Understanding dynamic change in perceptions of person–environment fit: An exploration of competing theoretical perspectives

• Date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2294
• Author: Rein De Cooman,Marijke Verbruggen,Wouter Vleugels,Omar Solinger
• Published date: 01 November 2018

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Understanding dynamic change in perceptions of person–

environment fit: An exploration of competing theoretical

perspectives

Wouter Vleugels

1

|Rein De Cooman

1

|Marijke Verbruggen

1

|Omar Solinger

2

1

KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

2

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam,

The Netherlands

Correspondence

Wouter Vleugels, KU Leuven, Leuven,

Belgium.

Email: wouter.vleugels@kuleuven.be

Summary

The longstanding assumption in person–environment (PE) fit research is that per-

ceived fit embodies the subjectively experienced match between personal and envi-

ronmental attributes and hence triggers affect and behavior (i.e., normal causation

perspective). This argument is however increasingly debated, with some scholars

suggesting that the causal flow may also run from affect and behavior to perceived

fit (i.e., reverse causation perspective), and others even arguing that perceptions of PE

fit are not substantially different from how people feel and think about their environ-

ment (i.e., synchronous relationship perspective). In this research, we propose that

these three competing perspectives correspond with different assumptions on how

PE fit perceptions dynamically change over time (i.e., by means of comparative reason-

ing, logical deduction, or heuristic thinking). We empirically validate these three com-

peting perspectives by teasing out the causal ordering of the within‐person

relationships between perceptions of fit and workplace affect and performance. In

two separate diary studies, one with weekly (N= 153) and one w ith daily (N=77)

repeated measures, support was found for the synchronous relationship perspective

with heuristic thinking as the plausible underlying process. This research contributes

to the PE fit literatureby providing new insight into the dynamicnature of perceived fit.

KEYWORDS

affect, perceived fit,performance, person–environment fit, within‐person change

1|INTRODUCTION

Person–environment (PE) fit theory is one of the most pervasive

guiding frameworks for scholars and practitioners alike and is key to

our understanding of employees' emotions, attitudes, and behaviors

in the workplace (Kristof, 1996; Kristof‐Brown & Billsberry, 2013;

Schneider, 2001). The term person–environment fit was first coined by

French and colleagues in 1974 (French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974) and

builds upon Lewin's equation B=f(P,E), which defines human behav-

ior (B) as a function of both the person (P) and the environment (E)

(Lewin, 1951). Perceived fit comprises an individual's subjective percep-

tion of fit and is commonly found to be a strong predictor of outcomes

such as job satisfaction, commitment, work performance, and turnover

(Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson,

2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003). Despite the established char-

acter of the perceived fit construct, many challenging questions

remain, in particular those relating to how fit experiences develop

and change over time (e.g., Boon & Biron, 2016; Kristof‐Brown &

Billsberry, 2013; Shipp & Jansen, 2011; Yu, 2009). With this research,

we wish to examine how fit perceptions temporally relate to work‐

related affect and performance on the within‐person level, with the

goal of gaining more insight into the dynamic nature of perceived fit.

Although the longstanding assumption has been that perceived fit

embodies the cognitive representation of fairly stable PE discrepancies

(e.g., French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982; Harrison, 1978), empirical stud-

ies illustrate that fit perceptions are dynamic (Gabriel, Diefendorff,

Received: 1 October 2016 Revised: 19 April 2018 Accepted: 20 April 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2294

1066 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:1066–1080.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job