently would engage in OCB.

In the organisational setting, empowerment theory merits employee initiatives(Drucker, 1988) and postulates that empowered individuals are more likely toparticipate in the organisation (Zimmerman, 1990). It emphasises the role thatorganisational factors, social factors, and political context have in the involvementof individuals to improve their community/organisation. Empowering practicessuch as open leadership, shared decision making, social ties, learning new skills, andgaining information motivate people intrinsically and may influence the extent towhich the organisation can attract employee participation (Prestby et al., 1990).

Committed employees have internalised organisational values, a sense of belonging,and are willing to invest their personal effort for the sake of the organisation, whilePE facilitates realisation of this willingness. Empowered people are aware offactors that influence their individual and organisational well-being (interactionalcomponent), perceive higher capacity and self-efficacy, and are willing to exert controlover organisational community problems (intrapersonal component) (Zimmerman,2000). PE reinforces committed employees to help others organise to cope withcommon problems (behavioural component) (Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, the hypothesisis formulated as follows:

H6. PE will moderate the relationship between commitment and OCBsuch that higher PE will strengthen the relationship, and lower PE willweaken it.

678

PR43,5

MethodMeasuresThis research studies the relationship between employees’ P-O fit, P-J fit, OC, OCBs,and PE. From what has been discussed above, the study establishes a basic researchmodel. Figure 1 shows that P-J fit and P-O fit are independent variables, OCB is thedependent variable; OC is the mediator, and eventually PE is the moderator. The datacollected were done through questionnaires with six sections including P-O fit, P-J fit,OC, OCB, PE, and basic respondent demographic data. The survey used a seven-pointLikert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) for each question.The four-item scale in P-O fit is based on Netemeyer et al.’s (1997) work. The three-itemscale in the P-J fit section was adopted from work by Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2001).The six-item scale in OC was obtained using a scale developed by Mathews andShepherd (2002). Furthermore, the 14-item scale in employee OCB was obtained usingthe Posdakoff and Mackenzie (1994) scale. Finally, the 12-item scale in the PE sectionwas adopted from Spreitzer (1995). The study used SPSS 12 for descriptive analysisand AMOS 7 was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equationmodelling.

Participants and organisationsData were collected from employees working for the Iran Northeast Gas TransferCompany. The total number of employees was 800, from which 520 were selectedrandomly to participate. A total of 412 complete and valid questionnaires was received.The sample was predominantly comprised of males (70.39 per cent), with 46.60 per centof participants possessing bachelor degrees. The participants’ mean age was41.36 years (36-45), and the average work experience was 14.06 years. Table I shows therespondent’s profile in more detail.

ResultsDescriptive analysesAs Table II illustrates, the mean of employees’ perceptions about P-O fit and P-J fitwere 4.35 and 4.08, respectively, implying that the employees perceived level of P-O fitand P-J fit in the organisation not very high. The employees had a fair agreement withPE (mean¼ 5.12), suggesting that they perceived being empowered as a positive act.

The level of OCB (mean¼ 5.38) and the degree of OC (mean¼ 5.17) were identifiedas agreeable. The correlation between each variable was significantly positive. TheCronbach’s a values of research variables were in the range of 0.781-0.901, indicatinggood reliability (Nunnally, 1978).

CFATo validate the developed constructs, the research model was estimated with the CFAin which all measurement items were loaded on their expected constructs, and theconstructs were correlated in the analysis (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). In the testingmodel for CFA, all factor loadings were significant ( po0.001). The test result ofadaptability was w2¼ 358,786, df¼ 1,116; w2/df¼ 321.49, root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA)¼ 0.06, normed fit index (NFI)¼ 0.75, non-normed fit index(NNFI)¼ 0.82, and comparative fit index (CFI)¼ 0.81, which was below the modeladaptability standard suggested by Hair et al. (2006) (w2/dfo3, RMSEAp0.08,NFIX0.9, NNFIX0.9, CFI: higher value indicates better fit). Thus, the model requiredsome amending. The study removed items with factor loading o0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi,

679

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

1988) and cross-loadings. Thus, one item of P-O and P-J were removed, respectively.Also one item of OC, two items of PE, and finally three items of OCB were removed too.The results of the revised testing model were w2¼ 218.88, w2/df¼ 2.75, CFI¼ 0.9,NNFI¼ 0.89, and RMSEA¼ 0.07, indicating that the modified model achieved anacceptable standard. Table III shows that the composite reliability ranged from 0.77 to0.93, greater than the standard of 0.6. In terms of the convergent and discriminantvalidity of the questionnaire, the average variance extracted for each factor wasbetween 0.49 and 0.74, which was either close to or higher than 0.5. Therefore, theconvergent validity of our study measurement scale was acceptable (Zhao and TamerCavusgil, 2006). The square correlation of any two variables was less than the average

CorrelationsMean (SD) Cronbach’s a 1 2 3 4 5

1. Person-organisation fit 4.35 (1.06) 0.784 12. Person-job fit 4.08 (084) 0.846 0.534* 13. Organisational commitment 5.17 (0.59) 0.901 0.514* 0.473* 14. Psychological empowerment 5.12 (0.82) 0.812 0.416* 0.453* 0.431* 15. OCB 5.38 (0.62) 0.789 0.452* 0.325* 0.532* 0.465* 1

Notes: n¼ 412. *p-valueo0.01Table II.Descriptive analyses

Frequency %

GenderMale 290 70.39Female 122 29.61Total 412 100Age (years)425 10 7.0426-35 87 21.1236-45 188 45.6346-55 107 25.97o56 20 4.85Total 412 100EducationLess than secondary/high school – –Secondary/high school 16 3.88Some college or university 117 28.40College/university diploma/degree 192 46.60Postgraduate degree 87 21.12Total 412 100Years of service45 50 12.145-10 44 10.6811-15 148 35.9216-20 124 30.0921-25 46 11.17o26 – –Total 412 100

Table I.Respondent’s profile

680

PR43,5

variance extracted; in conclusion, the measurement scale had discriminant validity(Fornell and Larcker, 1987).

Structural equation model and main effectsTo verify hypotheses for the causal relationships between variables, the study applieda structural equation model. Structural equation model combines aspects of multipleregression and factor analysis to estimate a series of interrelated relationships amongvariables simultaneously (Hair et al., 2006). Table IV shows that the difference (Dw2)between the full mediation model and direct effects model. The GFI, CFI, NNFI, andRMSEA indices of the full mediation model indicated better adaptability than thedirect effects models. Next the study compared partial mediation model to the fullmediation model: the difference (Dw2) of w2 is 61.81. The adaptability index, GFI,CFI, NNFI, and RMSEA of the partial mediation model demonstrated the partialmediation model exceeded the full mediation model and in terms of adaptability.Adaptability indices were w2/df¼ 2.35, GFI¼ 0.823, CFI¼ 0.935, NNFI¼ 0.916,and RMSEA¼ 0.041. The model adaptability was satisfactory. The partialmediation model was a suitable model. Table IV indicates results.

Latent variable ItemsStandardisedfactor loading

Compositereliability

Averagevariance extract

Person-organisation fit Q1 0.90 0.77 0.74Q2 0.86Q3 0.84 0.87 0.77

Person-job fit Q4 0.75Q5 0.78

Organisational commitment Q6 0.88 0.86 0.65Q7 0.74Q8 0.92Q9 0.94Q10 0.78

Psychological empowerment Q11 0.87 0.82 0.71Q12 0.74Q13 0.67Q14 0.65Q15 0.76Q16 0.78Q17 0.62Q18 0.86Q19 0.74Q20 0.79

OCB Q20 0.66 0.91 0.84Q21 0.69Q22 0.78Q23 0.83Q24 0.82Q25 0.75Q26 0.67Q27 0.69Q28 0.84Q29 0.72Q30 0.88

Table III.Results of confirmatory

factor analysis

681

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

In conclusion, the partial mediation model was a suitable model. Table V shows theresults, P-O significantly and positively affected OC (b¼ 0.28, po0.01); thusvalidating H1. Also, P-J positively influenced OC (b¼ 0.14, po0.01); therefore, H2 wassupported. Furthermore, H3 was supported as well, because OC had a significant effecton OCB(b¼ 0.51, po0.01) (Figure 2).

In this study, Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure was used to examine whetherorganisational was a mediator variable. The procedures includes regressing thedependent variable on the independent variable; regressing the mediator on theindependent variable; and then regressing the dependent variable on the independentvariable and mediator (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In this study, relations including: first,the path regression between P-O fit and OCB as well as the path regression between P-Jfit and OCB; second, the path regression between P-O fit and OC, between P-J fit andOC; and third, the path regression between P-O fit, P-J fit, and OC on OCB was followedthrough three-step approach. If the direct effect of P-J fit or P-O fit on OCB are less thanits indirect effect through OC, OCM is likely mediator variable. Perfect mediation holdsif the independent variable has no effect when the mediator is controlled (Baron andKenny, 1986).

Model w2w2/df(o3) Dw2

GFI(40.9)

CFI(40.9)

NNFI(40.9)

RMSEA(o0.08)

Direct effect model 2,070.69 (df¼ 787) 2.63 – 0.811 0.923 0.902 0.065Full mediation model 1,896.35 (df¼ 783) 2.42 174.34 0.816 0.927 0.911 0.051Partial mediation model 1,834.54 (df¼ 780) 2.35 61.81 0.823 0.935 0.916 0.041

Table IV.Goodness-of-fit indicatorsfor the measurementand structural model

Standardised path coefficients (t-value)Direct effect

modelFull mediation

modelPartial mediation

model

P-O-OCB 0.06 (2.07)** 0.04 (2.01)**P-J-OCB 0.02 (2.14)** 0.01 (2.15)**Organisational commitment-OCB 0.64 (3.18)* 0.51 ((3.12)*P-O-organisational commitment 0.34 (2.96)* 0.28 (2.81)*P-J-organisational commitment 0.21 (2.64)* 0.14 (2.62)*

Notes: *p-valuep0.01; **p-valuep0.05Table V.Path of structural model

P-O

P-J

0.01

0.14

0.28

0.04

0.51 OCBOrganisationalcommitment

Figure 2.Path results ofresearch model

682

PR43,5

According to direct effect model, P-J fit and P-O fit featured path coefficients on OCB(b¼ 0.06, po0.05; b¼ 0.02, po0.05). Thus, confirming to the first step of Baron andKenny’s test. Furthermore, based on full mediation model the coefficients between P-Oand P-J on OC were positive (b¼ 0.34, po0.01; b¼ 0.21, po0.01), as was the impact ofOC on OCB (b¼ 0.64, po0.01), fitting the requirement in the second step of Baron andKenny’s method. Lastly, the mediation model confirmed with the third step of Baronand Kenny’s test, indicating path coefficients of P-J and P-O on OC, path coefficientsof OC on OCB, and finally, path coefficients of P-O and P-J on OCB. From the partialmediation model in Table V, employees’ P-O and P-J positively affect OCB (b¼ 0.04,po0.01). Also, OC was a mediator between P-O and OCB, because the direct effect ofP-O on OCB was less than the its indirect effect through OC (0.04o0.28� 0.51).Therefore, H4 was supported. In addition P-J positively influenced OCB (b¼ 0.01,po0.01). Together with the indirect impact of OC, employees’ P-J positively influencedemployees’ OCB, less than the indirect influence of employees’ P-J on OCB through OC(0.01o0.14�0.51). Consequently, the study validated H5.

The results of the moderating test of PE are summarised in Table VI. The SEManalysis, Zhao and Cavusgil’s (2006) technique of evaluating moderator effect wasadopted in this research. According to Zhao and Cavusgil (2006), a two-group model isused as it could determine whether PE moderates the correlation between OC and OCB.The sample was split into two groups according to the mean score of PE. The dataabove the mean were defined as high PE, and the data below the mean as low PE.A two-group AMOS model was used subsequently in order to determine whether therewas any significant difference in structural parameters between the high PE group andthe low PE group. First, the parameter from OC to OCB was constrained to be equal.For the second, the parameter was not constrained (it was kept free). Differences in w2

values between two models determined PE had a moderating effect on the relationshipbetween OC and OCB. Table VI reveals that PE significantly moderates the impact ofOC on OCB. The coefficient of high PE group was greater than of the low PE group.The results indicated a good fit of the model: the ratio of w2 to degree of freedom andCFI are all in acceptable range (w2/df¼ 2.527, GFI¼ 0.917, CFI¼ 0.963, NNFI¼ 0.932,RMSEA¼ 0.073). Therefore, H6 is supported.

DiscussionOverall, the results of this study provide a strong support for the hypothesised model.The results, in particular, support the mediating role of OC in the relationshipsbetween P-J, P-O, and OCB. Utilising Katz’ (1964) categorisation of employee behaviourand social exchange theory, the results imply that the fit which an employee perceivesbetween his/her needs and capabilities and the benefits the job/or organisation offerinduce the individual to become a member of the organisation and perform theexpected tasks. The subjective contact between the individual and the organisation isan economic exchange. The extent to which an employee perceives support and

Relationship Moderator Hypotheses Coefficient w2 difference

Organisational commitment-OCB High PE H6 0.683 9.32*Low PE 0.618

Note: *p-value o0.01Table VI.

Test of moderating effect

683

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

fairness from the organisation generates a greater organisational commitment andrelational/social exchange (Rhoades et al., 2001). At this stage, it is possible thatemployees act in uncalculated ways and become involved in activities with anunspecific future return in which the obligation of the organisation to reciprocate is notobvious. The extent of perceived fit leads employees to commit to the organisation andshow higher levels of OCB. The strength of these relationships is consistent with thatfound in previous research in P-O fit and P-J fit. In addition, Greguras and Diefendorff(2009) confirmed that individuals are attracted to organisations with similar values asthis allows them to promote their commitment and desire to stay in the organisation.

In terms of OCB, this study does not confirm Meyer and Allen’s (1997) research onOCB and OC. In this respect, some researchers have confirmed that OC is expected tobe related to OCB (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Moorman et al., 1993; Organ and Ryan,1995); and others have suggested they are not (Williams and Anderson, 1991; Tausky,1969). This research studied individual perception of fit rather than actual fit andsuggests that organisations should try to influence the fit perception of employees aswell as create the actual fit. The causal relationship that perceived fit might encourageorganisational commitment and the relationship relies mainly on theory. However, thefindings of Vilela et al. (2008) indicated that organisations could profit in very tangibleways of attracting and selecting employees who fit well into the company.

Regarding the relative importance of the two types of P-E fit, path coefficientsand loading factors in Table V indicate that P-O has a greater impact on OC than P-J.One reason for this discrepancy may be that interaction between the individual andthe organisation is not limited to an agreement to accomplish a certain job. Theorganisation as a whole, shapes a community that influences employees in a broadway, e.g. through identity or by directing employees to behave in ways they might notunder normal circumstance (King et al., 2010). The movement of employees insidethe organisation overtime due to job displacement or promotion can also endorse theimportance of P-O fit over P-J fit. The results propose that instead of matchingthe employee to the requirements a specific job, managing subjective contracts andmatching employees’ expectations to the organisational system as a whole can bea better strategy.

The model and results show that there are partial mediating effects that influencethe relationship among perceived P-J, P-O, and OCB, this is contrary to previousresearch that suggest that OC does not play a considerable role in relationship P-O andOCB because there is no direct relationship between OC and OCB (Greguras andDiefendorff, 2009; Wei et al., 2010). In terms of a moderator analysis, this suggests thatthe variable of PE plays the role of moderator that alters the strength of relationshipsbetween OC and OCB. According to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), PE is an internalmotivator that inspires better employee working behaviour. Previous studies suggestthat when managers release control and delegate, employees need to feel empoweredpsychologically (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Peccei and Rosenthal (2001) proposedthat PE comprises work value and self-determination of work; therefore, whenemployees have more control and freedom, they value it and behave altruistically.Thus, employees are encouraged to have stronger OCB. This finding coincided withprevious studies (Morrison, 1996; Wat and Shaffer, 2005; Chiang and Hsieh, 2012).

ConclusionThe aim of the study was to discover mechanisms through which perceived P-O fit andP-J fit affect OCB. Drawing upon the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), empowerment

684

PR43,5

theory (Rappaport, 1987; Zimmerman, 1990), and OCB literature review, we examinedthe relationship among perceived P-J fit and P-O fit, OC, PE, and OCB as shown in theresearch framework. This study concludes that perception of P-J fit and P-O fit throughmediating OC, inspire employees to support OCB. In addition, this study notes thatemployees with more PE can effectively become motivated to represent OCB in theorganisation. Furthermore, the study suggests that to encourage employees initiateactivities beyond their role requirements, the organisation should proactively payattention to their interests and capabilities, match the compensation system and divisionof work to their preferences, protect their rights, listen to their voices, and provide themwith related training. The study recommends that organisation communicate withemployees equitably and provide good working conditions for employees in order tocreate a proper milieu for a social/relational exchange with employees, This will elicitmore OCB which in turn, will improve employees job performance (Podsakoff et al.,2009). The study has discovered that employee PE can accelerate OCB in theorganisation. To provide employees with a higher level of PE, managers shouldoften solicit suggestions from employees about their tasks, departmental affairs, ororganisational policy. Lastly, the organisation should encourage employees to participatein training to enhance their objective and subjective fit with the job and the organisationwhich will improve their sense of responsibility and commitment.

Research limitation and future research suggestionsThe current paper studies employees in the Iran Northeast Gas Transfer Companyin a single-shot survey. Accordingly, in order to extend the findings more studies indifferent industries and contexts are needed. A limitation of this study was thequestionnaire distribution. All questionnaires were self-reported, which may havecontributed to the common method bias. Although, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005)examined the impact of common method bias on fit-attitude relationships and foundlittle to no difference between studies that measures predictor and criterion concurrentvs temporal. This study has considered perceived fit referring to the subjectivejudgement that a person fits well in the environment. On the other hand, actual orobjective fit involves the comparison between separately rated individual andenvironmental characteristics (Sekiguchi, 2004). On the basis of Verquer et al.’s (2003)conclusion that direct measurement of fit by an individual’s overall self-assessment isthe best predictor of outcomes, we used the perceived fit.

PE and OC function as moderator and mediator, respectively; other researchers mayinvestigate additional possible variables as mediator or moderator. There is also a needfor future research into P-O fit and P-J fit as dependent variables. It is necessary tohave a better understanding of fitting in, what it means to fit, and the mechanismsthat stimulate fit. Research needs to be done into various personal and situationalcharacteristics that mediate P-O fit and P-J fit outcome relationships. Finally, futureresearch might also expand on the current results by including personality measuressuch as openness to new experience and self-confidence as drivers of OCB.

References

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. and Begley, T.M. (2003), “The employment relationships of foreign workersversus local employees: a field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction,performance, and OCB”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 561-583.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

685

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

Barber, C. (1998), “CRS information and competitive advantage in the airline industry”,unpublished PhD thesis, University of Northumbria, Newcastle.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator – mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good solider: the relationshipbetween affect and employee citizenship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4,pp. 587-595.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.

Bowen, D.E., Ledford, G.E. and Nathan, B.R. (1991), “Hiring for the organisation, not the job”,Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 59 No. 40, pp. 35-51.

Boxx, W.R., Odom, R.Y. and Dunn, M.G. (1991), “Organisational values and value congruencyand their impact on satisfaction, commitment and cohesion”, Public PersonnelManagement, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-205.

Bretz, R.D. and Judge, T.A. (1994), “The role of human resource systems in job applicant decisionprocesses”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 531-551.

Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Pro social organisational behaviours”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 710-725.

Buchanan, B. (1974), “Building organisational commitment: the socialization of managers inwork organisations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 533-546.

Cable, D.M. and De Rue, D.S. (2002), “The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fitperceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 875-884.

Cable, D.M. and Parsons, C.K. (2001), “Socialization tactics and person-organisation fit”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Carless, S.A. (2005), “Person-job fit versus person-organisation fit as predictors of organisationalattraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Occupationaland Organisational Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 411-429.

Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organisations: selection and socialization in publicaccounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 459-484.

Chiang, C.-F. and Hsieh, T.-S. (2012), “The impacts of perceived organisational support andpsychological empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organisationalcitizenship behaviour”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 180-190.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory andpractice”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-482.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitmentand personal need non-fulfilment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1,pp. 39-52.

Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.

Daft, R.L. (2001), Organisational Theory and Design, South-Western College Publishing,Cincinnati, OH.

Drucker, P.F. (1988), “The coming of the new organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66No. 1, pp. 85-92.

Edwards, J.R. (1991), “Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, andmethodological critique”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), InternationalReview of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 6, Wiley, New York, NY,pp. 283-357.

686

PR43,5

Edwards, J.R. and Cable, D.M. (2009), “The value of value congruence”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 654-677.

Elfenbein, H.A. and O’Reilly, C.A. III (2007), “The effects of relational demography andperson-culture fit on group process and performance”, Group Organisation Management,Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 109-142.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1987), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Friedkin, N.E. (2010), “The attitude-behaviour linkage in behavioural cascades”, SocialPsychology Quarterly, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 196-213.

Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale developmentincorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research,pp. 186-192.

Greguras, G.J. and Diefendorff, J.M. (2009), “Different fits satisfy different needs: linkingperson-environment fit to employee commitment and performance usingself-determination theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 465-477.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), MultivariateData Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hamid, S.A. and Yahya, K.K. (2011), “Relationship between person-job fit andperson-organisation fit on employees’ work engagement: a study among engineers insemiconductor companies in Malaysia”, paper presented at Annual Conference onInnovations in Business & Management, London, pp. 1-30.

Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R. and Kacmer, K.M. (2009), “Leader-member exchange andempowerment: direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions,and performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 371-382.

Hoffman, B.J. and Woehr, D.J. (2006), “A quantitative review of the relationship betweenperson-organisation fit and behavioural outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour,Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 389-399.

Hoffman, B.J., Blair, C.A., Meriac, J.P. and Woehr, D.J. (2007), “Expanding the criterion domain?A quantitative review of the OCB literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2,pp. 555-566.

Jehad, M., Quoquad, H., Farzana, A. and Mohmad, A. (2011), “Job satisfaction and organisationalcitizenship behaviour: an empirical study at higher learning institutions”, Asian Academyof Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-165.

Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behavior”, Behavioral science, Vol. 9No. 2, pp. 131-146.

Kim, B.P., Losekoot, E. and Milne, S. (2013), “Consequences of empowerment among restaurantservers: helping behaviors and average check size”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 4,pp. 781-794.

King, B.G., Felin, T. and Whetten, D.A. (2010), “Perspective-finding the organization inorganizational theory: a meta-theory of the organization as a social actor”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 290-305.

Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-669.

Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organisation fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals,fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person- organisation, person-group, andperson-supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 281-342.

687

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

Lauver, K.J. and Kristof-Brown, A. (2001), “Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions ofperson-job and person-organisational fit”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 59 No. 3,pp. 454-470.

Lee, J.A.B. (2001), The Empowerment Approach to Social Work Practice: Building the BelovedCommunity, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), “The nature and dimensionality of organizationalcitizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-65.

Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepaj, D.P. and Hong, Y. (2009), “Do they see eye to eye? Managementand employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influenceprocesses on service quality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 2,pp. 371-391.

Liu, Y. (2009), “Perceived organizational support and expatriate organizational citizenshipbehavior: the mediating role of affective commitment towards the parent company”,Personnel Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 307-319.

Lovell, S.E., Kahn, A.S., Anton, J., Davidson, A., Dowling, E., Post, D. and Mason, C. (1999), “Doesgender affect the link between organisational citizenship behaviour and performanceevaluation?”, Sex Role, Vol. 41 Nos 5/6, pp. 469-478.

Mackenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Aheame, M. (1998), “Some possible antecedents ofin-role and extra-role sales person performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3,pp. 87-98.

Mathews, B.P. and Shepherd, J.L. (2002), “Dimensionality of the BOCS revisited”, Journal ofOccupational & Organisational Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 369-375.

Menguc, B. (2000), “An empirical investigation of a social exchange model of organisationalcitizenship behaviours across two sales situations: a Turkish case”, Journal of Personalselling & Sales Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 205-214.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three component conceptualization of organisationalcommitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, andApplication, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P and Organ, D.W. (1993), “Treating employees fairly andorganisational citizenship behaviour: sorting the effects of job, satisfaction, organisationalcommitment, and procedural justice”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6No. 3, pp. 209-225.

Morrison, E.W. (1996), “Organisational citizenship behaviour as a critical link betweenHRM practices and service quality”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 35 No. 4,pp. 493-512.

Mowday, R., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-Organisations Linkages:The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press,New York, NY.

Muchinsky, P.M. and Monahan, C.J. (1987), “What is person-environment congruence?Supplementary versus complementary models of fit”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour,Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 268-277.

Newton, C.J. and Jimmieson, N.L. (2009), “Subjective fit with organizational culture: aninvestigation of moderating effects in the work stressor-employee adjustmentrelationship”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,pp. 1770-1789.

688

PR43,5

Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2011), “Affective organizational commitment and citizenshipbehavior: linear and non-linear moderating effects of organizational tenure”, Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 528-537.

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., McKee, D.O. and McMurrian, R. (1997), “An investigation into theantecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context”, TheJournal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 85-98.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organisational commitment and psychological attachment:the effects of compliance, identification and internalization on pro-social behaviour”,Journal of Applied Psychological, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-499.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J.A. (1996), “Culture as social control: corporations, cults, andcommitment”, in Staw, B. and Cumming, L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 18, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 157-200.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: the Good Soldier Syndrome, LexingtonBooks, Lexington, MA.

Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositionalpredictors of organisational citizenship behaviour”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4,pp. 775-802.

Peccei, R. and Rosenthal, P. (2001), “Delivering customer oriented behaviour throughempowerment: an empirical test to HRM assumptions”, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 831-857.

Posdakoff, P.M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (1994), “Organisational citizenship behaviours and sales uniteffectiveness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 351-363.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leaderbehaviour and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organisationalcitizenship behaviours”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.

Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), “Individualand organisational level consequences of organisational citizenship behaviours: ameta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 122-141.

Posner, B.Z. (1992), “Person-organisation values congruence: no support for individualdifferences as a moderating influence”, Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 351-361.

Prestby, J.E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R. and Chavis, D. (1990), “Benefits, costs, incentivemanagement and participation in voluntary organizations: a means to understandingand promoting empowerment”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1,pp. 117-149.

Rappaport, J. (1987), “Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: toward a theory forcommunity psychology”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2,pp. 121-148.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: thecontribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86No. 5, pp. 825-836.

Rousseau, D.M. and Parks, J.M. (1992), “The contracts of individuals and organizations”,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-43.

Sekiguchi, T. (2003), “A contingency perspective on the importance of p-j fit and p-o fit inemployee selection”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of Academy ofManagement, Seattle, WA, August.

Sekigunchi, T. (2004), “Person-organisation fit and person-job fit in employee selection: a reviewof the literature”, Osaka KeidaiRonshu, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 179-196.

689

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB

Sekiguchi, T. and Huber, V.L. (2011), “The use of person-organisation fit and person-job fitinformation in making selection decisions”, Organisational Behaviour & Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 203-216.

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organisational behaviour: its nature andantecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-663.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement,and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.

Tausky, C. (1969), “Meanings of work among blue collar men”, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 12No. 1, pp. 49-55.

Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an interpretivemodel of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 666-681.

Tziner, A. (1987), “Congruency issue retested using fineman’s achievement climate notion”,Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 63-78.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organisational citizenship behaviour.Construct redefinition, measurement and validation”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802.

Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A. and Wagner, S.H. (2003), “A meta-analysis of relations betweenperson-organization fit and work attitudes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 3,pp. 473-489.

Vilela, B., Gonz�alez, J.A. and Varela, F.P. (2008), “Person-organisation fit, OCB and performanceappraisal: evidence from matched supervisor-salesperson data set in a Spanish context”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1005-1079.

Wat, D. and Shaffer, M.A. (2005), “Equity and relationship quality influences on organisationalcitizenship behaviours:the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment”,Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 406-422.

Wei, Y.C., Han, T.S. and Hsu, I.C. (2010), “High-performance HR practices and OCB: A cross-levelinvestigation of a causal path”, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 1631-1648.

Werbel, J.D. and Gilliland, S.W. (1999), “Person-environment fit in the selection process”, inFerris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 17JAI Press, Stanford, CT, pp. 209-243.

Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organisational commitment aspredictors of organisational citizenship and in-role behaviours”, Journal of Management,Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-617.

Zhao, Y. and Tamer Cavusgil, S. (2006), “The effect of supplier0s market orientation onmanufacturer0s trust”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 405-414.

Zimmerman, M.A. (1990), “Taking aim on empowerment research: on the distinction betweenindividual and psychological conceptions”, American Journal of community psychology,Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 169-177.

Zimmerman, M.A. (2000), “Empowerment theory: psychological, organizational and communitylevels of analysis”, in Rappaport, J. and Edward, S. (Eds), Handbook of CommunityPsychology, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 43-63.

Further reading

Beomcheol, K.P., Losekoot, E. and Milne, S. (2011), “The impact of psychological empowermentfor individual service workers”, 2nd International Research Symposium in serviceManagement, Yogyakarta, July.

690

PR43,5

Chavis, D.M. and Wandersman, A. (1990), “Sense of community in the urban environment: acatalyst for participation and community development”, American Journal of CommunityPsychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 55-81.

French, J.R., Caplan, R.D. and Harrison, R.V. (1982), The Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain,Wiley, London.

Organ, D.W. (1989), Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome,Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Corresponding authorDr Ali Dehghanpour Farashah can be contacted at: ali.dehghanpour@umu.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

691

Impact of P-J fitand P-O fit

on OCB