Bright Recruiter: Articles

The nature of work is evolving faster than ever as technology transforms from a segmented “industry’ into a feature of all industries. This can be seen by the proliferation of tech jobs across the country. The result of this transformation into a technology-driven labor market is increasing job complexity, and a need for teams rather individuals to manage that complexity. Fitting employees into teams or groups (both terms are used interchangeably in this article) is an essential part of building effective organizations.

Person-Group (PG) fit is the match between an employee and the immediate workgroup. Like Person-Organization fit, it involves both complimentary and supplementary fit. Supplementary fit is a matching of personality, goals, abilities, and values while complimentary fit is a team member’s strengths offsetting the weaknesses of other team members.

In the illustration above, the yellow and blue puzzle pieces apart mean nothing, but together they compliment and supplement each other to become “Group.” The contours and edges of the pieces match each other (supplementary fit) as do the letters, which together create something new, “GROUP” (complimentary fit). If the yellow piece instead ended with an “e” there would be supplementary but not complimentary fit (unless you're French). Conversely, ill-fitting pieces with the correct letters would have complimentary but not supplementary fit.

PG fit is an important consideration in employee selection. Group members who fit contribute more, are more satisfied with their work and work relationships, have reduced tardiness and absenteeism, and are less likely to turnover. Research has found that group cohesiveness leads to group productivity, and the more diverse skillset a group has the more effective they are.  The relationship with performance is not so clear as adequate skill and satisfaction does not automatically translate into performance. In other words, PG fit alone is not sufficient for effective teams, but it is necessary. So when recruiting for a team, it is important to not only match candidates with job requirements but to also match them with the values and needs of a team.

Since the characteristics that contribute to PG fit are stable, PG fit can be used in employment prescreening. Some methods of prescreening for PG fit are looking at resume skills, using strategic interview questions and administering a validated selection test. Candidate resume skills missing in the present team could be used to determine complimentary fit, while personality tests or strategic interview questions can be used to determine supplementary fit.

Consider a self-managed and intelligent, but inefficient team where team members tend to repeat work done by others or put off other team member’s important projects in place of their own. An ideal candidate for this position would be high in cognitive ability and conscientiousness (supplementary) but also a proven leader and project manager (complimentary).  Of course additional characteristics would need to be considered, but this provides you with an idea of how the dynamics of teams must be carefully considered to best complete the puzzle of fitting candidates to teams.

For more information on the field of Person-Group Fit look for research by:

James D. Werbel
John R. Hollenbeck
Amy L. Kristof-Brown

Read More from this Series:

Finding a Fit for Fit (Part 1: Introduction)

Finding a Fit for Fit (Part 2: Person-Job Fit)

Finding a Fit for Fit (Part 3: Person-Organization Fit)

About the Author:

Daniel Maurath is a former Ohioan transplanted to the blissful bay. He received his BA in German and Psychology in 2010 from Ohio State and then served two years with AmeriCorps in San Jose. Now he is a graduate student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at San Francisco State University, where he assists with NASA research that will help put a man on Mars, and dreams of one day owning a dog. Check out his website, follow him on Twitter, circle him on Google, or connect with him on Linkedin.

At Google you can meet in an egg. Genentech grants six-week sabbaticals to all employees for every six years of service. The Container Store offers sales employees a “family friendly” shift of 9am to 2pm. Netapp provides enhanced benefits for parents of special needs children and Methodist Hospital System sent all non-executive employees $250 gas cards when gas-prices climbed last year. These are all illustrations of organizational culture, and finding employees that fit your culture is an important aspect of the recruitment process.

Person-Organization fit is the match between individuals’ values with the norms and values of the organization, and establishing Person-Organization fit is important for organizations in reducing turnover, improving employee job satisfaction and reducing employee stress. In one study, managers who were most dissimilar to their organization in terms of age, education and lifestyle reported the poorest integration into their work teams.  Another study found a relationship between PO fit and salary and career prospects, demonstrating the potential long-term effects of Person-Organization fit. While important, Person-Organization fit should not be used early in the selection process because it relies on subjective rather than objective opinions of recruiters and interviewers. The fit assessments by recruiters and interviewers could be biased and lead to illegal hiring practices. For example, applicant’s interpersonal skills, goal orientation, and physical attractiveness all contribute to assessments of fit when holding general employability constant. So regardless of an applicant’s ability, their physical attractiveness or conversational skills could lead to inaccurate hires or rejections.  Instead Person-Organization fit should be considered in the recruitment strategy.

Person-Organization fit can be applied in the recruitment strategy by publicizing and reaffirming an honest public image in applicant-facing materials. Job applicants form their own personal assessments of fit early on through interaction with company representatives (e.g. recruiters or interviewers) and formal job materials (such as a website or job description), and pre-entry fit perceptions are related to both post-entry fit perceptions and employment quality.  Other influences on fit assessments were the firm's general reputation, attitude toward product/industry, status of particular functional areas within the firm, training and advancement opportunities, and geographic location. In a 1992 study at Cornell, Timothy Judge and Robert Bretz, Jr. found that applicants were more concerned about their future employers sharing four values (1) concern for others, (2) achievement, (3) honesty, and (4) fairness, rather than about pay or promotional opportunities. These values were near universally viewed as desirable, and if honestly valued by an organization should be used in formal job sources.

When considering Person-Organization fit at your organization, formal job sources that convey honest information about the jobs, and about the organization’s values and culture will improve the accuracy of applicants’ fit perceptions. Even just increasing the number of formal job sources has been demonstrated to increase perceptions of fit with an organization. Therefore an organization looking to improve future employee fit should convey an honest image in formal job materials, train employees on how to interact with applicants and highlight its values. A perfect next step would be to put together a realistic job preview and post it on your organization’s website.

Read More from this Series:

Finding a Fit for Fit (Part 1: Introduction)

Finding a Fit for Fit (Part 2: Person-Job Fit)

Finding a Fit for Fit (Part 4: Person-Group Fit)

About the Author:

Daniel is a former Ohioan transplanted to the blissful bay. He received his BA in German and Psychology in 2010 from Ohio State and then served two years with AmeriCorps in San Jose. Now he is a graduate student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at San Francisco State University, where he assists with NASA research that will help put a man on Mars, and dreams of one day owning a dog. Check out his website, follow him on Twitter, circle him on Google, or connect with him on Linkedin.

1. Interview or lead a focus group of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in order to develop a comprehensive list of KSAOs. You can have the SME walk through a typical day or problem, ask them about their performance requirements or have them simply list performed tasks and task frequency. 
2. Personally observe SME’s to discover tasks they overlook.
3. Use all of the qualitative information from interviews, focus groups and observations to determine the primary functions of the job. The number of functions should be in the range of 5 to 10. 
4. Within each job function, identify the all the necessary tasks to perform that function. Lists of example generic task statements can be found on O*NET. To write a task statement: (a) Start with what is done using a functional action verb (e.g. prepares, analyzes, meets, leads), (b) Follow the action verb with an object (to whom/for what purpose) (c) Add how the task is performed, and (d) Finish with why the task is performed. 
   Sticking with the lock and key example for determining job fit, consider this example for a locksmith: Job Function: Customer service interaction. Example task: Ask (a) the customer (b) for all relevant information about the problem (c) over the telephone (d) in order to choose the best tools for the job.
5. Once all functions and tasks are clearly defined, have them audited by the Subject Matter Experts and refined. Writing concise unambiguous tasks is the most difficult step in the job analysis process. Repeated cycles of task evaluation and refinement may be necessary. 

Social psychologist Kurt Lewin, established the idea of Person-Environment fit when he summarized the complete breadth of human behavior in 1951 with a very simple equation:

B = f(P, E)

Meaning, behavior (B) is a function (f) of both the person (P) and their environment (E).

But to describe it as an equation is misleading. In truth, it’s a heuristic, or a loosely defined rule, and one that was a landmark for understanding human behavior, and for understanding how a person fits into a workplace environment. Since 1951, researchers have greatly expanded the Person-Environment fit literature into a comprehensive field of study, and now consider there to be three separate categories: Person-Job, Person-Organization, and Person-Group.

1. Person-Job fit is the match between an individual's abilities and preferences with the demands and attributes of the job. Person-Job fit is the most basic type of fit and best established by first conducting a job analysis to determine the specific demands and attributes of the job, and then using that analysis to match the applicant’s abilities and preferences to the job. A job analysis is a formal process to determine the tasks involved in the job, and the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to be proficient at those tasks.  Job analysis has both practical and legal implications, and will be discussed in greater detail in a future article on Person-Job fit (so stay tuned!).
2. Person-Organization fit is the match between individuals’ values with the norms and values of the organization, but does not involve only a simple matching of values. Many different potential interactions can affect the degree of Person-Organization fit. For example, an individual can fit into organization with differing values, if the individual lacks strong personal values, or in another example, an organization without strong values will adopt the values of the people who comprise it.
3. Person-Group fit is the degree of fit between an individual and their immediate team or coworkers. Similar to Person-Organization fit, Person-Group fit also involves a layer of complexity.  Fit must be both supplementary (individual shares goals values or abilities of its team) and complimentary (individual compensates for team member’s weaknesses). An individual must match a group, but also be able to add to the group.  Person-Group fit is the youngest child in the fit family but has received increased attention as many organizations have restructured to harness the increased productivity of teams over individuals.

Together, the three categories of fit illustrate the complexity that underlies matching applicants to jobs, and supports the idea of the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) framework.

Benjamin Schneider, a professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of Maryland, proposed the ASA framework as a theoretical model in 1987. Research has since supported the model, and it has become as fundamental to organizational behavior as the Lewin equation is to all human behavior. The model bases the cause of organizational behavior on the collective norms, values, abilities, preferences of the people in the organization, especially company leaders. An organization attracts potential candidates, selects the ones that it believes will be best, and then encourages attrition for those who do not ultimately fit. What is left is a collection of people who define the nature of the organization, and its structure, processes, and culture.

In the following weeks, I will review the research on Person-Environment fit and the associated ASA model. I will dive into the details of each category of fit, investigate the methods and importance of determining fit and propose practical implications for the recruitment industry.

Read More:

Finding a Fit for Fit (Part 2: Person-Job Fit)

About the Author:

Daniel is a former Ohioan transplanted to the blissful bay. He received his BA in German and Psychology in 2010 from Ohio State and then served two years with AmeriCorps in San Jose. Now he is a graduate student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at San Francisco State University, where he assists with NASA research that will help put a man on Mars, and dreams of one day owning a dog.Check out his website, follow him on Twitter, circle him on Google, or connect with him on Linkedin.