Development of the Person–Family Fit Construct: An Extension of Person

Abstract

This article defines a person’s environment as a combination of work and family environments by extending the person–environment fit theory to include the family domain. The study extends the person–environment fit construct by including person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, person–supervisor fit (all in work environment) and person–family fit (family environment). In the two studies that were carried using operational-level employees from various industries, we empirically develop a scale for the new concept person–family fit, validated person–family fit scale and the person–environment fit construct. This study makes several theoretical contributions including defining person–family fit construct, developing a scale to measure the same and confirming its inclusion into the person–environment fit construct. Managerial implications are provided to ensure person–job fit, person–group fit, person–supervisor fit and person–family fit in the working environment.

Keywords

Person–environment fit theory work/family border theory scale development person–family fit work environment family environment

Introduction

Person–environment fit theory is a prominent concept in well-being studies (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999). The literature discusses person–environment fit factors within the work environment, such as person–job fit, person–vocation fit, person–person fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, and person–supervisor fit (Chuang, Shen, & Judge, 2016; Edwards & Billsberry, 2010).

At present, there is a considerable amount of studies done in the international arena on person–environment fit (Edwards, 1991; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999; Hassan, 2012; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Makikangas & Kinnunen, 2003; Verquer, Wagner, & Beehr, 2003). However, this literature defines a person’s environment in a rather narrow sense (Dewe, O’Driscoll, & Cooper, 2012; Edwards, 1992; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999). ‘Person–Environment Fit theory deals with the adjustment of individuals and an organizational/work perspective is recommended’ (Caplan, 1987, p. 264). Drawing from the work/family border theory (Clark, 2000), our study recognizes both work and family environments as comprising a person’s environment.

Person–environment fit theory includes only the work environment as a person’s environment. There is a gap to be addressed in the current literature as it does not include the home environment. The work/family border theory (Clark, 2000) explains that an employee is a border crosser between her/his work and family domains, which indicates that a person’s environment is not limited to her/his work environment only. The theory addresses issues like how domain integration and segmentation, border creation and management, border-crosser participation and relationships between border crossers and others at work and home influence work and family balance. Person–environment fit theory does not specifically mention these two domains that an individual keeps crossing during his/her life. However, we believe that an individual’s environment should consist of both family and work environments. This argument is further supported by Bednar, Marshall, and Bahouth (1995), who state that a person’s environment is a combination of work and non-work environments. Therefore, it is apparent that both work and non-work environments need to be taken into account while defining a person’s environment.

In order to better explain an employee’s environment in the person–environment fit construct, we introduce the concept of person–family fit in the framework by including the family environment. The objectives set to be achieved in this study are: (a) to define person–family fit, (b) to develop a scale to measure person–family fit and (c) to extend the person–environment fit construct.

Significance of the Study

As stated earlier, existing knowledge on person–environment fit is largely focused on environmental factors in the work context (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999). To date, there has been little attempt at exploring non-work-related factors as person–environment fit factors. Thus, we seek to fill a gap in the body of knowledge by defining a person’s environment in a broader way, signifying the family environment by including the concept of person–family fit in the person–environment fit construct. In addition, the introduced construct of person–family fit is more relevant to South Asian context as Hofstede (1989) has specifically indicated that it is difficult to separate the interests of work and family domains when demonstrating cultural dimensions in a collectivist society, and Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman (2002) have suggested South Asian society as a collective society.

We introduce and define a new construct person–family fit, and develop a new scale to measure it in this study. We conceptualize the person–environment fit construct by including person–family fit, which indicates a person’s interaction with the family environment, while person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit and person–supervisor fit signify her/his interactions with the work environment. The literature illustrates that person–environment fit is a multidimensional construct that includes person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit and person–supervisor fit (Chuang et al., 2016). Our study contributes to the existing knowledge by testing the multidimensionality of person–environment fit in some of the companies in Sri Lanka, which could be relevant to the South Asia.

Findings and recommendations of the study will provide inputs for human resource professionals, practitioners and organizational decision-makers in order to identify a person’s environment in a broader perspective. They then will be able to change/modify the policies and practices designed for employees by including both work and family environments as an employee’s environment.

Literature Review

Theoretical Background of the Study

In the past, person–environment fit discussions were shaped by interactionists who believed that certain attitudes, cognitions and behaviours were the outcomes of the interaction between personal and situational factors (Ostroff & Schulte, 2007). However, this perspective has been criticized due to its lack in adequately explaining how this interaction occurs (Ostroff & Schulte, 2007). To address this lack, French and Kahn (1962) developed the person–environment fit theory that was formulated to develop the construct person–environment fit. Later, Caplan (1983) and Edwards and Harrison (1993) extended the person–environment fit theory.

According to the literature, two basic distinctions stemming from the theory are: (a) objective and subjective persons, with the environments that too are objective and subjective, and (b) the values, goals and abilities of the person with the demands, goals and supplies of the environments (Caplan, 1983; Edwards & Harrison, 1993). According to French, Caplan, and Harrison (1982), the person–environment fit theory involves three different fits: demands–abilities fit (D–A fit), needs–supplies fit (N–S fit) and supplies–values fit (S–V fit). However, initially, person–environment fit was formulated as two different fits: supplementary fit and complementary fit (Edwards, 1996; French et al., 1982; Kristof, 1996), which are similar to D–A fit and S–V fit.

However, over time, researchers have concluded that person–environment fit is a multidimensional construct and have used different dimensions to conceptualize person–environment fit (Chuang et al., 2016; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). This is quite apparent in the previous studies as is explained next. Kristof-Brown et al.’s (2005) conceptualization of person–environment fit includes person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit and person–supervisor fit. Subsequently, Edwards and Billsberry (2010) categorized person–environment fit into five different dimensions (person–job fit, person–vocation fit, person–person fit, person–group fit and person–organization fit) within the organizational context. Moreover, Chuang et al. (2016) have conceptualized person–environment fit by including person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit and person–supervisor fit.

Critical Review of the Person–Environment Fit Theory

The fundamental notion of the person–environment fit theory is about the fit between individual and her/his organizational environment (Caplan, 1987), and, to date, person–environment fit studies and theory have remained confined to the working environment (Caplan, 1983; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999). Arguing against this quite narrow perspective on ‘environment’ in the person–environment fit theory, in the present study we define a person’s environment as consisting of both work and family environments, as today’s workers’ ‘environments’ go beyond the ‘boundary of the organization’. This is based on the work/family border theory (Clark, 2000).

The work/family border theory (Clark, 2000) shows that there are two domains in a person’s life: the work domain and the family domain, neither of which is identified in the person–environment fit theory. According to work/family border theory, people are border crossers between the work and family domains. The theory addresses issues of domain integration and segmentation, border creation and management, border-crosser participation, and relationships between border-crossers (Clark, 2000). Taken as a whole, it is apparent that a person has two environments, the work and the family environments. Accordingly, to fill the existing knowledge gap in the person–environment fit theory, we define a person’s environment to be a combination of working and family environments. Consequently, a person’s fit with her/his family is identified as person–family fit.

In line with the studies of Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) and Chuang et al. (2016) on the multidimensionality of person–environment fit, we conceptualize the construct person–environment fit as comprising of person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, and person–supervisor fit. In order to fill the lacuna in the theory, this article later addresses the person–family fit dimension and subsumes it under the person–environment fit.

Person–Job Fit

Specifically, person–job fit is defined as the fit between the demands of a job and the abilities of a person (D–A fit) or the needs of a person and the supplied attributes of a job (N–S fit) (Edwards, 1991). A study by Kulik, Oldham, and Hackman (1987) proposed that person–environment fit creates a good match between certain job characteristics and certain characteristics of individuals.

Person–Organization Fit

Person–organization fit focuses on the fit of the person with the entire organization, rather than merely with the specific job, vocation, group or supervisor (Kristof, 1996; Silverthorne, 2004; Tom, 1971). The current literature defines person–organization fit as a supplementary fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Chuang et al., 2016; Kristof, 1996). Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) explained supplementary fit as coming about when a person and the environment possess similar attributes in terms of values or goals of the organization. Consequently, Kristof (1996) defined person–organization fit as the fit/match between an individual and her/his organization in terms of values and goals.

Person–Group Fit

‘Of all types of fit, person–group fit research is the most nascent’ (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 286). Person–team or person–group fit is defined as the compatibility between individuals and their work group (Edwards & Billsberry, 2010; Kristof, 1996). The similarity attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) predicts that, generally, a person is attracted to the other on the basis of the similarities they possess in their social milieu. As the literature shows, a person is attracted to others due to similarities among them, and these similarities could include attitudes, personality, values and goals (Byrne, 1971).

Person–Supervisor Fit

Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) defined ‘person–supervisor fit’ as the match between an individual and her/his supervisor in the working environment. Interpersonal attraction theory explains that an individual is attracted to another individual on the basis of similar characteristics regarding life goals, personality, activity preferences, values and so on (Huston & Levinger, 1978). According to that theory, a subordinate and her/his supervisor could be attracted to one another on the basis of the aforementioned similarities and this attraction is defined as the ‘fit’ between a person and her/his supervisor.

Person–Family Fit

The person–environment fit theory elaborates how individuals adjust in the working environment (Caplan, 1987). Thus, from an organizational perspective, person–environment fit studies defined environmental dimensions by including person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit and person–supervisor fit (Chuang et al., 2016) or person–vocation fit, person–person fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit and person–job fit (Edwards & Billsberry, 2010). It implies that previous studies identified a person’s environment as only the working environment. In the present study we argue that although person–environment fit has witnessed a large number of empirical studies and experiments, researchers have struggled to define the ‘elusive criterion of fit’ (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006, p. 193).

However, the person–environment fit has been considered as the only working environmental fit including person’s fit with job, organization, supervisor, group and so on. Arguing against the existing classifications of a person’s environment in this study, we define that a person’s environment should consist of both work and family environments. Hence, drawing from the work/family border theory, we argue that individuals can bring family to work environment and work to family environment. Further, the theory shows that the two domains that exist in a person’s life as work and family are not identified in the person–environment fit theory. Accordingly, to fill the existing gap, in this study we define that a person’s environment should be broader than the working environment and include both work and family environments. By considering the family environment, a person’s fit with the family can be introduced as the person–family fit. Since they do not include family as an environment, the person–family fit has not been defined by previous scholars. Following the basic premise of the person–environment fit theory, we attempt to fulfil one of the objectives of the study, which is to define the concept the person–family fit.

The forgoing argument is more relevant to Sri Lanka and the South Asian region where the context of the current study exists. Hofstede (1989) states that in the South Asian collectivist societies, it is difficult to separate work and family domains in elaborating cultural dimensions. Meanwhile, Gupta et al. (2002) mention that South Asian societies exhibit collectivist culture. Ballard (1982) posits that South Asian people bond with their families more than other people. His claim is also a supportive evidence to state the fit of this concept to South Asia. The following discussion is about the concept of person–family fit.

To define the variable person–family fit, we follow the main theoretical premise of person–environment fit theory: D–A fit and S–V fit. Edward (1996) formulated S–V fit as supplementary fit and D–A fit as complementary fit, respectively. Accordingly, we too accept both complementary fit and supplementary fit in defining person–family fit.

D–A fit explains that demands are qualitative and quantitative requirements whereas abilities consist of skills, energy, training, time and resources a person can muster to meet her/his demands (Edwards, Caplan, & Harrison, 1998). In S–V fit, values refer to the desires of a person and subsume her/his interests, preferences and goals (Edwards, 1992). Supplies refer to the environment that fulfils a person’s values (French et al., 1982) and include extrinsic and intrinsic rewards derived from the activities or experiences in the environment. Thus, we use D–A fit and S–V fit from the person–environment fit theory to conceptualize the person–family fit.

On the basis of literature on D–A fit and S–V fit, we define ‘person–family fit’ as the fit between the demands of the person’s family and his/her ability to fulfil those demands (D–A fit) and the supplies available in the family environment to fulfil his/her values (S–V fit; see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Comparison of Person–Family Fit with Work–Life Balance, Work–Life Conflict, Work–Family Fit and Job Embeddedness

In brief, person–family fit describes the fit between a person and her/his family, a construct that explores the family environment of that person. Family environment has been studied in various forms, including work–life balance (Dundas, 2008; Kumarasamy, Pangil, Faizal, & Isa, 2015), work–life conflict (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and work–family fit (Major & Burke, 2013; Voydanoff, 2002). In addition, we differentiate construct from job embeddedness (Hom et al., 2009).

Work–life balance is managing and juggling paid work as well as all other activities that are important to a person, including his/her family and the community/society (Dundas, 2008). Most work–life balance studies have explored time balance, involvement balance and satisfaction balance (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). However, person–family fit is defined here as a person’s ability to fulfil the different demands created by the family environment (D–A fit) and the supplies available in the family to fulfil her/his values (S–V fit). Hence, we distinguish work–life balance and person–family fit as different concepts, as work–life balance measures only a person’s ability to balance the work and family domains in terms of family demands, while person–family fit is not only about a person’s ability to meet family demands but also about the supplies available in the family environment to meet a person’s values in order to reach S–V fit.

Another family-related construct is the work–life conflict, which is defined as work interfering with the family or a person’s ability to fulfil the demands of family as work interferes with her/his family life (Netemeyer et al., 1996). Accordingly, we posit that a person’s ability to fulfil the demands of the family (D–A fit) appears in both person–family fit and work–family conflict, though, person–family fit is not confined to D–A fit but also includes S–V fit. Therefore, we argue that even though person–family fit and work–family conflict are defined by D–A fit, work–life conflict and person–family fit are different concepts, since person–family fit is broader than work–life conflict.

Even though the concept of work–family fit has been studied, much confusion exists in the literature about the notion of work–family fit (Major & Burke, 2013). Grzywacz and Bass (2003, as cited in Major & Burke, 2013) conceptualized work–family fit as a combination of conflict and enrichment. Voydanof (2002) delineated the work–family concept as work demand–family resources fit and family demand–work resources fit, which implies D–A fit. Edwards et al. (2006, as cited in Major & Burke, 2013) defined work–family fit using N–S fit. It is obvious that work–family fit is still a controversial concept. Thus, Major and Burke (2013) advised researchers to provide a clear definition of the fit that differentiates it from other constructs (work–life balance, work–life conflict, etc.).

Job embeddedness is a collection of forces embedding in on- and off-the-job (Hom et al., 2009). It could be argued that person–environment fit and job embeddedness are not similar concepts. Person–environment fit gives a broad conceptualization including job (D–A fit and N–S fit), organization (values and goals fits), supervisor (attitudes, personality, values and goals fits), group (life goals, personality, activity preferences and values fits) and family (D–A fit and S–V fit). In contrast, Mitchell and Lee (2001) noted three dimensions of job embeddedness: (a) links, (b) sacrifice and (c) fit. Accordingly, it is clear that job embeddedness is yet to be studied in relation to diverse off-the-job factors compared to the person–environment fit, which is recognized as the difference between person–environment fit and job embeddedness as a mistake.

The literature acknowledges that job embeddedness subsumes links, sacrifice and fit aspects. Even though, person–family fit encompasses only a person’s family environment, first dimension of job embeddedness, ‘links’, covers formal and informal connections of an employee in an organization or community (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Sacrifice captures the perceived cost of material or psychological benefits that may be sacrificed by leaving a job (Mitchell et al., 2001). This explanation provides a better insight to contrast person–family fit with job embeddedness as person–family fit is not a cost function and it implies positive aspect of a person’s family environment when sacrifice suggests diverse costs associated with a person when he/she leaves a job. Though, job embeddedness and person–family fit concepts discuss the term ‘fit’, fit in job embeddedness covers the fit between an employee’s corporate and external environment/community (Mitchell et al., 2001), which is not limited to family environment as person–family fit. Accordingly, it is apparent that job embeddedness differs from person–family fit.

We have defined the concept of person–family fit in contrast to work–life balance, work–family conflict, work–family fit and job embeddedness.

Methodology

We have followed a mixed method where both qualitative and quantitative approaches are used to achieve the purpose of the study. This study is part of a larger project and this article consists of two studies under that project: Study 1 (item generation and refinement) and Study 2 (validation).

The first author conducted a preliminary investigation in few apparel organizations in the Sri Lankan context and reviewed employee counsellor reports in order to identify why employees opt to get personal counselling. Findings revealed that the majority of cases belong to operational-level employees and those are related to a person’s environmental factors—family/job/supervisor/group/organization, which was the rationale for selecting operational-level employees as the participants in both studies. Thus, the unit of analysis of the present study is the individual and convenience sampling technique is used to collect data.

Study 1. In line with earlier scale development literature (Chow & Chen, 2012; Furr, 2011; Quazi, Amran, & Nejati, 2016; Saaksjarvi & Morel, 2010), we followed a rigorous process to develop a new scale to measure person–family fit. As per Quazi et al. (2016), the scale development process consists of three steps: item generation, refinement and validation. The first two steps, item generation (literature survey, focus group interviews and expert interviews; Quazi et al., 2016) and refinement (Q-sort technique, face validity, content validity and pilot study) were conducted in Study 1.

Initially, we carried out a literature review. In the literature review, we referred to the measurement scales that measured different concepts related to family environment. Accordingly, we referred to the work–life conflicts scales of Netemeyer et al. (1996) and Thomas and Ganster (1995), the work–life balance scales of Hayman (2005), Brough et al. (2014), Valcour (2007) and Edwards and Rothbard (1999) to identify the dimensions for S–V fit. Then, four focus group interviews were conducted by the first author with 20 operational-level employees (five members in each group). As the final step of item generation, the first author had discussions with three experts who were actively involved in human resource management (HRM)-related research and two industrial experts who were in HRM as well. In sum, 22 items were generated after literature review, focus group interviews and discussions with experts.

In the refinement stage, the initial construct validity was examined by using Q-sort technique, which is a widely used validity testing technique in scale development (Boon-itt & Pongpanarat, 2011). Another five members (three experts who were actively involved in HRM-related research and two industrial experts who were also in HRM) were selected to employ the Q-sort technique. Finally, four academic experts who were actively involved in HRM-related research and one industrial expert, who also was in HRM, assessed the face validity and the content validity of the person–family fit scale. Items that were unclear or ambiguous were redefined. After the process, the scale consisted of three dimensions (22 items), that is, D–A fit: involvement, D–A fit: resources and S–V fit.

Face validity, content validity and pilot study were conducted in line with the scale development literature (Chow & Chen, 2012; Furr, 2011; Quazi et al., 2016; Saaksjarvi & Morel, 2010). Face and content validity were assessed by industrial experts and experts who are actively involved in HRM-related research. The pilot study was conducted to ensure the reliability of the new scale. Researchers applied convenience sampling technique to collect data from 60 operational-level employees in two market leading organizations (tires and tubes, and apparel industries). The Cronbach’s alpha value of the person–family fit scale was 0.97, which is above the acceptable value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1979, as cited in Chow & Chen, 2012).

Thereafter, in order to conduct EFA, a total of 270 respondents were invited to take part in the study out of 1,360 operational-level employees in two market leading organizations (tires and tubes, and apparel industries). A total of 243 questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 90 per cent. Out of the sample, 51 per cent were male. With regard to the respondents’ age, 8.6 per cent were below 20 years, 56.8 per cent were above 20 and less than 30 years, 21 per cent were above 30 and less than 40 years, and 13.6 per cent were 40 years and above.

Prior to conducting EFA, we examined the inter-item correlations among the items, which ensures that all items are drawn from the appropriate domains and the data produces reliable findings (Churchill, 1979). According to Kim and Mueller (1978), any item that correlates at less than 0.4 with all other items should be deleted from the analysis. According to the findings, all items in the person–family fit scale correlated each other between 0.44 and 0.92.

Consequently, EFA was conducted by using principal component analysis with varimax rotation (Quazi et al., 2016). In line with the study of Hinkin and Tracey (1997), an eigenvalue of 1 was used as the cut-off value for extraction. According to the EFA results, 22 items were loaded into three factors. We followed the guidelines of Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010), who set 0.5 as the threshold for item loading. Accordingly, two items with less than 0.50 loading were deleted. In item loading, D–A fit: involvement item 5 (“The attention you can give to family members and the attention expected by them from you”) and D–A fit: involvement item 6 (“The care you show for family members and the care expected by them from you”) were loaded less than 0.50 and also multiple loaded. Thus, it is apparent that the respondents were not able to respond to direct questions related to “attention and caring,” which are really better taken as interview questions, since interviews prompt the participants to explain their ideas in more detail or to elaborate on what they had (just) said. Finally, the scale consisted of 20 items. The factorability of the data and sampling adequacy were confirmed, respectively, since Bartlett’s test of sphere city was significant (p < 0.05) and the KMO measure was 0.948, which exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.6 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Table 1).

Table 1.

Rotated Factor Loading Matrix for Person–Family Fit.

Items	Component
Items	S–V Fit	D–A fit: Resources	D–A fit: Involvement
Time for family members (INV1)			0.85
Time for family activities (INV2)			0.77
Participation for family activities (INV3)			0.78
Involvement for family functions (INV4)			0.72
Finance for family members (R1)		0.74
Finance for family activities (R2)		0.81
Supply of physical resources (R3)		0.80
Supply of long-term assets (R4)		0.77
Decision making autonomy: Personal (SV1)	0.75
Decision making autonomy: Job (SV2)	0.77
Freedom to do job (SV3)	0.76
Freedom to do personal activities (SV4)	0.68
Help of family for family activities (SV5)	0.78
Help of family for job activities (SV6)	0.78
Family shows affection (SV7)	0.81
Family shows love (SV8)	0.82
Family supports for career goals (SV9)	0.78
Family understands career goals (SV10)	0.77
Family supports for family goals (SV11)	0.78
Family understands family goals (SV12)	0.81

Source: The authors.

Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.

Study 2. Scale validation step was conducted in Study 2. This step was conducted in two phases: validation of a new scale for person–family fit and validation of person–environment fit construct. Chuang et al.’s (2016) measure was used to measure person–environment fit. The person–environment fit variable is the independent variable of the present study and its dimensions are person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, person–supervisor fit and person–family fit (Chuang et al., 2016). Person–family fit was measured using the scale developed in Study 1 (see Appendix). All items were measured using a seven-point scale, ranging from (1) “no match” to (7) “complete match.”

For Study 2, we sampled operational-level employees in three leading apparel organizations. Out of 2,720 operational-level employees, questionnaires were distributed to 420 employees. The final sample was 393 (94% response rate). We adopted a convenience sampling technique. Initially, we conducted a linguistic equivalence test (Chow & Chen, 2012) for all scales that were used for Studies 1 and 2, because the questionnaire was in English and the respondents’ mother tongue was Sinhala. Accordingly, all measures were professionally translated into Sinhala and back-translated into English to ensure conceptual equivalence. A pilot study was conducted with 100 respondents to ensure the reliability of measurement scales and the results confirmed that Cronbach’s alpha values for all scales were above the acceptable level of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1979, as cited in Chow & Chen, 2012). Figure 2 delineates the process followed in this research in developing the new scale.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

Results

In Study 2, the collected data was analysed using SPSS version 20.0 and AMOS version 23.0. Prior to analysis, the data was scanned for accuracy and precision. For missing values, basic checking was conducted and the “subgroup mean substitution” method was applied. Ten outliers in the person–family fit variables were deleted. Accordingly, the sample size (n) of the Study 2 became 393 of operational-level employees in the apparel industry. Of the sample, 49 per cent were female. With regard to age of the respondents, 8.6 per cent were below 20 years; 56.8 per cent were more than 20 but less than 30 years; 21 per cent were 30 or more and less than 40 years; and 13.6 per cent were 40 and above.

Harman’s single-factor analysis was performed to diagnose CMV of the current study (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003) and it proposed 12 factors that was greater than the number of actual factors of the study and the first factor explained only 16 per cent variance, which was below the criterion level of 50 per cent (Mat, 2014). Therefore, it can be concluded that common method bias seems not to be an influence in this study. Tests of normality, distribution of data, linearity and homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity yielded satisfactory results. Thereafter, in Study 2, Phase 1, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), convergent validity, discriminant validity and reliability (Chiu & Wang, 2008) were checked in order to validate the new person–family fit scale.

Study 2 Phase 1. CFA results confirmed the validity of the new scale, as all fit indices satisfied the required standards (χ²/df = 2.64, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.88, RMR = 0.13 and RMSEA = 0.07).

Table 2 summarizes factor loading, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and Cronbach’s alpha. According to the results, item loadings of CFA exceeded the threshold of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010) and all items were significant (p < 0.01). Items were loaded under their respective constructs as well. CR values were higher than the recommended value of 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1998) and AVE exceeded the acceptable threshold of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Internal consistency was confirmed, as Cronbach’s alpha values for the variables were higher than the accepted lower boundary of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). The results confirmed that discriminant validity of the new scale, as AVE estimates were greater than the corresponding squared multiple correlation values for each pair (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Validity and Reliability of the Person–Family Fit Scale

Dimensions	No. of Items	Mean	SD	Loading Mini–Max	CR	AVE	α	DAFI	DAFR	SVF
DAFI	4	4.02	1.37	0.74^–0.90^	0.92	0.73	0.92	0.73	–	–
DAFR	4	4.93	0.98	0.63^–0.98^	0.89	0.68	0.90	0.21	0.68	–
SVF	12	4.12	1.93	0.72^–0.90^	0.97	0.71	0.97	0.03	0.00	0.71

Source: The authors.

Notes: ^*Significant at the 0.05 level, DAFI = D–A fit: Involvement, DAFR = D–A fit: Resources, SVF = S–V fit; α: Cronbach’s Alpha / Reliability.

Study 2 Phase 2. The second phase of Study 2 was carried out for the purpose of extending the person–environment fit construct by including both work and family environments using the same data set. Here, to measure the work environment-related fit, the “perceived person–environment fit scale” of Chuang et al. (2016) was used, which consists of person–job scale, person–organization scale, person–group scale and person–supervisor fit scale. Meanwhile, the person–family fit scale, which was developed in Study 1 and validated in Study 2 Phase 1, was used to measure the family environment.

KMO values of the scale exceeded the threshold of 0.5 for each construct (Malhothra & Dash, 2011). Thus, the sample adequately represented the population for all variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Further, Bartlett’s test of sphere city was significant for all constructs (p < 0.05; Bartlett, 1954).

Then EFA was performed to determine the factor loading of each of variable in the person–environment fit construct except the variable person–family fit, since this was tested in the Study 2 Phase 1. EFA was performed using principal component analysis and Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization (Quazi et al., 2016). Factor loadings of person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit and person–supervisor fit variables reported higher than 0.5 level, except for two items in the person–group fit variable. Hence, two items (person–group fit values: how would you describe the match between your emphasis and your group’s emphasis on the following values? Helping others and person–group fit goals: how would you describe the match between your goals and your group’s goals on the following dimensions? Competition with other groups) were removed in progressive steps. Accordingly, this study we found that the studied operational-level employees did not respond to group values like helping others, and they are not concerned about goals like competition with other groups.

The stepwise method was applied with the aid of AMOS in order to validate the first-order measurement model. Accordingly, in two steps, two items of the latent variable person–group fit: goals (How would you describe the match between your goals and your group’s goals on the following dimensions: (a) rewards and (b) the amount of effort expected?) whose factor values were less than 0.5, were removed. Accordingly, the results confirmed, once more, that this employee category has individualistic goals and not group goals, even when they are working as groups. In addition, there was an item in person–organization fit (how would you describe the match between your emphasis and your organization’s emphasis on the following value: helping others), where the factor value was 0.483 and that item was removed. Finally, the person–group fit variable remained with the dimensions “person–group fit: values” and “person–group fit: attributes” and person–organization fit variable consisting of six items. The refined model, however, consists of 41 items. At this stage, all standard regression weights and correlations were significant at the 95 per cent confidence interval. Thus, CFA confirmed the model fit of the first-order measurement model (χ2/df = 1.99, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.94, GFI = 0.85, AGFI = 0.82, RMR = 0.12, RMSEA = 0.05).

Cronbach’s alpha values for all latent variables were above the threshold of 0.7, which confirmed the reliability of the scale (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009). Convergent validity was also confirmed since the loading results exceeded the threshold of 0.5 and all items were significant (p < 0.01). CR was higher than the recommended value of 0.6 and AVE values also exceeded the acceptable threshold of 0.5. Accordingly, the person–environment fit construct was confirmed. The reliability and convergent validity of the scale, which led to the finalization of the measurement model, and the results, are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Reliability and Validity Testing for Variables

Construct/Dimensions	No. of Items	Mean	SD	LoadingMini–Max	CR	AVE	α
Person–job fit	4	4.39	1.11	0.59^–0.86^	0.82	0.54	0.80
Person–organization fit	7	4.41	1.13	0.48^–0.90^	0.90	0.56	0.89
Person–group fit: Values	3	4.92	1.12	0.84^–0.86^	0.88	0.72	0.88
Person–group fit: Attributes	3	4.92	1.19	0.75^–0.83^	0.84	0.63	0.80
Person–supervisor fit	5	4.25	1.34	0.80^–0.91^	0.93	0.71	0.91

Source: The authors.

Note: ^*Significant at the 0.05 level; ◻α: Cronbach’s alpha.

In addition, Table 4 reveals that the square root of the AVE (diagonal elements) is greater than the correlations among the constructs (off-diagonal elements), which confirmed discriminant validity.

Table 4.

Discriminant Validity

	PJF	POF	PGFV	PGFA	PSF
PJF	0.54	–	–	–	–
POF	0.12	0.56	–	–	–
PGFV	0.09	0.27	0.72	–	–
PGFA	0.09	0.07	0.18	0.63	–
PSF	0.14	0.06	0.10	0.38	0.71

Source: The authors.

Notes: PJF = person–job fit; POF = person–organization fit; PGFV = person–group fit values;

PGFA = person–group fit attributes; PSF = person–supervisor fit.

In the present article, we develop the concept of person–family fit in order to fill an existing gap in the person–environment fit theory. However, a verification of the suitability to include it in the well-established person–environment fit construct is required. Hence, the proposed model: extended person–environment fit construct (person–job fit, person–organization-fit, person–group fit, person–supervisor fit and person–family fit) was tested.

Model Testing of the Person–Environment Fit Construct

Prior to testing the proposed model, verification of the model fit of the second order measurement model was required. The results confirmed the model fit of the second order measurement model (χ²/df = 2.12, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.93, GFI = 0.85, AGFI = 0.81, RMR = 0.19, RMSEA = 0.05). The expanded person–environment fit construct was tested and the model fit was assured (χ²/df = 1.96, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.95, GFI = 0.86, AGFI = 0.83, RMR = 0.19, RMSEA = 0.05). Fit indices of person–environment fit validated the fit between the observed data and the model.

Discussion of Findings

Study 1 demonstrates that the person–family fit can be used to evaluate the fit between a person and her/his family in terms of D–A fit and S–V fit. The person–family fit scale consists of 20 items of which four items are under D–A fit: involvement, another four items under D–A fit: resources dimension, and 12 items under S–V fit. S–V fit was operationalized as a unidimensional variable as it consists of values autonomy, relationship and life goals.

Study 2 confirmed the suitability of the inclusion of person–family fit into the person–environment fit construct. Thus, the main argument of this study that a person’s environment is much broader than her/his working environment (drawing from the work/family border theory; Clark, 2000) was established. In extending the person–environment fit construct, the proposed model includes person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, person–supervisor fit and person–family fit. The results of fit indices confirmed the fit between observed data and the model, the suitability of the inclusion of person–family fit into the person–environment construct was also confirmed.

Theoretical Contribution

Existing studies on person–environment fit have largely focused on environmental factors in the work context (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999) such as person–job fit, person–supervisor fit, person–organization fit and person–group fit (Chuang et al., 2016). To date, both debate on the person–environment fit theory and its empirical testing have been minimal and little is known about the work environment fit and family environment fit. Previous studies have identified the potential of person–environment fit theory in the family environment (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999), yet the family environment as a part of a person’s environment studies has not been considered. However, drawing from the work/family border theory (Clark, 2000), the present study we define a person’s environment in a broader sense by including both work and family environments. The new concept person–family fit is in itself a significant theoretical contribution, and is more applicable to the South Asian regions as the people here have a strong bond with their families (Ballard, 1982). Hofstede (1989) also has stated that it is difficult to separate work and family in a South Asian society (Gupta et al., 2002).

In this article, we argue against the narrow perspective taken regarding a person’s environment by the person–environment fit theory. The present study contributes to the theory by extending a person’s environment into the family domain. Accordingly, person–environment fit is defined as a combination of work and family environments, where person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, person–supervisor fit and person–family fit are co-existent. Statistical verification of a person’s environment comprising of work and family environments would be more applicable to South Asia as the present study was conducted in Sri Lanka, a country in the South Asian region.

Managerial Implications

Apart from the theoretical contribution, this study generates managerial implication as well. Organizations could establish the following practices to ensure person–job fit, person–group fit, person–supervisor fit and person–family fit.

In order to ensure an employee’s fit with her/his job, organizations could implement practices such as provide training in cases where the employee’s knowledge, skills and abilities do not meet the standards and requirements of the job. In addition, to develop a good fit between an employee and her/his group, organizations could implement practices such as group competitions and give award to the best group while promoting common goals. To ensure rapport building between the employee and his/her supervisor, organizations could introduce work practices such as weekly/daily discussions and promote group goals.

Organizations could also implement practices to enhance the employees’ fit with their family environment. For example, organizing outings, celebrating family days, promoting awareness among the employees’ family about their job responsibilities and the contribution they make to the organization, as well as about the benefits provided by the organization for the family such as family insurance, financial aid for children who perform well in examinations, and establishing day-care centres.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has some limitations. First, we have adopted convenience sampling technique due to accessibility issues in data from the operational-level employees who work on a tight schedule. Second, the collected data comes from operational-level employees and excludes other job categories.

Future researchers could test the validity of the postulated person–family fit scale in different contexts, by collecting data from an occupationally diverse sample. It is particularly recommended that future studies test gender differences in person–family fit. In addition, studies could also test the proposed construct of person–environment fit in different contexts to provide detailed insights. Another potential area for future investigation is the investigation of the impact of person–environment fit on different outcomes.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to define a person’s environment as a combination of work and family environments. Research findings confirmed the validity of the new scale for person–family fit and of the extended person–environment fit construct, which includes dimensions such as person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, person–supervisor fit and person–family fit. Consequently, significant theoretical implications such as introduce a new concept of person–family fit in order to redefine the person–environment fit construct and develop a scale to measure person–family fit are demonstrated. For managerial practices, this study recommends various practices to ensure employees’ fit with their work and family environments by ensuring their job fit, group fit, supervisor fit and family fit.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Appendix

Questionnaire: Person–Family Fit

How would you describe the match in each of the following statements in relation to the fit between the demands of the family and your abilities to fulfil those demands?

The time that you can spend with your family members and the time they expect

The time that you can allocate for family activities (e.g., shopping) and the time they expect

Your ability to participate in family activities and the participation they expect

Your ability to involve in family functions and the involvement they expect

The financial support that you can provide for the family members and the financial support they expect

The financial support that you can provide for family activities and the financial support they expect

The physical things (e.g., food, clothes) that you can provide for the family members and the physical things they expect

Long-term assets (e.g., house, vehicle) that you can provide for the family members and the long-term assets they expect

How would you describe the match in each of the following statements in relation to the support given by your family members to achieve your values?

The freedom given by the family members to make your personal decisions yourself and the freedom you expect

The freedom given by the family members to make your job-related decisions (e.g., resign from the job) yourself and the freedom you expect

The freedom given by the family members to handle your job-related activities (e.g., taking leave) yourself and the freedom you expect

The freedom given by the family members to pursue your personal activities (e.g., a day out with friends) yourself and the freedom you expect

The help given by your family members for family activities and the help you expect

The help given by your family members to manage work activities and the help you expect

The affection showed by your family members for you and affection you expect

The love showed by your family members for you and love you expect

The support given by the family members to you in achieving career goals and the support you expect

Understanding of your career goals by family members and the understanding you expect

The support given by the family members to you in achieving family goals (e.g., building a house) and the support you expect

Understanding of your family goals by family members and the understanding you expect

References

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

Ballard

(1982). South Asian families. In Rapoport

R. N

Fogarty

Rapoport

Aldgate

(Eds.), Families in Britain (pp. 174–204). London: Routledge.

Bartlett

M. S.

(1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society , 16(1), 296–298. doi: 10.4236/ib.2015.73013

Bednar

Marshall

Bahouth

(1995). Identifying the relationship between work and nonwork stress among bank managers. Psychological Report , 77(3), 771–777. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.771

Boon-itt

Pongpanarat

(2011). Measuring service supply chain management processes: The application of the Q-Sort technique. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology , 2(3), 217–221.

Brough

Timms

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Kalliath

Siue

O. L.

Sitf

(2014). Work-life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 25(19), 2724–2744. doi: 10.1080/09585 192.2014.899 262

Byrne

(1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cable

D. M.

DeRue

D. S.

(2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87(1), 875–884. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.875

Caplan

R. D.

(1983). Person–environment fit: Past, present, and future. In Cooper

(Ed.), Stress research: New directions for the 1980s (pp. 35–78). London: Wiley.

10.

Caplan

R. D.

(1987). Person–environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 31(1), 248–267. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-X

11.

Chiu

C. M.

Wang

E. T.

(2008). Understanding web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value. Information & Management , 45(1), 194–201. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.02.003

12.

Chow

W. S.

Chen

(2012). Corporate sustainable development: Testing a new scale based on the Mainland Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics , 105(1), 519–533.

13.

Chuang

Shen

C. T.

Judge

T. A.

(2016). Development of a multidimensional instrument of person–environment fit: The perceived person–environment fit scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 65(1), 66–98. doi: 10.1111/apps.12036

14.

Churchill

G. A.

(1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research , 16(1), 64–73.

15.

Clark

C. S.

(2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations , 53(1), 747–770. doi: 10.1177/0018726700536001

16.

Dewe

P. J.

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Cooper

C. L.

(2012). Theories of psychological stress. In Schultz

R. G.

Schultz

R. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health and wellness (pp. 23–49). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4839-6_2

17.

Dundas

(2008). Work–life balance: There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. In O’Rourke

(Ed.), Managing matters (Vol. 3, pp. 7–8). New South Wales: Graduate College of Management, Southern Cross University.

18.

Edwards

J. R.

(1991). Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In Cooper

C. L.

Robertson

I. T.

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Volume 6, pp. 283–357). Oxford: John Willey& Sons.

19.

Edwards

J. R.

(1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Academy of Management Review , 17(1), 238–274.

20.

Edwards

J. R..

(1996). An examination of competing versions of the person–environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal , 39(1), 292–339. doi: 10. 2307/256782

21.

Edwards

J. A.

Billsberry

(2010). Testing a multidimensional theory of person–environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues , 22(4), 476–493.

22.

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(1), 628–648. doi: 0021-9010/93/S3.00

23.

Edwards

J. R.

Rothbard

N. P.

(1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person–environment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 77(2), 85–129.

24.

Edwards

J. R.

Caplan

R. D.

Harrison

R. V.

(1998). Person–environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In Cooper

C. L.

(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (Vol. 77, pp. 28–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

French

J. P.

Kahn

R. L.

(1962). A programmatic approach to studying the industrial environment and mental health. Journal of Social Issues , 18(1), 1–48.

26.

French

J. P.

Caplan

R. D.

Harrison

R. V.

(1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain . London: Wiley. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(83)90060-0

27.

Furr

R. M. (Ed.)

. (2011). Core principles, best practices, and an overview of scale construction. In Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology (pp. 5–15). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

28.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review , 10(1), 76–88.

29.

Gupta

Hanges

P. J.

Dorfman

(2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World Business , 37(1), 11–15. doi: 10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00070-0

30.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

31.

Hassan

M. U.

(2012). The relationship between person organization fit, person–job-fit and turnover intention in banking sector of Pakistan: The mediating role of psychological climate. International Journal of Human Resource Studies , 2(3), 172–188. doi: 10.5296/ijhrs.v2i3.2286

32.

Hayman

(2005). Psychometric assessment of an instrument designed to measure work life balance. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management , 13(1), 85–91.

33.

Hinkin

T. R.

Tracey

J. B.

(1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments . Retrieved from http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/.

34.

Hofstede

(1989). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 1(2), 81–99.

35.

Hom

P. W.

Tsui

A. S.

Lee

T. W.

P. P.

J. B.

Zhang

A. Y.

(2009). Explaining employment relationships with social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94(2), 277–297.

36.

Huston

T. L.

Levinger

(1978). Interpersonal attraction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology , 26(1), 115–159.

37.

Jansen

K. J.

Kristof-Brown.

(2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues , 18(2), 193–212.

38.

Kim

Mueller

C. W.

(1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

39.

Kristof

A. L.

(1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology , 49(1), 1–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

40.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

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(1), 281–342.

41.

Kulik

C. T.

Oldham

G. R.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). Work design as an approach to person–environment person–environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 31(1), 278–296.

42.

Kumarasamy

M. A. P. M

Pangil

Faizal

Isa

(2015). Individual, organizational and environmental factors affecting work–life balance. Asian Social Science , 11(25), 111–144. doi: 10.5539/ass.v11n25p111

43.

Major

D. A.

Burke

R. J.

(2013). Handbook of work-life integration among professionals: Challenges and opportunities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

44.

Makikangas

Kinnunen

(2003). Psychosocial work stressors and well-being: self-esteem and optimism as moderators in a one-year longitudinal sample. Personality and Individual Differences , 3(1), 537–557. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00217-9

45.

Malhothra

N. K.

Dash

(2011). Marketing research: An applied orientation (6th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Prentice Hall.

46.

Mat

Roni S.

(2014). Introduction to SPSS . SOAR Centre, Australia: Edith Cowan University.

47.

Mitchell

T. R.

Holtom

B. C.

Lee

T. W.

Sablynski

C. J.

Erez

(2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal , 44(6), 1102–1124.

48.

Mitchell

Lee

(2001). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. In Staw

Sutton

R. I.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 189–246). Greenwich: Elsevier.

49.

Muchinsky

H. A.

Monahan

C. J.

(1987). What is person–environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 31(1), 268–277. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(87)90043-1

50.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Boles

J. S.

McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81(4), 400–410.

51.

Ostroff

Schulte

(2007). Multiple perspectives of fit in organizations across levels of analysis. In Ostroff

Judge

T. A.

(Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 3–69). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

52.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Lee

J. Y.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 5(1), 879–903.

53.

Quazi

Amran

Nejati

(2016). Conceptualizing and measuring consumer social responsibility: A neglected aspect of consumer research. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 40(1), 48–56.

54.

Saaksjarvi

Morel

K. P.

(2010). The development of a scale to measure consumer doubt toward new products. European Journal of Innovation , 13(3), 272–292.

55.

Sekaran

Bougie

(2009). Research methods for business (5th ed.). New Delhi: Wiley India (Pvt.) Ltd.

56.

Silverthorne

(2004). The impact of organizational culture and person organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 25(7), 529–539.

57.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

58.

Thomas

L. T.

Ganster

D. C.

(1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work–family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80(1), 6–15.

59.

Tom

V. R.

(1971). The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance , 6(1), 57–592.

60.

Valcour

(2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work–family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92(6), 1522–1523.

61.

Verquer

M. L.

Wagner

S. H.

Beehr

T. A.

(2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person–organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 63(1), 473–489.

62.

Voydanoff

(2002). Linkages between the work–family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes: An integrative model. Journal of Family Issues , 23(1), 138–164 doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023001007

Development of the Person–Family Fit Construct: An Extension of Person–Environment Fit into the Family Domain

Abstract

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Significance of the Study

Literature Review

Theoretical Background of the Study

Critical Review of the Person–Environment Fit Theory

Person–Job Fit

Person–Organization Fit

Person–Group Fit

Person–Supervisor Fit

Person–Family Fit

Comparison of Person–Family Fit with Work–Life Balance, Work–Life Conflict, Work–Family Fit and Job Embeddedness

Methodology

Rotated Factor Loading Matrix for Person–Family Fit.

Results

Validity and Reliability of the Person–Family Fit Scale

Reliability and Validity Testing for Variables

Discriminant Validity

Model Testing of the Person–Environment Fit Construct

Discussion of Findings

Theoretical Contribution

Managerial Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Appendix

Questionnaire: Person–Family Fit

References