Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 639–647 | Cite as

The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relationships between P–O Fit, Job Satisfaction, and In-role Performance

  • Brian T. GregoryEmail author
  • M. David Albritton
  • Talai Osmonbekov



The direct relationships between person–organization fit (P–O fit) and multiple individual-level outcomes such as job satisfaction and in-role performance have been heavily studied in the extant literature; potential mediators of these relationships have been studied much less frequently. Consequently, a complete picture of the psychology surrounding P–O fit is missing. This research aims to begin to fill this gap in the literature.


A sample of university faculty and staff with supervisor-rated performance feedback is used to examine the potential mediating role of psychological empowerment on these established relationships.


Results from this sample indicate that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between P–O fit and in-role performance, as well as between P–O fit and job satisfaction.


These results imply that an individual’s perceived fit in their organization impacts their perceptions of management practices which, in turn, influences important behaviors and attitudes toward work.


Study findings begin to explain how P–O fit impacts employee attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, we find that individual cognitions regarding impact and self-determination appear to be two factors that explain the relationship between P–O fit and job satisfaction as well as the relationship between P–O fit and in-role performance.


P–O fit Psychological empowerment Supervisor-rated in-role performance Job satisfaction Mediation model 


  1. Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 221–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures and practices (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, D. (1996). Cognitive misfit of problem-solving style at work: A facet of person–organizational fit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of adjustment. Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Harris, S. G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. Organization Science, 5, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (2004). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar
  10. Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person–organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 127–142.Google Scholar
  12. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person–organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ostroff, C. (1993). Relationships between person–environment congruence and organizational effectiveness. Group and Organizational Management, 18, 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common problems/proper solutions (pp. 46–64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Individual empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. D., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679–704.Google Scholar
  25. Stangor, C., & McMillan, D. (1992). Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social development literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An ‘interpretive’ model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tziner, A. (1987). Congruency issue related to using Fineman’s achievement climate notion. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 63–78.Google Scholar
  28. Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of the relations between person–organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian T. Gregory
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. David Albritton
    • 1
  • Talai Osmonbekov
    • 1
  1. 1.The W. A. Franke College of BusinessNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations