A QUANTITATIVE REVIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSON–ORGANIZATION FIT AND BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES

By Brian J. Hoffman, D. Woehr. 2006

750 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e81550c100d1d7341ea0b1066a21916e4ced11d4

How researchers see this paper

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

In Gender Studies

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Sex, Gender, and Decisions at the Family → Work Interface (2010, background): “Predictors of intentions or behavior include individual-level variables such as personality traits (Zimmerman, 2008), organization-level variables such as human resources practices (Batt & Valcour, 2003), and interactions between the two such as person–organization fit (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006).”
Person-Environment Fit and Public Service Motivation (2008, methodology): “[2003]) and behavioral outcomes (see also Hoffman and Woehr [2006] who, in a meta-study, report on the effect of Person-Organization fit on actual behavior [e.”
Employability and Career Success: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Reality (2013, background): “…to work hard and leave, even if they can do the job well (Edwards & Cable, 2009); poor fit is also associated with lower job satisfaction, which decreases task performance (Arthur et al., 2006; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006) and increases counterproductive work behaviors (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006).”
Values and person‐organization fit: Does moral intensity strengthen outcomes? (2011, background): “Consistent with Chatman’s (1989) definition, most empirical research has focused on the values component of P-O fit (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006).”
Person–Organization Fit and Turnover Intention: Exploring the Mediating Role of Employee Followership and Job Satisfaction Through Conservation of Resources Theory (2016, background): “Given that P-O fit is linked to both attitudinal (Verquer et al., 2003, offer a meta-analysis) as well as behavioral outcomes (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006), understanding the relational nature of work behaviors and attitudes may help clarify the process through which employees’ intention to turnover is…”
Person-Organization Fit and Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Employee Engagement (2014, positive): “Value congruence refers to the similarity of values of both the employee and the organization (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown, 1996).”
Person–organization fit, perceived organizational support, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of job embeddedness (2016, neutral): “…(Chatman, 1989; Valentine, Godkin, & Lucero, 2002), better work attitudes (Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003), greater performance ratings (Goodman & Svyantek, 1999; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991), and lower staff turnover (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).”
Clarifying the Relationship Between Public Service Motivation and In-Role and Extra-Role Behaviors: The Relative Contributions of Person-Job and Person-Organization Fit (2017, background): “Insights into the relative importance of the person-job and person-organization fits are, however, scarce as only a few studies have simultaneously studied multiple types of fit (B. J. Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).”
Person–organization fit: Testing socialization and attraction–selection–attrition hypotheses (2009, neutral): “…at ScienceDirect Journal of Vocational Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / jvb organizational commitment and with behaviors such as organizational citizenship, turnover, and performance (e.g. Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).”