Approaches to Managing People in Organizations: Person-Job Fit vs. Person-Organization Fit - Research Paper Example

Person-Job Fit vs. Person-Organization Fit: What should you focus on during hiring and selection? Roll No: Teacher: 9th November 2008 University Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Person-Job Fit 4 Person-Organization Fit 5 What should be focused? 7 Reasons of Selection 9 Conclusion 11 References 11 Person- Job Fit vs. Person-Organization Fit: What should you focus on during hiring and selection Introduction The administrations and management of an organization hire or recruit candidates on the basis of many criteria for selection. The individuals are assessed in terms of their fitness for the organization and their fitness for the job for which, they are going to be hired. Person-job fit and person-organization fit are two concepts that are adopted by employers to hire, recruit or select people for their organizations. Both the criteria for selection and recruiting are helpful for the interviewers to evaluate the capabilities of the potential candidate. The concept of person-job fit is employed by the employers while appraising a potential candidate for the organization and for a specific job. This criterion accommodates the management or administration to evaluate the skills of a candidate on the basis of his/her affectability for a job (McClelland and Burnham 2003). In this approach, the candidate is assessed against job requirements. His/her capabilities, acquired knowledge and expertise should match up with the job for which, he/she is going to be hired (Katzenbach and Smith 2005). The relation of candidate with the organizational environment is considered secondary. The concept of person-organization fit is employed by the employers while appraising a potential candidate for the organization as a whole entity. This criterion accommodates the management or administration to evaluate the skills of a candidate on the basis of his/her affectability for the organization (Cherniss and Goleman 2001). In this approach, the candidate is assessed against organizational value. His/her capabilities, acquired knowledge and expertise should match up with the organization, which is going to hire him/her (Keeney, et. al 2006). According to my knowledge, person-organization fit should be preferred over person-job fit while interviewing a candidate. Person-organization fit accommodates the managers and administrators to appraise a person on a broader scale. In this paper, the answer to the question about what should be focused on during hiring and selecting is answered by means of quantitative research, as the writings of earlier writers are assessed in terms of their preferred criterion for selection. Person-job fit is described initially, after description of person-job fit, person-organization fit is described. After description of both concepts that are used for hiring and recruiting candidates, the preferred option is described and its reasons for selection are provided and lastly, the topic is concluded. Person-Job Fit Conventionally, people are selected and hired in a job on the basis of their fitness for a specific job (Charan 2007). Therefore, the concept of a person as person-job fit is a not a new concept but can be regarded as an old phenomenon. Still, nowadays, people are hired and selected on the basis of their suitability for a specific job (Becker, et. al 2001). The interviewing process and assessment of a particular individual is done in terms of the job that he/she is going to get and once, he/she appears according to the demands of the job, he/she is hired. In other case, the person is rejected considering no extraordinary features of him/her. If the demands of the job and the abilities of a person match, that person is regarded as person-job fit (McClelland and Burnham 2003). There are certain criteria for hiring, selecting or prioritizing a person for a specific job according to the person-job fit concept (Wood, et. al 2003). A statistical analysis is performed for selecting a person. On the other hand, people are also judged as fit for a job by the legal obligations and job selection criteria fixed by the management of an organization. An organization hires a person if he/she is able to fulfill the needs of the organization by means of the supplies or the services that he/she can supply (Cherniss and Goleman 2001). On the other hand, an individual is selected on the basis of his/her abilities through which, he/she is able to fulfill the demands of the employers (Parker 2000). Person-job fit is a concept that is of mutual benefit. The hired person is one who meets the demands of the employers or is able to provide the needful. It is a sort of mutual relationship between demand and supply (Herzberg 2003). In the concept of person-job fit, the environment of an organization in relation to the person, who is going to be hired, is considered secondary (Gray 2007). The features of awareness about specific information, expertise and eligibilities can be comprehended as demands of a job while the eligibility can be considered in terms of acquired knowledge, educational qualification, practical experience and the personal capabilities of a person (Henningsen, et. al 2000). People are selected as fit for a specific job by means of their submitted curriculum vitae, which carries detailed information about their capabilities, interests, objectives, educational qualification, experience details and other relevant details (Lewicki and Hiam 2006). After evaluation of curriculum vitae, interviewing and testing are performed to select a person on the basis of his/her fitness related to a job (Keeney, et. al 2006). Person-Organization Fit People are also selected by employers on the basis of their fitness in relation to the hiring organization. A person’s compatibility is assessed in relation to the working of an organization (Lewicki and Hiam 2006). Organizations prefer the individuals who have matching capabilities in relation to the organization while hiring employees (Becker, et. al 2001). For example, a marketing company will select an employee who is capable enough to do strong marketing and is strong in administering marketing activities, which is a specialty of the organization. In the concept of person-organization fit, the employers emphasize on developing a strong team for their organizational expansion and prosperity and only those individuals are allowed to be hired who have matching objectives in relation to the organization (McClelland and Burnham 2003). The employees are hired or selected under the concept of person-organization fit on the basis of several criteria (Herzberg 2003). A person who is selected should have similar values as that of the organization; he/she should have the same objectives as that of the organizational management or administration; he/she and the organization should proceed in the direction of the organizational progress and should have the same priorities as the organization has and the person who is going to be selected by the organization should have such attributes that match up with the organizational environment (Cherniss and Goleman 2001). There must be an existence of resemblance or connection between the organization and the hired person (McCoy 2007). The curriculum vitae and other details of an individual are assessed in relation to the organization as a whole. Testing and interviewing are also there to assess a person’s appropriateness and aptness for an organization and not for a job (Rashid, et. al 2004). The hired person and the organization should form a relationship in which, they are able to move in the same direction with similar ambitions and objectives and both are required to facilitate each other in progress and achievement (Livingston 2003). While interviewing and testing, the employers try to figure out those properties and attributes of the candidate that are according to the organizational needs as a whole (Becker, et. al 2001). Only those persons are appointed or hired who match up with the organizational criteria while suitability of a person for a job is considered secondary. The employee is expected to show his/her affectability for the organization (Gray 2007). For example, a reputable person in market that is working in a company and is willing to do a job in another company is hired not because of his/her personal attributes but because of his/her affectability for the new company. With such a person, the company will gain help in building their reputation more. What should be focused? In different job environments, different types of concepts are employed for hiring or selecting specific candidates for a job. Person-job fit and person-organization fit are such phenomena that are important methods of evaluating candidates for their appropriateness for a certain job (McClelland and Burnham 2003). Some employers emphasize the employment of person-job fit concept because they consider it suitable according to the job needs of their specified position of job while other employers make use of person-organization fit concept for hiring employees (Cherniss and Goleman 2001). It is noticed that most of the employers select people on the basis of their fitness for a particular job and the criterion for assessing the candidates on the basis of presence of similarities between the organization and the individual is employed lesser as compared to person-job fit (Wood, et. al 2003). It is being informed that with the employment of the concept of person-job fit, there are many encouraging features involved which include the employees’ satisfaction with the job, reduced strain on the employees related to job, encouragement of employees and flexible working of the employees (Becker, et. al 2001). As the employees are hired on the basis of job specification and the match up of their qualifications and abilities with the job, employees show better performance and are fully aware of their tasks that they have to perform (Herzberg 2003). As far as the concept of person-organization fit is concerned, there are also many encouraging features involved such as employee’s satisfaction with the organization and their working, group functioning and presence of dedication and devotion with the organization (Wood, et. al 2003). The employees are hired on the basis of their appropriateness for the organization as a whole due to which, the employees’ performance is assessed with the performance of the organization as a whole (Henningsen, et. al 2000). An individual is not considered as an individual but part of a team or group and whole group is assessed in terms of effectiveness and value (Towler 2003). Employees association with the job and their specification with a specific job are considered more appropriate and convincing by many organizations (Wood, et. al 2003). It is also seen that at many places and in many organizations, person-job fit criteria is adopted for hiring and selecting suitable candidates for a job because of the affectability of the concept and because of the particular features in association to job (McClelland and Burnham 2003). Because of awareness with specific jobs, employees are recruited in places where they appear most suitable and they show improved and dedicated performance because of their experience and acquired knowledge in the same field (Roberts 2004). The outcomes of adoption of person-job fit concept are enough positive because employees are more facilitated with the category of job, they require. They are assessed individually and are encouraged with proper measures from the employer’s side (McCoy 2007). However, the critics regard person-organization fit concept as more fruitful because with person-job fit, the employers are required to consider the hiring process with different job specifications and are required to assess the candidates with particular details concerning a job (Zakaria, et. al 2004). On the other hand, the adopters of person-organization fit only have to analyze the effectiveness of a candidate in relation to the organization as a whole and they are not required to assess the candidates according to multiple criteria for hiring and selection (Cherniss and Goleman 2001). According to my perception, the concept of person-organization fit should be adopted, as the person is not selected for a specific job but to be facilitated as a part of a large group. The hired employee is assessed in terms of his/her effectiveness and performance in relation to team work and group activity. The employee is not restricted to remain with a specific job (Henningsen, et. al 2000). The nature of his/her job can change with diversity in the organization. It is also seen that people form a more positive commitment with the organization that has hired or selected them on the basis of the concept of person-organization fit (Gray 2007). The person-organization fit should be focused because of the high performance effectiveness of the concept. The hired employee is not only an individual but part of a large group in which, his/her efficiency counts according to his/her performance with the group (Herzberg 2003). The opted employee is fully aware of the objectives and aims of the organization and supports the organization in attaining those objectives and aims (George and Jones 2005). While interviewing and testing, individual should be considered keeping in view the concept of person-organization fit because the employee that is going to be hired will be effective for not only a specific task but for the whole organization (Gray 2007). Reasons of Selection There are many reasons for the selection of concept of person-organization fit. Person-organization fit is a concept that accommodates the employers to set only one criterion for allocation of jobs to the employees (Ashkenas, et. al 2002). The employers only check the compatibility of a would-be employee by interviewing, assessment of curriculum vitae and resume details and testing the skills of the employee in relation to the organization as a whole (McClelland and Burnham 2003). While adopting the concept of person-job fit, the employer has to set various job specifications for different hiring or selection procedures of different individuals (George and Jones 2005). People who are hired on the basis of their affectability to the organization are much more effective, as they are not assessed individually but as a representative of a large group (McCoy 2007). The criteria for evaluation of the capabilities in relation to the organizational capabilities is considered much more easier, as the management of the organization is not required to assess the candidate on the basis of a detailed job specification, the organization just has to opt for a person that is going to be a part of the team. The person’s affectability in relation to the organization as a team is analyzed (Wood, et. al 2003). Group working or team working is always considered fruitful because the group members facilitate each other in performing tasks (Becker, et. al 2001). An individual is hired on the basis of his/her efficacy in a group working. As people have to become a part of a larger group, they are satisfied with their jobs (Gray 2007). It is also informed that group working gives fruitful results, as people in a group are a source of motivation and encouragement for each other. The concept of person-organization fit is also advantageous because there is increased commitment between the hired professionals and the organization (Henningsen, et. al 2000). The concept of person-organization fit should be preferred over the concept of person-job fit because there is an existence of competition between the employees, which results in higher performance rate. While hiring and selecting, the employers and the administration of an organization select and hire only those candidates that show the capabilities to fulfill the needs of the organization (Cherniss and Goleman 2001). Only those candidates are selected who have potential and strength regarding the development and welfare of the organization. With the help of adopting the concept of person-organization fit, the managers are able to select the most appropriate candidates for their organization by taking support of interviewing and testing (Herzberg 2003). Through interviewing, the managers are facilitated to assess the capabilities of the interviewees’ by means of their criteria regarding person-organization fit (McClelland and Burnham 2003). The hired people are evaluated in a broader scale. It is analyzed that the turnover rate of the employees selected and hired by means of adopting the concept of person-organization fit is quite high as compared to the hired employees through the concept of person-job fit (Ayoko 2007). The person’s reliability and validity is assessed in association to the organizational structure (Ashkenas, et. al 2002). Therefore, the concept of person-organization fit should be focused in place of person-job fit while hiring and recruiting new candidates in the organization because of the consideration of the candidates on a higher level. Conclusion After the assessment of the criteria for hiring and selecting candidates while interviewing and testing, it is clear that person-organization fit should be focused on, as it results in a team of members that are efficient in performance and work as a team. Team is always considered as more productive as compared to an individual, so person-organization fit is much more fruitful and advantageous for the managers to consider. When managers keep into focus the person-job fit criteria, they are required to identify and apply different criteria, as different people have different job specifications, while hiring or recruiting by taking help of person-organization fit, the employers are required to make only one criteria and that is organizational similarities with the recruited candidate. References McCoy, B. H 2007, “The Parable of the Sadhu” (HBR Classic), Harvard Business Review, May. Becker, Brian E; Huselid, Mark A. and Ulrich, David 2001, The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy and Performance, Harvard Business School Press. Cherniss, Cary and Goleman, Daniel 2001, The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to select for, measure and Improve Emotional Intelligence in individuals, groups and organizations, Jossey – Bass. McClelland, David C. and Burnham, David H 2003, “Power is the Great Motivator” (HBR Classic) Harvard Business Review, January. Henningsen, D. D; Cruz, M. G. and Miller M. L 2000, “Role of Social Loafing in Predeliberation Decision Making,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4, no. 2 June, pp. 168–75. Herzberg, Frederick 2003, “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees’” (HBR Classic), Harvard Business Review, January. Gray, Roderic, 2007, A climate of success: creating the right organization climate for high performance, Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam. Wood, Jack; Wallace, Joseph and Zeffane, Rachid M. 2003, Organizational Behaviour: A global Perspective, (3rd ed.), John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd., Milton Qld. George, Jennifer M. and Jones, Gareth R 2005, Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviour, (4th ed.), Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Roberts, John 2004, The Modern Firm: Organizational Design for Performance and Growth, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K 2005, “The Discipline of Teams” (HBR Classic), Harvard Business Review, July. Livingston, J.S 2003, “Pygmalion in Management” (HBR Classic), Harvard Business Review, January. Towler, J 2003, “Effects of Charismatic Influence Training on Attitudes, Behavior, and Performance,” Personnel Psychology 56, pp. 363–81. Parker, Martin 2000, Organizational Culture and Identity: Unity and Division at Work, SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi. Rashid, Md Zabid Abdul; Sambasivam, Murali and Rahman, Azmawani Abdul 2004, “The influence of Organizational Culture on attitude towards Organizational Change, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 25(2). Nicholson, N 1998, “How Hardwired Is Human Behavior?” Harvard Business Review, July–August, pp. 135–47. Zakaria, N.; Amelinckx, A. and Wilemon, D 2004, “Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams,” Creativity and Innovation Management, March, pp 15–29. Ayoko, Oluremi B 2007, “Communication openness, Conflict Events and reactions to conflict in Culturally Diverse Workgroups, Cross-Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol.14 (2). Keeney, R. L.; Raiffa, H. and Hammond, J.S 2006, “The Hidden Traps in Decision-Making” (HBR Classic) Harvard Business Review, January. Charan, Ram 2007, Leaders at All Levels: Deepening Your Talent Pool to Solve the Succession Crisis, Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ashkenas, Ron; Ulrich, Dave; Jick, Todd and Kerr, Steve 2002, The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure, Jossey Bass. Lewicki, Roy J. and Hiam, Alexander 2006, Mastering Business Negotiation: A Working Guide to Making Deals and Resolving Conflict, Jossey Bass. Read More