Cable Derue Pe PJ, Po, Ns

NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF GENDER ROLE ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PERSON-ENVIRONMENT FIT AND JOB SATISFACTION
By
Robin Kinser Hinkle

B.A., University of Texas at Dallas, 1991
MBA, University of Texas at Dallas, 1994
M.S., University of Texas at Dallas, 1998
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Graduate School of the University of Louisville
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
College of Education and Human Development

University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky
December 2005
UMI N um ber: 3208784
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and im proper
alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete m anuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3208784
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2005 by Robin K. Hinkle
All rights reserved
By
Robin Kinser Hinkle

B.A., University of Texas at Dallas, 1991
MBA, University of Texas at Dallas, 1994
M.S., University of Texas at Dallas, 1998
A Dissertation Approved on
October 27, 2005
By the following dissertation committee:
Namok Choi, Dissertation Director
CJtolyn Rude-Parkins
'Joseph Petrosko
Nancy Theriot
11
DEDICATION
This is dedicated to the three men of my life; to Dad for instilling a love of learning in me
and always being proud o f his baby; to my husband, Steve, for believing “an education is
its own reward” and supporting me in every possible way; and to my son, Alex, for his
understanding during the last three years and for turning out fine.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Deepest gratitude is given to my dissertation chair, Dr. Namok Choi, for her
perseverance and consistent guidance throughout the development and completion
o f this dissertation. I also extend my appreciation to other members of my committee for
their commitment and advisement: Dr. Mike Boyle, Dr. Carolyn Rude-Parkins, Dr.
Joseph Petrosko, and Dr. Nancy Theriot.
Acknowledgement is given to the following individuals for the encouragement,
support, and dedication they provided in helping me complete the requirements for my
Doctoral degree: my sister, Rita Rogers and my dearest friends, Lisa Daniszewski,
Wendy Felts, Tamela Freeman, and Joanna Lowry.
Special thanks is given to my mother, Geneva Kinser, for always being there for
Alex and making my life easier.
IV
ABSTRACT

Robin K. Hinkle
October 27, 2005
This study examined whether identification with typically feminine (F) or
masculine (M) traits interacted with perceptions of person-environment (fit) to enhance
the predictability of job satisfaction. In its exploration of the affect of gender roles on
work outcomes, this study fills a niche in the literature as gender role has been an
overlooked variable in research on the relationship between P-E fit and job satisfaction.
There is an overall consensus that positive relationships exist between P-E fit and job
satisfaction and between masculinity and job satisfaction. This is the first known study
that examined all three variables at once. A secondary goal of this study was to examine
the factor structure and the construct validity of a 9-item scale developed by Cable and
DeRue (2002) to distinguish between three different types of P-E fit: person-organization
fit (P-O), needs-supplies (N-S) fit, and person-job (P-J) fit. This scale served as the
measurement of P-E fit.
The sample consisted of 317 certified public accounts residing in Kentucky.
Canonical correlation analysis supported the relationship between the measures of P-E fit
and job satisfaction used in this study. Furthermore, the results indicated that N-S fit is
more related to overall job satisfaction than either P-J fit or P-O fit. Results from multiple
regression analyses indicated that the main effect of P-E fit was a strong predictor of
overall job satisfaction. Neither M nor F produced statistically significant main effects.
As hypothesized, P-E fit interacted with M to affect job satisfaction, whereas the P-E fit x
F interaction was not predictive of job satisfaction. Specifically, M was more important
to overall job satisfaction at higher levels of P-E fit. Results from a confirmatory factor
analysis o f the data strongly suggested that employees discriminate between the three
types of fit.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION ..................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................. 8
Research Q uestions........................................................................................... 9
Significance of the S tu d y ................................................................................. 10
Lim itations......................................................................................................... 10
Definitions......................................................................................................... 11
II. LITERATURE REV IEW .................................................................................... 14
Job Satisfaction................................................................................................. 16
Personal Characteristics............................................................................... 16
Work Characteristics..................................................................................... 23
Interaction of Personaland Work Variables................................................. 29
Summary o f Job Satisfaction........................................................................38
Person-Environment........................................................................................... 38
Person-Organization F i t ................................................................................43
Person-Job F i t ................................................................................................46
vii
Needs-Supplies Fit .................................................................................... 50
Summary of Person-Environment................................................................ 54
Gender-Related Studies in Job Satisfaction and P-E F it.................................. 56
Summary............................................................................................................. 63
III. METHODS .............................................................................................................66
Participants.......................................................................................................... 66
Sampling Procedure............................................................................................68
D esign..................................................................................................................68
Major V ariables.................................................................................................. 69
Instruments.......................................................................................................... 70
The Job Descriptive Index (JD I)...................................................................70
Development of the J D I ......................................................................... 70
The abridged JDI (aJDI) ...................................................................... 71
Validity o f the aJD I.................................................................................. 72
Reliability of the aJDI ........................................................................... 72
The Job in General (JIG) S cale.....................................................................73
Reliability and Valildity of the J IG ......................................................... 73
The abridged JIG (aJIG )......................................................................... 74
Perceived Fit Scale (P F S )............................................................................. 74
Development of the PFS ......................................................................... 75
Validity and Reliability of the PFS ..................................................... 76
Bern Sex Role Inventory (B S R I).................................................................78
Validity of the BSRI ............................................................................. 79
viii
Reliability of the B SR I............................................................................ 80
Statistical Analysis..............................................................................................81
IV. RESULTS ...............................................................................................................84
Preliminary Statistical Analysis......................................................................... 84
Reliability A nalysis....................................................................................... 84
Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................... 85
Intercorrelations of the Variables................................................................. 89
Analyses for the Research Questions................................................................ 91
Assumptions...................................................................................................91
Canonical Correlation Analysis ............................................................... 92
Multiple Regression A nalyses......................................................................97
Factor Analyses............................................................................................ 103
V. DISCUSSION..................................................................................................... I l l
Summary of Major Findings............................................................................ I l l
Discussion .........................................................................................................112
Conclusions....................................................................................................... 117
Implications ...................................................................................................... 121
Recommendations............................................................................................. 125
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 128
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 142
CURRICULUM VITAE .................................................................................................... 155
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Age and Length of Service by Biological G ender....................................................... 67
2. Percentages for Organizational Size, Daycare Needs,

and Working from Home ........................................................................................... 67
3. Comparison of Reliability Coefficients............................................................................ 85
4. Descriptive Statistics for Fit and Satisfaction Variables.................................................86
5. Overall Job Satisfaction by Gender R o le.........................................................................88
6. Mean Overall Job Satisfaction and P-E Fit by Gender Role

by Biological G ender...................................................................................................... 88
7. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations........................................................ 90
8. Intercorrelations of Gender Roles and Job Satisfaction by Biological G ender 91
9. Standardized Coefficients and Structure Matrix of the Two Canonical

Functions (Fit with Satisfaction M easures)...................................................................94
10. Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses with Overall

Job Satisfaction as Criterion.........................................................................................100
11. Comparison of Fit Statistics..........................................................................................110
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. P-E Fit x Masculinity interaction.....................................................................................101
2. Hypothesized first order confirmatory factor analysis.................................................. 107
3. CFA o f alternative model 3 with cross loading of item 4 .............................................108
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In 1976, Locke estimated that over 3,000 articles had been written on job
satisfaction. That was nearly 30 years ago and the topic continues to be studied and
debated as a major dependent variable in many industrial, organizational, and social
psychology research studies (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989). Previous
research indicates that satisfaction with work is related to tasks that are varied, personally
interesting, mentally challenging, and allow for autonomy (Locke). Several
conceptualizations of job satisfaction are based on the idea that a match between the
individual’s needs, goals, values, and those provided by the work environment largely
determine perceptions of job satisfaction (Dawis, 1992; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969;
Vroom, 1964). There are numerous organizational reasons prompting the research.
However, with people spending a large portion of their day and, ultimately, their lives in
some type o f work environment, it seems to be a noble goal to better understand what
contributes to making that time more satisfying.
Job satisfaction is discussed either as satisfaction with specific aspects of a job,
facet satisfaction, or more generally as the overall feeling towards work. Typically,
organizations are concerned with how interventions on specific areas of work can
improve the broader attitude of workers, which will eventually lead to behaviors that
contribute to organizational goals, such as improvement in productivity and performance
and reduction in turnover, absenteeism, and costs (Vroom, 1964). This was the original
motivation for research on job satisfaction and is still ample reason for the continuing
exploration o f the topic. From the employee standpoint, however, the importance o f job
satisfaction is best described by Locke’s “emotional generalization” or “spillover” effect
(1976, p. 1328). The spillover hypothesis indicates that feelings and attitudes experienced
in one domain (i.e. leisure, marriage, family, or work) spill over onto other domains.
Fulfillment or discontent in one area is likely to affect other areas. Attitudes towards the
specific domains lead to a more general attitude towards life. Some empirical findings
also support this presumed relationship by reporting that for most individuals the
variables o f satisfaction in different aspects of life are positively related (Judge &
Wantanabe, 1994).
The importance of studying job satisfaction rests in the need to better understand
the multidirectional relationship both general and facet job satisfaction share with life
satisfaction. Moving from the specific to the general, satisfaction with facets of a job (i.e.
work, pay, coworkers, supervision, and promotion) affects general job satisfaction, and
eventually life satisfaction. However, the general satisfaction also affects the specific
satisfaction in that general job satisfaction and life satisfaction can moderate how
individuals react to specific situations.
While the spillover effect originated as social psychology phenomena to explain
components involved in well-being, it also has economic implications that management
would be remiss to ignore. Today’s workforce is more agile and demanding of certain
rewards from their work and employer (Smith, 1992). Smith stressed that the current
period of economic and technological change should compel management to reconsider
the economic value of satisfaction and seek to understand its components (p. 6).
Managers are concerned with withdrawal behaviors that threaten the profitability and
viability o f the organization. Withdrawal behaviors can manifest as withholding efforts at
work, lateness, absenteeism, leaving work early, and turnover. Such withdrawal
behaviors reflect adverse attitudes towards the job or the organization (Hanisch & Hulin,
1991). There is much empirical research supporting the link between potential variables
of job satisfaction and its subsequent function as an antecedent to turnover (Locke, 1976).
This is underpinned by the idea that there are “many instances in which parallel
relationships were obtained between work role variables and both job satisfaction and
turnover” (Vroom, 1964).
Early research by Hulin (1966; 1968) established the link between job
satisfaction, turnover, and perceptions of alternative opportunities. Hulin, Roznowski,
and Hachiya’s (1985) heuristic model of behavior identifies the internal and external
forces that directly affect job or work role satisfaction. According to the model (Hulin et
al., 1985), job satisfaction, in turn, affects behavioral intentions to reduce job inputs, to
quit, or to change work situation. These intentions result in psychological withdrawal,
turnover, or attempts to change an unsatisfying work environment. Hulin et al. stated that,
“behavioral intentions rather than job satisfaction are hypothesized to be the immediate
antecedents to turnover” (p. 244).
Turnover, whether voluntary or involuntary, represents the behavior having the
most severe financial consequences. The direct cost is the net difference between the
added value that could have been realized from output of departing employee and that of
the replacement employee (Tziner & Birati, 1996). The departing employee normally
leaves with valuable resources, such as knowledge, skills, and work contacts, not readily
replaceable. The technical and functional training of the new employee represents clear
financial costs, but there are also other training aspects, such as socialization and
acculturation, that are not easily calculated. Indirect turnover cost is the negative effect
turnover has on the behavior and attitudes of remaining employees (Sagie, Birati, &
Tziner, 2002). Depending on the status, reputation, and relative contribution of the
departing employee, there is potential for the onset of withdrawal behaviors of co
workers and subordinates. Remaining employees not happy with the change brought
about by the departure of another employee may begin searching for other opportunities,
resulting in further loss for the organization.
Historically, organizational objectives, namely cost reduction and performance
enhancement, have driven research on job satisfaction. Today, feelings and attitudes
towards work functions have become a concern in their own right with researchers
directing their attention towards understanding how employees develop their regard for
their work. With the development of psychological tests in the 1930’s, it became
common practice for personnel selection and career guidance professionals to use the
tests to fill positions with candidates best able to perform the tasks required of the job.
Since the 1950’s, the “goodness of fit” between the person and the environment has
received much attention as an antecedent to job satisfaction. Person-environment fit
integrates the literature on job satisfaction in which either dispositional or situational
were investigated as predictors. The idea is that individuals of a certain disposition will
experience more positive outcomes from their work when they choose work
environments that reinforce and reward behaviors that stem from their particular
disposition.
The measurement of P-E fit is labeled according to central concept of the theory
studied. Those studying Holland’s (1997) theory use the term congruence, whereas the
same construct is referred to as correspondence in the Theory o f Work Adjustment
(Lofquist & Dawis, 1991). In other theories and in the present study, the concept is
simply described as fit, denoting a harmonious and reciprocal relationship between the
person and the environment. A review of the literature indicates that most research has
distinguished between two broad classes of fit. The first is person-organization (P-O) fit
in which employee desires and job supplies are compared. This involves the fit between
the values and interests of the employee and those supplied by the environment in the
form o f preferred culture, structure, and support. The second class of fit is person-job (P-
J) fit in which employee abilities are compared with job demands. Employee abilities
have been typically operationalized as educational level, experience, intelligence, and
aptitude, whereas the environmental demands have been conceptualized as workload, job
complexity, and task requirements.
Cable and DeRue (2002) make a convincing argument that when P-J and P-O are
refined, a third type of fit emerges that describes employee judgment of how adequately
their needs are fulfilled by the organization in the terms of pay, benefits, and training. In
this type, needs-supplies (N-S), the focus is on the rewards employees receive in
exchange for their service and contribution to job and the organization. The study
supports the idea that employees perceive distinct types of fit with their environment and
that each type contributes to work attitudes in varying magnitudes (Cable & DeRue).
Past fit research may have omitted the most important dimension of fit as a predictor of
job satisfaction, needs-supplies fit (P = .45,/? < .01), by focusing too generally on person-
organization (P = .28,/? < .01) and person-job fit (P = .01) in their study designs (Cable &
DeRue). Validity studies examining the three dimensions of fit theorized by Cable and
DeRue have not been forthcoming.
A large body of research exists relating an individual’s disposition to various
work outcomes, including fit and job satisfaction. Dispositions are psychological
characteristics of the individual that underlie the tendency to respond to situations in a
predetermined way (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996). A characteristic of the individual
that is not a disposition is biological gender. The function of biological gender in
determining job satisfaction has been extensively studied without consistent or conclusive
results. Consequently, researchers began to look beyond biological gender to the
psychological characteristics and behaviors that distinguish men from women in a given
society (Deaux & Majors, 1987). The acquisition of gender roles occurs during the
socialization process, whereby men and women develop behaviors, attitudes, interests,
emotional reactions, and motives that are culturally defined as appropriate for members
of their sex (Bern, 1974). Similar to dispositions, gender roles are thought to be quite
stable throughout the life span, but may not manifest themselves in all situations and may
be more or less salient under certain circumstances (Eagly, 1987). The work setting is
associated with situations that are likely to evoke behaviors and attitudes consistent with
those stereotypical o f a self-identified gender role (Eagly).
An assumption developed early in the history of gender role studies was that
masculine and feminine were polar opposites on a continuum. The masculine role is
associated with instrumental traits, such as self-assertive and goal-oriented. Femininity is
conventionally associated with expressive traits, such as emotional and relationship-
oriented. Constantinople (1973) initially proposed the idea that masculinity and
femininity were not mutually exclusive categories. Bern (1974) operationalized the
concept that femininity and masculinity are independent and complementary in the
development of the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). While most individuals express
high levels in one of these dimensions with low levels in the other, high levels of
femininity and masculinity can coexist within the same individuals. These individuals are
considered androgynous in their sex role identity. Conversely, an individual may exhibit
low levels of both, in which case they are referred to as undifferentiated. A tenet of
Bern’s model was that androgynous individuals had the behavioral flexibility to better
adapt to situations than those who were dominant in either.
Numerous studies followed supporting the relationship between androgyny and
psychological well-being. Androgynous gender role identity has been associated with
greater satisfaction with life in general and with higher levels of job satisfaction and self
esteem and lower levels of stress in particular (Chow, 1987; Eichinger, 2000; Eichinger,
Heifetz, & Ingraham, 1991; Shichman & Cooper, 1984). Psychologically androgynous
people place importance on both instrumental and expressive aspects of work and life,
whereas feminine individuals favor expressiveness and masculine individuals prefer
instrumentality (Shichman & Cooper). With a wider range of sources of satisfaction, they
are more likely to find congruence with more aspects of the workplace than individuals
who prefer either feminine or masculine qualities in their work environment. Some
theorists challenged this by suggesting it is the masculine component in androgyny that is
predictive of mental well-being, whereas the feminine component appears to be unrelated
(Bassoff & Glass, 1979; Long, 1989). Masculinity has been associated with work-related
behaviors and attitudes, such as stronger feelings of personal accomplishment, higher
occupational status (Eichinger, et. al., 1991), greater problem-solving skills and lower
levels o f stress (Long, 1989), less perceived isolation, and more adaptive coping in work-
related environments (Krausz, Kedem, & Amir, 1992). The attributes associated with
femininity, such as the tendency to seek approval from others (Long, 1989) and to have
avoidance and support-seeking coping styles (LaCroix & Haynes, 1987), are not as
valued in many work environments and may hinder feminine individuals from achieving
P-E fit. It seems plausible that the instrumental traits of the masculine gender role will
enhance P-E fit and, consequently, job satisfaction.
Statement of the Problem
The list of empirical studies using P-E fit as an antecedent to job satisfaction is
lengthy, with most having relied on P-O and P-J fit indices to test the Holland theory or
the Theory o f Work Adjustment. The work by Cable and DeRue (2002) suggesting that
N-S fit is a more important predictor of job satisfaction requires more investigation. The
scales developed measure distinctly three types of fit, thereby providing a means to better
understand the complexities involved in employee attitudes towards being well-suited to
the organization, job, and rewards. However, they are relatively new and require more
validation of the psychometric properties beyond that of the developers. How closely
workers identify with masculine or feminine traits and behaviors may affect how they
judge their suitability to a particular environment. An examination of the unique
contribution of (a) gender role and (b) P-E fit in explaining job satisfaction performed in
a single study has not been located. Research on gender role implies that high levels of
masculinity are responsible for positive work outcomes (Bassoff & Glass, 1982; Long,
1989). High levels of perceptions of fit have consistently been associated with higher
levels o f job satisfaction. The ability to adapt to one’s environment is a theme common
in the research on both gender role and P-E fit and while both are related to work
outcomes, there have been few empirical studies that examine the relative contribution of
gender roles and perceptions of fit in predicting overall levels of job satisfaction.
Furthermore, an examination of the facets composing job satisfaction (i.e. work, pay,
coworkers, supervision, and promotion) may illuminate those differences obscured by a
measure of general job satisfaction and may also provide a more descriptive explanation
o f fit between preferences for masculine or feminine attributes in an environment and
those satisfied by the environment. For example, the tendency o f feminine individuals to
favor interpersonal relationships may result in gender role related differences in
satisfaction with the coworkers’ facet.
Research Questions
1. What is the global relationship between P-E fit and job satisfaction?
2. Is masculinity a significant moderator of the relationship between P-E fit and
job satisfaction?
3. Is femininity a significant moderator of the relationship between P-E fit and job
satisfaction?
4. What is the factor structure of the Perceived Fit Scale?
Significance of the Study
Gender roles have been studied in relation to various work outcomes, including
job satisfaction (Blanchard-Fields & Friedt, 1988; Chow, 1987; Eichinger, Heifetz, &
Ingraham, 1991; Maupin & Lehman, 1994), with most suggesting that higher scores on
masculinity better predict behaviors and attitudes considered beneficial or desirable in the
workplace. The effect of P-E fit on job satisfaction has been much studied, with results
consistently supporting a significant and positive relationship between the variables
(Tinsley, 2000). Hence, the main effects of gender role and P-E fit on job satisfaction
have been documented. Several meta-analyses have examined the moderating effect of
several variables on the P-E fit and job satisfaction relationship. The consensus is that
biological gender does not affect the P-E fit and job satisfaction relationship (Spokane,
1985; Tranberg, Slane, & Ekeberg, 1993; Young, Tokar, and Subich, 1998). However,
the moderating affect o f gender role, rather than biological gender, on this relationship
has not been examined. The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which
gender role interacts with P-E fit to enhance the predictability of job satisfaction.
Limitations
This study has the limitations associated with most field research. First, the
research design was nonexperimental. Causal inferences are limited when using a design
of this type as it is difficult to ascertain the effects of one variable on another over time
and brings into question the direction of causality. Second, data collection relied on self-
reporting instruments and common method variance is a concern with studies of this type.
The objective of this study requires measuring individuals' attitudes toward their job,
organization, and gender role identity and thus, even though use of self-reports was
10
indicated, the possibility of common method variance must be recognized. In his review
of the role of self-reports in behavioral research, Spector (1994) concluded that the
appropriateness of using self-reports depends upon the purpose o f the study. He also
noted self-reports can be quite useful for deriving insights about how people feel about
and react to their jobs, and relationships among various feelings and perceptions (Spector,
1994; Spector & Brannick, 1995). By using only one method of data collection, self-
report surveys, the possibility that the assessment method is responsible for any
correlations cannot be eliminated. To enhance resistance to common method variance,
efforts are made to follow the recommendation of Podsakoff and Organ (1986) to
eliminate obvious overlap in items across measures.
Definitions
Job satisfaction refers to the positive emotional state resulting from the evaluation of
one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). Job satisfaction with differing levels of
specificity is measured in the present study: general job satisfaction and five specific
areas (work, pay, coworkers, supervision, and promotion) of job satisfaction. In the
present study, facet measures will be collected using the Job Descriptive Index with a
general measure determined by the Jobs in General scale.
Overall Job Satisfaction refers to evaluations of the general feeling employees have
towards their jobs. Global scales asking the respondent to combine reactions to various
aspects of work in a single integrated response are more predictive of the general measure
of job satisfaction than a composite score of various facets (Ironson, Smith, Brannick,
Gibson, & Paul, 1989). For this reason, a scale designed to measure overall job
11
satisfaction was chosen, rather than a composite of the five facets, to determine general
job satisfaction.
Facet Job Satisfaction refers to employee evaluations on satisfaction with five specific
aspects of work. “Work” refers to the extent that the tasks of a job are interesting,
satisfying, challenging and provide a sense of accomplishment. “Pay” refers to the extent
an individual evaluates their compensation as fair, equitable, and secure. “Coworkers”
refers to the extent an individual evaluates their coworkers as helpful, boring, intelligent,
lazy, and responsible. “Supervision” refers to an individual’s evaluation of the quality of
the direction and the feedback they receive from their superiors. “Promotion” refers to an
individual’s evaluation of their likelihood of being promoted, the opportunities for
promotion available to them, and the fairness of the promotion system of their
organization.
Person-environment (P-E) fit is the dominant research model in vocational psychology
whereby the perceptions employees hold concerning how well their needs, wishes, and
desires are fulfilled by their workplace affect vocational outcomes (Spokane, Meir, &
Catalano, 2000; Tinsley, 2000). When the employee desires and environmental needs are
matched, they tend to produce positive outcomes, such as reduced stress, anxiety,
absenteeism, and turnover and improved physical and psychological health. There is
evidence that employees perceive three different types of fit between themselves and
their environment (Cable & DeRue, 2002). The three types, person-organization (P-O)
fit, person-job (P-J) fit, and needs-supplies (N-S) fit will operate as predictor variables.
The present study will use the three 3-item scales developed by Cable & DeRue to
measure each type of fit.
12
Person-organization (P-O) fit refers to the extent to which an employee believes their
values match those of their organization’s culture (Cable & DeRue, 2002).
Person-job (P-J) fit refers to the suitability of an employee’s knowledge, skills, and
abilities to the demands of the job (Cable & DeRue, 2002).
Needs-supplies fit refers to the perceptions of match between financial, social, and
psychological needs of the employee with those supplied by the work environment. It
represents the employees’ evaluation of the adequacy of the rewards employees receive
in exchange for their services and contributions (Cable & DeRue, 2002).
Gender-role identity refers to the social roles a society defines for women and men
(Eagly, 1987). They incorporate shared expectations regarding attributes and behaviors
that apply to people based on their socially identified gender. Studies have indicated that
gender role identity is independent of biological gender (Bern, 1977; Spence &
Helmreich, 1978).
Masculinity refers to an individual’s tendency to endorse a significantly higher number of
masculine, or instrumental, personality traits as compared to feminine, or expressive,
personality traits (Bern, 1977). Masculinity will function as a continuous variable
determined by the M score obtained from the 10-item M scale of the BSRI.
Femininity refers to an individual’s tendency to endorse a significantly higher number of
feminine, or expressive, personality traits as compared to masculine, or instrumental,
personality traits (Bern, 1977). Femininity will function as a continuous variable
determined by the F score obtained from the 10-item F scale of the BSRI.
13
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Systematic attempts to assess the concept of job satisfaction have proliferated
since the 1930’s (Locke, 1976). The assumption that as job satisfaction increases so does
the likelihood that a person will remain in a job (Vroom, 1964) gave impetus to the
research. Through theoretical and empirical studies, researchers endeavored to establish
the causes and consequences of employee attitude towards work. Countless variables
pertaining to personal, work, and labor market characteristics have been assessed to
determine their usefulness in predicting job satisfaction (Abraham, 1999; Blau, 1999;
Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). Theoretical
approaches to explaining potential causes of job satisfaction can be broadly classified as
dispositional, situational, or interactional. Consequences of job satisfaction examined
included job performance, employee health, life satisfaction, intentions to quit, and
turnover (Locke).
A frequently studied antecedent to job satisfaction is person-environment (P-E)
fit, which refers to the extent an individual is well suited to his or her work environment.
Plato suggested the earliest model of P-E fit in The Republic when he argued for
assigning workers to jobs in accordance with their disposition and skills (Tinsley, 2000).
The work o f Paterson and his colleagues, Darley, Williamson, Berdie, and Dvorak,
represents the earliest application of the P-E fit model in modem times (Keyes, 2003).
14
Through their development of the Employment Stabilization Research Institute at the
University of Minnesota during the Great Depression, the researchers firmly established
the value of the P-E fit theory in industrial psychology and vocational/career counseling.
During the 1950’s and 1960’s, three students of Paterson and Darley, Lofquist, Dawis,
and Holland, developed the two most widely applied P-E fit models in use today. In the
early 1970’s, researchers in the field extended the person-situation framework to the
notion that positive work responses, such as job satisfaction, commitment, retention, etc.,
will occur when the person fits or matches the organization as a whole (O’Reilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). O f these responses, job
satisfaction, the most prolific work outcome studied, has been consistently and positively
related to P-E fit (Tinsley, 2000).
An examination of relevant empirical studies led to the following literature review
supporting the notion that an interactional approach to understanding job satisfaction is
needed for organizational psychologists, career counselors, and managers to design
effective interventions for increasing positive outcomes for employees and employers.
P-E fit is offered as a useful manifestation of this interactional approach and functional in
predicting job satisfaction. While several studies have examined gender differences in
this relationship as a primary or tertiary focus, few have considered the impact of
psychological gender roles. The present study considers the effects of gender role identity
and P-E fit on job satisfaction. The review includes research evaluating: (a) job
satisfaction and measurement instruments, (b) types of P-E fit and measurements, and (c)
gender role and relevant studies in job satisfaction and P-E fit.
15
Job Satisfaction
Research about job satisfaction seeks to develop an understanding of the
intricacies o f employee attitudes and behaviors that will possess predictive properties
(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Numerous theories exist to provide structure
for understanding the causes and consequences of job satisfaction. While several have
overlapping themes, each theory attempts to explain behavior from a different
perspective. The majority of the theories focus on the characteristics of either the person
or the work, or an interaction of the two. Dispositionists contend that work attitudes and
behaviors are linked to characteristics of the person, while situationists argue that job
characteristics and organizational environments affect people much more strongly than
do individual differences in disposition (Stumpfer, Danana, Gouws, & Viviers, 1998).
Interactional explanations of job satisfaction are generally accepted as richer descriptions
of how individuals behave and feel in their work environments than are predictive
attempts based on either dispositional or situational variables alone.
Personal Characteristics
Some theories contend that job satisfaction is somewhat predetermined by the
personality or genetic traits of the individual. The Dispositional Attribute Theory (Judge,
Locke, & Durham, 1997; Locke, 1976) suggests that dispositional traits, such as self
esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and neuroticism, form the foundation of the human
personality and predispose individuals to behave, think, and feel in particular ways
independent of the working environment. Such theories imply that environmental
conditions are secondary to the effect of personal characteristics in determining job
16
satisfaction and that changing an existing environment is not likely to affect job
satisfaction. The contribution of research involving dispositional correlations to job
satisfaction informs both the worker and the employer. The essence of the dispositional
approach lies in the predictive power o f understanding the stable personal characteristics
that influence the individual’s affective and behavioral responses to organizational
situations. In choosing careers best suited to their personality, workers can maximize
their potential for contentment on the job. Employers can better understand how selecting
individuals with certain personality traits may influence the worker’s subsequent job
satisfaction and performance on the job.
In a seminal study, Judge (1993) proposed that the effects of job satisfaction are
better understood when the individual’s disposition is considered. This work was built on
an idea by Weitz (1952) that the consequences of workers’ job satisfaction should be
placed in the context of their propensity to be satisfied in general. Individuals with more
positive dispositions are more likely to leave an organization than those with negative
dispositions. Those who are generally satisfied with their lives also expect their work to
be gratifying and will leave a job or organization in order to fulfill this expectation. For
those with negative dispositions, however, a lack of job satisfaction is just another
element of discontent in an already dissatisfying world. This suggests that an interaction
exists between job satisfaction and disposition in predicting turnover (Judge, 1993).
Expanding on Judge’s 1993 study, several others have considered the moderating effect
of dispositional variables on the job satisfaction and turnover relationship (George &
Jones, 1996; Tang, Kim, & Tang 2000).
17
George and Jones (1996) extended Judge’s findings that disposition moderates the
job satisfaction and turnover relationship by examining a dispositional state, mood.
Although mood is an affective state, rather than a disposition, dispositions influence
states such that some people are predisposed to experience positive moods. The
researchers distilled the focus of previous research down to three broad categories: (a)
values, referred to as desirable states of being, and the extent to which a job helps or
hinders their attainment; (b) attitudes, such as job satisfaction, attached to actual work
experiences o f a particular job; and (c) moods, or how people feel when they are actually
engaged in work activities.
The study focused on the simultaneous interaction of all three categories in an
attempt to provide a richer explanation of turnover (George & Jones, 1996). The
hypothesized three-way interaction was that value attainment and mood moderated the
relationship between job satisfaction and intentions to turnover. The researchers
speculated that the negative relationship between intentions to turnover and job
satisfaction is strongest when perceived value attainment at work and mood are both
positive and weakest when both are negative. All U.S. members of a printing industry
trade association received mailed questionnaires. Participants responding, 336, (28%
response rate) were mostly male (96%), similar to that of the trade association. The
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967)
measured job satisfaction. The 10-item positive mood scale o f the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegan, 1988) measured positive mood. Three-
items with a 7-point response scale measured turnover intentions. For the study samples,
18
internal consistency coefficients of job satisfaction, positive mood, and turnover
intentions were .91, .89, and .86, respectively.
Entering job satisfaction, positive mood, and value attainment as the first block in
the hierarchical regression produced statistical significance (R = A S , p < .05). The
second block consisted of the cross-product of the three previously entered variables, of
which only job satisfaction x value attainment produced statistically significant results
(AR2= .05, p < .01). The final block was the triple interaction of job satisfaction, value
attainment, and positive mood, which resulted in very small amount of variance
explained in turnover intentions (A/?2 = .01,/? < .05). Post hoc analysis revealed that the
two subgroups characterized by values not attained exhibited the strongest negative
relationship between job satisfaction and intention to turnover, whereas the two
subgroups characterized by attained values exhibited the weakest negative relationship.
Contrary to the expected outcome, the subgroup with the characteristics of values not
attained and positive mood had the strongest negative relationship between job
satisfaction and intention to turnover (r = -.66, p < .05). Consistent with Judge’s 1993
findings, the salience o f mood on this relationship suggests that workers who have not
attained their values, but have positive moods may have the motivation, self-efficacy or
self-confidence to find another, more fulfilling position.
Rather than considering disposition in general terms, Tang, Kim, and Tang (2000)
argued that people’s attitude towards money also reflects a disposition. Similar to the
studies by Judge (1993) and George and Jones (1996), this study considered the
moderating effect o f a dispositional characteristic, attitude towards money, on the job
satisfaction and turnover relationship. The study focused on the attitude towards money
19
and job satisfaction as intrinsic, dispositional and stable, rather than as an extrinsic
reaction to dissatisfaction or alternative job opportunities. The findings of previous
research that higher wages is one of the most important reasons for voluntary turnover
underpinned the rationale that people scoring high or low on Tang’s (1995) Money Ethic
Scale will differ from one another in their turnover behavior.
The entire population of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
in southeastern United States received the initial questionnaire, with 155, or 56.36%,
responding. Participants who provided identification numbers and who were either still
on staff, stayers, (n = 62) or left voluntarily, leavers, (n = 20) received a follow-up survey
18 months later. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that respondents of
the follow-up survey were similar to non-respondents and respondents of the initial
survey.
Survey items solicited information regarding demographics, disposition towards
money (Money Ethic), commitment, intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, withdrawal
cognitions, and perceived alternative employment opportunities. The 12-item Money
Ethic Scale (MES) measured affective disposition (Cronbach’s a = .73). The short 20-
item Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967) measured intrinsic and
extrinsic job satisfaction. The researchers devised 4-items to measure withdrawal
cognitions (Cronbach’s a = .89). A single item, “the economic and market conditions are
good for me to find a new job”, measured perceived alternative employment
opportunities.
Hierarchical multiple regression supported the hypothesis that money ethic
moderated the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and withdrawal cognition.
20
The interaction between intrinsic job satisfaction and attitude towards money was
statistically significant on withdrawal cognition. Logistic analyses supported the
hypothesis that attitudes toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job
satisfaction and turnover. Individuals who place higher levels of importance on money
tend to experience higher rates of turnover. An interesting finding was that individuals
who placed low priority on money and have high intrinsic job satisfaction experienced
higher rates o f turnover than individuals who scored low on both. A possible explanation
for the high turnover in those with high intrinsic job satisfaction could be that their
positive dispositions impel them to take proactive measures in making changes in their
lives.
One such change could be not to leave an unfulfilling job, but to take steps to
make the current job more satisfying. Judge et al. (1997) findings tend to support the idea
that individuals with positive dispositions experience higher levels of job satisfaction
because they take initiatives to make their jobs more rewarding. It may be that they have
actually obtained more satisfying work, not just that their generally positive outlooks lead
to the reporting of more positive perceptions of their work. To address the criticism that
self-reports on job characteristics provide inaccurate representation of the true complexity
of a job, Judge, Bono, and Locke (2000) explored the psychological processes underlying
dispositional contributors to job satisfaction in the presence o f varying degrees of job
complexity measured objectively. A structural model that included direct and indirect
relationships between core self-evaluations on dispositional traits and job characteristics
with job satisfaction was tested using two separate studies. Core self-evaluations
manifested as dispositional characteristics stemming from fundamental assessments
21
people made about their (a) self-esteem, (b) generalized self-efficacy, (c) locus of control,
and (d) low neuroticism. A cross-sectional and a longitudinal study were conducted. The
purpose the cross sectional study, Study 1, was to show a direct relationship between core
self-evaluations and job satisfaction. In this study, covariance structure analysis using
LISREL showed that core self-evaluations had a moderately and statistically significant
positive relationship with job characteristics, job complexity and job satisfaction. Job
complexity related to perceived job characteristics and had a significant indirect
relationship to job satisfaction through the mediating effects of job characteristics.
Perceptions of job characteristics strongly related to job satisfaction. Job complexity was
not significantly related to job satisfaction.
The purpose of the longitudinal study, study 2, was to test the robustness of the
relationship between core self-evaluations, job characteristics, and job satisfaction
represented in the hypothesized model over a 30-year period (Judge et al., 2000).
Participants included respondents of the Intergenerational Studies (IGS) who had
completed the personality survey at the ages of 13, 16, and 30 to 38 and also completed
the job satisfaction data (N= 107). Expert psychologists used responses from the IGS to
assign childhood (age 13 and 16 assessments) and adult (ages 30-38 assessments) core
self-evaluations scores. An 8-item scale distributed to participants when they were 41-50
years of age measured job satisfaction. Dictionary of Occupational Titles conversion to
job complexity ratings determined job complexity. Descriptive correlations and LISREL
results were consistent with Study 1. While the relationship between core evaluations and
job satisfaction was stronger when both were measured in adulthood (r = .34, p < •01),
they were still linked, although not significantly, when core evaluations were measured in
22
childhood (r = .20). This suggests that relationship between core self-evaluations and job
satisfaction persist over time.
The studies described above represent the concern within the field of industrial
and organizational psychology to determine whether individual dispositions are stable
and measurable and what the repercussions of disposition are for optimizing effectiveness
in work roles and producing favorable work outcomes. In a meta-analysis of dispositional
assessments, House, Shane, and Herold (1996) conclude that the predictive validity of
dispositions is too strong to reject when devising theories of organizational behavior.
However, Davis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989) described two flaws of relying on longitudinal
studies that use correlational design to demonstrate the stability of dispositional effects on
job satisfaction. The first involves the circular reasoning of using the stability of a job
attitude, such as job satisfaction, to demonstrate the existence of a disposition and then
using the disposition to explain why the job attitude is stable over time. The second flaw
lies in the neglect of stable social and environmental variables that have been shown to
significantly affect job satisfaction.
Work Characteristics
In contrast to the dispositional approach, advocates of situational determinism
contend that dispositions account for a negligible amount of variance in predictions of
organizational behavior (House, et al. 1996) and that individuals are more adaptive to
their work environment than supposed by the dispositional approach (Davis-Blake &
Pfeffer, 1989). An assumption of the situationist point of view is that dispositions are
likely to be strong only in weak situations. The pressures inside most organizations
created by the institutionalization of activities, structure, and systems pose as strong
23
forces to shape individual attitude and behaviors. The strong situations present in most
organizations negate or overshadow the effects of disposition on work behaviors. An
early theory in this school of thought focused on how jobs can be redesigned to foster
desired outcomes. Hackman and Oldham (1976) theorized that the attributes of a job,
such as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, affect
psychological states, such as feeling that work is meaningful, being responsible for task
outcomes, and knowing the results of work. The consequences of these psychological
states include job satisfaction, work motivation, turnover, absenteeism, and satisfaction
with growth opportunities. The studies on work characteristics (Blau, 1999; Lawler, Hall,
& Oldham, 1974) considered the role that attributes of the work environment played in
job satisfaction. Some organizational variables studied were task responsibilities and
complexity, timeliness and quality of feedback (Blau, 1999), as well as organizational
climate, structure, and processes (Lawler, Hall, & Oldham, 1974).
An early example of environment-centered research is Lawler, Hall, and
Oldham’s (1974) examination of the role of organizational climate on the relationship
between (a) organization structure and process, and (b) organization performance and
employee job satisfaction. The researchers suspected that both the formal structure and
the process of the organization influenced the generalized perceptions formed by
employees. These perceptions defined the climate, which in turn, related to performance
and job satisfaction. To test this relationship, Lawler and his colleagues conducted a
study on the directors (n = 117) and scientists (n = 291) of research and development
laboratories in Connecticut.
24
Directors and scientists answered two different questionnaires. Directors
responded to a questionnaire pertaining to the structure and process variables and to the
performance o f technical and administrative lab employees, including performance
reviews, autonomy, assignment generality, collaboration support, and informal budget
control. Directors provided data on technical, administrative, and overall performance.
Scientists provided data on the organizational climate and job satisfaction. Factor analysis
performed on responses to a bipolar adjective scale yielded five factors for organizational
climate: competent, responsible, practical, risk-oriented, and impulsive. Scientists
responded to a 7-point scale of items asking them to indicate their level of satisfaction in
six areas: security, social, esteem, autonomy, self-fulfillment, and pay. A second, similar
scale asked scientists to indicate how much each of the six areas should be associated
with their jobs. Subtracting the scores of the second scale from those o f the first resulted
in a job satisfaction score for each scientist. Averaging the job satisfaction scores of
scientists from the same lab provided organizational scores.
Correlational analyses on the directors and the scientists revealed weakly related
process and structural variables, indicating that each are measuring different variables.
Analyses o f the 21 larger labs indicated that the structural variables had little relation to
organizational climate. O f the process variables, all areas except collaboration support
related significantly with one or more of the organizational climates. The climate factors
related significantly with the administrative and overall performance. Significant positive
relationships existed between 21 of the 30 possible correlations of climate factors and
satisfaction measures. The structure-performance and the process-job satisfaction direct
relationships exhibited low median correlations o f . 15 and .09, respectively. The results
25
indicated that organizational process, but not structure, related significantly to
organizational climate, which in turn, related significantly to performance and job
satisfaction.
Rather than considering the organization as a whole, Blau (1999) considered the
effects of specific situational occurrences of the job, namely task responsibilities and
employee performance appraisal satisfaction, on subsequent overall job satisfaction. This
longitudinal study tested two hypotheses: (a) work variables will significantly impact
subsequent overall job satisfaction beyond the control variables, prior job satisfaction,
individual difference, and organization-level variables; and (b) performance appraisal
satisfaction will significantly impact subsequent overall job satisfaction controlling for
work variables and previously controlled variables. Work variables included job
characteristics, task responsibilities, workload, and perceived control over procedure.
Factor analysis reduced underlying constructs of work variables to routine tasks and
complex tasks. Performance appraisal satisfaction referred to employee perceptions of
timeliness, accuracy, goal-setting procedures, and feedback mechanism of the appraisal
process.
A randomly stratified sample of recently graduated medical technologists working
various health-related settings received yearly mailed surveys from 1993 to 1996. The
initial response rate of 58% equated to 1156 participants, who then became the cohort for
subsequent mailings. Response rates for 1994, 1995, and 1996 were 72%, 64%, and 58%,
respectively. The items appearing on the survey changed from year to year. In 1993,
individual difference variables, work variables, and overall job satisfaction items
appeared on the survey. In 1994, participants responded to items concerning
26
organizational-level variables and performance appraisal satisfaction. In 1995, data
collection consisted o f items for organizational-level variables and work variables.
Finally, in 1996, Blau gathered information on the dependent variable of overall job
satisfaction using Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) 15-item scale.
Paired /-tests suggested that overall job satisfaction declined from 1993 to 1996
and perceived complex tasks increased from 1993 to 1995. Overall job satisfaction
related negatively to the performance of routine tasks and related positively to the
performance of complex tasks. Hierarchical regression resulted in work variables and
performance appraisal satisfaction uniquely explaining 6.4% and 2.3%, respectively, of
overall job satisfaction variance. If the performance appraisal process (timeliness,
procedures, goal setting, and procedures) is perceived as satisfactory by the employee,
then overall job satisfaction tends to be positively affected. Blau (1999) suggested that
the empirical support for the hypotheses in this study could serve to inform supervisors in
terms of task assignments and processes for performance appraisals. The results support
Locke’s (1976) earlier contention that mentally challenging work increases employees’
satisfaction with their job. Whether or not responsibilities of a job are challenging create
an immediate and strong situational influence on job satisfaction (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer,
1989). This study suggests that the manner in which feedback is delivered also poses as a
situational event that affects overall feelings towards one’s job.
In considering work characteristics (i.e. physical environment, compensation,
benefit and promotion systems, and job demands) as contributing to work behaviors and
attitudes, it is reasonable to assume that the nature of such variables are determined and
controlled by the employer. Perhaps the perception employees have o f the motives
27
underlying organizational situations or conditions could lessen an otherwise powerful
influence on job satisfaction. Does the rationale the employee attributes to the
employer’s actions moderate employee reactions to working conditions? To explore this
idea, Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997) developed a study testing the
hypothesis that the relationship between favorableness of job conditions and job
satisfaction depends on the discretionary control the organization has over the job
conditions. If discretionary control was shown to be a moderator, the ability of managers
and supervisors o f organizations to make their intentions more transparent may influence
employee beliefs and strengthen the reciprocal relationship. A random sample of
University of Delaware alumni received requests to participate via telephone. The
researchers mailed a questionnaire packet to those who consented to participate. O f those
mailed, 295, or 70%, responded.
The independent variables were favorableness of job conditions and discretionary
control over job. The rating of 18 job conditions using a 5-point Likert-type scale
measured favorableness of job conditions. Discretionary control over job conditions
resulted from respondent ipsative scaling (high, intermediate, and low discretion) of the
18 conditions (a = .90). Four items from the Quinn and Shepard’s (1974) job satisfaction
index measured overall job satisfaction. Participants responded to each item using a 7-
point Likert-type scale (a = .72). A section solicited demographic information of age,
tenure, size of organization (small, midsized, or large) and organizational category
(private, education, public sector, hospital or nonprofit institution).
Correlational analysis did not reliably support the moderating effect of
discretionary control on the relationship between favorableness of job conditions and
28
overall job satisfaction. There was no significant difference between the favorableness of
job conditions and overall job satisfaction for high- and low-discretion job conditions,
t(292) = .62. This suggests that the views of the employee regarding employer motives or
control over the job condition do not significantly affect job satisfaction. The
unpleasantness o f some working conditions is too powerful in affecting attitude and
behavior that an employee may understand that their employer is well meaning or has
little control over the condition, but still have low job satisfaction. It appears that the
situation alone, regardless of the reasons precipitating or underlying it, is a strong
indicator of job satisfaction.
Interaction o f Personal and Work Variables
There is mounting evidence that personal and environmental variables affect job
satisfaction in a complex, dynamic interaction (Stumpfer, Danana, Gouws, & Viviers,
1998). Examining disposition without considering environmental variables, leaves much
variance in job satisfaction unexplained. Ultimately, dispositions reflect tendencies, not
commands, to behave or respond to stimuli in a certain manner. However, considering
work variables to the exclusivity of disposition begs the question of why do some
changes to the environment (i.e. intervention or enrichment) produce the desired results
with one worker, only partial results with another, and totally fail with still another
worker. The approach o f the following studies considered the interactions of person and
environmental characteristics as antecedents of job satisfaction. While interactional
explanations are generally accepted, there is not a consensus on the relative weight or
importance of personal and work characteristics as contributors to job satisfaction. The
29
objective of such studies is to determine the combination of variables that are relevant in
determining job satisfaction.
The study by Ganzach (1998) provides an example of the interactional approach
to explaining job satisfaction. Rather than focusing on the dispositional component of
personal characteristics, the researcher hypothesized that a stable personal characteristic,
intelligence, and a work characteristic, job complexity, interacted to influence job
satisfaction. The study was based on a model in which intelligence has a direct negative
effect on job satisfaction and an indirect positive effect mediated by job complexity. The
causal model postulates that intelligence positively related to job complexity, possibly
due to self-selection of jobs commensurate with ability, and that intelligence positively
related to desired job complexity, possibly due to the desirability of environments that fit
intellectual characteristics. Two relevant hypotheses emerged from the model. The first
was that the tendency of intelligent people to desire more complexity in their work and
the lack o f desired complexity within many occupations results in a direct negative effect
of intelligence on job satisfaction, holding job complexity constant. The second
hypothesis was that job complexity moderates the negative direct effect of intelligence on
job satisfaction, with higher job complexity lessening the negative effect of intelligence
on job satisfaction.
Data for the study was taken from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(NLSY) conducted by the Center of Human Resource Research for 5,423 respondents
who reported spending most of their time at work in 1982 (Ganzach, 1998). Incumbent
perception of job complexity (IPJC) measured job complexity. A 4-point scaled, single
question asking, “how much do you like your job?” measured global job satisfaction.
30
Although single-item measures have been criticized for providing less construct validity
and reliability than multiple-items measures, some researchers arguably maintain that for
job satisfaction, in particular, a single-item measure may have an advantage in providing
higher construct validity, with no serious loss of reliability (Scarpello & Campbell, 1983;
Wanous & Reichers, 1996; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). To further substantiate the
use of a single-item, analyses using a multiple-item measure o f job satisfaction contained
in the NLSY yielded results very similar to analyses using the single-item measure.
Ganzach (1998) used a causal-comparative approach in which the path analysis
models shared the same pattern; intelligence has an indirect, positive effect and a direct
negative effect on job satisfaction, when measuring complexity. Adding education to the
path models resulted in a negligible direct effect of intelligence on job satisfaction, but
significantly decreased the effect of intelligence on job complexity and, therefore,
decreased the indirect effect of intelligence on job satisfaction. The significant interaction
between job complexity and intelligence on job satisfaction suggested that as the
intelligence of the individual increases so does the importance of the moderating effect of
job complexity in predicting job satisfaction. The finding that increased job complexity
lessens the negative relationship between intelligence and job satisfaction suggests that
uninteresting or boring jobs have a more profound effect on the job satisfaction of more
intelligent workers.
One o f the reasons to study job satisfaction is to inform decision makers on how
the design o f work affects individuals. Ganzach’s (1998) study supports the view that
ideally the tasks o f a job should match the worker’s abilities. While intelligence has been
consistently related to turnover on routine, repetitive jobs, there is less consistency in
31
studies of the effect o f intelligence in professional occupations requiring higher order
mental functions. Barrett, Forbes, O'Connor, and Alexander (1980) suspected that the
inconsistency arose from the high turnover rate of more intelligent workers. Previous
research failed to isolate the effect of ability on other attitudinal measures, such as job
satisfaction, because turnover among more intelligent workers obscured this relationship.
To test their hypothesis, the researchers performed a study on the relationship between
ability and job satisfaction on more complex tasks. Controlling for turnover, an
experiment was conducted in a laboratory and a field investigation was performed using
naval enlisted personnel. The study proposed that (a) less demanding tasks challenge only
those with little ability and results in a negative relationship between ability and
satisfaction and; (b) demanding tasks would be appropriate only for able subjects,
resulting in a positive relationship between ability and satisfaction.
Undergraduate students (N= 58) from the University of Akron, equally divided
into two groups, comprised the participant sample in a laboratory experiment. Monitor
screens on which slides containing 60 geometric symbols (1 cm. in diameter) were rear-
projected operationalized task complexity. The researchers simultaneously manipulated
two dimensions of task, complexity and responsibility. One group experienced low
complexity and low responsibility and the other group experienced high levels of both
complexity and responsibility. Two to four participants simultaneously viewed the slides
in three-hour sessions. Wesman Personnel Classification Test (Wesman, 1965) measured
general intelligence. The group embedded figures test (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp,
1971) and the rod-and-frame test (Witkin et al., 1954) measured perceptual ability. After
32
each session, participants described the task on the attribute description scale (Barrett et
al., 1975) and completed the work itself scale of the JDI (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969).
The field investigation used an all-male sample of 29 enlisted naval sonar and
radar operators. Naval personnel responded to the work itself scale and items to determine
how long they intended to remain in the Navy. Test scores from personnel files
determined ability. Correlational analysis indicated that higher abilities associated with
lower levels of job satisfaction and shorter intended future service. Satisfaction with the
work itself moderately associated with intended future service (r = .49, p < .01). In the
laboratory investigation, correlational studies revealed inconsistent relationships between
ability and satisfaction. For simple tasks, only one of the three correlations was
significant and in the predicted direction. For the complex tasks, two of the three
correlations were significant, but instead of the expected positive correlations between
ability and satisfaction, both exhibited strong negative correlations. The study intended to
inform job designers on considerations of ability and job responsibilities when
conducting job enrichment endeavors. The results indicate that maximization of job
satisfaction is most likely in situations when individual capabilities correspond with the
requirements o f the job. Individuals with superior performance capabilities will be more
fulfilled when they are able to utilize their talents. However, it seems reasonable that the
reward system of the organization should provide a means for the recognition of their
contribution. The implication of providing individuals with complex tasks that they
successfully perform is that they expect to be compensated accordingly.
The studies on intelligence and abilities (Barrett, Forbes, O'Connor, & Alexander,
1980; Ganzach, 1998) allude to the increased expectation of reward experienced by
33
workers who possess desirable abilities or who perform at levels they perceive to be
beyond those required for the job. For many years, theorists have referred to the nature of
employment in terms o f the exchange of the employee’s loyalty and effort for the
employer’s furnishing of economic and social benefit (Adams, 1965; Mowday, Steers, &
Porter, 1979; Vroom, 1964). Equity theory posits that individuals evaluate the exchange
relationship of the effort expended on a job and the amount of reward received.
Individuals determine equity by comparing their contributions and their rewards to those
of their comparison group.
When the ratio of contributions and rewards is in balance, the individual perceives
equity. Inequity is experienced when the ratio is out of balance. Equity theory recognizes
that perceived inequities arise not only from the absolute amount of rewards workers
receive for their efforts, but also with the relationship of this amount to what others
receive. Thus when the individual perceives that his or her contribution are equal to the
comparison and his or her rewards are lower, or his or her contributions are greater and
rewards are equal, inequity is felt. Comparisons can be with individuals in a similar or
different position within their organization, with others holding the same position in a
different organization, with others in a similar age or education cohort, or with
themselves at some other point in time (Adams, 1965).
Attributes of the work environment and the person play a critical role in whether
equity or inequity is felt by the employee. The workers compare what they contribute that
is different from other workers in determining the adequacy o f their rewards. Personal
contributions can include performance, skills, education, or hours worked. Working
34
conditions deemed to be less than those deserved or less than the comparison result in
feelings of inequity or unfairness.
Equity is a subjective evaluation and, based on the comparison used, each
individual is likely to develop different perceptions of equity. In an employer-employee
relationship, the employee is more likely to notice and react to situations of unfairness in
which they receive less reward than anticipated, rather than receiving rewards in excess
of the amount o f effort put into the job. Employee reactions to perceived inequities
manifest as work behaviors or attitudes intended to eliminate the unpleasant emotional
state resulting from the inequities (Adams, 1965) and have undesirable consequences for
the organization. A common reaction would be for the employee to lower the amount of
input in an attempt to reestablish perceptions of equilibrium. Disaffected employees may
lower their productivity, withdraw from the job or organization, or alter the frame of
reference from which the inequities result. For the employee, feelings of inequity are
unpleasant and it seems reasonable that job satisfaction would be negatively impacted
until the ratio of contributions and rewards is brought back into an acceptable balance.
Equity theory served as the basis for a study by Abraham (1999) in which she
considered whether the personal disposition of self-esteem moderated the extent to which
a worker perceived differential inequities in the work environment and the impact on job
satisfaction. Differential inequity referred to the differentiations in working environments
that represent reward value and identification of employee status. A purpose of the study
was to examine self-esteem as a moderator on the inequity-job satisfaction and the
inequity-tumover relationships. Abraham distributed and collected surveys to 108
35
participants in the telecommunication, entertainment, food service, and clothing retail
industries.
Abraham (1999) used a correlational approach to test hypotheses that: (a)
differential inequity in working conditions has an inverse relationship with job
satisfaction; (b) self-esteem moderates the inequity-job satisfaction and inequity-
intention to turnover relationships. Predictor variables were seven referents of inequity
(job, company, occupational, self, system education, and age). An adaptation of the Pay
Comparison Scale, using single-item scaling of the seven referents, measured differential
inequity. Dependent variables were job satisfaction and intention of turnover. Hackman
and Oldham’s (1975) 5-item Job Satisfaction Scale served as the job satisfaction measure
and the three-item Intention of Turnover subscale of the Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh, 1979) measured
intention to turnover. The cross product of self-esteem and inequity examined the
moderating effect of self-esteem on the dependent variables. Quinn and Shepard’s (1974)
four-item bipolar Self-Perceptions at Work Scale measured Self-esteem. Age, gender,
tenure and organizational level functioned as control variables.
Hierarchical regression explored the moderating effect of self-esteem. The
interaction of self-esteem and a composite score of inequity indicated statistical
significance for both job satisfaction and intention to turnover. Further analysis of the
interaction involved subgrouping participants by self-esteem scores into three groups: (a)
high (« = 36), (b) moderate (n = 38), and (c) low (n = 34). Mean comparisons of high and
low subgroups revealed statistical significance. The study findings suggested that self-
36
esteem does act as a moderator on the relationship of inequity with job satisfaction and
intention to turnover, with low self-esteem producing the most negative effects.
Dispositionists and situationists each contend that their favored position is a more
important antecedent to work behavior than the opposing position. Davis-Blake and
Pfeffer (1989) present a strong situational deterministic orientation, while granting that
dispositional effects probably exist, but that the dispositional research is unsound. House,
Shane, and Herold (1996) responded to the steady stream of research on situations by
stressing that too much variance in work behaviors remains unexplained for researchers
to dismiss possible explanations, such as personal characteristics. A point that both sides
agree on is direction for future research. Each concedes that an interactional approach
using situational and dispositional variables is needed for understanding organizational
behavior. In studies of dispositional and situational variables, each type of variable has
produced significant main effects on work behavior (House, Shane, & Herold). Each type
of research provides evidence that dispositional and situational variables predict job
attitudes and behaviors. Researchers would be remiss to ignore known organizational
causes of work attitudes and behaviors in designing future investigations of such work
attitudes. Failing to include both dispositional and situational variables can lead to
spurious results in which the predictive properties of the variables of interest are
exaggerated (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer). P-E fit is an approach characterizing how the
continuous and multidirectional interaction of situational and personal characteristics
affects attitudes. The construct whereby the fit between person and environment provide
a framework for understanding vocational behavior (Tinsley, 2000) will be discussed
later in the chapter.
37
Summary o f Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a complex construct that has been associated with many
different personal and organizational characteristics. Three approaches to understanding
the causes of job satisfaction focus on dispositional characteristics of the worker,
situational characteristics of the work environment, or an interaction of both dispositional
and situational characteristics. There is evidence that possessing some personal
characteristics, such as positive mood and affect, tend to increase the likelihood that good
feelings towards work will result. This could mean that persons with these traits are
happier on the job, but these same traits increases the likelihood that they will leave
should the job not meet their important needs. This turns the attention towards the job.
What is it about a job that makes it satisfying? Facet measures have attempted to pinpoint
these aspects, while overall measures may capture attitudes towards areas inadvertently
neglected in the facets measured. A job may never be satisfying for a particular person
and a previously satisfying job can become unsatisfying because of changes in the
person, the job, the organization, or the industry. Either way, workers will strive to find
and will be attracted to environments that encourage, reinforce, and reward their unique
configuration o f attitudes, competencies, and interests. Successful efforts in obtaining this
arrangement, the match between person and environment, result in happier people and
more satisfied employees.
Person-Environment Fit
Early job satisfaction studies focused on job satisfaction as a predictor of some
other consequence, such as productivity, performance, and turnover (Dawis, 1992). In
recent years, an increasing number of researchers treat job satisfaction as an outcome
38
variable. The previous section on the antecedents of job satisfaction provides only a hint
of all the possible causes that have been examined. An antecedent that captures the
essence o f the interactionist approach to understanding job satisfaction is P-E fit. The
concept of person-environment (P-E) fit as “the goodness of fit between the
characteristics o f the person and the properties of his environment” (French, Rodgers, &
Cobb, 1974, p. 316) resulted from a dialogue among psychologists regarding the relative
importance of personal characteristics versus situational effects as predictors of behavior.
It is fundamentally drawn from an interactional psychology perspective, which proposes
that the combined influence of individual and situational characteristics function to
determine individual responses to an environmental stimulus (O’Reilly, Chatman,
Caldwell, 1991). Proponents of this interactionist perspective believe that research in this
vein, while originating in psychology, holds considerable utility in organizational
behavior and human resource management (Terborg, 1981). The theory o f P-E fit refuted
the exclusivity of either personal or environmental antecedents by conjecturing that both
sides o f the interaction dynamically interact to influence behavior. Dawis contends that
P-E interaction is actually the operating force underpinning P-E fit, but that the logistical
difficulties associated with collecting, analyzing, measuring, and testing P-E interaction
forces researchers to rely on P-E fit data, from which P-E interaction can be inferred.
Matching individuals to jobs has been of interest in applied psychology, personnel
selection, and career guidance since the early 1900’s (Dawis, 1992). However, P-E fit
was linked to job satisfaction for the first time in 1953 when Schaffer examined the
extent to which needs were being satisfied by the job. Work was viewed as simply one
area of life in which the same psychological mechanisms that operate to make individuals
39
satisfied or dissatisfied in general would also contribute to satisfaction or dissatisfaction
on the job. He found that need satisfaction correlated with overall job satisfaction and
that the most important needs satisfaction of the individual correlated strongest with
overall job satisfaction (Schaffer, 1953). Since then, many researchers and theorists have
examined the role that the congruency of person and environment play in job satisfaction
(Locke, 1976; Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Vroom, 1964). Meta-analyses of P-E literature led
researchers to conclude that P-E fit is positively related to variables of employee well
being and negatively related to variables of employee discontent (Spokane, Meir, &
Catalono, 2000; Tinsley, 2000). With job satisfaction functioning as the most frequently
studied outcome of all P-E research (Tinsley), researchers have established the critical
significance o f P-E fit in the prediction of job satisfaction (Dawis). Numerous theories
exist concerning person and environment interactions, but the most studied are the
Holland theory (1973) and the Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA; Dawis & Lofquist,
1984).
There are two dominant theories in the P-E fit literature. The first is the Holland
theory, which is popular among both practitioners and researchers (Jepsen & Sheu,
2003). According to Holland (1973), the person and the environment can be described as
one of six types: realistic (R), investigative (I), artistic (A), social (S), enterprising (E),
and conventional (C). Congruence explains the extent of fit between the person and
environment. Holland proposed that higher levels of congruence would lead to greater
job or career satisfaction. Given that people of the same personality type tend to gravitate
towards people sharing that personality type, any particular work environment will tend
to reflect the characteristics of the workers within it. Because the occupants all share
40
similar characteristics, the environments can be defined by the personality type of
workers who normally reside in them. For example, a group of realistic personality types
will create an environment that rewards behaviors characteristic of this type, such as
frugality, persistence, practicality, and masculinity. Such an environment is considered
not conducive to the development of positive work attitudes and behaviors in a person
possessing traits of the social personality, such as understanding, warm, and
compassionate. A realistic environment is likely to be a breeding ground of frustration for
the social person. Pairing of individuals of a given type with like environments improves
the prediction and understanding of certain outcomes, such as (a) vocational choice,
stability, and achievement; (b) educational choice and achievement; and (c) social
behavior. The Holland theory (1973) assumed that vocational preferences and choices
developed in childhood and remained the same over long periods of time.
While the Holland theory adheres to the relatively stable aspects of the person and
environment, the other popular theory of P-E fit, the Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA;
Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) demonstrates that the development of P-E fit is a process
evolving over time. The enduring nature o f preferences and choices in the Holland theory
(1973) has led to P-E fit theories being misconstrued as an oversimplified, static
explanation of how well a worker is suited to the environment (Tinsley, 2000). However,
other theories are expressly not intended for situational assessment and diagnosis
purposes only. They represent a dynamic developmental process operating to alter levels
of P-E fit over time due to the changes on both sides of the equation. The person adapts
to the job through changes in attitude, beliefs, and behavior because of incentives and
requirements of the job. Skills, knowledge, and abilities change as employees continue to
41
develop on their on accord or through mandated training. Jobs evolve through changes in
requirements, restructuring, and the personalization of the job by the incumbent
(Fumham, 2001).
TWA defines work as the exchange of personal talents and skills for
compensation and an acceptable environment. The degree to which the person and
environment meet the other’s needs explained the researchers’ term for fit,
correspondence. Work adjustment is the process of attaining and sustaining
correspondence. The theory emphasized that correspondence of needs vs. supplies and
abilities vs. job demands affected satisfaction and satisfactoriness (Blau 1993).
Satisfaction and satisfactoriness served as internal and external indicators, respectively,
o f the degree of correspondence with the environment (i.e. work adjustment) achieved by
the individual. Satisfaction represented the person’s appraisal of correspondence, or
subjective measure, whereas satisfactoriness indicated levels of correspondence based on
sources other than self-assessment, or objective measures. Both indicators affect tenure,
which is the most observable and measurable indicator of work adjustment.
The P-E fit perspective recognizes that both the circumstances and the person
determine various effects, including job satisfaction. The theories provide guidance to
those involved in assisting individuals in selecting careers that hold the greatest potential
for future well-being. They also help direct efforts in redesigning job and helping workers
find compatibility within their existing job or organization. Counseling psychologists
tend to rely on Holland’s Theory, while vocational and organizational behavior
psychologists and researchers favor Dawis and Loftquist’s TWA (1984) model of
adjustment (Tinsley, 2000).
42
Despite the plethora of P-E fit theories, all share structural similarities in that the
same personal and organizational constructs appear in each theory (Tinsley, 2000). Two
broad categories capture the total of P-E theories. The first examines the employees’
desires in relation to job supplies. The constructs typical to this theory refer to the
attractiveness of the job to the employee and include needs, goals, values, supplies,
benefits, and reinforcers. The second category considers the relation of employee abilities
and job demands. The constructs typical to this theory refer to the ability of the employee
to perform on the job and include education, experience, aptitude, work climate, work
load, and task requirements. Fit research has distinguished between two perceptions of fit
experienced by the employee. The first, person-job (P-J) fit, referred to the employee
self-assessment of skills, knowledge, and abilities and their congruence with job
demands. The second, person-organization (P-O) fit, referred to the extent to which
employees believe their personal values, beliefs, and personality are similar to the values,
beliefs, and norms of the organization (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Cable and DeRue (2002)
provide convincing evidence that a third, and possibly more influential, perception of P-E
fit exists in which employees judge the congruence between their needs and the rewards
they receive. The researchers refer to this type as needs-supplies fit. This study will be
discussed more fully later.
Person-Organization Fit
Loftquist and Dawis proposed in 1969 that satisfaction results from a harmonious
relationship between individuals and their environment in that the effect of the individual
and the environment are reciprocal. P-O fit explains how the values and expectations of
the individual interact with aspects of the work environment, such as norms, climate, and
43
culture, to affect the individual’s attitude and behavior. Research on the effect of P-O fit
on job satisfaction has produced a wide range of results. In a meta analysis, Verquer et al.
(2003) estimated the population effect sizes of combined study results on the P-O fit and
job satisfaction relationship to range from .02 to .74. The overall relationship was
calculated using 18 correlations and nearly 18,000 participants. However, the overall
correlation of .25 with job satisfaction is moderately low, but consistent with the range of
mean correlations o f .20-.38 reported in a meta-analysis by Assouline & Meir (1987).
In considering the extent of P-O fit, individual preferences for a certain type of
organizational culture and that provided by the organization may be an important factor.
The culture of an organization represents the shared assumptions, values, and behavioral
norms of the persons occupying the positions within the given environment. Consistent
with Holland’s theory, cultures that are harmonious with one’s personality tend to be
more attractive. O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) investigated the fit between the
person and the organizational culture. In assessing the relation of person-culture fit with
job satisfaction and longevity with an organization, the researchers used a technique
based on the profile comparison process to (a) demonstrate the comparability of
individual preferred culture and the actual existence of such cultures, and to (b) establish
values on which the relationship between cultural preferences and organizational culture
can be assessed. Producing a legitimate comparison of characteristics for individuals and
organizations rested on the ability to develop a set of values common to both which can
be assessed quantitatively and to examine the congruence of the individual to the
situation, not the individual or the situation in isolation. The authors developed an
instrument, the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP), which contained 54 value
44
statements designed to capture individual and organizational values. Other measures
obtained from surveys were person-organization fit, organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, intent to leave, turnover, and control variables (age, gender, and tenure).
Data provided by five separate participant groups served as the foundation for the
development and testing of the OCP.
Results o f regression analysis indicated that person-organization fit significantly
predicted job satisfaction (R = .36, p < .01) and intentions to leave (R = .36, p < •01),
independent of age, gender, and tenure. The extent to which individual preferences of
specific values matched organizational realities predicted turnover two years later. The
research extended the findings of previous studies that support the idea that P-E fit
contributes to job satisfaction and intentions to leave, by demonstrating more specifically
that the individual’s value system and that of the organization also play a role. In
situations where the individuals preference for a particular culture is not similar to that of
the environment in which they work, job satisfaction tends to suffer. In later studies, P-O
fit has been shown to predict work outcomes separately from perceptions of P-J fit.
Lauver and Kristof (2001) operationalizing P-O fit as value congruence found that P-O
explained variance in job satisfaction unique from that of P-J fit and that P-O was better a
predictor of intentions to quit than P-J fit. P-O fit has been shown to be a better predictor
of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Cable & Judge, 1996). Cable and
DeRue (2002) found that P-O fit significantly correlated with job satisfaction (r = .53, p <
.01). Controlling for the two other types of fit, P-J fit and needs-supplies, the correlation
was still statistically significant = .28, p < .01)).
45
Person-Job Fit
Several studies have indicated that congruence between individual characteristics
and the demands o f the job are associated with positive outcomes (Mount & Muchinsky,
1978; Spokane, 1985). Cable and DeRue (2002) found that P-J fit significantly correlated
with job satisfaction (r = .33, p < .01). However, when controlling for P-O fit and needs-
supplies, P-J fit was not a significant predictor of job satisfaction. A criticism of fit
research is that studies are usually cross-sectional (Fumham, 2001) providing no
indication o f the stability of fit in predicting outcomes of interest. This is particularly
important if the assumption of the P-E fit construct is that the person, the environment, or
both can change. Addressing this concern, Saks and Ashforth (1997) longitudinally
examined the relationships between the personal characteristic of self-esteem and the
perceptions of P-J fit on college graduates prior to starting a new job, 4 months after
entry, and 10 months after entry. The researchers expected fit perceptions to relate
positively to job satisfaction. Participants of the study were graduates of an
undergraduate business program who accepted new jobs within one year (N = 231).
The researchers used pilot testing to determine validity for a general two-item
scale (one for P-O and one for P-J) developed for this study. The two general items were
included with two specific 4-item scales developed to measure each type of fit.
Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the 2-factor model provided acceptable level
o f fit (.87) with coefficient a estimated reliability for P-O at .92 and P-J at .89. In the
actual study, the two general items loaded highly on their respective scales (.88 for the P -
O item and .72 for the P-J item). Job satisfaction was measured at 4 and 10 months after
46
entry. The employer affiliation of the respondent on the 10-month questionnaire
determined turnover.
The researchers used a correlational design utilizing multiple regression analyses
to test their hypothesis. In examining the predictive value of self-esteem on P-J fit, self
esteem explained 15% of the variance in P-J fit (p < .05). P-J fit explained a significant
portion of variance in job satisfaction at 4 months (ft = .34) and at 10 months (ft = .23)
after starting a job. Examination of standardized betas indicated that self-esteem related
positively, as expected, but not significantly to job satisfaction. An interesting finding
was the stability of self-esteem in predicting job satisfaction at four and ten months after
starting a job, with the standardized beta at both intervals being .07.
When a worker has the abilities to perform the requisite tasks of a job effectively,
a good P-J fit exists (Kristof-Brown, Colbert, & Jansen 2002). When this is not present,
the inefficiencies and poor performance resulting from a deficiency in the skills and
talents necessary to perform the tasks of a particular job are likely to get the attention of
management. Khan and Morrow (1991) suggested that managers should be aware that
situations where there is a lack of fit, especially when the person is more qualified than
the job requires, also pose a threat to the organization in the form of lowered employee
job satisfaction and increased turnover. However, perceptions of congruency with
organizational characteristics and growth potential within a particular environment may
have more influence on job satisfaction than actual fit (i.e. individual education level
equals that required by the job). Previous research, measuring underemployment using
either subjective or objective exclusively, suggested a negative relationship between
underemployment and job satisfaction. Objective forms referred to employee perceptions
47
that their skills or education exceeds those required by their job and subjective forms
pertained to perceptions of underutilization of abilities. To demonstrate that the strength
of this relationship is dependent upon the measure, either subjective or objective, used to
operationalize underemployment, Khan and Morrow hypothesized that (a) subjective
measures of underemployment and job satisfaction will have a negative relationship; and
(b) subjective measures will have stronger negative relationship with job satisfaction than
objective measures.
All library assistants and laboratory technicians and 100 randomly selected
clerical workers from a Midwestern university responded to a mailed questionnaire. The
response rate was 56% with the sample (N= 256) predominantly female (94.1%). Self-
reporting of educational level and relative education comprised objective measures of
underemployment. Relative education referred the amount of education in excess of that
required by the minimum requirements of the job held. Two subjective measures of
underemployment developed for this study were four statements measuring perceived
overqualification (a = .77) and four statements measuring perceived no growth (a = .81).
The JDI (Smith et al. 1969) measured five facets of job satisfaction, the work itself, pay,
coworkers, supervision, and promotional opportunities.
Correlations revealed strong positive relations among objective measures (r = .87)
and among subjective measures (r = .46). Small to moderate positive correlations ranging
from .06 to .42 existed between objective and subjective measures. For the objective
measures, education alone related significantly to only one facet of job satisfaction, the
work itself (r = -.22, p < .01), whereas relative education did not relate significantly to
any facet of job satisfaction. For the subjective measures, only the relationship between
48
perceived no growth and pay satisfaction resulted in a nonsignificant finding. Perceived
no growth demonstrated strong and statistically significant relationships with the other
four facets, the work itself, coworkers, supervision, and promotional opportunities.
Although somewhat weaker, perceived overqualification shared a statistically significant
relationship with all facets of job satisfaction. Khan and Morrow (1991) used /-tests to
determine if any differences existed between subjective and objective measures. The
majority of possible tests (16 of 20) indicated that subjective measures of
underemployment related more strongly to job satisfaction than did objective measures.
The results o f the hierarchical regression in their study examined the unique
contribution the two subjective measures made in explaining variance in job satisfaction.
The two variables together explained 42% of the variance in job satisfaction. In reversing
the order o f entry between perceived overqualification and no growth, the regression
indicated that perceived no growth is a more important indicator for job satisfaction than
is perceived overqualification. The results indicate that simply considering objective
measures of underemployment by assigning highly educated workers to educationally
commensurate jobs is not enough to improve congruency between the person and the job.
The subjective nature of underemployment found in this study suggested to employers
that job enrichment programs in which the employee is given opportunities to learn and
grow might be useful for enhancing job satisfaction. In a follow up study, Johnson,
Morrow, and Johnson (2002) examined the effects of a mismatch between personal
qualifications and those required by the job across three independent samples. Results
indicated that there are greater negative outcomes in work attitudes perceptions of no
growth opportunities are high than when perceptions of mismatch are high. The research
49
supported the idea that optimizing person-job fit by providing opportunities for skill
development and utilization can improve job satisfaction and ameliorate some of the
symptoms of depression.
Needs-Supplies Fit
Although it is difficult to determine the actual congruence an individual
experiences with the environment, the perception of the congruence is likely more
influential in determining job satisfaction than the reality of the P-E fit, even if it could be
measured. The results demonstrated in the preceding studies underscore the importance
of subjective interpretations of the environment over actual work conditions in
determining work attitudes. They suggest that even when individuals believe they are not
optimally matched to their job, the belief that growth potential exists in their job can
temper the negative affect of the incongruence. Cable and DeRue (2002) suggested that
employees develop perceptions regarding their work on three different levels of fit:
person-organization, person-job, and needs-supplies fit. They contend that past P-E fit
research, which concentrated on person-job and person-organization fit perceptions, is
incomplete. This two-factor conceptualization of fit perceptions ignores the agreement
between employee needs and the rewards (i.e. pay, benefits, training, etc.) they receive in
exchange for their work. This new dimension of fit, called needs-supplies fit, may
represent the most important aspect of fit because it encompasses the basic motivation
individuals have for working, to be rewarded for their services.
Needs-supplies (N-S) fit describes the degree of congruency between a worker’s
perception of individual contributions to the organization and the compensation provided
by the organization. It does not imply that rewards should be equally distributed, but that
50
performance should be rewarded accordingly. Similar to the tenets of equity theory
(Adams, 1963), N-S fit conceptualizes that workers will judge the fairness of their
organization’s reward system based on their perception of their performance and the
extent to which it is rewarded. According to equity theory, an individual compares his
own ratio of outcomes (rewards) to inputs with that of some referent other, such as a
coworker or classmate. If the worker perceives that the input - rewards relationship is
inequitable, he will be motivated to balance the equation. Motivation may manifest as
contributing less to the organization or seeking other employment. Cable and DeRue
(2002) hypothesized that N-S fit is distinct ffom other forms of P-E fit and that when P-E
fit is considered as a whole, it may actually be the perceptions of contributions matching
rewards that largely account for workers’ evaluations of their suitability to their
environment.
To determine if employees perceive different types of fit with their environment,
Cable and DeRue (2002) developed and validated measurement scales for each
perception of fit. The scales developed for the study consisted of four questions for each
o f the three types of fit, which were piloted on a sample of 185 MBA students. Factor
analysis reduced the scales to three items for each type of fit. The resulting 9-item scale,
Perceived Fit Scales, was used for the main study. Two different employee samples, a
single-firm (N = 215) and a multiple-firm (N = 579) sample, responded to a survey in
which the three scales were presented in a random order. The objectives of sampling a
single firm were to analyze the factors of the scales and to optimize the generalizability
of results within an organization using a cross sectional design. The objectives of
sampling a multiple firm were to maximize generalizability across organizations and to
51
analyze the convergent and discriminant validity of the fit scales using a longitudinal
design. One year later, participants of the multiple-firm sample received a match coded
self-survey and supervisor survey, with instructions on how to distribute the supervisor
survey.
The reliability coefficients of the three developed scales for the single-firm and
the multiple-firm sample ranged from .89 to .91 and .84 to .91, respectively. Cable and
DeRue(2002) used a correlational design involving confirmatory factor analysis (df= 24)
of the hypothesized model and four alternative models, indicating that the hypothesized
three-factor model offered the best fit of the data for both the single-firm ( j2 = 87) and
the multiple firm sample f /2 = 106.3). Simultaneous multiple regressions of the three
types of fit on the dependent variables, except the dichotomous turnover decisions,
revealed a high level o f convergent and discriminant validity for the hypothesized model.
Needs-supplies emerged as the strongest predictor of both job and career satisfaction (P =
.45, P = 34, p < .01). The results emphasized the complexity in which individuals
perceive overall congruency with their environment. Individuals differentiated between
their levels o f fit with the organization’s culture, the demands of the job, and the rewards
they receive for performing the job. The researchers concluded that job satisfaction stems
ffom perceived fit between needs and rewards and not because o f shared values with the
organization or the ability to perform the job. Correlations and beta coefficients support
the researchers’ conclusion that N-S is a stronger predictor than either P-O or P-J. Simple
correlations indicate that needs-supplies is more closely associated with job satisfaction
(r = .61) than either P-O fit (r = .53) or P-J fit (r =.33). However, the results of the
52
multiple regression analysis indicate that P-O is also a significant predictor of job
satisfaction (P = .28, p < .01).
The findings o f these empirical studies underscore the importance that finding a
job or organization that meets an individual’s talents, needs, and cultural preferences play
in both employee well-being and organizational outcomes. As early as the job search
phase, P-E fit can influence future job satisfaction (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Subjective
evaluations of person-job fit related positively to job satisfaction and negatively to
intentions to turnover and stress symptoms (Kahn & Morrow, 1991; Johnson, Morrow, &
Johnson, 2002). Even when optimal P-E fit is achieved at the onset of a new job with an
organization, there is no guarantee that the perception of fit will continue. As the
worker’s needs change and evolve, the job must also change and evolve as the worker
continually strives to achieve correspondence between their needs and the capacity of the
job to fulfill those needs. Thus, a good P-E fit can become poor, and vice versa.
Perceptions of limited growth opportunities within an organization have negative
consequences on emotional attachment to the organization and tend to increase a kind of
commitment that is based on high costs of leaving the organization (Johnson, Morrow, &
Johnson, 2002). Feelings of being underutilized positively relate to somatization, which
may manifest as additional stress for the employee and a tendency for the employee to
blame the organization for their career disappointments. The stability of person-
organizational fit in predicting job satisfaction one year after assessment and turnover
two years after assessment supported the idea that the suitability of the culture to the
person contributes to job satisfaction (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991).
53
Summary o f Person-Environment Fit
Empirical studies testing P-E fit theories, such as the ones described in this
section, support the diagnosis of fit problems within jobs and organizations by providing
methods and ideas for facilitating career and personal development of employees. Most
o f the research on the P-E fit and job satisfaction relationship is couched in terms of
congruence based on Holland’s theory (1975) and use indices reflective of Holland
personality types. In studies testing the Holland theory predictive value of job
satisfaction, the results are unclear (Fumham, 2001). Several meta-analyses have been
performed to evaluate this relationship and the consensus appears to be that the amount of
variance explained in job satisfaction depends on the congruence index used (Assouline
& Meir, 1987; Young, Tokar, and Subich, 1998). Other studies on P-E fit test the
theoretical formulation of needs and values provided by the Theory o f Work Adjustment
(Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) and use instruments developed by the Minnesota Work
Adjustment Project. Both the Holland and TWA theories postulate that personality types
moderate the P-E relationship.
The challenge facing these theories is the current inability to operationalize
personality variables (Tinsley, 2000). There also is debate about whether subjective or
objective measures are appropriate for measuring work outcomes. In subsequent studies
on TWA, Dawis and Lofquist (1984) explored a similar theory of adjustment by French,
Rodgers, and Cobb’s (1974) that incorporated objective and subjective measures of
person and environment to obtain measures on the accuracy o f employee self-assessment
and employee reports o f reality. The general assumption of the French theory is that large
differences in objective or subjective fit measures indicated lack of adjustment and will
54
be associated with negative employee outcomes. Dawis and Lofquist concluded that in
the same study on the same participants, subjective measures of P-E fit were found to be
better predictors of job satisfaction than objective measures. In examinations of the
employee outcome of job satisfaction, it is reasonable that a subjective measure of
suitability with the environment would affect how happy people are with their work
situation. A person may be perfectly matched to the demands of the job, the norms of the
organization, and the rewards received, but if the person does not believe this to be the
case, the feelings o f mismatch are likely to affect his or her attitude towards work.
Rather than attempting to assess an individual’s P-E fit by matching their reported
personality types to their current environment, it may make more sense to simply ask
them to access their fit. Perceptions of fit are better predictors of behavior than the actual
fit between the person and the environment because they are more proximal to the
choices people make (Cable & Judge, 1997; Kristof, 1996). Whether or not workers are
actually suited to the job and organization and are being fairly compensated, their beliefs
about the fit of these relationships affect their attitude. Locke (1976) noted that the degree
to which the job fulfills or allows the fulfillment of needs determines the degree of job
satisfaction experienced. The degree to which people believe there is match between their
needs and those supplied by their environment should affect work behaviors and
attitudes, including job satisfaction. Relatively little research could be found that used
alternative perceptions of fit as means to measure how well the employee felt they were
suited to their job, organization, and the degree to which they felt their contributions were
duly rewarded. The scales developed by Cable and DeRue (2002) to measure three
distinctive types o f fit perceptions is a noted exception and requires more research.
55
Gender-Related Studies in Job Satisfaction and P-E Fit
Women entered the workforce during the 1970’s in such numbers that by 1980,
43% of the workforce consisted of women (Forgionne & Peeters, 1982). In accordance
with this influx of women in the workplace, many studies examined the possible
differences in work outcomes, such as job satisfaction, between the sexes. The literature
on biological gender differences in job satisfaction abounds with inconsistencies. Some
studies find that women have higher job satisfaction (Summers & DeCotiis, 1988), some
studies conclude that men are more satisfied (Chiu, 1998; Forgionne & Peeters, 1982),
and others observe no significant differences (Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Hulin and
Smith (1964) were the first to suggest that gender differences in attitudes toward work
may simply reflect the systematic differences in occupational and organizational
socialization. As a result, most subsequent research controlled for the potential effects of
differing social and work environments by including covariates or restricting samples to
men and women in the same occupation or job level (Chiu, 1998; Dodd-McCue &
Wright, 1996; Fields & Blum, 1997; Keavenly & Inderrieden, 2000; Summers &
DeCotiis).
Research on gender-related issues in job satisfaction remains in a state of
confusion largely because of differences in methodology. Gender related issues were
seldom incorporated into the design of studies (Smith, Smits, & Hoy, 1998). Some
researchers (Hulin & Smith, 1964) have speculated that the usage of control variables can
profoundly alter the results o f studies questioning whether women experience more or
less job satisfaction than men. In studies that found women experienced less job
satisfaction, the addition of control variables (i.e. age, salary, occupational rank, and
56
promotional opportunities) removed the gender difference in job satisfaction (Chiu,
1998). Hulin and Smith (1964) recommended the use of control variables by stating, “It
is, rather, the entire constellation of variables which consistently covary with sex; for
example, pay, job level, promotion opportunities, societal norms, etc., that it likely
causing the differences in job satisfaction” (p. 91).
Gender has been mentioned in the reviews and meta-analyses of the P-E fit
literature in relation to the theoretical perspective of Holland (1973). Spokane (1985)
concluded that although the studies do not support gender as a moderator of the
congruence and outcome relationship, significance between genders appear to depend
upon the distribution of personality types within the sample. Some types, such as
investigative, are more stable than others, such as social (Holland, 1973). If more males
than females represent investigative, then the results would be skewed in favor of males,
and vice versa. Moreover, Spokane acknowledged that, in congruency studies, the
distribution o f types among male and female participants is unreported. Tranberg, Slane,
and Ekeberg (1993) indicated that correlations between male and females were not
significant (r = .17), but conceded that only three of the 27 studies they reviewed reported
results by gender. Young, Tokar, and Subich (1998) explored the possibility that gender
moderated the congruency-job satisfaction relationship by correlating 11 different
congruency indices with each of the scores obtained ffom two job satisfaction
instruments, the JDI (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and Hoppock Job Satisfaction
Blank (1935). Using Fisher’s z test, none of the 22 correlations differed significantly by
gender (p > .01).
57
Much less studied in the job satisfaction literature is the effect of gender roles on
work outcomes. While researchers of subsequent studies pointed to the lack of
appropriate control variables as the main reason that biological gender differences in
overall job satisfaction and the individual facets (pay, promotions, co-workers,
supervision, and procedures) remain ambiguous (Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Summers &
DeCotiis, 1988), few examined the influence of social roles dictated by gender role.
Eagly (1987) defined gender roles as society’s expectation of the behaviors and qualities
that apply to individuals based on their socially identified gender (p. 12). The
inconsistencies in the gender-related research may be partially explained by the difficulty
of controlling for an individual’s conformity to gender roles (Eagly). Contemporary
theories of gender in social behavior hold that gender differences only manifest in certain
circumstances and to varying degrees, highlighting the situational dependence of gender
role effects (Deaux & Major, 1987).
Gender roles are culturally acquired and learned through the socialization process
(Schichman & Cooper, 1984). In American society, males are socialized to be decisive,
independent, and achievement-oriented, while females are encouraged to be sensitive,
loyal, and expressive. These are but a few descriptors that form the masculine and
feminine gender roles. Constantinople (1973) initially proposed the idea that masculinity
and femininity were not mutually exclusive categories such that being highly masculine
does not necessarily make one highly un-feminine. Thus, a person could concurrently,
and to any degree, possess masculine and feminine qualities. Measures of masculinity
(M) and femininity (F) devised before Constantinople's (1973) proposal treated gender
groups as extremes of one dimension with femininity and masculinity conceptualized as
58
opposite ends of a continuum. Constantinople criticized the mutual exclusivity of M and
F on which these measurement schemes were based and the treatment of M and F as
biologically determined and, thus, constant and indisputable. Treating masculine and
feminine traits as inherent to biological gender suggested that they were predictable and
embedded in anatomy, physiology and early experience, thus limiting their usefulness to
differentiating between men and women in appearance, attitudes and behavior.
Incorporating Constantinople's idea of masculinity (M) and femininity (F) as
independent constructs, Bern (1974) proposed that an individual may exhibit both
masculine and feminine behaviors depending on the contextual appropriateness of the
behavior. The development of the BSRI resulted ffom Bern’s desire to measure such
androgyny. The BSRI enables researchers to obtain a measure of psychological
androgyny, or high levels o f both masculinity and femininity. Androgynous individuals
respond to situations by portraying masculine traits, such as assertiveness and
instrumentality, but not to the exclusivity of feminine attributes, such as yielding and
expressiveness, when the situation dictates. Bern contends that individuals who are highly
sex-typed, either feminine women or masculine men, may be limited in their ability to
adapt their behavior ffom situation to situation. For example, the range of behaviors
considered acceptable to a highly feminine person would severely restrict such a person
when placed in a situation requiring stereotypically accepted masculine behavior. A
person with an androgynous role identity possesses a wider repertoire of behaviors ffom
which to draw, responds to the demands of any situation, and consequently is more
flexible and well adjusted. Androgynous individuals score high on both scales, while
undifferentiated score low on both. While the resulting sex role identity categories
59
correlate with biological gender, they do not overlap: not all males are masculine and not
all females feminine according to this index.
Prior research has generally supported that androgynous and masculine
individuals possess more desirable psychological traits than feminine or undifferentiated
people. Masculine sex-role orientation significantly related to higher occupational status,
job satisfaction, lower turnover (Maupin & Lehman, 1994; Blanchard-Fields & Friedt,
1988) and perceptions of effective leadership (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Studies
indicated that androgyny positively relates to marital and personal satisfaction (Cooper,
Chassin, Zeiss, 1985; Rotheram & Weiner, 1983). Schichman and Cooper (1984) found
that androgynous respondents scored higher on measures of general life satisfaction than
masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated respondents. Similar advantages of androgyny
were reported in studies considering the more specific domain of job satisfaction.
Eichinger, Heifetz, and Ingraham (1991) and Chow (1987) indicated that androgynous
women in samples of female special education teachers (N= 78) and employed Asian
American women (N = 161), respectively, tended to score higher on global job
satisfaction measures than sex-typed or undifferentiated women.
Although there has been attention to biological gender, little work has been done
on gender roles in relation to P-E fit. A notable exception that speaks directly to the
influence of gender role on women’s success in identifying and obtaining occupations
congruent with their personality type is a study by Wolfe and Betz (1981). The
inconsistency in research pertaining to Holland’s theory applicability to both men and
women led the researchers to ponder if previous investigations categorizing participants
by biological gender were making the groupings too broad and simplistic. More
60
specifically, they speculated that grouping women according to biological gender ignored
that there are different types of women and some, possibly due to their perceived gender
role, achieve greater congruency. No significant relationship was found between
congruence and gender role category for the sample (N = 184). However, results
indicated that masculine typed women (50%) were more likely to make congruent career
choices than women in the feminine (38%), androgynous (31 %), or undifferentiated
(24%) category. Generalizing the results is problematic as the survey data was collected
from female undergraduate students who were not actually in the workplace, but were
responding to questions regarding their chosen, future career choice.
Eagly (1987) discusses the gender-stereotypic beliefs about behaviors that men
and women internalize, which affect the behaviors they choose as appropriate. Highly
sex-typed people are not likely to choose behaviors that are in opposition to their self
perceived gender role, even when the situation calls for such behavior. For example, a
highly feminine woman is not likely to display aggressive behavior at work even when
that type o f behavior is fitting and rewarded. Bern (1974) suggests that individuals who
identify more readily with either feminine or masculine traits are more restricted in their
repertoire o f behaviors they deem as acceptable to exhibit in any given situation. Further,
she contends that androgynous individuals possess a wider range of behaviors they may
consider appropriate. The chances appear to be greater that the correct response to
situational stimuli will be chosen when a larger range o f behaviors, both masculine and
feminine, is available.
While androgyny appears to be indicative o f mental health and behavioral
versatility in many studies, some researchers suggest that it is the masculine, not the
61
feminine, component of androgyny that differentiates participants on dependent measures
(Bassoff & Glass, 1982; Long, 1989). In women, masculinity has been associated with
stronger feelings o f personal accomplishment, higher occupational status (Eichinger, et.
al., 1991), greater problem-solving coping and lower levels of stress (Long). Similarly,
masculinity in male nurses has been associated with positive indicators of well-being,
such as less stress, less perceived isolation, and more adaptive coping in work-related
environments (Krausz, Kedem, & Amir, 1992).
The salience of gender role suggests that men and women are socialized to have
different values, attitudes, and behaviors associated with work. Empirical studies
conclude that gender roles are a significant influence on work-related behavior and
attitudes (Gianakos, 2000). The research on gender roles influence on job satisfaction
indicates that androgynous individuals experience greater job satisfaction (Eichinger,
2000; Eichinger, Heifetz, & Ingraham, 1991; Schuttenberg & O’Dell, 1990). However,
most o f these studies were conducted on participants in the education field and the
generalizability of results to other professions is uncertain. Two studies testing the effects
o f gender roles on job satisfaction among special education teachers supported the
adaptive value of the androgynous gender role, albeit not conclusively (Eichinger, 2000;
Eichinger, et al, 1991). Both studies employed the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank
(Hoppock, 1935) and the BSRI (Bern, 1974) and both used a fourfold classification
system to define the groups as instrumental, expressive, balanced, and undifferentiated.
The 1991 study examined women ( N - 78) only found that balanced women scored
higher on job satisfaction {M = 5.67, F= 3.03, p < .05) than the other three groups
(Eichinger, et al.). Although not statistically significant using ANOVA, the results in the
62
2000 study (Eichinger) on a sample of men (n = 43) and women (n = 89), found that
instrumental women and balanced men scored higher on job satisfaction than the other
groups. The results o f this study suggest that masculinity in women and androgyny in
men are beneficial in achieving job satisfaction. However, for women, balanced was the
next highest job satisfaction mean score with the only a slight difference between
instrumental women (M = 5.73) and balanced women (M = 5.57).
Schuttenberg and O'Dell (1990) found that more androgynous women and
masculine men reported greater job satisfaction than the other gender role type/gender
combinations. This study also used the BSRI (Bern, 1974) split into four categories and
participants from the education field, similar to the Eichinger (2000) and Eichinger et al.
(1991) studies. However, the study measured job satisfaction by asking a single question
inquiring about the level of job satisfaction on a 4-point scale (very little satisfaction, low
satisfaction, moderate satisfaction, and great satisfaction). Due to small cell sizes, the
first three categories were grouped together (very little to moderate) and contrasted with
the fourth category (great satisfaction) producing a significant relationship, ^ (3 , N =
288) = 5.13,p = .05. The result of collapsing the first three cells is that information is lost
and the dependent variable is reduced to a dichotomy, great satisfaction or not.
Summary
Previous research is inconclusive, but tends to support the theory that the
masculine traits of the androgynous individual, such as decisiveness, aggression,
ambition, and dominance, are the deciding factors when considering the outcome o f job
satisfaction. It can be argued that these are the types of behaviors that are valued and
rewarded in the workplace, and thus, predict success in a career. Masculinity relates to
63
preferences for more challenging careers, stronger self-efficacy in career decision-making
(Gianakos, 1995), assertiveness, and analytical decision-making skills (Gianakos, 2002).
In contrast, femininity is associated with selection of careers that are feminine-
dominated, lower in status, and limited in opportunities. While feminine women express
high self-efficacy in career decision making (Gianakos), their tendency to seek approval
from others (Long, 1989) and to have avoidance and support-seeking coping styles
(LaCroix & Haynes, 1987) hinders their career progress. The empirical studies mentioned
suggest that the instrumental traits associated with masculinity are predictive of positive
work-related outcomes. It seems reasonable that a masculine employee would be more
likely to find a better fit with their work environment and experience greater job
satisfaction than a feminine employee.
Little research has been found that considered the relationship between gender
role and fit or gender role and job satisfaction. The studies that did examine these
constructs measured the dependent variables, fit and job satisfaction, in overall or global
terms. Those on gender role and fit had the objective of testing the versatility of
Holland’s personality typology (1973), finding little or no support for the applicability of
the theory to gender roles (Miller, Knippers, Burley, & Tobacyk, 1993; Wolfe & Betz,
1981). As such, they considered the overall fit or congruency, not distinct types of fit
perceptible by the employee, such as person-organization, person-job, and needs-supplies
described by Cable and DeRue (2002). Although researchers have reported the affect of
gender-role on global job satisfaction (Schuttenberg & O'Dell, 1990), understanding
gender-role’s effect on more specific aspects of job satisfaction, such as satisfaction with
64
pay, co-workers, etc., may provide a richer explanation of how identification with a
gender role affects work outcomes.
No research has been located that tested the moderating effect of gender role
(Bern, 1974) on different types of fit perceptions and job satisfaction. This is the primary
purpose of this study. The study is exploratory in determining if femininity or masculinity
affects the direction and/or strength of the relationship between the predictor variable, P-
E fit, and the criterion variable, job satisfaction (Baron & Kenny, 1986). It is expected
that high levels o f masculinity will moderate the relationship, while femininity will not.
The predictive value o f gender role or the three types of fit on the facets of job
satisfaction is unknown, but will be assessed on the sample used in this study. The scales
measuring these three types of fit used in Cable and DeRue’s 2002 study are relatively
new and require more reliability and validity testing. The secondary purpose of this study
is to examine the usefulness of these scales in predicting job satisfaction.
65
CHAPTER III
METHOD
The topics presented in this chapter include a description of the participants,
sampling procedure, design, and measurement of major variables. The instruments, a
brief description o f their development, and their psychometric properties are described.
The statistical analyses used to address the research questions are stated.
Participants
The target population included practicing Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) in
the United States. The survey population consisted of CPAs residing in Kentucky. From a
list of approximately 7,000 CPAs provided by the Kentucky State Board of Accountancy,
a state agency responsible for licensing and regulating CPAs and CPA firms in Kentucky,
500 CPAs were randomly selected. Each received a mailed survey containing the Bern
Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), the abridged Jobs in General (JIG), the abridged Job
Descriptive Index (JDI), a nine item scale called the Perceived Fit Scale (PFS), and a
demographic information form. Participants received a token of appreciation of $1.00 for
their participation. Of the 500 mailed, 317 (63.4%) responded with usable surveys. The
average age of the sample was 44.34 (SD = 10.42) with approximately 59% male and
41% female. Average length of service was 114.15 (SD = 104.88). Table 1 provides this
demographic information by biological gender. Sample information regarding
66
organizational size, daycare needs, and whether or not the participant works primarily
from home is provided in Table 2.
Table 1
Age and Length o f Service by Biological Gender
Variable M SD
Females (N = 128)
Age 41.51 10.00
Months o f Service 134.00 116.21
Males (N = 184)
Age 46.05 10.27
Months of Service 85.61 78.00
Table 2
Percentages fo r Organizational Size, Daycare Needs, and Working from Home
Variable Females Males Total Sample

(ii = 128) (n= 184) (V = 312)
Organizational Size
Sole practitioner 7.0 11.4 9.6

2 - 5 0 employees 39.1 38.6 38.8
51 - 100 employees 10.9 6.5 8.3
101 - 500 employees 14.1 14.1 14.1
501 - 1,000 employees 4.7 2.7 3.5
More than 1,000 employees 24.2 26.6 25.6
Has daycare needs 32.0 10.9 19.6
Works from home 6.3 4.3 5.1
67
Sampling Procedure
Three different estimates of sample size were considered. An adequate sample for
multiple regression was calculated using a = .05, power = .90, and, from the literature, an
estimated R2 = .10 (Mount & Muchinsky, 1978; Spokane, 1985). Using L value = 17.42
(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003, p. 181) and calculating/2 = .11, an estimated
sample size o f 164 is required. The following equations were used:
n* = -=q- + * + 1 = iZ lf l + 6 + 1 =163.94
/ .111
0
l- * 2 -9°
Using the rule o f thumb of 15 participants per predictor (Stevens, 2002), the
minimum sample size (N = 90) needed to support the reliability of the regression equation
was determined. However, the secondary purpose of this study was to examine the factor
structure of the PFS using CFA. Stevens recommends 15 participants per item to obtain a
stable factor structure. Given that there are 20 items, 10 M and 10 F, 300 participants
were needed. It is recommended that the 10 neutral items be used as filler items (Bern,
1981). Since the goal is to achieve an adequate response rate of 60% (Dillman, 2000), a
random sample of 500 participants was selected.
Design
This study incorporated a non-experimental design in which data was collected
via a survey instrument composed of Likert-type scaled responses. The primary purpose
o f this study was to examine the relationship between the predictor variables of P-E fit
and gender role and the criterion variables of overall and facet job satisfaction. The
68
secondary purpose of this study was to further examine the factorial validity of the three
3-item scales developed by Cable and DeRue (2002) and the value o f the PFS in
predicting job satisfaction. To accomplish both of these objectives, gender role
(femininity and masculinity), overall P-E fit, P-O fit, P-J fit, and N-S fit was treated as
predictor variables. Job satisfaction functioned as six criterion variables, one global
measure and five facets (work, pay, coworkers, supervision, and promotion).
The survey instrument contained sections on demographic information, the five
facets of job satisfaction (JDI), overall job satisfaction (JIG), masculinity and femininity
(BSRI), and the Perceived Fit scales. Demographic information included age, gender,
primary work location, organizational size, length of service, and daycare needs.
The sample received a prenotice letter indicating that in a few days they will
receive a request to assist in a study and that a token of appreciation will be given for
their consideration. The survey was mailed a week later. The survey mailout contained a
personalized cover letter detailing the purpose of the survey, a consent form, the
questionnaire, a SI bill, and an addressed and postage-paid enveloped to return the
instrument (see Appendices A through C for copies of correspondence and Appendix D
for the survey).
Major Variables
The major predictor variables were the gender roles, femininity (F) and
masculinity (M), and the fit variables of needs-supplies (N-S) fit, person-job (P-J) fit,
person-organization (P-O) fit, and overall fit. The scale o f all variables was continuous.
The BSRI provided an M score and an F score for each participant. The 9-item PFS
provided the four fit scores. The average of the three items representing each type of fit
69
(N-S, P-J, and P-O) yielded three scores for each participant. The average of all nine
items served as the score for overall fit. The primary dependent variable was overall job
satisfaction variables as measured by the JIG. Each of the facets (work, pay, promotion,
supervision, and coworkers) measured by the JDI also served as dependent variables in
secondary analyses.
Instruments
The Job Descriptive Index (JDI)
The JDI uses 72 adjectives or short phrases to assess five facets of job
satisfaction. The five facets of satisfaction measured by the JDI are work, pay,
promotion, supervision, and coworkers. The process for taking the JDI requires the
respondent to indicate the level of relevance an item has to that particular facet by
selecting a listed adjective or short phrase. The format asks respondents to record “Y”,
for yes, if the item is applicable to the facet, “N”, for no, if it is not applicable or “?” if
they are unsure. A revised weighting procedure calculates the scores (Smith, Kendall, &
Hulin, 1969). Yes responses to a positive item and no responses to negative items
receives a score of 3. Yes to a negative item and no to a positive item receives a score of
0. Responses of “?” received a score of 1. Each individual receives five scores, one for
each facet.
Development o f the JDI. Smith et al. (1969) developed the Job Descriptive Index
(JDI) to provide a valid attitudinal measure of five facets of job satisfaction that can be
ascertained in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Facet measures treat job satisfaction as
a multidimensional construct by identifying the components of job satisfaction and
allowing each to be measured independently. They are particularly effective in
70
diagnosing the specific problem areas in which management should concentrate their
efforts. Advantages of the JDI are its applicability to workers with varying verbal skills in
a variety o f jobs and situations and it is ease of reading, administration, and scoring.
The care taken by the researchers in developing the JDI has led to the popularity
of the instrument and its continued development. After an extensive literature search,
Stanton et al. (2001) found more than 300 studies that used some form of the JDI. During
its conception, the researchers conducted four separate studies using very different
samples to evaluate the accuracy and discriminant and convergent validity o f the JDI.
Correlations between the JDI and other rating measures of job satisfaction indicated that
the JDI possessed good discriminant and convergent validity. In a study on 80 male
employees from two plants, split-half estimates of internal consistency for work, pay,
promotions, supervision, and co-workers were .84, .80, .86, .87, and .88, respectively.
The abridged JDI (aJDI). The 25-item aJDI developed by Stanton et al. in 2001
maintains much o f the psychometric properties of the original version while reducing the
item count, time of administration, and space on the survey instrument. Each facet is
measured with five items. Example items for each facets include “dull” and
“uninteresting” for work, “fair” and “underpaid” for pay, “promotion on ability” and “fair
promotion” for promotion, “praises good work” and “tactful” for supervision, and
“intelligent” and “lazy” for coworkers. In addition, it exhibits patterns of correlation
between each o f the five scales and with the Job in General (JIG) that are similar to the
long-version. The JIG is a general measure of job satisfaction that will be discussed later
in this chapter.
71
Validity o f the aJDI. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare the long
and shortened versions of the JDI to external criteria (Stanton et al, 2001). The external
criteria to which both versions were compared were the 18-item JIG and a 6-item
measure of intentions to quit (ITQ; Parra, 1995). A sample was drawn to complete the
long version (N = 1,609). This sample was divided into two subsamples with one
representing the long version (n = 782) and the other representing the items contained in
the abridged scales (n = 752). While a statistically significant chi-square would indicate
that the abridged model was a worse fit of the data than the long version, the large sample
size will increase the sensitivity of the test to relatively small changes between the
correlation matrices o f the models (Stanton, et al.). To address this, internal correlations
among the facets and external correlations of the JDI scales with the JIG and ITQ were
fixed. Neither fixing correlations internally (A /2 = 10.8(10), GFI= 1.00, NNFI= 1.00)
nor extemally(A x = 7.5(10), GFI = 1.00, NNFI - 1.00) produced significant increases in
chi-square, suggesting that observed differences between the long and abridged version
o f the JDI were insubstantial. Therefore, the abridged version was considered as valid as
the long version.
Reliability o f the aJDI. A separate sample responded to the shortened version (N =
647) to cross-validate the abridged scales (Stanton et al, 2001). In the cross validation
study, the coefficient alpha estimates obtained for the five facets were similar to those
obtained from the abridged scales. Expectedly, slightly smaller reliability coefficients
than those obtained from the long version were observed. The coefficients for work, pay,
promotions, supervision, and co-workers were .84, .75, .82, .83, and .76, respectively. All
were still above .70 threshold recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994).
72
Coefficient alpha estimates of the abridged scales with the JIG and the ITQ were .92 and
.90, which are deemed more than satisfactory. The present study uses the abridged
version of the JDI with each individual receiving five scores, one for each facet, ranging
from 0 to 15.
The Job in General (JIG) Scale
Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, and Paul (1989) developed the 18-item JIG as
a global scale to accompany the facet scales of the JDI. The researchers speculated that a
global scale would provide a better estimate of overall job satisfaction than a composite
score of the five facet scales of the JDI. They reasoned that the facet scales may exclude
some areas that are key predictors of job satisfaction for some individuals or, conversely,
may contain areas that are inconsequential for a particular worker. Furthermore,
individuals responding to a direct question about their general feeling towards work are
likely to incorporate different mental processes than when responding to questions
regarding specific aspects o f work. To that end, the researchers surveyed the literature to
compile a list of 42 adjectives and short phrases concerning overall feelings about a job.
Reliability and Validity o f the JIG. Factor analysis reduced the collection of 42
items to 18 global evaluative items representing one factor, overall job satisfaction
(Ironson et al., 1989). Three large heterogeneous samples (N= 1,149, 3,566, and 4,490)
were used to evaluate reliability and validity of the JIG. The JIG is scored the same as the
JDI, but is designed to provide an evaluation of the employee’s “job in general.” The
coefficients o f internal consistency for the groups ranged from .91 to .95, which indicates
high reliability o f the scale across the samples (Vogt, 1999). Moderately high correlation
coefficients (r = .67 to .80) of the JIG with four other measures of overall job satisfaction
73
established minimally acceptable convergent validity indicating the JIG is measuring a
construct similar to the other measures. Since the goal of the JIG was to measure the
overall feeling towards a job, rather than summing the feelings towards individual aspects
o f the job, it was important that the JIG not be equivalent to the composite of the JDI.
Discriminant validity was demonstrated because the JIG predicted general measures,
such as intent to leave, life satisfaction, trust in management, and identification with the
organization, while the JDI predicted variables representative o f the facets it is intended
to measure, such as trust in fellow employees (coworkers), merit system (pay), and
feedback.
The abridged JIG (aJIG). Following procedures similar to those used by Stanton
in developing the aJDI, Russell et al. (2004) reduced the scale while maintaining the
validity and reliability of the long-version. In three separate validation studies, the aJIG
yielded coefficient alpha of at least .85. Similarities between the covariance matrix of the
original and the abridged support the abridged version’s compatibility with the five facets
of job satisfaction of the JDI. The current study used the 8-item abridged version of the
JIG (aJIG) with scores ranging from 0 to 24 with higher values indicating greater overall
job satisfaction.
Perceived Fit Scale (PFS)
Cable and DeRue (2002) developed the 9-item PFS scale to address the
confounding aspect of other instruments that do not distinguish between different types of
fit that employees perceive. Previous research focused on person-job (P-J) and person-
organization (P-O) fit perceptions. This two-factor conceptualization of fit ignores the
agreement between employee needs and the rewards (i.e. pay, benefits, training, etc.) they
74
receive in exchange for their work. The importance o f this type of fit, called needs-
supplies (N-S) fit, is steeped in the basic motivation individuals have for working, to be
rewarded for their services. The PFS attempts to measure the three different types of fit,
P-O, P-J, and N-S fit using three 3-item subscales.
Development o f the PFS. In developing the PFS, the researchers addressed the
current measurement issue o f fit scales that commingled the types of fit and ignored
needs-supplies fit altogether. The scales developed for the study consisted of four
questions for each of the three types of fit piloted on a sample o f 185 MBA students. For
the main study, factor analysis reduced the scales to three items for each type of fit. The
items were presented in random order on the survey instrument with response choices
using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
The three items measuring P-O fit were: “The things that I value in life are very
similar to the things my organization values,” “My personal values match my
organization’s values and culture,” and “My organization’s values and culture provide a
good fit with the things that I value in life.” The three items measuring N-S fit were:
“There is a good fit between what my job offers me and what I am looking for in a job,”
“The attributes that I look for in a job are fulfilled very well by my present job,” and
“The job that I currently hold gives me just about everything that I want from a job.” The
three items measuring P-J fit were: “The match is very good between the demands of my
job and my personal skills,” “My abilities and training are a good fit with the
requirements of my job,” and “My personal abilities and education provide a good match
with the demands that my job places on me.” The nine items on the fit scales produced
75
four scores: a P-O fit score, a P-J fit score, a N-S score, and an average of the nine
responses representing an overall person-environment (P-E) fit score.
For validation purposes, two different employee samples responded to a survey.
The objectives of the first sample (A'' =215) were to examine the factor structure of the
scales and to optimize the generalizability of results within an organization using a cross
sectional design. The objectives of the second sample (N= 579) were to maximize
generalizability across organizations and to analyze the convergent and discriminant
validity of the fit scales using a longitudinal design.
Validity and Reliability o f the PFS. To establish the degree of construct validity
associated with the Perceived Fit scales, correlational evidence (multiple regression) was
provided that indicated each of the three constructs measured (P-O, P-J, and N-S) related
strongly to certain criterion variables and related weakly to other variables. Criterion
variables included in this study included: organizational identification, perceived
organizational support, citizenship behaviors, turnover decisions, job satisfaction, career
satisfaction, occupational commitment; peer-rated job performance, and future pay
increases. Showing the network of relationships among variables in which some
relationships are strong and others are weak provides a two-pronged approach to
establishing construct validity by providing evidence of convergent and discriminant
validity (Huck, 2004). If employees distinguish between the three types of fit, the
consequences of each should be distinct (Cable & DeRue, 2002). The hypotheses stated
by the researchers indicated which type of fit would be strongly related to certain
criterion variables. Criterion variables not mentioned in each hypothesis were expected to
have weak relationships with that particular type of fit. Prevalidated scales with reliability
76
coefficients ranging from .82 to .94 measured the criterion variables. The following
hypotheses focused on the types of fit individually and their relationships with specific
outcomes, while controlling for the other two types of fit that were not the focus: (a) P-O
fit perceptions were related to organizational identification, perceived organizational
support, citizenship behaviors, and turnover decisions; (b) N-S fit perceptions are related
to turnover decisions, job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and occupational commitment;
and (c) P-J fit perceptions are related to occupational commitment, peer-rated job
performance, and future pay increases. Note that satisfaction with job and career served
as criterion variables for needs-supplies fit perceptions only.
A confirmatory factor analysis of the hypothesized model and four alternative
models indicated that the hypothesized three-factor model offered the best fit of the data
for both the first sample, z 2 (24, N = 215) = 87, GFI = .92, NFI = .94, CFI = .96, and the
second sam ple/2 (24, N = 579) = 106.3, GFI = .96, NFI = .97, CFI = .97. The observed
chi-square values and fit indices were more than adequate since a fit index of over .90 is
considered adequate (Byrne, 1994). The reliability coefficients of the three developed
scales for the first and second sample ranged from .89 to .91 and .84 to .91, respectively.
Simultaneous multiple regressions of the three types of fit on the dependent variables
supported the convergent and discriminant validity for the overall hypothesized model.
However, the findings did not support the hypothesized strong and weak relationships in
all instances. The hypotheses concerning the P-O and the N-S relationships were largely
supported. The scale for P-J did not predict any of the hypothesized outcomes.
Overall, the PFS offers a reliable and valid alternative of measuring fit that is both
refined and brief. It provides a method to measure fit that isolates the contribution of each
77
type of fit in predicting work outcomes. A review of the literature did not produce other
studies that support the dimensional validity of the measure or explored the utility o f the
scales to other populations. Thus, there clearly is a need for further validation studies
regarding the stability of the three dimensional structure of the PFS as suggested by
Cable and DeRue (2002). The current study attempted to address this by assessing the
applicability of the scales and their relative contribution in predicting job satisfaction.
Bern Sex Role Inventory
Bern developed the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) to measure gender role
perceptions. The instrument was published in 1974, and is still frequently used in
psychology and other fields because it measures masculine and feminine gender roles
separately and possesses adequate psychometric properties. It is composed of a 20-item
Masculinity scale (M scale), a 20-item Femininity scale (F scale), and 20 filler items. The
items represent socially desirable personality characteristics for either a man or a woman
in American society. Characteristics more desirable for women were included on the F
scale while those more desirable for men were included on the M scale. Participants
respond by indicating how well each descriptor applies to them personally on a 7-point
scale (1 = never or almost never true, 1 = always or almost always true). Based on their
responses to these items, each participant receives two scores: a masculinity score (M
score) and a femininity score (F score). The scores indicate the extent to which a person
is self-described as possessing predominantly masculine or feminine personality
characteristics (Bern, 1974).
The original forms of M and F scores obtained from the BSRI are continuous
variables. However, users of the BSRI have traditionally classified subjects into one of
78
four gender-orientation categories: masculine, feminine, androgynous, or
undifferentiated. Pedhazur (1997) cautions against artificially categorizing interval data
due to the loss of information and statistical power. The classifications are usually created
using sample-based median splits of the M and F scales. A median split using a cut point
o f 50 artificially forces similar observations into distinct categories. There is little
difference between an M or F score of 49 and 51, yet a median split would place
individuals possessing these scores in different categories, indicating that they are
markedly dissimilar. Individuals with vastly differing scores but within the same category
are treated as if they had the same score. Furthermore, participants with common F and
M scores, but come from different samples, could be classified into different categories if
the sample medians are different. Although contrary to the traditional interpretation of the
instrument, the present study takes Pedhazur’s warning to heart by using the M and F
scale as continuous variables to take advantage of the interval nature of these data and to
preserve statistical power.
Validity o f the BSRI. There have been several studies that have examined what the
BSRI actually measures (Ballard-Reisch & Elton, 1992; Blanchard-Fields, Suhrer-
Roussel, & Hertzog, 1994). Because the instrument is over 30 years old, there has been
concern about the viability of the instrument in contemporary American society. Are the
definitions of masculinity and femininity as defined in the BSRI still useful today? Can
gender role orientation still be described in the two-dimensional terms of masculinity and
femininity? A summary of factor structures reported in 23 exploratory factor analytic
studies on the BSRI indicates that most studies produced one F factor, 2 M factors, and/or
1 sex factor (Choi & Fuqua, 2003). The amount of variance explained by these factors in
79
the reviewed studies were 10%, 5% to 20%, and 3% to 15%, respectively. Based on the
number of M and F items loading significantly on one factor, Choi and Fuqua concluded
that the M factors generated are more complex than the F factors. This suggests that the
construct o f masculinity was operationalized more fully by the items on the M scale, than
was the construct of femininity. They suggest that the short form tends to be purer in
factor structure and higher reliability than the long form.
The findings o f a 1998 study testing the applicability of the masculine and
feminine characteristics described in the BSRI suggested that overall the instrument was
still a valid measure of gender role perceptions at that time (Holt, 1998). The participants
o f the study indicated whether a characteristic was more desirable for a man or for a
woman. If both male and female participants judged a characteristic to be significantly
more desirable for a man than for a woman, it was validated as masculine. If a
characteristic was judged as significantly more desirable for a woman than for a man, it
was validated as feminine. All masculine characteristics were significantly more
desirable for a man. Only two of the feminine characteristics, “loyal” (p = .09) and
“childlike” (p = .08), were marginally more desirable for a woman than for a man,
indicating that they may no longer be representative of the feminine constructs. The
means of these items were in the predicted direction and these items do not appear on the
short form of the BSRI, which is used in the present study.
Reliability o f the BSRI. Bern (1974) reported high internal consistency and test-
retest reliability o f the BSRI. Coefficient alphas computed for masculinity and femininity
were .86 and .82, respectively. The BSRI test-retest reliability within a sample of males
(n = 28) and females (n = 28) demonstrated high correlations for masculinity (r = .90),
80
femininity (r = .90), and androgyny (r = .93) over a four week period. Through wide use
o f the instrument, these psychometric properties and the correlates of the BSRI have
contributed to its value. The psychometric properties of the BSRI have, in addition, been
examined through many investigations. However, criticisms of the longer instrument
(Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979) led Bern to develop the BSRI Short Form (Bern, 1981),
in which half of the items from the original instrument were eliminated to form a 30-item
inventory. Eliminating items that demonstrated poor item-total correlations with the
masculinity and femininity scales resulted in the short form exhibiting higher internal
consistency than that of the original (Campbell, Gillaspy, & Thompson, 1987). The BSRI
short form correlates highly (approx .90) with the original form (Bern, 1981) and was
used in the present study. A 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = never true o f self, 1 = always
true o f self) produced two scores. The mean of the 10 items on the femininity scale
represented a femininity (F) score ranging from 1 to 7. Similarly, a masculine (M) score
was calculated.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics, intercorrelation coefficients among major variables, and the
internal consistency of each scale were obtained using SPSS 13.0. The statistical analyses
of the research questions was conducted using both SPSS 13.0 and EQS (Bentler, 1995).
The following briefly describes the statistical technique used to analyze each research
question.
1. What is the global relationship between P-E fit and job satisfaction?
Canonical correlation was used to examine the global relationship between P-E fit
and job satisfaction. The variable set of P-E fit included the three subscores for P-O, P-J,
81
and N-S fit. The variable set of job satisfaction included the five facet subscores and the
overall score from the JIG.
2. Is masculinity a significant moderator of the relationship between overall P-E
fit and overall job satisfaction?
To examine the moderating effect of gender role on the relationship between P-E
fit and job satisfaction, simultaneous multiple regression (MR) was chosen because a
strong theoretical or empirical base has not been established that would support entering
predictors in any predetermined order (Stevens, 2002). Two separate MRs were
performed with the two gender roles, M and F, treated as moderating variables. The first
MR treated overall P-E fit, as measured by the average score on the PFS, and masculinity
as predictors and overall job satisfaction, as measured by the JIG, as the criterion. The
cross-product of P-E fit and masculinity was entered to determine if masculinity acts as a
significant moderating variable.
3. Is femininity a significant moderator of the relationship between overall P-E fit
and overall job satisfaction?
The second MR treated overall P-E fit, as measured by the average score on the
PFS, and femininity as predictors and overall job satisfaction, as measured by the JIG, as
the criterion. The cross-product of P-E fit and femininity was entered to determine if
femininity acts as a significant moderating variable.
4. What is the factor structure of the Perceived Fit Scale?
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using EQS (Bentler, 1995) examined the
factor structure of the PFS. The objective was to ascertain the ability of the nine fit items
to distinguish between three separate types of fit perceived by employees. The a priori
82
factor structure as posited by the results of Cable and DeRue’s 2002 study is that three
factors, labeled P-O, P-J, and N-S fit, would explain the responses to the specified subset
o f the nine items.
83
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter is divided into two broad categories. The first category contains the
preliminary analyses, including reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, and
intercorrelations of variables. The second category contains the results from the statistical
analyses on the four research questions. All analyses used SPSS 13.0, except the
confirmatory factor analysis, which employed EQS (Bentler, 1995).
Preliminary Statistical Analysis
Reliability Analysis
The coefficient alpha estimates for this sample were comparable to those reported
by the developers o f the scales used (Bern, 1974; Cable & DeRue, 2002; Russell et al.,
2004; Stanton et al., 2001). Table 3 indicates the Cronbach’s alpha obtained for this
sample o f CPAs and those reported by the developers of each scale, where known. The
supervision scale represented the largest discrepancy between the Cronbach’s alpha for
this study (.77) and that found by Stanton, et al (.83). This may be due to 61 participants
answering all items in the supervision portions with a “?” or leaving all items in the
subscale blank, noting that in their present position, they are not supervised.
84
Table 3
Comparison o f Reliability Coefficients
Coefficient o f Internal Consistency
Variable Number of Items CPAs Developer
Overall Fit 9 .95 not reported
N-S 3 .96 .89 - .93
P-J 3 .94 .84 - .89
P-O 3 .98 .91 - .92
F-Scale 10 .91 .82
M-Scale 10 .88 .86
Job in General 8 .81 .85
Work 5 .87 .84
Pay 5 .77 .75
Promotion 5 .84 .82
Supervision 5 .77 .83
Coworkers 5 .75 .76
Descriptive Statistics
A review of the frequency of scores on facet and overall job satisfaction and fit
indicate that the distributions are negatively skewed for each measure, except promotion.
The median is less sensitive to extreme scores than the mean and is a better measure than
the mean for highly skewed distributions. A comparison of the means and medians are
85
presented in Table 4. Due to the negatively skewed distribution of the scores, the mean is
lower than the median. Overall job satisfaction tends to be high for this sample (M =
20.35, SD = 4.84). Nearly 44% report experiencing the highest score possible of 24 on
the JIG (Mdn = 22.00). O f the five facets, reported satisfaction with coworkers was the
highest with 77.6% expressing maximum scores of 15, followed by satisfaction with
work with 68.7% reporting scores of 15. Participants appear to be the least satisfied with
promotion. While a large percentage, 37%, reported scores of 15 on this facet, a larger
percentage, 53.4%, reported scores of 9 or less.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics fo r Fit and Satisfaction Variables
Variable N M Mdn SD
Overall Fit
P-J 317 5.61 6.00 1.25
N-S 317 5.20 5.33 1.33
P-0 317 5.08 5.33 1.46
Overall Job Satisfaction 314 20.35 22.00 4.84
Coworkers 312 13.82 15.00 2.67
Work 313 12.97 15.00 3.92
Pay 312 11.57 13.00 4.21
Supervision 270 11.07 12.00 4.44
Promotion 283 9.43 9.00 5.10
86
Although the sample reported slightly higher mean F scores (M = 5.14, SD = .88)
than mean M scores (M = 5.09, SD = .84), the difference was not found to be statistically
significant, t(316) = -.80, p < .05. The medians were identical for the M and F score at
5.20. The similarity of the M and F scores is unusual when compared to the means and
medians reported in previous studies. The normative means and medians reported by
Bern for the short-form BSRI (N= 816) for the F score were 5.38 and 5.50, respectively,
and for the M score was 4.83 and 4.80 respectively (1977). Using the long-form BSRI,
Long (1989) reported means of 4.90 for the F score and 5.20 for the M score. Taken as a
group, the participants in the current study are quite balanced in their identification with
both masculine and feminine traits.
Conventional interpretations of the BSRI categorize participants into one o f four
gender-orientation categories: masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated.
While the analyses in this study treat M and F scores as continuous variables, information
is provided to describe the sample’s overall job satisfaction in terms of traditional BSRI
categories. Median M and F scores (5.20 for each) determined gender role. If both scores
were above the median, the participant was categorized as androgynous. If both scores
were below the median, the participant was categorized as undifferentiated. When the
entire sample was categorized according to gender role, feminine individuals represented
the largest proportion (30%) of the sample, closely followed by masculine individuals
(27.4%). Table 5 provides information regarding the gender type composition of the
sample. When gender role was considered in conjunction with biological gender, sex-
typed individuals, or masculine males and feminine females, reported higher levels of job
satisfaction and P-E fit than either masculine females or feminine males. Table 6
87
indicates the overall job satisfaction and overall fit of relevant gender by gender roles. As
mentioned in the earlier discussion of the traditional scoring procedures of the BSRI,
categorizing interval data often results in participants being forced into a particular
category even though scores are very similar to those characterizing another category.
Scoring precision is lost. The interpretation of analyzes performed using the categorical
variables should consider that the delineation between categories is artificial for
participants whose scores fall closely on either side of the cut-off score.
Table 5
Overall Job Satisfaction by Gender Role
Variable M Mdn SD % of Sample
Masculine 20.59 24 5.25 27.4
Feminine 19.75 21 5.15 30.0
Androgynous 21.50 24 3.88 22.4
Undifferentiated 19.67 21 4.62 20.2
Table 6
Mean Overall Job Satisfaction and P-E Fit by Gender Role by Biological Gender
Type N Job Satisfaction P-E Fit
Masculine Males 58 21.39 5.71
Feminine Females 52 20.06 5.42
Masculine Females 29 19.03 5.10
Feminine Males 43 19.37 5.00
88
Independent /-tests were performed to determine if participants indicating that
they have children requiring daycare responded differently from those who indicated they
did not. O f the five facets, overall job satisfaction, N-S, P-J, P-O, and overall fit,
satisfaction with coworkers was the only variable that produced a statistically significant
difference. Those with children in daycare (n = 60) reported less satisfaction (M= 12.81,
SD = 3.16) than those who did not have children in daycare (n = 252, M = 14.04, SD -
2.48), /(310) = 3.24,/? = .001. To further explore satisfaction with coworkers, a /-test was
performed comparing female participants with (n = 41; M = 12.41, SD = 3.26) and those
without (n = 88; M = 14.16, SD = 2.28) children in daycare, /(127) = 3.51,/? = .01.
Similarly, a /-test performed comparing male participants with (n = 19) and those without
(n = 164) children in daycare was not statistically significant. O f all participants having
children in daycare, women (n = 41) were not statistically different from the men (n = 19)
on coworkers, or any of the other variables.
Intercorrelations o f the Variables
Examination of intercorrelations (Table 7) among the major variables indicates
significant correlations between overall job satisfaction and the facet scores, as expected.
Overall job satisfaction also correlated significantly with overall P-E fit and the three
subscores of the PFS. N-S fit correlated highest with overall job satisfaction (r = .62),
followed by overall fit (r = .58), P-0 fit (r = .49), and P-J fit (r = .44),/? < .01. The
correlations between overall job satisfaction and the gender roles were not significant.
Intercorrelations by biological gender are presented in Table 8. The only statistically
significant correlations arose from the males only, with higher levels of masculinity
associated with work and higher levels of femininity associated with coworkers. For
89
Table 7
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
M SD 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11. 12.
1. Overall Fit 5.27 1.19
2. N-S Fit 5.20 1.33 .92*

3. P-J Fit 5.61 1.25 . 86 " .75 * *
4. P-O Fit 5.08 1.50 .87" .69 * * .57*"
5. F-Score 5.14 .10 .08 .05 . 12*
6. M-Score 5.09 .84 .15 * * .17** . 12* . 12 " -.02
7. Work 12.97 3.92 .51 ** .53 * * .43 * * .39** .13" .15"
8. Pay 11.57 4.21 .30 * * .30** .24*" .25" .00 .06 .24*"
9. Promotion 9.43 5.09 .34** .29** .30" .29** .06 .06 .40 .31 **
10. Supervision 1.07 4.45 .31’ .31 ** . 22 *" .28" .06 .00 .37 * * .27" .35"
11. Coworkers 13.81 2.67 .30" .24 * * .21 .28" .14* .04 .35 * * .17" .22" . 20 * *
12. Overall Job

20.35 4.84 .58 ** .62 .43 ** .49** .05 .09 .73" .42" .39" .45** .38"
Satisfaction
*p < .05, ** p< .01
women, F Scores correlated stronger with all variables, except work. For men, M scores
produced higher correlations for all variables, except supervision and coworkers. For
both men and women, masculinity was more closely associated with work, while
femininity had higher correlations with supervision and coworkers. Overall, the
correlations between the gender roles and all the measures of job satisfaction are very
low.
Table 8
Intercorrelations o f gender roles and job satisfaction by biological gender
Variable Males Females
M Score F Score M Score F Score
Work .16* .14 .14 .10
Pay .09 -.05 .00 .10
Promotion .11 -.02 -.02 .18
Supervision .01 .03 -.02 .11
Coworkers .01 .18* .09 .10
Overall Job Satisfaction .12 .04 .06 .06
*p < .05
Analyses for the Research Questions
Assumptions
The examination of the first research question, “what is the global relationship
between P-E fit and job satisfaction?” assumes the validity of the subscores and overall
score of the PFS. While the validity of the PFS is the focus of the fourth research
question, in answering the research questions in sequential order, evidence of validity is
91
assumed when addressing the first research question. During this study, the biological
gender o f participants assumedly did not significantly affect their perceptions of P-E fit
and job satisfaction. The goal of research questions 2 and 3 is to assess the moderating
effect o f the traits of gender roles on the P-E fit and job satisfaction relationship. It is
presupposed that those traits are stable within the individual and that possessing either
feminine or masculine traits is neither good nor bad. It is not the intention of this study to
judge gender role traits or to suggest that they could or should be altered in an attempt to
achieve greater P-E fit or job satisfaction.
Canonical Correlation Analysis
The first research question was “what is the global relationship between P-E fit
and job satisfaction?” As the purpose of canonical correlation analysis (CCA) is to
explain the relation of two sets of variables, not to model the individual variables, it
seemed an appropriate multivariate technique to analyze the overall relationship between
the variables that comprise the concept of fit and those of job satisfaction. The
construction of the variable sets in the CCA is guided by the general conclusion drawn
from the literature that the suitability of a person to their environment is related to job
satisfaction. The fit canonical covariate represents three independent variables, P-O, P-J,
and N-S fit subscores. The satisfaction canonical covariate consists of six independent
variables, the five facet subscores of the JDI and the overall score from the JIG. Similar
to factor analysis, there may be more than one significant canonical correlation, each
representing an orthogonally separate pattern of relationships between the two covariates.
CCA weights the variables in each set of variables to produce two sets of composite
scores and then calculates one or more canonical correlations between the sets of
92
weighted variables. By squaring the canonical correlations, which are essentially product-
moment correlations (r) between sets of weighted scores, the variance in one set of
variables explained by the other (Rc2) can be computed. The results of the CCA of fit and
satisfaction covariates (N = 260) are presented in Table 9. Wilks's lambda indicated that,
o f the three possible, the first two canonical correlations, Function 1 and 2, were
statistically significant, p < .05. In Function 1, the fit covariate explained 42.4% of the
variance in the satisfaction variate. To assess the stability of this effect size, the adjusted
2 2
Rc was calculated (Ezekiel, 1930). The shrinkage was minimal at adjusted Rc = .40. In
Function 2, Rc dropped to 4.9%. Stevens (2002) provides a very thorough discussion of
the sample sizes that should be used in order to obtain reliable results. In order to arrive at
reliable estimates of the canonical factor loadings (for interpretation), Stevens
recommends that there should be at least 20 times as many cases as variables in the
analysis, if one wants to interpret the most significant canonical root only. To arrive at
reliable estimates for two canonical correlations, Barcikowski and Stevens (1975)
recommend 40 to 60 times as many cases as variables. The case to variable ratio in the
present study is approximately 29/1. In heeding these recommendations, interpretation of
Function 2 should be taken with some caution.
Result interpretation of the variables and their relationships considers both the
canonical weights and the structure coefficients, or loadings. The canonical weights
indicate the relative importance of individual variables' contributions to a given canonical
correlation, controlling for other variables, similar to beta coefficients in regression.
Comparing weights indicates the relative effect of each variable in one set to the
composite score constructed from the other set o f variables. In Function 1, the most
93
Table 9
Standardized Coefficients and Structure Matrix o f the Two Canonical Functions (Fit with
Satisfaction Measures)
Function 1 Function 2
Variable Weights rs rs2 Weights rs rs2 h2
Fit
N-S -0.77 -.98 .97 -1.48 -.15 .02 .99
P-J -0.10 -.76 .58 1.14 .46 .21 .79
P-O -0.22 -.78 .61 0.75 .34 .11 .77
Rd .31 .01
Satisfaction
Work -0.33 -.86 .74 0.29 .15 .02 .76

00
Pay -0.12 .23 0.21 .19 .04 .27

1
Promotion -0.04 -.48 .23 0.69 .61 .37 .60
Supervision -0.04 -.49 .24 -0.17 -.03 .00 .25
Coworkers -0.01 -.41 .17 0.63 .57 .32 .49
Overall -0.64 -.97 .93 -0.89 -.16 .03 .98
Rd .18 .01
Rc .65 .22
Rc2 .42 .05
Note. Rc = canonical correlation coefficient; Rc2= squared canonical correlation

coefficient; rs = loadings; /?<i = redundancy coefficient for a given variable set; h2=
canonical communality coefficients. N - 260.
94
important variables contributing to the correlations between the two covariates are N-S
and overall job satisfaction. In Function 2, all variables, except work, pay, and
supervision, were important in determining the canonical correlation.
Although N-S and P-J have high function coefficients (weights) in spite o f the
low structure coefficients (loadings), this mostly likely due to the relative importance of
N-S and P-J in defining the 2nd function. Both functions are statistically significant, but
the small variance explained by Function 2 ( R 2 = .05) draws into question the practical
significance of the function in revealing a combination of variables that are useful for
prediction purposes.
Canonical factor loadings represent the correlation of a canonical variable with an
original variable in its set. For example, the correlation between N-S fit and the fit
covariate for Function 1 is -.98. The factor loadings in Function 1 are all above the
absolute value of .40. Those variables with the highest weights also have the highest
factor loadings. Squared loadings (rs2) represent the percent of variance linearly shared by
an original variable with the associated canonical covariate. It is the percentage of
variance explained in an original variable by the associated canonical variable in the
function. While N-S, overall job satisfaction, and work are the most important in
determining the canonical correlation, they also share the most variance with their
respective covariates. The variance shared by N-S fit and the fit covariate is 96.8%. The
variance shared by overall job satisfaction and work with the satisfaction covariate is
93.1% and 74%, respectively. The P-J variable has a low weight (-.10) and rather high
loading (-.76), which may indicate that one or more other variable contain this same
information and the P-J variable is arbitrarily denied the credit for providing this
95
information (Thompson, 2000). Since canonical correlation is a mathematical
maximization technique, the function only includes one of the variables to capture the
essence o f what they measure.
The redundancy coefficient indicates that 30.6% of the variance in the original fit
variables is accounted for by the satisfaction covariate. Similarly, 18% of the variance in
the original satisfaction variables may be predicted from the fit covariate. In Function 2,
the redundancy coefficient is approximately equal for both the fit covariate (.01) and the
satisfaction covariate (.01). These near-zero values indicate that the canonical covariates
in this function are poor predictors of the original dependent variables. Thompson (2000)
argues that the canonical communality coefficient (h2) is more important than redundancy
coefficients in interpreting results. This is the sum of rs across the functions. It measures
how much of a given original variable's variance is reproducible from the canonical
variables. If the weights obtained for each function were applied to the z score of each
participant’s score, the result would be synthetic variable scores. The coefficient h2
indicates the amount of variance in an original variable that can be reproduced by the
synthetic variables for the original variable across Function 1 and 2. For example, the
synthetic scores from N-S fit from the two functions can reproduce 99.2% of the variance
in the original N-S fit variable, or 99.2% of this original variable was useful in defining
the function. From the table, the h2values indicate that synthetic variables obtained from
this CCA for N-S fit and overall job satisfaction explained more of the variance in the
respective original variables than the other synthetic variables. Examination of r, rs , and
•y
h reveals that satisfaction with the work facet is also important in the P-E fit and job
satisfaction relationship.
96
Summary. The R 2of Function 1 reveals that 42 % of the variance in the
satisfaction composite, for which overall and work satisfaction are the most important,
can be linked to the composite score of the fit variables. Function 1 can be interpreted as
the maximum correlation that can be obtained through the best linear combinations of
both sets of variables. The h2values for each of the fit scales is quite high at .99, .79, and
.73, indicating that all three types of fit are important in defining the two canonical
functions. Overall job satisfaction expectedly played the most important role in defining
the satisfaction covariate. O f the facets, satisfaction with work appears to be a more
representative dimension of the satisfaction covariate than satisfaction with pay,
promotion, coworkers, or supervision. Between the two sets of variables, P-J, P-O, N-S,
satisfaction with work, and overall job satisfaction provide the best linear combination. In
using these variables, the predictability of satisfaction with work and overall job
satisfaction combined from the collective effect of the three independent fit variables is
optimized.
Multiple Regression Analyses
The second and third research questions were: (a) is masculinity a significant
moderator of the relationship between overall P-E fit and overall job satisfaction, and (b)
is femininity a significant moderator of the relationship between overall P-E fit and
overall job satisfaction? To examine the moderating effect of gender role on the
relationship between P-E fit and job satisfaction, multiple regression analyses were
employed. From the literature, it was expected that masculinity, but not femininity, would
affect the strength of the P-E fit and overall job satisfaction relationship. Two separate
MRs =314) were performed using P-E fit as a predictor, either of the two gender
97
roles, M and F, as moderating variables and overall job satisfaction, as measured by the
JIG, as the criterion. The first MR used the cross-product of P-E fit and M to determine if
masculinity acts as a significant moderating variable. The second MR used the cross-
product of P-E fit and F to determine if femininity acts as a significant moderating
variable. A statistically significant interaction of the cross-products is required to indicate
that masculinity or femininity moderate the relationship between P-E fit and job
satisfaction. To provide a clearly interpretable interaction term, it is recommended that
the moderator be uncorrelated with the predictor and the criterion (Baron & Kenny,
1986). O f the possible relationships between M and F with overall fit and M and F with
overall job satisfaction, the only significant correlation is small, between M and overall
fit (r = .15,/? < .01). Based on previous research, it was expected that overall fit would
explain more of the variance in the dependent variable than the gender roles or the
interaction variables. In performing the MRs, overall fit as measured by the average score
on the PFS entered each equation first, followed by either M or F, then either P-E fit x M
or P-E fit x F, respectively.
Assumptions. Plots of the data (A^=314) revealed no serious violation of
normality, homoscedasticity, or linearity. The VIF and Tolerance indicated that
mulitcollinearity does not preclude MR analyses on these data. The absence of Cook’s
distance > 1 (Stevens, 2002) for any case indicated that influential points were not
present in the data. The leverage statistic for each case was below the calculated critical
value [3(&+l)/«] o f .124, suggesting that the regression model was not unduly
influenced by outlying cases. However, examination of the standardized residuals
identified six cases for each MR greater than the absolute value o f 3. This indicates that
98
the cases are usual and lie outside the general linear pattern of which the midline is the
regression line (Stevens). Of the identified cases, five were common to both MRs. After
determining that responses from these cases were recorded and scored correctly, they
were deleted from the data set for purposes of conducting MR. Both MRs were
performed on the new data set (N =309). Assumptions were checked again and revealed
no serious violation. The histogram, normal probability plot, and residual plot are
provided for each MR (see Appendices E through G). All Cook’s distance values were
below 1. Although the MR on P-E fit x M revealed one case possessing a centered
leverage value (. 127) slightly higher than the calculated critical value o f . 126, no further
data edits were conducted. The VIF and Tolerance measures in testing the P-E fit x F
interaction were 1.01 and .99, respectively. The VIF and Tolerance measures in testing
the P-E fit x M interaction were 1.01 and .99, respectively.
Results. Model summaries of the two MRs are presented in Table 10. As
expected, overall fit was statistically significant, explaining most of the variance in the
models (adjusted R2 = .39). Neither gender role produced statistically significant main
effects. In the P-E fit x M summary, the model explained 41% of the variance in overall
job satisfaction with overall fit (P = .63) and P-E fit x M (P = .15) emerging as
statistically significant predictors. Although the additional variance explained by the
interaction was small at AR2 = .02, it was statistically significant. However, the sample
exhibited a restricted range of M scores that decreased the variance explained than would
have a sample more representative of all possible M scores. The range of the M scores
were relatively high at 2.8 to 7.0 (SD = .84). In the P-E fit x F, the interaction was not
statistically significant. The model explained 39.7% of the variance in overall job
99
satisfaction with overall fit (P = .63) emerging as the only statistically significant
predictor. Expectedly, masculinity interacted with P-E fit to affect overall job
satisfaction, whereas femininity produced no significant interaction.
Table 10
Summary o f Multiple Regression Analyses with Overall Job Satisfaction as Criterion
Variable B SEB P R2 A d jR 2 A R2
Moderator - Masculinity (M)
1. Overall Fit .21* .02 .63 .39 .39 .39
2. M -.02 .02 -.03 .39 .39 .00
3. Overall Fit x M .01* .00 .15 .42 .41 .02*
Moderator - Femininity (F)
1. Overall Fit .21* .02 .63 .39 .39 .39
2. F -.02 .02 -.05 .40 .39 .00
3. Overall Fit x F .00 .00 .02 .40 .39 .00
*P < m
The significance of the P-E fit x M interaction was further analyzed by
subgrouping participants as possessing low, medium, or high levels of masculinity. The
three levels of high, medium, and low were computed using the mean as the medium
value, one standard deviation above the mean as the high mean, and one standard
deviation below the mean as the low mean (following Aiken & West, 1991).The means
of each subgroup were calculated and plotted (Jose, P. E., 2003). Figure 1 displays the
slopes o f low, medium, and high levels of masculinity at different levels of P-E fit and
overall job satisfaction. The slopes tend to fan out as levels of P-E fit improve. The graph
100
reveals that as participants experience greater P-E fit, possessing more masculine traits
becomes more advantageous in subsequent overall job satisfaction.
60.00
50.00
co 2.99
40.00
35.32| 36.78
CO 32.91,
on 30.00 30 SO'
Si
o
CG Masculinity
£ 20.00 - □ —high
O
med
10.00 —X—low
0.00
low med high
P-E Fit
Figure 1. P-E Fit x Masculinity interaction.
Two additional MRs were performed to determine if the significance of the P-E
fit x M interaction was more predictive of overall job satisfaction for men or women. For
each biological gender, the interaction with P-E fit remained statistically significant. The
interaction was more important for the female participants. The additional variance
explained by the interaction was 1.8% for males (p = . 14, p < .05) and 2.7% for females
(P = .16,p < .05). The overall variance explained for the models were quite different for
male (adjusted R = .36) and female (adjusted R = .47) participants. This discrepancy is
largely due to the difference in the main effect of overall fit in each model. For males, the
101
proportion of variance explained by overall fit (P = .58,/? < .01) in job satisfaction was
35.1%. For females, this amount (P = .69,/? < .01) increased nearly 10 percentage points
to 44.7%. Fitting in with their work environment was more important for women than for
men.
Gender role’s moderating effect on the relationship between P-E fit and the
specific facets of job satisfaction was also considered. The MRs using the facet of work
as the criterion produced the only significant interaction, P-E fit x F (P = -.10), but the
contribution (AR2 = .01,/? < .05) in explaining variance was trivial. Separate MRs on
male and female participants were performed to determine if biological gender affected
this interaction on work. The statistical significance of the P-E fit x F interaction (P = -
.17) was upheld for males (AR2 - 2.7%, p < .01)) but not for females. For men,
possessing more feminine traits seems to negatively affect how perceptions of fit relate to
satisfaction with the work itself.
Using simple linear regression, the average score on the 9-item PFS explained
approximately 39.2% of the variance in overall job satisfaction. MR was performed to
determine the relative contribution of the three perceptions o f fit in predicting job
satisfaction. As the three perceptions are intercorrelated, the overlap of variance
accounted for on job satisfaction for each perception could be substantial. It is unknown
which perception accounts for the most variance. Stepwise MR was selected to allow
mathematical maximization to determine this. Results indicated that N-S fit was the only
significant predictor (adjusted R2 = .38) and, therefore, accounted for a larger portion of
job satisfaction than either P-0 and P-J. However, this does not indicate how much of the
102
variance in P-O or P-J is being accounted for by N-S, only that, of the three, N-S fit alone
2
yields a higher R , than either P-O alone or P-J alone.
•y
Summary. A model of all three perceptions, N-S, P-J, and P-O, produced an R =
.39 (adjusted R2of .38). This is comparable to the R2of .41 reported by Cable and DeRue
(2002) when using a different measure of job satisfaction, three items developed by
Edwards and Rothbard (1999). In the present study, N-S emerged as the most important
predictor (P = .59), followed by P-O (P = .13), with P-J (P = -.08). Although Cable and
DeRue reported different beta weight for N-S (P = .45), P-O (P = .28), and P-J (P = .01),
their order o f importance as predictors for job satisfaction are the same found in this
•y
study. The Wherry adjusted R provided by SPSS does not indicate the predictive power
of the model on other samples from the same population (Stevens, 2002). An important
motive for developing a scale, such as the PFS, is that it is generalizable to other samples.
■y 2
For this reason, the Stein adjusted R was performed. For this model, Stein adjusted R is
.336, which indicates that the PFS would account for 33.6% of the variance in job
satisfaction if administered to another sample from the same population. The amount of
shrinkage from the Wherry (.38) to the Stein (.336) adjusted R2 is small at roughly 12%,
providing evidence o f cross validity of the model.
Factor Analyses
The final research question explored the factor structure of the Perceived Fit Scale
(PFS). Exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to examine
the factorial validity of the PFS. With EFA, all items have loadings on all of the factors,
whereas in CFA, the researcher can specify which items load on a given factor based on
103
an a priori theory. The developers of the PFS (Cable & DeRue, 2002) only reported the
results of a CFA and did not intimate that they performed an EFA.
Exploratory Factor Analysis. A varimax rotated principal components exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) served as a starting point for examining the factor structure of the
instrument. An orthogonal rotation technique, varimax, was chosen because it was
assumed that the items and scales of the PFS would be correlated. Allowing the factors to
correlate, as in an oblique rotation, would result in fewer factors in which subtle
differences would not be detected. For interpretation purposes, an oblique rotation places
correlated variables on one factor and is less sensitive to differences between the
variables. While fewer factors are easier to interpret, the tendency of the varimax rotation
to place each item on one or two factors provides a more refined factor structure in which
distinctions between factors can be construed.
Items with a factor loading of at least .40 were considered to load on that factor.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure o f sampling adequacy of .89 and the statistically
significant Bartlett’s Test indicated the factorability of the data. The P-J items (questions
4, 5, and 6) loaded on Factor 1 and the P-O items (questions 7, 8, and 9) loaded on Factor
2. Mahalanobis distance (D2) was examined to determine outliers on the sample (N =
317). The critical value of chi-square with 12 degrees of freedom and an alpha of 0.01 is
26.22. This value was found by executing the SPSS command COMPUTE mahcutpt =
IDF.CHISQ(0.99,9). A scan of the EP value for each case resulted in two cases exceeding
the critical value. The two cases were examined and judged to be innocuous to the factor
analysis, and, therefore, were retained.
104
The N-S items, questions 1, 2, and 3, loaded highest on Factor 1 with loadings of
.73, .73, and .70, but also loaded on Factor 2 with loadings of .53, .54, and .51,
respectively. The loadings indicated that the NS items shared some similarity to both the
P-J and the P-O items. The 2- factor solution explained 85.46% of the variance. Initial
inspection of a scree plot of the eigenvalues evidenced a departure from linearity
coinciding with a two-factor solution. However, this departure, or elbow, was not sharp
and retention of practically significant factors required further consideration. The Kaiser
criterion of only retaining eigenvalues greater than 1 indicates that two factors should be
retained for interpretation purposes (Stevens, 2002). The first factor explained 71.8% of
the variance and the second 13.7%. However, the third factor had an eigenvalue o f .64
and explained 7.1%. Each of the remaining factors, 4 through 9, possessed eigenvalues of
.223 or less and accounted for a trivial amount o f variance, 2.5% or less. The additional
variance explained that retaining factor 3 would provide for the solution (85.46 % for two
factors v. 92.54% for three factors), the loading pattern of the N-S items, and the
expectation that the PFS reflects three dimensions of P-E fit, prompted another EFA
requesting a three-factor solution wherein each item was allowed to load onto all three
factors.
The three-factor EFA resulted in seven items loading cleanly and expectedly on
the three factors, N-S, P-J, and P-O. Item 4 had loadings of .73 on the P-J factor and .46
on the N-S factor indicating that this item was not distinctly and fully measuring either
perception of fit. To gain greater insight into the factor structure of the PFS, specifically
item 4, “the match is very good between the demands of my job & my personal skills,” a
series of CFA models were tested.
105
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. CFA was used to further test the hypothesized
factor structure and to suggest refinements to the PFS that would improve a psychometric
property (construct validity). The a priori factor structure of the PFS as posited by the
results of Cable and DeRue’s 2002 study is that three factors, labeled P-O, P-J, and N-S
fit, would explain the responses to the specified subset of the nine items. The objective is
to ascertain the ability of the nine fit items to distinguish between three separate types of
perceived fit using CFA via EQS (Bentler, 1995). A three first-order factor model
identical to that reported by Cable and DeRue was used as the baseline model against
which alternative models were evaluated. The hypothesized model in this study was a
first-order factor analysis with three first order factors fitted to the nine items. Variable
assignments are depicted in Figure 2. Items 1, 2, and 3 were loaded on FI, or the N-S
factor; Items 4, 5, and 6 were loaded on F2, or the P-J factor; and items 7, 8, and 9 were
loaded on F3, or the P-O factor. The last factor loading of the set of items for each factor
•y
was fixed to 1.0 statistical significance (Bryne, 1994). For the hypothesized model, x
(24, N = 317) = 117.01, p < .01. The Lagrange Multiplier test was used to locate a major
misspecification, the path from the P-J factor to item 4. Alternative models were sought
due to (a) this x2exceeding those found by Cable and DeRue, (b) the standard coefficient
for this path being somewhat lower than the others, and (c) R2of .73 for item 4 being
slightly lower than the others, which ranged from .82 to .94. As in the EFA performed
previously, the CFA indicates that item 4 is problematic in terms of loading cleanly on a
single factor.
Three alternative models were tested. All alternative models were nearly identical
to the hypothesized model, except for the factor assignment of item 4. In alternative
106
.95 Item 1
N-S fit .97 Item 2

.90 nt
Item 3
.75
Item 4
.71 P-J fit .96 Item 5

.93 nt
Item 6
.57
.96 Item 7
P-O fit Item 8
.97 nt
Item 9
Figure 2. Hypothesized first-order confirmatory factor analysis of the Perceived Fit

Scale.
Note. x 2( 24 , N = 317) = 117.01 (p < .01 ). All of the standardized coefficients are
significant (p < . 05 ) except those not tested “nt.”
model 1, item 4 was assigned to the N-S factor and in alternative model 2, item 4 was
assigned to the P-O factor. In alternative model 3 (see Figure 3), item 4 was cross-loaded
with the N-S and P-J factor.
Evaluation of each model was based on considering a variety of fit measures, and
model comparisons were based on incremental differences in fit. These measures are now
107
Item 1
N-S fit 91 Item 2

.91 nt
Item 3
.35
.72
.59 Item 4
.72 P-J fit Item 5
.93 nt
Item 6
.96 Item 7
.96
Item 8
7 nt
Item 9
Figure 3. Alternative model 3 of cross loading o f item 4.
Note. x2 (23, N - 3 1 7 ) = 62.32 (p < .001). All of the standardized coefficients are
significant (p < . 05) except those not tested “nt.”
briefly discussed. The chi-square (x ) minimum fit function test is an inferential test of
the plausibility o f a model explaining the data. It is calculated from the discrepancies
between the original and reproduced correlations among the items. As such, smaller
values indicate a better fit of the model to the data. The smallest x2 of the models tested
was alternative model 3. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) range from 0 to 1, with values
of .9 or greater indicating a good-fitting model. The comparative fit index (CFI) assesses
fit relative to a null model using noncentrality parameters (Bender, 1988). The normed fit
108
index (NFI) represents the increment of fit using the hypothesized model relative to the
fit of the null model (Stevens, 2002, p. 432). The CFI and NFI also range from 0 to 1,
with values of .9 or greater indicative of good-fitting models. A comparison of these fit
indices indicates that alternative model 3 fit the data better than the hypothesized model
or alternative models 1 and 2. The root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)
expresses the lack of fit due to reliability and model specification or misspecification.
The RMSEA expresses fit per degree of freedom of the model and should be less than . 1
for acceptable fit, with .05 or lower indicating a very good-fitting model. O f the models
tested, the RMSEA suggests that alternative model 3 at .07 is the only acceptable model.
The standardized root mean-square residual (RMR) is the average of differences between
the sample correlations and the estimated population correlations. The RMR has a range
from 0 to 1; values of .08 or less are desired (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Again, alternative
model 3 is the only model with an RMR (.03) that fits this criterion.
Summary. Examination of the x2values and fit indices indicated that the
alternative model 3, which provides for item 4 to cross load with the N-S and the P-J
factor, is a better fit with the data over the hypothesized model, alternative model 1, or
alternative model 2. Alternative model 3 is superior on all fit indices and measures.
Furthermore, the GFI, NFI, and CFI of this model were equal to or greater than those
reported by Cable and DeRue (2002) in both of their samples. Table 11 compares the
hypothesized model with the alternative models from this study and the hypothesized
model from the study by Cable and DeRue. As evidenced by the poor fit of the
alternative models 1 or 2 with the data, item 4 does not appear to be representative of
either N-S or P-J exclusively.
109
Table 11
Comparison o f Fit Statistics
Model x2 df GFI NFI CFI RMSEA RMR
Hypothesized model 117.01 24 .93 .97 .98 .11 .09
Alternative Model l a 187.50 24 .89 .95 .96 .15 .09
Alternative Model 2b 321.13 24 .86 .91 .92 .20 .23
Alternative Model 3C 62.32 23 .96 .98 .99 .07 .03
Cable and DeRued 87-106.3 24 .92-.96 .94-.97 .96-.97 — —
Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index. RMSEA
= root mean-square error of approximation; RMR = root mean-square residual. aItem 4 loaded
onto the N-S factor. bItem 4 loaded onto the P-O factor.c Item 4 cross loaded onto the N-S and P-
J factors.dCable and DeRue (2002) performed analyses on two separate samples. Reported
statistics from their study for both samples are shown.
110
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a brief summary of the major findings, followed by
discussion and conclusions. Finally, implications of the findings and recommendations
for future research are discussed.
Summary of Major Findings
This study used the Perceived Fit Scale (PFS), a new measure o f person-
environment (P-E) fit, to test the moderating effect of gender roles on how individuals
perceive their suitability to their work environment and subsequent job satisfaction.
Literature on gender roles in which masculinity, but not femininity, produced positive
work outcomes guided the speculation that masculinity would interact with P-E fit to
affect overall job satisfaction, whereas femininity would not. The PFS contained nine
items designed by Cable and DeRue (2002) to measure three distinct types of fit, person-
job (P-J), person-organization (P-O), and needs-supplies (N-S). To effectively assess the
validity, reliability, and utility of a recently developed measure of P-E fit, it was thought
that the other measures should already possess a history of reliability and validity. To
counterbalance the novelty of the PFS, the study relied on popular and validated
measures o f gender role identification, the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and of job
satisfaction, the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG) scales.
I ll
A canonical correlation analysis was performed to investigate the relationship
between the three types o f fit of the PFS and the six measures of job satisfaction (work,
pay, promotion, supervision, coworkers, and overall). N-S fit and overall job satisfaction
emerged as the most important variables in defining the relationship between P-E fit and
job satisfaction. Multiple regression analysis was used to test gender roles moderating
effect. The speculation that P-E fit would significantly interact with masculinity (AR2 =
•02, p < .01), but not with femininity, to affect job satisfaction was corroborated with this
sample. Both P-E fit and the interaction of P-E fit x M were more important for women
than for men. The additional variance explained by the interaction was 1.8% for males (P
= .14,/? < .05) and 2.7% for females (P = .16,/? < .05). For males, the proportion of
variance explained by the main effect of overall fit (P = .58,/? < .01) in job satisfaction
was 35.1%. For females, this amount (P = .69,/? < .01) increased to 44.7%.
In addition to the moderational analyses of gender role, another objective of the
study was to assess the construct validity of the PFS to measure three distinct perceptions
of fit. Each of the three perceptions were measured using three items. While studies on P-
J and P-0 can be easily found in the P-E fit literature, N-S fit is introduced as a
perception not previously considered. N-S fit describes the evaluation employees make
regarding the rewards they receive in exchange for their services. Confirmatory factor
analysis performed on the 9-item scale supported the distinction between these three
types o f fit.
Discussion
The first research question considered the global relationship between P-E fit and
all measures of job satisfaction. The P-E fit scales of P-J, P-O, and N-S appear to be more
112
related to overall measures of job satisfaction than to specific facets. O f the facets, work
was the only one that is closely related. Arguably, work can be considered more of a
general evaluation than when specifically considering your boss, fellow employees,
career advancement opportunities, and salary. Simple correlations indicate that work and
overall job satisfaction are more strongly related than any other facet. Survey items
designed to illicit responses concerning fit focused heavily on the work. Nothing on the
PFS elicited evaluations of coworkers or supervision specifically. It was surprising that
the PFS did not correlate more with pay and promotion as the items of the N-S scale were
constructed to conceptualize rewards. O f the facets, pay and promotion most explicitly
represent the concept of N-S in which employees evaluate the adequacy of the rewards
received in exchange for their services and contributions. Promotion may be viewed as a
reward, but the questions asking about rewards included the words “present” and
“currently,” that may have caused the respondent think only of their current job and not
to consider their future career situations.
The primary purpose of this study was contained in the second and third research
questions, which was to assess the moderating effect of gender roles on the relationship
between perceptions of P-E fit and job satisfaction. Masculinity as a main effect
performed only slightly better than femininity in predicting levels of job satisfaction. The
predictive value o f masculinity was small and that of femininity was nonexistent with
neither being significant.
The lack of significant interaction P-E fit x F indicates that femininity does not
moderate the relationship between P-E fit and job satisfaction. This is in agreement with
the literature in which femininity poorly predicts positive outcomes in both men and
113
women (Bassoff & Glass, 1982; Long, 1989). However, masculinity did moderate the P-
E fit and job satisfaction relationship. While the regression models for men (36%) and
women (47%) accounted for a large portion of variance in job satisfaction, simply being
more masculine has little to do with it. Masculinity affected job satisfaction only by
through interaction with P-E fit. The significant interaction of masculinity with P-E fit
corresponded with both men (AR - 1.8) and women (AR - 2.7) being more satisfied
with the job overall. This appears to be slightly more important for women, indicating
that women possessing more masculine traits tend to achieve overall job satisfaction with
less effort than those possessing more feminine traits.
The function of a moderating variable is to affect the strength and/or direction of
the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). The results of the present study indicated that masculinity strengthens the
positive relationship between P-E fit and overall job satisfaction. The ordinal pattern of
the slopes of different levels of masculinity at different levels of P-E fit show that the
moderating effect o f masculinity gets stronger as P-E fit increases (see figure 1). At lower
levels of P-E fit, being more masculine has little effect on overall job satisfaction.
It was surprising that masculinity produced no significant main effects and that
the effect of P-E fit x M interaction was not larger. Restriction of range may account for
the low correlation between M and overall job satisfaction. For this sample, the mean M
and F score were similarly high at 5.09 for M and 5.14 for F. The range of M scores were
between 2.7 and 7.0 and the range for F scores was slightly tighter with ranges between
2.8 and 7.0. The distribution pattern of scores revealed that low scores on either scale
were not represented in this sample. The inclusion of CPAs to the exclusion of
114
individuals not possessing the CPA designation from the accounting field may have
resulted in the sample being a selected group, which are prone to low correlations
(Shavelson, 1996). The correlations for the M and F score were small at .09 and .05,
respectively. The small variance in the M score (SD = .84) and the F score (SD = .88)
provide additional evidence that restriction of range lessened the relationship between the
gender roles and over job satisfaction.
The purpose of the fourth research questions was to assess the usability of the PFS
in explaining job satisfaction and to also consider the existence and importance o f the
distinct perceptions. In line with most of the findings regarding the relationship between
P-E fit and job satisfaction (Spokane, Meir, & Catalono, 2000; Tinsley, 2000), this study
also found a positive relationship between the constructs. The overall measure of fit
obtained using the PFS performed well in predicting levels of overall job satisfaction.
More than one-third of the variance in job satisfaction was explained by scores on the
PFS. In regard to the three perceptions of fit, the findings indicate that N-S fit perceptions
seem to have a greater impact on job satisfaction than either P-J or P-O fit perceptions.
This supports Cable and DeRue’s (2002) conclusion that employees judge their
satisfaction with their job based on the fit between their personal needs and the rewards
they receive for their services more so than the fit between their values and those of the
organization (P-O fit) or the fit between their abilities and the requirements of the job (P-
J fit).
In spite of the good fit, the results of the EFA suggest that there is some overlap in
the construct measured by the three N-S items and constructs measured by the items
measuring P-O and P-J. By forcing the items to load on three factors, results indicate that
115
the items are measuring distinct perceptions and the items representing each fit
perception loaded as expected. While item 4, “the match is very good between the
demands of my job & my personal skills,” was associated more with P-J fit as expected,
it was also, but to a lesser degree, associated with N-S fit. CFA also indicated that item 4
was problematic in that it did not fully represent either P-J or N-S. The other two items
designed to measure P-J focus on job demands and the person’s abilities to perform. Item
4 compares job demands with personal skills. The term “personal” in this item is more
indicative of the idiosyncratic nature of the needs embodied in the N-S items. The other
two P-J items specifically ask about abilities, training, and education, all of which assist
in the performance o f a job. It is unclear what “personal skills” means. Perhaps the phrase
was interpreted as “interpersonal skills,” which can assist in performance, or it may have
been interpreted as “personality,” which arguably connotes the wants and needs
expressed by the N-S items.
This study provides evidence supporting the contention that employees perceive
three distinct types of fit with their environment. Furthermore, it presents preliminary
evidence o f the usefulness of the scale in predicting overall job satisfaction. Assessments
o f the PFS are made in light of the results of the CCA performed in answering the first
research question and the CFA of the fourth research question. The CCA indicates that
the scales of the PFS were more closely related to overall job satisfaction than any of the
facets. O f the scales o f the PFS, N-S appears to be more important in overall measures of
satisfaction even though it was constructed to measure fit regarding rewards. For this
reason, it seemed that N-S would be more predictive of pay and promotion, as these two
116
facets correspond with the construct of reward embodied in the N-S fit scale. However,
this was not supported by this study.
In general, the PFS is a valuable measure of P-E fit that possesses good
psychometric properties. The CFA indicates that P-E fit can be viewed as three distinct
perceptions of fit. The PFS evaluates these perceptions with only nine items. While
appearing simple in format, it is effective in capturing perceptions that are not easily
discernible. The PFS is useful in providing information about different types of fit, but
their role as an antecedent to job satisfaction is more predictive of overall feelings rather
than of specific areas. Fit information can indicate areas in which intervention may be
necessary to affect overall job satisfaction. Low scores on a particular scale can indicate
where a problem exists in the organization that is impacting overall job satisfaction. Low
P-J scores may indicate a training or recruitment deficit; low P-O scores may signal that
actions or procedures o f the organization are in conflict with the sensibilities of the
majority; and low N-S scores may suggest a need to examine the compensation or
promotion structure. However, the scales of the PFS are not as helpful in pinpointing
specific areas in which satisfaction may be a problem. The contribution of variables other
than P-E fit are contributing to levels of satisfaction in the facets.
Conclusions
While the study of job satisfaction was first spurred by the attainment of
organizational goals, such as cost reduction and improved performance and productivity
of employees, it has become an important means to understand how people feel about an
activity (i.e. work) that encompasses such a large part of their lives. Most of us spend half
of our waking hours five days a week at work and it makes sense that we would hope to
117
draw some sense of satisfaction from it. Choosing a career that suits our talents,
disposition, and is enjoyable does not guarantee that a given job in that field will be
rewarding. The environment in which work is conducted must also be considered.
Conclusions based on the examination of either personal or environment
characteristics in isolation provide a myopic view of how people relate to their setting.
The combined influence of individual and situational characteristics determine individual
responses to an environmental stimulus (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). The
concept P-E fit embodies the suitability of the worker to the work environment. It is the
predominant research paradigm in vocational psychology wherein the supposition is that
when the work environment supports the needs, goals, values, and talents of the worker,
more positive outcomes will be experienced for the individual, as well as for the
employer (Spokane, Meir, & Catalano, 2000).
Past research has highlighted the fact that not only must employees feel confident
in their abilities to perform the requirements of a job, but employees must also have a
sense of sharing values with the organization, to be successful and happy. As such, fit has
traditionally been discussed as a two-factor concept of values congruence, person-
organization (P-O) fit, and the ability to meet the demands o f a job, person-job (P-J) fit.
Possibly a more important perception of fit, needs-supplies (N-S), was proposed by Cable
and DeRue (2002). The N-S fit variable captures employee judgment of how adequately
their needs are fulfilled by the organization in the terms of pay, benefits, and training in
exchange for their service and contribution to the job and the organization. Neither P-J
nor P-O conceptualize the employee evaluation of fit between the exchange of rewards
received and work performed.
118
The increasing numbers of women occupying professional positions prompted
social scientists, psychologists, and employers to consider how the changing status of
women affected how they experienced their work. The inconclusiveness of studies
examining the function o f biological gender in determining job satisfaction led
researchers to look beyond this demographic variable to the psychological characteristics
and behaviors that distinguish men from women in a given society. With more women in
the workplace, activities typically thought of as women’s responsibility are now being
carried out by men, and vice versa. The nature of gender roles is that they change slowly,
if at all. While it may be a necessity to perform tasks typical of the opposite gender, our
socialization to identify with our own gender’s role oftentimes makes this behavior feel
unnatural and stressful. At home, men are now taking on more typically feminine
activities, such as caring for children. To succeed in the workplace, women have to
behave in ways that contradict socially accepted feminine traits, such as when the
situation calls for them to be assertive to get their own needs met, but are socially
inclined to attend to the needs of others. The legacy of most workplaces to reward more
masculine behaviors places more strain on those socialized and expected to portray
feminine traits whether they are men or women. The masculinity of most work settings
combined with the similarity of men and women’s job satisfaction suggest that it is the
identification with the masculine gender role, and not being a man, that is advantageous
to feelings o f congruence between one’s own tendencies and the work environment.
Some evidence suggested that gender role identification may moderate, or
influence the strength and direction, of the P-E fit and job satisfaction relationship. The
ability o f gender roles to moderate how P-E fit affects job satisfaction was examined in
119
the present study for two main reasons. First, several studies support the hypothesis that
dispositional variables moderate relationships among work outcome variables (Judge,
1993; George & Jones, 1996; Tang, Kim, & Tang 2000). Gender role traits are similar to
dispositions in that they are quite stable throughout life. Second, the work environment
represents a set of situations that tends to evoke behaviors and attitudes consistent with
those stereotypical o f a self-identified gender role (Eagly, 1987). The findings of this
study provide evidence that masculinity is an important moderator of P-E fit in affecting
overall job satisfaction, especially in populations where greater variability exists.
The P-E fit literature supports the positive relationship between P-E fit and job
satisfaction (Dawis 1992; Spokane, Meir, & Catalono, 2000; Tinsley, 2000). The area of
job satisfaction is rife with instruments that have been shown to possess good
psychometric properties. The instruments in this study, the abridged versions of the Job
Descriptive Index and the Job in General, were chosen because they had the added
qualities of being brief, user-friendly, and widely-used. In contrast, instruments proposing
to measure P-E fit are lengthy and required an objective evaluation of the environment.
With a subjective variable such as job satisfaction as the dependent variable, it seemed
appropriate to use survey items that elicited perceptions of the environment by the
employee, rather than items that describe the actual characteristics of the environment.
Actual congruence is less important as a proximal determinant of behavior than
perceptual congruence (Kristof, 1996). The nine items developed by Cable and DeRue
(2002) provide a brief scale that captures specific fit perceptions.
120
Implications
Implications of the study's findings must be viewed in light of the strengths and
weaknesses of the study's design. A strength of the study is the response rate (63%).
While this is only considered slightly better than adequate according to Dillman (2000), it
exceeded expectations based on response rates of similar survey research and provided
sufficient data for the statistical procedures used in the study. For these reasons, no
attempt was made to account for differences between respondents and non-respondents,
differences in the two groups could have influenced the study's findings, thereby limiting
their generalizability. Findings are limited by the use of self-report instruments to
measure respondents' levels of femininity, masculinity, perceptions of fit, and job
satisfaction. However, because of the importance placed on subjective measures in
evaluations of work outcomes, self-report measures are appropriate. A limitation may be
in the presentation of items of the PFS. It is possible that order effect bias was introduced
due to the clustering of items in the subscales of the PFS. Reorganizing the 9-item scale
by commingling the items of the subscales may reduce the variance of each subscale.
P-E fit appears to be more important to women than men. It is not surprising that
fitting an environment that requires you to alter your existing behavior and attitudes is a
much larger concern that fitting into an environment that offers a readymade fit. Business
environments tend to reward more masculine traits and fitting into such an environment
will most likely result in the person changing more so than the environment.
The social construction of career success, based on masculine stereotypes, led to
the necessity of conforming to those stereotypes to achieve success in the corporate
world. The man or woman possessing more feminine traits would be at a disadvantage.
121
As women are generally more feminine than men, it is the women who must be more like
men in the roles they play to gain acceptance and achieve advancement in this system.
This leads to the conclusion that more masculinity in females is preferable in terms of
fitting into the environment. Women possessing masculine traits would have to modify
their behavior less and enjoy greater initial P-E fit than more feminine women. In 1994,
Maupin and Lehman wrote that for auditors to be successful in American accounting
organizations, they must suppress or eliminate any behaviors or attitudes that may be
viewed as typically female. The results of this study suggest that now, eleven years later,
the encouragement for women to suppress their feminine tendencies has lessened.
The study results met the expectation that femininity would not interact with P-E
fit to affect job satisfaction, whereas masculinity would. However, it was not anticipated
that masculinity would affect job satisfaction in such a miniscule manner, as an
interaction with fit or as a main effect. The influx of women into accounting over the last
20 years has resulted in it becoming a female-dominated field. Presuming that the women
entering the field generally possess more feminine traits than men, the environment may
have already become more accepting of feminine characteristics and, thus, making it
easier for more feminine people to match the environment. This may account for the
large number o f feminine males in this sample. The data does indicate that more
masculine individuals have a slight advantage, although not statistically significantly so,
over more feminine individuals in experiencing higher levels of job satisfaction. When
this is examined by biological gender, more femininity in women and more masculinity
in men relates more closely with job satisfaction
122
Considering femininity and masculinity nominally by each gender suggests that
masculine males and feminine females experience greater job satisfaction and fit in with
their environment better than feminine males and masculine females. Not surprisingly,
masculine males have an edge in both job satisfaction and P-E fit. Masculine females
experiencing the lowest job satisfaction was an unexpected finding. It was anticipated
that masculinity in both females and males would result in higher levels of job
satisfaction. Sex-typed individuals, masculine men and feminine women, perceive a
better fit with their environment and higher job satisfaction. While it is generally true that
masculine men experience better work outcomes, women can also achieve positive work
outcomes, namely satisfaction with their work and suitability with their environment,
without suppressing or eliminating their values and beliefs if contradictory to the
masculine stereotype.
Understanding the relationship of environment and job satisfaction provides
employers with information to maximize positive aspects of the work environment that
are under their control. Creating benchmarks of the three perceptions of fit would allow
employers to assess the effects of organizational changes. Periodic assessments of fit
would prompt management as to interventions required to retain valuable employees and
to remain competitive in attracting new talent. The PFS provides information on fit that is
specific, which will assist in effectively choosing the appropriate intervention for the
desired outcome.
The idea that the degree to which employees feel well matched with their jobs
shapes work outcomes is not a groundbreaking discovery. To be successful in an
organization or a job, a person would naturally modify their behavior at work so that it is
123
more aligned with the expectations of the organization. This would happen gradually as
an employee observes the types of actions that are rewarded and those that are not
appreciated.
The main contribution of this study is that it sheds light on how the importance of
identification with the masculine gender role changes as perceptions of better fit with the
work environment changes. When levels of both masculinity and P-E fit are high,
individuals felt more satisfied with their jobs. It was expected that the main effect of P-E
fit and masculinity would predict job satisfaction. For P-E fit, this was realized in this
study. Interestingly, masculinity as a main effect had little predictive value, yet the cross-
product o f masculinity and P-E fit significantly affected job satisfaction. That masculinity
alone did not predict job satisfaction is encouraging in that the conformity to masculine
stereotypes was not a prerequisite for participants to gain a sense of satisfaction from
their job. However, the advantage of being more masculine has not disappeared in the
workplace. At equal levels of P-E fit, higher levels of masculinity in individuals boosted
job satisfaction above those with lower levels of masculinity.
Another contribution of this study is that it replicated Cable and DeRue’s (2002)
finding as to the degree to which the new scale, the PFS, predicted job satisfaction. Other
measures o f P-E fit generally predict about 10% of the variance in job satisfaction, while
the PFS predicted four times that amount. The similar predictive powers of the PFS in
this study provide evidence that the effectiveness of the scale to predict job satisfaction in
the 2002 study was not spurious.
The attainment of organizational goals, such as selection, recruitment, training,
and socialization, is a worthy reason for managing the fit perceptions of employees and
124
increasing job satisfaction. All of the anticipated organizational benefits are merely
consequences that employers hope will occur by attending to the well-being of their
workforce. The ultimate beneficiary of research on P-E fit and job satisfaction is the
individual worker. A better understanding of individual vocational needs allows
employees to seek out situations that will support their unique set of skills, values, and
expectations. With the assistance of a career counselor, individuals can enhance self
knowledge regarding their occupational, establish a career plan designed to improve P-E
fit, and identify skills that require development to meet career goals. Armed with
information regarding how aspects of a particular environment match their personal likes
and dislikes, the job seeker can make choices that will foster, rather than hinder, their
future job satisfaction.
Recommendations
While the present study supports the validity of the PFS, rewording item 4, “the
match is very good between the demands of my job & my personal skills,” to reflect
occupational skills may yield more definitive results. In this study and in those of the
developers (Cable & DeRue, 2002), the reliability coefficient for the P-J scale, in which
item 4 is contained, was the lowest o f the three subscales of PFS. In this sample, deleting
the item actually increased Cronbach’s alpha slightly from .94 to .95 for the P-J subscale.
However, the deletion reduced internal consistency from .95 to .94 for overall fit. The
revision of the item is preferable to its deletion. Eliminating the item would likely reduce
reliability. Generally, a small number of items measuring a construct threatens reliability
and, as the other two constructs have three items each, face validity would also be
negatively affected if the item were simply deleted.
125
Future research employing a longitudinal design may provide further insights into
the effects of mismatch between person and environment over an extended period of
time. Continuing study o f the same sample over time could yield answers as how the
relative importance o f the three fit perceptions in predicting job satisfaction change with
changes in the organization, the career field, or in the economy. Furthermore, it would
provide information on how these perceptions change for the individual. The career stage
may affect how individuals relate to their work environments. Early in a career, rewards
for services (N-S fit) rendered and the ability to perform a job (P-J fit) may be more
important. As a person’s career progresses, where they are more secure financially and in
their ability to perform, the organization’s values and culture (P-O fit) may take the
forefront. Such information would be vital for designing recruitment and retention
programs and for determining if the programs were effective in improving the match
between the employee and the job. Beyond job satisfaction, this would provide
information on how fit affects turnover.
Another consideration in the job satisfaction literature is the career stage of the
employee. For this reason, the variable of age and its potential to moderate the P-E fit and
job satisfaction relationship may provide additional insight into how P-E fit changes
through an individual’s career. This study did not find a significant difference in the job
satisfaction o f individuals with school age children in relation to those without. Possibly,
the average age, over 44 years, contributed to the small number of those reporting to have
children requiring daycare. Work and family issues have become a heightened concern of
accounting firms and the accounting profession as the workforce is increasingly
composed o f women and dual-career families. Reflecting the larger business
126
environment, the accounting profession is beginning to recognize that younger
employees, regardless of gender, care more about balancing work and family than do
older generations.
A closer examination of the individual items that comprise the F score and the M
score as measured by the BSRI may shed light on the specific traits that are important to
levels o f P-E and job satisfaction. As the M and F scores are the mean scores on 10 items
each, it may be that high scores on some items of either scale is present, but the low
scores on the others is driving down the mean. The importance of relatively few traits
may be suppressed by the irrelevance of the remaining traits.
Further research may examine the measure of P-E fit obtained from the PFS as a
dependent variable with gender role as an independent variable. This is suggested for two
reasons. First, the M-score produced a statistically significant correlation with overall fit
and N-S fit, p < .01, as well as with P-J fit and P-O fit, p < .05, whereas the F-score only
produced a significant correlation with P-O fit, p < .05. Second, when gender roles are
treated as categorical variables, feminine participants scored lower, although not
statistically significant for this sample, on all three subscales of the PFS than masculine
participants. It may be that gender role does affect how employees fit in with aspects of
their environment and has implications for other work outcomes, in addition to job
satisfaction.
127
REFERENCES
Abraham, R. (1999). The relationship between differential inequity, job satisfaction,
intention to turnover, and self-esteem. The Journal o f Psychology, 133, 205-215.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Assouline, M., & Meir, E. (1987). Meta-analysis of the relationship between congruence
and well-being measures. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 31, 319-332.
Ballard-Reisch, D., & Elton, M. (1992). Gender orientation and the Bern Sex Role
Inventory: A psychological construct revisited. Sex Roles, 27, 291-306.
Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., et al.
(1997). Users' manual fo r the Job Descriptive Index (JDI, 1997 revision) and the
Job in General scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
Barcikowski, R. S., & Stevens, J. P (1975). A Monte Carlo study of the stability of
canonical correlations, canonical weights and canonical variate-variable
correlations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 353-364.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Barrett, G. V., Bass, G. M., O'Connor, E. J., Alexander, R. A., Forbes, J. B., & Cascio,
W. R. (1975). Relationships among job structural attributes, retention, aptitudes
and work values (Tech. Rep. No. 3). University of Akron, Department of
Psychology. (NTIS No. AD-014 466).
128
Barrett, G. V., Forbes, J. B., O'Connor, E. J., & Alexander, R. A. (1980). Ability—
satisfaction relationships: field and laboratory studies. Academy o f Management
Journal, 23, 550-555.
Bassoff, E. S., & Glass, G. V. (1982). The relationship between sex roles and mental
health: A meta-analysis of twenty-six studies. Counseling Psychologist, 10, 105-
112 .
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal o f Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bern, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological
androgyny. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 196-205.
Bern, S. L. (1981). Bern Sex Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bender, P. M. (1988). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bender, P. M. (1994). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software, Inc.
Blanchard-Fields, F., & Friedt, L. (1988). Age as a moderator of the relation between
three dimensions of satisfaction and sex role. Sex Roles, 18, 759-768.
Blanchard-Fields, F., Suhrer-Roussel, L., & Hertzog, C. (1994). A confirmatory factor
analysis o f the Bern Sex Role Inventory: Old questions, new answers. Sex Roles,
30, 423-457.
Blau, G. (1993). Work adjustment theory: A critique and suggestions for future research
application. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 43, 113-121.
Blau, G. (1999). Testing the longitudinal impact of work variables and performance
appraisal satisfaction on subsequent overall job satisfaction. Human Relations, 52,
1099-1113.
129
Bowling Green State University, et al. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2005, from
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/JDI/scales.html
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structure equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of
subject fit perceptions. Journal o f applied psychology, 87, 875-884.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decision &
organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Performance, 67, 294-311.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Chiu, C. (1998). Do professional women have lower job satisfaction than professional
men? Lawyers as a case study. Sex Roles, 38, 521-537.
Choi, N. & Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure o f the Bern Sex Role Inventory: A
summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 63, 872-887.
Choi, N. (2004). A psychometric examination of the Personal Attribute Questionnaire.
The Journal o f Social Psychology, 144, 348-352.
Chow, E. N. (1987). The influence of sex-role identity and occupational attainment on
the psychological well-being o f Asian American women. Psychology o f Women
Quarterly, 11, 69-82.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis fo r the behavior sciences (3rd ed.). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?
Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407.
Cooper, K., Chasson, L., & Zeiss, A. (1985). The relation of sex-role concept and sex
role attitudes to the marital satisfaction and personal adjustment o f dual-worker
couples with preschool children. Sex Roles, 1985, 227-241.
Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects
in organizational research. Academy o f Management Review, 14, 385-400.
Dawis, R. V. (1992). Person-environment fit and job satisfaction. In C. J. Cranny, P. C.
Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: how people feel about their jobs
and how it affects their performance (pp. 69-88). New York: Lexington.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A Psychological Theory o f Work Adjustment.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of
gender related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Dodd-McCue, D., & Wright, G. B. (1996). Men, women, and attitudinal commitment:
The effects of workplace experiences and socialization. Human Relations, 49,
1065-1091.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Eichinger, J. (2000). Job stress and satisfaction among special education teachers: Effects
of gender and social role orientation. International Journal o f Disability,
Development and Education, 47, 397-412.
Eichinger, J., Heifetz, L. J., & Ingraham, C. (1991). Situational shifts in sex role
orientation: Correlates of work satisfaction and bumout among women in special
education. Sex Roles, 25, 425-440.
131
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P, (1997). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 82, 812-820.
Ezekiel, M. (1930). Methods o f correlational analysis. New York: Wiley.
Fields, D. L., & Blum, T. C. (1997). Employee satisfaction in work groups with different
gender compositions. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 18, 181-196.
Forgionne, G. A., & Peeters, V. E. (1982). Differences in job motivation and satisfaction
among female and male managers. Human Relations, 35, 101-118.
French, R. P., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In
G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp.
316-333). New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Fumham, A. (2001). Vocational preference and p-o fit: Reflections on Holland's theory
o f vocational choice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 5-29.
Ganzach, Y. (1998). Intelligence and job satisfaction. Academy o f Management Journal,
41, 44-51.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience o f work and turnover intentions:
interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 81, 318-325.
Gianakos, I. (1995). The relation of sex-role identity to career decision-making self-
efficacy. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 46, 131-143.
Gianakos, I. (2000). Gender roles and coping with work stress. Sex Roles, 42, 1059-1079.
Gianakos, I. (2002). Predictors of coping with work stress: The influences of sex, gender
role, social desirability, and locus of control. Sex Roles, 46, 149-158.
Gottffedson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1996). Dictionary o f Holland Occupational Codes
(3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Grimm, L.G. & Yamold, P.R. (Eds.). (2000). Reading and understanding more
multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
132
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal:
An examination o f a causal model. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 39, 110-128.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory o f vocational personalities
and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Holt, Cheryl L. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bern Sex Role Inventory. Sex
Roles, 39, 929-941.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers.
House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional
research are vastly exaggerated. Academy o f Management Review, 21, 203-224.
Hu, L.T., & Bender P.M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 1, 1-55.
Hulin, C. L. (1966). Job satisfaction and turnover in a female clerical population. Journal
o f Applied Psychology, 50, 280-285.
Hulin, C. L. (1968). Effects of changes in job-satisfaction levels on employee turnover.
Hulin, C. L., & Smith, P. C. (1964). Sex Differences in Job Satisfaction. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 48, 88-92.
133
Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and
withdrawal decisions: empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration.
Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233-250.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989).
Construction of a job in general scale: a comparison of global, composite, and
specific measures. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200.
Jepsen, D. A., & Sheu, H. (2003). General job satisfaction from a developmental
perspective: Exploring choice - job matches at two career stages. The Career
Development Quarterly, 52, 162-179.
Johnson, W. R., Morrow, P. C., & Johnson, G. J. (2002). An evaluation of a perceived
overqualification scale across work settings. The Journal o f Psychology, 136,
425-441.
Jose, P. E. (2003, December). Modgraph-1: A programme to compute cell means fo r
graphical display o f moderational analyses: The internet version. Retrieved
September 22, 05, from Victoria University of Wellington Web Site:
http://vuw.ac.nz/psyc/staff/paul-jose/files/modgraph/modgraph.php
Judge, T. A. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job
satisfaction and voluntary turnover. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 78, 395-401.
Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1994). Individual differences in the nature of the
relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal o f Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 67, 101-107.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: the
mediating role o f job characteristics. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 85, 237-249.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: a core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior,
19, 151-188.
134
Keavenly, T. J., & Inderrieden, E. J. (2000). Gender differences in pay satisfaction and
pay expectations. Journal o f Managerial Issues, 12, 363-379.
Keyes, M. (2003), About the department: A synopsis of our history. Retrieved September
14, 2004, from http://www.psvch.umn.edu/courses/about/
Khan, L. J., & Morrow, P. C. (1991). Objective and subjective underemployment
relationships to job satisfaction. Journal o f Business Research, 22, 211-218.
Krausz, M., Kedem, P., Tat, Z., & Amir, Y. (1992). Sex-role orientation and work
adaptation of male nurses. Research in Nursing and Health, 15, 391-398.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurements, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49,
1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Colbert, A. E., & Jansen, K. J. (2002). A policy-capturing study of
the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 87, 985-993.
LaCroix, A. Z., & Haynes, S. G. (1987). Gender differences in the health effects of
workplace roles. In R. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress
(pp. 85-121). New York: Free Press.
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (1996). Distinguishing between employees'
perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Journal o f Vocational
Behavior, 59, 454-470.
Lawler, E. E., Ill, Hall, D. T., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). Organizational climate:
relationship to organizational structure, process, and performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 139-155.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. In Archives o f
Psychology (Vol. 140). New York: Columbia University.
135
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook o f industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Essentials o f person-environment-
correspondence counseling. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Long, V. O. (1989). Relation of masculinity to self-esteem and self-acceptance in male
professionals, college students, and clients. Journal o f Counseling Psychology,
36, 84-87.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of
matched samples of female and male executives. Journal o f Applied Psychology,
82, 359-375.
Maupin, R., & Lehman, C. (1994). Talking heads: Stereotypes, status, sex roles, and
satisfaction of female and male auditors. Accounting, Organisations, and Society,
19, 427-437.
Miller, M. J., Knippers, J. A., Burley, K., & Tobacyk, J. J. (1993). Relationship between
sex-role orientation and Holland's typology: Implications for career counselors.
College Student Journal, 27, 356-361.
Mount, M. K., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1978). Person-environment congruence and
employee job satisfaction: A test of Holland's theory. Journal o f Vocational
Behavior, 13, 84-100.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of
organizational commitment. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 32, 224-247.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture:
a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy o f
Management Journal, 34, 487-516.
136
Parra, L. F. (1995). Development o f an intention to quit scale. Unpublished manuscript,
Bowling Green State University.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). Orlando,
FL: Harcourt Brace.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bern Sex-Role Inventory: A theoretical and
methodological critique. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 3 7, 996-
1016.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal o f Management, 12, 531-544.
Quinn, R. P., & Shepard, L. J. (1974). The 1972-1973 Quality o f Employment Survey:
descriptive statistics with comparisons from the 1969-1970 survey o f working
conditions. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center.
Rotheram, M. J., & Weiner, N. (1983). Androgyny, stress, and satisfaction: Dual-career
and traditional relationships. Sex Roles, 9, 151-158.
Russell, S. S., Spitzmuller, C., Lin, L. F., Stanton, J. M., Smith, P. C., & Ironson, G. H.
(2004). Shorter can also be better: The abridged Job in General scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 64, 878-893.
Sagie, A., Birati, A., & Tziner, A. (2002). Assessing the costs of behavioral and
psychological withdrawal: A new model and an empirical illustration. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 51, 67-89.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships
between job information sources, applicant perception of fit, and work outcomes.
Personnel Psychology, 50, 395-426.
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there?
Personnel Psychology, 36, 577-600.
Schaffer, R. H. (1953). Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work.
Psychological monographs: General and applied, 67(14), 1-29.
137
Schichman, S., & Cooper, E. (1984). Life satisfaction and sex-role concept. Sex Roles,
11, 227-240.
Schuttenberg, E. M., & O'Dell, F. L. (1990). Vocational Personality types and sex-role
perceptions of teachers, counselors, and educational administrators. Career
Development Quarterly, 39, 60-72.
Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning fo r the behavior sciences (3rd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2004). The relation between career decision-making
strategies and person-job fit: A study of job changers. Journal o f Vocational
Behavior, 64, 198-221.
Smith, P. C. (1992). In pursuit of happiness: why study general job satisfaction. In C. J.
Cranny, P.C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: how people feel about
their jobs and how it affects their performance (pp. 5-19). New York: Lexington
Books.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement o f satisfaction in
work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Smith, P. L., Smits, S. J., & Hoy, F. (1998). Employee work attitudes: The subtle
influence of gender. Human Relations, 51, 649-666.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the
use of a controversial method. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-392.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (1995). The nature and effects of method variance in
organizational research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International
Review o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1995 (p.249-274). West
Sussex, England: John Wiley.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their
psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Spokane, A. R. (1985). Monograph: A review of research on person-environment
congruence in Holland's theory of careers. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 26,
306-343.
Spokane, A. R., Meir, E. I., & Catalono, M. (2000). Person-environment congruence and
Holland’s' theory: A review and reconsideration. Journal o f Vocational Behavior,
57, 137-187.
Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., Julian, A. L., Thoresen, P., Aziz, S., et al.
(2001). Development of a compact measure of job satisfaction: The abridged job
descriptive index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 1104-1122.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics fo r the social sciences (4th ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stumpfer, D. J., Danana, N., Gouws, J. F., & Viviers, M. R. (1998). Personality
dispositions and job satisfaction. South African Journal o f Psychology, 28,
Summers, T. P., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1988). An investigation of sex differences in job
satisfaction. Sex Roles, 18, 679-689.
Tang, T. L. P. (1995). The development of a short Money Ethic Scale: attitudes towards
money and pay satisfaction revisited. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 19,
809-17.
Tang, T. L., Kim, J. K., & Tang, D. S. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the
relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human
Relations, 53, 213-245.
Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in
organizations. Academy o f Management Review, 6, 569-576.
Tinsley, H. E. (2000). The congruency myth. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 56, 147-
179.
139
Tranberg, M., Slane, S., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1993). The relation between interest
congruence and satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 42,
253-264.
Tziner, A., & Birati, A. (1996). Assessing employee turnover costs: A revised approach.
Human Resource Management Review, 6, 113-122.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations
between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal o f Vocational
Behavior, 63, 473-489.
Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary o f statistics & methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wanous, J. P.,
Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? Journal o f Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.
Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1996). Estimating the reliability o f a single-item
measure. Psychological Reports, 78, 631 -634.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good
are single-item measures? Journal o f Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegan, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual fo r the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
Industrial Relations Center.
Weitz, J. (1952). A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology, 3, 201-205.
Wesman, A. G. (1965). Wesman personnel classification test manual. New York: The
Psychological Corporation.
140
Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, P. M., Meissner, P. M., &
Wapner, S. (1954). Personality through perception. New York: Harper.
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K.., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual fo r the
embeddedfigures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Wolfe, L. K.., & Betz, N. E. (1981). Traditionality of choice and sex-role identification as
moderators of the congruence of occupational choice in college women. Journal
o f Vocational Behavior, 18, 43-55.
Young, G., Tokar, D. M., & Subich, L. M. (1998). Congruence revisited: Do 11 indices
differentially predict job satisfaction and is the relation moderated by person and
situation variables?. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 52, 208-223.
141
Appendix A
Prenotice Letter
«Salut» «First» «Middle» «Last» «JR»

«Company»
«Addressl»
«City», «State» «Zip»
Dear «Salut» «Last»,
I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Louisville studying Human Resource

Education. A few days from now you will receive a request in the mail to fill out a brief
questionnaire for a research project being conducted to fulfill the dissertation requirement
of my degree. This study is an effort to better understand how masculine and feminine
individuals experience their work environments and if identifying with a particular
gender role affects happiness with a job.
You were among a group of 500 randomly selected from the Certified Public
Accountants residing in Kentucky I am asking to assist in completing my study.
I am writing in advance to inform you of the nature of the survey when you receive it and
that it only requires about 15 minutes of your time. Only with your help will my research
be successful. However, everyone’s time is precious and if you feel, for any reason, you
would not be able to assist by completing the questionnaire, please don’t hesitate to
contact my dissertation chairperson, Namok Choi, PhD at 502-852-4014 or me at 502-
777-8036 or robin.hinkle@insightbb.com.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kindest Regards,
Robin Hinkle
PhD Candidate
P.S. I will be enclosing a small token of my appreciation for your participation in my

study as a way of saying thanks.
142
Appendix B
Cover Letter
«Salut» «First» «Middle» «Last» «JR»

«Company»
«Addressl»
«City», «State» «Zip»
Dear «Salut» «Last»,
I am writing to ask your help in a study I am conducting to fulfill the dissertation

requirement of a doctoral degree in Human Resource Education at the University of
Louisville. This study is an effort to better understand how masculine and feminine
individuals experience their work environments and if identifying with a particular
gender role affects happiness with a job.
From the Certified Public Accountants residing in Kentucky, I randomly selected 500 to
ask for their assistance in completing my study. I am requesting that you complete the
enclosed survey and return it in the envelope provided. The results of the surveys will be
used to complete my dissertation and for research purposes only.
Your answers are completely confidential and anonymous. In this package, you will find
an informed consent, containing more information on your rights as a voluntary
participant. By returning your completed survey, you voluntarily agree to participate in
this research.
While I wish it could be more, I am enclosing $ 1 as a token of my appreciation for your

participation in my study.
If you have any questions or comments about this study, please don’t hesitate to contact
me at 502-777-8036 or robin.hinkle@insightbb.com.
Thank you very much for helping with this study.
Sincerely,
Robin K. Hinkle
143
Appendix C
Informed consent
Informed Consent for

The Moderating Effects of Gender Role on the
Relationship between Person-Environment Fit and Job Satisfaction
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Namok Choi and
Robin Hinkle at the University of Louisville, College of Education and Human
Development. The study will take place at the University of Louisville. Approximately
500 Certified Public Accountants will be invited to participate. Your participation in this
study will last for 15 minutes.
The purpose of this research study is to examine whether identifying with either feminine
or masculine traits affects how well a person fits with their work environment and their
subsequent job satisfaction. You are asked to complete a survey containing three
measures and a demographic questionnaire. You do not need to identify your name and
your responses will never be identified. You are provided a stamped addressed envelope
to return your completed questionnaire.
Your participation is voluntary and your confidentiality will be protected to the extent
permitted by law. The potential risks to you in participating are extremely low since the
questions asked are not sensitive in nature and the questionnaire will be returned
anonymously. The information collected may not benefit you directly, but may be helpful
to social science researchers and occupational psychologists in accessing how work
environments are likely to result in happier employees based on their identification with a
masculine or feminine gender role. A token of $1 is offered for your participation.
You may refuse to answer any questions that make you uncomfortable. You are free to
refuse to participate or withdraw you consent at any time without penalty. You
acknowledge that all your present questions have been answered in a language you can
understand and all future questions will be treated in the same manner.
This study is being conducted as a partial fulfillment of the degree requirements for a
doctoral degree in Human Resource Education.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact Dr. Namok Choi (502-852-
4014) or Robin Hinkle (502-777-8036). If you have any questions regarding your rights
as a research participant, you may call, in confidence, the Human Studies Committee
office (502-825-5188). You will be given the opportunity to discuss any questions about
your rights as a research participant, in confidence, with a member of the IRB. The IRB
is an independent committee composed of faculty and staff of the University community,
as well as lay members o f the community not connected with these institutions. The
Committee has reviewed this study.
By returning your completed survey, you voluntarily agree to participate in this research.
144
Appendix D
Survey Instrument
Person-environment Fit, Gender Role, and Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
Section 1
Please read the following statements and circle only one number that represents your
level o f agreement.
Strongly disagree Strongly agree
1. There is a good fit between what my job

offers me & what I am looking for in a job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. The attributes that I look for in a job are

fulfilled very well by my present job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. The job that I currently hold gives me just

about everything that I want from a job.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. The match is very good between the

demands o f my job & my personal skills.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. My abilities & training are a good fit

with the requirements o f my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. My personal abilities & education provide

a good match with the demands that my
job places on me.............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. The things that I value in life are very similar

to the things my organization values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. My personal values match my organization’s

values & culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. My organization’s values & culture provide

a good fit with the things that I value in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
145
Section 2
A number of personality characteristics are listed below. We would like you to use those
characteristics to describe yourself, that is, we would like you to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7,
how true of you each of these characteristics is. Please do not leave any characteristics
unmarked.
Never or Almost Always or almost
never True always true
1. Defend my own beliefs.......... 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Affectionate............................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Conscientious.......................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Independent............................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Sympathetic............................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Moody..................................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Assertive................................. 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Sensitive to needs of others.... 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Reliable................................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Strong personality.................. 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Understanding........................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Jealous.................................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Forceful................................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Compassionate........................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Truthful.................................. 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Have leadership abilities......... 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Eager to soothe hurt feelings... 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Secretive................................. 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Willing to take risks................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Warm...................................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. Adaptable................................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. Dominant................................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Tender..................................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. Conceited................................ 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. Willing to take a stand............ 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. Love children.......................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Tactful.................................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. Aggressive.............................. 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. Gentle..................................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
30. Conventional.......................... 2 3 4 5 6 7
146
Section 3
Think of the work you do at present. How well does each of the following words or phrases
describe vour work? Circle "Yes" if it describes your work, "No" if it does not describe it, or "?
if you cannot decide.
1. Satisfying............................................... Yes No ?
2. Gives sense of accomplishment.......... Yes No ?
3. Challenging............................................ Yes No 9
4. Dull.......................................................... Yes No ?
5. Uninteresting......................................... Yes No 9
Think of the pay you get now. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe
vour present pay?
1. Income adequate for normal expenses Yes No ?
2. Fair.......................................................... Yes No ?
3. Insecure Yes No ?
4. Well paid................................................ Yes No ?
5. Underpaid Yes No ?
Think of the opportunities for promotion that you have now. How well does each of the
following words or phrases describe vour opportunities for promotion?
1. Good opportunities for promotion Yes No ?
2. Promotion on ability............................. Yes No ?
3. Dead-end job Yes No ?
4. Good chance for promotion................. Yes No ?
5. Unfair promotion Yes No ?
Think of your supervisor and the kind of supervision that you get on your job. How well does
each of the following words or phrases describe vour supervision?
1. Praises good work.................. .............. Yes No 9
2. Tactful...................................... .............. Yes No 9
3. Annoying................................. ............... Yes No 9
4. Up to date................................ ............. Yes No 9
5. Bad........................................... .............. Yes No ?
Think of the majority of people that you work with now or the people you meet in connection
with your work. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe these people?
1. B oring...................................................... Yes No 9
2. Helpful..................................................... Yes No 9
3. Responsible.............................................. Yes No ?
4. Intelligent................................................. Yes No 9
5. Lazy........................................................... Yes No 9
147
Section 3, continued
Think of your job in general. All in all, what is it like most of the time? For each of the
following words or phrases, circle "Yes" if it describes your job in general, "No" if it
does not describe it, or "?" if you cannot decide:
1. Good............................. ....... Yes No ?

2. Undesirable................... ..... Yes No ?
3. Better than most........... Yes No ?
4. Disagreeable....................... Yes No 9
5. Makes me content........ ..... Yes No 9
6. Excellent.............................. Yes No ?
7. Enjoyable...................... .... Yes No 7
8. Poor............................... ..... Yes No 7
Section 4
Please read and answer the following statements, circling only one letter where
appropriate.
1. Your age at your last birthday:_____________
2. Your gender is: a) Male b) Female
3. Your zip code:____________
4. Your company’s zip code, if different:______________
5. Do you primarily work from your home? a) yes b) no
6. Please indicate the size o f your organization:
a) Sole practitioner
b) 2 - 5 0 employees
c) 51 - 100 employees
d) 101 - 500 employees
e) 501 - 1,000 employees
f) more than 1,000 employees
7. When did you begin your current job? Month _______ Y ear_______
8. Do you have at least one child that requires daycare? a) yes b) no
Thank you!
148
Appendix E
Multiple Regression Graphs of P-E fit x F on Job Satisfaction

Histogram
Dependent Variable: OveralIJS
70-
60-
50-
>»
40-
U- 3 0 -
20 -
10 -
Mean = -8.29E-16
Std. Dev. = 0.995
N = 309
-4 ■2 0 2 4
Regression Standardized Residual
149
Appendix F
Multiple Regression o f P-E fit x F on Job Satisfaction

Normal Probability Plot o f Regression Standardized Residuals
0 .8 -
.Q
O
i_
Q.
£ 0 .6 -
3
o
T3
©
o 0 .4 -
a
a
X
LU
0 .2 -
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob
150
Appendix H
Multiple Regression o f P-E fit x F on Job Satisfaction

Scatterplot

Regression Studentized Residual
o
»
-2
-4
Regression Standardized Predicted Value
151
Appendix I
Multiple Regression Graphs of P-E fit x M on Job Satisfaction

Histogram
60-
50-
O 40-
C
0»
3
« 30-
k_
LL
20 -
10 -
Mean = -2.45E-16
Std. Dev. = 0.995
N = 309
-4 -2 0 2 4
Regression Standardized Residual
152
Appendix J
Multiple Regression o f P-E fit x M on Job Satisfaction

Normal Probability Plot o f Regression Standardized Residuals
0 .8 -
n
o
I.
| 0 .6 -
o 0 .4 -
e
Q.
X
11J
0 .2 -
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob
153
Appendix G
Multiple Regression o f P-E fit x M on Job Satisfaction

Scatterplot

Regression Studentized Residual
o d*Po
- 2-
-4 -
Regression Standardized Predicted Value
154
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME: Robin Karol Kinser Hinkle
ADDRESS: 7510 Nottoway Circle

Louisville, KY 40214
DOB: Louisville, KY - May 17, 1969
EDUCATION
& TRAINING: B.A., Government Studies
University of Texas at Dallas
1987-91
MBA, International Management

1991-94
M.S., Organizational Behavior

1997-98
Ph.D., Human Resources Development

University of Louisville
2002-05
Fellowship, Army Research Institute

Consortium Research Fellows Program
2003-05
PROFESSIONAL
SOCIEITES: American Educational Research Association
PUBLICATIONS: Shadrick, S. B., Lussier, J. W., Hinkle, R. K. (2005). Concept

development for future domains: A new method of knowledge elicitation (ARI Technical
Report). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences.
155

Cable Derue Pe PJ, Po, Ns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cable Derue Pe PJ, Po, Ns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

Robin Kinser Hinkle

College of Education and Human Development

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

All rights reserved

Robin Kinser Hinkle

October 27, 2005

By the following dissertation committee:

Namok Choi, Dissertation Director

perseverance and consistent guidance throughout the development and completion

o f this dissertation. I also extend my appreciation to other members of my committee for

Joseph Petrosko, and Dr. Nancy Theriot.

Acknowledgement is given to the following individuals for the encouragement,

Wendy Felts, Tamela Freeman, and Joanna Lowry.

Alex and making my life easier.

THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF GENDER ROLE ON THE RELATIONSHIP

October 27, 2005

This study examined whether identification with typically feminine (F) or

masculine (M) traits interacted with perceptions of person-environment (fit) to enhance

measurement of P-E fit.

The sample consisted of 317 certified public accounts residing in Kentucky.

DEDICATION ..................................................................................................................... iii

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................. 8

Significance of the S tu d y ................................................................................. 10

II. LITERATURE REV IEW .................................................................................... 14

Interaction of Personaland Work Variables................................................. 29

Summary o f Job Satisfaction........................................................................38

Gender-Related Studies in Job Satisfaction and P-E F it.................................. 56

III. METHODS .............................................................................................................66

The Job Descriptive Index (JD I)...................................................................70

Development of the J D I ......................................................................... 70

The abridged JDI (aJDI) ...................................................................... 71

Validity o f the aJD I.................................................................................. 72

Reliability of the aJDI ........................................................................... 72

The Job in General (JIG) S cale.....................................................................73

Reliability and Valildity of the J IG ......................................................... 73

The abridged JIG (aJIG )......................................................................... 74

Perceived Fit Scale (P F S )............................................................................. 74

Development of the PFS ......................................................................... 75

Validity and Reliability of the PFS ..................................................... 76

Bern Sex Role Inventory (B S R I).................................................................78

Validity of the BSRI ............................................................................. 79

IV. RESULTS ...............................................................................................................84

Preliminary Statistical Analysis......................................................................... 84

Intercorrelations of the Variables................................................................. 89

Analyses for the Research Questions................................................................ 91

Canonical Correlation Analysis ............................................................... 92

Multiple Regression A nalyses......................................................................97

Factor Analyses............................................................................................ 103

Summary of Major Findings............................................................................ I l l

Implications ...................................................................................................... 121

CURRICULUM VITAE .................................................................................................... 155

1. Age and Length of Service by Biological G ender....................................................... 67

2. Percentages for Organizational Size, Daycare Needs,

3. Comparison of Reliability Coefficients............................................................................ 85

4. Descriptive Statistics for Fit and Satisfaction Variables.................................................86

5. Overall Job Satisfaction by Gender R o le.........................................................................88

6. Mean Overall Job Satisfaction and P-E Fit by Gender Role

7. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations........................................................ 90