PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

2000,53

PERCEIVED APPLICANT FIT: DISTINGUISHING

BETWEEN RECRUITERS' PERCEPTIONS OF
PERSON-JOB AND PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT
AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN
Department of Management and Organizations
University of Iowa

Two studies were conducted to assess whether recruiters form distinguishable perceptions of applicant person-job (P-J) and personorganization (P-O) fit. The first study used repertory grid methodology with actual recruiters and mock applicants to demonstrate that
knowledge, skills, and abilities are relied on more frequently to assess
P-J fit, and values and personality traits more often to assess P-O fit.
Study 2, which involved actual recruiters making decisions on applicants in a field setting, supported P-J and P-O fit perceptions as 2 discemable factors. Study 2 also found that both types of perceived fit
offer unique prediction of hiring recommendations. Tkken together,
these results present compelling evidence that recruiters discriminate
between applicants' P-J and P-O fit during early interviews.
In studying organizational selection practices, researchers have commonly identified two forms of fit that may be important to hiring decisions: (a) person-job (P-J) fit, or the match between an applicant
and the requirements of a specific job; and (b) person-organization (PO) fit, or the match between an applicant and broader organizational
attributes (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990), P-J fit is
typically operationalized as the match between employees knowledge,
skills, and abilities (KSAs) and job demands (e.g., Caldwell & O'Reilly,
1990; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991); whereas P-O fit has most
This study was funded by a grant from the SHRM Foundation. The interpretations,
conclusions, and recommendations, however, are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the Foundation. This study received the 1998 Ralph Alexander
Dissertation Award from the Human Resources Division of the Academy of Management.
I thank the three anonymous reviewers and John Hollenbeck at Personnel Psychology
for their assistance with crafting this manuscript. My deepest appreciation also to Tim
Judge, Sara Rynes, Murray Barrick, Suzanne Masterson, and Ken Brown for their intellectual and emotional support throughout the publication process. Thanks also to my dissertation committee who supported this study from its inception: Cindy Stevens, Ed Locke,
Ben Schneider, Susan TJiylor, and Rhonda Reger; and to all of the doctoral students at the
University of Maryland and Michigan State University who helped with interviewing and
coding for this study.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Amy L. KristofBrown, Department of Management and Organizations, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242; amy-kristof-brown@uiowa.edu.
COPYRIGHT 2000 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC.

643

644

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

frequently been studied as individual-organizational value congruence

(Adkins, Russel, & Werbel, 1994; Cable & Judge, 1997; Chatman, 1989;
Posner, 1992). To date, however, there has been no compelling empirical evidence demonstrating that, in actual practice, recruiters differentiate between these two concepts. In fact, the discriminant validity
between the two types of fit has been questioned (Werbel & Gilliland,
1999). Moreover, no research has shown whether the two types of fit
perceptions provide unique value in predicting recruiting outcomes.
The current manuscript describes two studies designed to address
these issues. The first study investigates whether recruiters' perceptions
of P-J and P-O fit are infiuenced by unique types of applicant characteristics. Finding different antecedents for each fit perception would
provide initial evidence of their distinctiveness to recruiters. In the second study, the factor composition of a perceived fit measure is examined
to determine if two discriminable factors (P-J and P-O fit) comprise recruiters' fit perceptions. Further, the relationships between perceived
P-O and P-J fit and hiring recommendations are tested to determine if
each type of fit contributes uniquely to selection outcomes. Tkken together, these studies provide a comprehensive examination of the validity and utility of discriminating between perceived P-J and P-O fit in
selection research.
Fit in Selection
The traditional focus in selection was on P-J fit, or hiring individuals with particular skill sets to fill vacant positions (Cascio, 1991; Guion,
1987). This focus began with the Army's use of cognitive ability tests
for soldier selection in World War I and prescribed a pattern for selection research for over 75 years (Snow & Snell, 1993). However, as the
business world became increasingly complex and dynamic, many companies expressed a rising interest in fiexible staffing. To meet this need,
scholars recommended broadening the focus to include P-O fit, as well
as P-J fit (Bowen, Ledford, & Nathan, 1991; Bretz, Rynes, & Gerhart,
1993; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990). Unlike P-J fit, the characteristics often
associated with P-O fit are values and personality traits, and the focus is
on fit with broad organizational attributes, rather than job-specific tasks.
Current thinking supports the notion that both P-J and P-O fit are important, and should be sought after during recruiting (Bowen et al., 1991;
Judge & Ferris, 1992; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990).
There are many benefits to matching applicants at both the job and
organization level. Early writings on realistic job previews (RJPs) presented a "matching model" in which realistic job and company information was presented to aid applicants in self-selecting into desirable

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

645

positions (Phillips, 1998; Wanous, 1978, 1980). Schneider's attractionselection-attrition model (1987) built on these ideas and emphasized that
fit assessments made by recruiters, as well as applicants, would reduce
employee turnover. Whether the process is lead by the applicant or recruiter, hiring for multiple types of fit has been shown to improve employee attitudes and job performance, provide tighter control over new
hires, and enhance organizational image (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof,
1996; O'Reilly et al., 1991).
Despite these benefits, there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting the distinctiveness of perceived P-J and P-O fit to recruiters. Because it is common for recruiters to spend less than 30 minutes with job
applicants during early screening interviews, they have a limited amount
of information on which to base their evaluations of fit. Werbel and
Gilliland (1999) suggest that this is likely to lead to extensive isomorphism in the applicant characteristics used to assess various types of fit.
Supporting this point, Bretz et al. (1993) reported that recruiters used
applicant characteristics such as work experience and skills when describing an applicant with a good P-O fit, even though these characteristics are typically considered within the domain of P-J fit. Thus, despite
recommendations for recruiters to consider both P-J and P-O fit in selection, it remains to be empirically demonstrated that recruiters can
differentiate between them.
Antecedents of Perceived Fit

One indication of whether recruiters can distinguish between P-J and

P-O fit is if they assess each type of fit using different applicant characteristics. In a comprehensive review of the P-J fit literature, Edwards
(1991) defined P-J fit as existing when an individual has the skills to
meet the demands of a specific job (demands-abilities fit), or when the
job meets the needs of the individual (needs-supplies fit). Although applicants are undoubtedly concerned with finding a job that meets their
needs, recruiters are most concerned with hiring employees who have
the requisite KSAs. This means that from the perspective of recruiters,
demands-abilities fit is most relevant tofillinga particular position (Anderson & Ostroff, 1997; Werbel & Gililland, 1999). Therefore, applicants' KSAs are expected to be highly salient to recruiters when assessing
P-J fit.
However, results by Bretz et al. (1993) and Rynes and Gerhart (1990)
suggest that KSAs may also have an important infiuence on recruiters'
perceptions of how well an applicant fits in their company. Specifically,
they report that recruiters cite characteristics such as GPA, job-related
coursework, work experience, articulateness, and interpersonal skills as

646

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

the basis for their judgments of P-O fit. Cable and Judge (1997) also
found that GPA had a weak but significant relationship with recruiters'
P-O fit perceptions.
Although KSAs are typically associated with P-J fit, recent attention to contextual performancethat which extends beyond the boundaries of any one job (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993)may be establishing
organization-wide needs for particular KSAs. However, because contextual performance is more strongly infiuenced by personality traits and
values (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), it is unlikely that recruiters will make extensive use of ICSAs
to judge P-O fit. KSAs have a stronger link with task-related performance (Motowidlo et al., 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), and as
such, are more likely to be used by recruiters to judge P-J fit.
Hypothesis 1: Recruiters will use applicant KSAs more frequently to assess
applicants' P-J fit than P-O fit.
Edwards' definition of P-J fit emphasizes that fit occurs when a person meets the demands of a job, or a job fulfills the needs of a person.
Muchinslgr and Monahan (1987) describe this type of fit as complementary, which occurs when one entity completes another. Most studies
of P-O fit, however, have emphasized a different underlying relationshipone of fit based on similarity (Kristof, 1996). This type of fit is
referred to as supplementary fit, and it occurs when two entities (i.e.,
person and organization) share similar characteristics, and because of
that similarity are compatible.
Individual-organization value congruence is the most commonly studied form of supplementary fit, and there is reason to believe that recruiters consider it when assessing P-O fit. Chatman (1989) suggested
that value similarity is an important component of P-O fit because values are "fundamental and enduring aspects of individuals and organizations" (p. 339). As such, they guide both individual and organizational
behaviors and decision-making. Recruiters should be more likely to recommend hiring applicants who share their organizations' values because
the extent to which employees share values determines the strength
of an organization's culture (Chatman, 1989; Schein, 1990), and culture strength has been linked with organizational performance (Deal &
Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1990). At a more personal level, when people
have congruent value systems, they tend to view external stimuli and behave in similar ways, which leads to easier communication and coordination (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). Judge & Ferris (1992) suggest that
recruiters may use themselves as benchmarks to assess P-O fit. Therefore, if an applicant and recruiter appear to share the same values, the

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

647

recruiter is likely to judge the applicant as having a good fit. Adkins et

al. (1994) found support for this relationship by showing that congruence between applicant and recruiter values predicted recruiters' perceptions of the applicant's P-O fit. In addition. Cable and Judge (1997)
reported that perceived individual-organizational value congruence was
a stronger predictor of P-O fit perceptions than any demographic or human capital variables. Thus, there is good evidence to suggest that recruiters consider applicants' values when evaluating their P-O fit.
Values are less likely to be related to recruiter perceptions of applicant P-J fit. Certain occupational values can be identified, such as the
desire to help people for a medical career or a belief in the sanctity of
justice for a career in law. However, by the time a person has reached
the step of applying for a job, their values are likely to have guided them
into selecting compatible professions (Dawis, 1991). For example, it is
not expected that hospital recruiters searching for doctors would see applicants who vary considerably on the value of helping others. What may,
however, distinguish an applicant is whether he or she has values relevant to a specific medical organization, such as a value for teamwork at
the Mayo Clinics (Roberts, 1999). Therefore, recruiters are unlikely to
use values as a standard for P-J fit, but they are likely to use them to
assess fit with their particular organization.
Hypothesis 2: Recruiters will use applicant values more frequently to assess applicants' P-O fit than P-J fit.
In addition to KSAs and values, research also suggests that personality traits are relevant to P-O fit (Bowen et al., 1991). Personality traits
are "stylistic consistencies in a person's social behavior" (Hogan, 1991,
p. 875), so people with similar personalities are expected to interact and
behave in similar ways. The similarity-attraction paradigm suggests that
similarity leads to liking and increased attraction between individuals
(Byrne, 1971). Therefore, recruiters have better interactions with, and
are more attracted to, applicants with personalities similar to themselves
and others in their organization (Dipboye, 1992). Moreover, Schneider's (1987) attraction-selection-attrition framework suggests that recruiters prefer applicants whose dispositional characteristics are compatible with organizational refiections of the founder's personality (e.g.,
organizational goals, processes, structures, and culture). Once hired,
people with compatible personalities are likely to enjoy higher satisfaction, reduced stress, and increased career success and tenure (e.g., Bretz
& Judge, 1994; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1984). Because of increased attraction and the benefits of personality compatibility, it is expected that
recruiters will use personality traits to judge applicants' P-O fit.

648

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Alternatively, several studies have shown that personality traits may

also be an important determinant of fit with specific jobs (e.g., Jackson, Peacock, & Smith, 1980; O'Reilly, 1977; Paunonen, Jackson, &
Oberman, 1987). Personality traits fi-equently fall into the category of
"other" when a job analysis isolates the KSAOs (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other things) that are necessary for satisfactory performance
on the job (Harvey, 1991). A growing body of evidence suggests that
certain traits, such as conscientiousness and emotional stability, have a
meaningful relationship with job performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount,
1991). In addition, research on Holland's (1985) RIASEC typology of
vocational choice finds clear evidence that people with certain personality traits will be more satisfied and successful in particular vocations
(Assouline & Meir, 1987; Spokane, 1985). Therefore, recruiters may
also use personality information to make judgments of P-J fit. However,
as in the case of values, because the selection into particular vocations
takes place prior to interviewing for specific jobs, recruiters are likely to
interview applicants with a restricted range of job-relevant personality
traits. Therefore, despite the relevance of job-specific personality traits,
it is predicted that recruiters will use applicants' personality traits more
fi-equently to assess P-O fit than P-J fit.
Hypothesis 3: Recruiters will use applicant personality traits more frequently to assess applicants' P-O fit than P-J fit.
Although the preceding discussion centered around broad categories
of characteristics (KSAs, values, personality traits), each category contains numerous specific characteristics that recruiters might use to judge
P-J or P-O fit. An interesting question arises concerning the extent that
recruiters agree about which characteristics indicate P-J and P-O fit.
Rynes and Gerhart (1990) suggested that applicant characteristics can
be partitioned into three categories: (a) idiosyncratic preferences, held
by individual recruiters; (b) organization-specific preferences, held by
some organizations but not others; and (c) general or universal preferences, held by all organizations. Although evidence suggests that interviewers use characteristics from all three categories (Adkins et al., 1994;
Bretz et al., 1993; Cable & Judge, 1997; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990), little is known about their relative frequency. Therefore, an exploratory
investigation into the extent of agreement among recruiters on specific
characteristics used to assess P-J and P-O fit was conducted.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

649

Factor Structure of Perceived Fit

For recruiters' perceptions of P-J and P-O fit to be unique, they

should not only have different predictors, but they should also be statistically distinct. O'Reilly et al. (1991) offer evidence that in a sample
of existing employees P-J and P-O fit are not strongly related (r = .16).
However, their study assessed actual, rather than perceived fit (where
actual P-J fit was assessed using a KSA inventory and actual P-O fit was
assessed as the difference between employees' and the organization's
value profiles), which may have contributed to the weak relationship between the two constructs. No published study has examined whether
their results also hold for recruiters' perceptions of the two fit constructs.
Because of the anticipated overlap in characteristics recruiters use
to assess P-J and P-O fit, it is likely that perceived P-J and P-O fit will
covary more strongly in a recruiting setting than in a sample of existing
employees. In fact, due to the limited time that recruiters have to interact with applicants, it is questionable whether they perceive P-J and P-O
fit as two distinct concepts. Because halo bias infiuences recruiters to assign consistent ratings across dimensions for a single applicant (Cooper,
1981), it is possible that recruiters do not discriminate between the two
types of fit. Dipboye (1992) summarized, "the striking aspect of postinterview judgments is the extent to which they are dominated by global
impressions of the applicant's qualifications with little attention to variations among different dimensions." (p. 119). Thus, it is possible that
an assessment of overall applicant fit dominates recruiters' perceptions,
rather than distinct evaluations of applicants' fit with the job and the organization. If this is the case, then there is little reason to investigate
both P-J and P-O fit in recruitment research, or to encourage recruiters
to consider both when making hiring recommendations.
Despite these concerns, it is expected that recruiters are able to differentiate between P-J and P-O fit for two reasons. First, each refers to
a distinct aspect of the environmentjob versus organization. Regardless of the firm in which it resides, the job of an entry-level consultant
requires a common set of KSAs. Likewise, an organization is characterized by a set of core values, which transcend any one particular job title
and infiuence the behavior of all employees. Therefore, the job and organization are conceptually distinct elements of the work environment;
recruiters should be able to discriminate between them. Moreover, each
type of fit may be infiuenced by a unique set of applicant characteristics
(i.e., P-J fit by KSAs, and P-O fit by values). For these reasons, it is
predicted that a 2-factor model (representing P-J and P-O fit) will better fit the data of recruiters' fit perceptions than will a 1-factor model
(representing overall applicant fit).

650

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Hypothesis 4: With respect to recruiters' perceptions of fit, a 2-factor

model, representing P-J and P-O fit, will better fit the data than will a
1-factor model, representing overall fit.
Perceived Fit and Interview Outcomes
A final way to determine the distinctiveness of perceived P-J and P-O
fit is to show that each makes unique contributions to explaining interview outcomes. Cable and Judge (1997) reported that perceived P-O fit
predicted hiring recommendations above and beyond objective qualifications, such as GPA or work experience, and demographics. However,
subjective evaluations typically have a stronger influence than objective
qualifications on interview outcomes (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989). Therefore, a stronger test of whether each type of fit explains unique variance
in hiring recommendations is to compare the prediction of perceived P O fit with that of perceived P-J fit.
As previously noted, perceptions of P-J and P-O fit are likely to be
related in the interview context. Adkins et al. (1994) encountered a similar situation with perceptions of P-O fit and general employability, which
they found correlated at r = .81. Despite this strong relationship, they
were able to show that both perceptions explained unique variance in invitations for a second interview. In light of Adkins et al.'s (1994) results,
and
because
perceived
P-O and P-J fit describe conceptually distinct applicant evaluations, it
is predicted that both will predict unique variance in hiring recommendations.
Hypothesis 5: Both perceived P-O and perceived P-J fit will explain unique
variance in recruiters' hiring recommendations.

Study One Method

Participants
Thirty-one recruiters from the mid-Atlantic divisions of four consulting organizations participated in this study. These included eight
recruiters in information systems (IS) consulting and seven in financial consulting firom Company A (650 people local; 67,000 worldwide),^
^The two consulting groups in Company A (IS and Financial) were coded separately
because there is little interaction between consultants in the two groups. Therefore, the
total number of organizational units considered in later analyses was flve.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

651

consulting firom Company D (2,200 IS consultants; 10,000 consultants

worldwide). All participants were fulltime consultants who recruited an
average of 3.3 (SD = 6.6) days a year, and received very limited recruiting training (M = 1.7 hours, SD = 3.5 hours).
Within the constraint that only people in the office on the data collection dates could participate, all recruiters were invited to take part in
the study. Participation rates in Companies B and C were over 50% of
all recruiters, and in Company D, 75% of the senior IS recruiters were
represented. Respondentsfi^omCompany A comprised less than 25%
of their recruiters, so post hoc analyses were conducted to determine
if participants were a representative sample. An analysis of variance
between participants and nonparticipants indicated no demographic or
experience-related differences.
Procedure
Overview. This study used a technique called the repertory grid
(Kelly, 1955) to solicit recruiters' schemas of the applicant characteristics associated with perceptions of good P-J and P-O fit. This technique
has been used commonly in clinical settings and has recently gained popularity in studies of organizational phenomena (Anderson, 1990; Brook,
1986; Reger, 1990; Smith, 1986). The repertory grid methodology was
chosen because it meets specifications outlined by Bretz et al. (1993) for
how to study recruiters' fit perceptions. Bretz et al. (1993) first advised
avoiding researcher-generated rating scales (e.g., commonly accepted
values or personality measures), because of the demand characteristics
that they can induce. Instead they recommended allowing recruiters to
articulate their own conceptualizations of fit. The second specification
is that these articulations should be generated in the context of concrete
situations or stimuli. This is necessary because people often have difficulty recalling decision criteria from abstract situations. The repertory
grid technique meets both of these requirements.
Operationally, the repertory grid involves a semistructured interview
in which respondents are asked to compare members of a standard set
of stimuli. For each comparison respondents are asked to indicate the
characteristics used to differentiate between the stimuli. For this study
the process involved asking recruiters to compare a standard set of applicants, and describe the characteristics that distinguished those with good
P-J and P-O fit from the others. The technique proceeded as follows:
Step 1. Participants watched a videotape containing abbreviated
mock interviews with seven MBA students, and reviewed their corresponding resumes. At the conclusion of each interview segment, partic-

652

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

ipants were provided time to take notes on the applicant they had just
viewed.
Step 2. After the video of all seven applicants had been viewed, researchers met one-on-one with participants to ask them questions from
the repertory grid protocol (see Appendix). Each participant was presented with the numbers of three randomly selected applicants to determine which had the best P-O fit and which had the best P-J fit. For example, the researcher might ask "Comparing applicants #4, #5, and #2,
which of these people do you think is the best fit with your company?"
After responses to that question were noted, the researcher would ask
"Comparing these same three applicants, which is the best fit with the
job of an entry level consultant?" To aid recall of the applicants, participants were encouraged to refer back to their notes and the applicants'
resumes. In addition, to promote visual recall they were provided with
a photograph of each applicant. Tb ensure systematic bias did not result
from the question order, half the participants were asked about P-O fit
first, and the other half about P-J fit first. Analysis of variance indicated
no effect of question ordering on the total number or type of applicant
characteristics generated.
Step 3. After identifying the best fitting applicant in each category
(P-J and P-O) the research asked each participant, "Can you please describe the applicant characteristics that led you to make that choice?"
They provided responses such as "This applicant has the most years of
work experience," or "This applicant seems to like variety." When participants noted multiple characteristics, each was recorded for completeness. Finally, the researcher asked, "Please describe the opposite of
those characteristics, to give me a clear sense of what you would consider not a good fit." (i.e., no work experience; enjoys routine).
Step 4. After comparing the first triad of applicants, the researcher
then presented a second triad of applicants and repeated the questions.
This questioning strategy continued through a series of 10 applicant
triads. To reduce the possibility that particular applicant comparisons
could bias the results, four different triad sequences were used. Each
sequence was generated by randomly drawing three applicant numbers,
replacing the numbers, and drawing three new numbers. This process
continued until an applicant's number had been selected four times, at
which point it was discarded to avoid overrepresentation. Analyses of
variance suggested that the particular series of applicants did not significantly infiuence the number or type of characteristics reported.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

653

Materials

The repertory grid technique necessitates that participants base their

responses on a common set of stimuli (Kelly, 1955). Therefore, videotaped interviews and resumes of seven MBA students were viewed by
all recruiters. Tb bolster external validity, the videos contained actual
footagefirommock interviews conducted with another consulting company. The materials are described in detail below.
Videos. Independent of this research project, mock interviews with 47
MBA students were conducted by a nonparticipating consulting organization and the MBA placement office of a large, public eastern university. After contacting a random sample of half of the students, 11 videotaped interviews were obtained (others had been lost or taped over).
Each interview was coded by the researcher into "turns at talk" (one recruiter question and one applicant response) according to the methodology used in Stevens and Kristof (1995). To ensure that comparable information was presented across interviews, only those turns at talk containing similar recruiter questions were retained. This editing process
resulted in 5-7 minute video clips for each student applicant.
Due to time restrictions set by the participating organizations, only 7
of the 11 interview segments could be used. Tb ensure they represented
a wide range of applicants, interviews from the seven most diverse students were selected. Diversity was evaluated in three ways. First, nine
independent coders viewed the interview segments and rated each on
traits Rynes and Gerhart (1990) and Bretz et al. (1993) had previously
associated with P-O fit (e.g., warmth, work experience, work ethic, innovation). Second, the applicants' scores on Goldberg's (1992) measure
of the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1988) and their values, as assessed by the Comparative Emphasis Scale (CES; Ravlin &
Meglino, 1987), were reviewed. All students had completed these measures as part of participation in an unrelated research project. Finally,
the demographic variables of gender, nationality, and MBA concentration were also considered. Based on these criteria, four applicants making "redundant" impressions were eliminated. The remaining applicants
were 57% female, of three nationalities, had seven different MBA concentrations, represented each of the dominant values on the CES, and
had a score on at least one of the Big Five personality traits that was one
standard deviation either above or below the MBA average.
Resumes. Based on the university's MBA resume book, one financerelated and one IS-related resume was aeated for each student. As with
the videos, maximum variability was desirable on the corresponding resumes. Therefore, two applicants were randomly selected to be portrayed as highly experienced in the relevant field (IS or finance), three

654

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

as moderately experienced, and two as experienced in unrelated fields

(marketing and transportation). GPAs ranged from 3.3 to 4.0, which represented the high and low points for that year's MBA students applying
for consulting positions. Honors and activities ranged from none to four
of the following: academic honors, religious or minority-group involvement, leadership positions, and volunteer work. These activities were
based on the student's actual resumes, so their content matched what
was discussed during the interview.
Anafyses
Coding is typically the first step in analyzing qualitative data. The
coding process for this study can be compared to simple content analysis
(Krippendorf, 1980), with the basic intent being to categorize applicant
characteristics into the codes of KSAs, values, personality traits, and
others. After the codes have been assigned, the data can be retrieved and
analyzed in "quasi-quantitative ways," including measuring the relative
incidence of different codes for perceived P-J fit and P-O fit. This codeand-retrieve process is one of the most commonly used in qualitative
data analysis (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).
The repertory grid interviews generated a list of 119 characteristics associated with either, or both, perceived P-J fit or P-O fit. To
ensure that each of these characteristics represented a unique applicant attribute, five independent raters were asked to group together any
characteristics they judged to be sufficiently similar (i.e., outgoing and
extraverted). Groupings were only created if the characteristics were
judged to be similar by at least three of the five raters. All other characteristics were left as distincta conservative method for assessing similarity (Bretz et al., 1993). This process resulted in a reduced list of 62
unique applicant characteristics (see Table 1). The fact that these stimulus materials generated 62 distinct fit-related characteristics, as compared to 45 generated using actual applicants in Bretz et al. (1993), suggests that the videos and resumes allowed recruiters to view a realistic
range of applicant characteristics.
Three additional coders, blind to the study's hypotheses, were then
trained to place each of the 62 characteristics into the categories of KSA,
value, personality trait, or other attribute. Miles and Huberman (1994)
recommend this strategy of creating the categories prior to reading the
data when the research questions are already established. To promote
reliable coding, the coders were trained using established definitions and
examples for each category. Because distinguishing between categories
was anticipated to be difficult in some cases (e.g., someone who states
that they value hard work may also be described as conscientious), the

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN
TABLE 1
Content Categorizations of Perceived P-J and P-O Fit Characteristics
Category 1: Knowledge, skills, and abilities
Consulting skills and experience
l&chnical/computer skills and experience
Quantitative skills and experience
Problem-solving skills and experience
Analysis skills and experience
Process focused skills and experience
Client service experience
Managerial skills and experience
Leadership skills and experience
l&am skills and experience
Broad, general work skills and experience
High level of work experience
Breadth of life experiences
Communication skills; Listening skills
People/human interpersonal skills
Organizational skills; Time management
Experience in Big 6 consulting firm
Experience with small companies
Runs own business; Entrepreneurial experience
Niche skills or major
Relevant major (IS or Finance)
Smart; High GPA; Sharp
CPA
Substantive comments on experience
Realistic/knowledgeable view of industry
Category 2: Personality
Big picture focus; Results-oriented
Sees the gray areas; Deep
Political savvy; Smooth talker; Diplomatic
Extroverted; Dynamic; Enthusiastic
Likable; Friendly; Personable; Warm
Success oriented; Strives for excellence; Ikkes pride in work
Ambitious; Aggressive; Likes challenges
Confident; Can sell him or herself
Realistic view of self
Professional; Mature; Poised
Prepared for interview
Focused; Goal oriented; Has 5-year plan

655

656

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1, continued
Adaptable; Flexible; Versatile
Self-motivated; Ikkes initiative
Tfeam player; Helpful
Positive attitude
Independent; Doesn't need hand-holding
Easy to label; Predictable
Direct; Straightforward
Sincere; Honest
Inquisitive; Curious
Creative
Planner
Logical
Thorough; Detail-oriented; Perfectionist
Tlikes responsibility; Follow-through
Relaxed; Easy going
Personally fulfilled; Comfortable with self; Well-adjusted
Down-to-earth; Not flashy
All American; Joe 6-pack
Category 3: Values
Interested in work and extra effort; Good work ethic
Interested in continuous learning
Wants feedback; Wants to improve self
Likes pressure and deadlines
Likes variety and change, not routine or rules
Category 4: Others
Goals align with ours (consulting)
Young

coders were instructed to use the definitions provided and be consistent.^

Perfect consensus existed on 89% of the categorizations; the remaining
11% were agreed upon by at least two of the three coders.
^KSAs were categorized using Harvey's definitions (1991, pp. 75-76): Knowledge"a
body of information applied directly to the performance of a function... Skillslearned,
observable, psychomotor acts... [Abilities]psychological characteristics (e.g., numerical
ability, spatial ability) considered to vary or differ across individuals... relatively stable
and enduring personal characteristics that defy efforts at change (e.g., general intelligence. ..)." Values were defined as: "An enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct
or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse
mode of conduct or end-state of existence (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5), and "beliefs, attitudes.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

657

Once eacb characteristic had been categorized as a KSA, value, or

personality trait, the coders analyzed the responses from each repertory
grid interview to generate frequency data for each interview. This included the total number and type of specific characteristics reported by
each recruiter. Intercoder correlations ranged from .69-.96 on the total number of characteristics per interview, and average pairwise Kappas
(Cohen, 1960), calculated on the reported presence or absence of a characteristic in each interview, were .78 for P-J fit and .73 for P-O fit. These
numbers indicate that there was a reasonably high level of agreement
between coders on the characteristics in each interview. A characteristic was included in the quantitative analyses only if two or more coders
agreed that it was present.
Study One Results
Antecedents of Perceived Fit
Hypotheses 1 proposed that recruiters would rely more heavily on
KSAs to judge an applicant's P-J fit than P-O fit. Hypotheses 2 and 3
predicted that values and personality would be used more frequently to
assess applicants' P-O fit than P-J fit. To test these hypotheses the total number of KSAs, values, and personality traits reported by each recruiter as indicators of P-J and P-O fit was calculated using the information provided by the coders (see Tkble 2). Because the same recruiters
provided data on both types of fit, a paired-samples t-test was used to
compare the mean values for P-J and P-O fit.
Results indicate that 100% of recruiters mentioned KSAs as indicators of both P-J and P-O fit. However, as predicted, the mean number of
KSAs reported as indicators of P-J fit (M = 5.77 per interview) was significantly higher than the mean number reported for P-O fit (M = 3.16),
d = 1.06; t(30) = 5.92, p < .01. Values were mentioned as indicators of
P-O fit by 65% of recruiters, and as indicators of P-J fit by 39%. As hypothesized, the mean number of values reported for P-O fit (M = 1.10)
was significantly higher than the mean number of values mentioned for
P-J fit (M = .58), d = -.39; t(30) = -2.19, p < .05). A similar result was found for the mean number of personality traits (M = 5.19 for
P-O fit, M = 2.13 for P-J fit, d = -1.02; t(30) = -5.67, p < .01), with
100% of recruiters using them to assess P-O fit versus 81% for P-J fit.
needs, interests, preferences, standards or criteria and the conception of the desirable"
(Dawis, 1991, p. 837). Personality traits were defined by Hogan (1991, p. 875): "a person's
social reputation and inner nature," including traits or "stylistic consistencies in a person's
social behavior." Anything that didn't fall into these categories was, by default, placed in
the "other" category.

658

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
7

5|

m
.S so,

11

2 '-5
a -2
00 00 t^

si2

00 f^
" 4

Pii
15

ll

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

659

Effect sizes indicate that the mean differences are strongest for KSAs
and personality traits, with differences approximating one standard deviation. The difference for values is smaller, but this may be due the
overall low base rate of values reported by recruiters. Together, these
results support Hypotheses 1-3, indicating that recruiters rely differentially on various types of applicant characteristics to assess P-J fit and
P-O fit.
It should be noted that although comparisons can be made between
the number of KSAs, values, and personality traits used to judge one
type of fit versus the other, comparisons should not be made between
types of characteristics within each fit category. For example, although
the relative number of KSAs used to judge P-O versus P-J fit can be
compared, it is not appropriate to contrast the number of KSAs versus
values used to judge P-O fit. This is because of the varying base rates for
each category in the recruiter-generated list of characteristics. Having
said this, the high frequency with which personality traits were used
to assess both P-J and P-O fit is interesting to note. It appears that
recruiters made extensive judgments about applicant personality, even
from the short videotaped interview.
Exploratory analyses into the extent of recruiter agreement on the
specific characteristic associated with P-J and P-O fit were also conducted. Based on Rynes and Gerhart's (1990) definitions, a characteristic was categorized as: (a) organization-specific if it was endorsed by a
majority of recruiters in a minority of the firms; (b) a universal indicator,
if endorsed by a majority of recruiters in a majority of the organizations;
and (c) an idiosyncratic preference if not agreed upon by a majority of recruiters in any of the firms. Of the characteristics reported as indicators
of P-J fit, 74% were idiosyncratic preferences, 22% were organizationspecific, and only 4% were universal. Percentages were similar for characteristics associated with P-O fit: 73% idiosyncratic, 23% organizationspecific, and 3% universal.
Study Two Method
Participants
Participants included 46 recruiters^fi^omCompany C and Company
A, who had not participated in Study 1. Their time spent each year
^Because some recruiters evaluated more than one applicant, the possibility that systematic differences across recruiters influenced the results was considered. An analysis of
variance using recruiter as the grouping variable resulted in a significant F-ratio for perceived P-Ofit,F(46, 79) = 1.89, p < .05. Post hoc comparisons indicated one recruiter,
who evaluated one applicant, reported aberrantly low scores. This recruiter was removed
from all analyses, resulting in 46 recruiters and a total N = 79.

660

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

recruiting (M = 2.5 days; SD = 3.5) and in recruiting-focused training

(M = 4.0 hours, SD = 8.4) was similar to that of the participants in
Study 1.
Procedure
After conducting actual 30-minute screening interviews, the participants were asked to evaluate at least one "successful" and one "unsuccessful" applicant. This procedure is similar to one used by Adkins et al.
(1994), Bretz et al. (1993), and Cable and Judge (1997). Recruiters evaluated a mean of 1.7 applicants, making 79 applicants the total sample
available for analysis. The applicants represented 35% of those interviewed by Company C. No estimate could be obtained on the percentage from Company A. Of the interviews, 75% were conducted on-site
and 25% on-campus. Because these recruiters were authorized to evaluate the applicants, but not make final selection decisions, their hiring
recommendations were the dependent variable.
Measures
Perceived applicant P-Oflt. Four items based on measures by Adkins
et al. (1994) and Cable and Judge (1997) were used to indicate recruiters'
perceptions of applicants' P-O fit (To what degree does this applicant fit
with your organization?; To what extent is this applicant similar to other
[insert company] employees?; To what extent will other employees think
this candidate fits well in your organization?; How confident are you
that this applicant would be compatible with your organization?). Item
responses were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale, with (1 = not at all)
to (5 =completefy) anchors. The scale had an alpha reliability of .96.
Perceived applicant P-J fit. Three items were included to measure
recruiters' perceptions of applicants' P-J fit (To what extent does this
applicant fit the demands of the job?. To what extent will other employees think this candidate is qualified to do this job?. How confident are
you that this applicant is qualified for this job?). Responses were noted
on the 5-point scale described above and the three items had an alpha
reliability of .94.
Hiring recommendations. A 4-item scale (a = .96) was used to assess
recruiters' hiring recommendations. Similar to the measure used by
Cable and Judge (1997), recruiters were asked to report the likelihood
that they would recommend a particular applicant be hired and that
the applicant would actually be hired. In addition they were asked to
rate the confidence with which they would recommend that applicant
for employment and their confidence that the applicant would succeed

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

661

TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Perceived Fit
and Hiring Recommendations
Variable

Af

SD

1. Perceived P-J Fit

2. Perceived P-O Fit
3. Hiring recommendations

3.8
3.8
3.6

.82
.81
1.0

(.94)
.72*
.86*

(.96)
.79*

(96)

n = 79 p<.05

in their organization. All responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from (1 =not at all) to (5 =extremefy).
Study Two Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations between perceived
P-J fit, P-O fit, and hiring recommendations appear in "Eible 3. Reliabilities for each scale are located along the diagonal. As expected, but
in contrast to results by O'Reilly et al. (1991), perceived P-J and P-O
fit were highly correlated (r = .72). Perceived P-J fit was slightly more
correlated with hiring recommendations than P-O fit.
Factor Structure of Perceived Fit

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using EQS (Bentler, 1985), to determine whether a 2-factor structure (P-J and P-O fit) or
1-factor (overall fit) structure better fit the data. The results show that
the data fit the 2-factor model with covarying factors fit the data well (x^
[13, AT = 79] = 31.09, p < .01; NNFI = .954; CFI = .972). Goodness of
fit indices were substantially lower for the 1 factor-model, obtained by
treating all seven items as indicators of an overall fit perception (x^ [14,
AT = 79] = 130.52; hfNFI = .727; CFI = .818). To evaluate Hypothesis
4, a x^-difference test was conducted to determine whether the x^ value
for the 2-factor model was significantly lower than that for the 1-factor
model. This test indicated that the difference in x^ for the two models
was statistically significant (Ax^ = 99.43, Ad/ = 1; p < .05), with the
2-factor model being a better fit to the data. These results suggest that,
despite their high correlation, perceived P-J and P-O fit are best treated
as separate variables.
Perceived Fit and Interview Outcomes

Hypothesis 5 predicted that both perceived P-J fit and perceived P-O
fit would explain unique variance in recruiters' hiring recommendations.

662

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE4
Prediction of Hiring Recommendations by Perceived P-J and P-O Fit

Step

Variables

Hiring recommendations
R^
AH^

.12
Control variables:
GPA
.08
Interview site
-.10
Company
-.38
Fit perceptions:
.80
P-J Fit
.63
P-O Fit
.35
Notes: 0 = standardized regression coefficient
p < .05

df

.12*

3, 78

.68*

5, 78

After controlling for the applicant's GPA, interview site (on campus or
on site), and the company (A or C), hiring recommendations were regressed on the two perceived fit variables (see Tkble 4). Of the control
variables, only company explained a significant amount of the variance
in the criterion. Applicants to Company A were more likely to be recommended for hire than applicants to Company C, which may be explained
by the fact that Company C was a small company needing to fill fewer
positions. In addition to the company control variable, recruiters' fit
perceptions as a group predicted hiring recommendations, AR'^ = .68,
F(5, 78) = 58.49, p < .01. In support of Hypothesis 5, the regression
weights for both perceived P-J fit (P = .63; p < .05) and perceived P-O
fit (P = .39; p < .05) were significant, indicating that each explained
unique variance in hiring recommendations. Perceived P-J fit explained
the greatest amount of variance; after controlling for perceived P-O fit,
R^ increased 21% with the addition of perceived P-J fit. Alternatively,
R^ increased only 5% when perceived P-O fit was added after controlling for perceived P-J fit.
Discussion

Two studies were conducted to assess whether recruiters form distinguishable perceptions of applicants' P-J and P-O fit. Tbgether these
studies make an important contribution to the recruiting literature by
empirically demonstrating that perceived P-J and P-O fit differ in terms
of their antecedents and factor composition, and both offer unique prediction of recruiters' hiring recommendations.
Results of Study 1 show that recruiters judge P-J and P-O fit using
different types of applicant characteristics. Although some recruiters
used applicant KSAs, values and personality traits to judge both P-J
and P-O fit, the relative reliance on each type of characteristic differed

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

663

depending on which type of fit was being assessed. As predicted, KSAs

were mentioned more firequently as indicators of P-J fit than P-O fit,
and personality traits and values were mentioned more frequently as
indicators of the latter.
Although it is not statistically meaningful to compare the frequency
of use for one type of trait versus another for judging P-J or P-O fit, it is
interesting to note the high number of personality assessments recruiters
made. This may be because personality traits may be inferred from
nonverbal behaviors and appearance, as well as applicant responses.
In addition, Rothstein & Jackson (1984) proposed that recruiters hold
"implicit personality theories" that lead them to judge personality by
assessing one trait, and then assuming the existence of other traits based
on their perceived covariation with the initial trait. For these reasons,
recruiters may make extensive personality assessments after even brief
encounters with applicants, and use these assessments to judge their P-J
and P-O fit.
Exploratory analyses revealed that within these broad categories of
applicant characteristics, recruiters seldom agreed on the specific indicators of a good fit of either type. Their perceptions were dominated
by idiosyncratic ideas of what made an applicant a good P-J or P-O fit.
These results support Adkins et al.'s (1994) conclusion that recruiters
often vary in the criteria they use to judge an applicant's fit, and are
particularly noteworthy because all recruiters viewed the same set of
applicants in the current study. One explanation for the high reliance
on idiosyncratic criteria is the limited training that participants in this
study had received on interviewing. Other studies have shown that recruiter training may reduce idiosyncratic biases (Maurer & Fay, 1988;
Stevens, 1998). Another possibility is that, as suggested by Judge and
Ferris (1992), recruiters may use themselves as an individualized benchmark to judge P-O fit. Van Vianen (2000) suggests that this might not
necessarily be harmful, as value similarity between newcomers and focal others, such as a supervisor or peer (what she termed person-person
fit) has a stronger impact on organizational commitment than does similarity with the organization's values. Finally, it should be noted that the
operationalization of "idiosyncratic" was fairly liberal, with a high level
of agreement (50% of recruiters in firm) required to categorize something as organization-specific. Thus, there may have been a bias toward
finding a relatively high proportion of idiosyncratic criteria.
Whereas Study 1 investigated antecedents. Study 2 assessed the factor structure and predictive validity of perceived P-J and P-O fit. In this
study the two constructs were highly correlated (r = .72), which contrasts
with the weak correlation between actual P-J and P-O fit reported by
O'Reilly et al. (1991). The high correlation was not surprising, however.

664

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

because of the overlap in predictors and the short time frame of first
interviews. TWo CFAs were conducted to compare a 2-factor model, in
which perceived P-O and P-J fit were distinct, covarying factors, with
a 1-factor model of perceived overall fit. The 2-factor model fit the
data well, significantly better than did the 1-factor model. Thus, there
is evidence that recruiters' fit perceptions form two discriminable factors. Results of Study 2 also indicate that both perceived P-O and P-J
fit explained unique variance in recruiters' hiring recommendations.
These results provide evidence that perceived P-J and P-O fit are
distinct constructs. However, there is no question that the two variables
are highly related in the minds of recruiters. Their bivariate correlation
is high and recruiters make some use of KSAs, values and personality
traits when assessing both types of fit. Researchers of distributive and
procedural justice have faced a similar challenge. These constructs have
been reported to correlate as highly as 0.77, but are still argued to be
conceptually distinct (Tyler, 1984). Folger (1987, p. 151) concluded that
empirical evidence supports that "(i) distributive and procedural justice
are interrelated, such that perceptions of one can infiuence perceptions
of the other; and (ii) distributive and procedural justice can nevertheless
be evaluated on independent grounds, such that the two types of fairness
need not coincide." The results reported in the current paper support a
similar conclusion about recruiters' perceptions of P-J and P-O fit.
When comparing perceived P-J and P-O fit, P-J fit was found to have
the stronger relationship with recruiter recommendations, which is consistent with prior research conducted on first interviews (Bretz et al.,
1993; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990). Because many first interviews are used
as screening mechanisms, the initial concern should be to eliminate applicants who do not meet the job requirements. Even though the participants in this study were not fulltime recruiters, their objective was to find
applicants who could fill position vacancies defined by particular skill
requirements. In all cases the applicants would complete an additional
interview with another recruiter before being made a job offer. Therefore, perceived P-O fit may be used later to distinguish among applicants
already judged to be qualified for the job. Future research which tracks
applicants through all stages of an organization's hiring process should
be conducted to assess whether the impact of perceived P-J and P-O
fit varies changes over time. Nevertheless, because both perceived P-J
and P-O fit explained unique variance in hiring recommendations in this
study, there is evidence that P-O fit is considered by recruiters even at
the earliest stages of the hiring process.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

665

Limitations and Strengths

These studies have a number of limitations. First, the categorization scheme used to distinguish between KSAs, values, and personality
traits in Study 1 is only one way of classifying the data. Although as
researchers we try to make clean distinctions between constructs, they
often have overlapping domains that make perfect categorizations difficult (Herringer, 1998). Tb deal with this challenge, care was taken to use
widely accepted definitions of each of the three categories. Coders were
trained to use these definitions when making categorizations, which resulted in a high degree of consensus. In addition, if a characteristic was
recategorized the effect would be consistent across perceived P-J and
P-O fit, and would not change the results of the hypothesis tests. Thus,
there is sufficient reason to believe the categorization schemes used are
meaningful and adequately allow the hypotheses to be tested.
A second concern is that the hypotheses in Study 2 were tested using
cross-sectional, self-report data. This opens the possibility that common
method variance may have infiuenced the results by artificially increasing relationships between the variables. However, because the focus of
Study 2 is on the relative explanation provided by perceived P-J versus
P-O fit, the absolute size of the parameters is less critical than their relative contribution to predicting hiring recommendations. Because all of
the relationships are likely inflated, the comparison process is not biased.
Other problems such as priming of the participants or self-generated validity may have also resulted from the data collection strategy. However,
Tourangeau, and Rasinski (1988) have noted that these effects are less
likely to occur when respondents are familiar with the issues being assessed, have expertise in making similar evaluations, and have involvement in the outcome. Therefore, by asking experienced recruiters to
evaluate applicants in the context of authentic interviews, the effect of
these biases should be reduced.
Finally, the limited generalizability of these results should be noted.
The sample sizes for both studies were low, and represent recruiters
from only four companies in a single industry. On average the recruiters
did not have extensive training on interviewing techniques, and only
served as recruiters a few days a year. Therefore, whether these findings generalize to other industries and to recruiters with more extensive training should be explored. In particular research is encouraged to
follow-up on thefindingsregarding the influence of idiosyncratic preferences on fit perceptions. Because the operationalization of idiosyncratic, organization-specific, and universal was based on whether a majority of recruiters did or did not endorse a characteristic, the findings
are highly dependent on sample size. A characteristic could have been

666

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

classified differently based on responses by one or two additional recruiters. Therefore, while the exploratory analyses provide preliminary
support for the prevalence of idiosyncratic preferences, future research
is needed using larger recruiter samples from multiple organizations.
A number of strengths offset these limitations. Two distinct methodologies were used to assess the discriminant validity of recruiters' P-J and
P-O fit perceptions. Study 1 specifically addressed the question of differential antecedents; whereas. Study 2 tackled whether perceived P-J
and P-O fit form discriminable factors and provide unique explanatory
power when it comes to predicting hiring recommendations. In addition. Study 1 used a unique methodology, relatively new to industrialorganizational psychology, which followed Bretz et al.'s (1993) recommendations for how to study recruiters' perceptions of fit. Moreover,
unlike the "paper people" commonly used in this type of study, videotapes of actual mock interviews and resumes were used. This allowed
recruiters to view the applicants' qualifications, nonverbal behavior, appearance, and interpersonal skills in a realistic setting. The combination
of mock interviews with real recruiters provided a balance of experimental control and realism. This realism was expanded upon in Study 2,
which examined recruiters' perceptions in an authentic decision making
environment. In addition, by assessing recruiters' perceptions after they
interacted with real applicants using their natural interview strategy, the
likelihood that recruiters reported their true perceptions of the applicants is increased.
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research
Even during short, screening interviews, recruiters appear to distinguish between the two types of fit. This implies that recruiters are
considering a wide range of applicant characteristics that extend well
beyond KSAs. However, it is clear that recruiters would benefit from
greater guidance in terms of what makes an applicant a good fit. Although many companies have trained their recruiters to assess specific
job-related qualifications, they may benefit from expanding this training to include what makes an applicant a good cultural fit. This might
have the additional benefit of reducing the reliance on idiosyncratic preferences for judging fit. Research suggests recruiters vary in the extent
to which they make valid decisions in interviews (Dougherty, Ebert, &
Callender, 1986; Graves & Karren, 1992). Therefore, it may be useful
for organizations to first determine which of their recruiters make the
most valid judgments, and then to ascertain to what extent they rely on
judgments of P-J and P-O fit and the specific characteristics they use to

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

667

form these impressions. Other recruiters could then be trained to use

their criteria and in order to improve selection decision making.
These findings corroborate other reports that recruiters make extensive personality inferences during interviews (e.g., Caldwell & Burger,
1998; Rothstein & Jackson, 1984). Yet, there is little existing empirical evidence regarding the accuracy of these assessments. Barrick, Patton, and Haugland (2000) report that recruiters' evaluations of applicant personality are more similar to applicants' self-reported personality than are evaluations by virtual strangers. However, even for the most
easily observable personality traits, such as extraversion and agreeableness, recruiters' assessments are only moderately correlated with applicants' self-reports. Therefore, increased training on personality assessment or the use of interview formats specifically designed to measure
personality (e.g.. Trull et al., 1998) is encouraged if recruiters are going to continue using personality in their judgments of fit. Alternatively,
companies should be persuaded to take greater advantage of existing
personality tests that have proven to be reliable and valid measures of
job-relevant personality traits (see Schmitt & Chan, 1998, for a review).
The results also have implications for future studies of perceived
P-J and P-O fit in recruiting research. Because recruiters use a variety
of applicant characteristics to judge P-J and P-O fit, existing measures
may not be sufficient for assessing recruiters' perceptions. For example,
to study recruiters' perceptions of P-O fit existing values measures such
as the Organizational Culture Profile (O'Reilly et al., 1991) or the CES
(Ravlin & Meglino, 1987) should be supplemented with additional measures to assess fit on personality and KSAs (see Bretz & Judge, 1994).
Similarly, perceived P-J fit measures should be expanded to include personality traits as well as KSAs. For applicants, the implication is that
researching a company and doing self-assessment on a wide variety of
characteristics prior to interviewing is important. To convey a good fit,
applicants should be prepared to articulate why their particular KSAs,
personality traits, and values make them a good match for both the job
and the organization.
These studies also help illustrate the relative contribution of perceived P-J and P-O fit to selection outcomes. More research is needed
on what communication strategies and actions applicants can use to convey impressions of both P-J and P-O fit. In addition, because recruiters
vary widely in their ability to accurately interpret "nonobservable" characteristics such as values (Cable & Judge, 1997) research is needed on
what can be done by recruiters and applicants to make more reliable assessments of these characteristics. By building on the findings presented
in these studies, future research may improve on, as well as better understand, recruiters' perceptions of fit.

668

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
REFERENCES

Adkins CL, Russel CJ, Werbel JD. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection process: The
role of work-value congruence, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 47,605-623.
Anderson NR. (1990). Repertory grid technique in employee selection. Personnel Review,
193,9-15.
Anderson N, Ostroff C. (1997). Selection as socialization. In Anderson N, Herriot P
(Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 413-440). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Assouline M, Meir El. (1987). Meta-analysis of the relationship between congruence and
well-being measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,319-332.
Barrick MR, Mount MK. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44,1-26.
Barrick MR, Patton GK, Haugland SN. (2000). Accuracy of interviewer judgments of job
applicant personality traits. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Bentler PM. (1985). Theory and implementation ofEQS: A structural equations program.
Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.
Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In Schmitt N, Borman WC (Eds.), Personnel selection
in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen DE, Ledford GE Jr, Nathan BR. (1991). Hiring for the organization not the job.
Academy of Management Executive, 54,35-51.
Bretz RD Jr, Judge TA. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32-54.
Bretz RD Jr, Rynes SL, Gerhart B. (1993). Recruiter perceptions of applicant fit: Implications for individual career preparation and job search behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 43,310-327.
Brook JA (1986). Research applications of the repertory grid technique. International
Review ofApplied Psychology, 35, 489-500.
Byrne D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cable DM, Judge TA. (1997). Interviewers' perceptions of person-organization fit and
organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,546-561.
Caldwell DF, Burger JM. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success
in screening interviews, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 51,119-136.
Caldwell DF, O'Reilly CA III. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison
process. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75,648-657.
Cascio WF. (1991). Applied psychology in personnel management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Chatman JA. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.
Coffey A, Atkinson P (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research
strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20,37-46.
Cooper WH. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218-244.
Costa PTJr, McCrae RR. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the
five factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,1266-1282.
Dawis RV (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences. In Dunnette MD, Hough
LM (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 833871). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

669

Deal TE, Kennedy AA. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dipboye RL. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.
Dougherty TW, Ebert RJ, Callender JC. (1986). Policy capturing in the employment
interview. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 71,9-15.
Edwards JR. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review and
methodological critique. International Review of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 6,283-357. London: Wiley.
Folger R. (1987). Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Social Justice
Research, 1,143-159.
Gilmore DC, Ferris GR. (1989). The effects of applicant impression management tactics
on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15,557-564.
Goldberg LR. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
Graves LM, Karren RJ. (1992). Interviewer decision processes and effectiveness: An
experimental policy-capturing investigation, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 45,313-340.
Guion RM. (1987). Changing view for personnel research, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 40,
199-213.
Harvey RJ. (1991). Job analysis. In Dunnette MD, Hough LM (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 71-163). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Herringer LG. (1998). Relating values and personality traits. Psychological Reports, 83,
95^954.
Hogan R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In Dunnette MD, Hough LM
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 873-919).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Holland JL. (1985). Making vocational choices, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Ivancevich JM, Matteson MT (1984). A Type A-B person-work environment interaction
model for examining occupational stress and consequences. Human Relations, 37,
491-513.
Jackson DN, Peacock AC, Smith JP (1980). Impressions of personality in the employment
interview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,294-307.
Judge TA, Ferris GR. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resource staffing
decisions. Human Resource Planning, 154,47-67.
Kelly G A (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (VoL 1 and 2). New York: Norton.
Krippendorf K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Kristof AL. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 49,1-49.
Maurer SD, Fay C. (1988). Effect of situational interviews, conventional structured interviews, and training on interview rating agreement: An experimental analysis.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 41, 329-344.

Meglino BM, Ravlin EC. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24,351-389.
MilesMB,Huberman AM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Motowidlo SJ, Borman WC, Schmit MJ. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task
and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10,71-83.
Motowidlo SJ, Van Scotter JR. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,475-480.

670

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Muchinsky PM, Monahan CJ. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,
268-277.
O'Reilly CA III. (1977). Personality-job fit: Implications for individual attitudes and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 78,36-46.
O'Reilly CA III, Chatman JA, Caldwell DF. (1991). People and organizational culture:
A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Journal, 34,487-516.
Paunonen SV, Jackson DN, Oberman SM. (1987). Personnel selection decisions: Effects
of applicant personality and the letter of reference. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 40,96-114.
Phillips JM. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes:
A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41,673-^90.
Posner BZ. (1992). Person-organization values congruence: No support for individual
differences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45,351-361.
Ravlin EC, Meglino BM. (1987). Effects of work values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work value measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72
666-673.
Reger RK. (1990). Managerial thought structures and competitive positioning. In Huff
AS (Ed.), Mapping strategic thought (pp. 71-88). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Roberts P (1999). The agendatotal teamwork. Fast Company, 23, 148-153, 156, 158,
160,162.
Rokeach M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rothstein M, Jackson DN. (1984). Implicit personality theory and the employment interview. In Herriot P, Cook M (Eds.), Issues in person perception (pp. 167-201).
London: Methuen.
Rynes SL, Gerhart B. (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant fit: An exploratory
investigation, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 43,13-35.

Schein E. (1990). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmitt N, Chan D. (1998). Personnel selection: A theoretical approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Schneider B. (1987). The people make the place, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 40,437-453.
Smith JM. (1986). A repertory grid analysis of supervisory jobs. International Review of
AppUed Psychology, 35, 501-512.
Snow CC, Snell SA. (1993). Staffing as strategy. In Schmitt N, Borman WC (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 448-478). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spokane AR. (1985). A review of research on person-environment congruence in Holland's theory of careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26,306-343.
Stevens CK, (1998). Antecedents of interview interactions, interviewers' ratings, and applicants' reactions, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 57,55-86.
Stevens CK, Kristof A L (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant
impression management during job interviews. Journal of AppUed Psychology, 80,
587-606.
Tburangeau R, Rasinski KA (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in
attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103,299-314.
TVull TJ, Widiger TA, Useda JD, Holcomb J, Etoan B, Axelrod SR, Stern BL, Gershuny
BS. (1998). A structured interview for the assessment of the five factor model of
personality. Psychological Assessment, 70,229-240.
. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants' evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review, 18,51-74.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN

671

V^n Vianen AEM. (2000). Person-organization fit: The match between newcomers' and
recruiters' preferences for organizational culture, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 55,
113-149.
Wanous JP. (1978). Realistic job previews: Can a procedure to reduce turnover also infiuence the relationship between abilities and performance? PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY,
31,249-258.
Wanous JP. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Werbel JD, Gilliland SW. (1999). Person-environmentfitin the selection process. In Ferris
GR (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol 17, pp. 209243). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
APPENDIX
Example Repertory Grid Interview Data Sheet
(Protocol A: Applicant Triad Comparison Series 4)
Comparison Best fit Characteristic
1. Applicants
4, 5,2
2. Applicants
3,1,7
3. Applicants
4,3,6
4. Applicants
1,2,3
5. Applicants
5,7,2
6. Applicants
4,5,6
7. Applicants
2,7,4
8. Applicants
6,1,5
9. Applicants
3,7,6

P-J: Work
experience*

P-O: Likes
variety*
P-J
P-O
P-J
P-O
P-J
P-O
P-J
P-O
P-J
P-O
P-J
P-O
P-J
P-O
P-J
P-O

Description

Opposite

P-J: Already held

P-J: No work
an internship
experience
in our field*
in our field*
P-O: Wants to constantly P-O: Someone who
be working on
is comfortable with
new projects*
routines and rules*
P-J
P-J
P-O
P-O
P-J
P-J
P-O
P-O
P-J
P-J
P-O
P-O
P-J
P-J
P-O
P-O
P-J
P-J
P-O
P-O
P-J
P-J
P-O
P-O
P-J
P-J
P-O
P-O
P-J
P-J
P-O
P-O

*Examples of the information provided by recruiters.