Analysis of Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit - Assignment Example

?Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit-- review Summary Person-environment interaction is a well researched topic in the literature of management. To present date this subject invokes interest among researchers. The paper by Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson titled “Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit” offers a meta analysis on the relationship that have been observed between the variables namely, person–job (PJ), person–organization (PO), person–group, and person–supervisor fit with the variables viz. pre-entry and post-entry individual-level criteria. This paper contains information collected from a series of published articles, presentations from different conferences, working papers and dissertation projects. Unpublished works and in-press research works are also a part of data collection for this paper. Strengths The meta-analysis is conducted after considering a large collection of resources and keeping aside certain aspects of the variables as exclusions. One can find noteworthy heterogeneity in the process of conceptualizing and measuring the fit. This comes from a thorough understanding of the fit’s impact on individual level outcomes. In the later part of this paper, an underlying principle, drawn from the existing theories, has been provided for the conceptual and methodological issues. It is expected that these issues would moderate the relationships between fit-outcome. The meta analyses, the criteria and moderator analyses for the four kinds of fit are represented in a well structured tabular form. This makes it easy to study the outcomes and make a comparison among the results. Weaknesses This paper is a qualitative review of literature existing on person-interaction fit. However, the relationships cannot be flawlessly captured by running polynomial regression. Besides, in metadata analysis measurement errors remain due to lack of reliability of measurement of fits. The paper does not contain any first hand data or primary research. Nor does it contain any raw data collected and analyzed. It is rather a survey of literatures and quantification of the information gathered. Above all methodological flaws do exist in the studies considered. For instance, the reliabilities for the variables were not reported and not corrected for measurement error. Again, polynomial regression does not support fit analysis at times. Practically no research has been conducted on validation of multidimensional approaches. Suggestions for improvement Criteria leading to the results of the meta analysis are found to have been predicted by the different sorts of relationships in person-environment interaction. These relationships are subject to change with continuous flow of modernization. Thus these relationships would not adhere to the symmetrical notions of good fit. Hence this research can be revisited after exploring the individuals’ cognitive schemas. More attention could be focused on other dimensions of fit which are unexplored. This could include the different types of PG and PS fit along with the types of PO fit. The idea of taking fit as a dependent variable also needs to be reconsidered. Knowledge sharing, organizational climate, and innovative behavior: cross-level analysis of effects Yu, Yu and Yu (2013) have presented their paper titled “Knowledge sharing, organizational climate, and innovative behavior: cross-level analysis of effects” with the purpose of investigating behavior of employees, interaction among the employees and their level of knowledge and the climate of innovation in the organization. Primary research has been conducted for the methodology of research. Through the study, it has been discovered that there is a positive a positive relationship between the climate of organizational behavior and innovative behavior. There were two levels of instrument for the collection of data; the individual level instrument and the organizational level instrument. The relationship among three variables was examined in this paper; knowledge sharing, innovation climate within the organization and innovative behavior at the individual level as well as the organizational level. Strengths The research paper entails first hand data through primary survey at firm level and individual level. The questionnaire items are clearly divided and put up in tabular format. The number of samples of response received from 33 companies (403 copies) is adequate to make a generalization. The study identified the literature gap and chose a specific industry for analyzing the relation between the chosen variables. Weaknesses The first weakness is that the relation cannot be generalized to cover other industries since the study is industry specific. Secondly, only 33 out of the 37 companies responded back. Thirdly, telephonic or email interviews does not always guarantee authenticity since there is always a change of group effect and influence in answering the questions. Face to face discussions are always more reliable. Fourthly, nothing is said in this article about ethical considerations during the interviews or primary research. Fifthly, the organizational level and individual level issues are treated at a single level through Hierarchical Linear Modeling, which should not be the case and they should have been treated differently. Suggestions for improvement Along with cross sectional data, a time series analysis could have been undertaken to make the results more applicable and generalized or to study the time gaps. This could be done with the help of a panel data regression analysis. Also, with a proper time frame, the surveys could be partly carried out on face to face basis. The study could also be based on a specific state and cover few industries in order to capture the industrial differences in the relationship between knowledge sharing, innovation climate within the organization and innovative behavior at the individual level as well as the organizational level. Literature Review Several works by various authors have been reviewed in the current paper. The paper by Holub published in 2003 has demonstrated that speedy transfer of knowledge through sharing helps to enhance the individuals’ thinking capabilities and makes them more creative. Mumford has argued in his paper, published in 2000, that individual innovative behavior gets affected by three factors, individual, group and organization. The important suggestion by Cabrera and Cabrera in their 2005 paper is that a sense of security and an atmosphere in which the employees never criticism without valid reason boosts the innovative thinking abilities of the employees. Hypotheses There are three hypotheses made in this paper. These are listed in this section. The first hypothesis (H1) is that “knowledge sharing would significantly affect innovative behavior” (Yu, Yu and Yu, 2013, p. 145). The second hypothesis (H2) is that “organizational innovation climate would significantly affect innovative behavior” (Yu, Yu and Yu, 2013, p. 146). The third hypothesis (H3) is that “organizational innovation climate would moderate the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovative behavior” (Yu, Yu and Yu, 2013, p. 147). Method The methodology adopted for this research was survey. Data was collected about the relationships among three variables; knowledge sharing, innovation climate within the organization and innovative behavior at the individual level as well as the organizational level. Hierarchical Linear Modeling was used for the analysis. For each variable distinct questions have been constructed. The questions are mentioned below: For knowledge sharing there were six items. The pattern of questions has been taken from the works of Bartol & Srivastava, Fong & Wu and Huang & Tsai. The responses of each item listed under each of the three instruments was measured on a five point Likert scale, with the measures ranging from “strongly disagree” equivalent to 1 to “strongly agree” equivalent to 5. Sample 37 “public financial and insurance companies” (Yu, Yu and Yu, 2013, p. 149) based in Taiwan were contacted over the telephone and invited to participate in the survey. Out of them 33 companies agreed to take part in the study. Copies of survey questionnaire were distributed to the thirty three companies and four hundred and thirty copies were returned back. 403 copies were found to have valid responses and these were considered for analysis. Results, conclusion and discussion The results show that knowledge sharing has put significant effect on innovative behavior by employees. Thus H1 is supported. Secondly, organizational innovation climate has direct influence on employee innovative behavior; with this H2 is verified. However, no significant interaction has been found between climate of organizational innovation and knowledge sharing. Thus H3 is not supported. The discussion in this paper reveals the lesson that management personnel “in the finance and insurance industry” (Yu, Yu and Yu, 2013, p. 153) of Taiwan should realize the significance of organizational innovation climate and strengthen employees’ perception about knowledge sharing. Managers should encourage the employees to put forth their ideas and bring about innovation. Organizational innovation ambience did not reveal any obvious effect on knowledge sharing and innovative behavior of individuals. Conclusion The main strength of this study is that the analysis of data has been very clearly presented and specific involving first hand information. Two of the three hypotheses have been supported by the findings from the study. One limitation of this study is that only thirty three public companies have taken part in the study out of the thirty seven chosen companies. For a better survey, more samples have to be collected and diverse variables have to be included into the research. The study provides a simple analysis of the three variables (knowledge sharing, innovation climate within the organization and innovative behavior at the individual level as well as the organizational level) in the finance industry of Taiwan. Hence it is only the starting point for more complex analysis which might be undertaken to cover other industries and states to generalize the findings. References 1. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D. and 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, pp. 281-342. 2. Yu, C. Yu, T. and Yu, C. (2013), Knowledge sharing, organizational climate, and innovative behavior: cross-level analysis of effects, Social behavior and personality, 41(1), pp. 143-146. Read More