Journal of Vocational Behavior 55, 254 275 (1999)

Article ID jvbe.1998.1682, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

PersonOrganization Fit and Contextual Performance:

Do Shared Values Matter 1

Scott A. Goodman

Saville and Holdsworth, Ltd.

and

Daniel J. Svyantek

The University of Akron

The influence of person organization fit on employees task and contextual perfor-
mance was investigated in this study. It was hypothesized that the fit between employees
desired organizational cultures and their actual organizational cultures would predict
contextual performance (e.g., helping behaviors toward other employees or the organiza-
tion). It was found that (1) perceptions of the organizational culture and (2) the discrep-
ancy between employees ideal organizational culture and their perceptions of the actual
organizational culture were important in predicting both contextual performance and task
performance. Implications of these findings for organizational research and human re-
source management practice are presented. 1999 Academic Press

Formal job descriptions describe activities that contribute to task performance

(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Employees, however, also augment organiza-
tional effectiveness through behaviors that are not directly related to their chief
task functions. These acts are important because they form the organizational,
social, and psychological context for task activities and procedures. These
activities have been labeled discretionary behaviors (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, &
Berry, 1990), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), or organi-
zational citizenship behaviors (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near,
1983). Organ (1997) has proposed that Borman and Motowidlos (1993) term,
contextual performance, may be the best one for describing such activities.
Borman, Hanson, and Hedge (1997) described a taxonomy in which contextual
performance represented the general construct of interest: Variables such as

Address correspondence to Daniel J. Svyantek, Department of Psychology, The University of

Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4301. Fax: 330-972-5174. E-mail: dsvyantek@uakron.edu.
1
A version of this paper was presented at the 1997 Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology Meetings (St. Louis, MO).

254
0001-8791/99 $30.00
Copyright 1999 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 255

organizational citizenship behaviors represented subsets of contextual perfor-

mance. The term contextual performance, therefore, will be used to describe the
such activities during the rest of this paper.
The level of contextual performance characteristic of the employees of an
organization is recognized as important for organizational effectiveness and
individual job performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van
Scotter, 1994). For example, George and Bettenhausen (1990) examined the
relationship between objective sales performance and contextual performance in
33 stores belonging to a national retail organization. A significant correlation
(r 5 .33) was obtained for the relationship between one type of contextual
performance and a measure of organizational performance. MacKenzie, Podsa-
koff, and Fetter (1991) also demonstrated similar results using subjective mea-
sures of performance. They found that sales managers ratings of subordinate
insurance agents overall performance were influenced substantially by the
subordinates contextual performance as well as their sales performance.

TASK PERFORMANCE VERSUS CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE

Contextual performance includes such activities as volunteering to carry out
actions that are not formally part of the job; helping others; following organiza-
tional rules/procedures when personally inconvenient; endorsing and supporting
organizational objectives; and persisting with extra effort to successfully com-
plete ones task activities. Contextual performance activities differ from task
performance activities in at least four important ways (Borman & Motowidlo,
1993). First, task activities contribute either directly or indirectly to the technical
core of the organization. Contextual activities, however, support the organiza-
tional, social, and psychological environment in which task performance occurs.
Second, task activities vary between different jobs within the same organization.
Contextual activities, however, are common to many (or all) jobs. Third, task
activities are role-prescribed and are behaviors that employees perform in ex-
change for pay. Contextual behaviors, however, are less role-prescribed. Finally,
the important human characteristics for completing task activities are knowledge,
skills, and abilities (KSAs). These KSAs usually covary with task proficiency.
For contextual performance, the major sources of variation are employee pre-
dispositions and volition. Behaviors such as volunteering, helping, persisting, etc.
are probably better predicted by volitional variables related to individual differ-
ences in motivational characteristics and predisposition (Borman & Motowidlo,
1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) or person organization fit (Borman
et al., 1997).

PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

Person organization fit has been defined as the congruence between patterns
of organizational values and patterns of individual values, defined here as what
an individual values in an organization, such as being team-oriented or innova-
tive (Chatman, 1991, p. 459). The emphasis here is on the match of an
256 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

individuals values with the value system in a specific organizational context and
the potential effects that this match (or lack of a match) has on employees
behaviors and attitudes within the organization.
Bowen, Ledford, and Nathan (1991) propose there is a new model of
selection in which employees are hired to fit the characteristics of an organi-
zation, not just the requirements of a particular job. This notion is based on the
idea of hiring a whole person who will fit well into the specific organizations
culture. This model of person organization fit implies the selection process
should achieve two types of fit (Bowen et al., 1991). First, the selection process
must match the KSAs of the individual and the task demands of the job (i.e.,
personjob fit). Second, the selection process must match individual dispositional
variables and the culture of the organization (i.e., person organization fit).
Personjob fit is important for task performance. Person organization fit,
however, is related to a number of variables that, while not task performance, are
important for organizational effectiveness, including (1) job choice decisions by
organizational applicants (Cable & Judge, 1996); (2) organizational attraction of
applicants (Judge & Cable, 1997); (3) selection decisions made by recruitment
interviewers (Cable & Judge, 1997); and (4) employee job satisfaction, job
tenure, and career success (Bretz & Judge, 1994).
This view of person organization fit is closely linked to the Attraction
SelectionAttrition (ASA) model developed by Schneider (1983). Schneider
(1983) proposes that attributes of people, not the nature of the external envi-
ronment, or organizational technology, or organizational structure, are the fun-
damental determinants of organizational behavior (i.e., the people make the
place) (Schneider, 1987, p. 437). Schneiders work suggested that organizations,
therefore, have their own unique personality based on those individuals who
make up the organization. The ASA model hypothesizes that particular kinds of
people are attracted to certain settings. Those who fit are not as likely to leave an
organization than those who do not fit. This creates an organization where
employees are very similar in behavior, experiences, orientations, feelings, and
reactions and creates a relatively homogenous group of individuals.

CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE AND PERSONORGANIZATION FIT

Contextual performance is important to organizations because higher levels of
such activities facilitate the meeting of organizational goals and organizational
performance (Allen & Rush, 1998) and help to shape the internal environment of
the organization (Kristof, 1996; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). Borman
and Motowidlo (1993) stated that currently most arguments offered for a link
between organizationally important variables and contextual performance are
usually logical rather than empirical. Conceptually, the argument is if organiza-
tional members help each other with work-related problems, orient new employ-
ees, volunteer suggestions for improvement, etc., then organizational resources
are freed for other uses (Organ, 1988). Therefore, when employees exhibit a
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 257

high degree of contextual performance the organization can get more work from
its members at no additional cost to the organization (Organ, 1988).
Contextual performance behaviors such as volunteering, helping, persisting,
etc. have been hypothesized to be predicted by variables such as person
organization fit (Borman et al., 1997). The purpose of this paper was to inves-
tigate this hypothesized relationship between contextual performance and
person organization fit.
Organizational culture may be defined as a general pattern of beliefs, expec-
tations, and values that are assumed to guide the behavior of organizational
members (Schein, 1990). Organizational culture evolves out of the interaction of
personal characteristics of employees and the organizational internal environ-
ment (Schneider, 1983; Schneider et al., 1995). Values that are socially endorsed
by the organization and prized by the individual can lead to close relationships,
positive affect, and attachment (OReilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Posner,
Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). Research has shown that congruence between indi-
vidual values and corporate values correlates significantly with such job out-
comes as individual productivity, job satisfaction, and commitment (OReilly et
al., 1991).
Person organization fit research has shown that the discrepancy between
actual and ideal organizational culture (i.e., discrepancies between what the
organization and the individual values) can influence important organizational
criteria (Chatman, 1991). This study investigated two related hypotheses about
the relationship between contextual performance and fit with organizational
culture. Specifically, it was hypothesized that:
H1: Organizational culture will contribute significantly to the prediction of
contextual performance.
H2: Ideal culture (i.e., what the individual values) will have a significant
impact on contextual performance above and beyond organizational culture (i.e.,
perceived organizational values).

Methods
Setting and Subjects
A survey was administered on-site to 356 organizational members, encom-
passing a wide variety of jobs across 11 departments of a major Midwestern
manufacturing organization. The survey was conducted to assess the current state
of the organizations culture and levels of employee satisfaction. Participation in
the survey was voluntary. Two hundred and twenty-one of the 356 respondents
had useable surveys (a return rate of 62.1%). Subject attrition occurred because
subjects (1) did not return their surveys or returned them in unuseable condition
(n 5 7); (2) it was impossible to match their responses to the performance
evaluation because they did not have a direct supervisor or their supervisor did
not return their performance ratings (n 5 74); or (3) the employees did not fill out
the survey completely for the variables of interest (n 5 54). This number is
258 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

consistent with the numbers reported in other studies of contextual performance

(e.g., Allen and Rush (1998) used 148 employees across several different
organizations). Of the 221 incumbents, 161 (72.90%) were male and 60 (27.10%)
were female. Fifty-three supervisors were asked to complete ratings of their
subordinates performance. Of these 53, 46 supervisors provided this information
(a return rate of 86.8%) for 221 individuals. This supervisor return rate is
consistent with the return rates found in other studies of contextual performance
(e.g., Allen and Rush (1998) found return rates of 100, 77, and 45% for
supervisors in three different samples in their study of organizational citizenship
behaviors and performance judgments). Of the 46 supervisors returning this
information, 36 (78.30%) were male and 10 (21.70%) were female.

Procedure
This study was conducted in two phases. During phase I, subordinates re-
sponded to a survey about organizational culture. The administration time for
each session was approximately one-half hour. Subordinates were informed that
their responses would be used to assess their perceptions of the current state of
the organization and results would be analyzed at the group level only. Subor-
dinates were also informed their responses would be kept confidential. During
phase II, the immediate supervisor of each participant was asked to rate their
subordinates using a 16-item measure of organizational citizenship behavior and
a 9-item measure of task-based job performance. These supervisors were in-
formed that this information would be used only for a research project and that
their responses would be kept confidential.

Measures
The measure of contextual performance used here was Smith, Organ, and
Nears (1983) organizational citizenship behavior measure. The instrument con-
sists of 16 items which represent two factors: altruism and conscientiousness.
The first factor can be characterized as citizenship behavior toward individuals
and the second as citizenship behavior in relation to the organization. This
measure of organizational behavior is seen as an indicator of some aspects of
contextual performance (Organ, 1997).
For comparison purposes, the organizations current performance appraisal
form was used to develop a measure of task-based job performance. There were
nine items on this measure. These items assessed employees current perfor-
mance (e.g., Achieves the objectives of the job and Plans and organizes to
achieve objectives and meet deadlines) and promotion expectations (e.g., Ap-
pears suitable for a higher level role and Meets criteria for promotion). Each
performance item was rated on a seven-point Likert scale. Low scores indicated
that the item being rated was not at all characteristic of the employee: High scores
indicated that the item being rated was completely characteristic of the employee.
Organizational culture was assessed with three instruments: the Organizational
Climate Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Litwin and Stringer (1968) and
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 259

TABLE 1
Organizational Climate Questionnaire (OCQ) Scale Descriptions

Scale Description

Structure The feeling that employees have about the constraints in the group, how many
rules, regulations, procedures there are; is there an emphasis on red tape and
going through channels or is there a loose and informal atmosphere.
Responsibility The feeling of being your own boss; not having to double-check all your
decisions; when you have a job to do, knowing that it is your job.
Reward The feeling of being rewarded for a job well done; emphasizing positive rewards
rather than punishment; the perceived fairness of the pay and promotion
policies.
Risk The sense of riskiness and challenge in the job and in the organization; is there
an emphasis on taking calculated risks or is playing it safe the best way to
operate.
Warmth The feeling of general good fellowship that prevails in the work group
atmosphere; the emphasis of being well liked; the prevalence of friendly and
informal social groups.
Support The perceived helpfulness of the managers and other employees in the group;
emphasis on mutual support from above and below.
Standards The perceived importance of implicit and explicit goals and performance
standards; the emphasis on doing a good job; the challenge presented in
personal and group goals.
Conflict The feeling that managers and other workers want to hear different opinions; the
emphasis placed on getting problems out in the open rather than smoothing
them over or ignoring them.
Identity The feeling that you belong to a company and you are a valuable member of a
working team; the importance placed on this kind of spirit.

selected scales from Saville and Holdsworths Corporate Culture Questionnaire

(CCQ) (1993a) and Organizational Effectiveness Profile (OEP) (1993b). Litwin
and Stringers measure assesses the shared beliefs and values of organizational
members that constitute the perceived work environment (Payne & Pugh, 1976).
It consists of 50 items that assess nine dimensions of climate: These are structure,
responsibility, reward, risk, warmth, support, standards, conflict, and identity.
Low scores on items indicate employees perceive that this item is less indicative
of the organization: High scores indicate that employees perceive that this item
is more indicative of the organization. Table 1 describes the OCQ in greater
detail.
The CCQ is a 126-item measure of organizational culture relying on a
five-point Likert response format ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree. The CCQ identifies 21 major dimensions of an organizations culture, each
consisting of 6 items. Only 6 of the 21 CCQ dimensions were employed:
customer orientation, decision making effectiveness, vertical relationships be-
tween groups, lateral relationships between groups, interpersonal cooperation,
and communication effectiveness. Low scores on items indicate employees
perceive that this item is less indicative of the organization: High scores indicate
260 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

TABLE 2
Corporate Culture Questionnaire (CCQ) Scale Descriptions

Scale Description

Customer orientation Customers needs are given very high priority. Finding out about
customer requirements is seen as a key activity.
Decision making Routine decisions are made effectively and efficiently. Appropriate
effectiveness decisions are made with due speed rather than delayed. The outcomes
of decision making are of high quality.
Vertical relationships Good relationships between management and other staff exist. Relations
between groups are relatively harmonious, with communications between people at
different levels generally being characterized by trust and openness.
Lateral relationships Teams or departments cooperate rather than compete with each other.
between groups Potential interdivisional conflict or rivalry is addressed, and
departments collaborate effectively toward the achievement of the
organizations goals.
Interpersonal Individuals support each other and work together constructively.
cooperation Conflicts are resolved without great difficulty and interpersonal
relationships are relatively harmonious.
Communication People ensure that others are kept up to date and information is widely
effectiveness shared. Channels of communication are open, clear, and direct, and
the information provided is relevant, specific, and timely.

employees perceive that this item is more indicative of the organization. These
6 dimensions were deemed important to the assessment of the current state of the
organization by the participating organizations management team. Scale de-
scriptions for these 6 dimensions are provided in Table 2.
Two additional scales from the OEP were employed in the present study to
assess the current state of the organization. The two OEP scales used were trust
and degree of competence. The trust scale is defined as the degree to which
behaviors of respect and trust are valued between members of a group and how
the members of the group cooperate with each other. Degree of competence
measures perceptions of how well management recognizes competence and
allows implementation of new ideas without negative consequences.
In the present research, respondents rated each survey item twice. First,
subjects were asked to rate the extent to which each item represents the way
things are done within their organization (i.e., perceived culture). Second, sub-
jects were asked to rate the extent to which each item represents their ideal
organizations culture. The employees used the same Likert scale anchors for
both perceived and ideal ratings of the organizational culture.

Results
Descriptive Statistics
A principal factors factor analysis was performed on the 221 measures of
contextual performance (here defined as organizational citizenship behavior) and
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 261

TABLE 3
Factor Loadings for all Contextual and Task Performance Items

Contextual Performance Items I II III

1. Helps other employees with their work when they have been absent. .70 .22 .22
2. Exhibits punctuality arriving at work on time in the morning and .19 .67 .18
after lunch breaks.
3. Volunteers to do things not formally required by the job. .56 .40 .25
4. Takes undeserved work breaks. .26 .70 .20
5. Takes initiative to orient new employees to the department even .70 .25 .21
though not part of his/her job description.
6. Exhibits attendance at work beyond the norm, for example, takes .19 .59 .16
fewer days off than most individuals or fewer than allowed.
7. Helps others when their work load increases (assists others until they .59 .19 .32
get over the hurdles).
8. Coasts toward the end of the day. .24 .66 .17
9. Gives advance notice if unable to come to work. .11 .54 .06
10. Spends a great deal of time in personal telephone conversations. 20.01 .56 .15
11. Does not take unnecessary time off work. .18 .75 .05
12. Assists me with my duties. .73 .05 .36
13. Makes innovative suggestions to improve the overall quality of the .60 .17 .28
department.
14. Does not take extra breaks. .16 .75 .04
15. Willingly attends functions not required by the organization, but .72 .19 2.05
helps in its overall image.
16. Does not spend a great deal of time in idle conversation. .13 .67 .15
17. Achieves the objectives of the job. .22 .32 .74
18. Meets criteria for performance. .40 .17 .68
19. Demonstrates expertise in all job-related tasks. .08 .16 .77
20. Fulfills all the requirements of the job. .10 .30 .84
21. Could manage more responsibility than typically assigned. .20 .08 .73
22. Appears suitable for a higher level role. .40 .03 .75
23. Is competent in all areas of the job, handles tasks with proficiency. .10 .16 .85
24. Performs well in the overall job by carrying out tasks as expected. .25 .30 .75
25. Plans and organizes to achieve objectives of the job and meet .27 .29 .57
deadlines.

Note. Factor I, Altruism; Factor II, Conscientiousness; Factor III, Task Performance.

task performance provided by the 46 raters. An orthogonal solution was used and
the solution was rotated using varimax criteria. A minimum eigenvalue of 1.00
was used to determine interpretable factors. A minimum value of .45 was used
as the criterion to determine the factor loadings for each item. Consistent with
previous research (e.g., McNeely & Meglino, 1992; Organ & Konovsky, 1989;
Smith et al., 1983; Werner, 1994; Williams & Anderson, 1991) a two-factor
solution emerged (see Table 3) for organizational citizenship behavior. In addi-
tion, a clear task performance factor emerged from the factor analysis (see
Table 3).
Items loading heavily on Factor I included items 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 15.
262 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

These items strongly suggest a disposition to help specific people in a direct,

immediate, and often face-to-face sense. This factor, labeled Altruism accounted
for 16% of the variance in the observed scores. Factor II contained items 2, 4, 6,
8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. Unlike Factor I, Factor II does not seem to involve direct
aid to others, but has a more impersonal flavor to it. Factor II was labeled
Conscientiousness and accounted for 19% of the variance in observed scores.
Altruism and conscientiousness correlated .54 (p , .01) within the sample.
Although the measure of contextual performance contains two distinct factors,
empirically they overlap. Subsequent analyses to test the hypotheses employed
these two factors along with a total measure of contextual performance (both
factors combined). The remaining nine items loaded heavily on Factor III, which
was labeled task-based job performance. This task performance factor accounted
for 22% of the variance in observed scores. The task performance factor was also
significantly correlated with the altruism (r 5 .43, p , .01) and conscientious-
ness factors (r 5 .36, p , .01).
The means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for these three variables
and all others in the study are presented in Table 4. Of the nine OCQ dimensions,
one scale, Conflict, showed poor internal reliability. There appeared to be no
consistent interpretation of this scale by the employees surveyed, although the
scale comes from a standardized survey. Therefore, conflict was removed from
the further tests of the studys hypotheses. Reliabilities for the six CCQ dimen-
sions are on a par with those reported in Saville and Holdsworths (1993a) CCQ
source manual. No measures of internal consistency were reported by Saville and
Holdsworth regarding the OEP. Nevertheless, the alpha coefficients found here
were acceptable.

Hypothesis Tests
This study tests two hypotheses. First, the study hypothesized that organiza-
tional culture would contribute significantly to the prediction of contextual
performance. Second, it was proposed that contextual performance would be
uniquely related to discrepancies between perceived and ideal culture (i.e.,
between what the employee perceives the organization values and what the
employee personally values).
Numerous studies in organizational behavior research have examined congru-
ence between two constructs as a predictor of some outcome. The vast majority
of these studies have operationalized congruency by collapsing two or more
measures into a single index. These profile similarity indices (PSIs) combine two
sets of measures, or profiles, from corresponding entities (e.g., the person and the
organization) into a single score intended to represent overall congruence (Cron-
bach & Glesser, 1953). Edwards (1993, 1994) suggests that PSIs should no
longer be used in congruence research. Instead, researchers should use polyno-
mial equations containing measures of both entities (here the actual and ideal
culture measurements) that typically are collapsed in PSIs (cf. Edwards, 1993,
1994; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; Edwards & Harrison, 1993; Edwards & Parry,
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 263

TABLE 4
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Coefficient Alphas

Variable M SD a

Performance a
Total contextual performance 4.57 0.87 0.89
Altruism 4.44 0.98 0.86
Conscientiousness 4.68 1.00 0.86
Task-based job performance 4.62 1.00 0.93
Perceived organizational culture b
Structure 3.05 0.59 0.66
Responsibility 2.66 0.63 0.68
Reward 2.63 0.72 0.75
Risk 3.25 0.69 0.57
Warmth 3.15 0.73 0.76
Support 2.98 0.65 0.69
Standards 3.33 0.59 0.68
Conflict 2.62 0.58 0.10
Identity 3.02 0.82 0.80
Customer orientation 3.81 0.68 0.80
Decision making effectiveness 3.15 0.75 0.88
Vertical relationships between groups 2.99 0.89 0.86
Lateral relationships between groups 3.15 0.94 0.90
Interpersonal cooperation 3.23 0.69 0.88
Communication effectiveness 2.50 0.81 0.90
Trust 2.68 0.83 0.71
Degree of competence 3.47 0.77 0.80
Ideal organizational culture
Structure 3.81 0.78 0.65
Responsibility 3.42 0.67 0.67
Reward 4.02 0.59 0.69
Risk 3.69 0.70 0.56
Warmth 4.04 0.55 0.75
Support 3.90 0.53 0.67
Standards 3.93 0.55 0.68
Conflict 3.01 0.57 0.04
Identity 4.31 0.58 0.75
Customer orientation 4.59 0.49 0.81
Decision making effectiveness 4.46 0.56 0.87
Vertical relationships between groups 4.27 0.68 0.82
Lateral relationships between groups 4.40 0.76 0.90
Interpersonal cooperation 4.48 0.58 0.89
Communication effectiveness 4.46 0.65 0.89
Trust 4.24 0.72 0.74
Degree of competence 4.47 0.51 0.79

a
Scale values range from 1 to 7.
b
Scale values range from 1 to 5.
264 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

1993). This approach offers several advantages over congruence indices cur-
rently in use. First, polynomial regression maintains the interpretability of the
original component measures. Second, polynomial regression yields separate
estimates of the relationships between component measures and the outcome.
Third, polynomial regression provides a complete test of models underlying
congruence indices, focusing not only on the overall magnitude of the relation-
ship, but also on the significance of individual effects, the validity of implied
constraints, and the significance of higher order terms. Finally, the approach
proposed by Edwards (1993, 1994) may yield considerable increases in explained
variance. Therefore, the approach used by Edwards (1993, 1994) was employed
in the present study.
To examine whether peoples values and the organizations values (i.e.,
culture) are important in determining contextual performance, the research ques-
tion was phrased as follows: Does an employees ideal culture determine con-
textual performance above and beyond the organizations culture? This question
can be examined via hierarchical regression to test the effect of the discrepancy
on the dependent variable using Edwards (1993, 1994) polynomial regression
method.
To test hypotheses 1 and 2, 16 separate hierarchical regression analyses (1 for
each cultural dimension) using total contextual performance, altruism, conscien-
tiousness, and task performance were conducted. Within each of these three-step,
three-predictor regressions, perceived culture was entered at step 1. Step 1 of
each regression equation tested the effect of perceptions of actual culture on
contextual performance (Hypothesis 1). Ideal culture perceptions were entered at
step 2. Evidence for the second hypothesis can be demonstrated by results
showing that ideal culture possesses some incremental ability to predict contex-
tual performance after statistically controlling for perceived culture. Here the
incremental R 2 at step 2 must be significant. This entry order was used because
it is the most conservative for testing Hypothesis 2. The interaction created by
multiplying perceived and ideal culture scores for each respondent was entered
in step 3 to assess whether this factor predicted contextual or task performance.
There was no formal hypothesis made for this interaction. The descriptions of the
results of these analyses are presented below for each of the four dependent
variables used in this study.

Total Contextual Performance

Table 5 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analyses used to
predict total contextual performance from perceived and ideal culture. When total
contextual performance was the dependent variable, the R 2 at step 1 was signif-
icant for 11 of the 16 culture dimensions. These results provide substantial
support for Hypothesis 1. At step 2, the increments in R 2 were significant for 14
of the 16 culture dimensions, providing support for Hypothesis 2. Results showed
that there were no significant increments in R 2 from step 2 to step 3. The data
presented in Table 5 shows that ideal culture (i.e., what the individual values)
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 265

TABLE 5
R 2 Values for Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Total Contextual Performance
from Perceived and Ideal Cultures

Dimension Step 1 a Step 2 b Step 3 c Total d

Structure .0046 .0407** .0008 .0461*

Responsibility .0244* .0187* .0067 .0498**
Reward .0415** .0181* .0063 .0659**
Risk .0236* .0348** .0030 .0614**
Warmth .1678** .0032 .0050 .1760**
Support .0233* .0335** .0028 .0596**
Standards .0093 .0619** .0001 .0713**
Identity .0319* .0288** .0001 .0608**
Customer .0036 .0533** .0023 .0592**
Decision making .0327** .0293** .0001 .0621**
Vertical .0226* .0322** .0014 .0562**
Lateral .0015 .0417** .0005 .0437*
Cooperation .0104 .0420** .0002 .0526**
Communication .0205* .0314** .0011 .0530**
Trust .0160* .0373** .0041 .0574**
Competence .1205* .0062 .0006 .1273**

a
R 2 value for step 1 predictor, perceived culture.
b
Incremental R 2 value for step 2 predictor, ideal culture.
c
Incremental R 2 value for step 3 predictor, the interaction of perceived and ideal culture.
d
Total R 2 for all three predictors.
* p , .05.
** p , .01.

accounted for a significant amount of variance in total contextual performance

beyond that accounted for by perceived culture (i.e., what the organization
values). This indicates that perceived and ideal culture ratings predict total
contextual performance better than perceived culture alone.

Altruism
When altruism was the dependent variable, the 16 hierarchical regressions
yielded noticeably different results. Table 6 shows that the R 2 at step 1 was
significant for only 4 of the 16 culture dimensions compared to 11 for total
contextual performance. These results suggest that employees perceptions of the
organizations culture have less of an impact on altruistic behaviors than on total
contextual performance. The R 2 increments at step 2 were significant for 15 of the
16 culture dimensions, providing strong support for Hypothesis 2. In other words,
employee ideal culture perceptions are more important in predicting altruism. As
in the preceding analyses, results showed there were no significant increments in
R 2 from step 2 to step 3.
266 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

TABLE 6
R 2 Values for Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Altruism
from Perceived and Ideal Cultures

Dimension Step 1 a Step 2 b Step 3 c Total d

Structure .0009 .0530** .0000 .0539**

Responsibility .0040 .0331** .0154 .0525**
Reward .0165* .0395** .0192 .0752**
Risk .0089 .0433** .0045 .0567**
Warmth .1040** .0129 .0000 .1169**
Support .0083 .0523** .0019 .0625**
Standards .0162* .0693** .0019 .0874**
Identity .0100 .0495** .0046 .0641**
Customer .0048 .0596** .0001 .0645**
Decision making .0130 .0501** .0101 .0732**
Vertical .0039 .0598** .0064 .0701**
Lateral .0000 .0562** .0000 .0562**
Cooperation .0067 .0548** .0089 .0704**
Communication .0024 .0594** .0010 .0628**
Trust .0023 .0638** .0000 .0661**
Competence .0669** .0221* .0056 .0946**

a
R 2 value for step 1 predictor, perceived culture.
b
Incremental R 2 value for step 2 predictor, ideal culture.
c
Incremental R 2 value for step 3 predictor, the interaction of perceived and ideal culture.
d
Total R 2 for all three predictors.
* p , .05.
** p , .01.

Conscientiousness
The regression analysis using conscientiousness as the dependent variable
found results that were nearly opposite those found for the regression analysis
using altruism as the dependent variable. As shown in Table 7, 11 of the 16
culture dimensions yielded a significant R 2 at step 1, suggesting that perceived
culture contributes significantly to the prediction of conscientiousness. However,
only 6 of the 16 culture dimensions revealed an increase in R 2 at step 2. This
suggests that discrepancies between perceived and ideal culture are less impor-
tant for predicting conscientiousness than they are for predicting altruism or total
contextual performance.

Task Performance
Although no formal hypotheses were generated regarding the effects of culture
(both perceived and ideal) on task-based job performance, exploratory analyses
were conducted. Similar to the dependent variable altruism, results showed weak
support for Hypothesis 1. Table 8 reveals that 3 of the 16 culture dimensions
resulted in a significant R 2 at step 1. This suggests that perceived culture as
measured here has relatively little effect on task-based job performance. How-
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 267

TABLE 7
R 2 Values for Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Conscientiousness
from Perceived and Ideal Cultures

Dimension Step 1 a Step 2 b Step 3 c Total d

Structure .0067 .0186* .0022 .0275

Responsibility .0374** .0053 .0010 .0437*
Reward .0470** .0032 .0003 .0505**
Risk .0275** .0169* .0001 .0454*
Warmth .1511** .0000 .0124 .1635**
Support .0278** .0117 .0129 .0524**
Standards .0027 .0338** .0002 .0367*
Identity .0402** .0085 .0050 .0537*
Customer .0016 .0291** .0068 .0375*
Decision making .0373** .0088 .0035 .0496**
Vertical .0343** .0082 .0000 .0425*
Lateral .0034 .0182* .0012 .0228
Cooperation .0091 .0191* .0093 .0375*
Communication .0341** .0077 .0058 .0476**
Trust .0252* .0113 .0093 .0458*
Competence .1160** .0000 .0091 .1251**

a
R 2 value for step 1 predictor, perceived culture.
b
Incremental R 2 value for step 2 predictor, ideal culture.
c
Incremental R 2 value for step 3 predictor, the interaction of perceived and ideal culture.
d
Total R 2 for all three predictors.
* p , .05.
** p , .01.

ever, the discrepancies between perceived and ideal culture predicted task-based
job performance better than perceived culture alone. Here, 15 of the 16 culture
dimensions resulted in a significant R 2 increment at step 2. This provides support
for Hypothesis 2.

Patterns of Prediction across the Four Dependent Variables

A closer inspection of Tables 5 8 provides insight into the relationship
between person organization fit and performance variables. For all three mea-
sures of contextual performance, two culture dimensions were consistently the
highest predictors of contextual performance. These two dimensions were
Warmth (from the OCQ) and Competence (from the OEP). The primary step in
which these variables had their effect was in step 1, in which ratings of the actual
organizational culture were entered. The regression equations for Warmth and
Competence accounted for an average of 15.2% of the total variance in ratings
of total contextual performance (Table 5); for 10.6% in total variance in ratings
of altruism (Table 6); and 14.5% (Table 7) of the total variance in ratings of
conscientiousness. The other 14 culture dimensions accounted for an average of
5.8% of the variance in ratings of total contextual performance; for 6.5% of the
268 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

TABLE 8
R 2 Values for Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Task-Based Job Performance
from Perceived and Ideal Cultures

Dimension Step 1 a Step 2 b Step 3 c Total d

Structure .0077 .0282** .0127 .0486**

Responsibility .0023 .0339** .0046 .0408*
Reward .0114 .0255* .0141 .0510**
Risk .0025 .0323** .0034 .0382*
Warmth .0364** .0138 .0015 .0517**
Support .0241* .0261* .0001 .0503**
Standards .0062 .0544** .0001 .0607**
Identity .0049 .0306** .0089 .0444*
Customer .0007 .0441** .0001 .0449*
Decision making .0105 .0291** .0068 .0464*
Vertical .0093 .0318** .0005 .0416*
Lateral .0026 .0410** .0012 .0448*
Cooperation .0001 .0475** .0033 .0509**
Communication .0000 .0496** .0010 .0506**
Trust .0058 .0378** .0022 .0458*
Competence .0369** .0166* .0092 .0627**

a
R 2 value for step 1 predictor, perceived culture.
b
Incremental R 2 value for step 2 predictor, ideal culture.
c
Incremental R 2 value for step 3 predictor, the interaction of perceived and ideal culture.
d
Total R 2 for all three predictors.
* p , .05.
** p , .01.

variance in ratings of altruism; and 4.26% of the ratings of conscientiousness.

Warmth and Competence, moreover, also influence task performance at a mar-
ginally higher level than the other cultural dimensions. Table 8 shows that these
two variables accounted for an average of 5.8% of the variance in the ratings of
task performance. The other 14 culture dimensions accounted for an average of
4.7% of the variance in ratings of task performance.
In addition, an inspection of Tables 5 8 also shows the contribution of
different predictors to the regression equations for the four dependent variables.
Table 5 shows that six cultural dimensions (Reward, Risk, Standards, Identity,
Customer, and Decision Making) each accounted for more variance than the
average (5.8%) for all 14 dimensions (excluding Warmth and Competence) for
total contextual performance. Three of these dimensions (Risk, Standards, and
Identity) had their primary influence in step 2 (entering the Ideal Culture ratings).
Only one dimension (Reward) had it major influence in step 1 (entering the
Actual Culture rating). Table 6 shows that five cultural dimensions (Reward,
Standards, Decision Making, Vertical Relationships, and Trust) each accounted
for more variance than the average (6.5%) for all 14 dimensions (excluding
Warmth and Competence) for altruism. Here all six variables had their primary
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 269

influence in step 2 (entering Ideal Culture perceptions). Table 7 shows that 9

cultural dimensions (Responsibility, Reward, Risk, Support, Identity, Decision
Making, Vertical Relationships, Communication, and Trust) each accounted for
more variance than the average (6.5%) for all 14 dimensions (excluding Warmth
and Competence) for conscientiousness. Here all five variables, however, had
their primary influence in step 1 (entering Actual Culture perceptions). Table 8
shows that 5 cultural dimensions (Reward, Support, Standards, Cooperation, and
Communication) each accounted for more variance than the average (4.6%) for
all 14 dimensions (excluding Warmth and Competence) for altruism. Here all
five variables had their primary influence in step 2 (entering Ideal Culture
perceptions).

Discussion
The results of this study provide data for drawing some conclusions about the
relationship between person organization fit and performance measures. The
remainder of the discussion will focus on (1) interpreting the results of this study;
(2) integrating the results of this study into the general body of literature on
person organization fit; (3) discussing the limitations of these results and offer-
ing recommendations for future research; and (4) offering some tentative guide-
lines for practitioners.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND

PERSONORGANIZATION FIT
The issue remains whether perceived or ideal ratings of culture are more
important in predicting contextual and task performance. The results indicate that
it was the employees perceptions of the organizations Warmth and Competence
that were the strongest predictors of contextual and task performance. This result
supports Kristofs (1996) hypothesis that employee perceptions of organizational
climate and culture may be more predictive of performance measures than are
perceived fit measures.
The pattern of significance for the other significant predictors, however,
provides a more complex picture of the relationship between performance and
person organization fit. As noted above, the predictors accounting for more than
an average amount of variance for three dependent variables (Total Contextual
Performance, Altruism, and Task Performance) had their primary influence on
step 2. Here discrepancies mattered. The primary influence of the other predictors
for Conscientiousness ratings, however, occurred in step 1. Discrepancies did not
matter for performance of Conscientiousness behaviors.
This pattern may be due to the nature of the organizational citizenship
behavior measure used to operationalize contextual performance. The instrument
consists of 16 items which represent two factors: altruism and conscientiousness
(Smith et al., 1983). Altruism can be characterized as citizenship behavior toward
individuals (Organ, 1988). Here discrepancies (i.e., significant predictors on step
2) may be predictive because the performance of this form of contextual perfor-
270 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

mance may be more volitional in nature. Conscientiousness, however, may be

characterized as citizenship behavior toward the organization (Organ, 1988). The
performance of this behavior may be more influenced by the actual behavior of
the organization. Since there is a clear target (the organization) toward which
these behaviors are performed, it may be that there is an expectation of reci-
procity among employees for performance of conscientiousness. Therefore, the
actual organizational practices outweigh the discrepancies perceived by employ-
ees.
Therefore, the pattern of results of this study are interpreted as follows.
Perception of the organizations levels of Warmth and Degree of Competence are
more general measures of the nature of the organization. Such variables may
serve as the defining characteristics of the general state of the organization for
employees. Employee perceptions of the actual Warmth and Competence dimen-
sions provide the ground for their perceptions of more specific cultural dimen-
sions. These more specific cultural dimensions differentially affect various mea-
sures of contextual performance and task performance.

AN EXTENSION OF THE PERSONORGANIZATION FIT MODEL

This section integrates the results of this study into the general literature on
person organization fit. This is done by (1) showing how the effect sizes of this
study compare with other person organization fit literature and (2) showing how
the results of this study complement past literature on person organization fit
and organizational behavior.

The Strength of the Findings

The strength of the results found for person organization fit are consistent
with past findings. This research found that person organization fit discrepancies
accounted for 2 6% of the variance in measures of total contextual performance,
altruism, conscientiousness, and task performance. Past research looking at
person organization fit for performance measures has shown that accounting for
similar amounts of variance has long-term implications for both organizations
and employees. Bretz and Judge (1994) showed, for example, that their person
organization fit measures accounted for incremental R 2s of 3% on the salary and
job levels of employees. The variance accounted for here is in a similar range for
this studys dependent variables.

Theoretical Integration of Results

Person organization fit is essentially the idea that the extent to which the
individual and the organization match has important consequences. The results
of this study are consistent with, and extend, the findings of other researchers
interested in person organization fit. The findings provide further support for the
ASA model proposed by Schneider (1983). It has been shown that person
organization fit is an important determinant of organizational attraction (Judge &
Cable, 1997); job choice (Cable & Judge, 1996); and hiring decisions (Cable &
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 271

Judge, 1997). These variables are all related to the Attraction and Selection
phases of the ASA model (Schneider, 1983). There are few studies of the later
phase, Attrition, in Schneiders (1983) model. One study by Bretz and Judge
(1994) have shown that person organization fit is an important predictor of job
satisfaction, salary, and success in the organization. This study show that person
organization fit can affect the ratings of both contextual and task performance of
employees.
The finding that task performance ratings are affected by person organization
fit provides support for Borman and Motowidlos (1997) hypothesis that super-
visors weight task and contextual performance measures equally in performance
judgment. Therefore, one potent mechanism through which individuals may be
affected during the Attrition phase of Schneiders (1983) ASA model may be the
performance appraisal processes of organizations. Supervisors evaluations of
employees task and contextual performance may be altered based on the
supervisors perceptions of each employees fit with the organization. Therefore,
those individuals not seen as fitting will probably tend to receive lower perfor-
mance ratings. Lower performance ratings may lead to perceptions by the
employees that their career paths are stalled in an organization. This may make
them more likely to leave the organization.

LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH

There are several limitations to the present research. Three important limita-
tions are (1) limitations in the measurement of performance, (2) limitations on the
external validity of the findings, and (3) an incomplete understanding of the
mechanism underlying the effects of person organization fit on contextual
performance. These limitations, however, provide avenues for future research
which are discussed in this section.
First, the present study relied on supervisory judgments for measures of
task-based and contextual performance. The conclusions about the relations
between the variables discussed throughout apply to supervisors ratings of
performance only and not objective measures of performance. It is presumed that
supervisors evaluations are reasonably good measures of performance, but the
possibility that their perceptual processes might, to a certain extent, account for
the results cannot be ruled out. The findings of this study suggest that appraisal
of both contextual and task performance may be biased by supervisors percep-
tions of person organization fit. Therefore, future research might address this
issue by including both supervisor and peer ratings of contextual (or task)
performance and assessing how these ratings are affected by person
organization fit. It may be necessary to include measures of both person
organization fit and fit with the peer workgroup in this research to make these
comparisons.
Second, the present study used only one organization as a sample. As a result,
generalizations as to which components of culture are likely to predict perfor-
mance elsewhere are problematic. This study examined individuals perceptions
272 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

of culture. Therefore, the present study does not directly imply that a change in
organizational culture will result in a change in contextual performance. Rather,
the study supports the view that discrepancies between what the individual and
organization values account for increased variance in performance. Different
organizations, however, are likely to value different things. Therefore, while
discrepancies should still be important in determining contextual performance,
the relative contribution of each cultural dimension may play out differently
across organizations. Therefore, future research should be done using person
organization fit methodologies in multiple organizations. This research should
seek to include organizations (1) of comparable size, (2) from the same geo-
graphic area, and (3) from the same industry to assess the generalizability of
these findings.
Finally, the different patterns of results for the effects of discrepancies on the
measures of contextual performance, altruism, and conscientiousness must be
explained. As noted earlier, discrepancies had the largest effect on altruism,
while perceptions of the actual culture had the largest effect on conscientious-
ness. It may be that altruism represents an employees personal philosophy about
helping others. Altruism is a stable characteristics of the individual. Therefore,
perceptions of the organization may have less impact on performance of this
variable. On the other hand, conscientiousness represents discretionary behaviors
which are more impersonal and have the organization as the target. Therefore,
employees perceptions the current state of the organization may be more
predictive here than discrepancies. Therefore, future research should include
measures of individual dispositional variables to assess whether such variables
differentially predict altruism and conscientiousness and (2) include longitudinal
measurement of contextual performance to the degree to which personality and
employees perceptions of the organization impact contextual performance
across time.

CONCLUSIONS
The present study highlights the importance of person organization fit in
understanding employees task and contextual performance. Task performance is
what employers pay employees to do. Contextual performance, however, in-
cludes the extras most employers look for in outstanding employees. This
employee effort is considered discretionary because the individual is not con-
tractually bound to exert effort in contextual performance activities on behalf of
the organization. This study shows that the only predictor, other than Warmth
and Competence, which influenced all forms of performance was the Reward
dimension. The finding that Reward is a significant predictor of contextual
performance has implications for organizations.
It appears that contextual performance is not as free as originally proposed
by Organ (1988). The question of how to motivate contextual performance has
implications for organizations in the future. As noted above, contextual perfor-
mance is not part of employees work contracts. Rather, employees contextual
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 273

performance probably derives from the psychological contract between employ-

ees and the organization. Psychological contracts provide the manner in which
organizations reward employees for extra effort above their task performance
(Makin, Cooper, & Cox, 1996). This psychological contract establishes reciproc-
ity rules showing how employees extra effort is rewarded by the organization.
A traditional mechanism for supporting this extra efforts has been a long-term
commitment between the organization and employees for job security.
However, current labor practices (e.g., downsizing) may be altering this
psychological contract. There is a growing belief that the traditional psycholog-
ical contract between organizations and employees is changing (Rousseau,
1995). Organizations and employees are developing psychological contracts
which emphasize valid performance appraisals, immediate rewards, and no
long-term commitment on the part of employees or the organization. Behaviors
which are measured and rewarded are performed under this new psychological
contract.
The lack of long-term commitment between the organization and the em-
ployee, however, takes away one of the primary mechanisms by which contex-
tual performance is supported in organization. Therefore, organizations are faced
with the dilemma of how to maintain high levels of contextual performance in an
era of changing psychological contracts. Organizations concerned with contex-
tual performance must be prepared to reward employees for exhibiting contextual
performance. Organizations must remember the old saying, You get what you
pay for. Organizations, in the future, will need to create some mechanism for
rewarding employees exhibiting high levels of contextual performance. Organi-
zations which do not have such reward systems will face a decline in contextual
performance as the new psychological contract becomes more prevalent in the
workplace.

REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on perfor-
mance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
247260.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587595.
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. Annual Review of
Psychology, 48, 299 337.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection
in organizations (pp. 7198). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99 109.
Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the job.
Academy of Management Executive, 5(4), 3551.
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44,
3254.
274 GOODMAN AND SVYANTEK

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person organization fit, job choice decisions, and organiza-
tional entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294 311.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers perceptions of person organization fit and
organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546 561.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459 484.
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure changeOr should we? Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 102, 414 417.
Cronbach, L. J., & Glesser, G. C. (1953). Assessing the similarity between profiles. Psychological
Bulletin, 50, 456 473.
Edwards, J. R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence
in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46, 641 665.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational research: Critique and a proposed
alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51100.
Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of
congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 64, 307324.
Edwards, J. R., & Cooper, C. L. (1990). The person-environment fit approach to stress: Recurring
problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 293307.
Edwards, J. R., & Harrison, R. V. (1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-Dimensional
reexamination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 628 648.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as alternatives
to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577
1613.
George J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and
turnover: A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
698 709.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture and organizational
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359 394.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1 49.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and
objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123150.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (August, 1992). Good soldiers or good duty? The role of work
values and contextual antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Makin, P., Cooper, C., & Cox, C. (1996). Organizations and the psychological contract. Westport,
CN: Praeger.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R., (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distin-
guished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475 480.
OReilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing person organization fit. Academy of Management Journal,
34, 487516.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 8597.
 PERSONORGANIZATION FIT AND PERFORMANCE 275

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157164.
Payne, P., & Pugh, D. S. (1976). Organizational structure and climate. In M. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 11251174). New York: Wiley.
Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An
empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24, 293309.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and
unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saville & Holdsworth Ltd. (1993a). Corporate culture questionnaire manual and users guide.
London: SHL.
Saville & Holdsworth Ltd. (1993b). Organizational effectiveness profile manual and users guide.
London: SHL.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organization culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109 119.
Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 131). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437 453.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 747773.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653 663.
Werner, J. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extra-role
behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98 107.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601 618.
Zeithaml, A. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering service quality. New York:
Free Press.

Received: March 18, 1998