ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515

EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

INTEGRATING JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL INTO THE PERSON-

ENVIRONMENT FIT FRAMEWORK
Bernadeta Gotautait1, Ilona Buinien2
1
ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania, gostbern@stud.ism.lt
2
ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania, ilona.buciuniene@ism.lt

Abstract
Person-environment fit theory remains an elusive concept within the organizational research. The
current state calls for better understanding of the environmental characteristics underlying the fit. In
addressing this issue, we review the existing body of literature, examining the theoretical assumptions as well
as empirical evidence. We propose that the P-E fit can be seen as a general multidimensional framework
obtaining content constructs from existing theoretical models. Finally, the paper attempts to incorporate the
taxonomy of Hackman and Oldhams (1976) Job Characteristics Model into the P-E fit framework. We
conclude with the thought that the person-job fit can be specified using the dimensions of JCM, while
allocating the JCM within the P-E perspective offers additional inspirations for future research.
Keywords: Work motivation, job design, Job Characteristics Model, person-environment fit, literature
review.

Introduction
Studies on personenvironment (PE) fit have been prevalent in the literature for over a century
(Edwards, 2008; Lewin, 1935; Parsons, 1909) and the concept continues to hold a central position within the
field of organizational behaviour (Edwards, 2008; Schneider, 2001). Attempts to capture the essence of fit
have generated a proliferation of conceptualizations, empirical measures and theoretical approaches. Despite
the long research history P-E fit remains to be an elusive concept (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson,
2005) or, as claimed by Schneider (2001), a syndrome with many manifestations (p.142).
The P-E research is criticized for lack of conceptualization of and research on the E component of fit
(Schneider, 2001). An immense part of the work on P-E fit has focus solely on the personal variables,
overlooking environmental characteristics (Schneider, 2001). Furthermore, the majority of theoretical
conceptions of P-E fit fail to define the content of the P and E dimensions underlying fit. After reviewing the
theoretical progress of PE fit research Edwards (2008) argues, that P-E fit research must go beyond the
simplistic universal statements and clarify the constructs of P and E in order to understand the substance of
fit. One possible way to approach this issue is to obtain the content dimensions for P-E fit from existing
models with theoretical and empirical foundation.
Drawing from the job design research we attempt to incorporate a theoretically anchored and
empirically supported taxonomy of job characteristics (Job Characteristics Model, Hackman & Oldham,
1976) into the more broad framework of P-E fit. This paper starts with a discussion of P-E theory and
focuses on multiple dimensions of the P-E fit and the corresponding theoretical models. We proceed with a
literature review of the JCM and discuss the need to integrate it into the P-E fit framework.

Person-environment fit
The history of P-E fit is tracked back to Parsons (1909) congruence concept in vocational guidance
(Parsons, 1909). It is also largely affected by Lewinss (1935) axiom that behavior is a function of the person
and environment (Lewin, 1935). The concept basically indicates that alignment between characteristics of
individuals and their environment accounts for interindividual differences in work performance. In
particular, a fit or a misfit between P variables (abilities, needs, values, etc.) and E variables (task demands,
job attributes, social environment, organizational culture etc.) leads to positive or negative outcomes
respectively (Edwards, 2008; Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987; Schneider, 2001). A large body
of research within the terrain of P-E fit has shown relationships with individual-level outcomes such as job
satisfaction (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Locke, 1969), well-being (Shaw & Gupta, 2004; Taris & Feij,
2001), job stress (French & Kahn, 1962; Xie, 1996; Xie & Johns, 1995), vocational choice (Dawis &
Lofquist, 1984; Holland, 1959), recruitment and selection (Breaugh, 1992; Kristof-Brown, 2000; Wanous,
1980), organizational culture and climate (Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991; Schneider,
1987; Verquer, Beehr & Wagner, 2003) and more rarely organizational-level outcomes such as structure,
technology and effectiveness (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein & Smith, 1995).

505
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

Many earlier works on P-E fit have considered only one single abstract dimension of fit (e.g. Dawis &
Lofquist, 1984). However, in the last decade there have been attempts to distinguish between various aspects
of the construct and to narrow the focus on the specific types of P-E fit. For example, Cable and DeRue
(2002) identified three independent dimensions of the P-E fit. Need-supplies fit represents matching the
needs of the person with the rewards provided by the environment. The congruence between personal
abilities and the job requirements leads to demands-abilities fit. Finally, person-environment fit refers to
the similarity between a person and her social environment. Convergent and discriminant validity of these
types of fit have been shown using a confirmatory factor analysis (Cable & DeRue, 2002).
Jansen and Kristof-Brown (2006) further proposed a multidimensional typology of P-E fit, which
outlines various types of compatibility between a particular personal variable and a corresponding
characteristic of the work environment. However, they suggest a direct assessment of fit without explicating
the constructs, which constitute the congruence (Kristof-Brown, Jansen & Colbert, 2002).
In what follows, we attempt to explicate the E component of the P-E fit drawing from the existing
theoretical models and organizing them into the general framework of P-E fit. Like Jansen and Kristof-
Brown (2006), we differentiate between person-vocation fit, person-organization fit, person-group fit, and
person-job fit. Most of the existing models can be classified into two traditions of P-E fit research, the
individual differences tradition, emphasizing the P component and assuming a moderator effect of E on the
person-outcome relationship, and the organizational psychology tradition, focusing on the main effects E
component first and moderator effects of P (Schneider, 2001). In this paper, however, we do not draw this
distinction and systematize all the existing theories in one coherent framework.
The larger part of P-E fit theories have failed to define the person and environmental constructs fit
explicitly (e.g. Wanous Matching Model (Wanous, 1980), Schneiders AttractionSelectionAttrition
Framework (Schneider, 1987), French, Caplan, and Harrisons PersonEnvironment Fit Theory (French &
Kahn, 1962), Breaughs PersonJob Congruence Model (Breaugh, 1992). Therefore we only focus on these
models that have proposed an explicitly defined construct of E (see Tab.1).
Research on person-vocation (P-V) fit proposes that people choose professions, which offer reinforces
and requirements compatible with their personality. Among theories of vocational congruence Hollands
RIASEC model of vocational choice (Holland, 1959) has gained the most acceptance and empirical support
(for meta-analytical reviews see Spokane, 1985; Spokane, Meir & Catalano, 2000; Tranberg, Slane &
Ekeberg, 1993; Tsabari, Tziner & Meir, 2005). The person-organization (P-O) fit emphasizes the similarity
between employees and organizations, in which they work. This type of fit refers to the degree, to which
organizational norms, values, and reward systems meet the needs, values and goals of an individual worker
(Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996). The E component at this level is captured as organizational culture or
climate. Chatman (1989) has proposed a model of P-O fit and taxonomy of eight organizational cultures
(O'Reilly et al., 1991).
The fit research that focuses on the extent, to which people share similar characteristics with their
work groups is termed as person-group (P-G) fit (Kristof, 1996). The congruence between an individual and
the work group is achieved, when ones needs are met by the actions of group members (Jansen & Kristof-
Brown, 2006). P-G fit includes similarity between the person and workgroup members in terms of values,
goals, personality, and interpersonal skills. According to the model of Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientations-Behavior (FIRO-B) model (Schutz, 1958) groups actions can be summarized into 3 dimensions
- affection, control and inclusion. Sundstrom (1999, as cited in Tett & Burnett, 2003) suggests 6 types of
work groups, which vary in their purpose, tasks and demands for their members.
Finally, the relation between individual abilities or needs and the attributes of a specific job is
characterized as person-job (P-J) fit (Edwards, 1991; Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006; Kristof, 1996). It can
be conceptualized as the degree, to which the rewards and supplies provided by the environment match the
needs and preferences of the person (needssupplies) or as the extent to which employees knowledge,
skills, and abilities correspond to the job requirements (demands-abilities) (Edwards, 1991). An implicit P-
E fit assumption is dominating in the conventional personnel-selection models (e.g. Schneider, 2001),
however, since the job attributes are not outlined but considered as a constant, these models will not be
further considered.
Table 1 organizes the existing taxonomies of environmental demands and supplies into the P- E fit
framework. The previous discussion of the P-E fit framework and the existing models that correspond to
different parts of P-E fit make evident that the P-E research field has tended to focus on P-O fit and P-V fit,
paying less attention to other types of fit, especially the P-J fit. In the next section one of the most established

506
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

concepts from the domain of job design research is described with the attempt to include it into the P-E fit
framework.

Table 1. Integrating existing content models into the P-E fit framework
Dimension Existing theoretical E components involved Empirical support within
of E model the P-E fit perspective
Vocation Hollands RIASEC 6 job types: Holland, 1959; Spokane,
model (1959) - Realistic 1985; Spokane et al., 2000;
- Investigative Tranberg et al., 1993;
- Artistic Tsabari et al., 2005
- Social
- Enterprising
- Conventional
Organization Chatmans Model of 8 organizational cultures: Chatman, 1989; Kristof,
Person-Organization - Innovative organizations 1996; O'Reilly et al., 1991
Fit (1989) - Detail-oriented organizations
- Outcome-oriented organizations
- Aggressive organizations
- Supportive culture
- Reward-oriented organizations
- Team oriented organizations
- Decisive organizations
Schneiders Organizations defined by personality Kristof, 1996; Schneider,
Attraction-Selection- characteristics of their members (not 1987; Schneider et al., 1995
Attrition Framework defined explicitly)
(1987)
Lockes Value-Percept Job elements not defined theoretically, Locke, 1969
Model (1969) studies reported by Locke (1969) use ad
hoc measures (e.g. variety, safety,
difficulty, pay prestige, chance to use
special abilities, freedom from
supervision, leisure time etc.)
Group Schutzs (1958) Actions in the work group: Furnham & Crump, 2007;
Fundamental - Affection Gluck, 1979; Liddell &
Interpersonal - Control Slocum Jr, 1976; Mahoney
Relations - Inclusion & Stasson, 2005 Schutz,
Orientations- 1958
Behavior model
Sundstroms typology 6 types of work groups: Cited in Tett & Burnett,
of work groups (1999) - Management teams 2003
- Project teams
- Parallel teams
- Production teams
- Service teams
- Action and performing teams
Job Job Characteristic 5 core job characteristics Fried & Ferris, 1987;
Model (Hackman & - Skill variety DeVaro, Li & Brookshire,
Oldham, 1976) - Task identity 2007; Dodd & Ganster,
- Task significance 1996; Loher, Noe, Moeller
- Autonomy & Fitzgerald, 1985
- Feedback

Job Design Characteristics

A fundamental model in the job design literature is the Job Characteristics Model (JCM, Hackman &
Oldham, 1976), which is one of the first and remains the most influential model guiding research in this area
(Kelly, 1992). Several narrative and meta-analytical reviews have reported the empirical validity of the
model (e.g. Boonzaier, Ficker & Rust, 2001; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher et al., 1985). The JCM was
developed as a model for job redesign and facilitates work place intervention, through which companies can

507
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

optimize the fit between employees and their jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Hackman, Pearce & Wolfe,
1978).
Hackman and Oldham (1976) specify five core job characteristics as determinants of various work-
related outcomes. Skill variety is the extent, to which job includes tasks that require different skills and
talents of the worker. Task identity refers to the degree, to which an employee completes a whole piece of
work from beginning to the end with an identifiable outcome. Task significance is defined as the impact that
a job has on the lives or work of other people or organizations. Autonomy stands for the control over the
procedures to be used to complete tasks (how) and the scheduling of them (when). Feedback is defined
as workers knowledge of the results of her work activities and their effectiveness (Hackman & Oldham,
1976). The effects of these job characteristics on work outcomes are mediated by three critical psychological
states: experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility of outcomes and knowledge of the actual
results of the work activities. In other words, motivational job design affects that employees are aware of the
results of their work, they experience responsibility for the outcomes and perceive that these are valued.
The extensive research on the model has linked the motivational job design to various personal and
work outcomes including intrinsic work motivation (Houkes, Janssen, de Jonge & Nijhuis, 2001; Millette &
Gagn, 2008), job satisfaction (Adrian, Buboltz & Winkelspecht, 2004; Dodd & Ganster, 1996; Menguc &
Bhuian, 2004; de Jong, van der Velde & Jansen, 2001; Johns, Jia Lin & Yongqing, 1992; Millette & Gagn,
2008; Schjoedt, 2009; Taris & Feij, 2001), lower absenteeism (Rentsch & Steel, 1998), weaker turnover
intentions (Millette & Gagn, 2008; Taris & Feij, 2001), work quality (DeVaro et al., 2007) and productivity
(DeVaro et al., 2007). Large-scale studies have shown the predictions of the JCM to be valid across a wide
range of establishments in various industries (DeVaro et al., 2007). Longitudinal studies showed the linkage
of job characteristic measures to work-related psychological well-being after a period of six years (de Jonge,
Dormann, Janssen, Dollard, Landeweerd & Nijhuis, 2001; ter Doest & de Jong, 2006) and to absenteeism
measures after up to 6 years (Rentsch & Steel, 1998; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997). Testing the model
during job redesign projects supported true effects of interventions while controlling for placebo effects
(Holman, Axtell, Sprigg, Totterdell & Wall, 2010).
A laboratory study, where job characteristics were manipulated experimentally, produced interaction
effects between job characteristics in predicting satisfaction (Dodd & Ganster, 1996). Specifically, increased
autonomy led to higher satisfaction or performance only in a high variety task and feedback increased
performance only when autonomy was also high (Dodd & Ganster, 1996). Thus, autonomy is only important,
when there are complex problems to decide about and the positive effects of feedback can be obtained only if
one has the independence to make the decisions.
To sum up, the JCM proposes a widely-accepted taxonomy of five job characteristics that is
theoretically anchored and continues to gather empirical evidence. Within the P-E fit perspective five core
job characteristics can be seen as the E component conceptualizing the organizational supplies and rewards
in P-E research settings.

JCM as a model of P-E fit

Without regard to some exceptions (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000; Van den
Berg & Feij, 2003), the majority of empirical research including job and person characteristics to explain
various work outcomes have put job characteristics (E) first, suggesting moderator effects of person
characteristics (P). Table 2 summarizes the empirical progress made since the last meta-analytical review
(Fried & Ferris, 1987) involving job characteristics as an E component in various P-E research settings.
Since our current goal is the conceptualization of E, the P components included in the studies are not
reported.
Table 2. Studies within P-E fit perspective involving five core job characteristics
Job characteristic Job outcome Studies
Skill variety Job satisfaction Adrian et al., 2004; Menguc & Bhuian, 2004; de Jong et al.,
2001; Johns et al., 1992; Millette & Gagn, 2008; Schjoedt,
2009; Taris & Feij, 2001
Strain Kelloway & Barling, 1991
Job performance Millette & Gagn, 2008; Streit & Brannon, 1991
Intrinsic motivation Houkes et al., 2001; Millette & Gagn, 2008
Absenteeism Rentsch & Steel, 1998
Intention to quit Taris & Feij, 2001

508
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

Task significance Strain Kelloway & Barling, 1991

Job performance Streit & Brannon, 1991
Job satisfaction Johns et al., 1992; Millette & Gagn, 2008
Intrinsic motivation Houkes et al., 2001; Millette & Gagn, 2008
Intention to quit Millette & Gagn, 2008
OCB Chen & Chiu, 2009
Task identity Job satisfaction Adrian et al., 2004; Johns et al., 1992; Menguc & Bhuian,
2004; Schjoedt, 2009
Strain Kelloway & Barling, 1991
Job performance Streit & Brannon, 1991
Absenteeism Rentsch & Steel, 1998
OCB Chen & Chiu, 2009
Intrinsic motivation Houkes et al., 2001
Autonomy Job satisfaction Adrian et al., 2004; Johns et al., 1992; Menguc & Bhuian,
2004; Millette & Gagn, 2008; Schjoedt, 2009; Taris & Feij,
2001; ter Doest & de Jong, 2006
Strain Kelloway & Barling, 1991; Nauta, Cong & Chaoping, 2010;
ter Doest & de Jong, 2006
Job performance Millette & Gagn, 2008; Streit & Brannon, 1991
Absenteeism Rentsch & Steel, 1998
Intrinsic motivation Houkes et al., 2001; Millette & Gagn, 2008
Turnover Schmidt & Daume, 1993
Intention to quit Taris & Feij, 2001
OCB Chen & Chiu, 2009
Feedback Job satisfaction Adrian et al., 2004; Johns et al., 1992; Menguc & Bhuian,
2004; Millette & Gagn, 2008; Schjoedt, 2009
Job performance Streit & Brannon, 1991
Intrinsic motivation Houkes et al., 2001; Millette & Gagn, 2008
Strain Kelloway & Barling, 1991; Lambert, Hogan & Cluse-Tolar,
2007

Conclusions
It has been shown that the simplistic generalizations of P-E fit provide limited explanations of the
underlying causation of P-E fit and therefore has limited implications. The discussion above offers
arguments in favor of the integration of JCM into the general framework of P-E fit. Convergence between
JCM and P-E fit provides a more reasonable explanatory framework, in which the interplay of person and
environment variables in affecting work performance can be understood. The JCM model complements the
P-E fit theory, while offering a clearly defined taxonomy for the operationalization of the E component in P-
E research. Furthermore, the classification of the JCM within the P-E fit perspective endows the research on
job design with some fruitful inspiration for future research. In particular, the research should focus more on
individual differences that affect job characteristics-outcome relationships. From an applied perspective, an
understanding, how job characteristics can be aligned with certain personal attributes to maximize their joint
effects on work-related outcomes, can be very helpful.

References
1. Adrian, T., Buboltz, W. C. & Winkelspecht, C. S. (2004). Job characteristics and personality as predictors of job
satisfaction. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 205-219.
2. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five
personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 111-118.
3. Boonzaier, B., Ficker, B. & Rust, B. (2001). A review of research on the job characteristics model and the attendant
job diagnostic survey. South African Journal of Business Management, 32(1), 11.
4. Breaugh, J. A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Boston: PWS-Kent.
5. Cable, D. M. & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
6. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
7. Chen, C.-C. & Chiu, S.-F. (2009). The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between job
characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 474-494.

509
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

8. Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-differences

model and its applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
9. de Jong, R. D., van der Velde, M. E. G. & Jansen, P. G. W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth need
strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction. International Journal of Selection &
Assessment, 9(4), 350.
10. de Jonge, J., Dormann, C., Janssen, P. P. M., Dollard, M. F., Landeweerd, J. A. & Nijhuis, F. J. N. (2001). Testing
reciprocal relationships between job characteristics and psychological well-being: A cross-lagged structural
equation model. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(1), 29-46.
11. DeVaro, J., Li, R. & Brookshire, D. (2007). Analysing the job characteristics model: New support from a cross-
section of establishments. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(6), 986-1003.
12. Dodd, N. G. & Ganster, D. C. (1996). The interactive effects of variety, autonomy, and feedback on attitudes and
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(4), 329-347.
13. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review and methodological critique.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 283-357.
14. Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. Academy of
Management Annals, 2(1), 167-230.
15. French, J. R. P., Jr. & Kahn, R. L. (1962). A programmatic approach to studying the industrial environment and
mental health. Journal of Social Issues, 18, 1-48.
16. Fried, Y. & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.
17. Furnham, A. & Crump, J. (2007). Relationship between the MBTI and FIRO-B in a large british sample.
Psychological Reports, 101(3), 970-978.
18. Gluck, G. A. (1979). The Kramer-Froehle controversy: A contribution to construct validity of the firo-b
questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43(5), 541-543.
19. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior & Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.
20. Hackman, J. R., Pearce, J. L. & Wolfe, J. C. (1978). Effects of changes in job characteristics on work attitudes and
behaviors: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 21(3), 289-
304.
21. Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-45.
22. Holman, D. J., Axtell, C. M., Sprigg, C. A., Totterdell, P. & Wall, T. D. (2010). The mediating role of job
characteristics in job redesign interventions: A serendipitous quasi-experiment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31(1), 84-105.
23. Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P. M., de Jonge, J. & Nijhuis, F. J. N. (2001). Specific relationships between work
characteristics and intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover intention: A multi-sample analysis. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(1), 1-23.
24. Jansen, K. J. & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 18(2), 193-212.
25. Johns, G., Jia Lin, X. & Yongqing, F. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal of
Management, 18(4), 657-676.
26. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E. & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237-249.
27. Kelly, J. (1992). Does job re-design theory explain job re-design outcomes? Human Relations, 45(8), 753-774.
28. Kelloway, E. K. & Barling, J. (1991). Job characteristics, role stress and mental health. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 64(4), 291-304.
29. Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters' perceptions of person-job
and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 643-671.
30. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J. & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of
fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 985-993.
31. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D. & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A
meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology,
58(2), 281-342.
32. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and
implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.
33. Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L. & Cluse-Tolar, T. (2007). This job is killing me: The impact of job characteristics on
correctional staff job stress [electronic version]. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3(2), 117-142.
34. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35. Liddell, W. W. & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1976). The effects of individual-role compatibility upon group performance:
An extension of Schutz's FIRO theory. Academy of Management Journal, 19(3), 413-426.
36. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 4(4), 309-336.

510
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

37. Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L. & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job
characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 280-289.
38. Mahoney, J. M. & Stasson, M. F. (2005). Interpersonal and personality dimensions of behavior: FIRO-B and the
BIG Five. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 205-215.
39. Menguc, B. & Bhuian, S. N. (2004). Career stage effects on job characteristic-job satisfaction relationships among
guest worker salespersons. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24(3), 215-227.
40. Millette, V. & Gagn, M. (2008). Designing volunteers tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and
performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement Motivation and Emotion, 32(1), 11-22.
41. Muchinsky, P. M. & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus
complementary models of fit Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268-277
42. Nauta, M. M., Cong, L. & Chaoping, L. (2010). A cross-national examination of self-efficacy as a moderator of
autonomy/job strain relationships. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(1), 159-179.
43. O'Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison
approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
44. Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
45. Rentsch, J. R. & Steel, R. P. (1998). Testing the durability of job characteristics as predictors of absenteeism over a
six-year period. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 165-190.
46. Schaubroeck, J. & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with work stressors: The key
role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 738-754.
47. Schjoedt, L. (2009). Entrepreneurial job characteristics: An examination of their effect on entrepreneurial
satisfaction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 619-644.
48. Schmidt, K.-H. & Daume, B. (1993). Job characteristics and voluntary employee turnover: Direct and moderated
relationships. European Work & Organizational Psychologist, 3(1), 29-42.
49. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
50. Schneider, B. (2001). Fits about fit. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), 141-152.
51. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W. & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology,
48(4), 747-773.
52. Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
53. Shaw, J. D. & Gupta, N. (2004). Job complexity, performance, and well-being: When does supplies-values fit
matter? Personnel Psychology, 57(4), 847-879.
54. Spokane, A. R. (1985). A review of research on person-environment congruence in Holland's theory of careers.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26(3), 306-343.
55. Spokane, A. R., Meir, E. I. & Catalano, M. (2000). Person-environment congruence and holland's theory: A review
and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(2), 137-187.
56. Streit, A. L. & Brannon, D. (1991). The predictive validity of the job characteristics model for nursing home work.
In J. Wall & L. Jauch (Ed.), Academy of management best papers proceedings (S. 89-93). Miami, FL: Academy of
Management.
57. Taris, R. & Feij, J. A. (2001). Longitudinal examination of the relationship between suppliesvalues fit and work
outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), 52-80.
58. ter Doest, L. & de Jong, J. (2006). Testing causal models of job characteristics and employee well-being: A
replication study using cross-lagged structural equation modelling. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 79(3), 499-507.
59. Tett, R. P. & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500-517.
60. Tranberg, M., Slane, S. & Ekeberg, S. E. (1993). The relation between interest congruence and satisfaction: A
metaanalysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(3), 253-264.
61. Tsabari, O., Tziner, A. & Meir, E. I. (2005). Updated meta-analysis on the relationship between congruence and
satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 13(2), 216232.
62. Van den Berg, P. T. & Feij, J. A. (2003). Complex relationships among personality traits, job characteristics, and
work behaviors. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11(4), 326-339.
63. Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A. & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit
and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473-489.
64. Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
65. Xie, J. L. (1996). Karasek's model in the people's republic of china: Effects of job demands, control, and individual
differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1594-1618.
66. Xie, J. L. & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal,
38(5), 1288-1309.

511
Copyright of Economics & Management is the property of Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of
Economics & Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.