Crafting Narratives of Fit Revision 1

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT
REINTERPRETING TIME IN FIT THEORY: CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT IN MEDIAS RES
Abbie J. Shipp Texas A&M University
Karen J. Jansen University of Virginia
Author Note: The authors would like to thank Jeff Edwards, Ramona Paetzold, Murray Barrick, Tom Bateman, Scott Sonenshein, Brian Dineen, Lisa Lambert, Yitzhak Fried, Gareth Jones, Rianna Jansen, Brad Shipp, and participants in the CORE seminar at the University of Virginia for their feedback during the development of this paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (Los Angeles, CA), April 2005, and the 64th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (Honolulu, HI), August 2005. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to the first author at ashipp@tamu.edu.
REINTERPRETING TIME IN FIT THEORY: CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT IN MEDIAS RES
ABSTRACT A temporal review of the fit literature highlights that most person-environment fit research is contemporaneous. Drawing on narrative theory from various disciplines, we propose a model that explains how individuals craft and recraft stories of fit in medias res, in the middle of things. These fit narratives demonstrate how individuals understand and react to their fit experiences over time through the effects of two temporal mechanisms and time-related individual and situational influences that strengthen or weaken these mechanisms.
KEYWORDS: person-environment fit; time; temporal; perceptions; narrative
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT Whoever wishes to see the world truly, to rise in thought above the tyranny of practical desires, must learn to overcome the difference of attitude towards past and future, and to survey the whole stream of time in one comprehensive vision. (Russell, 1929, p. 22) Person-environment (PE) fit theory asserts that the congruence between individual characteristics (e.g., needs, abilities, or values) and environmental characteristics (e.g., job supplies, job demands, or organizational values) is an important predictor of attitudes and behaviors such as satisfaction, commitment, and turnover (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Although substantial empirical developments have been made to support this
claim, theoretical advancement in the fit domain has been limited (Edwards, 2008). In fact, many of the conceptual distinctions in the fit literature (e.g., objective versus subjective versus perceived fit), are largely methodological choices (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). The lack of theorizing is especially apparent in the temporal domain, where fit research has remained largely silent on the topic for more than a quarter of a century (cf., Caplan, 1983; Brousseau, 1983), despite a resurgence of interest in temporal perceptions (e.g., Ancona, Okhuysen, & Perlow, 2001; Bluedorn, 2002; George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James, 2001). In fact, with few exceptions (e.g., Ellis & Tsui, 2007; Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007; Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995), PE fit theory has remained predominantly contemporaneous, overlooking the temporal context in which current PE fit is situated and in which individuals form their perceptions of fit as the fit process unfolds over time. Such a contemporaneous view is problematic for two reasons. First, fit experiences are inherently dynamic (Lewin, 1943), because various types of fit (e.g., person-job fit; personorganization fit; person-supervisor fit; or person-group fit), evolve over time when individuals and aspects of their environments change (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006). But if researchers capture only current fit, we are unable to see how individuals interpret and react to these
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT dynamic elements, and can only tell a portion of the story of an individuals fit experience. As
such, fit theory fails to explain why some individuals may make decisions or behave in a manner that is inconsistent with their current perception of fit, such as when those who fit today choose to leave, and those who misfit today choose to stay (Kristof-Brown & Jansen, 2007). Second, ignoring the temporal context in which fit perceptions occur neglects how context can define experience (Johns, 2006; Kozlowski, 2009; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Individuals do not perceive PE fit with a tabula rasa. Instead, fit perceptions are temporally situated to incorporate an individuals past experiences with and future expectations of fit. For example, at any given moment, different individuals in the same organization and with the same skill set may have identical levels of current fit. However, based on their past fit experiences and future expectations of fit, each of these individuals may craft substantially different stories of fit over time, which can influence current perceptions and lead to divergent outcomes. By failing to incorporate these temporal elements into our theories, we risk overlooking an important contextual influence on attitudes and behavior (e.g., Avital, 2000), something that is crucial to the human experience (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988). We propose that individuals craft and utilize personal narratives (or stories) of fit1 composed of recollections of past fit, perceptions of current fit, and anticipations of future fit. We base our assertion on the fact that individuals tend to understand time in terms of stories (McAdams, 1993) because stories help individuals generate and sustain meaning (Gabriel, 2000) and make sense of their experiences through integrated and sequenced accounts (Bruner, 1986; Mishler, 1995; Polkinghorne, 1988; Weick, 1995). Thus, a narrative is useful because it provides a means for comprehending fit in the presently understood past, experienced present,
1
Throughout this manuscript, we use the terms narrative and story interchangeably, although there are sometimes distinctions made between these terms in the narrative literature (cf., Cunliffe, Luhman & Boje, 2004; Gabriel, 2000).
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT and anticipated future (Cohler, 1982, p. 207) and it lends itself to explaining how individuals evaluate current fit: in the middle of retrospected fit and anticipated fit. Such narratives are
considered in medias res2, (Latin for in the middle of things; Baldick, 2008) because the central figure is introduced in the middle of a sequence of events (e.g., at the time when a current fit perception is being formed), with both flashbacks and flashforwards used to travel through time to reveal the overall fit story. Thus, we propose that individuals use in medias res narratives in making sense of their situated fit experience (e.g., Weick, 1979). In this paper, we develop theory to explain how fit narratives are crafted, utilized, and recrafted over time, and how they influence attitudes and behavior. To begin, we provide a brief review of the temporal fit literature, noting the lack of research on fit perceptions outside of the current moment. To better understand how fit perceptions are formed within a temporal context, we define fit narratives and examine the process by which individuals craft and recraft their stories of fit over time. We then describe how the retrospections and anticipations comprising the fit narrative influence outcomes through the effects of two temporal mechanisms, and consider individual and situational influences that strengthen (or weaken) these relationships. Finally, we suggest a feedback loop between fit outcomes and the recrafting process. We conclude with a broader consideration of how fit narratives and temporal perceptions open new lines of inquiry for fit research in both qualitative and quantitative ways. THE ROLE OF TIME IN FIT RESEARCH As we noted in the introduction, the vast majority of PE fit research is contemporaneous, but there is a small body of temporal fit research. In our review of the literature, the fit studies
When telling a story, a narrator may choose to begin ab ovo (from the beginning of a story), in medias res (in the middle of things), or in ultimas res (at the end of the story) (Baldick, 2008). The majority of individuals in organizations are making fit assessments in the middle of work experience, therefore we focus on narratives in medias res. Later in the manuscript, we consider when alternate narrative forms may apply.
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT we found that address time can be separated into two categories based on how time is conceptualized: clock time (i.e., the actual passage of time; Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988;
McGrath & Rotchford, 1983) or psychological time (i.e., perceptions of the past and future in the present moment; Fried & Slowik, 2004; Lewin, 1943). We briefly summarize the research in each of these domains. The vast majority of the articles uncovered in our literature review focus on clock time, which is primarily incorporated through feedback loops. For example, fit research examining the adjustment processes of coping and defense (French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974) implies a feedback loop to correct the source of past misfit in the present time period (Edwards, 1992). Similarly, the theory of work adjustment (TWA; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1968) also implies a feedback loop over time as individuals adjust to their jobs. In addition, clock time is evident in empirical studies that predict outcomes temporally separated from the assessment of PE fit (e.g., Cable & DeRue, 2002; Chatman, 1991; Fricko & Beehr, 1992; Roberts & Robins, 2004; Saks & Ashforth, 1997); that examine the stability of fit effects over time (e.g., Chatman, 1991; Roberts & Robins, 2004; Taris & Feij, 2001); and that examine changes in fit from prehire to post-hire (e.g., Cable & Judge, 1997; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Saks & Ashforth, 2002). At a higher level of analysis, Schneider and colleagues (Schneider, 1987; Schneider et al., 1995) consider clock time when considering how organizations evolve as attraction, selection, and attrition (ASA) processes lead to homogeneity. Finally, a handful of authors have begun to explicitly focus on clock time. These studies advance previous research by using repeated measures to assess actual change in fit over time (e.g., DeRue & Morgeson, 2007), theorizing explicit feedback loops over time (e.g., Ellis & Tsui, 2007; Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007; Ostroff,
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT Shin, & Feinberg, 2002), and developing theory for why individuals and environments change
(e.g., Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004; Kristof-Brown & Jansen, 2007; Ostroff & Schulte 2007). In contrast, very few studies have emphasized psychological time, which includes retrospections of the past and anticipations of the future. For example, early person-situation theory suggested not only that behavior was a function of the person and environment, but also that any comparison of the person and environment must be considered in the temporal context of perceptions of the past and future (Lewin, 1943; Murray, 1938). This early theorizing argued that psychological time was a crucial part of understanding individuals in relation to their environments. In underscoring the importance of psychological time, Murray (1938) states: Man [sic] is not a mere creature of the moment, at the beck and call of any stimulus or drive. What he does is related not only to the settled past but also to shadowy preconceptions of what lies ahead. (p. 49) Caplan (1983) was a rare exception who built upon this early conceptualization of fit within psychological time (e.g., French et al., 1974; Lewin, 1951) by developing theory about past, present, and future fit in both clock time and psychological time. However, at a time when the field was focusing on more precise conceptualizations of current fit (e.g., Caldwell & OReilly, 1990; Edwards, 1991; Edwards & Parry, 1993; Kristof, 1996), the complexity and breadth of Caplans ideas may have been premature. In sum, although recent fit research has begun to explore elements of fit over the passage of clock time, research on the psychological aspects of retrospected or anticipated fit has been virtually dormant for more than two decades. We believe the time is right to reinterpret the role that psychological time plays in fit research. To substantiate our claim, we use three examples of hypothetical individuals to highlight differences in retrospected and anticipated fit, which
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT demonstrates how a contemporaneous view is not sufficient to capture how temporal context influences the current fit experience. Fit in Medias Res: Three Examples
Consider three recent college graduates who enter a firm with a traditional linear career path (Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, and Larsson, 1996), where satisfactory performance at each level leads to a promotion every few years (the stair-step line, labeled Environment in Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1, t0 represents the point at which fit has been measured in a needssupplies fit model, a type of person-job fit model where individual needs are compared to the supplies available in the environment (Edwards, 1991). Using the dimension of responsibility for this example, all three individuals hold the same position and all want slightly more responsibility (needs) than they receive from their jobs (supplies). Managers or researchers capturing only current fit might view these individuals as identical: all three want slightly more responsibility than they receive, but given their satisfactory performance, they can all expect another promotion within a year or so to rectify this discrepancy. However, this focus on current fit would overlook several important details. __________________________ Insert Figure 1 here __________________________ First, moving backward from t0, all three individuals recollect different levels of fit in the past (t-1). P1 recollects receiving exactly what he wanted in terms of responsibility upon joining the firm. But for P2, the positions since joining the firm have offered less responsibility than she desired. However, she has continued to perform satisfactorily in order to get promoted to a level in which her need for responsibility was closer to being met by the supplies from the job. For P3, the positions since joining the firm have offered less responsibility than she wanted, although
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT less of a misfit than P2. In addition, P3 found that by the second promotion, this misfit was rectified and her need for responsibility was matched by the job. Second, moving forward from t0, all three individuals anticipate different levels of fit in the future (t1). For P1, the linear career path appears to be a good fit because his need for responsibility is anticipated to increase at the same rate that responsibility is granted with each new position. However, P2 does not anticipate increasing her desired level of responsibility at the rate of the linear career path, perhaps because she wants greater balance between work and her family. Thus, she anticipates that staying with the company will offer increasing misfit through excess responsibility. For P3, misfit is anticipated to return and with an even greater deficiency. She may desire a fast track to an executive position and feel that the linear career path will not keep up with her increasing need for responsibility. Thus, as she considers the trajectory of her fit into the future, she sees exponentially increasing misfit. Taking these retrospections and anticipations into account demonstrates that these
individuals perceive events quite differently based upon their temporally situated understanding. Thus, we may expect different attitudes and behaviors from these three individuals, even though their current fit is identical. Returning to Figure 1, given that P1 recalls sufficient responsibility in the past and anticipates sufficient responsibility in the future, he is unlikely to leave the firm because his need for achievement matches the linear career path of the environment. In contrast, the past misfit for P2 has improved but is expected to worsen in the future as she anticipates more responsibility than she desires. This may be satisfactory for the short-term future where the excess responsibility may carry over to fulfill her need for recognition or achievement (Edwards, 1996). But for the longer-term future, P2 may desire a different career path (e.g., expert, Brousseau et al., 1996) to avoid the anticipated misfit this career path provides. Finally, P3 may
10
be at the highest risk of leaving due to moderate past misfit and more severe future misfit. For P3, supplies for responsibility have rarely been sufficient relative to her needs and this is expected to worsen the longer she anticipates remaining at the firm. Given her desire for growth, her story of fit over time may suggest that she should change careers to a more challenging profession (e.g., spiral career path, Brousseau et al., 1996). Thus, P3 may be especially vulnerable to external triggers such as a call from a headhunter (Lee & Mitchell, 1994). These three examples demonstrate that a current fit perception may not portray ones full story of fit. Rather, current fit is contained within the temporal context of ones past and future, or in literary terms, fit in medias res. The stories people construct naturally incorporate time, serve as an interpretive lens on the environment, and help to provide answers to the why questions of fit, such as why dont I fit here or why should I stay (cf., McClosky, 1990). We now examine fit narratives in detail to determine how they are crafted and recrafted over time. CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING FIT NARRATIVES We define fit narratives as the personal stories that individuals craft of their perceived PE fit experiences over time. Fit narratives may be used both consciously (as when fit events become salient; Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006) and subconsciously (Mishler, 1979) as individuals make sense of their fit experiences. At any point in time, the fit narrative is in medias res because it incorporates snippets (Boje, 1991; Sims, Huxham, & Beech, 2009) of experiences from retrospected fit (i.e., flashbacks), current fit, and anticipated fit (i.e., flashforwards) that help individuals to understand their current experiences from a temporallyinformed position (cf. Boje, 1991; Cohler, 1982; Johnson & Sherman, 1990; McGregor & Holmes, 1999; Mishler, 1995; Polkinghorne, 1988). In general, narratives are necessarily and irremediably selective and incomplete (Mishler, 1995, p. 96) because only some of all possible
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT snippets of experience are included (e.g., Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993). In selecting fit
11
experiences, individuals may leave out information that is inconsistent with their story, or invent other information to make the story more coherent (McGregor & Holmes, 1999). In the sections that follow, we examine characteristics of fit narratives more closely, considering how narratives are crafted and recrafted, and when they may remain unchanged by instead biasing memories, forecasts, or current perceptions of fit. Crafting Fit Narratives We propose that fit narratives are crafted with a consideration of motive, bias, and individual differences. First, individuals have motives that likely drive the stories they craft, based on needs (e.g., need for power or achievement), goals (e.g., upward mobility, learning), or values (e.g., fitting in). We alluded to such motives in the examples of individuals with different career concepts. These motives lead them to selectively incorporate certain fit experiences over others when crafting their fit narrative. At the same time, following Habermas and Bluck (2000), we believe that individuals are motivated to craft a thematically coherent story. Achieving thematic coherence is a sensemaking activity that may require reconstructing past events, imagining future events, and synthesizing the stream of experience into a coherent whole. In other words, individuals have an overarching motive for coherence in their narrative and they may craft their narratives in ways that uphold this motive (Brooks, 1984; McAdams, 2006). The crafting of fit narratives is also influenced by potential bias in memories and forecasts (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006). First, individuals may unintentionally bias their fit narrative because they misremember or misforecast, leaving out relevant details or overlooking all possible past and future experiences. For example, fit events that are perceived as less intense, distant, or temporary may be excluded from the narrative that is crafted (Brewer, 1986;
12
Shum, 1998; Thompson, Skowronski, Larsen, & Betz, 1996). Second, in an attempt to achieve greater coherence with their narrative, individuals may more purposefully bias their perceptions. That is, the crafting of a coherent fit narrative may necessitate changes in perceptions of fit to make the story consistent with overall theme (McGregor & Holmes, 1999; Schank & Abelson, 1995). For example, when individuals are motivated to craft a story of improvement or development over time, they may view experiences in retrospect more negatively and anticipated experiences more positively than current fit to create a positive trajectory of experiences across time (Wilson & Ross, 2001). Alternately, upon considering a new job offer, individuals may bias their perceptions of current fit downward to view the current job more negatively than anticipated fit, which justifies moving elsewhere. Individuals may not be aware of the bias that occurs when crafting these narratives, because they simply are making sense of their evolving experience (Mishler, 1995). In addition, despite the fact that bias is often viewed negatively, both retrospective and predictive biases can be beneficial because they allow individuals to currently perceive events differently than if perceptions were assessed at the actual time of the event (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg & Wheatley, 1998; Mitchell, Thompson, Peterson, & Cronk, 1997; Robinson & Ryff, 1999; Wilson & Ross, 2001). These perceptions may enable individuals to understand and act upon their story of fit over time in ways not possible if they were fully aware of the objective fit events. Finally, crafting may relate to temporal and individual differences. Salient temporal differences include the amount of time one dwells on the past or the extent to which individuals maintain a positive outlook for the future (e.g., Nuttin, 1985; Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert, in press). For example, individuals who focus their attention more on the past may attempt to construct narrative coherence more retrospectively, whereas individuals who focus more on the
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT future may attempt to construct coherence more prospectively. In addition, there may be individual differences such as positive and negative affectivity (PA and NA; Watson, Clark, &
13
Tellegen, 1988), optimism (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994), or resilience (Fredrickson, 2001; Philippe, Lecours, & Beaulieu-Pelletier, 2009) that influence the story that is crafted. For example, memories of past fit may be viewed more positively or negatively because PA and NA color the perception and interpretation of experiences (Rusting, 1999). Thus, the story of fit that one crafts likely depends upon individual characteristics, including those that relate to time. Dynamics of Fit Narratives The creation of initial fit narratives likely begins with the first experiences with fit (e.g., early part-time work and internships) based on current fit in those environments and anticipation of similar or alternative future fit (i.e., an ab ovo narrative). Such early fit experiences set the stage for future employment experiences (e.g., Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Berlew & Hall, 1966), and provide an initial point of comparison as fit changes over time. A fit narrative is therefore a dynamic, ever-changing construction (Pals, 2006) that is recrafted as experience accumulates and individuals selectively include and exclude snippets of fit experience. When and how are fit narratives recrafted? Broadly speaking, fit narratives may be recrafted when change is perceived in the environment or the person. Environments often change in both grand and small ways as job events, fluctuations in job demands, changes in leadership, or changes in the economy induce changes (perceived or actual) in the E portion of PE fit (Caplan, 1983; Kristof-Brown & Jansen, 2007). Similarly, individuals needs, abilities, or values may change due to aging, additional job experience or life events, all of which induce perceived changes in the P portion of PE fit (Furnham, 1994; Schaie & Schooler, 1998; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998; Thoits, 1983). Individuals may consider these evolving
14
circumstances as they occur and potentially recraft their fit narrative. As shown in Figure 2, we propose two processes by which this sensemaking occurs: extrospection and introspection. __________________________ Insert Figure 2 here __________________________ Extrospection refers to the process of observing experiences outside of the self (Random House, 2001). When individuals extrospect, they consider actual and perceived changes in the environment, such as a promotion, a poor performance review, or the perception of differential treatment by a supervisor. Alternatively, individuals may engage in a process of introspection, defined as observing experiences within the self (Random House, 2001) as they contemplate any psychological assessment of the self, such as desiring an alternative career path or questioning ones level of introversion when considering whether to pursue a management position. As an individual engages in introspection or extrospection, the impactfulness of the event (Holmes, 1970; Kristof-Brown & Jansen, 2007) and its coherence with the motive of the narrative are likely to determine the extent to which the narrative is recrafted. Some fit events may be less impactful, such as momentary interactions with a colleague or supervisor. During these times of minor or incremental change (Nadler & Tushman, 1989), fit narratives may be revised minimally as individuals simply tweak and edit the story as needed (George & Jones, 2001; McAdams, 2008). But during times of greater change, such as the surprise when finding that the actual work environment differs from ones expectations (Louis, 1980), recrafting is likely to be more substantial. This punctuated or second-order change (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985; Bartunek & Moch, 1987) is often brief and intense, such that the fit narrative is instantly modified and substantially different from its original form. For example, a promotion or layoff
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT may trigger substantial recrafting in order to make sense of looming environmental changes relative to the individuals abilities, values, or personality.
15
Similarly, fit events that represent only minor deviations from the theme of the narrative are less likely to lead to significant recrafting than those in which coherence diverges dramatically. More specifically, many snippets of fit representing only small revisions to the theme may accumulate before individuals substantially recraft their narrative (i.e., reaching a crystallization of desire or crystallization of discontent; Bauer, McAdams, & Sakaeda, 2005). This perspective is consistent with Caplans (1983) notion of toleration, which describes the amount of misfit and length of time an individual will withstand misfit before taking action. In contrast, events that substantially challenge the current theme of the narrative may trigger more immediate and substantial recrafting of the fit narrative. For example, losing a long-time job because ones skills have become obsolete may require a drastic recrafting of the fit narrative due to the immediate need to envision ones future elsewhere. When are fit narratives not recrafted? Although we believe that an individuals fit narrative undergoes change in response to changes in themselves or their environment, there also may be times when individuals choose to ignore events or bias perceptions rather than recraft their fit narrative. For one, perceived changes in the self or in the environment may be ignored, such as when these changes are deemed temporary or tangential to the theme of the fit narrative. For example, a mentor who has heavily influenced an individuals perception of fit with the organizations values may become negative about the organization because he disagreed with a top management decision. This situation may not influence the individuals perception of organizational fit because the mentors hard feelings are likely to blow over.
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT Alternatively, individuals may bias fit perceptions to avoid recrafting the existing
16
narrative. We propose that the likelihood of biasing fit perceptions for this reason relates to two characteristics: the strength of the story and the presence of denial. First, the strength of the story is likely to predict a lack of recrafting. Strong stories (based on robust motives) are enduring and resist change once crystallized (Gabriel, 2000). Consider an example of an individual who learns that despite his above average performance, he will not receive a merit increase this year due to his companys financial difficulties. This individual will be more likely to leave his fit narrative unchanged if the original fit narrative suggests that staying (despite the negative event) will provide the best current and future fit. Although the individual may extrospect upon insufficient needs-supplies fit for pay, other forms of fit such as current personorganization fit, or future demands-abilities fit may support a strong theme of stability. This strong story justifies overlooking the lack of a raise, and thus, repainting reality in such a way to support the theme of staying at ones job (e.g., Were all affected by these financial challenges, but were in this together, so perhaps my current needs for pay are too high and my fit isnt so bad.). In contrast, if the fit story was relatively weak, such as when a fit narrative is partially organized around a value of achievement but also a need for variety, the individual may find that not receiving a raise may be sufficient to initiate a job search (e.g., Because my needs for pay arent being met, and Im not certain when this situation will change, I am willing to consider alternative positions to find higher pay.). Thus, stronger fit narratives may encourage individuals to bias perceptions in such a way that the original fit narrative remains relatively intact, despite external or internal changes (Ricoeur, 1992). Of course, the new snippet of experience may be added to ones narrative and similar future snippets would likely accumulate at some point. But if the story is strong, the overall narrative will be largely unchanged.
17
A second characteristic that will increase the likelihood of biasing perceptions rather than changing the narrative is the presence of denial. At times, changes in fit may be completely unexpected, or so large that the individual is unable to cope with recrafting. In this sense, the fit narrative will remain intact despite major changes because the individual represses or suppresses perceptions (Anderson & Green, 2001), thereby prohibiting these events from entering the fit narrative. For example, an academic may be particularly upset upon being denied tenure, leading to both extrospection and introspection about the meaning of this event. But if ones fit narrative included positive retrospected and anticipated fit, and a coherent theme of remaining at this university through retirement, such news is especially unexpected and potentially traumatic. Individuals may deny that such a change has occurred and be unable to anticipate fit elsewhere, thus stalling coping mechanisms to find a new job. This denial may not last indefinitely, but in the period of denial, these individuals may largely hold their original fit narrative intact without changing it to reflect reality. HOW NARRATIVES INFLUENCE OUTCOMES To this point, we have described fit narratives, explained how they are crafted from selective snippets of experience, and examined when they are more likely to be recrafted. Because these narratives serve an important role in individuals sensemaking, they are likely to influence attitudes and behaviors beyond current fit perceptions alone. An important consideration, then, is how these selected memories and forecasts comprising the fit narrative influence work-related outcomes. We propose two mechanisms by which fit narratives influence outcomes. As we discuss below, fit narratives may influence outcomes through a process of temporal influence, as when retrospected and anticipated fit lead to current outcomes such as satisfaction or turnover. Alternately, fit narratives may influence outcomes through a process of
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT temporal comparison, as when the effect of current fit on outcomes depends upon retrospected and anticipated fit. Temporal Influence We argue that the story-building memories and forecasts of fit can directly influence
18
current outcomes through a process of temporal influence3, which occurs when recollections or anticipations generate current reactions through the vicarious effects of nostalgia, regret, savoring, or dread (Elster & Loewenstein, 1992; Markman & McMullen, 2003; Tversky & Griffin, 1991). These effects are vicarious because the fit experience is not current and yet the reaction is. In essence, the individual mentally time travels (Wheeler, Stuss, & Tulving, 1997) to experience fit at another point in time by presently reliving past fit or pre-living future fit. For example, recalling a previous job in a positive organizational culture in which coworkers were very collegial and helpful relative to ones own values and needs (e.g., person-organization fit and person-group fit) may influence current attitudes as the nostalgia of the past continues to be satisfying, above and beyond what the current job offers. As another example, consider an employee who recalls a previous job in which he or she endured an abusive supervisor (e.g., poor person-supervisor fit). Although the employee may have begun working for a new supervisor, the flashback of this fit experience may continue to negatively influence current well-being when the individual expects further mistreatment by the current supervisor (Ritter & Lord, 2007). Similarly, anticipated fit may impact current outcomes such as when individuals have accepted a job offer (a current behavior) based on the anticipated levels of person-job and person-organization fit (Harrison, 1978; London, 1983; Schoenfelder & Hantula, 2003), but remain in their current job. The anticipation of fit at the future job may be presently satisfying
This concept has been referred to by various researchers as endowment (e.g., Tversky & Griffin, 1991), consumption (e.g., Elster & Loewenstein, 1992), expectancy (e.g., Caplan, 1983), or assimilation (e.g., Markman & McMullen, 2003).
3
19
even though the job has yet to begin (Elster & Loewenstein, 1992). As another example, when individuals anticipate changes in future job demands that will exceed their anticipated individual abilities (e.g., an increase in job scope or a promotion to management), individuals may presently experience strain or anxiety due to the anticipation of poor demands-abilities fit. Interestingly, in the previous examples of temporal influence, the individual may not necessarily experience current misfit. Current demands may be sufficient relative to current abilities, current needs may be met by current supplies, or current values may match the current organizations values. But it is the retrospection of fit in the past or the anticipation of fit in the future that drives attitudes and behaviors in the present moment. That is, independent of the current fit experience, a snippet of fit experience from the past or the future contained in the narrative can influence current outcomes. Temporal Comparison A second mechanism by which the fit narrative influences attitudes and behavior is temporal comparison, in which the effects of current fit on outcomes depend upon retrospected or anticipated fit. This temporal comparison concept has also been referred to as a contrast effect (e.g., Caplan, 1983; Elster & Loewenstein, 1992; Markman & McMullen, 2003; Tversky & Griffin, 1991), which has roots in Helsons (1964) adaptation level theory. Adaptation level theory describes how perception occurs in the context of the existing (i.e., past) level of adaptation (Helson, 1964). This suggests that a past experience provides the standard against which current experiences are evaluated. We extend this idea by focusing on the retrospected past and the anticipated future. Many literatures have examined the notion of comparison of ones current condition against a social referent (e.g., Festinger, 1954; Sherif & Hovland, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). However, our theory emphasizes comparisons with self-referents in
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT the perceived past and anticipated future. Therefore, we focus on principles related to comparison with the self over time. We suggest that attitudes and behavior are influenced not simply by perceptions of
20
current fit, but also by a temporal contrast between current fit and retrospected or anticipated fit (Albert, 1977; Elster & Loewenstein, 1992; Markman & McMullen, 2003; Strack, Schwarz, & Gschneidinger, 1985; Tversky & Griffin, 1991). For example, if recollected person-supervisor fit was poor, comparing it to mild misfit with the present supervisor may increase current satisfaction because the current misfit seems better in comparison to what he or she recalls (e.g., At least this supervisor isnt as bad as my last one). Alternatively, after receiving an offer for a job with higher pay, a comparison between current and anticipated needs-supplies fit decreases current satisfaction because the current level of pay fit looks more dismal against the anticipated level of pay fit (Loewenstein, 1988). As is evident from our examples, the direction of the temporal comparison of fit over time will determine how positively current fit is evaluated within the fit narrative. When the present is better than the past or the future, temporal comparison will increase current attitudes, but when the present is worse than the past or the future, temporal comparison will decrease current attitudes (Elster & Loewenstein, 1992; Wilson & Ross, 2001). Mechanisms that Strengthen or Weaken Temporal Influence and Temporal Comparison As we mentioned earlier, several individual and situational differences likely impact how fit narratives are crafted, which suggests boundary conditions for when fit narratives are used. To demonstrate how the temporal influence and temporal comparison effects generated by fit narratives operate under these conditions, we focus on variables that are specifically temporal and relate to the person (e.g., temporal focus) and the situation (e.g., temporal distance, temporal event intensity, and duration).
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT Temporal focus. One individual difference that may impact temporal influence and temporal comparison is temporal focus, a relatively stable tendency to think about the past, present, and future periods in ones life (Shipp et al., in press; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). In childhood and adolescence, individuals develop a general pattern of attention on one or more time periods, due to influences from their national culture, socioeconomic status, and parental beliefs about time, among others (McGrath & Tschan, 2004; Trommsdorff, 1983). Typically
21
stable by early adulthood, this temporal focus profile leads individuals to focus their attention on certain time periods. For example, some individuals dwell primarily on past failures (e.g., rumination or nostalgia) whereas other individuals focus on future goals and the current actions needed to enact these goals (Shipp et al., in press; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). To the extent individuals focus on a particular period, thoughts about experiences from that time period (e.g., memories or forecasts) become more cognitively available (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). For example, frequently flashing back to poor demands-abilities fit at a previous job will make these memories more cognitively available in the fit narrative and thus available to influence current outcomes or serve as a standard of comparison for evaluating current fit. Conversely, with a low past temporal focus, these memories are less available and less likely to be considered when evaluating current fit because the individual no longer recalls the experience of past misfit in the fit narrative. Similarly, frequently flashing forward to anticipated fit will make these anticipations more available in the fit narrative and increase the likelihood that anticipated fit will impact current outcomes through temporal influence or temporal comparison. Because thinking more about the past or the future will increase the availability of memories or forecasts of fit, focusing on either of these time periods should result in stronger temporal influence and temporal comparison effects within the
22
fit narrative. Conversely, individuals who have low past or future temporal focus may be more likely to live in the moment, unaware of how their past or future fit reflects upon their current experience. Thus, a lack of focus on the past or future should result in weaker temporal influence and temporal comparison effects. Temporal distance. Temporal distance is a situational characteristic that describes the length of time between two perceived periods of fit (Caplan, 1983), such as the temporal distance between present fit (t0) and retrospected fit (t-1) in Figure 1. The more distant the perceptions of the past or future, the more that recollections or anticipations will be discounted within a fit narrative, making them less likely to impact current outcomes (Strack et al., 1985; Wilson & Ross, 2001). For example, a former job may be a source of comparison to a new job when the job change was recent, but the former job becomes less relevant as tenure on the new job increases and more recent standards of comparison are used within the fit narrative. Similarly, an anticipated next job will lead to stronger current reactions when the job change will be soon (e.g., in two weeks after giving notice at ones current job) rather than distant (e.g., in two years, after finishing a rotational training program). Increasing temporal distance decreases the relevance of a retrospected or anticipated fit experience because the further one must mentally time travel to retrieve a memory or forecast, the more likely it will be fuzzy and abstract rather than detailed and concrete (Thompson et al., 1996; Wilson & Ross, 2001), as evidenced by the fading ends of the dashed lines in Figure 1. Often, such distant perceptions are categorized as less relevant for current affect because that was then, and this is now. Thus, temporal influence and temporal comparison effects will be weaker as the temporal distance to retrospected or anticipated fit increases.
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT Temporal event intensity. Events play a stronger role in influencing outcomes when
23
they are perceived as being particularly extreme in either direction (Holmes, 1970; Lucas, 2007). We refer to this situational characteristic as temporal event intensity, the magnitude or degree of impact individuals associate with retrospected, current, or anticipated periods of fit (Caplan, 1983; Kristof-Brown & Jansen, 2007). The most intense period within a series of experiences tends to be a strong predictor of ones current reaction, because individuals remember these highs and lows more than neutral or more typical experiences (Fredrickson, 2000; Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993; Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber, & Redelmeier, 1993). Applying this research to fit perceptions suggests that retrospecting extreme examples of misfit in ones fit narrative would more likely influence current outcomes, such as when individuals continue to relive the highs of superior fit in the past or ruminate on the lows of a poor period of fit in the past. These ideas also may apply to anticipated events when individuals currently savor or dread intense future experiences (Elster & Loewenstein, 1992). For example, anticipating college graduation and a transition to ones dream job may lead to greater satisfaction than a simply sufficient job, as anticipated person-job fit at the dream job points toward supplies that may even exceed needs. Thus, events that are intense may be most prominent in ones recollections or anticipations within the fit narrative, strengthening the temporal influence of retrospected and anticipated fit on current outcomes. Duration. We define duration as the length of time a fit experience lasted in the past or is expected to last in the future (Kristof-Brown & Jansen, 2007). Regardless of whether fit was exceedingly good or bad at another point in time (i.e., temporal event intensity), the length of time that the fit experience transpires will likely influence how the fit narrative leads to outcomes. Research demonstrates that duration of an experience matters less for evaluating
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT experiences over time (i.e., temporal influence) and more for comparing experiences over time
24
(i.e., temporal comparison; Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000), which suggests that duration primarily relates to the temporal comparison effects of narratives on outcomes. Thus, retrospected and anticipated fit should be more likely to be compared to current fit when the duration of time in retrospected or anticipated fit is longer. As compared to shorter or temporary experiences, experiences of longer duration are more meaningful because the individual has spent more time in a particular fit experience. For example, the longer ones tenure in a misfitting job in the past, the more likely that retrospected person-job fit will provide a standard against which to compare current person-job fit in ones fit narrative. Being in a position where ones abilities are underutilized for a long period may make a strong impression and serve as the standard of comparison for future jobs as one crafts the story of fit over time. Thus, demands-abilities fit at a subsequent job will be especially likely to be compared to retrospected demands-abilities fit, making even slight improvements satisfying in contrast to the poor fit one endured in the past. Similarly, as an individual anticipates future fit, longer duration should increase the temporal comparison of current fit against future fit (Elster & Loewenstein, 1992). For example, if an individual estimates that tenure at a future organization will be long-term, elements of person-organization fit may be a greater standard against which current fit is judged. Taking a job in which one expects to remain employed indefinitely will be a much more meaningful standard of comparison for current fit as compared to a future job one sees as a stepping stone to other jobs. Thus, the effects of temporal comparison should be stronger when the retrospected or anticipated fit experiences within the fit narrative are of longer duration. The Feedback Loop between Outcomes and Subsequent Recrafting
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT To this point, we have suggested that fit narratives influence attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, but recent research demonstrates that fit outcomes may also influence subsequent changes in perceptions of fit (Edwards, 1992; Yu, in press). Therefore, we propose feedback loops between fit outcomes and subsequent introspection and extrospection, suggesting that further introspection results from both attitudes and behaviors, whereas further extrospection results from behaviors. First, attitude formation and change is likely to trigger further introspection. For example, current dissatisfaction may lead individuals to ponder why this dissatisfaction exists and whether changing their perceptions or recrafting their fit narratives could alleviate the
25
dissatisfaction. Alternatively, individuals may experience cognitive dissonance between their fit narrative and current attitudes. Consider the example of a pre-med student whose fit narrative incorporates her current fit with her chosen school and the demands of coursework, along with the anticipation of strong fit once she joins the profession. However, if she experiences very poor fit with the profession in her first internship experience, this may initiate a period of introspection in which she considers options for reducing this dissonance (e.g., recraft her narrative or bias her perceptions) to reestablish consistency (Festinger, 1957). In addition, behavioral outcomes such as quitting a job or requesting a transfer also may lead individuals to engage in further introspection. According to self-perception theory, individuals often infer perceptions about themselves based on their own behaviors (Bem, 1972). Thus, after job change, individuals are likely to downwardly bias the perception of retrospected fit as a result of the reverse causality in memory (Pieters, Baumgartner, & Bagozzi, 2006) that supports a decision to change jobs (i.e., post-decision rationalization; Ashforth, 2001; Lawler, Kuleck, Rhode, & Sorenson, 1975; Vroom, 1966; Vroom & Deci, 1971). They are also likely to
26
upwardly bias their perception of anticipated fit at the new job, perceiving homogeneously ideal futures (Newby-Clark & Ross, 2003) that also support the job choice decision. As a result, individuals may bias their retrospected and anticipated fit perceptions to be consistent with the behavior upon which they have introspected. Because some fit-related behaviors (e.g., job change, relocation) also change external events, we expect them to lead to further extrospection. For example, accepting a promotion that includes relocation to a new division in ones company is likely to stimulate greater extrospection about the new coworkers, the new supervisor, and the culture of the new division (organization). Depending upon how these external changes are coherent with the existing fit narrative, the individual will decide whether recrafting is necessary. For example, job change can be a mistake and post-decision regret may occur when the realities of the new job are not as expected, and thus, compare less favorably to the past job. As a result, regret and dissatisfaction from the temporal comparison between current and past fit are likely to lead to further extrospection. This extrospection may lead to recrafting the fit narrative yet again, as individuals enact a plan to look for another job (i.e., anticipated fit elsewhere) to rectify the current misfit, or as they deny the changed circumstances and instead bias their perceptions of current misfit. DISCUSSION Despite early consideration of the role time plays in understanding fit (Lewin, 1943; Caplan, 1983), fit research has largely overlooked the influence of psychological time, past experiences, and future expectations in explaining how and why individuals form attitudes and behave in concert with their work environments. Drawing on narrative theory from a variety of disciplines, we proposed a model to explain how individuals craft and recraft personal stories of fit in medias res and how these fit narratives affect current outcomes. The narrative approach
27
offers a simple but novel lens for understanding person-environment fit in a more dynamic way. It allows us to highlight two relatively ignored temporal considerations of fit: the means by which individuals temporally situate their experience and make sense of it over time, and the importance of retrospections and anticipations in influencing current behavior. In many research domains, and in fit research particularly, adding temporal concepts to existing theory can be daunting, as there is already a great deal of complexity inherent in the theoretical models (cf. Caplan, 1983; Edwards, 2008; Harrison, 2007; Judge, 2007). We believe fit narratives help to simplify some of these complexities without glossing over them, making it easier to specify theoretical models, examine linking mechanisms, and incorporate these temporal ideas into future studies. As a result, we are better able to explain behavior in organizations and understand how individuals assess and react to fit experiences over time. Theoretical Implications The main contribution of our proposed model is that it acknowledges fit as an ongoing story that evolves as individuals perceive change and engage in extrospection and introspection to make sense of these changes. Existing fit research has substantially extended our understanding of what the current fit concept is and how it operates. However, our central argument is that individuals may not experience current fit in isolation from fit at other points in time; rather, individuals recollect and anticipate fit, creating a story of fit over time that influences current attitudes and behavior. Thus, the fit narrative helps to describe how individuals operate within a temporal context, which is not only more realistic but also more consistent with early fit theorizing (Lewin, 1943, 1951; Murray, 1938). Second, employing a temporal lens to examine fit perceptions contributes to a growing body of research that addresses how fit changes over time (e.g., Ellis & Tsui, 2007; Kammeyer-
28
Mueller, 2007; Kristof-Brown & Jansen, 2007; Ostroff et al., 2002). Our study makes a unique contribution to this burgeoning area by focusing on the neglected role that psychological time plays in understanding how fit is temporally perceived and how these perceptions influence outcomes. For example, our theorizing may help shed light on the underlying psychological processes that contribute to ASA processes in organizations (Schneider, 1987). In addition, by incorporating temporal influence and temporal comparison processes and concepts such as temporal focus, temporal distance, temporal event intensity, and duration, we have taken an important first step in explaining when temporal perceptions of fit matter, which helps to establish important boundary conditions for our theory (Edwards, 2008; Whetten, 1989). Third, our model addresses several deficiencies in the extant fit research. For example, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated that fit had stronger relationships with many outcomes when perceptual and subjective measures were used rather than objective measures (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Beyond the existing explanation that fit is more likely to influence individual outcomes when it is perceived (e.g., Cable & Edwards, 2004; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), our model suggests that when individuals report perceptions of current fit, they also may be implicitly reporting the effects of their retrospections and anticipations. Thus, by addressing a potential deficiency in the construct of current fit perceptions, we expect that future research may be able to more precisely predict outcomes. In addition, fit research has begun to explore the possibility of reverse causality between attitudes and fit perceptions (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006; Yu, in press), and we believe our model may account for some of the mechanisms by which this occurs. That is, the introspection and extrospection that lead to the crafting of fit narratives may be reinitiated as individuals experience attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Our model suggests that these feedback loops may create an ongoing
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT process that accounts for attitudes as both outcomes and antecedents of fit perceptions, depending upon the point in time at which fit and outcomes are captured. Finally, and more broadly, our model implies that the original formula describing fit
29
research, B = f (P, E) (Lewin, 1951), may have been applied too literally in practice. Consistent with Lewins (1943) and Murrays (1938) suggestions that no experience of fit is separate from the temporal context (TC) of which it is a part, our model implies that it is more accurate to state that B = f (P, E,TC), to explicitly acknowledge the temporal retrospections, anticipations, and sensemaking associated with a person interacting with the environment. Without contextually and temporally embedding the person in medias res, with a history of accumulated experience and a forecasted future, our understanding of behavior will be severely limited. Such contextual ideas are emerging in other areas such as research that focuses on how trajectories over time and contextual embeddedness influence behavior (e.g., Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe, & Stinglhamber, 2005; Kimberly & Bouchikhi, 1995; Jansen & Michael, 2008; Judge & Hurst, 2008; Zyphur, Chaturvedi, & Arvey, 2008). We add to this literature by focusing explicitly on psychological time, highlighting the importance of the temporal evolution in fit perceptions and the process of fitting over time (cf. Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2002; Weick, 1979). Practical Implications The proposed model has several implications for management practice. First and foremost, managers shouldnt consider fit at a single moment in time, but rather manage both the person and the environment in the ongoing stream of time (Fried, Grant, Levi, Hadani, & Slowik, 2007). Thoughts are not bound by the present moment; individuals mentally time travel backwards and forwards as they psychologically consider past events and future expectancies (Wheeler et al., 1997). Thus, managers should attempt to manage fit in the middle of things by
30
considering not only their employees current fit, but also their past fit (typically revealed during the interview process), their anticipated fit (as might be discovered in an employee development context), and the motives driving the stories they craft. This is no different than actions managers currently take, such as basing job assignments on past skills or future training assignments, yet we have ignored the idea from a fit perspective (Rynes, 1991). Some of the examples in this paper suggest that at times, rather than changing the environment to fit individuals needs or abilities, managers can attempt to shape individuals recollections and anticipations to frame current decisions and situations more favorably. Managing fit in the middle may have different implications depending upon the progression of fit experiences or an individuals career stage. First, the narrative literature refers to common story progressions (e.g., Gergen & Gergen, 2004; McAdams, 1993), such as redemption sequences (where the storyline begins poorly, but improves over time) or contamination sequences (where the storyline begins well, but gets progressively worse over time). In terms of fit, employees may prefer a redemption sequence, where they begin with greater misfit and progress to higher levels of fit, because this is the expected progression of employment (Fried et al., 2007), and they can later contrast the experiences to perceive improvement in fit over time (Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993). In contrast, contamination sequences are likely to lead to increasing dissatisfaction over time and ultimately turnover. By attending to the possible presence of these storylines, managers can tailor their coaching, assignments, and communication style to fit the situation. Second, managers may interact differently with employees based on their career stage. For example, newly hired employees may focus more on current and anticipated fit because they have limited retrospections, so managers may want to emphasize the likelihood of improved fit
31
in the future. Alternatively, employees who have reached a plateau but are not dissatisfied may place less emphasis on future fit, whereas employees who are transitioning to retirement may spend more time reflecting on the past as they begin to settle accounts (McAdams, 1993). Clearly, managers may interact differently with employees in these stages, focusing on the present and the past rather than the future as the key to motivating employee performance. Finally, managers may find that the best way to effectively manage their employees fit over time is by attending to the snippets of stories that they tell. For example, managers should listen for clues pointing to the theme of the fit narrative such as when I have the autonomy of my own group or I miss the camaraderie I had with my former colleagues. By gaining insight into the motives driving individuals narratives, managers can help to potentially reframe retrospections and anticipations or broaden an individuals framing of fit. Implications for Future Research The proposed model provides several avenues for empirical research, both quantitative and qualitative. We encourage quantitative analysis of various aspects of the proposed model. One starting point may be to examine whether retrospections and anticipations of fit influence current attitudes and behaviors both directly and through comparison with current fit perceptions, and whether the proposed moderators influence these relationships. This research can be conducted cross-sectionally because retrospections and anticipations can influence current fit in the present moment. Thus, understanding fit experiences in medias res may be a task of simply capturing individuals current perceptions of retrospected and anticipated fit (Schwarz, 2007). Alternatively, this assumption could be tested in repeated-measures, longitudinal designs that allow researchers to compare the effects of retrospected fit versus actual past fit (i.e., current fit in a prior period), and anticipated fit versus actual future fit (i.e., current fit in a future period).
32
However, it is important to acknowledge that detecting change in memories and forecasts of fit requires that the person and the environment be assessed separately (i.e., atomistic measures, Edwards et al., 2006) in order to demonstrate whether the person changed his or her perceptions of the environment, themselves, or both from a previous period. Finally, there may also be asymmetric effects between retrospected and anticipated fit worth exploring. Despite both retrospected and anticipated fit being cognitively available and self-relevant sources of information (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992), retrospected fit perceptions may be easier to access than anticipated fit perceptions because the latter has yet to occur and is more abstract (Caplan, 1983). Thus, future research may need to consider the circumstances under which retrospections may be more pronounced in the fit narrative as compared to anticipations. Given the lack of evidence about how fit narratives are crafted, utilized, and recrafted over time, the best way to learn more may be to introduce more qualitative research. For example, researchers can conduct interviews to explore the definitional aspects of fit narratives, including the motives driving the stories individuals craft and how and when stories are biased. In addition, qualitative modes of inquiry can analyze idiographic accounts of the fit narratives individuals craft and utilize to better understand how and why narratives influence current outcomes. Longitudinal process research also could be employed to examine actual change in the fit narrative over time, such as how and when narratives are (re)crafted. Similarly, a diary study could examine how individuals respond to fit events as they occur to help to illuminate the processes of introspection and extrospection. Expanding on our consideration of narratives, it is possible that individuals have more than one narrative. Given our interest in perception and cognition, the fit narratives we examined were personal and held in the privacy of an individuals thoughts. However,
33
individuals may have both private and public narratives (McAdams, 1995; Wiersma, 1988), and there are interesting implications of private narratives being shared publicly. For example, to what extent do individuals construct their private fit narratives through social influence and comparison processes? Are there contagion effects in sharing fit narratives publicly such that a vocal individual with poor fit becomes the bad apple causing group-level turnover (cf. Felps, Mitchell, Hekman, Lee, Holtom, & Harman, 2009; Krackhardt & Porter, 1986)? Alternatively, individuals may have nested narratives (Gergen & Gergen, 1988) corresponding to levels of the environment (e.g., Edwards & Shipp, 2007; Ostroff & Schulte, 2007), such as a group narrative nested within an organizational narrative. They also may have specific and gestalt narratives (Gabriel, 2000; McAdams, 1995), such that individuals retain specific narratives based on differing motives, but a gestalt narrative that establishes priorities among the competing motives. If such a nesting of narratives were to exist, it could add theoretical richness to explanations of how individuals synthesize fit with various aspects of the work environment (e.g., Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006; Kristof-Brown, Jansen, & Colbert, 2002). Overall, the narrative approach and these additional complexities encourage us to ask different questions and employ alternative methods for understanding person-environment fit. Finally, research should further examine the boundary conditions of fit narratives by considering when and why fit narratives may be less relevant in predicting outcomes. For example, early in ones work experiences, fit narratives may be incomplete due to the lack of a history with fit (i.e., no retrospected fit), and may operate in different ways than narratives that contain all of the components we have described. Similarly, fit narratives may be crafted in a different way by individuals who approach retirement. Because the anticipated move is out of the workforce, fit is not with work but with the absence of work as they transition toward retirement
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT and consider the meaning of work in their lives (e.g., Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Thus,
34
these individuals either may rely less on fit narratives as they anticipate their work life coming to an end, or they may craft hybrid narratives that blend aspects of work and non-work life, such as retrospected and current fit coupled with anticipated fit to the environment of retirement. Finally, it may be tempting to suggest that fit narratives are only used when individuals consider misfit and have ample alternatives for jobs, such as when individuals are mobile and not constrained by dual career issues, availability of jobs, or embeddedness in a community (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Yet we suggest that even when these constraints exist, individuals are likely to craft narratives to soften the pain of being stuck. For example, individuals may bias their perceptions of retrospected and anticipated fit to make current fit seem better, or they may recraft their narrative to minimize the elements of current misfit. Thus, we contend that these fit narratives may be used when job mobility exists and when it doesnt, but that the narratives that individuals craft in these two situations may look strikingly different. CONCLUSION Today, working individuals are more mobile and experience a greater variety of work experiences than ever before, leading to changes in PE fit that individuals perceive, remember, and forecast. As such, it is important to consider the process by which individuals craft and recraft their stories of fit over time as these changes occur. It is also important that we understand the mechanisms by which these fit narratives influence various outcomes because attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction and turnover are crucial for both individuals and managers. The proposed model of fit narratives resolves deficiencies in current fit theory and provides many exciting avenues for future exploration.
CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT REFERENCES Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review, 84(6), 485-503. Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26(4): 512-529. Anderson, M. C., & Green, C. (2001). Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control. Nature, 410, 366-369. Ariely, D. & Loewenstein, G. (2000). When does duration matter in judgment and decision making? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 129(4): 508-523. Ashforth, B.E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Avital, M. (2000). Dealing with time in social inquiry: A tension between method and lived experience. Organization Science, 11(6), 665-673. Baldick, C. (2008). The Oxford dictionary of literary terms. New York: Oxford University Press. Bartunek, J., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 483-500.
35
Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., Sakaeda, A. R. (2005). Journal of Personality, 73(5): 1181-1213. Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16, 149-214. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp.1-62). New York: Academic Press.
36
Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R., Vandenberghe, C., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 468-482. Berlew, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1966). The socialization of managers: Effects of expectations on performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(2), 207-223. Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, Calif., Stanford Business Books. Bluedorn, A. C. & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2), 299-320. Boje, D. M. (1991). The story-telling organization: A study of story performance in an office supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106-126. Brewer, W. F. (1986). What is autobiographical memory? In D. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical memory (pp. 25-49). New York: Cambridge University Press. Brooks, P. 1984. Reading for the plot: Design and intention in narrative. New York: A.A. Knopf. Brousseau, K. R. (1983). Toward a dynamic model of job-person relationships: Findings, research questions, and implications for work system design. Academy of Management Review, 8, 33-45. Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larsson, R. (1996). Career pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 5266. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
37
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers' perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546-561. Cable, D. & Parsons, C. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1-23. Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding of the relationships among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 868882. Caldwell, D. F., & OReilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 648-657. Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person-environment fit: Past, present and future. In C. L. Cooper, Stress Research. (pp. 35-78), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 459-484. Cohler, B. J. (1982). Personal narrative and life course. In P. B. Blates & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behaviors (pp. 205-241). New York: Academic. Cunliffe, A. L., Luhman, J. T. & Boje, D. M. (2004). Narrative temporality theory: Implications for organization study. Organization Studies, 25(2), 261-286. Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L.H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
38
Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H., & Weiss, D. J. (1968). A theory of work adjustment (revision). Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation (No. XXIII), 114. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center. DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and person-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and self efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1242-1253. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 6, (pp. 283-357), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 238-274. Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292-339. Edwards, J. R. (2008). Theories of person-environment fit: An assessment of theoretical progress. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 167-230. Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 802-827. Edwards, J. R. & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1577-1613. Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T. Judge (Eds.),
39
Perspectives on Organizational Fit, SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series (pp. 209-258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ellis, A. D. & Tsui, A. S. (2007). Survival of the fittest or the least fit? When psychology meetsecology in organizational demography. In C. Ostroff, C. & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 287-351). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Elster, J. & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Utility from memory and anticipation. In J. Elster & G. Loewenstein (Eds.), Choice over time. (pp. 213-234). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C. & Harman, W. S. (2009). Turnover contagion: How coworkers job embeddedness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 545-561. Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: The importance of peaks, ends, and specific emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 577-606. Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 45-55. French, J. R. P., Jr., Rodgers, W. & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G. Coelho, D. Hamburg & J. Adams, Coping and adaptation. (pp. 316-333). New York, Basic Books. Fricko, M. A. & Beehr, T. A. (1992). A longitudinal investigation of interest congruence and gender concentration as predictors of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 45(1): 99117.
40
Fried, Y., Grant, A. M., Levi, A. S., Hadani, M., & Slowik, L. H. (2007). Job design in temporal context: A career dynamics perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 911927. Fried, Y. & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal-setting theory with time: An integrated approach. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 404-422.Furnham, A. (1994). Personality at work: The role of individual differences in the workplace. New York: Routledge. Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions, fantasies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657-684. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual change in organizations. Human Relations, 54(4), 419-444. Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1988). Narrative and the self as relationship. In L. Berkowitz, (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 21 (pp. 17-56). San Diego: Academic Press. Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (2004). Narratives of the self. In L. P. Hinchman & S. K. Hinchman (Eds.), Memory, identity, community: The idea of narrative in the human sciences, New York: State University of New York Press: 161-184. Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J. & Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 617-638. Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The development of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 748-769.
41
Harrison, D. A. (2007). Pitching fits in applied psychological research: Making fit methods fit theory. In C. Ostroff & T. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on fit in organizations, SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series, (pp. 389-416). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harrison, R. V. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne, Stress at work. (pp. 175-205). New York, John Wiley and Sons. Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row. Holmes, D. S. (1970). Differential change in affective intensity and the forgetting of unpleasant personal experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(3), 234-239. Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. 2002. Beyond "fit happens": A temporal theory of fitting at work. Symposium presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Denver. Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of personenvironment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 193-212. Jansen, K. J., & Michael, J. H. 2008. Change-based momentum and trajectories: The dynamics of change perceptions. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Anaheim, CA. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408. Johnson, M. K., & Sherman, S. J. (1990). Constructing and reconstructing the past and the future in the present. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Vol. 2, (pp. 482-526). New York: Guilford Press. Judge, T. A. (2007). The future of person-organization fit research: Comments, observations, and a few suggestions. In C. Ostroff & T. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on fit in organizations, SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series, (pp. 419-445). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42
Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2008). How the rich (and happy) get richer (and happier): Relationship of core self-evaluations to trajectories in attaining work success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 849-863. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B.L., Schreiber, C.A., & Redelmeier, D.A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4, 401-405. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2007).The dynamics of newcomer adjustment: Dispositions, context, interaction, and fit. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit, SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kimberly, J., & Bouchikhi, H. (1995). The dynamics of organizational development and change: How the past shapes the present and constrains the future. Organization Science, 6(1), 918. Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). Editorial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 1-4. Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. (1986). The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 50-55. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1-49. Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Jansen, K. J. (2007). Issues of person-organization fit. In C. Ostroff & T. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit, SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series (pp. 123-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 985-993.
43
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & 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(2), 281-342. Kulik, C., & Ambrose, M. (1992). Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 212-237. Lawler, E. E., Kuleck, W. J., Rhode, J. G., & Sorensen, J. E. (1975). Job choice and post decision dissonance. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13, 133-145. Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 51-89. Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the 'field at a given time.' Psychological Review, 50, 292-310. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Loewenstein, G. F. (1988). Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Management Science, 34(2), 200-214. Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review, 100(1), 91-108. London, M. (1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8, 620-630. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251. Lucas, R. E. (2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 75-79.
44
Markman, K. D. & McMullen, M. N. (2003). A reflection and evaluation model of comparative thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(3), 244-267. McAdams, D. P. (1993). Personal myths and the making of the self. Guilford Press: New York.. McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63, 363-396. McAdams, D. P. (2006). The problem of narrative coherence. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 109-125. McAdams, D. P. (2008). Personal narratives and the life story. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 241-261. McClosky, D. N. (1990). Storytelling in economics. In C. Nash (Ed.), Narrative in culture. London: Routledge. McGrath, J. E., & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Time and behavior in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 5, 57-101. McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. (2004). Time and the research process. In J. E. McGrath & F. Tschan (Eds.), Temporal matters in social psychology: Examining the role of time in the lives of groups and individuals (pp. 141-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McGregor, I., & Holmes, J. G. (1999). How storytelling shapes memory and impressions of relationship events over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 403419. Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind? Harvard Educational Review, 49(1), 1-19. Mishler, E. G. (1995). Models of narrative analysis: A typology. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5(2), 87-123.
45
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121. Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 530-547. Mitchell, T., Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Cronk, R. (1997). Temporal adjustments in the evaluation of events: The "rosy view." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 421-448. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1989). Organizational frame bending: Principles for managing reorientation. Academy of Management Executive, 3(3), 194-204. Newby-Clark, I. R., & Ross, M. (2003). Conceiving the past and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 807-818. Nuttin, J. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ostroff, C., Shin, Y., & Feinberg, B, (2002). Skill acquisition and person-occupation fit. In D. Feldman (Ed.), Work Careers: A Developmental Perspective. (pp. 63-92) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2007). Multiple perspectives of fit across levels of analysis. In C. Ostroff & T. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit, SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series (pp. 3-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pals, J. L. (2006). Constructing the springboard effect: Causal connections, self-making and growth within the life story. In D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich (Eds.),
46
Narrative identity: Dilemmas and debates. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Philippe, F. L., Lecours, S., & Beaulieu-Pelletier, G. (2009). Resilience and positive emotions: Examining the role of emotional memories. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 139-176. Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Bagozzi, R. (2006). Biased memory for prior decision making: Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 34-48. Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press. Random House (2001). Unabridged Dictionary. New York: Random House. Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Ritter, B. A., & Lord, R. G. (2007). The impact of previous leaders on the evaluation of new leaders: An alternative to prototype matching. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1683-1695. Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Person-environment fit and its implications for personality development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 72(1): 89-110. Robinson, M., & Ryff, C. (1999). The role of self-deception in perceptions of past, present, and future happiness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(5): 595-606. Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1-13. Russell, B. (1929). Mysticism and logic. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Rusting, C. L. (1999). Interactive effects of personality and mood on emotion-congruent memoryand judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1073-1086.
47
Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2 (2nd ed.), (pp. 399-444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50(2): 395-426. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 646-654. Schaie, K. W., & Schooler, C. (Eds.) (1998). Impact of work on older adults. New York: Springer. Schank, R. C, & Abelson, R. P. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story. In R. J. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition, Vol. 8, (pp. 1-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3): 437-453. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773. Schoenfelder, T. E., & Hantula, D. A. (2003). A job with a future? Delay discounting, magnitude effects, and domain independence of utility for career decisions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 43-55. Schwarz, N. (2007). Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: The rationale for real-time data capture. In A. A. Stone, S. S. Shiffman, A. Atienza, & L. Nebeling (Eds.), The science of
48
real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research, (pp. 11-26). New York: Oxford University Press. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press. Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (in press). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of past, present, and future. In press at Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Shum, M. S. (1998). The role of temporal landmarks in autobiographical memory processes. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 423-442. Sims, D., Huxham, C., & Beech, N. (2009). On telling stories but hearing snippets: Sense-taking from presentations of practice. Organization, 16(3), 371388 Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382. Strack, F., Schwarz, N., & Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, affect, and mode of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1460-1469. Taris, R., & Feij, J. A. (2001). Longitudinal examination of the relationship between suppliesvalues fit and work outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50: 52-80. Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51(2), 321-355. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Thoits, P. A. (1983). Dimensions of life events that influence psychological distress: An evaluation and synthesis of the literature. In H. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychological stress: Trends in theory and research (pp. 33-103). New York: Academic Press.
49
Thompson, C. P., Skowronski, J. J, Larsen, S. F., & Betz, A. (1996). Autobiographical memory: Remembering what and remembering when. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Trommsdorff, G. (1983). Future orientation and socialization. International Journal of Psychology, 18, 381-406. Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 7 (pp. 177-222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tversky, A., & Griffin, D. (1991). Endowment and contrast in judgments of well-being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective. International series in experimental social psychology. Vol. 21 (pp. 101118). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232. Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A study of pre- and post-decision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 212-225. Vroom, V. H., & Deci, E. L. (1971). The stability of post-decision dissonance: A follow-up study of the job attitudes of business school graduates. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 6, 36-49. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
50
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385-390. Wheeler, M. A., Stuss, D. T., & Tulving, E. (1997). Toward a theory of episodic memory: The frontal lobes and autonoetic consciousness. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 331-354. Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495. Wiersma, J. (1988). The press release: Symbolic communication in life history interviewing. Journal of Personality, 56, 205-238. Wilson, A., & Ross, M. (2001). From chump to champ: People's appraisals of their earlier and present selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 572-584. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201. Yu, K. Y. T. (in press). Affective influences in person-environment fit theory: Exploring the role of affect as both cause and outcome of P-E fit. Journal of Applied Psychology. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individualdifferences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271-1288. Zyphur, M. J., Chaturvedi, S., & Arvey, R. D. (2008). Job performance over time is a function of latent trajectories and previous performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 217-224.
51
FIGURE 1 Needs-Supplies Fit Example for Three Hypothetical Individuals

P3 P1
Environment
Amount of Needs/Supplies
P2
t -1 Retrospection of Past Fit
t0 Current Fit
t1 Anticipation of Future Fit
Temporal Perception of Fit

Note: Solid line is level of supplies available from Environment (in this example, a linear career path). Dashed lines represent three individuals (P) needs for supplies. Shading indicates that retrospections and anticipations may be somewhat imperfectly linked to the actual past or the (soon-to-be) actual future, and that these perceptions are likely to become more fuzzy as temporal distance increases.
52
FIGURE 2 A Model of Temporal Fit Perceptions
External Actions
Individual Perceptions
Extrospection
(Re)Crafting
Introspection
(Re)Crafting
Individual Fit Narrative Retrospected Fit

Temporal Influence Temporal Comparison
Current Fit
Temporal Comparison
Anticipated Fit
Temporal Influence
Attitudinal & Behavioral Outcomes

(e.g., Satisfaction, Intent to Quit, Turnover)
Temporal Focusa,b, Temporal Distancea,b, Temporal Event Intensitya, Durationb

Note: a Moderators for temporal influence. b Moderators for the paths for temporal comparison.

Crafting Narratives of Fit Revision 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crafting Narratives of Fit Revision 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

Abbie J. Shipp Texas A&M University

Karen J. Jansen University of Virginia

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

KEYWORDS: person-environment fit; time; temporal; perceptions; narrative

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

FIGURE 1 Needs-Supplies Fit Example for Three Hypothetical Individuals

t -1 Retrospection of Past Fit

t1 Anticipation of Future Fit

Temporal Perception of Fit

CRAFTING AND RECRAFTING NARRATIVES OF FIT

FIGURE 2 A Model of Temporal Fit Perceptions

Individual Fit Narrative Retrospected Fit

Attitudinal & Behavioral Outcomes

Temporal Focusa,b, Temporal Distancea,b, Temporal Event Intensitya, Durationb

You might also like