Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the use of commensurate scales for research on person-environment fit. Three commensurate scales were derived from the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory by altering the instructions of this cognitive-style measure. The three scales measured person-environment fit in the workplace. Respondents (n = 108) indicated the kind of person they were required to be at work, the kind of person they currently were at work, and the kind of person they wanted to be in their ideal jobs. Scores from the person-environment fit measure were compared to scores from Kirton's original style inventory. Tukey tests indicated significant differences between Kirton's measure and individuals' perceptions of the style required at work and the style they preferred for an ideal job. The style demanded at work was more adaptive than the respondents' general style preferences. Also the respondents' ideal work style was more innovative than their general style preferences. Only one subscale, Sufficiency of Originality, showed a significant difference between Kirton's measure and perceptions of the style currently exhibited at work. Also, correlations showed no significant associations between respondents' adaptor-innovator styles and perceptions of the style required at work. Significant correlations were found for respondents' adaptor-innovator style preferences with their current and ideal work styles. Additional findings, interpretations, and implications for research are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bowers

K. S.

(1973) Situationism in psychology: an analysis and critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307–336.

Caplan

R. D.

(1987) Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248–267.

Carne

G. C.

Kirton

M. J.

(1982) Styles of creativity test-score correlations between Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Reports, 50, 31–36.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1957) The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.

Ettlie

J. E.

O'Keefe

R. D.

(1982) Innovative attitudes, values, and intentions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 163–182.

Goldsmith

R. E.

(1984) Personality characteristics associated with adaption-innovation. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 159–165.

Goldsmith

R. E.

(1985a) The factorial composition of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 245–250.

Goldsmith

R. E.

(1985b) Personality and adaptive-innovative problem solving. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 95–106.

Goldsmith

R. E.

(1986) Adaption-innovation and cognitive complexity. The Journal of Psychology, 119, 461–467.

10.

Hammond

S. M.

(1986) Some pitfalls in the use of factor scores: the case of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 401–407.

11.

Harrison

R. V.

(1978) Person-environment fit and job stress. In Cooper

C. L.

Payne

(Eds.), Stress at work. New York: Wiley. Pp. 175–205.

12.

Hunt

J. McV.

(1965) Traditional personality theory in the light of recent evidence. American Scientist, 53, 80–96.

13.

Kirton

M. J.

(1976) Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.

14.

Kirton

M. J.

(1978) Have adaptors and innovators equal levels of creativity? Psychological Reports, 42, 695–698.

15.

Kirton

M. J.

(1987) Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory manual. (2nd ed.) Hatfield, UK: Occupational Foundation for Educational Research.

16.

Kirton

M. J.

(Eds) (1989) Adaptors and innovators: styles of creativity and problem solving. London: Roudedge.

17.

Kirton

M. J.

de Ciantis

S. M.

(1986) Cognitive style and personality: the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Inventories. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 141–146.

18.

Kirton

M. J.

McCarthy

R. M.

(1988) Cognitive climate and organizations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 175–184.

19.

Kirton

M. J.

Pender

(1982) The adaption-innovation continuum, occupational type, and course selection. Psychological Reports, 51, 883–886.

20.

Lewin

(1951) Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper.

21.

Meltzer

(1961) The need for a dual orientation in social psychology. Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 43–48.

22.

Murray

H. A.

(1938) Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford Univer. Press.

23.

Myers

I. B.

McCaulley

M. H.

(1985) A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

24.

Pervin

L. A.

(1967) Satisfaction and perceived self-environment similarity: a semantic differential study of student-college interaction. Journal of Personality, 35, 623–634.

25.

Pervin

L. A.

(1987) Person-environment congruence in the light of the person-situation controversy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 222–230.

26.

Puccio

G. J.

Talbot

R. J.

Joniak

A. J.

(1993) Person-environment fit: using commensurate scales to predict student stress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 457–468.

27.

Schneider

(1987) E = f(P,B): the road to a radical approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 353–361.

28.

Talbot

Cooper

Barrow

(1992) Creativity and stress. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1, 183–193.

Person-Environment Fit: Examining the Use of Commensurate Scales

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References