Need Satisfaction 1 Running head : PE FIT AND NEED SATISFACTION Different Fits Satisfy Different Needs : Linking Person-Environment Fit to Employee Attitudes and Performance Using Self-Determination Theory

Integrating and expanding upon the person-environment fit (PE fit) and the selfdetermination theory literatures, we hypothesized and tested two competing models in which the satisfaction of the psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence mediated or partially mediated the relations between different types of PE fit (i.e., person-organization, person-group, and person-job fit) with employee attitudes (i.e., affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction) and overall job performance. Data from 164 full-time working employees and their supervisors were collected across three time periods. Results indicated that different types of PE fit predicted different types of psychological need satisfaction, and the satisfying of different psychological needs predicted different employee outcomes. Further, person-organization and person-job fit had both direct and indirect effects on employee attitudes. These results begin to explicate the processes through which different types of PE fit differentially relate to employee attitudes and behaviors. PE Fit and Need Satisfaction 3 Different Fits Satisfy Different Needs: Linking Person-Environment Fit to Employee Attitudes and Performance Using Self-Determination Theory The match between employees and their work environments is one of the most widely researched topics in organizational behavior (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Schneider, 2001). This match between characteristics of individuals and their work environments is commonly referred to as person-environment fit (PE fit), or simply fit. Understanding PE fit is important because of its influence on outcomes at each phase of employees’ organizational life cycles. For example, perceptions of fit predict decisions to join organizations (Cable & Judge, 1996; Turban & Keon, 1993), behaviors and attitudes while employed (Tziner, 1987; Westerman & Cyr, 2004), and intentions to quit and exit the organization (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Why does fit relate to such a large and diverse set of employee attitudes and behaviors? Much of the theoretical rationale suggests that fit influences outcomes through the fulfillment of needs. As Arthur, Bell, Villado, and Doverspike (2006) note: “Theoretically, the relation between fit and attitudes is predicated on the reasoning that when there is fit, the environment affords individuals the opportunity to fulfill their needs.Need fulfillment results in favorable attitudes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment” (p. 787). This rationale suggests that need fulfillment mediates the relations between fit and outcome variables, yet this theoretical assumption remains largely untested (for an exception, see Cable & Edwards, 2004). The lack of research investigating this fundamental theoretical proposition is especially surprising given the large amount of PE fit research. Although much is known about the correlates PE Fit and Need Satisfaction 4 of PE fit, much less is known about the processes through which PE fit influences employee work-related outcomes. One theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of psychological need satisfaction for well-being and optimal performance and that may explain why PE fit relates to employee attitudes and behaviors is self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; 1991). Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that individuals have three universal psychological needs pertaining to autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2001). According to SDT, the satisfaction of these psychological needs is essential for psychological growth, optimal functioning, and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Given the importance of satisfying these psychological needs, much of the SDT research has focused on elements of the social context that facilitate or thwart their satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000); PE fit may be one such element. Although SDT has been widely supported in a variety of disciplines and has been theorized to impact employees’ attitudes and behaviors, it has received little attention in organizational contexts (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Sheldon, Turban, Brown, Barrick, & Judge, 2003). The current study integrates and builds upon the PE fit and SDT literatures to hypothesize and test two competing models in which psychological need fulfillment mediates or partially mediates the relations between different types of PE fit (e.g., personorganization fit, person-group fit) and employee attitudes and performance. In doing so, the current study makes the following contributions. First, as noted above, we provide a test of a fundamental tenet of PE fit theory that psychological need fulfillment explains how fit relates to employee outcomes. Second, the current study examines whether different types of fit satisfy different psychological needs, and whether the satisfaction of PE Fit and Need Satisfaction 5 these psychological needs relate to attitudes and performance. In doing so, the current study begins to explore the processes through which PE fit influences employee outcomes. Third, we assess multiple types of fit which enables us to examine the unique effects of different types of fit on attitudes and performance. As Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) noted in their meta-analysis of PE fit: “. research comparing the effects of simultaneous assessments of multiple kinds of fit is needed” (p. 323). Fourth, we conceptualize and examine “underexplored areas of fit” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 321) by including person-group fit (PG fit) in our hypothesized model. Fifth, we contribute to the SDT literature by investigating various types of fit as antecedents to the satisfaction of psychological needs. Applying the SDT framework to a work context also provides an assessment of the efficacy of SDT constructs to predict work-related criteria. We begin by providing a brief overview of the various conceptualizations and types of PE fit. We also review PE fit research as it pertains to need fulfillment and discuss the basic theoretical framework and concepts of SDT. We then integrate these literatures to present and test two competing theoretical models in which psychological need satisfaction mediates or partially mediates the relations between PE fit and employee attitudes and performance. PE Fit Conceptualizations of PE fit typically distinguish between supplementary and complementary fit (see Kristof, 1996). Supplementary fit occurs when both the employee and the work environment possess the same characteristics (Kristof, 1996). For example, supplementary fit exists if the employee and the organization both value innovativeness. Supplementary fit has been operationalized in a variety of different ways including being PE Fit and Need Satisfaction 6 defined as the similarity between employees and organizations in their values, attitudes, personality traits, or goals (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Of these, value congruence is the most common operationalization and represents the similarity between individual values and those of the organization or its members (Chatman, 1989). In contrast, complementary fit occurs when the employee and the work environment possess different characteristics, but in doing so, add something that is missing to the other. That is, with complementary fit, the employee or the organization provides something that the other entity needs or wants. Integrating these different conceptualizations, Kristof (1996) offered the following definition of fit: “. fit is defined as the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at least one entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c) both” (pp. 4-5). In addition to the conceptual distinctions between supplementary and complementary fit, it is widely accepted that fit is a multidimensional concept (KristofBrown et al., 2005; Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998). The most commonly investigated types of fit include person-vocation fit (PV fit), person-organization fit (PO fit), and person-job fit (PJ fit), with less research examining person-group fit (PG fit) or personsupervisor fit (PS fit). Research suggests that these different types of fit are only moderately related to each other and that each relates differently to criteria (KristofBrown et al., 2005). For example, research indicates that job satisfaction correlates more strongly with PJ fit than with PO fit, whereas, organizational commitment correlates more strongly with PO fit than PJ fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Although there is a substantial amount of research investigating the bivariate relations between PE fit and employee criteria, little research has examined the processes PE Fit and Need Satisfaction 7 through which PE fit relates to employee outcomes. As noted above, theoretically the fulfillment of psychological needs mediates the relations between PE fit and employee outcomes (Arthur et al., 2006). Cable and Edwards (2004) conducted the only study we could locate that investigated whether psychological need fulfillment mediates the relation of value congruence (supplementary PE fit) with employee work-related criteria. Their results indicated that need fulfillment partially mediated the relations between value congruence and employee attitudes. More specifically, they observed that the direct (i.e., unmediated) effect of fit on criteria was significant in every instance and in over half of the analyses was larger than the indirect effect (i.e., mediated through need fulfillment). In their directions for future research, Cable and Edwards (2004) suggested assessing the relations between value congruence, psychological need satisfactions, and employee outcomes using different samples, types of fit, and scales of values and psychological needs; the current study incorporates each of these suggestions. In summary, the fit literature indicates that there are several conceptualizations (i.e., supplementary an