Subjective person–organization fit: Bridging the gap between conceptualization and measurement

193 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The influence of age on the associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A meta‐analysis (2010, unknown): “Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton, and Swart (2005), for instance, found that workers with different needs respond differently to the HR practices they experience, and that this is linked to their affective commitment (see also needs-supplies ﬁt; Piasentin & Chapman, 2006).”
The Relationships among Servant Leadership , Organizational Citizenship Behavior , Person-Organization Fit , and Organizational Identification (2010, background): “Person-Organization Fit Scholars who have focused on person-organization fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Piasentin & Chapman, 2006) have distinguished the concept in several ways.”
Development of a Multidimensional Instrument of Person–Environment Fit: The Perceived Person–Environment Fit Scale (PPEFS) (2016, background): “In a review regarding the conceptualisation and measurement of perceived PO fit, Piasentin and Chapman (2006) called for future research to focus on clearly measuring different characteristics of fit, such as values and goals.”