The Use of Person-Organization Fit in Employment Decision Making: An Assessment of Its Criterion-Related Validity

Because measures of person-organization (P-O) fit are accountable to the same psychometric and legal standards used for other employment tests when they are used for personnel decision making, the authors assessed the criterion-related validity of P-O fit as a predictor of job performance and turnover. Meta-analyses resulted in estimated true criterion-related validities of .15 (k ϭ 36, N ϭ 5,377) for P-O fit as a predictor of job performance and .24 (k ϭ 8, N ϭ 2,476) as a predictor of turnover, compared with a stronger effect of .31 (k ϭ 109, N ϭ 108,328) for the more commonly studied relation between P-O fit and work attitudes. In contrast to the relations between P-O fit and work attitudes, the lower 95% credibility values for the job performance and turnover relations included zero. In addition, P-O fit's relations with job performance and turnover were partially mediated by work attitudes. Potential concerns pertaining to the use of P-O fit in employment decision making are discussed in light of these results. Keywords: person-organization fit, personnel selection, criterion-related validity, job performance, turnover Using meta-analytic procedures, the primary objective of this article is to investigate the criterion-related validity of personorganization (P-O) fit as a predictor of job performance and turnover. The construct of P-O fit originates from interactional psychology, which assumes that behavior is caused by the continuous interaction between the person and the environment Although there are many types of fit, including person-team (group) fit, person-vocation fit, and person-job fit (see In brief, we argue that although P-O fit may predict work attitudes P-O Fit and Work Attitudes Kristof (1996) defined P-O fit as "the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at least one entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c) both" (p. 45)

Relating Ability and Personality to the Efficacy and Performance of Dyadic Teams

We examined the extent to which member ability and personality relate to differences in team performance and team efficacy in a task setting that simulated the high degree of role interdependence and human-technology interaction found in many military contexts. 168 male participants were assigned to dyadic teams and trained for two weeks to learn and perform a complex computer task that simulated the demands of a dynamic aviation environment. Participants also completed measures of general mental ability, psychomotor ability, and the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability). Team performance and team efficacy were assessed multiple times throughout training. Results indicated that ability was a critical determinant of both performance and efficacy, and personality traits yielded an incremental contribution to both performance and efficacy. In particular, psychomotor ability and conscientiousness were the strongest and most consistent factors associated with team effectiveness.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

The Use of Mobile Devices in High-stakes Remotely Delivered Assessments and Testing

With Internet access no longer restricted to desktop and laptop computers, job applicants now have the opportunity to complete remotely delivered assessments on mobile, handheld small screen devices such as smartphones, and personal digital assistants. In this study, a large dataset is used to investigate demographic and score differences between job applicants who completed a remotely delivered high-stakes assessment on a mobile device and those who completed it on a nonmobile device. Based on a sample of 3,575,207 job applicants who completed an unproctored Internet-based assessment between January 2011 and April 2012, the percentage of applicants completing the assessment on a mobile device was small, 1.93%, but nevertheless represented more than 69,000 people. Overall, there were small test-taker demographic differences in the use of mobile devices versus nonmobile devices in that mobile devices were slightly more likely to be used by women, AfricanAmericans and Hispanics, and younger applicants. Scores on a personality measure were similar for mobile and nonmobile devices but scores on a general mental ability test were substantially lower for mobile devices. Tests of measurement invariance also indicated equivalence across the mobile and nonmobile samples. Test taker and organizational implications for completing remotely delivered high-stakes noncognitive and cognitive assessments on mobile versus nonmobile devices are discussed