Person-Organization Fit

Supplementary fit is being similar: the person and the organization share the same fundamental characteristics, usually values, so each reinforces the other. Complementary fit is being a match in the sense of filling gaps: in needs-supplies fit the organization provides what the person wants, and in demands-abilities fit the person provides what the organization needs. Kristof's review treats value-congruence P-O fit as primarily supplementary, while complementary logic underlies much person-job fit. The distinction matters because each implies a different measure and a different prediction, and mixing them produces uninterpretable findings.

It depends on the question. Perceived fit asks people directly how well they fit and is a strong, proximal predictor of attitudes and choices, as Cable and Judge showed, but it can be contaminated by the same attitudes it predicts. Actual congruence compares independently measured person and organization profiles and is more defensible for causal claims, but it requires commensurate measures and careful analysis. If you use actual congruence, avoid difference scores and use polynomial regression with response-surface analysis instead, which separates the effects of agreement from the effects of level.

P-O fit concerns compatibility with the organization as a whole, typically through shared values, whereas person-job fit concerns the match between a person's knowledge, skills, and abilities and the demands of a specific job. Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson's meta-analysis showed they predict different things: P-O fit relates most strongly to organization-level attitudes such as commitment and satisfaction, while person-job fit relates more strongly to job-specific attitudes and to performance. Treating them as interchangeable blurs these distinct relationships, so studies should specify and measure the fit type that matches the outcome of interest.