Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037
2022, vol. 13, no. 2(26), pp. 384–405 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2022.13.85
Relationship between Person–Environment Fit Types and Turnover Intention: A Moderated Mediation Model
Gökhan Kerse (corresponding author)
Kafkas University, Turkey
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1565-9110
gokhankerse@hotmail.com
Daimi Koçak
Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Turkey
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9099-2055
dkocak@erzincan.edu.tr
Mustafa Babadağ
Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Turkey
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0198-7105
mustafababadag@mu.edu.tr
Abstract. In this study, drawing on Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, we tested a moderated mediation model that investigates person–organization (PO) fit as the mediator and person–job (PJ) fit as the moderator in the relationship between person–supervisor (PS) fit and turnover intention. Data were collected from 232 bank employees in Turkey by using a survey method. Consistent with hypothesized conceptual scheme, results showed that PO fit mediated the relationship between PS fit and turnover intention. Furthermore, moderated mediation results indicate that PJ fit not only moderated the relationship between PS fit and PO fit but also reinforced the indirect effect of PS fit on turnover intention (via PO fit). We argue that indirect effect of PS fit on turnover intention through PO fit was stronger for employees with high job fit than for employees with low job fit. The theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are also discussed.
Keywords: person–environment fit, person–supervisor fit, person–organization fit, person–job fit, turnover intention
Received: 11/4/2022. Accepted: 22/9/2022
Copyright © 2022 Gökhan Kerse, Daimi Koçak, Mustafa Babadağ. Published by Vilnius University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
1. Introduction
Just like in the early 2000s , reducing employee turnover and ensuring their continued work in their organizations is an important issue today (Phillips & Connell, 2004). This is because, as in other countries (Giao et al., 2020, p. 2; Falahat et al., 2019, p. 80), employee turnover rate is high in Turkey (Peryön, 2018). The replacement cost for organizations that this turnover causes constitutes approximately 30% of the annual salary (Jin et al., 2018). In addition to this financial cost, it also brings about a time cost for a new employee to get used to the organization and exhibit high performance (Kerse & Babadağ, 2018). For this reason, the issue of how to reduce turnover in organizations should be taken into consideration with a focus on turnover intention because turnover intention is one of the most important causes/precursors of turnover behavior (Krausz et al., 1995; Griffeth et al., 2000). Therefore, identifying the factors that affect turnover intention and taking measures will also help prevent employee turnover.
Examining the literature reveals that there are many different individual and organizational factors affecting employee turnover intention (Saleem & Qamar, 2017; Özkan et al., 2020). One of these factors (variables) is the perception of person–environment fit. Person–environment fit is a perceptual phenomenon that indicates the fit between an employee and the characteristics of the business environment (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). This perceptual phenomenon is a concept that cannot be reduced to one dimension; it should be examined in different dimensions such as person–organization, person–work, person–supervisor and person–group fit (Andela & van der Doef, 2019). As a matter of fact, many different studies on the concept have stated that it should be addressed at the dimensional level (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; van Vianen et al., 2011; Tak, 2011; Astakhova, 2016). Several studies have even suggested that one type of fit may affect another type of fit (Astakhova, 2016; Deniz et al., 2015; Abdalla et al., 2018) or may strengthen and weaken the effect on another variable together (Hamstra et al., 2019), and that therefore, it should not be examined in a single dimension. Furthermore, some researchers have emphasized that more theoretical and practical knowledge about the types of fit is needed (van Vianen et al., 2011), with PS fit being especially neglected, and that therefore, more focus should be placed on this type of fit (Guay et al., 2019). For these reasons, the present study considered the types of fit as separate structures and examined whether PS fit affected turnover intention through PO fit and whether PJ fit was a conditional variable in this affect.
The study has made several contributions to the literature with the created model and discussed variables. First of all, although the types of fit are discussed under the umbrella of person-environment fit (Kristof, 1996), studies have shown that these types of fit are different structures (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Tak, 2011; Astakhova, 2016), and researchers on the subject have stated that the types of fit (especially PS fit) should be evaluated simultaneously (van Vianen et al., 2011). For this reason, our study examined PS fit as an independent variable and addressed its relationship with a work-oriented variable by examining PO and PJ fit together. Moreover, the present study examined the relationship between the types of fit and turnover intention with a moderated mediation model, taking into account the calls to determine how the employee’s perception of fit (e.g., PO fit) affects turnover intention (Peng et al., 2014). In this respect, the study discussed the moderating role of PJ fit in the relationship of PS fit with turnover intention through PO fit for the first time. Therefore, the study identified the mechanism indicating the relationship between PS fit and turnover intention for the first time by taking other types of fit as a reference.
2. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
2.1. Person-Environment Fit Theory and Types of Fit
The fit theory (Bui et al., 2017), also known as person–environment fit (PE fit) in the literature, is defined as the congruence between the individual and the characteristics of the work environment (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Edwards & Shipp, 2007), and with the occurrence of this fit, positive attitudes and behaviors related to work and the organization emerge (Duffy et al., 2015; Andela & van der Doef, 2019; Pudjiarti & Hutomo, 2020; Suwanti et al., 2018; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009). In addition, this fit to the work environment can be for the work and the organization, as well as for the supervisor and the group. In other words, the fit that occurs in the work environment can be examined under different definitions such as person-organization, person-work, person-supervisor and person-group fit (Kristof, 1996). The rational fit (PO fit and PJ fit) and relational fit (PG fit and PS fit) categories are used to investigate these types within the context of fit theory (Oh et al., 2014). PS and PG fits are called relational fit because they are related to supervisors and other employees at work (interpersonal relations), and PO and PJ fits are called rational fit because they are related to the work and the organization itself rather than interpersonal relations. This study discusses the concepts of PS, PO and PJ fit.
PS fit: PS fit, which is also examined in the literature as supervisor-subordinate personality similarity, supervisor-employee value fit and supervisor-employee purpose fit (Kim & Kim, 2013), is a phenomenon that emerges with the evaluation of the bilateral relations between employee and supervisor (Tak, 2011) and the perception that mutual common characteristics (personality, value and behavioral style) match (van Vianen et al., 2011). PS fit is explained based on similarity-attraction theory (Byrne, 1971). In the context of theory, employees are more interested in their supervisors when they believe that their supervisors’ values and beliefs are similar to their own values and beliefs in PS fit. This situation increases the satisfaction, commitment and citizenship behaviors of employees (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Guay et al., 2019; Van Vianen et al., 2011), thus contributing positively to attitudes and behaviors towards work and the organization.
PO fit: PO fit is the congruence between the values and goals of individuals and organizational culture, organizational climate, organizational values, and goals (Chatman, 1989). According to Kristof (1996), this fit refers to the compatibility between the employee and the organization, where the needs of both parties are met, the parties have similar basic characteristics, or both conditions are present. However, in the literature, it is generally considered as the fit of the employee with the organization in terms of values (that is, supplementary fit) (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), and it is stated that it has positive individual and organizational outputs. These outputs are high job satisfaction (Jin et al., 2018), organizational commitment (van Vianen et al., 2011), organizational citizenship behavior and innovative work behavior (Suwanti et al., 2018); and low organizational cynicism (Ko & Campbell, 2021) and silence behavior (Koksal et al., 2018).
PJ fit: PJ fit is defined as the congruence between an individual’s personality, knowledge, skills and abilities and the requirements of a particular job (Kristof-Brown, 2000). More generally, PJ fit refers to the degree of fit between the individual and the job (Wong & Tetrick, 2017). This fit can be related to the extent to which the knowledge, skills and abilities of the individual meet the requirements of the job (demand-skill fit) (Edwards, 1996; Kristof, 1996), as well as to the extent to which the characteristics of the job meet the wishes, needs and values of the individual (need-supply fit) (Chhabra, 2015). An employee having a fit with their job in any way increases their performance, creativity, job satisfaction, work engagement and commitment to the organization while decreasing their turnover intention (Afsar et al., 2015; Chhabra, 2015; Huang et al., 2019; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Peng & Mao, 2015).
2.2. Comparison of Types of Fit
Although all types of fit are addressed under the umbrella of PE fit (Kristof, 1996), each type is a concept that needs to be addressed separately and independently, as each one represents the employee’s fit with different aspects of the work environment (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Because PS fit refers to the perceived similarity between employees and their managers in terms of characteristics (values, personality and behavioral patterns) (van Vianen et al., 2011), PJ fit refers to the fit with a specific job (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001), and PO fit refers to the perception of similarity with the values of the organization (van Vianen et al., 2011). For this reason, one type of fit can strengthen or weaken the effect of another type of fit, as well as complement or separate from it (Van Vianen et al., 2011). As a matter of fact, studies suggest that types of fit may have different relationships with both each other and work outcomes, and therefore should be examined as independent variables (Astakhova, 2016; van Vianen et al., 2011; Tak, 2011). For example, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) found that job satisfaction is more strongly associated with PJ fit compared to PS and PO fit, and organizational commitment is more strongly associated with PO fit compared to PS and PJ fit. A study conducted by Pudjiarti and Hutomo (2020) revealed that both PO fit and PJ fit positively affect innovative work behavior, but this effect is stronger in PJ fit. Tak (2011) found that the strength of the relationship between the types of fit and turnover intention was PJ fit, PO fit and PS fit, respectively, from the strongest to the weakest. Suwanti et al. (2018), on the other hand, determined that PO and PJ fit have a positive relationship with organizational citizenship behavior and innovative work behaviors, but with a noticeable relational difference between the two types of fit. In addition to these empirical research findings, Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2001) suggested that when an employee does not perceive a fit with their job, they can find a different job in the current organization instead of leaving the organization; but if they perceive a good fit with their job but do not feel the same way about the organization, they will probably look for a job suitable for their talents in a different organization. In line with this view, Tak (2011) stated that when an employee does not fit with their supervisor but perceives fit with their organization, they will move away from their supervisor and look for a similar or different job in a different department of the same organization instead of leaving the organization. Therefore, both empirical findings and the opinions of the researchers have indicated that these types of fit, which are important for employee attitudes and behaviors, should be considered as separate and independent concepts.
2.3. PS Fit and Turnover Intention
When employees cannot perceive a fit with their supervisor, they may consider leaving their jobs (Guay et al., 2019). This can be explained by the Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) developed by Hobfoll (1989). According to COR, individuals try to retain valuable resources and obtain more resources, with resources being grouped into four categories: object resources, conditions, personal characteristics, and energy. Energy refers to resources such as money, time and information, which are means of obtaining other resources (Hobfoll, 1989). PS fit is a resource that is placed in the energy category and is necessary for employees to obtain and protect various resources in an organization (Zhang et al., 2015). Based on the COR theory, an employee who obtains this resource (that is, who perceives a fit with their supervisor) will make an effort to ensure its continuity. Therefore, low turnover intention, which is positive for the employee to retain this resource, will emerge. As a matter of fact, studies in the literature (Oh et al., 2014; Guay et al., 2019) have also obtained findings that indicate PS fit reduces turnover intention. Based on these explanations and the findings in the literature, the following hypothesis was developed.
H1: PS fit negatively affects turnover intention.
2.4. The Mediating Role of PO Fit
As mentioned earlier, PS fit is a type of PE fit (Kristof, 1996) and has the potential to affect PO fit, which is another type of fit, as well as outputs for work and the organization (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Guay et al., 2019; van Vianen et al., 2011). This claim is based on employees seeing their supervisors as representatives of the organization and perceiving the behaviors of supervisors as a reflection of organizational culture (Eisenberger et al., 2002), because supervisors act as a “representative of the organization” when implementing formal and informal organizational procedures and deciding how to manage organizational rewards (Chen et al., 2002). It is believed that supervisors embody the character of the organization in this sense (Astakhova, 2016). In addition, employee-supervisor relations, which have a key role in the overall work experience of employees, can affect employees’ behaviors and perceptions of fit (Boon & Biron, 2016). For this reason, it is thought that employees who have a high level of value fit with their supervisors will also perceive organizational value fit to that extent. As a matter of fact, the literature supports this idea and concludes that PS fit strengthens PO fit (Astakhova, 2016).
Employees having a good fit with their organizations leads them to think that their values are similar to those of the organization of which they are a member, which is a positive situation (Edwards & Cable, 2009). This reduces employee turnover intention by motivating them to retain the personal work resource that they have obtained (i. e., PO fit) in the context of COR theory (Kiazad et al., 2014). The basic assumption regarding PO fit in the literature is also in line with this. In other words, the assumption is that employees prefer to work in an organization that is suitable for their own values and goals (Schneider, 1987), and that when they are compatible with the organization, they turn to positive behaviors towards the organization (Farooqui & Nagendra, 2014), and their turnover intention decreases (Verquer et al., 2003). As a matter of fact, studies have also obtained findings in line with this. For example, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) and Tak (2011) found a negative relationship between PO fit and turnover intention. Other studies (Peng et al., 2014) have suggested that PO fit reduces turnover intention.
These explanations suggest that an employee who perceives a fit with their supervisor will also perceive a fit with their organization, reducing their turnover intention. In other words, they indicate that PO fit is likely to play a mediating role in the effect of PS fit on turnover intention. No study addressing this mechanism has been found in the literature. However, studies conducted with different variables have revealed the mediating effect of PO fit (Yanfei et al., 2010; Deniz et al., 2015). Considering these results in the literature, the following hypothesis regarding mediation was developed.
H2: PO fit has a mediating role in the negative effect of PS fit on turnover intention.
2.5. The Moderating Role of PJ Fit
As mentioned earlier, PJ fit is related to the extent to which the employee’s knowledge, skills and abilities meet the requirements of the job (Edwards, 1996). In other words, it can be said that the employee’s knowledge, skills and abilities being able to meet the elements necessary to do the job leads to a higher PJ fit. This definition indicates that job requirements are taken into account in identifying and perceiving PJ fit. Job requirements are an element that reflects the character of the organization (Kristof, 1996). Furthermore, a job is an activity that cannot be evaluated independently of the organization (Aslan, 2019) and contains the values of the organization. Therefore, employees who perceive PJ fit are also likely to perceive PO fit. A limited number of studies in the literature have obtained this finding. For example, Deniz et al. (2015) concluded that PO fit has a mediating effect on the effect of PJ fit on work stress in their study on employees working in different sectors. In other words, the researchers determined that the perception of PJ fit increased the perception of PO fit, which in turn reduced work stress. Aslan (2019) determined that PJ fit positively and significantly affects PO fit in the study he conducted with bank employees. Based on these explanations and previous studies in the literature, it can be said that PJ fit affects PO fit.
As previously mentioned, the manager (supervisor) represents the organization and embraces its culture. In other words, the manager is the fundamental component that formalizes the organization and establishes the value structure. Because of this, an employee who shares the manager’s values (has a high PS fit level) may also perceive their PO fit to be high (Astakhova, 2016). Additionally, the quality of the work performed is a reflection of the organization’s character. For this reason, employees are more likely to sense organizational harmony when their work is in line with their values (Aslan, 2019; Deniz et al., 2015). In this context, it is expected that the perception of PS fit and PJ fit together will further increase PO fit.
Furthermore, some studies have examined PJ fit as a moderator variable (e. g., Ugwu & Onyishi, 2020) and determined that PJ fit has a moderating role in the relationships between different variables. This study will examine PJ fit as a moderator variable. This is because the previous findings in the literature on the effects of PS fit and PJ fit on PO fit and the above explanations suggest that this relationship may be possible. This study expects that when the perception of PJ fit is high, the perception of PS fit will affect the perception of PO fit at a higher level. Based on these explanations, the following hypothesis was developed.
H3: PJ fit moderates the relationship between PS fit and PO fit, such that the positive relationship between PS fit and PO fit is stronger when employees have high job fit.
The above explanations state that PO fit will have a mediating role in PS fit effect on turnover intention. The explanations also state that PJ fit may have a moderating role in the effect of PS fit on PO fit. All this suggests that the indirect effect of PS fit on PO fit and turnover intention will be further increased when PJ fit is high, and further reduced when PJ fit is low. Based on these explanations, the following hypothesis was developed.
H4: PJ fit moderates the indirect effect of PS fit on turnover intention through PO fit, such that the effect is stronger when PJ fit is high as opposed to low.
In line with these explanations and hypotheses, the following research model was created.
Figure 1
Research Model
3. Method
3.1. Sample and Procedure
The research sample consists of 232 full-time bank employees in a province in Turkey. According to 2022 Banks Association of Turkey data, there are a total of 280 bank employees working in the city in question. In line with this data, it can be said that the response rate (83%) is sufficient (Babbie, 1990). All scales used in the study were translated from English, which is their original language, to Turkish, in line with the back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1970). Data was collected through the survey method. The surveys were distributed by the first author to employees and managers in the bank, and then collected by the researcher. The average age of the 232 participants was 33, with 65% of them being male. In terms of educational levels, 76% of the participants have a bachelor’s degree. 45% of the participants work in the operations department.
3.2. Measures
PS fit: PS fit was measured by adapting the four-item PO fit developed by Netemeyer et al. (1997). For this purpose, the expression “My organization” in each item of the scale was changed to “My supervisor”. Items in the scale include expressions such as “My supervisor has the same values as I do with regard to concern for others”. The items in the scale were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94.
PJ fit: PJ fit was measured with the nine-item “PJ Fit Scale” developed by Brkich et al. (2002). Items in the scale include expressions such as “I feel that my goals and needs are met in this job”. The items in the scale were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85.
PO fit: PO fit was measured using the four-item “PO fit Scale” developed by Netemeyer et al. (1997). Items in the scale include expressions such as “I feel that my personal values are a good fit with this organization”. The items in the scale were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93.
Turnover intention: Turnover intention was measured using a five-item scale developed by Walsh et al. (1985) and Cammann et al. (1979). Items in the scale include expressions such as “I am thinking about quitting my job”. The items in the scale were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.
Control variables: In line with previous research (Liu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2017), the present study controlled the effects of the participants’ gender, age, educational level and department on their fit with their organization and turnover intention. Both gender and age were controlled, because previous studies had confirmed that turnover intention likely decreased with one’s age (Emiroğlu et al., 2015) and that women had grater turnover rates than men (Weisberg, 1993). Also, studies showed that education is related to turnover intention (Wen et al., 2018) and that department also may have an impact on turnover intention (Akova et al., 2015). The gender variable was coded with 0 being “male” and 1 being “female”. Age was measured based on 3 categories (1 “30 and below”, 2 “31-40” and 3 “over 40”). Educational level was measured using a four-point scale ranging from 1, “high school” to 4, “graduate or higher”. Finally, an employee’s department was measured based on three categories (1 “operations department”, 2 “individual marketing department”, and 3 “commercial marketing department”).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Means, standard deviations, and correlations are shown in Table 1. The results indicated that PS fit was significantly related to PJ fit (r = 0.43, p < 0.01), PO fit (r = 0.41, p < 0.01), and turnover intention (r = -0.37, p < 0.01). PJ fit had a significant correlation with PO fit (r = 0.53, p < 0.01) and turnover intention (r = -0.58, p < 0.01). Moreover, PO fit was significantly related to turnover intention (r = -0.44, p < 0.01).
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
|
Scales |
M |
SD |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
1. Gender |
1.35 |
0.48 |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Age |
1.78 |
0.60 |
-0.13 |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Educational level |
2.81 |
0.69 |
0.14* |
-0.05 |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Department |
1.90 |
0.88 |
-0.11 |
0.01 |
0.20** |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
5. PS Fit |
3.54 |
1.29 |
0.06 |
-0.07 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
(0.94) |
|
|
|
|
6. PJ Fit |
3.37 |
0.72 |
-0.18** |
0.05 |
0.10 |
0.07 |
0.43** |
(0.85) |
|
|
|
7. PO Fit |
3.50 |
1.43 |
0.06 |
-0.09 |
0.12 |
0.08 |
0.41** |
0.53** |
(0.93) |
|
|
8. Turnover intention |
2.53 |
0.97 |
0.03 |
-0.07 |
-0.10 |
-0.03 |
-0.37** |
-0.58** |
-0.44** |
(0.89) |
Note. N=232; **p < .01; *p < .05. Cronbach’s alphas (α) are shown in parentheses.
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted using the maximum probability estimation method to examine the discriminant validity of the research variables are presented in Table 2. In order to evaluate the model fit, the chi-square (χ2), degrees of freedom (df), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean-square residual (SRMR) fit indices were used. Firstly, a four-factor CFA model including PS fit, PJ fit, PO fit and turnover intention was tested. Then, three-factor (models 1, 2 and 3), two-factor (model 4) and single-factor (model 5) models were tested and compared with the measurement model. The results of the analyses reveal that the four-factor measurement model had a better fit with the data compared to other models (χ2 (194) = 381, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05). In other words, the results support the discriminant validity of four structures in the present study. Furthermore, the composite validity of the scales in the CFA model was examined. For this, composite reliability (CR) and Average variance extracted (AVE) values were determined for each scale. The composite validity of the research scales was confirmed with the results of the analyses (PS fit = AVE .74, CR .91; PJ fit = AVE .52, CR .93; PO fit = AVE .64, CR .95; IQ = AVE .62, CR .87).
Table 2
Comparison of Measurement Models
|
Models |
χ2 (df) |
CFI |
RMSEA |
SRMR |
Model comparison |
|
∆χ2 (∆df) |
|||||
|
Measurement model, four-factor model |
381 (194) |
0.95 |
0.07 |
0.05 |
- |
|
Model 1, three-factor modela |
646 (197) |
0.89 |
0.10 |
0.07 |
265 (3) |
|
Model 2, three-factor modelb |
651 (197) |
0.87 |
0.10 |
0.06 |
270 (3) |
|
Model 3, three-factor modelc |
642 (197) |
0.89 |
0.09 |
0.07 |
261 (3) |
|
Model 4, two-factor modeld |
886 (199) |
0.83 |
0.12 |
0.08 |
505 (5) |
|
Model 5, one-factor modele |
1184 (200) |
0.75 |
0.15 |
0.09 |
803 (6) |
Note. N = 232; All models are significant at p < 0.05; χ2 = chi-square discrepancy; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; ∆χ2 = difference in chi-square; ∆df = difference in degrees of freedom.
a Three-factor model= PS fit and PJ fit combined into a single factor; b Three-factor model= PS fit and PO fit combined into a single factor; c Three-factor model= PJ fit and PO fit combined into a single factor; d Two-factor model = PS fit, PJ fit and PO fit combined into a single factor; e Harman’s single-factor model, all variables combined into a single factor.
4.3. Testing the Hypotheses
The research hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro (for SPSS) statistics software developed by Hayes (2013) and with reference to the moderated mediation (alternatively known as conditional indirect effect) created by Preacher et al. (2007).
4.3.1. Testing mediation
The results for Hypotheses 1 and 2 are presented in Table 3. The results of the analysis revealed that PS fit is significantly related to turnover intention (β = -0.18, t = -3.82, p < 0.00). This result supported Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 was tested with the bootstrap method at a 95% confidence level using 5000 bootstrapped samples. The results supported that the indirect effect of PS fit on turnover intention was significant through PO fit (β = -0.11, SE = 0.05; 95% CI [-0.26, -0.06]). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Table 3
Regression Results for Mediation Effect
|
|
PO fit |
|||
|
B |
SE |
T |
P |
|
|
Gender |
0.06 |
0.18 |
0.30 |
0.77 |
|
Age |
-0.12 |
0.15 |
-0.84 |
0.40 |
|
Educational level |
0.19 |
0.13 |
1.47 |
0.14 |
|
Department |
0.09 |
0.10 |
0.85 |
0.39 |
|
PS fit |
0.45 |
0.07 |
6.74 |
0.00 |
|
Turnover intention |
||||
|
|
B |
SE |
T |
P |
|
Gender |
0.14 |
0.17 |
0.80 |
0.43 |
|
Age |
0.05 |
0.12 |
0.27 |
0.79 |
|
Educational level |
-0.05 |
0.11 |
-0.52 |
0.61 |
|
Department |
-0.14 |
0.01 |
-1.43 |
0.15 |
|
Direct effect of PS fit |
-0.18 |
0.05 |
-3.82 |
0.00 |
|
PO fit |
-0.23 |
0.04 |
-5.38 |
0.00 |
|
Total effect of PS fit |
-0.29 |
0.06 |
-6.23 |
0.00 |
|
|
Effect |
SE |
BootLLCI |
BootULCI |
|
Indirect effect |
-0.11 |
0.05 |
-0.26 |
-0.06 |
Note. N=232; Bootstrap sample size = 5.000. LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.
4.3.2. Testing moderated mediation
The results obtained for Hypothesis 3 and 4 were presented in Table 4. Regarding Hypothesis 3, the positive relationship between PS fit and PO fit would be stronger for employees with high PJ fit. The results revealed that the interaction term between PS fit and PJ fit was significantly related to PO fit (β = 0.30, t = 3.49, p < 0.00). The nature of this interaction must fit the assumed model in order for Hypothesis 3 to be fully supported. For this, a simple slope test was performed in the standard deviation above and below the average of the centralized PJ fit scale (see Figure 2). The simple slope test revealed that the relationship between PS fit and PO fit was significant for employees with high PJ fit (simple slope = 0.53, t = 4.84, p < 0.00) but insignificant for employees with low PJ fit (simple slope = 0.14, t = 1.92, p < 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Table 4
Regression Results for Moderated Mediation
|
|
PO fit |
|||
|
B |
SE |
T |
P |
|
|
Gender |
0.33 |
0.17 |
2.01 |
0.04 |
|
Age |
-0.22 |
0.13 |
-1.75 |
0.08 |
|
Educational level |
-0.01 |
0.12 |
-0.06 |
0.95 |
|
Department |
0.06 |
0.09 |
0.71 |
0.48 |
|
PS fit |
0.35 |
0.07 |
4.67 |
0.00 |
|
PJ fit |
0.91 |
0.12 |
7.57 |
0.00 |
|
PS fit x PJ fit |
0.30 |
0.09 |
3.49 |
0.00 |
|
Conditional Effect of PS fit on turnover intention |
||||
|
PJ fit |
B |
SE |
T |
P |
|
-1 SD (-0.71) |
0.14 |
0.07 |
1.92 |
0.06 |
|
+1 SD (0.63) |
0.53 |
0.11 |
4.84 |
0.00 |
|
Turnover intention |
||||
|
|
B |
SE |
T |
P |
|
Gender |
0.14 |
0.12 |
1.17 |
0.24 |
|
Age |
-0.17 |
0.09 |
-1.85 |
0.07 |
|
Educational level |
-0.11 |
0.08 |
-1.32 |
0.19 |
|
Department |
0.03 |
0.07 |
0.47 |
0.64 |
|
PS fit |
-0.18 |
0.05 0.04 |
-3.82 |
0.00 |
|
PO fit |
-0.23 |
-5.38 |
0.00 |
|
|
Conditional indirect effects at PJ fit= M ±1 SD |
||||
|
PJ fit |
Boot indirect effect |
BootSE |
BootLLCI |
BootULCI |
|
-1 SD (-0.71) |
-0.03 |
0.04 |
-0.13 |
0.01 |
|
+1 SD (0.63) |
-0.12 |
0.05 |
-0.26 |
-0.06 |
|
Index of conditional indirect effects |
-0.07 |
0.03 |
-0.13 |
-0.01 |
Note. SD=Standard deviation; SE=Standard error. Bootstrap sample size = 5.000. LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.
Figure 2
Interaction of PS fit and PJ fit on PO fit
Finally, Hypothesis 4 predicted that the strength of indirect effect through PO fit is conditional on PJ fit. To assess conditional indirect effect, we followed a procedure developed by Preacher et al. (2007). As seen in Table 4, the indirect effect of PS fit on turnover intention (through PO fit) varied based on two different levels of PJ fit (standard deviation below the mean -0.70 and standard deviation above the mean 0.63).
Results revealed that the indirect effect of PS fit on turnover intention (through PO fit) was stronger and significant for employees with high PJ fit (normal distribution = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.06]) but insignificant for employees with low PJ fit (normal distribution = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.01]). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
5. Discussion
Previous researchers (e. g., Caplan, 1987; Edwards et al., 1998; van Vianen et al., 2011) have emphasized that employees’ perceptions of fit are important for their emotional responses and work behaviors, and that investigating the distinctive characteristics of perceptions of fit and their relationship with individual and organizational outcomes is as important in practical terms as it is in theoretical terms. In addition, some researchers (e. g., Ostroff et al., 2005) argued that focusing on only one type of fit in a study would result in a limited understanding of the effects of fit on employee attitudes and behaviors. This study aimed to fill the gap in multidimensional research on fit by simultaneously evaluating perceptions of PS fit, PJ fit, and PO fit within the scope of the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). For this purpose, the present study tested a moderated mediation model in which PO fit is the mediator and PJ fit is the moderator in the relationship between PS fit and turnover intention. Our findings supported van Vianen et al. (2011)’s suggestion that PS fit is an important antecedent of PO fit and strengthens it, and the relationship between PS fit and PO fit differs according to the level of PJ fit. The results of the study confirm that PJ fit serves as an important boundary condition for the mediated relationship between PS fit and PO fit. In other words, the positive relationship between PS fit and PO fit is stronger when PJ fit is high, and weak when PJ fit is low. Furthermore, it was revealed that PO fit has a mediating role in the relationship between PS fit and turnover intention. In other words, PS fit has an indirect effect on turnover intention. Finally, the findings of the study support the assumed moderated mediation model by confirming that the indirect effect of PS fit on turnover intention through PO fit depends on the PJ fit level. Therefore, PS fit’s negative indirect effect on turnover intention through PO fit is confirmed to be strong when PJ fit is high and weak when PJ fit is low. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed below.
5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications
Our findings contribute to the literature in several ways. First, the findings support Cable and DeRue’s (2002) suggestion that conceptual turnover models can be improved by modeling fit (e. g., PS fit, PO fit) as an antecedent. Moreover, our findings confirmed the claims that fit is an important factor in determining turnover intention made in previous studies on the antecedents of turnover intention (e. g., Chatman, 1991; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002; Kristof, 1996; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Our findings reinforce Tak’s (2011) suggestion that the effects of PS fit and PO fit on the turnover intention are different, that is, the effect of PO fit on TI is stronger than that of PS fit. The findings of this study indicated that PO mediated the relationship between PS fit and turnover intention. Since employees see managers as representatives of the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2002), the alignment of employees’ values with their managers will affect their value alignment with their organization, and this will shape their thoughts (or plans) about maintaining organizational membership. When employees perceive a high level of fit with their managers, their perception of fit with their organization increases (Astakhova, 2016; van Vianen et al., 2011), leading them to feeling connected to the mission of the organization, putting organizational benefits on top of personal interests, and being reluctant to leave the organization (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Based on the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), it can be said that individuals with high PS fit and PO fit in terms of value fits may have low turnover intention in order to protect PS fit and PO fit, which they see as valuable resources. As a matter of fact, according to the COR theory, when employees do not have sufficient resources or feel their resources are under threat, they evaluate whether there are available resources in the environment to eliminate this threat of resource. If employees do not have the resources to compensate for the loss of resources, PE fit decreases, and this negatively affects their general job attitudes. The findings obtained in the study show that PS, PJ and PO fits reduce their turnover intention by providing the resources they need to the employees. In addition, when we look at the literature, Wheeler et al. (2013) did not consider PS fit among the types of fit in their study, which they discussed in the context of COR theory. Furthermore, after examining the literature, we find that Wheeler et al. (2013) did not include PS fit among the forms of fit in their study, which they explored in the framework of the COR theory. In addition, they claimed that, in the context of the COR theory, the categories of PO fit, PJ fit, and PG fit are significant sources that affect positive work attitudes. On the other hand, this study contributed to the study of Wheeler et al. (2013) in this regard by confirming that PS fit within the context of the COR theory can also be a significant factor in terms of protecting resources and obtaining needed resources.
Second, our findings revealed that supervisors can apply further strategies for reducing employees’ turnover intentions, on the basis of their level of job fit. By increasing PJ fit, supervisors can strengthen the indirect effect of PS fit (via PO fit) on employees’ turnover intentions. Our findings confirmed that employees with a high job fit tend to stay in the organization and that their fit with their supervisor can affect their turnover intentions. This result supports that PJ fit is an important boundary condition in the indirect relationship between PS fit and turnover intention. This finding is important in terms of revealing a new boundary condition (i. e., PJ fit) that explains how PS fit affects the turnover intentions of employees through PO fit. Therefore, our moderated mediation findings are important in revealing the importance of examining multiple condition variables (i. e., PO fit and PJ fit) together when examining processes of fit.
From a managers’ perspective, results revealed that managers should notice the importance of PJ fit and PO fit, which can reduce employees’ turnover intentions. Turnover intention is considered to be a possible antecedent of quitting (Crossley et al., 2007; Griffeth et al., 2000; Krausz et al., 1995; Olaniyan & Hystad, 2016). In addition to its relationship with quitting, turnover intention is also associated with many organizational outputs. For example, turnover intention is negatively related to variables such as organizational identification (van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006), job satisfaction (Yücel & Koçak, 2018) and perceived organizational support (Treglown et al., 2018). For this reason, our findings can guide managers in reducing turnover intention within the framework of fit.
First, PO fit can mediate the relationship between PS fit and turnover intention. Although PS fit is the PE fit dimension (Oh et al., 2014) with the most significant effect on turnover intention, PO fit also has a considerable effect on employees’ turnover intentions (Chatman, 1991; Siyal et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2016; O’Reilly et al., 1991). According to Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model, individuals are more likely to be interested in organizations that are compatible with their personal characteristics and values to be selected by them to perform better in these organizations, and to stay in these organizations. According to the ASA model, job-seeking individuals base their perceptions of PO fit on the values of organizations and make employment choices based on these perceptions. For this reason, in order for an organization to attract the right people, it must convey its organizational values to the candidates accurately and clearly (Ostroff et al., 2005). At the selection stage, organizations try to identify the right candidate with formal and informal selection practices. Correct selection methods are critical in selecting the right people. For this reason, selecting individuals who are suitable for the values, goals and culture of the organization will increase the likelihood of these candidates remaining in the organization.
Second, managers can strengthen the indirect effect of PS fit on turnover intention (through PO fit) by increasing PJ fit. Because employees with a high job fit are more satisfied with their jobs, managers should take it into account in the recruitment, selection and hiring processes of human resources. The most important stage is determining whether individuals are suitable for the job is the recruitment phase (Sekiguchi, 2004). Although the ASA model suggests that attraction and selection will help eliminate candidates who do not fit the organization, it can be said that organizations also recruit according to job-related qualifications, as most selection techniques evaluate whether the candidate has the appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities for the job (Kristoff-Brown et al., 2005). Since PJ fit can be developed later, an individuals’ job fits can be improved by using certain strategies after recruitment. For example, thanks to Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) work design strategies (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback), individuals’ low job fits can be increased.
Finally, the findings of the study showed that the types of PE fit should be evaluated together, and it is important to provide perceptual fit of employees to the job, organization and manager/supervisor. At this point, it is important to describe the characteristics of the organization, the job, and the manager while keeping in mind the company values and objectives. Additionally, PE fit should be assessed by methods like surveys and interviews not only during the recruitment phase but also during the subsequent phases, and corrective actions should be carried out by taking into account the employee’s experience with non-fit. Therefore, long-term and permanent solutions should be prioritized instead of temporary ones by adopting systematic adaptation programs (Andela & van der Doef, 2019).
6. Limitations
Although the study has some theoretical and practical contributions, it also has several limitations. The first limitation is that the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow us to determine the direction of causality. For example, employees with high fit with their organization can inflate scores on the PS fit scale. Therefore, information about the direction of causality can be obtained through conducting studies with longitudinal designs in the future. Second, survey data being collected from participants at a single point in time may have led to a common method bias in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Although CFA results reveal the variables to have discriminant validity, this does not mean that there is no common method bias. Future studies may reduce the common method bias by collecting data about the participants’ fit with their managers, organizations and jobs at different times.
References
Abdalla, A., Elsetouhi, A., Negm, A., & Abdou, H. (2018). Perceived person-organization fit and turnover intention in medical centers: The mediating roles of person-group fit and person-job fit perceptions. Personnel Review, 47(4), 863–881. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2017-0085.
Afsar, B., Badir, Y., & Khan, M. M. (2015). Person–job fit, person–organization fit and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of innovation trust. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 26(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2015.09.001.
Akova, O., Cetin, G., & Cifci, İ. (2015). The Relation between Demographic Factors and the Turnover Intention in Pre-opening Hotel Businesses. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.177.
Andela, M., & van der Doef, M. (2019). A Comprehensive Assessment of the Person–Environment Fit Dimensions and Their Relationships with Work-related Outcome. Journal of Career Development, 46(5), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318789512.
Aslan, H. (2019). Mediating Role of Person–Oorganization Fit in Person–Job Fit’s Effect on Job Satisfaction. Osmaniye Korkut Ata University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 3(2), 275–284.
Astakhova, M. N. (2016). Explaining the Effects of Perceived Person–Supervisor Fit and Person–Organization Fit on Organizational Commitment in the US and Japan. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 956–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.039.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Boon, C., & Biron, M. (2016). Temporal Issues in Person–Organization Fit, Person–Job Fit and Turnover: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange. Human Relations, 69(12), 2177–2200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716636945.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross–Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Brkich, M.,Jeffs, D., & Carless, S.A. (2002). A Global Self–Report Measure of Person-Job Fit. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.18.1.43.
Bui, H.T.M., Zeng, Y., & Higgs, M. (2017). The Role of Person–Job Fit in The Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Job Engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(5), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2016-0144.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Subjective Fit Perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person–Environment Fit Theory and Organizations: Commensurate Dimensions, Time Perspectives, and Mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-X.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant Attraction to Organizations and Job Choice: A Meta–Analytic Review of the Correlates of Recruiting Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928
Chatman J. (1991). Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1991), 459–484. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393204.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person–Organization Fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/258171.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to Supervisor vs. Organizational Commitment: Relationships to Employee Performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902320369749.
Chhabra, B. (2015). Person–Job Fit: Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction & Organizational Commitment. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(4), 638–651.
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a Global Measure of Job Embeddedness and Integration into a Traditional Model of Voluntary Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1031–1042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1031.
Deniz, N., Noyan, A., & Ertosun, Ö. G. (2015). Linking Person–Job Fit to Job Stress: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Person–Organization Fit. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.107.
Duffy, R. D., Autin, K. L., & Bott, E. M. (2015). Work Volition and Job Satisfaction: Examining the Role of Work Meaning and Person–Environment Fit. The Career Development Quarterly, 63, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12009
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An Examination of Competing Versions of the Person-Environment Fit Approach to Stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/256782.
Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The Relationship between Person-Environment Fit and Outcomes: An Integrative Theoretical Framework. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 209–258). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The Value of Value Congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person–Environment Fit Theory: Conceptual Foundations, Empirical Evidence, and Directions for Future Research. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565.
Emiroğlu, B. D., Akova, O., & Tanrıverdi, H. (2015). The Relationship Between Turnover Intention and Demographic Factors in Hotel Businesses: A Study at Five Stars Hotels in Istanbul. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.108.
Esty, K., Griffin, R., & Hirsch, M.S. (1995). Workplace Diversity: A Manager’s Guide to Solving Problems and Turning Diversity into a Competitive Advantage. Avon, Massachusetts: Adams Media Corporation.
Falahat, M., Kit, G. S., & Min, L. C. (2019). A Model for Turnover Intention: Banking Industry in Malaysia. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2019.24.s2.6.
Farooqui, M. S., & Nagendra, A. (2014). The Impact of Person Organization Fit on Job Satisfaction and Performance of the Employees. Procedia Economics and Finance, 11, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00182-8.
Giao, H. N. K., Vuong, B. N., Huan, D. D. Tushar, H., & Quan, T. N. (2020). The Effect of Emotional Intelligence on Turnover Intention and the Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support: Evidence from the Banking Industry of Vietnam. Sustainability, 12, 1857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051857.
Greguras, G.J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different Fits Satisfy Different Needs: Linking Person-Environment Fit to Employee Commitment and Performance Using Self-Determination Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00182-8.
Griffeth R. W., Hom P. W., & Gaertner S. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00043-X.
Guay, R. P., Kim, Y.-J., Oh, I.-S., & Vogel, R. M. (2019). The Interaction Effects of Leader and Follower Conscientiousness on Person–Supervisor Fit Perceptions and Follower Outcomes: A Cross-level Moderated Indirect Effects Model. Human Performance, 32(3-4), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2019.1649677.
Hamstra, M.R.W., Van Vianen, A.E.M., & Koen, J. (2019). Does Employee Perceived Person–Organization Fit Promote Performance? The Moderating Role of Supervisor Perceived Person–Organization Fit. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), 594–601, https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1485734.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513
Huang, W., Yuan, C., & Li, M. (2019). Person–Job Fit and Innovation Behavior: Roles of Job Involvement and Career Commitment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1134, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01134.
Jin, M. H., McDonald, B., & Park, J. (2018). Person–Organization Fit and Turnover Intention: Exploring the Mediating Role of Employee Followership and Job Satisfaction through Conservation of Resources Theory. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(2) 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16658334.
Kerse, G., & Babadag, M. (2018). I’m Out if Nepotism is in: The Relationship between Nepotism, Job Standardization and Turnover Intention. EGE Academic Review, 18(4), 631–644, https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2018442992.
Khaola, P. P., & Sebotsa, T. (2015). Person–Organisation Fit, Organisational Commitment and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. Danish Journal of Management and Business Sciences, July, 67–74. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.1487700
Kılıç, K. C., & Yener, D. (2015). Birey-Örgüt ve Birey-Iş Uyumunun Çalışanların Iş Tutumlarına Etkisi: Adana Ilinde Bankacılık Sektöründe Çalışanlar Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(1), 161–174.
Kiazad, K., Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2014). Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Innovation: A Conservation of Resources Perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12062.
Kim, T.-Y., & Kim, M. (2013). Leaders’ Moral Competence and Employee Outcomes: The Effects of Psychological Empowerment and Person–Supervisor Fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1238-1.
Ko, M. C., & Campbell, J. W. (2021). Social Capital, Person–Organization Fit and Cynicism: A Multi-Stage Mediation Model of Turnover Intention in Public Organizations. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 43(4), 936–954. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2020-0237.
Koçak, D. (2018). Kişi–Örgüt Uyumu, Zorunlu Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı ve Lider–Üye Etkileşimi Ilişkisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(3), 1487–1508.
Koksal, K., Kara, A. U., & Meydan, C. H. (2018). The Effect of Person–Organization Fit on The Organizational Silence within The Ethical Value Context. Omer Halisdemir University Academic Review of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.305301
Krausz, M., Koslowsky, M., Shalom, N., & Elyakim, N. (1995). Predictors of Intentions to Leave The Ward, The Hospital, and The Nursing Profession: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160308.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person–Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of its Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived Applicant Fit: Distinguishing between Recruiters’ Perceptions of Person–Job and Person–Organization Fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00217.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/apbpp.2001.27461493
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between Employees’ Perceptions of Person–Job and Person–Organization Fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1807.
Liu, B., Liu, J., & Hu, J. (2010). Person-Organization Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intention: An Empirical Study in the Chinese Public Sector. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(5), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.5.615.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An Investigation into the Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in a Personal Selling Context. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251791.
O’Reilly C.A., Chatman J., & Caldwell D.F. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person–Organization Fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/256404.
Oh, I.-S., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J.-H., Heo, C.-G., & Shin, K.-H. (2014). Fit Happens Globally: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of the Relationships of Person–Environment Fit Dimensions with Work Attitudes and Performance Across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Personnel Psychology, 67, 99–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.2014.67.issue-1
Ostroff, C., Shin, Y., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Multiple Perspectives of Congruence: Relationships between Value Congruence and Employee Attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 591–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.33.
Ozkan, A. H., Elci, M., Karabay, M. E., Kitapci, H. & Garip, C. (2020). Antecedents of Turnover Intention: A Meta-Analysis Study in the United States. E&M Ekonomics and Management, 23(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2020-1-007.
Peng, J. C., Lee, Y. L., & Tseng, M. M. (2014). Person–Organization Fit and Turnover Intention: Exploring The Mediating Effect of Work Engagement and The Moderating Effect of Demand–Ability Fit. Journal of Nursing Research, 22(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.0000000000000019
Peng, Y., & Mao, C. (2015). The Impact of Person–Job Fit on Job Satisfaction: The Mediator Role of Self Efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), 805–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0659-x.
Peryön (2018, January 10). 2017-2018 yılı çalışan devir oranı araştırması. https://www.peryon.org.tr/upload/files/PERYO%CC%88N_C%CC%A7al%C4%B1s%CC%A7an_Devir_Oran%C4%B1_Sonuc%CC%A7_Raporu_2017-2018.pdf.
Phillips, J. J., & Connell, A. O. (2004). Managing Employee Retention. London: Routledge.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316.
Pudjiarti, E. S., & Hutomo, P. T. P. (2020). Innovative Work Behaviour: An Integrative Investigation of Person–Job Fit, Person–Organization Fit, and Person–Group Fit. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.9487
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A Longitudinal Investigation of The Relationships between Job Information Sources, Applicant Perceptions of Fit, and Work Outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 395–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00913.x.
Saleem, S., & Qamar, B. (2017). An Investigation of The Antecedents of Turnover Intentions and Job Hopping Behavior: An Empirical Study of Universities in Pakistan. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 6(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-05-2016-0046.
Schneider, B. (1987). The People Make the Place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x.
Suwanti, S., Udin, U., & Widodo, W. (2018). Person–Organization Fit, Person–Job Fit, and Innovative Work Behavior: The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. European Research Studies, 21, 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2015.09.001.
Sürgevil, O. (2008). Farklılık Kavramına Ve Farklılıkların Yönetimine Temel Oluşturan Sosyo-Psikolojik Kuramlar ve Yaklaşımlar. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(20), 111–124.
Tak, J. (2011). Relationships Between Various Person–Environment Fit Types and Employee Withdrawal Behavior: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.11.006.
Treglown, L., Zivkov, K., Zarola, A., & Furnham, A. (2018). Intention To Quit and The Role of Dark Personality and Perceived Organizational Support: A Moderation and Mediation Model. PloS One, 13(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195155
Ugwu, F. O., & Onyishi, I. E. (2020). The Moderating Role of Person-Environment Fit on The Relationship between Perceived Workload and Work Engagement among Hospital Nurses. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences, 13, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijans.2020.100225.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational Identification versus Organizational Commitment: Self‐Definition, Social Exchange, and Job Attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.359.
Van Vianen, A. E., Shen, C. T., & Chuang, A. (2011). Person–Organization and Person–Supervisor Fits: Employee Commitments in a Chinese Context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 906–926. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.726.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00036-2.
Walsh, J. P., Ashford, S. J., & Hill, T. E. (1985). Feedback Obstruction: The Influence of the Information Environment on Employee Turnover Intentions. Human Relations, 38, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503800102.
Weisberg, J. (1993). Gender and Turnover: A Re-examination of the Impact of Sex on Intent and Actual Job Changes. Human Relations, 46(8), 987–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600805
Wen, T., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., & Tang, G. (2018). Factors Influencing Turnover Intention among Primary Care Doctors: A Cross-Sectional Study in Chongqing, China. Human Resources for Health, 16(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-018-0274-z.
Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Shanine, K. (2013). Exploring The Middle Range of Person-Environment Fit Theories Through A Conservation of Resources Perspective. In A. L. Kristof-Brown & J. Billsberry (Eds.), Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions (pp. 170–194). Wiley-Blackwell.
Wong, C. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (2017). Job Crafting: Older Workers’ Mechanism for Maintaining Person–Job Fit. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1548, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01548.
Yanfei, W., Xiaoxia, Y., Nan, S. & Xiling, Z. (2010). Mediating Effect of Person-Organization Fit on The Relationship between Organizational Socialization and Employee Performance. In The 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Engineering (pp. 2918–2921). https://doi.org/10.1109/icise.2010.5689308
Yücel, I., & Koçak, D. (2018). Mediating Effect of Burnout on The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave: A Study in the Health Sector. Manas Journal of Social Studies, 7(2), 297–321.
Zhang, J., Ling, W., Zhang, Z., & Xie, J. (2015). Organizational Commitment, Work Engagement, Person–Supervisor Fit, and Turnover Intention: A Total Effect Moderation Model. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43(10), 1657–1666. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.10.1657.
Zhang, M., Yan, F., Wang, W., & Li, G. (2017). Is The Effect of Person-Organization Fit on Turnover Intention Mediated by Job Satisfaction? A Survey of Community Health Workers in China. BMJ Open, 7(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013872.