Person-Environment Fit Person-environment fit (P-E fit) refers to the similarity or congruence between a person’s values or personality and his or her work environment. For example, a high-stress job as a day trader on Wall Street might be a poor P-E fit for a quiet or shy person. Good and poor P-E fit can have specific positive and negative consequences for employees in areas such as satisfaction, commitment, stress, adjustment, and withdrawal. As a result, P-E fit also can have positive and negative consequences for employers and organizations. For this Discussion, refer back to a current or previous job that you or someone you know has held. Consider the degree to which you believed there was a lack of P-E fit and the consequences that may have resulted. With these thoughts in mind: an explanation of why there was not good P-E fit between you (or someone you know) and an organization. Then explain two potential consequences to the organization as a result of having hired you (or someone you know). 2 pages, make sure P-E-Fit is well covered and give examples Reference: Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, J. W., & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between Facets of Job Satisfaction and Task and Contextual Performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 441-465. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00328.x Hardin, E. E., & Donaldson, J. I. (2014). Predicting job satisfaction: A new perspective on person–environment fit. Journal Of Counseling Psychology, 61(4), 634-640. doi:10.1037/cou0000039 Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a Multidimensional Theory of Person-Environment Fit. Journal Of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 193-212. Nolan, K. P., Langhammer, K., & Salter, N. P. (2016). Evaluating fit in employee selection: Beliefs about how, when, and why. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 68(3), 222-251. doi:10.1037/cpb0000065 Yu, K. T. (2009). 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, 94(5), 1210-1226. doi:10.1037/a0016403 Dispositional Versus Situational Factors and Job Attitudes Individuals have a variety of personality traits, values, and attitudes that they bring with them into the workplace. These characteristics, whether stable or transient, are termed dispositional factors. Because dispositional factors can be useful in predicting individual behavior and performance across diverse situations, organizations value this information when hiring and promoting employees. The concepts of personal dispositions often are referred to interchangeably in the literature as traits, personality, and individual characteristics. Job attitudes research commonly uses situational variables (e.g., pay, work environment, task characteristics) as well as dispositional variables (e.g., conscientiousness, neuroticism) as determinants of job attitudes. This week, you consider whether job attitudes are affected.

1. Person-Environment Fit
Person-environment fit (P-E fit) refers to the similarity or
congruence between a person’s values or personality and his or
her work environment. For example, a high-stress job as a day
trader on Wall Street might be a poor P-E fit for a quiet or shy
person. Good and poor P-E fit can have specific positive and
negative consequences for employees in areas such as
satisfaction, commitment, stress, adjustment, and withdrawal.
As a result, P-E fit also can have positive and negative
consequences for employers and organizations.
For this Discussion, refer back to a current or previous job that
you or someone you know has held. Consider the degree to
which you believed there was a lack of P-E fit and the
consequences that may have resulted.
With these thoughts in mind:
an explanation of why there was not good P-E fit between you
(or someone you know) and an organization. Then explain two
potential consequences to the organization as a result of having
hired you (or someone you know).
2 pages, make sure P-E-Fit is well covered and give examples
Reference:
Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, J. W., & Decuir, A. D.
(2008). Relationships between Facets of Job Satisfaction and
Task and Contextual Performance. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 57(3), 441-465. doi:10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2008.00328.x
Hardin, E. E., & Donaldson, J. I. (2014). Predicting job
satisfaction: A new perspective on person–environment fit.
Journal Of Counseling Psychology, 61(4), 634-640.
doi:10.1037/cou0000039
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a
Multidimensional Theory of Person-Environment Fit. Journal Of

2. Managerial Issues, 18(2), 193-212.
Nolan, K. P., Langhammer, K., & Salter, N. P. (2016).
Evaluating fit in employee selection: Beliefs about how, when,
and why. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And
Research, 68(3), 222-251. doi:10.1037/cpb0000065
Yu, K. T. (2009). 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, 94(5),
1210-1226. doi:10.1037/a0016403
Dispositional Versus Situational Factors and Job Attitudes
Individuals have a variety of personality traits, values, and
attitudes that they bring with them into the workplace. These
characteristics, whether stable or transient, are termed
dispositional factors. Because dispositional factors can be
useful in predicting individual behavior and performance across
diverse situations, organizations value this information when
hiring and promoting employees.
The concepts of personal dispositions often are referred to
interchangeably in the literature as traits, personality, and
individual characteristics. Job attitudes research commonly uses
situational variables (e.g., pay, work environment, task
characteristics) as well as dispositional variables (e.g.,
conscientiousness, neuroticism) as determinants of job attitudes.
This week, you consider whether job attitudes are affected most
by dispositional or situational factors. Support your position
using this week’s readings.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post your position on whether job attitudes are affected most by
situational factors or by a person’s disposition, and justify your
position. 1.5 pages
Readings
· Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkuman, T.
M. (2005). Adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory,

3. and dispositions: An integrated approach to the stability of job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1044–1053.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Bruk-Lee, V., Khoury, H. A., Nixon, A. E., Goh, A., &
Spector, P. E. (2009). Replicating and extending past
personality/job satisfaction meta-analyses. Human Performance,
22(2), 156–189.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-environment fit in
organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. Academy
of Management Annals, 2(1), 167–230.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D.
(2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating
role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4),
945–959.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job
satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(4), 750–759.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a
multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 18(2), 193–212.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005).
Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting
misconceptions. Human Performance, 18(4),389–404.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The
ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747–
773.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Yu, K. Y. T. (2009). Affective influences in person-
environment fit theory: Exploring the role of affect of both
cause and outcome of P-E fit. Journal of Applied Psychology,

4. 94(5), 1210–1226.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.