Developing a Person-Organization Fit Questionnaire considering the contextualization of organizational values

VI. REFERENCES I. INTRODUCTION II. GOAL OF THE STUDY Teresa Morais1,2, Valentina Ramos1,2 & Filomena Jordão1,2 1Psychology Center, University of Porto, Portugal 2Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Porto, Portugal A fundamental and enduring aspect of both organizations and people is their values (Katz & Kahn, 1978). According to Rokeach (1973), individual values are defined as enduring beliefs through which a specific mode of conduct or end-state is personally preferable to its opposite. “On the organization side, value systems provide an elaborate and generalized justification both for appropriate behaviors of members and for the activities and functions of the system” (Enz, 1988; Katz & Kahn, 1978; McCoy, 1985 cit in Chatman,1989, p. 339). “Person-organization fit is defined here as the congruence between the norms and values of organizations and the values of persons” (Chatman, 1989, p. 339). In order to determine the effects that organizational membership will have on an individual's values and behaviors and the effects that an individual will have on an organization's norms and values, we must assess the extent of agreement between the person's values and the organization'svalues(Chatman,1989). In fact, we’ve developed an instrument with this goal of exploring the relationship between both individual and organizational values, as a way of assessing Person-organization fit. Moreover, we were also interested in measuring value conflict, which can be understood as an incongruence between these two types of values. The existence of this conflict can create an illness with consequences like dissatisfaction with the worker’s activity (Bouckenoogheet al,2005; Oliveiraet al,2002). To develop an instrument that could be used to assess the relationship between individual and organizational valuesand validateit for the Portuguese population. III. METHOD a) Procedure After an extensive research about this subject, we constructed a 19-item scale. Five of these items were based on a scale of value conflict form Bouckenooghe and collaborators (2005)and in the “scale of perceived fit” (Cable& deRue,2002). Wetranslated them into Portuguese and integratedit in our instrument. We aimed to measure three different variables: acknowledgement about the organizational values; P-O fit and conflict between individual and organizational values. We presented the questionnaire to the team of the Psychology Center and also to several experts of the University of Porto and University of Coimbra. These feedbackswere considered inthe final versionof the questionnaire that was validated. d) Data Analysis We obtained 102 answers and we applied several statistical procedures such as Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation and Cronbach’s alpha to analyze the data. 1. I know the values and culture of the organization that I belong to. 2. I identify myself with the values and culture of the organization that I belong to. 3. In the organizationI belong to, I consider that the values and culture are implicit in the people’s behavior. 4. My personal values sometimes conflict with the values in my job or function. 5. In the organization I belong to, I consider that the valuesand culture are explicitly defined. 6. My personal values sometimes conflict with the organizational values. 7. I see myself reflected in the values and culture of the organizationI belong to. 8. The people that belong to my organization know its values and culture. 9. If the values of the organization that I belong to were contradictory to those that exist actually, I would hardly identify myself with them. 10. I must compromise my values at work . 11. The people that work in my department know the values and culture of the organization . 12. The people outside the organization that I belong know it by its values and culture. 13. The behaviors that my organizationvalues are in conflict with my personal values. 14. The things that I value in my life are similar to the things that are valued by the organization that I belong to. 15. I must forget my personal goals to accomplish my organization’s goals. 16. My personal values match my organization’s values and culture. 17. The reason why I prefer my organization is the values that it stands for. 18. I have to stop being me as a way to adapt myself to the organization that I belong to. 19. My organization’s goals are consonant with my personal goals. b) Gathering data We displayed the instrument on-line. To answer, the person should be employed and we could control this informationby the demographicdata displayed. c) Sample Grant: SFRH / BD / 43315 / 2008 After analyzing the data by statistical procedures (see table 3), the items number 1, 5 and 19 were excluded fromour finalversion. Other data of our sample aren’t displayed here. We have more information about the marital status and profession of the subjects. We also have data about the organizations’ economic sector, and the working years that people have. [email protected].pt IV. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to develop and validate an instrument to measure the relationship between individual and organizational values. We found that there wasn’t any instrument available in Portugal that could be used to measure in a general way the culture and values of any organization and its relationship with the individual values. This questionnaire would assess three different dimensions: the acknowledgement about organizational values, person-organization fit, and conflict between individual and organizational values. Based on a review of literature, we defined a 19 item scale and displayed it on-line for people to answer (n=102). After applying statistical procedures we obtained a scale composed by 16 items grouped into 3 factors with a high internal consistency: person-organization fit (α= ,909), conflict between individual and organizational values (α= ,891) and acknowledgement of organizational values (α = ,901). Table 2 –List of items included in the pre-test (answers in a 7-item Likert Scale (1= I totally disagree; 7= I totally agree) Table 1 –Sample Distribution * The original items are in Portuguese and the instrument was validated only for Portugal. This is a translation only to make the understanding possible. RotatedComponentMatrix Component P-O fit Conflict Aknowl. VAR02 ,806 -,330 ,174 VAR09 ,803 -,276 ,091 VAR07 ,795 -,235 ,347 VAR01 ,714 -,176 ,248 VAR17 ,676 -,221 ,401 VAR16 ,650 -,217 ,344 VAR05 ,624 -,198 ,557 VAR14 ,569 -,300 ,437 VAR15 -,180 ,842 -,283 VAR06 -,356 ,772 -,162 VAR10 -,077 ,757 ,044 VAR04 -,155 ,716 -,319 VAR18 -,443 ,703 -,044 VAR13 -,408 ,667 -,166 VAR19 ,493 -,497 ,455 VAR11 ,183 -,095 ,875 VAR08 ,233 -,188 ,851 VAR12 ,242 -,208 ,777 VAR03 ,419 -,056 ,755 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimaxwith Kaiser Normalization Table 3 –First Principal Component Analysis Cronbach’s alpha ,909 ,891 ,901 Table 4 –Final Principal Component Analysis and Cronbach’s alpha The items number 5 and 19 were excluded because the correlation coefficient was similar in two factors. The item number1 was excludeddue to a lack of semantic comprehension. After exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency analysis of the factors extracted, which collectively explain 71,9% of total variance, the final scale is composed by 16 items grouped into three factors: Values acknowledgment, P-O fit and Value Conflict –all of them with an high internal consistency. This fact shows that the itemsthat define these factorscan be used as independent scales. (n = 102) Bouckenooghe, D.; Buelens, M.; Fontaine, J. & Vanderheyden, K. (2005). The prediction of stress by values and value conflict. The Journal of Psychology, 139 (4), 369 –382; Cable, D. & DeRue, S. (2002) The convergent and discriminantvalidity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884; Chatman, A. (1989). Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349; Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New jersey: Lawrence Erbaum; *The shade items were excluded 15th Conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology MECC Maastritcht, The Netherlands 25 –28 May 2011 Developing a Person-Organization Fit questionnaire considering the contextualization of organizational values Employeespersonal Information Sex Men Women 39 63 Age (years) 20-30 31-40 41-50 >51 31 27 30 14 Qualifications < Bs Bs Ms PhD 14 50 35 3 Years of work inthe organization <4 4-10 >10 31 32 39 Employee’s organizationalinfo. Legal Form Public Private 49 53 Antiquity(years) <10 10-50 >50 25 60 17 Size Small Medium Large 29 29 44 Type Familiar Non-familiar 15 87 RotatedComponentMatrix Component P-O fit Conflict Aknowl. VAR09 ,807 -,265 ,092 VAR07 ,769 -,237 ,342 VAR02 ,762 -,346 ,185 VAR16 ,727 -,173 ,314 VAR17 ,719 -,191 ,380 VAR14 ,637 -,260 ,419 VAR15 -,184 ,844 -,288 VAR10 -,045 ,777 ,029 VAR06 -,388 ,749 -,154 VAR04 -,187 ,704 -,305 VAR18 -,460 ,703 -,043 VAR13 -,441 ,656 -,152 VAR11 ,168 -,106 ,888 VAR08 ,227 -,199 ,858 VAR12 ,252 -,209 ,773 VAR03 ,440 -,039 ,753 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimaxwith Kaiser Normalization