Person-organization fit: Effects of pay justice on employee organizational commitment, job satisfaction and intention to remain in the organization Thomas Lindevall, Stockholm University

Anders Sjöberg, Stockholm University

Magnus Sverke, Stockholm University & North-West University

The notion of person-organization fit (P-O fit) is concerned with identifying the antecedents and consequences of compatibility between employees and the organizations in which they work. Research on correlates of P-O fit has demonstrated significant

relationships with various individual outcomes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction and intention to remain in the job.

Using the P-O fit framework and organizational justice theory, this study tests the assumption that value congruence between the

employee and the organization regarding pay justice benefits employees’ organizational commitment (OC), job satisfaction (JS) and intention to remain in the organization (IR). Specifically, we tested three propositions: 1) When justice perception are in agreement

between person and supervisor, JS, OC and IR will increase, 2) When the pay justice discrepancy between persons and supervisors

increases, JS, OC and IR will decrease, and 3) Levels of JS, OC and IR are higher when the discrepancy is such that supervisor-

rated justice perceptions are higher than person-rated justice perceptions, rather than vice versa.

Propostion 1 was supported: When justice perception were in agreement between person and supervisor, JS, OC and IR increased. Propostion 2 was partially supported: As the justice discrepancy between persons and supervisors increased, only OC decreased. Propostion 3 was not supported: JS, OC and IR were not higher when the discrepancy was such that supervisor-rated justice perceptions were higher than person-rated justice perception (rather than vice versa).

In this study, pay justice was operationalized as the congruence between employee and supervisory rated perceptions of pay justice. Using the P-O fit framework and organizational justice theory, this is the first study to test the assumption that value congruence between the employee and the supervisor regarding pay justice benefits employees’ OC, JS and IR. Strong support for the first proposition was found, namely that when justice perceptions are in agreement between person and supervisor, JS, OC and IR tend to increase. Furthermore, OC decreased as the discrepancy between person-rated and supervisor-rated justice perceptions increased. No support was found regarding the proposition that the work attitudes are lower when the discrepancy is such that supervisor-rated justice perceptions are higher than person-rated justice perceptions, rather than vice versa.

Results

Conclusions

Job Satisfaction

Background

Method

Sample Participants in the study were a sample of 112 managers (response rate 97%) and 483 teachers (response rate 47%), all employed by the same municipal organization in Sweden.

Procedure

An online questionnaire were sent to the managers’ and teachers’ e-mail addresses at their workplaces.

Measures

Justice was measured using Colquitt’s (2001) scale for organizational justice, albeit adjusted to assess justice perceptions in connection to pay. Allen and Meyer’s (1990) affective commitment scale, shortened to 4 items was used to measure organizational commitment. Job satisfaction was measured with three items adopted from Brayfield and Rothe (1951). Intention to remain at the job was tapped with a 3-item index (Sjöberg & Sverke, 2000), developed to measure an overall propensity to stay at the job.

Organizational Commitment Intention to remain

Analysis

Summary of results

We used polynomial regression to test our propositions. This approach avoids combining person and environment measures into a single score that captures “fit”. Instead polynomial regression with surface tests can provide a more nuanced view of the relationship between combinations of two predictor variables and outcome variables by graphically illustrating the results in a three-dimensional space.

Effect Coefficient Error t p

a1: Slope along x = y (as related to Z) 0,70 0,15 4,739 0,000

a2: Curvature on x = y (as related to Z) -0,12 0,31 -0,394 0,694

a3: Slope along x = -y (as related to Z) 0,08 0,24 0,337 0,736

a4: Curvature on x = -y (as related to Z) -0,19 0,31 -0,621 0,535

Effect Coefficient Error t p

a1: Slope along x = y (as related to Z) 0,64 0,25 2,533 0,012

a2: Curvature on x = y (as related to Z) -0,21 0,16 -1,247 0,213

a3: Slope along x = -y (as related to Z) -0,40 0,30 -1,315 0,189

a4: Curvature on x = -y (as related to Z) -0,42 0,17 -2,532 0,012

Effect Coefficient Error t p

a1: Slope along x = y (as related to Z) 0,57 0,35 1,615 0,107

a2: Curvature on x = y (as related to Z) -0,22 0,23 -0,967 0,334

a3: Slope along x = -y (as related to Z) 0,63 0,42 1,486 0,138

a4: Curvature on x = -y (as related to Z) 0,03 0,23 0,131 0,896