This article was downloaded by: [University Library Utrecht]On: 14 October 2012, At: 00:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of HumanResource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

The relationship between perceptionsof HR practices and employeeoutcomes: examining the role ofperson–organisation and person–job fitCorine Boon a , Deanne N. Den Hartog a , Paul Boselie b c & JaapPaauwe b da Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam,Amsterdam, The Netherlandsb Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University,Tilburg, The Netherlandsc Utrecht University School of Governance, Utrecht University, TheNetherlandsd Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Version of record first published: 27 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Corine Boon, Deanne N. Den Hartog, Paul Boselie & Jaap Paauwe (2011): Therelationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role ofperson–organisation and person–job fit, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,22:01, 138-162

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.538978

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employeeoutcomes: examining the role of person–organisation and person–job fit

Corine Boona*, Deanne N. Den Hartoga, Paul Boselieb,c and Jaap Paauweb,d

aAmsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; bDepartmentof Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; cUtrecht University

School of Governance, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; dErasmus University Rotterdam, TheNetherlands

Human resource management (HRM) practices can play an important role in matchingpeople with the organisations and the jobs they work in. However, little is known abouthow employees perceive and interpret HR practices and whether or how theseperceptions relate to perceptions of person–organisation (P–O) and person–job (P–J)fit. This study aims to bridge strategic HRM and person–environment fit literature byexamining possible mediating and moderating roles of P–O and P–J fit in therelationship between employee perceptions of a broad set of HR practices andemployee attitudes and behaviours. Results from a sample of 412 employees supportdirect relationships as well as a mediating and moderating role of P–O and P–J fit inthe relationship between perceived HR practices and employee outcomes.

Keywords: employee attitudes; employee behaviours; employee perceptions; humanresource management; person–job fit; person–organisation fit

Introduction

Person–environment (P–E) fit describes the match between people and certain types of

organisational environments (Bretz and Judge 1994). Research shows that P–E fit benefits

individuals and organisations as it positively affects employee attitudes and behaviours

(Verquer, Beehr and Wagner 2003; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson 2005;

Hoffman and Woehr 2006). What is less clear in the literature is how P–E fit can be

achieved and maintained. Human resource management (HRM) practices used in

selection, training, development and compensation seem likely to contribute to

establishing and strengthening the fit between employees and their job or organisation.

However, to date, research on HRM in relation to the most commonly studied types of

P–E fit (i.e. person–organisation (P–O) and person–job (P–J) fit) has focused mainly on

the role of the selection process (Cable and Judge 1997; Kristof-Brown 2000; Van Vianen

2000). Far less research is available on what role other HR practices play in establishing

and maintaining P–E fit (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Here, we study the relationship

between HR and fit.

Strategic HRM research shows that ‘high performance’ HR practices are positively

related to different types of outcomes including commitment and performance

(Huselid 1995; Ramsay, Scholarios and Harley 2000). However, more understanding is

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.538978

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: c.t.boon@uva.nl

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 22, No. 1, January 2011, 138–162

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

needed of possible mechanisms through which HR practices affect individual and

organisational performance (Guest 1997; Wright and Nishii 2007). Previous work

suggests that employees’ perceptions play an important role in this process (Guest 1999).

Here, we also propose an important role for P–E fit. The organisation’s HR system ideally

reflects the strategy and organisational context and communicates information about this

context to (potential) employees (Bretz and Judge 1994). HR practices shape individuals’

experiences in an organisation, based on personal interpretations and social constructions

(Rousseau and Greller 1994). However, as Wright and Nishii (2007) note not

the HR practices as intended in policy documents, but rather how employees

experience HR practices, i.e. to what extent employees feel that the HR practices

the organisation implements are indeed offered to them, will affect employees. Thus, the

way employees perceive practices may affect fit and outcomes. However, little is known

about how (perceived) HR practices relate to perceptions of P–E fit (Bretz and

Judge 1994).

Our main goal is to examine the relationship between perceptions of an integrated set

of HR practices, P–O and P–J fit, and several employee ‘outcomes’ seen as relevant in

both HRM and P–E fit literature, namely organisational commitment, organisational

citizenship behaviour (OCB), intention to leave and job satisfaction. We aim to assess how

individual differences in perceptions of a uniform HR system affect P–E fit and outcomes.

In other words, we study whether variations in the extent to which employees perceive that

the HR practices the organisation implements are indeed offered to them relate

systematically to P–E fit and employee outcomes. We aim to explore the role of P–O and

P–J fit in the relationship between perceived HR practices and employee outcomes

by testing whether P–O and P–J fit act as mediators or moderators in this relationship. By

linking perceptions of a set of ‘high performance’ HR practices to P–O and P–J fit, and

employee outcomes, we aim to bridge the P–E fit and strategic HRM literatures. We

contribute to the P–E fit literature by studying the relationship between a set of HR

practices and P–O and P–J fit as currently the focus tends to be on selection. Also,

including both P–O and P–J fit means we can explore similarities and differences between

them (Lauver and Kristof-Brown 2001). We also aim to add to the HRM literature by

introducing P–O and P–J fit in relation to HR practices.

Relationships between HRM, fit and employee outcomes

Kristof (1996) defines P–O fit as the compatibility between people and organisations that

occurs when: (1) at least one entity provides what the other needs, or (2) they share similar

fundamental characteristics or (3) both. This definition recognises the two main

conceptualisations in the P–E fit literature: supplementary fit and complementary fit

(Muchinsky and Monahan 1987; Kristof 1996). Supplementary fit occurs when a person

possesses characteristics that are similar to other individuals in an environment. Most

studied are value congruence and goal congruence. ‘Complementary fit occurs when a

person’s characteristics “make whole” the environment or add to it what is missing’

(Kristof 1996, p. 3). P–O fit is often conceptualised as a supplementary fit and P–J fit as a

complementary fit (Edwards 1991; Lauver and Kristof-Brown 2001; Kristof-Brown et al.

2005). P–J fit is defined as the match between the abilities of the person and the

demands of a job or the needs or desires of a person and what is provided by a job

(Edwards 1991), corresponding with complementary fit. Complementary fit encompasses

both demands–abilities fit and needs–supplies fit. Demands–abilities fit occurs when an

employee’s abilities satisfy the demands of the organisation. Needs–supplies fit focuses

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

on an employee’s needs and preferences that have to be fulfilled by the organisation’s

supplies. This is the perspective taken in P–O fit.

In summary, P–J fit involves needs and abilities that are directly linked to

characteristics of the job, whereas P–O fit refers to the match between the person and the

values and goals of the organisation as a whole. We use these definitions and include both

P–O fit and P–J fit here, answering the call to more often include both forms of fit in a

single study (Lauver and Kristof-Brown 2001; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Although there

is some overlap between P–O and P–J fit, the organisation and the job as part of the work

environment are conceptually distinct (Kristof 1996). Possessing the skills needed for a

job does not necessarily mean fitting with the values and culture of the organisation

(Lauver and Kristof-Brown 2001). A meta analysis shows that both P–O and P–J fit have

strong, but distinct impacts on individual attitudes and behaviours (Kristof-Brown et al.

2005). P–O fit is strongly associated with organisational commitment and turnover, and

high P–J fit is associated with high levels of job satisfaction. Also, combining high levels

of P–O and P–J fit leads to even stronger effect sizes (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005).

HR practices, P–O and P–J fit

Individuals who work in an environment that fits their personal characteristics will have

more positive experiences (Perrin 1968). The attraction–selection–attrition (ASA)

framework developed by Schneider (1987) is important in the P–E fit literature and helps

explain how HR practices might affect fit. The ASA cycle emphasises that besides

selecting people to match a particular job or function, achieving a match with the work

setting itself is also relevant (Van Vianen 2000). The assumption is that a good match

between people and organisations leads to long-term effectiveness. The ASA model

argues that the goals of its founders continue to be reflected in an organisation’s

characteristics. These characteristics attract certain kinds of people to apply, as people feel

more attracted to organisations with which they share important characteristics such as

values (Schneider, Goldstein and Smith 1995). In the selection stage of the ASA cycle,

people with this specific set of characteristics are more likely to be recruited and selected.

Finally, the attrition process implies that people who ultimately do not fit are more likely

to leave. In the long run, the ASA cycle will lead to organisations becoming more

homogeneous. Those who fit tend to stay and those who do not fit leave, often soon after

entry. Schneider (1987) hypothesises that P–O fit is stronger for employees with longer

tenure, in organisations with strong recruitment and selection processes, and for

employees who remain in organisations with high turnover rates.

P–J fit focuses on the match between a person’s knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA)

and the job requirements (Carless 2005). P–J fit is achieved when an employee has the

skills to meet the demands of the job or when the job meets the needs of the individual

(Edwards 1991; Kristof-Brown 2000). HRM can play an important role in matching

employees with their job (i.e. achieving P–J fit) as well as with the organisation (i.e.

achieving P–O fit). Psychological contract research shows that HR practices are major

mechanisms through which employees come to understand the terms of their employment

(Rousseau and Greller 1994). The demands and supplies and the level of fit are likely to be

affected by the underlying characteristics of the organisation (Kristof 1996), which are

communicated through HR practices (Bretz and Judge 1994). Moreover, HR practices

such as selection, training and development can help match the person’s KSAs with the job

requirements. HR may increase the level of P–O and P–J fit by consistently

communicating values and characteristics as well as demands and expectations of the

C. Boon et al.140

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

organisation to employees, and by providing resources to change or increase employees’

KSAs. Therefore, we propose that offering employees a consistent set of ‘high

performance’ HR practices is likely to result in increased fit of employees with their

organisation and their job.

HRM research suggests that rather than separate HR practices, integrated sets of ‘high

performance’ HR practices will be most effective (Arthur 1994; Huselid 1995). Such

high performance HR systems cover three components: HR practices that ensure

that employees have required skills and abilities for performing their tasks, incentives that

encourage employee motivation and an organisation that provides employees the

opportunity to participate (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg and Kalleberg 2000). Besides

selection, training, performance appraisal and rewards, high performance HR practices

also include participation practices, pay for performance, job design, decentralisation,

information sharing, problem-solving groups and teamwork (Wood 1999; Appelbaum et al.

2000; Guthrie 2001).

Although to date no research has been conducted into the relationship between broader

sets or systems of ‘high performance’ HR practices and P–E fit, research on more specific

practices suggests positive relationships. For example, case study research on HRM

illustrates how some organisations use selection and development procedures based on

company values to hire and socialise employees who fit the company culture (Boon,

Boselie, Paauwe and Den Hartog 2007). P–E fit research shows that job applicants prefer

an organisation with which they share similar characteristics (Bretz and Judge 1994) and

that interviewers select for P–O fit (Cable and Judge 1997). Studies on job choice have

also addressed the effects of employee development and reward systems on job decisions.

Bretz and Judge (1994) found that pay level and promotion opportunities were significant

predictors of job choice, and Cable and Judge (1994) found that pay policies are strongly

related to job search decisions. After the initial phase of job choice and hiring,

socialisation practices help to establish P–O and P–J fit between newcomers and

organisations (Cable and Parsons 2001; Cooper-Thomas, Van Vianen and Anderson

2004). Organisations use development and reward practices to stimulate desired employee

behaviour and strengthen the match of employees with the organisation (Boon et al. 2007).

Combined, these findings suggest that multiple HR practices, including selection and

socialisation, development and training, as well as appraisal and reward systems, may

affect P–O and P–J fit. However, to date research tends to focus on the role of a single HR

practice for either form of fit. Here, following the strategic HRM literature, we relate a

broad set of perceived ‘high performance’ HR practices to P–O and P–J fit and expect that

the more positive the perceptions of this set of ‘high performance’ HR practices are, the

higher the level of P–O and P–J fit will be.

Hypothesis 1: Employee perceptions of a set of ‘high performance’ HR practices will bepositively related to P–O fit and P–J fit.

Direct and indirect effects of perceptions of HR practices

HR practices communicate important goals and desired employee behaviours from the

organisation to the employee (Guzzo and Noonan 1994; Rousseau 1995). They can be seen

as ‘signals’ and are interpreted as such by individual employees (Den Hartog, Boselie and

Paauwe 2004, p. 563). The signals of the HR system are, however, often not interpreted

similarly or reacted to in a similar way by each individual due to differences in experience,

values or preferences. ‘All HR practices communicate messages constantly and in

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

unintended ways, and messages can be understood idiosyncratically, whereby two

employees interpret the same practices differently’ (Bowen and Ostroff 2004, p. 206).

Similarly, Wright and Nishii’s (2007) model proposes that the effects of HR practices

on employee attitudes and behaviours occur via employee perceptions of HR practices.

They suggest that it is not the HR practices as intended by policy makers, but rather how

employees experience the HR practices that will affect employee outcomes. In other

words, the extent to which employees perceive that these HR practices are indeed offered

to them will drive effects on employees. They state that differences between actual and

perceived HR practices can occur due to differences in actual practices offered to

employees (which causes valid variance), and due to differences in individual perceptions

and interpretations of the same offered actual practices (Wright and Nishii 2007). In this

study, we include two organisations that both offer their own set of uniform actual

practices that apply equally to all employees, such that the resulting variation within each

firm reflects differences in perceptions and not variation in actual HRM practices that are

offered by these organisations. Although perceptions of HR practices are proposed to have

a strong association with employee outcomes, few researchers have tested this

relationship. Instead, research has focused on the effects of firm level actual or intended

HR practices on outcomes or on the role of perceptions of a single specific practice, rather

than a combination of practices. This study focuses on variation in employee perceptions

of two uniform sets of actual HR practices in order to examine the consequences of these

differences in perception for fit and employee outcomes.

HRM scholars propose that HR practices will affect employee and firm performance

through their impact on employee attitudes (Becker, Huselid, Pickus and Spratt 1997;

Wright and Nishii 2007). As mentioned before, ‘high performance’ work practices have

been widely used in research in this area. As the role of HR practices is to influence

employee attitudes and behaviours required by the organisation (Truss 2001), positive

effects on attitudinal and behavioural outcomes are expected. Therefore, we expect that

perceived ‘high performance’ HR practices are positively associated with employee

attitudes and behaviours. Employee outcomes commonly used both in the HRM and P–O

and P–J fit literature include organisational commitment, OCB, intention to leave and job

satisfaction (Kristof 1996; Boselie, Dietz and Boon 2005; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). In

line with this, we expect:

Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of a set of ‘high performance’ HR practices will be positivelyrelated to organisational commitment, intention to show OCB and jobsatisfaction and negatively related to intention to leave.

Indirect effects

Besides the expected direct relationships between perceived HR practices and P–O and

P–J fit and between perceived HR practices and employee outcomes, mediation may

occur. Ramsay et al. (2000) indicated that the opportunities and benefits HR practices

provide leads to employees’ perceptions that their needs are met. As P–O and P–J fit cover

the fulfilment of employee needs, achieving a match of employees with the organisation

and their job can be seen as one of the goals of HR practices. In turn, employees respond by

taking initiatives without instruction and showing loyalty and enthusiasm for their

employer. This implies that the effects of HR practices on employee behaviours can occur

via P–O and P–J fit. Employees will do better or worse in a given organisation according

to how well they are matched to its attributes (Baron and Kreps 1999). As one of the aims

C. Boon et al.142

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

of HR practices is matching employees with the organisation and their job, the effect of

perceptions of HR practices on employee outcomes might (at least in part) be mediated by

P–O and P–J fit.

P–O and P–J fit involve interactions at different environmental levels and have

distinct elements of the work environment as referent (Kristof 1996; Lauver and Kristof-

Brown 2001). Therefore, each type of fit is expected to be associated with attitudes and

behaviours specific to the specific referent. For example, people who identify themselves

strongly with the organisation (i.e. have higher P–O fit) tend to be more strongly

committed with the organisation (Kristof 1996). Similarly, in their meta-analysis, Kristof-

Brown et al. (2005) found that P–J fit is more strongly related to job-related outcomes like

as job satisfaction, and P–O fit is more strongly related to organisation-related outcomes,

such as organisational commitment. Therefore, we expect P–O fit to mediate the

relationship between perceived HRM and the two organisation-related outcomes in this

study: organisational commitment and OCB. Cable and Judge (1996) found that

employees’ P–J fit significantly predicted job satisfaction and turnover intentions, but not

organisational commitment or willingness to recommend the organisation to others. Thus,

we expect P–J fit to mediate the relationship between perceived HRM and the job-related

outcomes intention to leave and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: P–O fit (partly) mediates the relationship between perceptions of HR practicesand (a) organisational commitment and (b) OCB.

Hypothesis 4: P–J fit (partly) mediates the relationship between perceptions of HR practicesand (a) intention to leave and (b) job satisfaction.

Interactive effects

The literature also suggests examining P–E fit as a moderator, which has rarely been done

to date (Erdogan and Bauer 2005). How employees react to HR practices might depend on

how well employees are matched with the organisation and their job. As mentioned above,

we expect P–O fit to be related more strongly to organisation-related outcomes and P–J fit

more strongly to job-related outcomes. Employees with a high P–O fit will have a better

understanding of what the organisation wants and needs, as their norms and values match

to a large degree the norms and values of the organisation (Erdogan and Bauer 2005). They

are also likely to experience better communication with other members of the organisation

(Meglino and Ravlin 1998). As the values of high P–O fit employees match their

organisation’s values, they tend to agree more with the messages sent by the organisation.

The signals the organisation sends through the HR system may thus be better understood

and supported by these employees, such that the intended effects of the HR practices –

high commitment and performance – are more likely to be achieved. In contrast, low P–O

fit employees experience less of a match with their values and are less likely to understand,

agree with or support the signals sent through the HR system. This may make HR practices

less effective in influencing their attitudes and behaviours, and suggests a weaker

relationship of perceived HR practices with commitment and OCB for low P–O fit

employees. Thus, we hypothesise that P–O fit affects the extent to which perceptions of

HR practices are related to commitment and OCB, such that these relationships are

stronger at a higher levels of P–O fit.

For P–J fit, we expect the relationship to occur in the opposite direction. As P–J fit

focuses on the match between job requirements and individual skills and knowledge

(Carless 2005), employees with a low level of P–J fit are less likely to be successful in

their job (Erdogan and Bauer 2005). Moreover, a negative perception of employees’ need

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

fulfilment by their job will likely have a negative impact on employee performance. For

these employees, availability of developmental HR practices implies, there is an

opportunity to be trained and developed in order to better match skills requirements and

availability of participation and autonomy provides opportunities to adjust their job in

order to match their needs and skills. As a result, if employees low on P–J fit perceive that

such HR practices are available, their job satisfaction is likely to rise and their intention to

leave is likely to decrease. For employees high on P–J fit, the perceived availability of

such practices is likely to have less impact on outcomes. Employees high on P–J fit tend to

be more successful in their job as their skills and abilities already match their job’s

requirements. For them, the HR practices that might adjust either the job or their skills are

expected to have less impact on their intention to leave and satisfaction. In other words,

perceived HR practices are expected to affect the attitudes of low P–J fit individuals more

than of high P–J fit individuals. Thus, we hypothesise that the strength of the relationship

between perceived HR practices and job satisfaction and intention to leave is affected by

the level of P–J fit, such that the relationship is stronger at a lower level of P–J fit.

Hypothesis 5: P–O fit moderates the relationship between perceptions of HR practices and (a)organisational commitment and (b) OCB such that the relationship betweenperceptions of HR practices and organisational commitment and OCB will bestronger when P–O fit is high compared to when it is low.

Hypothesis 6: P–J fit moderates the relationship between perceptions of HR practices and (a)intention to leave and (b) job satisfaction such that the relationship betweenperceptions of HR practices and intention to leave and job satisfaction will bestronger when P–J fit is low compared to when it is high.

Method

Overview of data collection

Data were collected from employees in a wide range of functions, departments and

hierarchical levels in two large organisations in the Netherlands, one in retail, and one in

health care. Both organisations have a uniform HR policy that applies to all employees

in the organisation, as indicated by interviews we held with HR and general managers in

both organisations. We distributed approximately 2110 questionnaires via business unit

directors. A return envelope was included in the packet, so that respondents could send the

questionnaire back directly to the researchers, securing anonymity. The directors sent an

internal mailing to all employees motivating them to fill out the questionnaire and

explaining that participation was voluntary and anonymous. Managers were also asked to

introduce the study during staff meetings. Reminders were sent 3 weeks later. A total of

412 employees completed the questionnaire, representing a 20% response rate. The

sample was 75% female, which is representative for the population of these organisations.

The average age was 39 (ranging from 16 to 66), average tenure 7.5 years (ranging from

1 month to 34 years), 15% of the respondents held a management position and 82% had a

permanent contract.

Measures

Items were administered in Dutch. In a pilot test, 24 employees of an organisation who are

not part of this study completed the questionnaire to check the clarity of the items.

Perceived HR practices. We developed 38 perceived HR practices items for this study

based on previous research (Ryan and Schmit 1996; Guest and Conway 2002; Cable and

C. Boon et al.144

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Edwards 2004; Ten Brink 2004). In strategic HRM research, there has been little

consistency in selecting HR practices to be combined in an HR system. Therefore, the list

of perceived HRM items was checked for coverage of the mostly used high performance

work practices using a review of HRM and performance studies by Boselie et al. (2005). To

assess employee’s perceptions of HR practices, participants were asked to indicate for each

item, the extent to which they perceive that the organisation offers them the HR practice

(‘The organisation offers me . . . ’) on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5

(very great extent) and included a wide range of practices such as selection, training,

participation, teamwork and rewards. Sample items are ‘An attractive benefits package’,

and ‘The possibility for my team to take the responsibility for our results’. Table 1 provides

all HRM items.

An exploratory factor analysis on the 38 items indicated a solution with 10 factors

having an eigenvalue higher than 1. However, the scree plot showed a bend at one and seven

factors, indicating a clear break in eigenvalues between first and the second, and the seventh

and the eighth component. First, the seven-factor solution was computed (explained

variance: 59%), which was easily interpretable and in line with theory: 1,

Training/development; 2, Participation/autonomy/job design; 3, Performance appraisal/re-

wards; 4, Teamwork/autonomy; 5, Work–life balance; 6, Recruitment/selection; 7,

Employment security (see Table 1 for results). Cronbach’s alphas for all seven scales exceed

0.75 (Table 2). These seven HR scales include the 12 high performance HR practices

measures that are most frequently used in the literature (Boselie et al. 2005). Arthur (1994),

for example uses participation, decentralisation, training, wages and benefits, Guthrie

(2001) includes promotions, variable pay, employee participation, information sharing,

teams and training. Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi (1997) measure a set of innovative

work practices including incentive pay, teams, flexible job assignments (i.e. job design),

employment security and training. Delaney and Huselid (1996) included selective staffing,

training, incentive compensation, decentralised decision making, internal labour market

and vertical hierarchy. Grievance procedures were also included by various researchers. We

chose not to include this practice, as it is not applicable to the Dutch context.

A second-order factor analysis revealed a one-factor solution containing all seven HR

practices scales. We then tested whether one perceived HRM factor underlies the seven

HR practices scales using confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS. The confirmatory factor

analysis showed adequate fit (x 2 (14) ¼ 28,335, p , 0.05; AGFI ¼ 0.926; CFI ¼ 0.982;

RMSEA ¼ 0.05 with PClose 0.464). Therefore, we computed a scale containing all seven

HRM subscales representing a combined set of ‘high performance’ HR practices.

Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.83. In the analyses below, we use this overall ‘high

performance HR system’ measure.

P–O fit. For measuring P–O fit perceptions, we used a combination of direct and indirect

P–O fit perceptions. In a direct measure, respondents are directly asked whether they think

they fit in the organisation or culture, whereas an indirect measure focuses on different

aspects on which a person might fit the organisation. Direct P–O fit perceptions were

measured using the two-item measure of Cable and Judge (1997), partly rephrased by

Cooper-Thomas et al. (2004). An example of such an item is: ‘To what degree do you think

you match or fit your organisation and the current employees in your organisation?’

Responses were provided on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘not at all’ (1) to ‘a very great

extent’ (5). Indirect P–O fit perceptions were assessed using Cable and DeRue’s (2002)

three-item measure for P–O fit defined as value congruence, including ‘The things I value in

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Table 1. Factor analysis results of perceived HRM items.

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The organisation offers (me) . . .Comprehensive and diverse work 2 0.61Challenging work 2 0.63Work that gives me the opportunity to express myself 2 0.67The opportunity to participate in decision-makingprocesses

2 0.46

Participation in developing (strategic) plans 2 0.42The opportunity to do my work in my own way 2 0.80The opportunity to make my own decisions 2 0.86The opportunity to take the responsibility for myown tasks

2 0.76

Possibilities to present my opinion on matters 2 0.55Critical selection of new employees 0.84Selective recruitment of new colleagues 0.87The opportunity to follow training, courses andworkshops

0.76

The opportunity to develop new skills and knowledgefor my current job or for possible jobs in the future

0.81

Coaching that supports my development 0.80Support in planning my future development 0.83The opportunity to work for another department 0.62The opportunity to do another job within thisorganisation

0.63

Good career prospects 0.76An increase in job responsibilities if I perform well atmy current tasks

0.64

The possibility to occupy a higher position within theorganisation

0.71

Certainty of keeping my job 0.92An employment contract offering job security 0.89The possibility to work in a team 2 0.81The possibility to work closely together with mycolleagues

2 0.80

The possibility to make decisions as a team 2 0.72The possibility for my team to take the responsibilityfor our results

2 0.70

Periodic evaluation of my performance 0.49Fair appraisal of my performance 0.38Performance-related pay 0.72A bonus which depends on the organisation’s profit 0.65A competitive salary 0.76An above average salary for this function 0.71A fair compensation system 0.81An attractive benefits package 0.49Flexible working hours 0.57Policies that support working parents 0.61The opportunity to work part-time if I needed to 0.75The opportunity to arrange my work schedule soI can meet family obligations

0.76

Notes: Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation.Bold values indicate primary loading; only values .0.30 are displayed. 1, Training/development; 2, Performanceappraisal/rewards; 3, Work/life balance; 4, Team working/autonomy; 5, Participation/autonomy/job design;6, Employment security and 7, Recruitment/selection.

C. Boon et al.146

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Tab

le2

.M

ean

s,S

Ds,

corr

elat

ion

san

dre

liab

ilit

yco

effi

cien

ts.

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

12

13

1.

Org

anis

atio

n0

.59

0.4

92

.M

anag

er0

.15

0.3

60

.04

3.

Nu

mb

ero

fco

ntr

act

ho

urs

26

.24

9.8

60

.34

**

0.2

9*

*

4.

Ten

ure

7.5

47

.15

0.2

0*

*0

.14

**

0.2

3*

*5

.A

ge

39

.29

11

.85

0.3

5*

*0

.10

*0

.20

**

0.4

6*

*6

.G

end

er0

.25

0.4

42

0.2

6*

*2

0.0

20

.09

20

.03

20

.13

**

7.

Set

of

HR

pra

ctic

es3

.31

0.6

42

0.2

8*

*0

.28

**

20

.01

0.0

52

0.1

3*

0.0

2(0

.82

)

8.

P–

Ofi

t3

.83

0.6

20

.03

0.2

2*

*0

.02

0.0

60

.05

20

.14

**

0.5

0*

*(0

.85

)9

.P

–J

fit

3.4

70

.85

0.2

8*

*0

.20

**

0.2

4*

*0

.15

**

0.2

9*

*2

0.1

8*

*0

.52

**

0.5

5*

*(0

.92

)1

0.

Org

anis

atio

nal

com

mit

men

t3

.32

0.8

92

0.0

20

.24

**

0.1

3*

0.2

4*

*0

.24

**

20

.06

0.4

4*

*0

.62

**

0.4

9*

*(0

.87

)

11

.O

CB

3.9

40

.52

0.0

70

.29

**

0.0

70

.10

0.1

1*

20

.09

0.4

3*

*0

.49

**

0.3

7*

*0

.54

**

(0.8

8)

12

.In

ten

tio

nto

leav

e2

.05

0.9

82

0.0

62

0.1

6*

*2

0.0

52

0.0

62

0.1

4*

*0

.10

20

.40

**

20

.40

**

20

.55

**

20

.51

**

20

.27

**

(0.8

7)

13

.Jo

bsa

tisf

acti

on

3.9

20

.77

20

.08

0.1

5*

*0

.01

20

.03

20

.03

20

.03

0.5

8*

*0

.50

**

0.5

8*

*0

.48

**

0.3

0*

*2

0.5

5*

*

No

tes:

*,

**

corr

elat

ion

sar

esi

gn

ifica

nt

atth

e0

.05

and

0.0

1le

vel

s(t

wo

-tai

led

),re

spec

tiv

ely

.A

lph

asar

eg

iven

inp

aren

thes

es.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

life are very similar to the things that my organisation values’. A five-point scale ranging

from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5) was used. Factor analysis indicated that

all five P–O fit items loaded on one factor. Therefore, one combined direct and indirect P–O

fit scale was calculated by averaging the five items. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85.

P–J fit. P–J fit perceptions were assessed using Cable and DeRue’s (2002) three-item

scale for needs–supplies fit (e.g. ‘The attributes that I look for in a job are fulfilled very

well by my present job’) and the three-item scale for demands–abilities fit (e.g. ‘My

abilities and training are a good fit with the requirements of my job’). The five-point

response scale ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). Factor analysis

showed that these six items load on a single factor. Therefore, one P–J fit scale was

calculated by averaging the six items. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92. As HRM, P–O and P–J

fit were all measured as employee perceptions, we performed a factor analysis containing

all items, which showed that HRM, P–O and P–J fit each load on a separate factor.

Organisational commitment. Organisational commitment was assessed using four items of

the scale developed by Ellemers, De Gilder and Van den Heuvel (1998). Sample items

include ‘This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me’ and ‘I feel “part of

the family” in this organisation’. Responses were given on a five-point scale ranging from

‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87.

Organisational citizenship behaviour. OCB was measured using self-ratings of

MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter’s (1991) altruism, civic virtue and courtesy scales.

We added one item to the civic virtue scale, based on a later publication of MacKenzie,

Podsakoff and Paine (1999), resulting in a 10-item OCB scale. Sample items included ‘I

help orient new employees even though it is not required’ (altruism), ‘I attend functions

that are not required, but that help the company image’ (civic virtue) and ‘I consider the

impact of my actions on others’. Responses were given on a five-point scale ranging from

‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). Factor analysis indicated that all items load

on one factor. Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale was 0.88.

Intention to leave. Intention to leave was assessed using the three-item measure developed

by Colarelli (1984). A sample item is: ‘I frequently think of quitting my job’. Responses

given were on a five-point scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’

(5). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using a single item: ‘Overall, how satisfied

are you with your job?’ (Cooper-Thomas et al. 2004). Previous research has proven the

reliability of a one-item measure for job satisfaction (Scarpello and Campbell 1983;

Wanous, Reichers and Hudy 1997). Responses were given on a five-point scale ranging

from ‘very dissatisfied’ (1) to ‘very satisfied’ (5).

Controls. Tenure was expected to be associated with P–O fit (Schneider et al. 1995) and

thus controlled for. Age, gender and contract hours ‘manager’ (1, manager, 0, no

managerial position) were also included, as they may influence commitment, and P–O and

P–J fit. We also controlled for organisation as two organisations were included in the

sample.

C. Boon et al.148

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Results

Means, standard deviations (SDs), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and correlations are

presented in Table 2. Perceived HRM correlated 0.50 with P–O fit and 0.52 with P–J fit.

The correlations between perceived HRM and organisational commitment, OCB,

intention to leave and job satisfaction varied between 0.40 and 0.58, and correlations of P–

O and P–J fit and ‘outcomes’ varied between 0.37 and 0.62. Correlations higher than 0.70

may increase the probability of multicollinearity in regression analyses (Tabachnick and

Fidell 1996). All correlations were lower than 0.70, suggesting that our measures were

suitable for inclusion in the hierarchical regression analyses used to test our hypotheses.

Tests for multicollinearity showed there were no multicollinearity problems in any of the

regression analyses. As this study is cross-sectional, no causal relationships can be tested.

Therefore, results should be read as non-directional relationships.

First, we performed analyses to examine whether the uniformity of HR practices

within the organisations was also found statistically. ANOVA analyses on the perceived

HRM variable showed that perceived HRM did not differ significantly between

departments within each organisation, but it does differ significantly between the two

organisations. Therefore, differences that are found are likely to be differences in

individual perceptions.

Hypothesis 1 stated that perceived HR practices are positively related to P–O fit and

P–J fit. Hierarchical regression was used to test this hypothesis. Using P–O and P–J fit as

dependent variables, the control variables were entered in the first step of the equation. In

the second step, the set of perceived HR practices was entered. The results of the

regression analyses for P–O fit and P–J fit are provided in Table 3. The controls and set of

HR practices explained 29% of the variance in P–O fit (R 2 ¼ 0.306, adjusted

R 2 ¼ 0.289). The set of perceived HR practices has a significant effect (b ¼ 0.541,

p , 0.001). The controls and set of HR practices accounted for 52% of the variance in P–J

fit (R 2 ¼ 0.533, adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.522). The set of HR practices is significantly related to

P–J fit (b ¼ 0.665, p , 0.001). This supports Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that perceived HR practices are positively related to

commitment, OCB and job satisfaction, and negatively to intention to leave.

Table 3. Regression estimates for P–O and P–J fit.

P–O fit P–J fit

b b b b

Step 1: Control variablesOrganisation 0.000 0.160** 0.130* 0.328***Manager 0.223*** 0.070 0.139* 20.049Number of contract hours 20.042 20.046 0.131* 0.126**Tenure 0.031 20.033 20.017 20.096*Age 0.001 0.063 0.191** 0.267***Gender (male ¼ 1) 20.127* 20.091 20.133* 20.089*

Step 2: Set of perceived HR practices 0.541*** 0.665***

DR 2 0.067** 0.240*** 0.172*** 0.361***DF 3.400** 98.376*** 9.871*** 220.639***R 2 0.067 0.306 0.172 0.533Adjusted R 2 0.047 0.289 0.154 0.522

Notes: P–O fit, person–organisation fit; P–J fit, person–job fit. *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001 (two-tailed).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

A hierarchical regression analysis was performed for each dependent variable, entering the

controls in the first step and the set of perceived HR practices in the second. Adding HR

practices in step 2 explained significant additional variance in all outcomes (Table 4).

Together, the controls and perceived HR practices explained 29% of the variance in

commitment (R 2 ¼ 0.305, adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.288) and HR was significantly associated with

organisational commitment (b ¼ 0.443, p , 0.001). For OCB, the controls and set of HR

practices explained 24% of the variance (R 2 ¼ 0.257, adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.239), and HR was

significantly related to OCB (b ¼ 0.445, p , 0.001). The controls and the set of perceived

HR practices explained 34% of the variance in job satisfaction (R 2 ¼ 0.354, adjusted

R 2 ¼ 0.338). The set of HR practices was significantly related to job satisfaction

(b ¼ 0.624, p , 0.001). Finally, for intention to leave, the controls and perceived HR

practices explained 20% of the variance (R 2 ¼ 0.220, adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.201), and HR was

significantly related to intention to leave (b ¼ 2 0.459, p , 0.001). The results support

hypothesis 2 predicting that perceived HR is significantly related to these dependent

variables.

As the relationships tested could differ significantly between the two organisations, we

performed extra analyses testing the moderating role of organisation in each analysis by

including HRM, organisation and the interaction term HRM–organisation as subsequent

steps in the hierarchical regression analysis. Results show that two relationships were

moderated by the organisation: the relationship between HRM and OCB (b ¼ 2 0.121*,

p , 0.05), and between HRM and intention to leave (b ¼ 0.117*, p , 0.05). In other

words, in the retail organisation, HRM was more strongly related to OCB and HRM had a

more positive impact on intention to leave. These analyses are not reported in the tables.

Hypotheses 3a and b predicted that P–O fit mediates the relationship of perceived HR

practices with (1) organisational commitment and (2) OCB. In order for P–O fit to mediate

the relationship between perceived HR practices and the employee outcomes commitment

and OCB, the following conditions must be satisfied: (1) perceived HR practices are

significantly associated with P–O fit; (2) perceived HR practices are significantly

associated with the employee outcome; and (3) when entering P–O fit in the regression

equation, the relationship between perceived HR practices and the outcome decreases

significantly. Full mediation occurs if the effect of perceived HR practices on the

employee outcome becomes non-significant when controlling for P–O fit; partial

mediation occurs when the effect becomes smaller, but remains significant (Baron and

Kenny 1986). Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test for mediation. Control

variables were entered in the first step of the equation, the set of perceived HR practices in

the second step and P–O fit in the third step. To check for a possible influence of P–J fit on

this relationship, P–J fit was added in the fourth step. The conditions for mediation were

met as the set of HR practices is significantly associated with both P–O fit and

commitment and OCB (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 5 shows that entering P–O fit in the third step increases R 2 significantly

for both organisational commitment and OCB. In the analysis for commitment, the

adjusted R 2 increased from 0.288 to 0.478 (DR 2 ¼ 0.187, p , 0.001), and for OCB,

the adjusted R 2 increased from 0.239 to 0.304 (DR 2 ¼ 0.066, p , 0.001). The effect size

of perceived HR practices reduced, both for commitment (from b ¼ 0.443, p , 0.001 to

b ¼ 0.162, p , 0.01) and OCB (from b ¼ 0.445, p , 0.001 to b ¼ 0.278, p , 0.001),

and Sobel tests showed that both mediations were significant (commitment: z ¼ 7.112,

p , 0.001; OCB: z ¼ 4.645, p , 0.001). Adding P–J fit to the regression equation did not

explain significant additional variance in commitment or OCB. For both commitment and

OCB, perceived HR practices still had a significant influence after entering P–O fit, which

C. Boon et al.150

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Tab

le4

.R

egre

ssio

nes

tim

ates

for

emp

loy

eeo

utc

om

es.

Organisational

commitment

OCB

Intentionto

leave

Jobsatisfaction

bb

bb

bb

bb

Ste

p1

:C

on

tro

lv

aria

ble

sO

rgan

isat

ion

20

.17

4*

*2

0.0

42

0.0

24

0.1

57

*0

.00

52

0.1

32

*2

0.0

98

0.0

87

Man

ager

0.1

83

**

0.0

59

0.2

85*

**

0.1

60

**

20

.15

0*

20

.02

00

.15

6*

*2

0.0

20

Nu

mb

ero

fco

ntr

act

ho

urs

0.0

68

0.0

65

20

.03

92

0.0

42

0.0

08

0.0

12

0.0

08

0.0

04

Ten

ure

0.1

46

*0

.09

30

.03

42

0.0

19

0.0

17

0.0

71

20

.03

02

0.1

04

*A

ge

0.1

95

**

0.2

46

**

*0

.05

50

.10

62

0.1

28

*2

0.1

80

**

20

.00

70

.06

5G

end

er(m

ale¼

1)

20

.08

12

0.0

51

20

.06

42

0.0

34

0.0

78

0.0

47

20

.05

52

0.0

13

Ste

p2

:S

eto

fp

erce

ived

HR

pra

ctic

es0

.44

3*

**

0.4

45

**

*2

0.4

59

**

*0

.62

4*

**

DR

20

.14

4*

**

0.1

60

**

*0

.09

5*

**

0.1

62

**

*0

.04

8*

0.1

72

**

*0

.03

40

.31

9*

**

DF

8.0

45

**

*6

5.6

97

**

*5

.00

7*

**

62

.18

5*

**

2.3

88

*6

2.9

97

**

*1

.69

61

40

.70

0*

**

R2

0.1

44

0.3

05

0.0

95

0.2

57

0.0

48

0.2

20

0.0

34

0.3

54

Ad

just

edR

20

.12

60

.28

80

.07

60

.23

90

.02

80

.20

10

.01

40

.33

8

Note

s:O

CB

,O

rgan

isat

ional

citi

zensh

ipbeh

avio

ur.

*p,

0.0

5;

**p,

0.0

1;

**

*p,

0.0

01

(tw

o-t

aile

d).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

indicates partial mediation of P–O fit in the relationships between perceived HR practices

and commitment as well as OCB. The results support hypotheses 3a and b.

Hypotheses 4a and b stated that P–J fit mediates the effect of perceived HR practices

on intention to leave and job satisfaction. A similar approach was used to test this

hypothesis. In the hierarchical regression analysis, first the controls were entered, in the

second step the set of perceived HR practices, P–J fit in the third and P–O fit in the fourth

in order to check for possible effects of P–O fit. Table 6 reports the results.

First, an analysis was conducted testing hypothesis 4a: the mediating role of P–J fit in

the relationship between perceived HR practices and intention to leave. The conditions for

mediation were met as the set of perceived HR practices was significantly related to both

P–J fit and intention to leave (Tables 3 and 4). Entering P–J fit in the third step led to a

significant increase in the adjusted R 2 from 0.201 to 0.307 (DR 2 ¼ 0.106, p , 0.001).

Entering P–J fit decreased the effect size of the perceived HR practices, although it

remains significant (from b ¼ 2 0.459, p , 0.001 to b ¼ 2 0.143, p , 0.05). A Sobel

test showed that the mediating role of P–J fit is significant (z ¼ 6.058, p , 0.001). Adding

P–O fit to the regression equation did not add a significant amount of explained variance.

The results support hypothesis 4a: P–J fit partly mediates the relationship between

perceived HR practices and intention to leave.

Next, we tested hypothesis 4b: P–J fit mediates the relationship between perceived HR

practices and job satisfaction. As the set of perceived HR practices was significantly

related to both P–J fit and job satisfaction (Tables 3 and 4), the conditions for mediation

were met. Entering P–J fit in the third step increases adjusted R 2 significantly from 0.338

to 0.450 (DR 2 ¼ 0.111, p , 0.001). The effect size of HR practices reduced (from

b ¼ 0.624, p , 0.001 to b ¼ 0.300, p , 0.001). A Sobel test shows this is a significant

mediation (z ¼ 6.782, p , 0.001). A significant amount of additional variance was

explained by entering P–O fit in the next step, the adjusted R 2 increased from 0.450 to

0.462 (DR 2 ¼ 0.013, p , 0.01). Entering P–O fit in the equation decreases the effect of

P–J fit (from b ¼ 0.488, p , 0.001 to b ¼ 0.426, p , 0.001), while having less effect on

the effect sizes of the set of perceived HR practices. The effect size of P–O fit is smaller

Table 5. Hierarchical regression testing the mediating role of P–O fit.

Organisational commitment OCB

b B b b

Step 1: Control variablesOrganisation 20.042 20.125** 0.157* 0.107Manager 0.059 0.022 0.160** 0.138**Number of contract hours 0.065 0.089* 20.042 20.028Tenure 0.093 0.110** 20.019 20.009Age 0.246*** 0.213*** 0.106 20.087Gender (male ¼ 1) 2 0.051 20.004 20.034 20.006

Step 2: Set of perceivedHR practices

0.443*** 0.162** 0.445*** 0.278***

Step 3: P–O fit 0.519*** 0.308***

DR 2 0.160*** 0.187*** 0.162*** 0.066***DF 65.697*** 104.633*** 62.185*** 27.592***R 2 0.305 0.492 0.257 0.323Adjusted R 2 0.288 0.478 0.239 0.304

Note: OCB, organisational citizenship behaviour. *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001 (two-tailed).

C. Boon et al.152

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

than P–J fit, but significant (b ¼ 0.148, p , 0.01). The results support hypothesis 4b. P–J

fit partly mediates the relationship between perceived HR practices and job satisfaction. In

addition (and not hypothesised), P–O fit also seems to mediate the relationship between

perceived HR practices and satisfaction, although P–J fit has a stronger effect size.

Hypotheses 5 and 6 suggest a moderating role for P–O and P–J fit. We used

hierarchical regression analysis to test these hypotheses. Controls were entered in the first

step. Then, after centring both perceived HR practices and moderators around their

respective means and calculating the interaction term, the set of HR practices was entered

in the second step and the hypothesised moderator (P–O or P–J fit, respectively) in the

third step. In the fourth step, the interaction term was entered. We controlled for possible

effects of the other type of fit by entering it as well as a second interaction term in

subsequent steps. Significant interactions are plotted at high (one SD above the mean) and

low (one SD below the mean) levels of the moderator, following Aiken and West (1991)

and simple slope analysis was used to test whether the slopes were significantly different

from zero. Table 7 reports the test of hypotheses 5a and b predicting that P–O fit

moderates the relationship between perceptions of HR practices and organisational

commitment and OCB. This hypothesis was rejected. Adding the interaction term of P–O

fit and the set of perceived HR practices did not explain a significant amount of additional

variance in either outcome.

The tests of hypotheses 6a and b are reported in Table 8. Hypothesis 6a predicted that

P–J fit moderates the relationship between perceptions of HR practices and intention to

leave and analyses showed significant results. Entering the interaction term of P–J fit and

the set of HR practices increased the adjusted R 2 from 0.307 to 0.317 (DR 2 ¼ 0.013,

p , 0.01). The interaction term was significant and positive (b ¼ 0.119, p , 0.05),

indicating a stronger negative relationship between perceptions of HR practices and

Table 6. Hierarchical regression testing the mediating role of P–J fit.

Intention to leave Job satisfaction

b b b b b

Step 1: Control variablesOrganisation 20.132* 0.024 0.087 20.073 20.076Manager 20.020 20.044 20.020 0.003 20.010Number ofcontract hours

0.012 0.071 0.004 20.057 20.043

Tenure 0.071 0.025 20.104* 20.057 20.058Age 20.180** 20.054 0.065 20.065 20.058Gender(male ¼ 1)

0.047 0.005 20.013 0.030 0.038

Step 2: Set ofperceivedHR practices

20.459*** 20.143* 0.624*** 0.300*** 0.261***

Step 3: P–J fit 20.475*** 0.488*** 0.426***

Step 4: P–O fit 0.148**

DR 2 0.172*** 0.106*** 0.319*** 0.111*** 0.013**DF 62.997*** 44.428*** 140.700*** 59.015*** 7.299**R 2 0.220 0.326 0.354 0.465 0.478Adjusted R 2 0.201 0.307 0.338 0.450 0.462

Notes: *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001 (two-tailed).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

intention to leave when P–J fit is low than when it is high. This interaction is plotted in

Figure 1. For employees with low P–J fit, the set of perceived HR practices was negatively

related to intention to leave (b ¼ 2 0.395, t ¼ 2 3.867, p , 0.001), whereas no

significant relationship was found for employees with high P–J fit (b ¼ 2 0.094,

t ¼ 2 0.854, p , 0.39). These results support hypothesis 6a.

Hypothesis 6b stated that P–J fit moderates the relationship between perceptions of

HR practices and job satisfaction, such that the relationship between perceptions of HR

practices and satisfaction will be stronger when P–J fit is low compared to when it is high.

Table 8 shows that both the interaction term of perceived HR practices and P–J fit, and the

interaction term of perceived HR practices and P–O fit are significantly related to

satisfaction. Entering both interaction terms provides a significant increase in explained

variance in job satisfaction. The interaction term with P–J fit was significant and negative

(b ¼ 2 0.220, p , 0.01), indicating a stronger relationship between perceptions of HR

practices and satisfaction for low P–J fit than for high P–J fit. In contrast, the interaction

term with P–O fit was significant and positive (b ¼ 0.197, p , 0.01), indicating a stronger

relationship between perceptions of HR practices and satisfaction for high P–O fit than for

low P–O fit. Both relationships are plotted in Figure 2.

For employees with low P–J fit, the set of perceived HR practices was more strongly

related to job satisfaction (b ¼ 0.528, t ¼ 7.525, p , 0.001) than for employees with high

P–J fit, who show a weaker positive relationship (b ¼ 0.337, t ¼ 4.472, p , 0.001).

These results support hypothesis 6b. In addition to the moderating role of P–J fit, a

significant (non-hypothesised) moderating role of P–O fit in this relationship was also

found. For employees with high P–O fit, the set of perceived HR practices was more

strongly related to job satisfaction (b ¼ 0.543, t ¼ 7.373, p , 0.001) than for employees

with low P–O fit (b ¼ 0.486, t ¼ 6.283, p , 0.001).

Table 7. Hierarchical regression testing the moderating role of P–O fit.

Organizational commitment OCB

b b b b

Step 1: Control variablesOrganisation 20.125** 20.161* 0.107 0.080Manager 0.022 0.032 0.138** 0.165**Number of contract hours 0.089* 0.073 20.028 0.000Tenure 0.110** 0.122* 20.009 20.013Age 0.213*** 0.181** 0.087 0.109Gender (male ¼ 1) 20.004 0.005 20.006 0.022

Step 2: Set of perceived HRpractices

0.162** 0.096 0.278*** 0.288***

Step 3: P–O fit 0.519*** 0.477*** 0.308*** 0.315***

Step 4: Set of perceived HRpractices £ P–O fit

20.021 20.022

DR 2 0.187*** 0.007 0.066*** 0.001DF 104.633*** 0.232 27.592*** 0.330R 2 0.492 0.499 0.323 0.325Adjusted R 2 0.478 0.481 0.304 0.300

Notes: *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001 (two-tailed).

C. Boon et al.154

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Tab

le8

.H

iera

rch

ical

reg

ress

ion

test

ing

the

mo

der

atin

gro

leo

fP

–J

and

P–

Ofi

t.

Inte

nti

on

tole

ave

Job

sati

sfac

tio

n

bb

bb

bb

Ste

p1

:C

on

tro

lv

aria

ble

sO

rgan

isat

ion

0.0

24

0.0

18

20

.07

32

0.0

76

20

.07

22

0.0

74

Man

ager

20

.04

42

0.0

47

0.0

03

20

.01

02

0.0

08

20

.01

0N

um

ber

of

contr

act

hours

0.0

71

0.0

47

20

.05

72

0.0

43

20

.02

62

0.0

22

Ten

ure

0.0

25

0.0

27

20

.05

72

0.0

58

20

.06

02

0.0

62

Ag

e2

0.0

54

20

.06

52

0.0

65

20

.05

82

0.0

51

20

.04

2G

end

er(m

ale¼

1)

0.0

05

0.0

04

0.0

30

0.0

38

0.0

39

0.0

33

Ste

p2

:S

eto

fp

erce

ived

HR

pra

ctic

es2

0.1

43

*2

0.1

44

*0

.30

0*

**

0.2

61

**

*0

.26

1*

**

0.2

44

**

*

Ste

p3

:P

–J

fit

20

.47

5*

**

20

.44

9*

**

0.4

88

**

*0

.42

6*

**

0.4

06*

**

0.3

76

**

*

Ste

p4

:P

–O

fit

0.1

48

**

0.1

53*

*0

.21

1*

**

Ste

p5

:S

eto

fp

erce

ived

HR

pra

ctic

es£

P–

Jfi

t0

.11

9*

20

.08

02

0.2

20

**

Ste

p6

:S

eto

fp

erce

ived

HR

pra

ctic

es£

P–

Ofi

t0

.19

7*

*

DR

20

.10

6*

**

0.0

13

**

0.1

11

**

*0

.01

3*

*0

.00

60

.01

8*

DF

44

.42

8*

**

5.4

92

**

59

.01

5*

**

7.2

99

**

3.1

71

9.9

55

*R

20

.32

60

.33

90

.46

50

.47

80

.48

40

.50

2A

dju

sted

R2

0.3

07

0.3

17

0.4

50

0.4

62

0.4

65

0.4

82

No

tes:

*p,

0.0

5*

*p,

0.0

1*

**p,

0.0

01

(tw

o-t

aile

d).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Discussion

The goal of this study was to bridge the P–E fit and strategic HRM literature through

enhancing insight in to the relationship between perceptions of ‘high performance’ HR

practices, P–O and P–J fit, and employee attitudes and behaviours. Possible mediating

and moderating roles were examined in this study. To our knowledge, no previous studies

have tested these relationships. Strong relationships were found for all hypothesised direct

relationships between employee perceptions of HR practices with P–O and P–J fit as

well as with employee outcomes. Evidence was also found for a mediating role of P–O

and P–J fit in the relationship between perceived HRM and employee outcomes, and a

moderating role of P–J fit in this relationship. The hypothesis predicting a moderating role

of P–O fit in the relationship between perceived HR practices and both commitment and

OCB was however not supported.

The results of testing the mediating role of P–O and P–J fit reveal that P–O fit

partially but significantly mediates the relationship between perceived HR practices and

the organisation-related outcomes organisational commitment and OCB, and P–J fit

partially but significantly mediates the relationship between perceived HR practices and

the job-related outcomes such as intention to leave and job satisfaction. These results are

in line with our expectation based on previous research about the association between

P–O and P–J fit and employee outcomes (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Regarding P–J fit,

the results suggest that negative perceptions of the HR system do not (only) directly cause

people to think about leaving the organisation. Rather, such perceptions affect employees’

sense of fit with their job, which in turn is related to their intention to leave. The same

holds for the relationship with job satisfaction, which seems to occur partially via P–J fit.

This suggests that HR practices help employees to feel better able to meet the requirements

of their job and to feel that their needs are fulfilled by the job, which in turn enhances job

satisfaction. Similarly, the results suggest HR practices do not only directly enhance the

extent to which employees feel commitment and show OCB, but that HR practices also

affect the extent to which employees feel their values match those of the organisation,

which in turn enhances commitment and OCB.

Perceived HRM

Inte

ntio

n to

leav

e

Low P-J fitHigh P-J fit

Figure 1. Relationship between a set of perceived HR practices and intention to leave at high andlow levels of P–J fit.

C. Boon et al.156

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Results of testing the moderating role of P–J fit show that in line with expectations, for

low P–J fit individuals, perceptions of HRM were more strongly related with the intention

to leave than for high P–J fit individuals. A compensation effect seems to occur for low P–

J fit employees as positive perceptions of HRM seem to lower their intention to leave. To

individuals currently experiencing low P–J fit, positive perceptions of the availability of

HRM practices might imply they see that the organisation offers autonomy and

opportunities to increase their skills and knowledge that will enhance their match with job

requirements. Such opportunities offered to improve P–J fit might entice people to stay

even when currently the match is not optimal. For those already high on P–J fit, such

opportunities likely make less difference in terms of their intentions to leave.

In the relationship between perceptions HR practices and job satisfaction, the

moderating roles of P–O and P–J fit occur in opposite directions. In line with

expectations, a compensation effect of HRM seems to occur for employees low on P–J fit.

The results suggest that for low P–J fit individuals who are likely to be less successful

in their job as their abilities and needs match the demands of the job to a lesser extent,

Perceived HRM

Perceived HRM

Job

satis

fact

ion

Low P-J fitHigh P-J fit

Job

satis

fact

ion

Low P-O fitHigh P-O fit

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. Relationship between a set of perceived HR practices and job satisfaction at high and lowlevels of (a) P–J fit and (b) P–O fit.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

‘high performance’ HR practices signal the presence of opportunities to enhance P–J fit

through the increased skills, abilities and autonomy, which makes them feel more satisfied.

The (unexpected) moderating results for P–O fit and satisfaction suggest an opposite

relationship occurs there, as HR practices affect the satisfaction of high P–O fit

individuals more strongly. High P–O fit employees, who are likely to understand what the

organisation wants and needs as their values and goals are more aligned with

organisational values and goals may better interpret or agree more with the signals that the

HR practices send, such that the HR practices have more effect on these employees,

resulting in higher job satisfaction.

Contrary to our expectations, no moderating role of P–O fit was found in the

relationship between perceived HR practices and commitment and OCB. Whether an

employee has a high or low P–O fit does not seem to affect the extent to which HR

practices influence their commitment and OCB.

In this study, we examined P–O and P–J fit both as mediator and as moderator. For the

relationship between HRM and intention to leave and job satisfaction, both mediating and

moderating roles were significant. As in both cases only partial mediation was found, the

direct relationship remained. The moderating effect provides a complementary

explanation of this direct effect. In other words, perceptions of HR practices partly

affect employee outcomes through their impact on P–O or P–J fit, and partly, the

relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes depends on

whether employee have low or high P–O and especially P–J fit. More generally, in all

regression analyses, we found that the explained variance for the attitudinal outcomes –

organisational commitment and job satisfaction – were much higher than those of the

behavioural outcome and the ‘behavioural intention’ OCB, respectively, and intention to

leave. Perceived HR practices, P–O and P–J fit thus seem to more strongly affect

employee attitudes than behaviours (even self-reported ones).

This study contributes to the P–E fit literature by studying both P–O and P–J fit in one

study. Few P–E fit researchers have examined P–O and P–J fit together in one study. Our

study incorporated both constructs and shows that employee perceptions of P–O and P–J

fit have distinct relationships with perceived HR practices as well as with employee

outcomes. These results support and extend previous research (Lauver and Kristof-Brown

2001) and show that the role of P–O or P–J fit depends on which HR practices and which

outcomes are examined. Using both P–O and P–J fit recognises the possibility of additive,

or even holistic effects (Ostroff and Schulte 2007). Here, we indeed find such effects as our

results showed that using both P–O and P–J fit simultaneously explains more variance in

job satisfaction than using only one of the two constructs.

This study contributes to the strategic HRM literature by focusing on employee

perceptions of HR practices and by using P–O and P–J fit as individual level constructs

that may help to gain more insight in to the consequences of these perceptions, instead of

the factual availability of HR practices. To measure perceptions of HRM in this study,

respondents were asked to indicate ‘to what extent the organisation offers me . . . ’. Thus,

the referent of the items is specifically directed to the employees themselves instead of

their colleagues or the organisation as a whole, in order to capture the individual

perceptions. Given that the actual practices that are offered are similar to all employees

(the two organisations in our study both had uniform HR policies), the variation that is

found stems from a variation in perceptions. Our findings suggest that these perceptions

are strongly related with employees’ attitudes as well as their feeling of fit with the

organisation and their job.

C. Boon et al.158

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Limitations, future research directions and implications

This study has several limitations. The first is the cross-sectional design of this study. No

causal relationships could be tested; therefore, the directionality of results remains

untested. Strategic HRM literature assumes that HRM affects performance through

employee attitudes and behaviours. However, the occurrence of some reversed causality is

also plausible, e.g. higher performance of the firm may lead to satisfaction or higher levels

of (perceived) HR (Wright, Gardner, Moynihan and Allen 2005). The same holds for the

relationship between perceptions of HR practices and P–O and P–J fit. HR practices

might influence the level of P–O and P–J fit; however, this relationship might also (in

part) reverse. P–O and P–J fit might also influence employees’ perceptions of HRM, as

people who achieve a match with their job and organisation may have a more positive

view of HR. This study presents a first step in examining the role of HR practices in P–O

and P–J fit by showing that there are significant relationships. Future research could

further explore these relationships by testing causal order, e.g. using a longitudinal design

following how employees’ perceptions of fit and HR develop from the start of a selection

process

A second potential limitation is the possibility of same source bias as our variables

were measures from the same source. In the P–E fit domain, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005)

demonstrated that that studies using common raters showed similar relationships, yet

somewhat higher effect sizes than those with multiple sources. Therefore, the reported

effect sizes might be higher than if some of the variables had been measured through other

ratings. However, as most of the variables we were interested in are perceptual in nature,

this would only be possible for a few variables (most notably the behavioural ones). Also,

experts suggest that single source problems are less pervasive than sometimes assumed

(Crampton and Wagner 1994; Spector 2006). Meta analytical research shows that common

method variance is not a universal inflator of correlations, deflation also occurs. Inflation

seems more the exception than the rule in common method studies (Crampton and Wagner

1994). Method variance is also unlikely to result in statistical interactions (Aiken and West

1991).

The limitations of this study are accompanied by some strengths. First, following

suggested research directions in existing P–E fit studies (Lauver and Kristof-Brown 2001;

Kristof-Brown et al. 2005), this study included both P–O and P–J fit, which provided the

opportunity to look at similarities and differences between P–O and P–J fit in their

relationship with HR practices and employee outcomes. Our results revealed that P–O and

P–J fit show some important differences in this respect.

Conclusion

In summary, our study can add value to this research about the ‘black box’ between HRM

and performance. Our findings show that some relationships between perceived HR

practices and employee outcomes appear to be indirect, occurring via P–O and P–J fit,

and that this relationship differs for different levels of P–J fit and to a lesser extent P–O fit.

Future research is needed to gain more insight in to this relationship between perceived

HR practices, P–O and P–J fit and employee outcomes. As research in P–E fit has largely

focused on the selection and organisational entry phase, few studies have examined P–E

fit perceptions for existing employees (Lauver and Kristof-Brown 2001). Our study shows

that for existing employees, perceptions of P–O and P–J fit also significantly relate to

employee outcomes. With the use of HR practices, organisations may be able to manage

levels of P–O and P–J fit of employees, and, in turn, this may affect employee attitudes

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

and behaviours. This study also provides insight in to how attitudes and behaviours of

employees with high or low P–O and P–J fit can be affected by the use of ‘high

performance’ HR practices. To benefit from HR practices, firms may want to pay attention

to the level of P–O and P–J fit in the selection of new employees. Studying P–E fit as a

moderator helps to understand the consequences of high or low P–E fit.

We have chosen to focus this study on perceived HR practices to take differences in

interpretations of HR practices into account. These differed significantly between but not

within organisations. Together with interview data indicating a uniform HR policy for all

employees, this implies that the resulting differences in HRM are likely to stem from

differences in individuals’ perceptions rather than differences in actual practices offered to

them. This finding corresponds with the statement that the messages that HR practices

send messages that ‘can be understood idiosyncratically, whereby two employees interpret

the same practices differently’ (Bowen and Ostroff 2004, p. 206). Managing employee

perceptions of HRM may be beneficial for firms, as employee attitudes and behaviours can

affect firm performance. Future research could further explore how these HRM

perceptions relate to actual HR practices and HR policy and what other factors affect these

individual perceptions such as leadership style, previous experiences and personality.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Riccardo Peccei and Amy Kristof-Brown for their comments on an earlier versionof this article.

References

Aiken, L.S., and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., and Kalleberg, A. (2000), Manufacturing Advantage: WhyHigh-Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Arthur, J.B. (1994), ‘Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance andTurnover,’ Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670–687.

Baron, J.N., and Kreps, D.M. (1999), Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for GeneralManagers, Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Baron, R.M., and Kenny, D.A. (1986), ‘The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in SocialPsychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations,’ Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Becker, B., Huselid, M.A., Pickus, P.S., and Spratt, M.F. (1997), ‘HR as a Source of ShareholderValue: Research and Recommendations,’ Human Resource Management, 36, 39–47.

Boon, C., Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), ‘Measuring Strategic and InternalFit in HRM: An Alternative Approach,’ Paper presented at The Academy of ManagementMeeting, August 2007, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., and Boon, C. (2005), ‘Commonalities and Contradictions in HRM andPerformance Research,’ Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 67–94.

Bowen, D.E., and Ostroff, C. (2004), ‘Understanding HRM-Firm Performance Linkages: The Roleof the “Strength” of the HRM System,’ Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221.

Bretz, R.D., and Judge, T.A. (1994), ‘The Role of Human Resource Systems in Job ApplicantDecision Processes,’ Journal of Management, 20, 531–551.

Cable, D.M., and DeRue, D.S. (2002), ‘The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Subjective FitPerceptions,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884.

Cable, D.M., and Edwards, J.R. (2004), ‘Complementary and Supplementary Fit: A Theoretical andEmpirical Integration,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822–834.

Cable, D.M., and Judge, T.A. (1994), ‘Pay Preferences and Job Search Decisions: A Person-Organization Fit Perspective,’ Personnel Psychology, 47, 317–348.

Cable, D.M., and Judge, T.A. (1996), ‘Person-Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, andOrganizational Entry,’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294–311.

C. Boon et al.160

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

Cable, D.M., and Judge, T.A. (1997), ‘Interviewers’ Perceptions of Person-Organization Fit andOrganizational Selection Decisions,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546–561.

Cable, D.M., and Parsons, C.K. (2001), ‘Socialization Tactics and Person-Organization Fit,’Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23.

Carless, S.A. (2005), ‘Person–Job Fit Versus Person–Organization Fit as Predictors ofOrganizational Attraction and Job Acceptance Intentions: A Longitudinal Study,’ Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 411–429.

Colarelli, S.M. (1984), ‘Methods of Communication and Mediating Processes in Realistic JobPreviews,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 633–642.

Cooper-Thomas, H.D., Van Vianen, A.E.M., and Anderson, N. (2004), ‘Changes in Person-Organization Fit: The Impact of Socialization Tactics on Perceived and Actual P-O Fit,’European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 52–78.

Crampton, S.M., and Wagner, J.A. (1994), ‘Percept-Percept Inflation in MicroorganizationalResearch: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,67–76.

Delaney, J.T., and Huselid, M.A. (1996), ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices onPerceptions of Organizational Performance,’ Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949–969.

Den Hartog, D.N., Boselie, P., and Paauwe, J. (2004), ‘Performance Management: A Model andResearch Agenda,’ Applied Psychology, 53, 556–569.

Edwards, J.R. (1991), ‘Person-Job Fit: A Conceptual Integration, Literature Review, andMethodological Critique,’ International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6,283–357.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., and Van den Heuvel, H. (1998), ‘Career-Oriented Versus Team-Oriented Commitment and Behavior at Work,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 717–730.

Erdogan, B., and Bauer, T.N. (2005), ‘Enhancing Career Benefits of Employee ProactivePersonality: The Role of Fit with Jobs and Organizations,’ Personnel Psychology, 58, 859–891.

Guest, D.E. (1997), ‘Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and ResearchAgenda,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263–276.

Guest, D.E. (1999), ‘Human Resource Management – the Worker’s Verdict,’ Human ResourceManagement Journal, 9, 5–25.

Guest, D.E., and Conway, N. (2002), ‘Communicating the Psychological Contract: An EmployerPerspective,’ Human Resource Management Journal, 12, 22–38.

Guthrie, J.P. (2001), ‘High-Involvement Work Practices, Turnover, and Productivity: Evidence fromNew-Zealand,’ Academy of Management Journal, 44, 180–190.

Guzzo, R.A., and Noonan, K.A. (1994), ‘Human Resource Practices as Communications and thePsychological Contract,’ Human Resource Management, 33, 447–462.

Hoffman, B.J., and Woehr, D.J. (2006), ‘A Quantitative Review of the Relationship betweenPerson–Organization Fit and Behavioral Outcomes,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,389–399.

Huselid, M.A. (1995), ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance,’ Academy of Management Journal, 38,635–672.

Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., and Prennushi, G. (1997), ‘The Effects of Human Resource ManagementPractices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines,’ American Economic Review, 87,291–313.

Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2000), ‘Perceived Applicant Fit: Distinguishing between Recruiters’Perceptions of Person-Job and Person-Organization Fit,’ Personnel Psychology, 53, 643–671.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., and 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, 281–342.

Kristof, A.L. (1996), ‘Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of its Conceptualizations,Measurement, and Implications,’ Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.

Lauver, K.J., and Kristof-Brown, A. (2001), ‘Distinguishing between Employees’ Perceptions ofPerson-Job and Person-Organization Fit,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454–470.

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., and Fetter, R. (1991), ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior andObjective Productivity as Determinants of Managerial Evaluations of Salespersons’Performance,’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123–150.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., and Paine, J.B. (1999), ‘Do Citizenship Behaviors Matter Morefor Managers Than for Salespeople?’ Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27, 396–410.

Meglino, B.M., and Ravlin, E.C. (1998), ‘Individual Values in Organizations: Concepts,Controversies, and Research,’ Journal of Management, 24, 351–389.

Muchinsky, P.M., and Monahan, C.J. (1987), ‘What Is Person-Environment Congruence?Supplementary Versus Complementary Models of Fit,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,268–277.

Ostroff, C., and Schulte, M. (2007), ‘Multiple Perspectives of Fit in Organizations across Levels ofAnalysis,’ in Perspectives on Organizational Fit, eds. C. Ostroff and T.A. Judge, New York,NY: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–69.

Perrin, L.A. (1968), ‘Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Individual–Environment Fit,’Psychological Bulletin, 69, 56–58.

Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., and Harley, B. (2000), ‘Employees and High-Performance WorkSystems: Testing inside the Black Box,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 501–531.

Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written andUnwritten Agreements, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rousseau, D.M., and Greller, M.M. (1994), ‘Human Resource Practices: Administrative ContractMakers,’ Human Resource Management, 33, 385–401.

Ryan, A.M., and Schmit, M.J. (1996), ‘An Assessment of Organizational Climate and P-E Fit: ATool for Organizational Change,’ International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4, 75–95.

Scarpello, V., and Campbell, J.P. (1983), ‘Job Satisfaction: Are All the Parts There?’ PersonnelPsychology, 36, 577–600.

Schneider, B. (1987), ‘The People Make the Place,’ Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W., and Smith, D.B. (1995), ‘The ASA Framework: An Update,’

Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773.Spector, P.E. (2006), ‘Method Variance in Organizational Research,’ Organizational Research

Methods, 9, 221–232.Tabachnick, B.G., and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed.), New York:

HarperCollins.Ten Brink, B.E.H. (2004), Psychological Contract: A Useful Concept?, Vrije Universiteit

Amsterdam, Faculteit der Psychologie en Pedagogiek.Truss, C. (2001), ‘Complexities and Controversies in Linking HRM with Organizational Outcomes,’

Journal of Management Studies, 38, 1121–1149.Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2000), ‘Person-Organization Fit: The Match between Newcomers’ and

Recruiters’ Preferences for Organizational Culture,’ Personnel Psychology, 53, 113–149.Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., and Wagner, S.H. (2003), ‘A Meta-Analysis of Relations between

Person-Organization Fit and Work Attitudes,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–489.Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., and Hudy, M.J. (1997), ‘Overall Job Satisfaction: How Good are

Single-Item Measures?’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.Wood, S. (1999), ‘Human Resource Management and Performance,’ International Journal of

Management Reviews, 1, 367–413.Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M., Moynihan, L.M., and Allen, M.R. (2005), ‘The Relationship between

HR Practices and Firm Performance: Examining Causal Order,’ Personnel Psychology, 58,409–446.

Wright, P.M., and Nishii, L.H. (2007), ‘Strategic HRM and Organizational Behavior: IntegratingMultiple Levels of Analysis,’ Technical Report 07-03, CAHRS at Cornell University.

C. Boon et al.162

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 0

0:56

14

Oct

ober

201

2