Research from industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology indicates that outside of K–12 education, employees’ sense of fit with their organizations is often associated with job satisfaction, performance, commitment, and retention. Person-organization (P-O) fit has been conceptualized as the degree of congruence between an individual’s values, goals, and/or cognitive skills and abilities and the characteristics or requirements of their workplace. This essay reviews research from I-O psychology on how P-O fit predicts key outcomes for workers outside of K–12 education and discusses recent studies of P-O fit and teacher commitment and retention. We then theorize ways in which P-O fit can be used in research on teachers’ instruction, using research on teachers’ enactment of ambitious mathematics instruction as an example. Finally, the essay concludes by identifying directions for future research.
BidwellC. E.FrankK. A.QuirozP. A. (1997). Teacher types, workplace controls, and the organization of schools. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 285–307.
2.
BormanW.MotowidloS. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109.
3.
BretzR. D.JudgeT. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32–54.
4.
ChanW.Y.LauS.NieY.LimS.HoganD. (2008). Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 597–630.
5.
ChatmanJ. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–349.
6.
CohenD. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27–84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
GrossmanP.ComptonC.IgraD.RonfeldtM.ShahanE.WilliamsonP.W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.
9.
HarrisD. N.RutledgeS. A. (2010). Models and predictors of teacher effectiveness: A comparison of research about teaching and other occupations. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 914–960.
10.
HiebertJ.GrouwsD. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In LesterF. K.Jr., (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
11.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.
12.
HoffmanB. J.WoehrD. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 389–399.
13.
JacobB. A.KaneT. J.RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O. (2009). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? (CLOSUP Working Paper Series No. 11). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy.
14.
JonesN.YoungsP.FrankK. (2013). The role of school-based colleagues in shaping the commitment of novice special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 365–383.
15.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learning mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
16.
KingM. B. (2002). Professional development to promote schoolwide inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3), 243–257.
17.
KristofA. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.
18.
Kristof-BrownA. L.BillsberryJ. (2013). Fit for the future. In Kristof-BrownA. L.BillsberryJ. (Eds.), Organizational fit: Key issues and new directions (pp. 1–18). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
19.
Kristof-BrownA.ZimmermanR.JohnsonE. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
20.
MintzbergH. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 133–154.
21.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22.
OrganD. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct cleanup time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.
23.
PogodzinskiB.YoungsP.FrankK. (2013). Collegial climate and novice teachers’ intent to remain teaching. American Journal of Education, 120(1), 27–54.
24.
QianH. (2015). The effect of teacher preparation programs on future elementary mathematics teachers’ knowledge: A five-country analysis using TEDS-M data. Manuscript under review.
25.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2009). Compared to what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 529–544.
26.
SchneiderB.GoldsteinH. W.SmithD. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747–773.
27.
VancouverJ. B.MillsapR. E.PetersP. A. (1994). Multilevel analysis of organizational goal congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 666–679.
28.
VancouverJ. B.SchmittN. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 333–352.
29.
VerquerM. L.BeehrT. A.WagnerS. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473–489.
