Person-Environment (P-E) Fit Theory

An individuals interaction with the work environment has been conceptualized as person-
environment (P-E) fitThe P-E fit theory is based on two central features of organizational
stress, first, the characteristics of the person and second, the potential source of stress in
the work environment. The idea is that stress increases in an individual as the degree of fit
decreases and this misfit can be in both directions (i.e., underload and overload can be
stressful). Central to this thinking is that people are viewed as active agents in their
environment, so that behaviors are seen as a function of the characteristics of both the
person and the environment. In this way, an individuals experience of organizational stress
is a function of the interaction between personal and environmental characteristics.
Therefore, P-E fit (or misfit) depends on individuals perceptions of their abilities, needs,
personality, and resources interacting with their perceptions of the situation within which
they find themselves. P-E fit also includes the ability of individuals and work environments
to change in an ongoing process.

Objective vs subjective fit

The first element of the P-E fit model is the clear distinction made between objective and
subjective fit. Experiencing stress from a misfit between individual and environmental
characteristics is a function of cognitive appraisal. Studies using commensurate objective
and subjective measures have shown that an individuals perceptions of stressors serve as
the intervening variables between objective stressors and the resultant strains. Potential
organizational stressors become actual stressors only if they are perceived as being
stressful or representing a threat. The subjective environment is that which is formed by the
individuals perceptions or cognitions of the external objective environment.

The objective environment alone cannot significantly alter the stress levels experienced by
individuals; the persons perception or translation of the objective environment has to be
included when examining stress. In much of the P-E fit stress research, subjective paper-
and-pencil measuring instruments are used to assess stress. Because P-E fit theory has
identified that cognitive distortion of the objective environment occurs, the important
component is the subjective assessment of P-E fit. The relationship between the objective
environment and the subjective environment (i.e., how the person perceives the
environment to be) is influenced by the contact with reality that the person has and the
relationship between the objective and the subjective person is influenced by the accuracy
of self assessment that the person possesses. However, research has indicated that there
is a correlation between subjective and objective measures of both person and environment,
and that subjective P-E fit bears a stronger association with the psychological and
physiological consequences of person-environment interactions than objective P-E fit does.
The pivotal concept in the P-E fit model arises, then, as the subjects cognitive appraisal of
themselves, their environment, and the perceived match between the two.

Coping and defenses

Certain dynamic concepts are included in the P-E fit based stress-strain model. The
adjustive techniques, namely, coping and defenses, influence objective and subjective fit
respectively in the model, but are not included as directly interacting with each other.
Coping involves action-oriented efforts (instrumental coping) to modify the objective
stressor and internal psychological efforts (palliative coping) to regulate the persons
emotions. Instrumental coping involves dealing with the actual source of stress and
palliative coping entails accommodation to the stressful situation by changing how one
views the source of stress or the stressful situation. The coping strategies that are adopted
can ultimately influence health. Healthy outcomes were more frequently being attributed to
effective coping than to the absence of any recorded stress by an individual......

The two dimensions of P-E fit

The perceived match between an individual and the environment has been distinguished in
P-E fit theory into two types. The one P-E fit is between the external demands of the job or
work environment and the employees abilities, skills and knowledge to function effectively
in the job (termed the demand-ability dimension of P-E fit). The other type of fit
propounded is that between an individuals internal needs and values and the extent to
which the job environment is able to meet these needs and values (termed the supply-need
or supply-motive dimension of P-E fit). A misfit, known as underload, exists if environmental
supplies are inadequate to meet the individuals needs, or the individuals abilities exceed
the environmental demands. A misfit known as overload, results if the environmental
supplies exceeds the individuals needs or the environment demands exceeds the
individuals abilities

P-E fit and strain

Consequences of P-E misfit are serious for both the person and the organization involved. In
the case of individuals, this is measured from their strain levels experienced. Peoples
perceptions of the situations to which they have been exposed determine whether they are
experiencing P-E fit or misfit and whether it has resulted in strain. The relationship between
perceived fit and the level of strain experienced is not necessarily of a positive or negative
linear nature

Variables involved

Organizational Stressors (P-E fit variables)

In the relationship between the person and the environment, where there are discrepancies
between job demands and an individuals capabilities in either direction (i.e., over- or
underload), any resulting misfit is a source of stress. Similarly, when the job or organization
is unable to fulfill the needs of the individual, a resultant misfit can also be experienced. A
person perceived no stress when there is a fit between factors at work and ones own actual
characteristics. Research results have indicated that perceived incongruence (i.e., poor P-E
fit) is an important determinant of strain and ill health

Quantitative workload

Quantitative overload occurs when the work expected of the individual is more than could
be accomplished by the individual within a given time limit. Quantitative overload results if
the tasks demand skills, abilities or knowledge that is beyond what the individual has to
offer. A further distinction between overload and underload can be made. Where the latter
occurred if there was insufficient work to do in a time period or the task was too simple.
Both overload and underload could be perceived as stressful within the person-environment
fit approach, allowed the individual to discriminate between what was an under- or over
quantitative workload for themselves

Responsibility for people and things

Responsibility, as a stressor, has been differentiated into responsibility for people and
responsibility for things. The former deals with taking responsibility for the work of others,
their future careers, and their job security. The latter is of a more impersonal nature where
responsibility is for budgets, equipment, projects and the like.

When one holds responsibility for people, it leads to a greater potential for role conflict and
role ambiguity and the possibility of having to make unpleasant interpersonal decisions. It
has been found that responsibility for people is significantly correlated with increased
smoking, blood pressure, and serum cholesterol levels. It has also been found that the
existence and severity of ulcers and hypertension in an individual are affected by the
amount of responsibility for people that one has. It has been found that responsibility for
people, rather than responsibility for things, is significantly more likely to lead to coronary
heart disease. Higher scores registered on both responsibility for people and things, are
related to increased strain.

The higher up in the organizational hierarchy one goes the more responsibility for people a
person has. For those people lower down in the hierarchy, responsibility for things
constitutes a fair portion of their job. This seems to suggest that studies covering blue and
white collar workers would need to consider both types of responsibility, for although both
have been found to be stressful, they involve different kinds of work.
http://www.sergaygroup.com/Smart-Talk/Stress-and-the-Organization-An-Academic-Perspective.html

http://cluteinstitute.com/proceedings/2013KWPapers/Article%20288.pdf