newcomer and oc

7/30/2019 Newcomer and OC

1/37

PERSONNEL PSY CHOLOGY2000.53

PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT: THE MATCH BETWEENNEWCOMERS AND RECRUITERS PREFERENCESFOR ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES

ANNELIESE.M. VAN VIA NENUniversity of Amsterdam, The NetherlandsThis study examined the effects of two measures of fit on newcomerscommitment and turnover intentions, P-0 fit and P-P fit. Newcom-ers preferences for organizational cultures were compared with super-visors and peers perceptions of organizational culture (P-0 fit) andwith their preferences for Organizational culture(P-P fit). The super-visors and peers that were involved had been the newcomers recruitersduring the selection procedure and they had hired the newcomer. Sub-jects culture preferences and perceptions yielded t wo dimensions oforganizational culture: concern for people and concern for goal ac-complishment. Results revealed that newcomers concern for peopleP-P fit with their supervisor was related to organizational commitmentand turnover intentions. P-0 fit measures for both dimensions of or-ganizational culture were not related to newcomer affective outcomes.Research on person-organization( P a ) ithas shown important im-plications for individual well-being and organizational outcomes. Forinstance, fit between a persons values and organizational values is as-sociated with behavioral and affective outcomes, such as longer tenure,greater organizational commitment and better job performance(OReilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). A review of P-O fit studiesshowed that these studies used different conceptualizations and opera-tionalizations of P-0 fit, resulting in different effect sizes (Kristof, 1996).Most of the operationalizations of fit, however, can be incorporated into

the definition of P-O fit, as proposed by Kristof (1996): The compat-ibility between people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at leastone entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fun-damental characteristics, or (c) both.This research was financially supported by a grant from the University of Amsterdam.

I thank Danielle Galdeij , Suzanne de Haan, Margot Roozen, L arissa Wladimiroff, andMirjam van der Zande for collecting the data, and Benjamin Schneider, Carsten De Dreu,Agneta Fischer, Daan van K nippenberg, the editor, and the reviewers or their suggestions.Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to A nnelies E .M . VanM anen, University of Amsterdam, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology,Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (+31) 205256856; Fax (+31)206390531;ao-vi anen@macmai l . psy. uva.nl .

COPYRIGHT 0 2wO PERSONNEL PSYC HOLOGY, NC.113


2/37

114 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGYThis study specifically focused on those operationalizations of fit thatare applicable in personnel selection situations. There are three do-mains of human characteristics which are important for personnel se-lection (Smith,1994). The first domain concerns characteristics that arerelevant to all work, such as cognitive ability and work motivation. Thesecond domain concerns characteristics that are relevant to particularjobs or occupations, such as job specific cognitive abilities, knowledge,and personality traits. The third domain involves characteristics that arerelevant to the way a person relates to a particular work setting, that is,whether individual characteristics match the characteristics of the orga-nization. Instruments used in selection procedures mostly concern thefirst and the second domain. We, therefore, focused on the third do-main. Individual characteristics may include aspects such as personality,attitudes, and values. Organizational characteristics may involve aspectssuch as structures, tasks, technology, and organizational culture. ManyP-O fit studies emphasized the match between peoples values and thevaluesof the organization, because values are conceived of as funda-mental and relatively enduring (Chatman, 1991). Value congruence andperson-culture fit are often treated as equivalent terms (Kristof, 1996;OReilly, et al., 1991). In this study, we operationalized individual char-acteristics as individual preferences for organizational cultures. Char-acteristics of the organization were operationalized in twoways. First,

as (perceptionso f )existing organizational culture, referring to part (a)of theP-0 fit definition presented above. Second, as the preferences fororganizational cultures of people in the work setting, referring to part (b)of theP-0 fit definition. With this approach we wanted to come close tothe notion that persons and situations need to be compared in commen-surate terms. Asking people in what organizational culture they prefertowork and comparing this with the existing culture is a direct way forestablishingP-0 fit. Of course, people choose work environments alsobased on other factors, such as their abilities and the characteristics ofthe job. These components of fit are, however, already emphasized inselection procedures, while less attention is paid to establishing culturalfit. We wanted to fill in this gap by examining what possibilities thereare for assessing the match between peoples cultural preferences andorganizational culture during selection procedures.

Culture and climate are complimentary topics (Schneider, 1987). The operationaliza-tions used in this study refer both to organizational practices and basic values underlyingthese practices. However, becauseour operationalizationswere comparable with the op-erationalizations used in previous studieson person-culture fit (OReilly,et al., 1991), wedecided to use the concept of organizational culture. We do, however, realize that theconceptualization of organizational culture (see Schein,1990) is far more comprehensivethan the one used in this study.


3/37

ANNELIESE.M.VANVIANEN 115One of the P-O fi tmodels that has initiated much empirical researchin the past decade is Schneidersattraction-selection-attrition (ASA)framework (Schneider, 1987). This framework describes the mechanismof mutual adaptation between the person and the organization. Peopleare not randomly assigned to organizations, but they select themselvesinto and outof organizations. This selection process includes severalsteps. First, people find organizations differentially attractive as a func-tion of their judgment of the congruence between the characteristics ofthe organization and their own characteristics (Cable& Judge, 1997;Schneider, Goldstein,& Smith, 1995). A second step in the matchingprocess is the selection procedure through which those people are hiredwho have the attributes the organization desires. Finally, once peoplehave become citizens of the organization and find that they do not fittheir work environment, they will tend to leave.A basic issue in measuringP-0 fit is how to conceptualize and opera-tionalize the components of the fit measure, especially the O-componentof this measure. Organizational culture is usually operationalized bymeasuring the shared perceptions of organizational citizens, for instance,by asking people what they experience as the basic values of their orga-nization. Schneider et al. (1995) emphasized that persons make envi-ronments (p. 751) and that situations should not be conceptualized asseparate and distinct from the individuals behaving in them. The person-

ality attributes and attitudes of people in a setting are considered to bethe fundamental defining characteristics of that setting. Hence, shouldorganizational culture be measured based on peoples perceptions aboutthe existing culture, as was done in mostP-O fit studies, or should orga-nizational culture be assessed in terms of characteristicsof people in thesetting? In short, do peoples characteristics (the P-component) needto match the shared perceptions of others about organizational charac-teristics or do they need to match other peoples characteristics in theorganization?The central assumptionof the ASA model that people make the placewas tested recently (Schneider, Smith, Taylor,&Fleenor, 1998). Schnei-der et al. revealed that organizations are relatively homogeneous withrespect to the personality attributesof their managers. This testof ASAtheory offers an empirical argument to incorporate individual charac-teristics for assessingP-0 fit. However, the cultureof a work settingis not only constituted by means of the characteristics of people. Manyaspects of organizational life may be influenced by the personality andattitudes of people in the organization, but this does not mean that the

culture of a work setting origins in the characteristics of people. Theorganizations strategic position and environment are, for instance, im-portant determinantsof shared culture perceptions because they impose


4/37

116 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGYconstraints on structure and control systems within organizations (Joyce& Slocum, 1990). Both explanations for developing organizational cul-ture, that is, individual characteristics or environment, are tenable anddo not exclude each other. Because of environmental determinism, itis likely that organizations with similar external environments share atleast some aspects of organizational culture. Van Vianen and Kmieciak(1998) showed, for instance, that the branch of industry was relatedto organizational culture perceptions of recruiters selecting candidatesfor management positions. This relationship, however, concerned onlysome and not all dimensions of organizational culture. Recruiters fromcomparable branches assessed their organizational culture similar withrespect to culture dimensions which were directly related to their goalorientation, such as productivity and efficiency. They differed, however,with respect to aspects concerning human relations, internal processing,and innovation. These culture dimensions were not determined by theenvironmental context. From these findings we could hypothesize thatcultural dimensions that are related to the human side of organizationallife are more adaptable to characteristics of people while cultural dimen-sions that concern the production sideof organizational life are moredetermined by organizational goals and the external environment. Itstill can be argued, however, that the attraction-selection-attrition cycleoperates in organizations. Given the existing organizational culture, in-dividuals with specific characteristics are attracted and selected by theorganization.As a consequence, organizational culture operationalizedas the aggregationof characteristics of people may, to a certain extent,reflect organizational culture.For measuring organizational culture, researchers traditionally re-lied on methods such as the shared perceptions of organizational cit-izens. Measures of organizational culture that are based on agree-ment among organizational members are specifically used when objec-tive measures are not available, which is often the case (Starbuck &Mezias, 1996). High interrater agreement, however, is not always fea-sible. The level of agreement will, for instance, depend on factors suchas organizational structure (i.e., high task specialization will decreasethe level of agreement), selection, and socialization practices and theamount of social interactions (Koene, Boone, & Soeters, 1997). Fur-thermore, the literature on organizational culture recognizes the exis-tence of subcultures rather than a single, unitary organizational culture(Saffold, 1988). Both the strength of organizational culture and the ex-istence of subcultures are neglected issues in P-0 fit research. Manyresearchers solved this problemby focusing almost exclusively on theconsequences of subjective, rather than objective measures of P-0 fitfor individual outcomes (Kristof, 1996). This approach makes sense be-


5/37

ANNELIESE.M. VAN VIA IWN 117cause outcomes such as commitment and turnover intentions are basedon cognitions of the person, and these cognitions are primarily deter-mined by the subjective experiences of the person. There are, however,many situations in which subjectiveP-0 fit measures are not available.For instance, recruiters want to predict applicants uture fit with the or-ganization, while most applicants do not have a good perception of theexisting organizational culture. In that case, they need to establishactualfit by comparing applicants culture preferences with the culture of theorganization. Studies that examined actualP-0 fit used the aggregatingof individual perceptions as described above and these fit measures werefound to be relatedtowork outcomes(0 eilly et al., 1991). However,only a relatively small numberof organizations and only those with highinterrater agreement scores were involved in these studies. Moreover,the results of these studies are ambiguous because of the methods thatwere used for establishingP-0 fit.The struggle with finding valid measures for the O-component of thefit measure could be partly relieved by taking the characteristics of peo-ple into account. Matching the characteristics of the person with char-acteristics of salient others in the work setting could complement assess-ment of shared perceptions of organizational culture for establishingP-O fit.Thus far, we have suggested two rationales for why researchers shouldnot focus exclusively on the match between the person and the organiza-tion(P-0 fit), but alsoonthe match between characteristics of people (ameasure of P-P fit). The first rationale concerned the relationship be-tween characteristics of people (i.e., preferences, attitudes, personality)and organizational culture. The second rationale referred to methodo-logical problems with traditional measuresof P-0 fit and specificallythe measurement of the O-component of the fit measure. We add an-other rationale which is grounded in theories and empirical studies oninterpersonal similarity and attraction. Asargued above, P-P fit actu-ally refers to homogeneity of characteristicsof people, that is, inter-personal similarity. P-P fit corresponds to the similarity-attraction hy-pothesis, which states that people are drawn to similar others. BothFestingers theory of social comparison and Heiders balanced statetheory (Byrne, 1971; Lott& Lott, 1965) suggest that people are look-ing for consensual validation of their opinions and abilities and seekto maximize the consistency among the elements of their belief system.They therefore will be more attracted to people who are closer regardingtheir opinions, which in turn will enhance their social identification withother group members (Van Knippenberg&Van Schie, in press). Previ-ous studies on the relationship between similarity and interpersonal at-traction included similarity of attitudes (Shaikh&Kanekar, 1994; Singh


6/37

118 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY& ?an, 1992; Tan& Singh, 1995), similarityof values (Johnson, 1989)and similarity of personality (Byrne, Griffit, & Stefaniak 1967; Dyce& OConner, 1992; Moskowitz& CotC, 1995). Studies on attitude andvalue similarity, however, showed the most unequivocal results: Peoplelike those who hold similar attitudes and opinions more than those withdissimilar attitudes (Byrne, Clore& Smeaton, 1986; Condon&Crano,1988; Shaikh& Kanekar, 1994). Moreover, interpersonal attractionamong members of a work group was found to be related to group cohe-sion and job satisfaction of those work groups (Colarelli&Boos,1992).Support was also found for the positive relationship between value simi-larity and individual job satisfaction and commitment (Meglino, Ravlin,&Adkins, 1989; Salancik& Pfeffer, 1978). In this study, we thereforehypothesized that P-P fit, conceptualized as the similarity between anindividuals culture preferences and those preferences of others, wouldaffect individual outcomes.The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of twodifferent measures of fit on individual outcomes. First, we compared or-ganizational culture preferences of newcomers in the organization withorganizational culture as perceived by others in the work setting (P-Ofit). Second, we compared organizational culture preferences of new-comers in the organization with culture preferences of others in the worksetting (P-P fit). Both fit measures were related to newcomers organi-zational commitment and turnover intentions. Because there are severalpossible functional forms of the relationship between fit and outcomes,we also tested each of these forms for both fit measures.Conceptualizationsof P- 0 Ft

P-0 fit has been conceptualized in several ways (Kristof, 1996). Dis-tinctions are made between supplementary and complementary fit andbetween supplies-values and demands-abilities fit. Supplementary fitoccurs when an individual possesses characteristics that are similar tothose of others in the environment. For instance, when a person hassimilar preferences and attitudes as the other members of his or herwork team. Complementary fit occurs when an individuals characteris-tics add to the environment what is missing. This is the case when a per-son has special skills that are beneficial for functioning of the work team.Other researchers distinguished between supplies-values and demands-abilities fit (French, Caplan,&Harrison, 1982; Schuler, 1980). From thesupplies-values perspective, P-0 fit occurs when an organization satis-fies individuals values. Values represent conscious desires held by theperson and encompass preferences, interests, motives, and goals (Ed-wards, 1996). For instance, when an employee has high preferences


7/37

ANNELIES E.M.VAN VIANEN 119for growth and these preferences are fulfilled by opportunities forgrowth offered by the organization. The demands-abilities perspectivesuggests thatP-0 fit occurs when an individual has the skills and abilitiesto meet organizational demands.This study integrates the supplies-values and the supplementary per-spectives of P-0 fit. Newcomers values were operationalized as theirculture preferences (I like to work in an organization in which com-petition is encouraged). Organizational supplies were operationalizedas cultural characteristics (Competition is encouraged in this organiza-tion). Supplies-values fit was examined by comparing organizationalsupplies with the preferences of newcomers ( Os u ppl i es - p r e f e r e n c es

f it). Supplementary fit was examined by comparing the pref-erences of other individuals in the work setting with the preferences ofneWCOmefS(Ppre e rences others - pr e er ences newcomer ) .Supplies-Value Fit

Extensive theory and research indicate that people are attracted tosituations that fulfill their values (Locke, 1976). Several researchersoperationalized P-0 fit as congruence between individual work valuesand organizational work values or as congruence between individualsculture preferences and existing organizational culture (Bretz& Judge,1994; Chatman,1991;OReilly et al.,1991;Vancouver&Schmitt,1991).These studies indicated that the match between individuals culture pref-erences and organizational culture supplies is important for individualoutcomes. Those who fit display greater work motivation and job in-volvement, and show less turnover intentions. Furthermore, it was foundthat theP-0 fit measure is a better predictor of organizational commit-ment and tenure than either the person and the organization compo-nents of the fit measure alone (Chatman,1991).As was argued above, most studies used the aggregation of individ-ual perceptions for establishing the 0-component of theP-0 fit mea-sure. However,ahigh level of interrater agreement (to justify aggrega-tion of individual ratings) does not guarantee a measurement of actualorganizational culture. The level of interrater agreement depends, forinstance, on the specific sample of subjects that are asked about theirorganizational culture. Asking members of different hierarchical po-sitions about their organizational culture will result in different views.Vancouver and Schmitt (1991), for instance, found low agreement be-tween principals and teachers on organizational goals. Thus, it is oftendifficult to determine who to ask about organizational culture and howto consider the views of the different parties. A n aggregated measureof the perceptions of different parties could be a more valid measure


8/37

120 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGYof organizational culture than the shared perceptions of only one party.Researchers and practitioners often use the culture perceptions of in-dividuals that are most relevant for the focal person. For newcomers,perceptions of immediate peers and supervisors are most relevant fortheir own perceptions of organizational culture. We therefore decidedto use peers and supervisors perceptions as an indicator of organiza-tional culture supplies. A further restriction was made by including onlythe supervisor and peer who had been involved in the selection proce-dure of the newcomer, that is, the recruiters. They had made the deci-sion to hire the newcomer and they are the ones from which the new-comer is most likely to assess the values of the organization. Moreover,the socialization of newcomers, that is, their understanding of the cul-ture of the organization, is accomplished after several months after en-t ry (Van Vianen& Prins, 1997). Hence, the perspective of their mostsalient organizational members (e.g., recruiters and supervisors) maybe most important in evaluating initial fit. Person-culture fi t was de-fined here as the similarity between a newcomers culture preferencesand organizational culture suppliesasperceived by his or her recruiters.In accordance with the results of previous P-0 fit studies, we expectedrelationships between the person-culture fit measure and newcomersorganizational commitment and turnover intentions.SupplementayP-P F it

We argued that organizational culture is partly reflected in the ho-mogeneity of characteristics (i.e., personality, attitudes, preferences) oforganizational members. Only those people whos preferences fit theorganizational environment, such as the preferences of others in thework setting, are likely to stay because they feel attracted towards oth-ers. Moreover, these people have also proven to fit aspects of organi-zational culture that are less influenced by the characteristics of people.It is likely then that newcomers whose preferences are similar to thoseof organizational citizens will also fit this environment. Subsequently,newcomers whose preferences match the preferences of others will showhigher organizational commitment and lower turnover intentions thannewcomers whos preferences do not match the preferencesof others.This assumption was supported by a study of Meglino, Ravlin, and Ad-Ens (1989, 1992). They examined work value congruence betweensu-pervisors, subordinates and coworkers. Congruence was associated withpositive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commit-ment. Similar results were found by Jackson et al. (1991). They exam-ined team members demographics and revealed that the more different


9/37

ANNELIESE.M.VANWANEN 121an individual is from the other members of the team the more likely ishis or her turnover.In the present study, we operationalized individual characteristicsas individuals organizational culture preferences (see Judge& Cable,1997). We investigated the congruence between newcomers and re-cruiters organizational culture preferences (P-P fit). Based on similar-ity-attraction theories and previous empirical studies we hypothesizedthat P-P fit between newcomers preferences and recruiters prefer-ences would be related to newcomers organizational commitment andturnover intentions.Functional Forms of the Relationship Between F it and Outcomes

There are several hypothetical relationships between fit and affec-tive outcomes (Edwards& Van Harrison, 1993). The first consists ofthe algebraic difference betweenP and0 0-P), assuming amonotonicrelationship with outcomes. This relationship is expected, for instance,when commitment increases as supplies increases towards preferencesand decreases as supplies decreases towards preferences. Discrepancyscores have been criticized in theP- 0 fit literature (Edwards,1994)be-cause they conceal the unique contribution of each of the components tothe overall score and information regarding the magnitude of the com-ponents is lost. The second relationship represents anasymptotic rela-tionship between fit measure and affective outcomes. This relationshipcan be labeled in two ways: deficiencyandexcess. Deficiency representsa positive relationship with commitment only when organizational sup-plies are less than the persons preferences. Increasing supplies enhancecommitment up to the point of satiation (P =0),but have little effectthereafter (when organizational supplies are greater than individualspreferences). Excess represents a negative relationship with commit-ment only when organizational supplies are greater than persons pref-erences. Decreasing supplies enhance commitment up to the point ofsatiation (P=0), ut have little effect thereafter (when organizationalsupplies are less than individuals preferences). The third and fourth re-lationships concern theabsolute diflerence (1 0 - P ) and thequadraticdineereme ([0-PI 2),epresenting curvilinear relationships with com-mitment. Information regarding the direction of the difference scoreis neglected, because both these relationships are expected when eitherdeficiency or excess are harmful.Which functional form adequately represents the relationship be-tween the person, the organization and individual outcomes depend ona variety of factors, such as the content of the dimension upon whichfitis assessed and the content of the components of the fit measure.


10/37

122 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGYHypotheses Concerning Mult@le Dimensionsof CultureFt

In most culture fit research a profile comparison approach wasadopted for establishingP- 0 culture fit, using O'Reilly et al.'s (1991)Organizational Culture Profile. The Q-sort technique applied in thesestudies implies a holistic comparison of persons and situations acrossmultiple dimensions rather than the comparison of persons and situa-tions on specific dimensions. Edwards(1993),however, noted that pro-file similarity indices discard information on direction of misfit and relyon the assumption that each dimension of fit contributes equally to out-come measures. Inourstudy, we therefore focused on assessing multipledimensions of organizational culture preferences and perceptions.Although there is considerable agreement about the basic dimen-sions of organizational culture, there is also little conceptual clearnessin this area (Furnham& Gunter, 1993). Quinn (1988) made an at-tempt to link organizational culture to organization theory (Van Via-nen&Kmieciak,1998). His competing values framework distinguishesbetween different facetsof organizational culture and covers most ofthe dimensions of organizational culture found in the literature. Quinnrelated organizational culture to four models in organization theory:the human relations model, the open systems model, the rational goalmodel, and the internal process model. Cohesion (internal focus) andhuman resource development are stressed in the human relations model.The open systems model emphasizes flexibility as well as growth, inno-vation, and external support. In the rational goal model organizationsare especially concerned with planning, goal setting, productivity, andefficiency. Information management and communication in addition tostability and control are the main elementsof the internal process modelinorganization theory. This framework doesn't suggest that elements ofthe four models cannot mutually exist in real organizations. Rather, it il-lustrates four basic orientations and it offers a framework for diagnosingorganizations. We adapted the competing values framework of Quinn(1988) as a tool for developing hypotheses about the specific relation-ships of P- 0 andP-P fit with commitment and turnover intentions.The preceding discussion of supplies-values fit suggests that i nsuf -ficient supplies will be associated with decreased commitment and in-creased turnover intentions. Empirical evidence for deficiency effects,however, issparse. Most studies that tested different functional formsof the relationship between fit and outcomes concerned stress as the de-pendent variable and were focused on specific dimensionsof fit (Ed-wards, 1996). Van Vianen and Prins (1997)were one of the few thatexamined fit between culture preferences and perceptions of newcom-


11/37

ANNELIES E.M.VANVIANEN 123ers (i.e., subjective P-0 fit) for different culture dimensions. They re-vealed that actual turnover was related to fit indices for only some di-mensions of organizational culture. These dimensions mainly concernedelements of the open systems model and the rational goal model ofQuinns (1988) framework, that is, risk orientation and work pressure.Moreover, quadratic difference indices yielded significant results for the(curvilinear) relationships between cultural dimensions (i.e., risk orien-tation, reward, and work pressure) and affective outcomes (i.e., job sat-isfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions).In the present study we therefore hypothesized that commitmentwould decrease (Hypothesis1)and turnover intentions would increase(Hypothesis2) as culture supplies exceed or fall short of culture pref-erences for culture dimensions concerning the open systems model andthe rational goal model. These hypotheses assume the highest outcomesalong the line of perfect fit. The longitudinal study of Van Vianen andPrins (1997), however, showed that the magnitude of newcomers prefer-ences also contributed to actual turnover. Newcomers with high prefer-ences for risk orientation more often changed their job than newcomerswith low preferences for risk orientation, but these preferences were notassociated with turnover intentions as these were assessed in the firstmonths of employment. Because very few empirical evidence is avail-able about the combined effects of optimal fit and the magnitude of itscomponents, we decided to develop hypotheses about the main func-tional forms as discussed above (Le., monotonic, asymptotic, or curvi-linear relationships). Our data will be analyzed with using polynomialregression, which implies a further exploration of specific aspects of fit,such as the relationships between the components of the fit measure andoutcomes.The human relations model of organizational culture includes cul-ture facets such as the amountof peer support, feedback, and participa-tion. These aspects of organizational life are highly valued by employ-ees. Peer cohesion, for instance, received the highest preferences ratingsin the study of Van Vianen and Prins (1997). Their results revealed amain effect for organizational supplies (as perceived by,the newcomer).Newcomers perceiving fewer peer support were less satisfied and lesscommitted to the organization and showed higher turnover intentionsthan those experiencing more peer support. Weak evidence was foundfor the relationship between an algebraic fit index for peer support andcommitment, which actually can be labeled as deficiency.Further support for a deficiency relationship between fit measureand affective outcomes concerning the human relations dimension of or-ganizational culture can be found in a study of Downey, Hellriegel, andSlocum (1975). They revealed that individuals requiring social contact


12/37

124 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGYand interdependence with others were more satisfied in organizationswith open and empathic cultures than those with closed and impersonalcultures. Based on these previous studies we assumed that newcomerspreferences for the human relations dimension of organizational culturewould be high and that organizational supplies would seldom exceedtheir preferences. Moreover, in the few cases in which organizationalsupplies would be greater than newcomers preferences, we expectedthis to have little effect on newcomers affective outcomes. Hence, inthis study we hypothesized that commitment would decrease (Hypothe-sis3) and turnover intentions would increase (Hypothesis4) as culturesupplies fall short of culture preferences for culture dimensions concern-ing the human relations model.The internal process model represents the stability and control partof organizational culture. It emphasizes that information managementand communication are organized along the line of strict regulation.People differ in the amount of regulation they prefer. Newcomers withlow regulation preferences showed higher turnover intentions and moreactual turnover than those with high regulation preferences (Van Vianen& Prins, 1997). No specificP,0and P-0 fit relationships were foundwith commitment and job satisfaction. Because we used a comparableoperationalization of the internal process model as in the Van Vianenand Prins study, we hypothesized that newcomers preferences concern-ing the internal process model of organizational culture would be nega-tively related to turnover intentions (Hypothesis5 ) .The theoretical base underlying supplementary fit (P-P fit) empha-sizes effects of similarity (i.e., the optimal fit between preferences ofpeople) or dissimilarity and considers the direction of dissimilarity tobe irrelevant. Supplementary fit, therefore, assumes a curvilinear re-lationship with outcomes (i.e., an absolute or quadratic fit measure).Hence, for all cultural dimensions we expected that newcomers com-mitment would decrease (Hypothesis6)and newcomers turnover inten-tions would increase (Hypothesis7) as their culture preferences exceedor fall short of the culture preferences of others in the work setting.Two recruiters who both had selected the newcomer were involvedin the present study: newcomers supervisor and a peer. Several studiespoint to the supervisor as one of the most salient persons in the worksetting (Russell, Altmaeir, &Van Velzen,1987;Yukl, 1994). We there-fore expected that P-P fit with the supervisor would be more importantfor newcomers commitment and turnover intentions than P-P fit with apeer.


13/37

ANNELIES E.M.VAN VIANEN 125Method

ParticipantsSubjectswere154newcomers, 104peers, and101supervisors from68different organizations in The Netherlands. Among these organizationsthere were four large companies with10to22newcomers. These new-comers, however, were employed in different departments, located indifferent areas of the country. The organizations and participants wereasked for their participation by a Dutch personnel selection consultancywhich had been involved in selecting the newcomers. Newcomerswere97males and 52 females, subjects sex was missing for 5subjects. Av-erage age of newcomers was29.8(SD=5.4). They were all higher ed-

ucated and employed fulltime. Mean job tenure was6months (SD=3.9). Peers were69males and34females, sexof one subject was miss-ing. Average age of peers was34.6(SD=9.5). They were all highereducated and employed fulltime. Mean job tenure was7.2years (SD =10.9).Supervisorswere88males and13females. Mean age was42.2(SD=7.7). They were all higher educated and employed fulltime. Mean jobtenure was10.5years(SD=11.9).Procedure and Measures

Two questionnaires were administered to160newcomers, their peers,and supervisor. The first questionnaire was handed out by the re-searcher; the second questionnaire was sent by mail 3weeks after com-pleting the first questionnaire. One questionnaire contained questionsabout culture preferences (the preferences questionnaire), the otherquestionnaire contained questions about perceived culture supplies,commitment, and turnover intentions (the supplies questionnaire). Inorder to control for order effects, one-third of the sample receivedthe supplies questionnaire first and the others received the preferencesquestionnaire first. No order effects were found. One hundred forty-six(91.3%)newcomers,83 (51.9%)peers, and101 (63.1%)supervisorsfilled in the preferences questionnaire. The supplies questionnaire wascompleted by124 (77.5%)newcomers,86 (53.8%)peers and62 (38.8%)supervisors.Culturepreferencesandculture supplieswere measured with12scalescovering the different facets of organizational culture of the competingvalues framework (Quinn, 1988). These scales were developed for aDutch population and were validated in previous studies, showing goodreliabilities (Van Vianen& Kmieciak, 1998). It appeared that somequadrants contained more scales than others. We, however, wanted to


14/37

126 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGYbe as exhaustive as possible rather than to seek symmetry in the numberof scales in each quadrant.The items of culture preferences and culture supplies were commen-surate. This allows a direct comparison of the person and the organiza-tion components (Caplan, 1987). Concerningculture preferences,sub-jects were asked to respond to the question: Are the following state-ments applicable to the organization in which you prefer to work? I liketo work in an organization in which.. . statement]. Responses rangedfromnot at all applicable (1) tovery applicable (7). Concerningculturesupplies,subjects were asked to answer the question: Are the followingstatements applicable to the organization in which you are employed?Responses ranged fromnot at all applicable (1)tovey applicable (7).Human relations aspects of organizational culture were operational-ized with five scales: positive feedback, peer cohesion, human develop-ment, participation, and conflict tolerance. Positive feedback was mea-sured with 5 items, such as: . . employees get recognition for theirperformances. Cronbachs alphas were .84(preferences) and .93(sup-plies). Peer cohesion was measured with 10 items concerning the co-hesiveness of teams and the amount of support from coworkers, suchas: .. there is a peer supportive atmosphere. Cronbachs alphas were.84 and 239. Human development was measured with 6 items, suchas: . ..employees get the opportunity to develop themselves. Cron-bachs alphas were .80and .88. Participation consisted of 6 items, suchas: . . employees participate in decision making. Cronbachs alphaswere .71and 33. Conflict tolerancewas measured with 6 items, suchas: . . employees express their thoughts and emotions in conflict situa-tions. Cronbachs alphas were.81and .88.The open system aspect of organizational culture was operational-ized with an innovation scale. This scale consisted of 7 items, such as:.. challenges are taken up. Cronbachs alphas were.79and34.Internal processes were operationalized withtwoscales: regulationand communication. Theregulation scale consisted of 8 items, such as:. .. ixed procedures are followed. Cronbachs alphas of this scale were.87and .86, respectively. Communicationconsisted of 4 items, such as:. . employees are kept well informed about decisions and about what isgoing on in the organization. Cronbachs alphas were.75and .71.Organizational goal orientation was operationalized with four scales:reward, work pressure, effort, and competition. Reward was measuredwith 4 items concerning the relationship between performance and re-ward, such as: .. a relationship exists between performance and re-ward. Cronbachs alphas were.83and .86. Workpressurewas measuredwith 6 items concerning the amount of pressure that is put on perfor-mance, such as: . . there are clear standards of performance. Cron-


15/37

ANNELIESE.M.VAN VIANEN 127bachs alphas were .78and 35. Effortwas measured with 5 items con-cerning the amount of effort that is expected from the employees andwork morale, such as: . . t is expected that employees put more ef-fort into their work than they are paid for. Cronbachs alphas were .78and 3 5 . Competition consistedof 7 items, such as: .. employees areexpected to compete with each other. Cronbachs alphas were .85 and.89.Twofit measures were used in this study. P-0 fit was assessed by com-paring newcomers culture preferences with organizational culture sup-plies, as perceived by the recruiters. P-P fit was assessed by comparingnewcomers culture preferences with recruiters preferences. The twofit measures were estimated with different fit indices. Furthermore, wetested the data on the amount of deficiency or excess, that is, the propor-tion of negative and positive scores. Finally, polynomial regression wasused in order to avoid methodological problems with P-0 fit measures(Edwards,1994,1996).Affective outcomes were commitment and turnover intentions. Com-mitment was measured with 7 items, selected from the OrganizationalCommitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers,& Porter, 1979).These items can be describedasaffective commitment (Allen&Meyer,1990).One of the items is: I have this organization very much at heart.Cronbachs alpha was 39. Turnover intentions were measured with 3items derived from Ten Horn (1983). Cronbachs alpha was . 81. Oneof the itemsis: When I have the opportunity to work in another orga-nization,I will take that opportunity.

ResultsCorrelation coefficients among the culture preferences and suppliesscales were explored. Substantial correlations were found between somescales of each of the preferences and supplies questionnaires. In order

to parsimoniously capture organizational culture we used factor anal-yses to reduce the number of scales into a small number of underlyingdimensions. Two factor analyses (varimax rotation) werezonducted withthe preferences scales and the supplies scales, respectively. Both factoranalyses identified comparable solutions.A 3-factor solution was foundfor the preferences scales (Eigenvalues>1, accounting for 71.6% ofthe variance) and a 2-factor solution was found for the supplies scales(Eigenvalues>1,accounting for66.9%of the variance). The first factorin both factor analyses consisted of the scales: positive feedback(.73and.72), peer cohesion(233and .84), communication(.76and .85), humandevelopment(38and.70),participation(.85 and .85) and conflict toler-ance(.84and .77). This factor reflects a concern for people dimension,


16/37

128 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGYwith internal consistencies of .90(preferences scales) and .91(suppliesscales). The second factor in both analyses included the scales: reward(.68and .59 ), work pressure (.88 and .88 ), effort (.76 and -85) andcompetition(. 83and .86). This factor appears to reflect aconcern forgoal accomplishmentdimension, with internal consistencies of .79(pref-erences scales) and .82(supplies scales). The innovation scales (prefer-ences and supplies) loaded both on Factor1(.65and .49)and Factor 2(.49and.73).The regulation preferences scale loaded on the third factor(.92)and the regulation supply scale loaded on the first factor (.47).Because10culture scales oaded on two reliable factors, the numberof scales was reduced to two dimensions. These dimensions, concern forpeople and concern for goal accomplishment, were used in the furtheranalyses. These dimensions are comparable to some dimensions of theOrganizational Culture Profile (OReilly et al., 1991),an instrument of-ten used in the P-0fi t literature (but not available in a Dutch version):supportiveness and team orientation, and outcome orientation. More-over, concern for people and concern for goal accomplishment reflecttwo basic leadership styles found in many studies on leadership behav-ior (Yukl,1994)and are key factors in determining peoples behavior inconflict situations (De Dreu, Harinck,&Van Vianen,1999).able1 eports the means, standard deviations and correlation coef-ficients among the measures of preferences, supplies, and affective out-comes.In order to control for the independent measurement of preferencesand supplies correlations between both components were inspected. Ac-cording to French et al. (1982)a moderate level of correlation will occurbecause of the tendencies for individuals to seek out jobs and organiza-tions which meet their preferences. Therefore, correlations lower than.40 are acceptable.Ascan be seen in Table1,Pearson product-momentcorrelations between the commensurate scales for peers and supervisorsrespectively were.17(ns)and .39(p


17/37

TAE1

DpvSakcaZoOdCeaoFMeueoPeeeeSeaAevOcom

MSD123

4

5

6

7

8

9in

1

1

PeeeeCenope

1Nwoms

59.5-

2Ps

58.55

.0

-

3Svsos

58SO-1

.0-

4Nwoms

44.8.1.00

-

5.Ps

44.85-2-1.2

.2

-

6Svsos

48.60

.1

.2

.3

.2

-

7Ps

44.9.0.1-0

.09

.0.0

-

8Svsos

49.7-0

.0

.3

2

-0

.06

.1

-

9Ps

42.82

.0

.0

.2

.2

.3

.4

.1

-

1Svsos

45.8

-1

.0

.2-1

.0

.4

1

.4

.3

-

PeeeeGaomshm

SeCenope

SeGaomshm

Aevocom

1Cmtm

37.7.1.00

.0

.O

.0

.3

0

.-0

-

1Tnneo

23110

.10

.0

.0-0-1

.0-0-0-7

-

Ne*p

newcomer and oc

Documents