Person-organization fit and its relation

to job satisfaction and turnover in the

Albanian Public Administration
Adelina Kaza
Organizational Behavior and Leadership
Professor Perparim Dervishi
12 January 2014
Table of Contents
Tale of !ontents""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 2
List of Tales and #igures"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $
%stra&t"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 4
'ntrodu&tion""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" (
1")esear&h methods and design"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" (
1"1Parti&ipants"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" (
1"2 *aterials """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" +
1"$ Design""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" +
1"4 Data %nalysis"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" +
1"( )esear&h limitations"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,
2"Theoreti&al #rame-or. and Literature )evie-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",
2"1 The %lanian Puli& %dministration system"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",
2"2 Person/organization fit"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0
2"$ Jo 1atisfa&tion"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 2
2"4 Turnover """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 10
$"*aterials and *ethods"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 10
$"1 Person/organization fit analysis""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""11
$"2 Jo satisfa&tion analysis""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 12
$"$ Turnover intentions analysis""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1$
$"4 !ontrol 3ariales"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1$
$"( %nalysis pro&ess """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1$
4" 1tudy #indings"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1(
4"1 Person/organization fit study findings"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1(
4"2 Jo satisfa&tion study findings"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1,
4"$ Turnover intentions study findings"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""12
Dis&ussion of the results""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 21
!on&lusion"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 24
)4#4)45!4 L'1T""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 2(
2
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Survey sample control variables .....................................9
Table 2: Description of questionnaire questions: Person-organiation fit...............................11
Table !: Description of questionnaire questions: "ob satisfaction...........................................11
Table #: Description of questionnaire questions: Turnover intentions....................................12
Table $: Stu%y &ariables..........................................................................................................1!
Table ': Survey frequency responses to person-organiation fit.............................................1!
Table (: Survey frequency responses to )ob satisfaction.........................................................1#
Table *: Survey frequency responses to turnover intention questions.....................................1$
Table 9: Person-organiation fit+ ,orrelation matri- .Pearson .n//.........................................1$
Table 10: Total &ariance 1-plaine% .Person-organiation fit/................................................1'
Table 11: ,omponent matri- .Person-organiation fit/...........................................................1(
Table 12: ,orrelation matri- .Pearson .n//..............................................................................1(
Table 1!: Total &ariance 1-plaine% ."ob Satisfaction/............................................................1*
Table 1#: ,omponent matri- ."ob Satisfaction/.......................................................................1*
Table 1$: ,orrelation bet2een person-organiation fit an% )ob satisfaction............................19
Table 1': ,orrelation bet2een person-organiation fit an% turnover intentions......................19
3igure 1: "ob satisfaction results.20
3igure 2: Person-organiation fit21
3igure !: Turnover..21
$
Abstract
T4e main concern of person-organiation fit is t4e i%entification of precursors an%
consequences of t4e matc4 or mismatc4 bet2een t4e in%ivi%uals an% t4e organiations t4ey
2or5 for.
T4is researc4 aims to analyse t4e relations4ip bet2een t4e person-organiation fit+ )ob
satisfaction an% turnover of in%ivi%uals 2or5ing in t4e 6lbanian public a%ministration
t4roug4 t4e utiliation of multiple measures .i.e. 7i5ert scale/ of fit in pre%icting t4ese
outcome variables.
3ifty employees from t4e Public 6%ministration fille% out t4e provi%e%
questionnaires. T4e results reveale% t4at t4ere is a strong relations4ip bet2een t4e person-
organiation fit an% )ob satisfaction+ 24ilst t4ere is a muc4 2ea5er lin5 bet2een person-
organiation fit an% turnover in t4e 6lbanian public institutions. T4e results an% implications
of t4e researc4 are %iscusse% accor%ingly.
4
Introduction
Person-organiation fit relates to t4e employees8 level of comfort 2it4in an
organiation an% is a crucial factor to t4e long-term )ob satisfaction. 3urt4ermore+ it is a
current an% most %iscusse% topic among sc4olars 2orl%2i%e. 94en people start 2or5ing in
ne2 organisations t4eir aim is to fin% t4eir ne2 )obs re2ar%ing an% satisfying. 1mployees
e-pect a goo% level of comfort 2it4in t4e organiation an% 2ant to get 2ell 2it4 t4e
employer+ 24ic4 is 24y :people select environments t4at fulfil t4eir nee%s; .,able an%
"u%ge+ 199'/ 24ere t4ey believe t4ey 2ill <fit=. 3itting employees 2it4 organiational values
an% %eman%s may 4ave a positive impact on t4e employees= level of pro%uctivity an% 2or5
engagement .Siti > ?4uli%a+ 2011/+ 24ic4 is 24y t4e organiations= main concern in not )ust
ma5ing sure t4at t4ere is a fit bet2een t4e in%ivi%uals an% t4e organiation+ but to persist it.
T4is is because employees+ 24o fit 2ell in t4e organiation try to acquire more 5no2le%ge+
improve t4eir s5ills an% abilities 24ic4 in return ma5e t4em 4ig4ly motivate% an% qualifie%
for effective an% efficient goal ac4ievement. @n t4e ot4er 4an%+ if employees %o not feel
comfortable 2it4in t4e organiations an% t4eir nee%s are not met+ t4ey mig4t try to leave t4e
organiation.
T4e main ob)ective of t4is paper is t4us to e-amine t4e relation bet2een person-
organiation fit to )ob satisfaction an% turnover in t4e 6lbanian Public 6%ministration.
1. esearch methods and design
T4e researc4 aims to e-amine t4e impact of person-organiation fit on t2o in%ivi%ual
outcomes .)ob satisfaction+ turnover/ after inspecting %emograp4ic an% ot4er variables. Stu%y
%esign
1.1 Partici!ants
(
T4e sample of t4e stu%y consiste% of fifty employees selecte% from some important
public institutions in 6lbania suc4 as Ainistry of 1conomy+ Ainistry of 1nergy an% Bn%ustry+
Department of Ceological Survey of 6lbania+ Degional 1%ucational ,enter of Tirana.
1." #aterials
T4e questionnaire 2as %esigne% in suc4 a 2ay t4at it 4elpe% us put to test t4e vali%ity
of t4e propose% 4ypot4esis on t4e relation bet2een )ob satisfaction+ person-organiation fit
an% turnover in t4e public a%ministration. T4e questions 2ere revise% several times an% t4e
questionnaire 2as revie2e% by us for t4e purpose of clarifying t4e instructions+ completion of
alternatives+ an% t4e use of appropriate language an% terms.
Euestionnaires 2ere %istribute% t4roug4 %irect communication 2it4 eac4 of t4e
participants. T4e questionnaires 2ere base% in t4e literature from ?ristof .199'/

an%
@=DeillyF,4atman .19*'/+ Smit4 et al. .19'9/+ 9rig4t+ G. 1.+ > Davis+ G. S. .200!/+ Goraga+
,.+ > Tortia+ 1. .200'/+ DeSantis+ &. S.+ > Durst+ S. 7. .199'/+ 1llic5son+ A. ,. .2002/.
1.$ %esign
3or t4e purpose of t4e stu%y 2e use% control variables+ suc4 as: age+ se-+ level of
e%ucation an% tenure. T4e %epen%ent variables presente% in t4is researc4 are )ob satisfaction+
person-organiation fit an% turnover. &ariables 2ere measure% t4roug4 questioning. 6fter
calculating t4e variables an% evaluating t4eir relations4ip bet2een eac4 ot4er an% t4e control
variables+ t4e t2o 4ypot4eses 2ere teste%:
Hypothesis 1: Person-organization fit is significantly related to job satisfaction. As the
compatibility between employees and organizations increase, their job satisfaction will
increase.
Hypothesis 2: Person-organization fit is significantly related to trno!er intentions. As the
compatibility between employees and organizations increase, their trno!er intentions will
decrease.
1.& %ata Anal'sis
T4e results of t4e questionnaires 2ere analye% by e%iting+ co%ing of string variables+
transformation of some %ata in or%er to pro%uce %esire%+ but vali% results+ setting of
4ypot4esis an% finally 4ypot4esis testing. Soft2ares suc4 as 1-cel an% SPSS 2ere use% to
+
measure mean+ s5e2ness+ 5urtosis+ variance+ sampling %istribution+ test significance+
cumulative variances an% eigenvalues. T4ose values 4elpe% us to evaluate t4e importance of
variables an% 2it4 t4e evaluation of bot4 4ypot4eses. Since t4e values 2ere 2it4in t4e
boun%aries of t4e stu%y allo2e% for eac4 of t4e parameters+ t4e proce%ure continue% 2it4
tests calculation for t4e 4ypot4eses= verification. To measure test significance of our
4ypot4esis 2e use%: t
1
an% 3
2
tests. T4e analysis of variance 2as ma%e by using t4e
e-traction met4o%: Principal ,omponent 6nalysis an% 3actor ,omponent 6nalysis.
1.( esearch limitations
T4is stu%y is limite% to some e-tent %ue to t4e fact t4at t4e researc4 2as carrie% out
on a fairly small scale. Gecause of t4e sampling limitations an% t4e small number of
participants it remains unsure as to 24at e-tent t4e results of t4is researc4 are vali% an%
reliable. Bt cannot be e-clu%e% t4at t4e researc4 fin%ings mig4t be specific to t4e public
institutions 24ic4 2ere inclu%e% in t4e stu%y. Bf t4is is t4e case+ in or%er to reac4 more vali%
an% reliable results a muc4 more e-tensive an% %iversifie% researc4 2it4 a variety of samples
nee%s to be con%ucte%.
". Theoretical Frame)or* and Literature evie)
".1 The Albanian Public Administration s'stem
94ile t4e 6lbanian term Hpublic a%ministrationH .:a%ministrata publi5e;/ is
%istinguis4e% from t4e term Hpublic a%ministrationH.:a%ministrimi publi5;/. T4e term HPublic
6%ministrationH 4as t2o meanings:
I from t4e ob)ective point of vie2 .functional %efinition/+ t4e term %efines t4e activities as a
24ole performe% to meet t4e nee%s of general public interest .public or%er+ public services
mar5et+ etc./. T4is function is relate% to public un%erstan%ing .a%ministrative function/
I from t4e sub)ective perspective .organic %efinition /+ it is a set of entities t4at perform t4e
above function.
1
6 t2o-sample t-test e-amines 24et4er t2o samples are %ifferent an% is commonly use% 24en t4e variances of t2o normal
%istributions are un5no2n an% 24en an e-periment uses a small sample sie.
2
6n 3 test is normally a test for t4e )oint 4ypot4esis t4at a number of coefficients are ero. 7arge values generally re)ect t4e
4ypot4esis+ %epen%ing on t4e level of significance require%.
,
,onsequently+ public a%ministrations can be %efine% as governmental institutional units t4at
regulate t4e functioning of society. 94ile public a%ministration+ in particular+ is a fiel% of
stu%y of political science+ it stu%ies t4e forms of organiation of t4e State+ t4e organiation of
%emocracy+ t4e implementation of public policies+ an% in s4ort+ everyt4ing t4at relates to t4e
operation of t4e organiation of t4e public sector.
Public a%ministrations are %ivi%e% into central a%ministration .ministries an% ot4er
central institutions/+ t4e territorial a%ministration .7CJs-local government units/ an% t4e
Social Security 6%ministration.
Bn or%er to carry out t4ese activities+ t4e public a%ministration %isposes its o2n tools:
t4e prerogatives of public po2er. Bt is about t4e po2er of comman%+ 24ic4 is not in t4e
4an%s of private in%ivi%uals. T4is allo2s t4e public a%ministration to impose its 2ill+ 24ic4 is
transferre% from t4e e-ecutive po2er upon 24ic4 it %epen%s on. 3or most of its activities
a%ministration is sub)ect to a%ministrative la2.
"." Person-organization fit
Person-organiation fit 4as been a most %iscusse% topic among sc4olars an% managers
2orl%2i%e 24ose concern are t4e consequences of t4e congruence bet2een employees an%
t4e organiation. &ast researc4 4as s4o2n t4at person-organiation fit is strongly relate% to
t4e in%ivi%ual outcome variables of employees suc4 as )ob satisfaction an% turnover+ 24ic4
2ill be analyse% in %etail in t4e follo2ing sections. Desearc4ers 4ave in%icate% strong
relations4ip of person-organiation fit to t4e compatibility or incompatibility bet2een 2or5
situations an% in%ivi%ual 2or5 values. .?ristof+ 199'K ,ennamo > Car%ner+ 200*/
Bn essence+ person-organiation fit t4eory suggests t4at t4ere are certain
c4aracteristics of organiations t4at are most li5ely to matc4 t4e in%ivi%ual c4aracteristic of
employees+ an% t4at t4e employees= attitu%es an% be4aviours 2ill be influence% by t4e %egree
of compatibility or :fit; bet2een employees an% organiations.
?ristof .199'/ %efine% t4e concept of person-organiation fit as: :t4e compatibility
bet2een people an% organiations t4at occurs 24en: .a/ at least one entity provi%es 24at t4e
ot4er nee%s+ or .b/ t4ey s4are similar fun%amental c4aracteristics+ or .c/ bot4; .p. #-$/. 6s a
result+ t4ere are t2o possible correlations bet2een t4e organiation an% its employees. @n one
4an%+ 2e can tal5 about mutual nee% fulfilment .complementary congruence/. T4is 4appens
0
24en t4e organiation meets t4e employees= e-pectations or 24en employees t4e abilities to
meet organiational %eman%s. .?ristof+ 199'K Aunc4in5sy > Aona4an 19*(/. Specifically+
employees e-pect financial+ p4ysical an% psyc4ological support+ 24ic4 are provi%e% by
organiations+ as 2ell as tas5-relate% an% interpersonal gro2t4 opportunities. Bn return+
organiations %eman% time+ effort+ commitment+ 5no2le%ge+ s5ills an% abilities from
employees. T4e in%ivi%ual c4aracteristics of t4e employees an% organiations 4ave a
significant impact on t4e %eman%s an% supplies. @n t4e ot4er 4an%+ bot4 t4e employees an%
organiation possess t4e same or similar c4aracteristics .supplementary congruence/ suc4 as
values+ common goals an% personality. .,4atman+ 19*9K 1%2ar%s+ 200*K Loffman > 9oe4r+
200'K &erquer+ Gee4r > 9agner+ 200!/. T4ere is a nee% to put an emp4asis on 2or5 values
24ic4 are :beliefs pertaining to %esirable en%- states .e.g.+ 4ig4 pay/ or be4aviour .e.g.+
2or5ing 2it4 people/ M...NK t4ey refer to 24at a person 2ants out of 2or5 in general+ rat4er
t4an to t4e narro2ly %efine% outcomes of particular )obs; .Sc42art+ > Sur5iss+ 1999/. 3rom
t4e person-organiation fit perspective+ 2or5 values may essentially influence be4avioural
response an% employee attitu%es to2ar% specific 2or5place situations 24ic4 are lin5e% to )ob
satisfaction or turnover. 6s a matter of fact+ most empirical stu%ies on person-organiation fit
4ave been %one on attitu%e an% be4avioural outcomes. T4e results of t4ese stu%ies are
summarise% in several meta-analyses. Gase% on a meta-analysis of 21 stu%ies from &erquer+
Gee4r > 9agner .200!/ it is clearly s4o2n t4at person-organiation fit is strongly relate% to
)ob satisfaction .OP.21/ an% turnover .OP-.21/. 6ccor%ing to t4e meta-analysis of t4e Loffman
an% 9oe4r base% on 2# stu%ies .Loffman > 9oe4r+ 200'/ in%icates t4at t4e person-
organiation fit is mo%erately relate% to turnover .OP.2'/. 6%%itionally+ a meta-analysis
?ristof-Gro2n et al. .200$/ base% on 110 stu%ies person-organiation fit is more strongly
relate% to )ob satisfaction .pP.##/ rat4er t4an turnover .pP-1#/. 3urt4ermore+ ot4er
researc4ers 4ave %etermine% t4at t4e stronger t4e matc4 bet2een employees an% t4e
organiation+ t4e stronger t4e employees= )ob satisfaction .,4atman 1991K Tepeci > Garlett
2002/ an% t4e less li5ely t4ey are to quit t4eir )obs .Silvert4orne 200#K 9esterman > ,yr
200#/.
".$ +ob ,atisfaction
"ob satisfaction is 2i%ely researc4e% an% researc4ers vary in t4eir %efinitions to t4e
concept. Bt is ran%omly %efine% as t4e feelings of in%ivi%uals about t4eir )obs. Bn t4e broa%est
sense+ it refers to an employee=s general attitu%e to2ar% t4e )ob or some %imensions of
2
it+ot4er2ise consi%ere% as :an effective feeling t4at %epen%s on t4e interaction of employees+
t4eir personal c4aracteristics+ values+ an% e-pectations 2it4 t4e 2or5 environment+ an% t4e
organiation;. .,umbey 199*K 5noop 199$K Smit4 199'/ Gase% on literature t4ere are t4ree
important dimensions to )ob satisfaction: "ob satisfaction is an emotional response to a )ob
situation. 6s suc4 it cannot be seen+ it can only be inferre%. "ob satisfaction is often
%etermine% by 4o2 2ell outcome meet or e-cee%e-pectations. "ob satisfaction represents
several relate% attitu%es 24ic4 are most important c4aracteristis of a )ob about 24ic4 people
4ave effective response. T4ese to 7ut4ans are: t4e 2or5 itself+ pay+ promotion opportunities+
supervision an% co2or5ers.
".& Turnover
Aarc4 an% Simon8s .19$*/ seminal boo5 signale% t4e beginning of t4e %evelopment
of turnover t4eory. 6ccor%ing to t4eir t4eory+ members participate in t4e organiation as long
as in%ucements+ suc4 as pay+ matc4 or e-cee% t4e employees= inputs. T4e interaction of t4e
inputs an% in%ucements are influence% by t2o motivational components: t4e perceive%
%esirability of leaving an% t4e ease of leaving. Geing satisfie% in one=s )ob re%uces t4e
perceive% %esirability of leaving. 1ase of leaving is influence% by t4e e-ternal economy+
t4oug4 Aarc4 an% Simon suggeste% t4at issues suc4 as t4e visibility of t4e in%ivi%ual
employee .ot4er firms see an% 2ant to 4ire t4e person/+ t4e number of firms visible .t4e
perception of )obs being plentiful lea%s to a 4ig4er perceive% ease of movement/+ t4e current
organiation8s prestige .easier to move from a 2ell 5no2n company t4an a little 5no2n
company/+ an% t4e in%ivi%ual8s propensity to searc4 for a )ob all influence ease of movement.
$. #aterials and #ethods
3ifty employees from t4e public a%ministration participate% in t4is stu%y. Participants
2ere ran%omly selecte% from some of t4e most important institutions in Tirana suc4 as: t4e
Ainistry of 1conomy+ Ainistry of 1nergy an% Bn%ustry+ Directorate Ceneral of t4e 6lbanian
Ceological Survey an% Degional 1%ucational Directorate Tirana. 3or %iversification
purposes+ a variety of public a%ministration employees from several professions suc4 as
geological specialist+ economists+ internal au%itors+ 4uman resource specialist+ e-perience%
aca%emic staff in teac4ing an% )u%icial employees.
10
T4e respon%ents= %emograp4ical c4aracteristics suc4 as age+ e%ucation an% gen%er varie%.
Euestionnaires 2ere %istribute% t4roug4 %irect communication 2it4 eac4 of t4e participants.
T4e follo2ing summary table is presente% 2it4 %emograp4ic %ata %istribution. Table 1
provi%es t4e %etails of t4e control variables.
Table 1. Survey sample control variables (N = 50)
3requency Percentage
Education level
Lig4 sc4ool %iploma 1 2
Gac4elor=s %egree 2' $2
Aaster=s %egree 21 #2
P4D 2 #
Gender
Aale !$ (0
3emale 1$ !0
T4e participants= age average 2as !(.# years+ 24ilst average 2or5 time 2as 11.1# years.
T2o met4o%s are 2i%ely use% in assessing t4e person-organiation fit:
1. "irect method Q can be %escribe% as t4e perception of 4o2 2ell t4e in%ivi%ual fits in
t4e organiation. T4is can be measure% by as5ing participants to 24at e-tent t4ey
believe t4ey fit in t4e organiation.
2. #ndirect method Q is measure% t4roug4 t4e comparison of t4e participants=
c4aracteristics an% organiations= c4aracteristics.
3or t4e purpose of t4is stu%y t4e %irect met4o% is use% to measure t4e compatibility bet2een
t4e participants an% t4eir organiations+ as t4e appropriate met4o% %ue to its vali%ity 24ic4 is
bac5e% by researc4 in terms of employee outcomes. .?ristof-Gro2n et al.200$K &erquer et
al. 200!/.
$.1 Person-organization fit anal'sis
Bn or%er to measure t4e compatibility bet2een t4e participants an% t4eir organiations+
t4e 7i5ert scale approac4 2as use% to scale responses in t4is questionnaire. T4e participants
11
2ere as5e% four questions. 6 seven or%ere% response scale 2as use% %uring 24ic4
participants 4a% to respon% to ans2ers from 1 .strongly %isagree/ to ( .strongly agree/.
T4e questionnaire 2as base% on researc4 con%ucte% by .?ristof 199'/

an% .@=Deilly >
,4atman 19*'/. T4e follo2ing table provi%es a list of t4e questions as5e%:
Table 2 !escription o" #uestionnaire #uestions $erson%or&ani'ation "it
Euestion Bn%e-
1. Ay values an% goals are very similar to t4e
values an% goals of my organiation.
P-@ 1
2. B am not very comfortable 2it4in t4e
culture of my organiation .D/.
P-@ 2
!. B feel a strong sense of :belonging; to my
organiation.
P-@ !
#. Bt is very important for me 24at t4is
organiation ma5es for my country.
P-@ #
$." +ob satisfaction anal'sis
T4e 7i5ert scale 2as use% for )ob satisfaction measurement purposes. 1mpirical
researc4 4as s4o2n t4at t4e )ob satisfaction level of public sector employees %epen%s on
factors not necessarily monetary+ 24ic4 inclu%e: meaningful 2or5+ a%vancement
opportunities+ %evelopment an% professional. 6 seven scale measure 2as use% for t4e
ans2ers+ from 1 .very %issatisfie%/ to ( .very satisfie%/. T4e follo2ing table provi%es a list of
t4e questions as5e% on )ob satisfaction.
Table ( !escription o" #uestionnaire #uestions )ob satis"action #uestions
Euestion Bn%e-
1. Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 your
opportunities for ac4ievementR
"-S 1
2. Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 your
recognition opportunitiesR
"-S 2
!. Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 your level of
responsibility on your )obR
"-S !
#. Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 t4e
meaningfulness of your )obR
"-S #
$. Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 your
a%vancement opportunitiesR
"-S $
12
$.$ Turnover intentions anal'sis
3or measuring Turnover t4ere 2as only one question as5e% %erive% from t4e researc4
con%ucte% by Smit4+ ?en%all > Lulin. .19'9/.
Table * !escription o" #uestionnaire #uestions Turnover intentions
Euestion Bn%e-
1. 9it4in t4e ne-t 2 years+ 4o2 li5ely are you
to leave your current organiation for a )ob in
anot4er organiationR
T 1
$.& Control -ariables
3or t4e purpose of t4is stu%y+ some control variables 2ere ta5en into consi%eration.
T4is %ecision 2as base% on t4e assumption t4at )ob satisfaction an% turnover mig4t+ to some
e-tent+ be associate% 2it4 biograp4ical c4aracteristics of t4e employees. T4ese control
variables inclu%e%: age+ se-+ e%ucation an% 2or5 e-perience in t4e public a%ministration. T4e
age of t4e participants 2as measure% by as5ing t4em: 94at year 2ere you bornR T4e current
age 2as t4en calculate% by subtracting t4e year of birt4 from t4e year 201! 24ic4 is t4e year
of t4e stu%y. T4e gen%er of t4e participants 2as collecte% 2it4 t4e %irect multiple- c4oice
question: 94at is your se-R T4e 0F1 co%ing 2as use% for t4at. T4e participants= e%ucation
level 2as collecte% from t4e open question: 94at is t4e 4ig4est level of your e%ucationR
T4ese responses 2ere co%e% from 1 .4ig4 sc4ool/ to # .P4D/. T4e tenure in public sector 2as
collecte% from t4e open question: 3or 4o2 long 4ave you been 2or5ing in t4e public sectorR
$.( Anal'sis !rocess
Data collection 2as follo2e% by t4e %ata analysis 24ic4 too5 place in t2o p4ases. Bn
t4e first p4ase t4e %ata 2as c4ec5e% if it 2as intact an% uncompromise% from visible an%
evitable factors+ an% if t4ey 2ere 2it4in t4e logical an% normal parameters. T4e %ata
1$
verification process confirme% a positive result of 100S t4an5s to t4e applie% met4o%.
,urran+ 9est+ an% 3inc4 .199'/ suggest t4at s5e2ness values
!
must be T 2 an% 5urtosis
values
#
must be T (. T4e follo2ing table clearly s4o2s t4at all t4e researc4 variables 4ave t4e
suggeste% values.
Table 5 Study +ariables
6varage St.Deviation S5e2ness ?urtosis
P-@ 1 $.!# 1.$0'$*# -0.('09( 0.0921#2
P-@ 2 !.0* 2.01*'** 0.$'*'$$ -1.0*9*(
P-@ ! $.! 1.'9!!2# -0.(*2*$ -0.#11$$
P-@ # '.1# 1.2((91! -1.922'( #.#'##''
"-S 1 #.(# 1.''!'$( -0.#2'! -0.$91*9
"-S 2 #.9 1.*!22$1 -0.'1!(9 -0.'*(#2
"-S ! $.#' 1.$1#'9 -1.!1$2' 1.'$2$!$
"-S # $.(# 1.!'(#0$ -1.!02$$ 2.129($1
"-S $ #.(' 1.'*#9** -0.$!*!2 -0.'1!1$
T 1 !.0# 1.91'20# 0.'*#0'! -0.($292
Bn t4e secon% p4ase+ t4e %ata 2as analyse% using SPSS an% Aicrosoft 1-cel+ by
applying t4e aforementione% variables measurement scales met4o%s. 3rom t4e measurement
stan%point+ t4e use of statistical soft2are suc4 as 1vie2s 2oul% be more appropriate+ but 2e
2ere limite% in our researc4 by t4e lac5 of t4is soft2are. T4e conceptual mo%el use% in t4e
researc4 is s4o2n above. T4e results of t4e questionnaires use% in t4is stu%y+ 24ic4 aims to
s4o2 4o2 person-organiation fit relates to )ob satisfaction an% turnover intentions of t4e
participants+ are s4o2n on t4e tables belo2.
Table , Survey "re#uency responses to person%or&ani'ation "it.
P-@ 3it P-@ 1 P-@ 2 P-@ ! P-@ #
Strongly
%isagree
0 1# 1 1
Disagree 1 12 ! 0
Some24at
%isagree
$ ! # 1
Ueutral * ' ' !
Some24at agree 10 $ ( (
6gree 1# ' 12 10
Strongly agree 12 # 1( 2*
$
Describe asymmetry from t4e normal %istribution in a set of statistical %ata. S5e2ness can come in t4e form of Hnegative
s5e2nessH or Hpositive s5e2nessH+ %epen%ing on 24et4er %ata points are s5e2e% to t4e left .negative s5e2/ or to t4e rig4t
.positive s5e2/ of t4e %ata average.
4
6 statistical measure use% to %escribe t4e %istribution of observe% %ata aroun% t4e mean.
14
Total $0 $0 $0 $0
Table - Survey "re#uency responses to .ob satis"action.
"-S 1 "-S 2 "-S ! "-S # "-S $
"-S
&ery
%issatisfie%
2 ! 2 0 2
Dissatisfie% ! ! 1 1 #
Some24at
%issatisfie%
( ' 2 1 '
Ueutral 9 * $ ' *
Some24at
satisfie%
10 $ 10 11 9
Satisfie% 11 1# 1( 12 1#
&ery satisfie% * 11 1! 19 (
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Table / Survey "re#uency responses to turnover intention #uestions.
T 1
T
&ery unli5ely 12
Jnli5ely 1!
Some24at
unli5ely
'
Ueutral (
Some24at li5ely #
7i5ely $
&ery li5ely !
Total $0
&. ,tud' Findings
&.1 Person-organization fit stud' findings
T4is researc4 collecte% t4e respon%ents= level of person-organiation fit+ )ob
satisfaction+ an% turnover intentions. Bt aims to un%erstan% t4e suppose% relation bet2een
person-organiation fit an% )ob satisfactionK as 2ell as t4e relation bet2een person-
1(
organiation fit an% employee turnover in t4e 6lbanian public sector. 3our control variables
2ere use%. T4e results are summarie% in t4e Tables belo2. T4ese results 2ill be t4e main
focus of t4e follo2ing %iscussion.
Table 0 $erson%or&ani'ation "it1 2orrelation matri3 ($earson (n))
&ariables P-@ 1 P-@ 2 P-@ ! P-@ #
P-@ 1 1 -0.(## 0.*'( 0.'*#
P-@ 2 -0.(## 1 -0.'01 -0.#'#
P-@ ! 0.*'( -0.'01 1 0.9!9
P-@ # 0.'*# -0.#'# 0.9!9 1
T4e table above s4o2s t4e correlation coefficients accor%ing to Pearson. 6s seen from t4e
table+ correlation bet2een questions is relatively 4ig4. T4erefore none of t4e aforementione%
variables 4as to be e-clu%e%.
T4e table belo2 s4o2s t4at component 1 e-plains (9.2S of t4e total variance+ 24ile t4e
secon% component e-plains only 1$+$('S. T4e values of t4e 1igenvalues are less t4an 1+
e-cept t4e case of t4e first component. ,onsequently+ it is t4is component t4at 2ill be
analyse% in or%er to stu%y t4e compatibility of variables bet2een t4em.
Table 10 Total +ariance E3plained ($erson%or&ani'ation "it)
5
,omponent
Bnitial 1igenvalues 1-traction Sums of Square% 7oa%ings
Total
S of
&ariance
,umulative
S Total
S of
&ariance ,umulative S
1
!.1'* (9.200 (9.200 !.1'* (9.200 (9.200
2
.'2! 1$.$(' 9#.(('
!
.19$ #.*(1 99.'#(
#
.01# .!$! 100.000
3rom t4e %ata analysis in SPSS statistical soft2are+ it can be conclu%e% t4at most of
t4e employees of public a%ministration fits 2it4 t4eir organiation. T4e values of
compatibility bet2een components in%icate t4at t4ey are important in person-organiation fit.
T4ese values inclu%e: Ay values an% goals are very similar to t4e values an% goals of my
(
1-traction Aet4o%: Principal ,omponent 6nalysis.
1+
organiation .0.929/. B am not very comfortable 2it4in t4e culture of my organiation
.0.9'(/. B feel a strong sense of :belonging; to my organiation .-0.(($/. Bt is very important
for me 24at t4is organiation ma5es for my country .0.*(*/.
Table 11 2omponent
,omponent
1
P-@ 1 .929
P-@ 2 .9'(
P-@ ! -.(($
P-@ # .*(*
&." +ob satisfaction stud' findings
T4e follo2ing tables present t4e correlation coefficients accor%ing to Pearson. 6s evi%ent
from t4e table+ t4e correlation bet2een questions is relatively 4ig4. T4erefore+ t4e e-clusion
of any of t4e variables is not necessary.
1,
Table 12 2orrelation matri3
($earson (n))
&ariables "-S 1 "-S 2 "-S ! "-S # "-S $
"-S 1 1 0.(#* 0.((# 0.'*# 0.91*
"-S 2 0.(#* 1 0.*'* 0.(#2 0.*2$
"-S ! 0.((# 0.*'* 1 0.**2 0.*##
"-S # 0.'*# 0.(#2 0.**2 1 0.'11
"-S $ 0.91* 0.*2$ 0.*## 0.'11 1
!*-'2S of t4e respon%ents turn out to 4ave a 4ig4 level of )ob satisfaction. T4e ma)ority of
respon%ents+ '2S+ feel satisfie% by t4e meaningfulness of t4eir 2or5. T4is is follo2e% by t4e
level of responsibility 2it4 '0S. 94ilst t4e lo2er level of people satisfie% or very satisfie% 2as
in @pportunities for 6c4ievement by !*S. T4is is probably closely relate% to t4e non-
transparent system of t4e 6lbanian Public 6%ministration+ 24ic4 is still a current an%
problematic issue.
T4e table belo2 s4o2s t4at component 1 e-plains *!.2S of t4e total variance+ 24ile t4e secon%
component only 9+'2!S+ since t4e values of t4e 1igenvalues are less t4an 1+ e-cept t4e case of
t4e first component. 6s a consequence it is t4is particular component t4at 2ill be ta5en into
stu%y for analysing t4e compatibility of variables bet2een t4em.
Table 1( Total +ariance E3plained
,omponent
Bnitial 1igenvalues 1-traction Sums of Square% 7oa%ings
Total
S of
&ariance
,umulative
S Total
S of
&ariance
,umulative
S
1 #.1'! *!.2'9 *!.2'9 #.1'! *!.2'9 *!.2'9
2 .#*1 9.'2! 92.*92
! .2!( #.(!( 9(.'29
# .10( 2.1## 99.((!
$ .011 .22( 100.000
T4e values of compatibility bet2een components+ suc4 as recognition opportunities+
responsibility+ an% meaningfulness of )ob an% a%vancement opportunities in%icate t4at t4ey
are important for t4e employees= level of )ob satisfaction: T4ese inclu%e:
Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 your opportunities for ac4ievement .0.90#/. Lo2 satisfie% are
you 2it4 your recognition opportunities .0.91*/. Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 your level of
responsibility on your )ob .0.9$*/. Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 t4e meaningfulness of your )ob
.0.9$'/. Lo2 satisfie% are you 2it4 your a%vancement opportunities .0.92!/.
Table 1* 2omponent
,omponent
1
"-S 1 .90#
10
"-S 2 .91*
"-S ! .9$*
"-S # .*$'
"-S $ .92!
&.$ Turnover intentions stud' findings
3rom t4e statistical analysis it can be %etermine% t4at only *S of t4e participants
inten%e% to leave t4e organiation in t4e ne-t t2o years+ 24ile $0S of respon%ents %i% not
t4in5 t4is 2as an option. T4is mig4t be %ue to a comple- range of factors operating in t4e
environment an% especially t4e 6lbanian public a%ministration+ among t4e main ones is t4e
2or5force an% employment ratio.
1arlier on t4is stu%y 2e 4ypot4esise% t4at t4ere is a strong relations4ip bet2een )ob
satisfaction an% person-organiation fit.
Hypothesis 1: Person-organization fit is significantly related to job satisfaction. As the
compatibility between employees and organizations increase, their job satisfaction will
increase.
3rom t4e t4oroug4 e-amination of t4e respon%ents ans2ers+ as 2ell as t4e statistical
an% analytical analysis of %ata+ it can be conclu%e% t4at t4e 4ypot4esis is correct. Person-
organiation fit turns out to be positively associate% 2it4 )ob satisfaction.
3rom t4e manual analysis stan%point+ it results t4at people 24o 4ig4ly matc4e% t4e
organiation=s values+ 4a% a 4ig4er level of )ob satisfaction.
Statistically+ t4is 4ypot4esis is proven by t4e calculations s4o2n in t4e table belo2.
T4e calculations 2ere carrie% out using t4e SPSS soft2are. T4e Pearson ,orrelation bet2een
person-organiation fit an% )ob satisfaction 2as 0.2!!+ 24ic4 a greater value t4an 0.01.
6s suc4+ t4e correlation is important an% t4e 4ypot4esis is correct.
Table 15 2orrelation bet4een person%or&ani'ation "it and .ob satis"action.
12
P-@ fit
"ob
Satisfactio
n
P-@ fit Pearson
,orrelation
1 .2!!
Sig. .2-taile%/ .10!
U $0 $0
"ob
Satisfactio
n
Pearson
,orrelation
.2!! 1
Sig. .2-taile%/ .10!
U $0 $0
7et=s ta5e a loo5 at t4e secon% 4ypot4esis:
Hypothesis 2: Person-organization fit is significantly related to trno!er intentions. As the
compatibility between employees and organizations increase, their trno!er intentions will
decrease.
T4e results of t4e follo2ing table s4o2 t4at t4e correlation bet2een person-organiation fit
an% turnover intentions is not important+ t4e correlation value -0!2# is smaller t4an 0.0$.
T4is proves t4at 2it4 our %ata+ t4e 4ypot4esis falls. ,onsequently+ it can be %etermine% t4at in
our researc4 turnover intentions are not necessarily associate% 2it4 person-organiation fit.
Table 1, 2orrelation bet4een person%or&ani'ation "it and turnover intentions
P-@ fit Turnover
P-@ fit Pearson
,orrelation
1 -.!2#
V
Sig. .2-taile%/ .022
U $0 $0
Turnover Pearson
,orrelation
-.!2#
V
1
Sig. .2-taile%/ .022
U $0 $0
20
%iscussion of the results
To conclu%e+ t4e purpose of t4is stu%y 2as to analyse t4e correlation bet2een )ob
satisfaction+ person-organiation fit an% turnover intensions of employees in t4e 6lbanian
public a%ministration. 6ll t4e variables 2ere evaluate% by e-amining self-reporting tests an%
perceptions of t4e employees. T4e questionnaires results in%icate% t4at *! S of t4e reasons
be4in% )ob satisfaction 2as e-plaine% by t4e questions.
T4e meaningfulness is t4e most appreciate% element of )ob satisfaction. '2S of our
target group 2as satisfie% or 4ig4ly satisfie% by t4is element. 1ven t4e level of )ob
responsibility ma5es '0S of t4e respon%ents satisfie% or 4ig4ly satisfie%. Decognition follo2s
2it4 $0S an% ac4ievement 2it4 #2S. T4e perceive% promotion possibilities 4ave a rate of
!*S.
T4e reasons be4in% t4ese various )ob satisfaction rates conclu%e% from t4e stu%y are
many an% sometimes even comple-. To begin 2it4+ public organiations are muc4 more
mature% t4an most of t4e small an% me%ium sie% private companies. Bnstitutional
performance is regulate% by la2. T4e employees 4ave t4e opportunity for training+ an%
improvements an% t4e 2or5 pressure is sometimes lo2er t4an in t4e private organiations.
T4ese reasons mig4t account for t4e 1(S of t4e une-plaine% variance of )ob satisfaction by
our questions inclu%e% in t4e questionnaire.
5i&ure 1 )ob satis"action results
21
Bn relation to t4e person-organiation fit+ t4e questionnaire=s results in%icate% t4at (9
S 2as e-plaine% by t4e questions. ,ontribution to t4e country is t4e most appreciate%
element of :fit; in an organiation+ ('S of employees agree or strongly agree on t4e
importance of t4is element. T4e sense of belonging ma5es $*S of t4e respon%ents agree or
strongly agree. T4is is follo2e% by t4e importance of t4e values of t4e organiation 2it4 $2S
an% culture 20S.
T4e public a%ministration is a more stable 2or5 environment. Political factors
interfere 2it4 employment an% t4e 24ole structure of organiations+ follo2ing t4e political
c4anges in government. T4ose an% 21S of ot4er factors 24ic4 cannot be e-plaine% by our
survey may be t4e reasons be4in% person-organiation fit.
5i&ure 2 $erson%or&ani'ation "it
22
9e assume% a possible cause-effect relation bet2een person-organiation fit an% turnover
intention. 6lt4oug4 $0S of t4e respon%ents suggeste% t4at t4ey 4a% no intentions of leaving
t4eir organiations+ an% only *S of t4em 2as t4in5ing of leaving t4e organiation 2it4in t4e
ne-t t2o years. T4e results in turnover 4ave a more comple- interpretation. T4e present
supply-%eman% con%itions of t4e labor mar5et in 6lbania s4o2s t4at t4ere is a 4ig4 %eman%
an% lo2 supply.
5i&ure ( Turnover
2$
Conclusion
To sum up t4e results of t4is stu%y+ t4ere is a consi%erable relations4ip bet2een
person-organiation fit of t4e public employees an% )ob satisfaction+ in terms specifie% in t4e
stu%y. @n t4e ot4er 4an%+ accor%ing to t4e results it can be conclu%e% t4at t4ere is no
significant relation of person-organiation fit of t4e public employee an% t4eir intentions to
leave t4e public a%ministration. Bt is possible t4at t4e )ob satisfaction an% lo2 turnover factors
influence% t4e public employees= o2n perception of 4o2 t4ey fit in t4e public a%ministration+
but it also coul% be t4e ot4er 2ay aroun%. T4ere certainly is a relations4ip bet2een t4e
stu%ie% variables+ but it is not clear. Gecause of t4e sampling limitations an% t4e small
number of participants it remains unsure as to 24at e-tent t4e results of t4is researc4 are vali%
an% generaliable+ as 2ell as 4o2 strong is t4e relation an% influence of person-organiation
fit to )ob satisfaction an% turnover intentions in t4e public institutions. 6s a result t4ere is a
nee% to con%uct an e-tensive researc4.
24
.F../C. LI,T
1. Goraga+ ,.+ > Tortia+ 1. .200'/. 9or5er motivations+ )ob satisfaction+ an% loyalty in
public an% nonprofit social services. Uonprofit an% &oluntary Sector Euarterly+ !$+
22$-2#*
2. ,able+ D. A. an% "u%ge+ T. 6. .199(/ Bntervie2er Perceptions of Person-@rganiation
3it an% @rganiational Selection Decisions+ "ournal of 6pplie% Psyc4ology+ *2 .#/+
$#'-$'1.
!. ,ennamo+ 7.+ > Car%ner+ D. .200*/. Cenerational %ifferences in 2or5 values+
outcomes an% person-organisation values fit. $ornal of %anagerial Psychology,
2&.*/+ *91Q90'.
#. ,4atman+ ".6. .19*9/. Bmproving interactional organiational researc4: 6 mo%el of
person-organiation fit. 'he Academic of %anagement (e!iew+ 1).!/+ !!!-!#9.
$. ,4atman+ ".6. .1991/. Aatc4ing People an% @rganiations: Selection an%
socialiation in public accounting firms+ Administrati!e *cience +arterly+ &,
.September/+ #$9Q*#.
'. ,umbey D+ 6le-an%er ".T4e Delations4ip of "ob Satisfaction 2it4 @rganiation
&ariables in Public Lealt4 Uursing. "@U6 199*K 2*: !9-#'.
(. ,urran+ P. ".+9est+ S. C.+ > 3inc4+ ". 3. .199'/. T4e robustness of test statistics to
nonnormality an% specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psyc4ological
Aet4o%s+ 1+ 1'-29.
*. DeSantis+ &. S.+ > Durst+ S. 7. .199'/. ,omparing )ob satisfaction among public an%
private sector employees. 6merican Devie2 of Public 6%ministration+ 2'+ !2(-!#!.
9. 1%2ar%s+ ". D. .200*/. Person-1nvironment 3it in @rganiations: 6n 6ssessment of
T4eoretical Progress. 'he Academy of %anagement Annals, 2.1/+ 1'(Q2!0.
10. 1llic5son+ A. ,. .2002/. Determinants of )ob satisfaction of municipal government
employees. Public Personnel Aanagement+ !1+ !#!-!$9.
11. Cabrani 6+ Cabrani "+ Petrela 1+ Waimi 1+ Lo-4a 6+ 6v%ullari 1 an% Duli A.
@rganiational ,ommitment an% )ob satisfaction among nurses in public 4ospitals in
6lbania .201!/
2(
12. Larman 9+ Glum A+ Stefani " an% Ta4o 6+ 6lbanian Turnover: Bs t4e "ob
1mbe%%e%ness ,onstruct Pre%ictive in an 6lbanian ,onte-tR .2009/
1!. Loffman+ G.+ 9oe4r+ D. .200'/ 6 quantitative revie2 of t4e relations4ip bet2een
person-organiation fit an% be4avioural outcomes. "ournal of &ocational Ge4avior+
'*+ !*9-!99.
14" 4ttp:FF222.s4teti2eb.orgF2012F09F2$Fse5tori-publi5-%4e-s4erbimet-publi5eF
1$. ?asimati+ A. .2011/ : "ob satisfaction an% turnover un%er t4e effect of
personorganiation fit in 6lbanian public organiations+ "ournal for 1ast 1uropean
Aanagement Stu%ies+ BSSU 09#9-'1*1+ Lampp+ Aering+ &ol. 1'+ Bss. #+ pp. !1$-!!(
1'. ?noop D. Delations4ips among "ob Bnvolvement+ "ob satisfaction an% @rganiational
,ommitment for Uurses. " Psyc4ol 199$K 29: '#!-'#9.
1(. ?ristof+ 6. 7. .199'/. Person-organiation fit: 6n integrative revie2 of its
conceptualiations+ measurements+ an% implications. Personnel Psychology, )-.1/+ 1Q
#9.
1*. ?ristof-Gro2n+ 6. 7.+ Wimmerman+ D. D.+ > "o4nson+ 1. ,. .200$/. ,onsequences of
in%ivi%uals8 fit at 2or5: 6 meta-analysis of person-)ob+ person-organiation+ person-
group+ an% person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psyc4ology+ $*.2/+ 2*1Q!#2.
19. 7ut4ans 3+ .200*/ .rganizational /eha!ior .11
t4
e%./. AcCra2-LillFBr2in
20. Aarc4+ ". C.+ > Simon+ L. 6. .19$*/. .rganizations. Ue2 Xor5: "o4n 9iley.
21. Auc4ins5y+ P.A. an% Aona4an+ ,.". .19*(/ 94at is personQenvironment congruence:
supplementary versus complementarycomplementary mo%els of fit. "ournal of
&ocational Ge4avior+ !1+ 2'*Q2((.
22. @=Deilly+ ,. 6.+ > ,4atman+ ". .19*'/. @rganiation commitment an% psyc4ological
attac4ment: T4e influences of compliance+ i%entification+ internaliation on pro-social
be4avior. "ournal of 6pplie% Psyc4ology+ (1+ #92-#99.
2!. Dos+ A++ Sc42art+ S+ L++ > Sur5iss+ S+ .1999/+ Gasic in%ivi%ual values+ 2or5 values+
an% t4e meaning of 2or5. Applied Psychology: An #nternational (e!iew, )0, #9-(1.
2#. Silvert4orne+ ,. .200#/. T4e impact of organiational culture an% person-organiation
fit on organiational commitment an% )ob satisfaction in Tai2an. 1eadership
2.rganization "e!elopment $ornal, 23, $92-$99.
2+
2$. Siti Uorasyi5in 6b%ul Lami%a+ ?4uli%a ?irana Xa4ya .2011/.;Delations4ip bet2een
person-)ob fit an% person-organiation fit on employees= 2or5 engagement: a stu%y
among engineers in semicon%uctor companies in Aalaysia.; 6nnual ,onference on
Bnnovations in Gusiness > Aanagement 7on%on+ J?+ 2011.
2'. Smit4 D. Bncreasing 1mployee Pro%uctivity+ "ob Satisfaction+ an% @rganiational
,ommitment. Losp Lealt4 Serv6%m 199'K #1: 1'0-1(#.
2(. Smit4+ P.,.+ 7.A. ?en%all an% ,.7. Lulin+ 19'9. T4e Aeasurement of Satisfaction in
9or5 an% Detirement: 6 Strategy for t4e Stu%y of 6ttitu%es. 1st 1%n.+ Dan% AcUally+
,4icago+ pp: 1*'.
2*. Tepeci+ A. > Gartlett+ 6.7.G. .2002/. T4e 4ospitality in%ustry culture profile: a
measure of in%ivi%ual value+ organiational culture+ an% person-organiation fit as
pre%ictors of )ob satisfaction an% be4avioral intentions. #nternational $ornal of
Hospitality %anagement+ 21.2/+ 1$1-1(0.
29. &erquer+ A. 7.+ Gee4r+ T. 6.+ > 9agner+ S. L. .200!/. 6 meta-analysis of relations
bet2een person-organiation fit an% 2or5 attitu%es. $ornal of 4ocational /eha!ior,
,&.!/+ #(!Q#*9.
!0. 9esterman+ ". 9.+ > ,yr+ 7. 6. .200#/. 6n integrative analysis of person-
organiation fit t4eories. #nternational $ornal of *election and Assessment, 12, 2$2-
2'1.
!1. 9rig4t+ G. 1.+ > Davis+ G. S. .200!/. "ob satisfaction in t4e public sector: T4e role of
t4e 2or5 environment. 6merican Devie2 of Public 6%ministration+ !!+ (0-90.
2,