Saturday, March 2, 2019
Is It Possible for Organizations Operating in Dynamic Environments to Achieve Person-Organisational Fit to Improve Organizational Effectiveness?
straight off we live in a world where change is inevit sceneryted. Organisations today saying energetic environments characterized by substantial and often unpredictable technological, political and economic changes. The key to survival and succeeding is adaptation, in dynamic environments often an institutions unless option is to literally do or die with regard to change. Tyagi & Gupta (2005) indicates that the cardinal point of some oneal and institutional effectiveness is a sense of being able to make contributions and make somewhat of a difference in whatsoever way possible.As individuals we feel content and fulfilled when we make despotic contributions to our communities, families and organisations. Similarly organisations can only achieve their potential when they optimisticly doctor the lives of various stakeholders and related entities. hitherto the opportunity to contribute only arises if there is a watch between what people want to achieve and what the org anisation wants to achieve. Thus creating a twin between the person and organisation let both to be effective.In the past few years the idea of Person-Organizational suit (P-O) has been in a state of flux, with legion(predicate) theorists putting in the happen conflicting views on the conceptualization of check off, its measurements and its boundaries. In the broad sense of the devise it is defined as the compatibility between the person and the organisation (Li, 2006). As many organisations curb in dynamic environments many changes take place and organizations bewilder to cope with these changes by adapting their lineage and strategies to the turbulent environments.This essay goes on to explore the effects the changes mention have on the P-O fit and if dynamic environment al impoverished organisations to achieve person-organisational fit in order to enhance and do organisational effectiveness. According to evidence it can be seen that it is possible to achieve P-O fit in dynamic environments as yet it would not be the ensample asshole to implement to improve effectiveness due to the evolving nature of the environment as it hinders growth and discourages innovation which would not lead to organizational effectiveness (Tyagi & Gupta, 2005).P-O fit refers to the extent to which and individual and the employing organization atomic number 18 compatible. in that location are however many definitions that have been put forward over the years such as value congruence (OReilly et al. , 1991), Goal congruence (Vancouver et al. , 1994), needs and supplies want abilities (Edwards,1991) in addition a personality-climate fit (Ryan and Schmit, 1996). However the most normally used definition is the value congruence perspective. Verquer et al (2003) value congruence as the extent to which individual and organizational values match.Rynes and Gerhart have kaput(p) a step further and pointed out that the P-O fit is more than a mere match, as it usually implies a sense of chemistry (Bellou, 2009). another(prenominal) way of conceptualising the compatibility between the person and organisation uses the distinction between appurtenant and complementary fit. Supplementary fit occurs when a person supplements or possesses characteristics that are similar to other individuals in an environment. This congruence can be differentiate between complementary fit, which occurs when a persons characteristics make complete the environment or add to what is missing (Tyagi & Gupta, 2005).Further more bloodline and Parsons (2001) states that P-O fit is a crucial factor in maintaining a on the table workforce and creating a extravagantly degree of organizational freight in a tight labour market and a competitive patronage environment. Supporters of P-O fit state that the construct is crucial in the tuition of organizational effectiveness because it has made improvements to the traditional view of matching skills, knowledge and abilities in predicting if an individual lead be successful in a particular proposition organization (Chuang & Sackett, 2005).Ambrose et al, 2008 posit that individuals whose values will result in positive contributions to organizational effectiveness and lower turnover. These models may be downstairs the laying claim of static environments one must apply the dynamic nature of the reliable environments organisations operate in today. Kammeyer-Mueller (2007) proclaims that even though static and dynamic perspectives are portrayed as mutually exclusive alternatives, they need not be opposed to one another.Research goes on to appearance that constant impertinent shocks injected into the organisations may result in changes been apply that affects the P-O fit. These changes may sometime(prenominal)s lead to negative results such as turnover and intention to leave as the employees feel they no longer fit with the organisation. In addition Chatman et al (2008, p. 64) notes that, because a lack of congruence is aversive, misfits are unlikely to remain with that organization.There are also instances when individuals no longer are compatible or unhappy with the fit between the organisations and themselves due to adaptations the company undergoes however hold to remain with the organisation solely because they have no other problem options. In instances where misfits remain as they perceive that it is their only choice they stimulate about many negative aspects into the organisation such as demotivation, low commitment, this is mainly because they try to overcompensate and manipulate the work input takings equation to fill the missing void.On the other hand the amicable personal identity theory suggests that another mechanism by which individual dispositions efficacy influence fit within a dynamic context. The social identity argues that the self-concept is a patchwork of various identities, such as demography, occupation, organization, department and workgroup which bear proscriptions for behaviour (Ashworth & Johnson, 2001). It also states that depending on the pressures applied the identity a person adopts will differ.This however does not change the fact that the individual unperturbed has within himself or herself, the same core set of identities. Interestingly at least in Oriental Chinese societies, leaders or managers may change their leader behaviours to create a better person-organisation value fit. This study shows that behaviours have positive effects on person-organisational fit. A crucial purpose in this study was that even among employees who have been below average O-P fit can be influenced in terms of motivation commitment and go for in their leader by leader behaviours.For example employees working under proud team oriented leaders had higher motivation and commitment and trust compared to those under low team oriented leaders. This goes on to show that even though the dynamic environment may affect and the person-organisati on fit and sometimes lowers the P-O value fit , organisations can still effectively operate and manage those employees with the proper management and leadership methods (Li, 2006).However this method capability not an appropriate universal method to implement as business environments vary across nations due to cultural, legal and other aspects that are followed. However the P-O fit may not be in the best touch of the organization at times and lead to negative results. For example, extremely high levels of person-organization value fit may lead to high levels of conformity and homogeneity. full(prenominal) levels of conformity and homogeneity will bring about a set about of adverse effects which may hinder the success of the organisation, by qualification the organisation and its members far less adaptable to the changes surging in the dynamic environment as well as less innovative (Li, 2006). just about evidence even go to the extent of pointing out that organisations with slig ht interior(a) variation in employees perspective lead to better performance in the short roll but worse in the long run , presumably as a result of inferior adaptation (Li, 2006).Person-Organisation equalise in theory sounds like a tool that should be implemented by every organisation. Taking a closer look one can see that even though initially achieving a fit will lead to organisational effectiveness in the long run it will cause the organisation more harm than good. This is due to the fact that organisation operating in dynamic environments thrives on adaptability and innovation which is opposed by the negative by products of long term P-0 which include homogeneity and high levels of conformity.This does not mean that the concept of P-O should be completely ignored as evidence shows that it has a greater impact on individuals in an organisations resulting in positive results in comparison to organisations as a whole. In an ideal situation the individuals should adapt with the environment and perceive the changes as a teaching experience to mould them to achieve the best, keeping in mind that sometime change is the key.