person-organization fit report ada

8/12/2019 Person-Organization Fit Report ADA

1/27


2/27

Table of ContentsTale of !ontents""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 2

List of Tales and #igures""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""$

%stra&t""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""4

'ntrodu&tion"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""(

1")esear&h methods and design""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""(

1"1Parti&ipants""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""(

1"2 *aterials """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""+

1"$ Design"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""+

1"4 Data %nalysis""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""+

1"( )esear&h limitations"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",

2"Theoreti&al #rame-or. and Literature )evie-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",

2"1 The %lanian Puli& %dministration system"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",

2"2 Person/organization fit""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

2"$ Jo atisfa&tion""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

2"4 Turnover """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""10

$"*aterials and *ethods""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""10

$"1 Person/organization fit analysis""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""11

$"2 Jo satisfa&tion analysis"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""12

$"$ Turnover intentions analysis"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1$

$"4 !ontrol 3ariales""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1$

$"( %nalysis pro&ess """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1$

4" tudy #indings""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1(

4"1 Person/organization fit study findings"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1(

4"2 Jo satisfa&tion study findings"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1,

4"$ Turnover intentions study findings"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1

Dis&ussion of the results"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""21

!on&lusion""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""24

)#)5! L'T"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""2(

2


3/27


4/27


5/27

Introduction

Person-organiation fit relates to t4e employees8 level of comfort it4in an

organiation an% is a crucial factor to t4e long-term )ob satisfaction. 3urt4ermore+ it is a

current an% most %iscusse% topic among sc4olars orl%i%e. 4en people start or5ing in

ne organisations t4eir aim is to fin% t4eir ne )obs rear%ing an% satisfying. mployees

epect a goo% level of comfort it4in t4e organiation an% ant to get ell it4 t4e

employer+ 4ic4 is 4y people select environments t4at fulfil t4eir nee%s; ,able an%

"u%ge+ 199'/ 4ere t4ey believe t4ey ill ?4uli%a+ 2011/+ 4ic4 is 4y t4e organiations= main concern in not )ust

ma5ing sure t4at t4ere is a fit beteen t4e in%ivi%uals an% t4e organiation+ but to persist it.

T4is is because employees+ 4o fit ell in t4e organiation try to acquire more 5nole%ge+

improve t4eir s5ills an% abilities 4ic4 in return ma5e t4em 4ig4ly motivate% an% qualifie%

for effective an% efficient goal ac4ievement. @n t4e ot4er 4an%+ if employees %o not feel

comfortable it4in t4e organiations an% t4eir nee%s are not met+ t4ey mig4t try to leave t4e

organiation.

T4e main ob)ective of t4is paper is t4us to eamine t4e relation beteen person-

organiation fit to )ob satisfaction an% turnover in t4e 6lbanian Public 6%ministration.

1. esearch methods and design

T4e researc4 aims to eamine t4e impact of person-organiation fit on to in%ivi%ual

outcomes )ob satisfaction+ turnover/ after inspecting %emograp4ic an% ot4er variables. Stu%y

%esign

1.1 Partici!ants

(


6/27

T4e sample of t4e stu%y consiste% of fifty employees selecte% from some important

public institutions in 6lbania suc4 as Ainistry of conomy+ Ainistry of nergy an% Bn%ustry+

Department of Ceological Survey of 6lbania+ egional %ucational ,enter of Tirana.

1." #aterials

T4e questionnaire as %esigne% in suc4 a ay t4at it 4elpe% us put to test t4e vali%ity

of t4e propose% 4ypot4esis on t4e relation beteen )ob satisfaction+ person-organiation fit

an% turnover in t4e public a%ministration. T4e questions ere revise% several times an% t4e

questionnaire as reviee% by us for t4e purpose of clarifying t4e instructions+ completion of

alternatives+ an% t4e use of appropriate language an% terms.

Euestionnaires ere %istribute% t4roug4 %irect communication it4 eac4 of t4e

participants. T4e questionnaires ere base% in t4e literature from ?ristof 199'/ an%

@=eillyF,4atman 19*'/+ Smit4 et al. 19'9/+ rig4t+ G. .+ > Davis+ G. S. 200!/+ Goraga+

,.+ > Tortia+ . 200'/+ DeSantis+ &. S.+ > Durst+ S. 7. 199'/+ llic5son+ A. ,. 2002/.

1.$ %esign

3or t4e purpose of t4e stu%y e use% control variables+ suc4 as: age+ se+ level of

e%ucation an% tenure. T4e %epen%ent variables presente% in t4is researc4 are )ob satisfaction+

person-organiation fit an% turnover. &ariables ere measure% t4roug4 questioning. 6fter

calculating t4e variables an% evaluating t4eir relations4ip beteen eac4 ot4er an% t4e control

variables+ t4e to 4ypot4eses ere teste%:

Hypothesis 1: Person-organization fit is significantly related to job satisfaction. As the

compatibility between employees and organizations increase, their job satisfaction will

increase.

Hypothesis 2: Person-organization fit is significantly related to trno!er intentions. As the

compatibility between employees and organizations increase, their trno!er intentions will

decrease.

1.& %ata Anal'sis

T4e results of t4e questionnaires ere analye% by e%iting+ co%ing of string variables+

transformation of some %ata in or%er to pro%uce %esire%+ but vali% results+ setting of

4ypot4esis an% finally 4ypot4esis testing. Softares suc4 as cel an% SPSS ere use% to

+


7/27

measure mean+ s5eness+ 5urtosis+ variance+ sampling %istribution+ test significance+

cumulative variances an% eigenvalues. T4ose values 4elpe% us to evaluate t4e importance of

variables an% it4 t4e evaluation of bot4 4ypot4eses. Since t4e values ere it4in t4e

boun%aries of t4e stu%y alloe% for eac4 of t4e parameters+ t4e proce%ure continue% it4

tests calculation for t4e 4ypot4eses= verification. To measure test significance of our

4ypot4esis e use%: t1 an% 32 tests. T4e analysis of variance as ma%e by using t4e

etraction met4o%: Principal ,omponent 6nalysis an% 3actor ,omponent 6nalysis.

1.( esearch limitations

T4is stu%y is limite% to some etent %ue to t4e fact t4at t4e researc4 as carrie% out

on a fairly small scale. Gecause of t4e sampling limitations an% t4e small number of

participants it remains unsure as to 4at etent t4e results of t4is researc4 are vali% an%

reliable. Bt cannot be eclu%e% t4at t4e researc4 fin%ings mig4t be specific to t4e public

institutions 4ic4 ere inclu%e% in t4e stu%y. Bf t4is is t4e case+ in or%er to reac4 more vali%

an% reliable results a muc4 more etensive an% %iversifie% researc4 it4 a variety of samples

nee%s to be con%ucte%.

". Theoretical Frame)or* and Literature evie)

".1 The Albanian Public Administration s'stem

4ile t4e 6lbanian term Hpublic a%ministrationH a%ministrata publi5e;/ is

%istinguis4e% from t4e term Hpublic a%ministrationHa%ministrimi publi5;/. T4e term HPublic

6%ministrationH 4as to meanings:

I from t4e ob)ective point of vie functional %efinition/+ t4e term %efines t4e activities as a

4ole performe% to meet t4e nee%s of general public interest public or%er+ public services

mar5et+ etc./. T4is function is relate% to public un%erstan%ing a%ministrative function/

I from t4e sub)ective perspective organic %efinition /+ it is a set of entities t4at perform t4e

above function.

16 to-sample t-test eamines 4et4er to samples are %ifferent an% is commonly use% 4en t4e variances of to normal

%istributions are un5non an% 4en an eperiment uses a small sample sie.26n 3 test is normally a test for t4e )oint 4ypot4esis t4at a number of coefficients are ero. 7arge values generally re)ect t4e

4ypot4esis+ %epen%ing on t4e level of significance require%.

,


8/27

,onsequently+ public a%ministrations can be %efine% as governmental institutional units t4at

regulate t4e functioning of society. 4ile public a%ministration+ in particular+ is a fiel% of

stu%y of political science+ it stu%ies t4e forms of organiation of t4e State+ t4e organiation of

%emocracy+ t4e implementation of public policies+ an% in s4ort+ everyt4ing t4at relates to t4e

operation of t4e organiation of t4e public sector.

Public a%ministrations are %ivi%e% into central a%ministration ministries an% ot4er

central institutions/+ t4e territorial a%ministration 7CJs-local government units/ an% t4e

Social Security 6%ministration.

Bn or%er to carry out t4ese activities+ t4e public a%ministration %isposes its on tools:

t4e prerogatives of public poer. Bt is about t4e poer of comman%+ 4ic4 is not in t4e

4an%s of private in%ivi%uals. T4is allos t4e public a%ministration to impose its ill+ 4ic4 is

transferre% from t4e eecutive poer upon 4ic4 it %epen%s on. 3or most of its activities

a%ministration is sub)ect to a%ministrative la.

"." Person-organization fit

Person-organiation fit 4as been a most %iscusse% topic among sc4olars an% managers

orl%i%e 4ose concern are t4e consequences of t4e congruence beteen employees an%t4e organiation. &ast researc4 4as s4on t4at person-organiation fit is strongly relate% to

t4e in%ivi%ual outcome variables of employees suc4 as )ob satisfaction an% turnover+ 4ic4

ill be analyse% in %etail in t4e folloing sections. esearc4ers 4ave in%icate% strong

relations4ip of person-organiation fit to t4e compatibility or incompatibility beteen or5

situations an% in%ivi%ual or5 values. ?ristof+ 199'K ,ennamo > Car%ner+ 200*/

Bn essence+ person-organiation fit t4eory suggests t4at t4ere are certain

c4aracteristics of organiations t4at are most li5ely to matc4 t4e in%ivi%ual c4aracteristic of

employees+ an% t4at t4e employees= attitu%es an% be4aviours ill be influence% by t4e %egree

of compatibility or fit; beteen employees an% organiations.

?ristof 199'/ %efine% t4e concept of person-organiation fit as: t4e compatibility

beteen people an% organiations t4at occurs 4en: a/ at least one entity provi%es 4at t4e

ot4er nee%s+ or b/ t4ey s4are similar fun%amental c4aracteristics+ or c/ bot4; p. #-$/. 6s a

result+ t4ere are to possible correlations beteen t4e organiation an% its employees. @n one

4an%+ e can tal5 about mutual nee% fulfilment complementary congruence/. T4is 4appens


9/27

4en t4e organiation meets t4e employees= epectations or 4en employees t4e abilities to

meet organiational %eman%s. ?ristof+ 199'K Aunc4in5sy > Aona4an 19*(/. Specifically+

employees epect financial+ p4ysical an% psyc4ological support+ 4ic4 are provi%e% by

organiations+ as ell as tas5-relate% an% interpersonal grot4 opportunities. Bn return+

organiations %eman% time+ effort+ commitment+ 5nole%ge+ s5ills an% abilities from

employees. T4e in%ivi%ual c4aracteristics of t4e employees an% organiations 4ave a

significant impact on t4e %eman%s an% supplies. @n t4e ot4er 4an%+ bot4 t4e employees an%

organiation possess t4e same or similar c4aracteristics supplementary congruence/ suc4 as

values+ common goals an% personality. ,4atman+ 19*9K %ar%s+ 200*K Loffman > oe4r+

200'K &erquer+ Gee4r > agner+ 200!/. T4ere is a nee% to put an emp4asis on or5 values

4ic4 are beliefs pertaining to %esirable en%- states e.g.+ 4ig4 pay/ or be4aviour e.g.+

or5ing it4 people/ M...NK t4ey refer to 4at a person ants out of or5 in general+ rat4er

t4an to t4e narroly %efine% outcomes of particular )obs; Sc4art+ > Sur5iss+ 1999/. 3rom

t4e person-organiation fit perspective+ or5 values may essentially influence be4avioural

response an% employee attitu%es toar% specific or5place situations 4ic4 are lin5e% to )ob

satisfaction or turnover. 6s a matter of fact+ most empirical stu%ies on person-organiation fit

4ave been %one on attitu%e an% be4avioural outcomes. T4e results of t4ese stu%ies are

summarise% in several meta-analyses. Gase% on a meta-analysis of 21 stu%ies from &erquer+

Gee4r > agner 200!/ it is clearly s4on t4at person-organiation fit is strongly relate% to

)ob satisfaction O.21/ an% turnover O-.21/. 6ccor%ing to t4e meta-analysis of t4e Loffman

an% oe4r base% on 2# stu%ies Loffman > oe4r+ 200'/ in%icates t4at t4e person-

organiation fit is mo%erately relate% to turnover O.2'/. 6%%itionally+ a meta-analysis

?ristof-Gron et al. 200$/ base% on 110 stu%ies person-organiation fit is more strongly

relate% to )ob satisfaction p.##/ rat4er t4an turnover p-1#/. 3urt4ermore+ ot4er

researc4ers 4ave %etermine% t4at t4e stronger t4e matc4 beteen employees an% t4e

organiation+ t4e stronger t4e employees= )ob satisfaction ,4atman 1991K Tepeci > Garlett

2002/ an% t4e less li5ely t4ey are to quit t4eir )obs Silvert4orne 200#K esterman > ,yr

200#/.

".$ +ob ,atisfaction

"ob satisfaction is i%ely researc4e% an% researc4ers vary in t4eir %efinitions to t4e

concept. Bt is ran%omly %efine% as t4e feelings of in%ivi%uals about t4eir )obs. Bn t4e broa%est

sense+ it refers to an employee=s general attitu%e toar% t4e )ob or some %imensions of


10/27

it+ot4erise consi%ere% as an effective feeling t4at %epen%s on t4e interaction of employees+

t4eir personal c4aracteristics+ values+ an% epectations it4 t4e or5 environment+ an% t4e

organiation;. ,umbey 199*K 5noop 199$K Smit4 199'/ Gase% on literature t4ere are t4ree

important dimensions to )ob satisfaction: "ob satisfaction is an emotional response to a )ob

situation. 6s suc4 it cannot be seen+ it can only be inferre%. "ob satisfaction is often

%etermine% by 4o ell outcome meet or ecee%epectations. "ob satisfaction represents

several relate% attitu%es 4ic4 are most important c4aracteristis of a )ob about 4ic4 people

4ave effective response. T4ese to 7ut4ans are: t4e or5 itself+ pay+ promotion opportunities+

supervision an% coor5ers.

".& Turnover

Aarc4 an% Simon8s 19$*/ seminal boo5 signale% t4e beginning of t4e %evelopment

of turnover t4eory. 6ccor%ing to t4eir t4eory+ members participate in t4e organiation as long

as in%ucements+ suc4 as pay+ matc4 or ecee% t4e employees= inputs. T4e interaction of t4e

inputs an% in%ucements are influence% by to motivational components: t4e perceive%

%esirability of leaving an% t4e ease of leaving. Geing satisfie% in one=s )ob re%uces t4e

perceive% %esirability of leaving. ase of leaving is influence% by t4e eternal economy+

t4oug4 Aarc4 an% Simon suggeste% t4at issues suc4 as t4e visibility of t4e in%ivi%ualemployee ot4er firms see an% ant to 4ire t4e person/+ t4e number of firms visible t4e

perception of )obs being plentiful lea%s to a 4ig4er perceive% ease of movement/+ t4e current

organiation8s prestige easier to move from a ell 5non company t4an a little 5non

company/+ an% t4e in%ivi%ual8s propensity to searc4 for a )ob all influence ease of movement.

$. #aterials and #ethods

3ifty employees from t4e public a%ministration participate% in t4is stu%y. Participants

ere ran%omly selecte% from some of t4e most important institutions in Tirana suc4 as: t4e

Ainistry of conomy+ Ainistry of nergy an% Bn%ustry+ Directorate Ceneral of t4e 6lbanian

Ceological Survey an% egional %ucational Directorate Tirana. 3or %iversification

purposes+ a variety of public a%ministration employees from several professions suc4 as

geological specialist+ economists+ internal au%itors+ 4uman resource specialist+ eperience%

aca%emic staff in teac4ing an% )u%icial employees.

10


11/27

T4e respon%ents= %emograp4ical c4aracteristics suc4 as age+ e%ucation an% gen%er varie%.

Euestionnaires ere %istribute% t4roug4 %irect communication it4 eac4 of t4e participants.

T4e folloing summary table is presente% it4 %emograp4ic %ata %istribution. Table 1

provi%es t4e %etails of t4e control variables.

Table 1. Survey sample control variables (N = 50)

3requency Percentage

Education level

Lig4 sc4ool %iploma 1 2

Gac4elor=s %egree 2' $2

Aaster=s %egree 21 #2

P4D 2 #

Gender

Aale !$ (0

3emale 1$ !0

T4e participants= age average as !(.# years+ 4ilst average or5 time as 11.1# years.

To met4o%s are i%ely use% in assessing t4e person-organiation fit:

1. "irect methodQ can be %escribe% as t4e perception of 4o ell t4e in%ivi%ual fits in

t4e organiation. T4is can be measure% by as5ing participants to 4at etent t4ey

believe t4ey fit in t4e organiation.

2. #ndirect method Q is measure% t4roug4 t4e comparison of t4e participants=

c4aracteristics an% organiations= c4aracteristics.

3or t4e purpose of t4is stu%y t4e %irect met4o% is use% to measure t4e compatibility beteen

t4e participants an% t4eir organiations+ as t4e appropriate met4o% %ue to its vali%ity 4ic4 is

bac5e% by researc4 in terms of employee outcomes. ?ristof-Gron et al.200$K &erquer et

al. 200!/.

$.1 Person-organization fit anal'sis

Bn or%er to measure t4e compatibility beteen t4e participants an% t4eir organiations+

t4e 7i5ert scale approac4 as use% to scale responses in t4is questionnaire. T4e participants

11


12/27

ere as5e% four questions. 6 seven or%ere% response scale as use% %uring 4ic4

participants 4a% to respon% to ansers from 1 strongly %isagree/ to ( strongly agree/.

T4e questionnaire as base% on researc4 con%ucte% by ?ristof 199'/ an% @=eilly >

,4atman 19*'/. T4e folloing table provi%es a list of t4e questions as5e%:

Table 2 !escription o" #uestionnaire #uestions $erson%or&ani'ation "it

Euestion Bn%e

1. Ay values an% goals are very similar to t4e

values an% goals of my organiation.

P-@ 1

2. B am not very comfortable it4in t4e

culture of my organiation /.

P-@ 2

!. B feel a strong sense of belonging; to myorganiation.

P-@ !

#. Bt is very important for me 4at t4is

organiation ma5es for my country.

P-@ #

$." +ob satisfaction anal'sis

T4e 7i5ert scale as use% for )ob satisfaction measurement purposes. mpirical

researc4 4as s4on t4at t4e )ob satisfaction level of public sector employees %epen%s on

factors not necessarily monetary+ 4ic4 inclu%e: meaningful or5+ a%vancement

opportunities+ %evelopment an% professional. 6 seven scale measure as use% for t4e

ansers+ from 1 very %issatisfie%/ to ( very satisfie%/. T4e folloing table provi%es a list of

t4e questions as5e% on )ob satisfaction.

Table !escription o" #uestionnaire #uestions ob satis"action #uestions

Euestion Bn%e

1. Lo satisfie% are you it4 youropportunities for ac4ievementR

"-S 1

2. Lo satisfie% are you it4 your

recognition opportunitiesR

"-S 2

!. Lo satisfie% are you it4 your level of

responsibility on your )obR

"-S !

#. Lo satisfie% are you it4 t4e

meaningfulness of your )obR

"-S #

$. Lo satisfie% are you it4 your

a%vancement opportunitiesR

"-S $

12


13/27

$.$ Turnover intentions anal'sis

3or measuring Turnover t4ere as only one question as5e% %erive% from t4e researc4

con%ucte% by Smit4+ ?en%all > Lulin. 19'9/.

Table * !escription o" #uestionnaire #uestions Turnover intentions

Euestion Bn%e

1. it4in t4e net 2 years+ 4o li5ely are you

to leave your current organiation for a )ob in

anot4er organiationR

T 1

$.& Control ariables

3or t4e purpose of t4is stu%y+ some control variables ere ta5en into consi%eration.

T4is %ecision as base% on t4e assumption t4at )ob satisfaction an% turnover mig4t+ to some

etent+ be associate% it4 biograp4ical c4aracteristics of t4e employees. T4ese control

variables inclu%e%: age+ se+ e%ucation an% or5 eperience in t4e public a%ministration. T4e

age of t4e participants as measure% by as5ing t4em: 4at year ere you bornR T4e current

age as t4en calculate% by subtracting t4e year of birt4 from t4e year 201! 4ic4 is t4e year

of t4e stu%y. T4e gen%er of t4e participants as collecte% it4 t4e %irect multiple- c4oice

question: 4at is your seR T4e 0F1 co%ing as use% for t4at. T4e participants= e%ucation

level as collecte% from t4e open question: 4at is t4e 4ig4est level of your e%ucationR

T4ese responses ere co%e% from 1 4ig4 sc4ool/ to # P4D/. T4e tenure in public sector as

collecte% from t4e open question: 3or 4o long 4ave you been or5ing in t4e public sectorR

$.( Anal'sis !rocess

Data collection as folloe% by t4e %ata analysis 4ic4 too5 place in to p4ases. Bn

t4e first p4ase t4e %ata as c4ec5e% if it as intact an% uncompromise% from visible an%evitable factors+ an% if t4ey ere it4in t4e logical an% normal parameters. T4e %ata

1$


14/27

verification process confirme% a positive result of 100 t4an5s to t4e applie% met4o%.

,urran+ est+ an% 3inc4 199'/ suggest t4at s5eness values!must be 2 an% 5urtosis

values#must be (. T4e folloing table clearly s4os t4at all t4e researc4 variables 4ave t4e

suggeste% values.

Table 5 Study +ariables

6varage St.Deviation S5eness ?urtosis

P-@ 1 $.!# 1.$0'$*# -0.('09( 0.0921#2

P-@ 2 !.0* 2.01*'** 0.$'*'$$ -1.0*9*(

P-@ ! $.! 1.'9!!2# -0.(*2*$ -0.#11$$

P-@ # '.1# 1.2((91! -1.922'( #.#'##''

"-S 1 #.(# 1.''!'$( -0.#2'! -0.$91*9

"-S 2 #.9 1.*!22$1 -0.'1!(9 -0.'*(#2"-S ! $.#' 1.$1#'9 -1.!1$2' 1.'$2$!$

"-S # $.(# 1.!'(#0$ -1.!02$$ 2.129($1

"-S $ #.(' 1.'*#9** -0.$!*!2 -0.'1!1$

T 1 !.0# 1.91'20# 0.'*#0'! -0.($292

Bn t4e secon% p4ase+ t4e %ata as analyse% using SPSS an% Aicrosoft cel+ by

applying t4e aforementione% variables measurement scales met4o%s. 3rom t4e measurement

stan%point+ t4e use of statistical softare suc4 as vies oul% be more appropriate+ but e

ere limite% in our researc4 by t4e lac5 of t4is softare. T4e conceptual mo%el use% in t4e

researc4 is s4on above. T4e results of t4e questionnaires use% in t4is stu%y+ 4ic4 aims to

s4o 4o person-organiation fit relates to )ob satisfaction an% turnover intentions of t4e

participants+ are s4on on t4e tables belo.

Table , Survey "re#uency responses to person%or&ani'ation "it.

P-@ 3it P-@ 1 P-@ 2 P-@ ! P-@ #

Strongly%isagree

0 1# 1 1

Disagree 1 12 ! 0

Some4at

%isagree

$ ! # 1

Ueutral * ' ' !

Some4at agree 10 $ ( (

6gree 1# ' 12 10

Strongly agree 12 # 1( 2*

$Describe asymmetry from t4e normal %istribution in a set of statistical %ata. S5eness can come in t4e form of Hnegative

s5enessH or Hpositive s5enessH+ %epen%ing on 4et4er %ata points are s5ee% to t4e left negative s5e/ or to t4e rig4tpositive s5e/ of t4e %ata average.46 statistical measure use% to %escribe t4e %istribution of observe% %ata aroun% t4e mean.

14


15/27


16/27

organiation fit an% employee turnover in t4e 6lbanian public sector. 3our control variables

ere use%. T4e results are summarie% in t4e Tables belo. T4ese results ill be t4e main

focus of t4e folloing %iscussion.

Table $erson%or&ani'ation "it orrelation matri3 ($earson (n))

&ariables P-@ 1 P-@ 2 P-@ ! P-@ #

P-@ 1 1 -0.(## 0.*'( 0.'*#

P-@ 2 -0.(## 1 -0.'01 -0.#'#

P-@ ! 0.*'( -0.'01 1 0.9!9

P-@ # 0.'*# -0.#'# 0.9!9 1

T4e table above s4os t4e correlation coefficients accor%ing to Pearson. 6s seen from t4e

table+ correlation beteen questions is relatively 4ig4. T4erefore none of t4e aforementione%

variables 4as to be eclu%e%.

T4e table belo s4os t4at component 1 eplains (9.2 of t4e total variance+ 4ile t4e

secon% component eplains only 1$+$('. T4e values of t4e igenvalues are less t4an 1+

ecept t4e case of t4e first component. ,onsequently+ it is t4is component t4at ill be

analyse% in or%er to stu%y t4e compatibility of variables beteen t4em.

Table 10 Total +ariance E3plained ($erson%or&ani'ation "it)5

,omponent

Bnitial igenvalues traction Sums of Square% 7oa%ings

Total

of

&ariance

,umulative

Total

of

&ariance ,umulative

1 !.1'* (9.200 (9.200 !.1'* (9.200 (9.200

2 .'2! 1$.$(' 9#.(('

! .19$ #.*(1 99.'#(

# .01# .!$! 100.000

3rom t4e %ata analysis in SPSS statistical softare+ it can be conclu%e% t4at most of

t4e employees of public a%ministration fits it4 t4eir organiation. T4e values of

compatibility beteen components in%icate t4at t4ey are important in person-organiation fit.

T4ese values inclu%e: Ay values an% goals are very similar to t4e values an% goals of my(traction Aet4o%: Principal ,omponent 6nalysis.

1+


17/27

organiation 0.929/. B am not very comfortable it4in t4e culture of my organiation

0.9'(/. B feel a strong sense of belonging; to my organiation -0.(($/. Bt is very important

for me 4at t4is organiation ma5es for my country 0.*(*/.

Table 11 omponent

,omponent

1

P-@ 1 .929

P-@ 2 .9'(

P-@ ! -.(($

P-@ # .*(*

&." +ob satisfaction stud' findings

T4e folloing tables present t4e correlation coefficients accor%ing to Pearson. 6s evi%ent

from t4e table+ t4e correlation beteen questions is relatively 4ig4. T4erefore+ t4e eclusion

of any of t4e variables is not necessary.

1,

Table 12 orrelation matri3

($earson (n))

&ariables "-S 1 "-S 2 "-S ! "-S # "-S $

"-S 1 1 0.(#* 0.((# 0.'*# 0.91*

"-S 2 0.(#* 1 0.*'* 0.(#2 0.*2$

"-S ! 0.((# 0.*'* 1 0.**2 0.*##

"-S # 0.'*# 0.(#2 0.**2 1 0.'11

"-S $ 0.91* 0.*2$ 0.*## 0.'11 1


18/27


19/27


20/27

P-@ fit

"ob

Satisfactio

n

P-@ fit Pearson

,orrelation1 .2!!

Sig. 2-taile%/ .10!

U $0 $0

"ob

Satisfactio

n

Pearson

,orrelation.2!! 1

Sig. 2-taile%/ .10!

U $0 $0

7et=s ta5e a loo5 at t4e secon% 4ypot4esis:

Hypothesis 2: Person-organization fit is significantly related to trno!er intentions. As the

compatibility between employees and organizations increase, their trno!er intentions will

decrease.

T4e results of t4e folloing table s4o t4at t4e correlation beteen person-organiation fit

an% turnover intentions is not important+ t4e correlation value -0!2# is smaller t4an 0.0$.T4is proves t4at it4 our %ata+ t4e 4ypot4esis falls. ,onsequently+ it can be %etermine% t4at in

our researc4 turnover intentions are not necessarily associate% it4 person-organiation fit.

Table 1, orrelation bet4een person%or&ani'ation "it and turnover intentions

P-@ fit Turnover

P-@ fit Pearson

,orrelation1 -.!2#V

Sig. 2-taile%/ .022

U $0 $0

Turnover Pearson

,orrelation-.!2#V 1

Sig. 2-taile%/ .022U $0 $0

20


21/27

%iscussion of the results

To conclu%e+ t4e purpose of t4is stu%y as to analyse t4e correlation beteen )ob

satisfaction+ person-organiation fit an% turnover intensions of employees in t4e 6lbanian

public a%ministration. 6ll t4e variables ere evaluate% by eamining self-reporting tests an%

perceptions of t4e employees. T4e questionnaires results in%icate% t4at *! of t4e reasons

be4in% )ob satisfaction as eplaine% by t4e questions.

T4e meaningfulness is t4e most appreciate% element of )ob satisfaction. '2 of our

target group as satisfie% or 4ig4ly satisfie% by t4is element. ven t4e level of )ob

responsibility ma5es '0 of t4e respon%ents satisfie% or 4ig4ly satisfie%. ecognition follos

it4 $0 an% ac4ievement it4 #2. T4e perceive% promotion possibilities 4ave a rate of

!*.

T4e reasons be4in% t4ese various )ob satisfaction rates conclu%e% from t4e stu%y are

many an% sometimes even comple. To begin it4+ public organiations are muc4 more

mature% t4an most of t4e small an% me%ium sie% private companies. Bnstitutional

performance is regulate% by la. T4e employees 4ave t4e opportunity for training+ an%

improvements an% t4e or5 pressure is sometimes loer t4an in t4e private organiations.

T4ese reasons mig4t account for t4e 1( of t4e uneplaine% variance of )ob satisfaction by

our questions inclu%e% in t4e questionnaire.

i&ure 1 ob satis"action results

21


22/27

Bn relation to t4e person-organiation fit+ t4e questionnaire=s results in%icate% t4at (9

as eplaine% by t4e questions. ,ontribution to t4e country is t4e most appreciate%

element of fit; in an organiation+ (' of employees agree or strongly agree on t4e

importance of t4is element. T4e sense of belonging ma5es $* of t4e respon%ents agree or

strongly agree. T4is is folloe% by t4e importance of t4e values of t4e organiation it4 $2

an% culture 20.

T4e public a%ministration is a more stable or5 environment. Political factors

interfere it4 employment an% t4e 4ole structure of organiations+ folloing t4e political

c4anges in government. T4ose an% 21 of ot4er factors 4ic4 cannot be eplaine% by our

survey may be t4e reasons be4in% person-organiation fit.

i&ure 2 $erson%or&ani'ation "it

22


23/27

e assume% a possible cause-effect relation beteen person-organiation fit an% turnover

intention. 6lt4oug4 $0 of t4e respon%ents suggeste% t4at t4ey 4a% no intentions of leaving

t4eir organiations+ an% only * of t4em as t4in5ing of leaving t4e organiation it4in t4e

net to years. T4e results in turnover 4ave a more comple interpretation. T4e present

supply-%eman% con%itions of t4e labor mar5et in 6lbania s4os t4at t4ere is a 4ig4 %eman%

an% lo supply.

i&ure Turnover

2$


24/27

Conclusion

To sum up t4e results of t4is stu%y+ t4ere is a consi%erable relations4ip beteen

person-organiation fit of t4e public employees an% )ob satisfaction+ in terms specifie% in t4e

stu%y. @n t4e ot4er 4an%+ accor%ing to t4e results it can be conclu%e% t4at t4ere is no

significant relation of person-organiation fit of t4e public employee an% t4eir intentions to

leave t4e public a%ministration. Bt is possible t4at t4e )ob satisfaction an% lo turnover factors

influence% t4e public employees= on perception of 4o t4ey fit in t4e public a%ministration+

but it also coul% be t4e ot4er ay aroun%. T4ere certainly is a relations4ip beteen t4e

stu%ie% variables+ but it is not clear. Gecause of t4e sampling limitations an% t4e small

number of participants it remains unsure as to 4at etent t4e results of t4is researc4 are vali%

an% generaliable+ as ell as 4o strong is t4e relation an% influence of person-organiation

fit to )ob satisfaction an% turnover intentions in t4e public institutions. 6s a result t4ere is a

nee% to con%uct an etensive researc4.

24


25/27

F/C LI,T

1. Goraga+ ,.+ > Tortia+ . 200'/. or5er motivations+ )ob satisfaction+ an% loyalty in

public an% nonprofit social services. Uonprofit an% &oluntary Sector Euarterly+ !$+22$-2#*

2. ,able+ D. A. an% "u%ge+ T. 6. 199(/ Bntervieer Perceptions of Person-@rganiation

3it an% @rganiational Selection Decisions+ "ournal of 6pplie% Psyc4ology+ *2 #/+

$#'-$'1.

!. ,ennamo+ 7.+ > Car%ner+ D. 200*/. Cenerational %ifferences in or5 values+

outcomes an% person-organisation values fit.$ornal of %anagerial Psychology,

2&*/+ *91Q90'.

#. ,4atman+ ".6. 19*9/. Bmproving interactional organiational researc4: 6 mo%el of

person-organiation fit. 'he Academic of %anagement (e!iew+ 1)!/+ !!!-!#9.

$. ,4atman+ ".6. 1991/. Aatc4ing People an% @rganiations: Selection an%

socialiation in public accounting firms+Administrati!e *cience +arterly+ &

September/+ #$9Q*#.

'. ,umbey D+ 6lean%er ".T4e elations4ip of "ob Satisfaction it4 @rganiation

&ariables in Public Lealt4 Uursing. "@U6 199*K 2*: !9-#'.

(. ,urran+ P. ".+est+ S. C.+ > 3inc4+ ". 3. 199'/. T4e robustness of test statistics to

nonnormality an% specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psyc4ological

Aet4o%s+ 1+ 1'-29.

*. DeSantis+ &. S.+ > Durst+ S. 7. 199'/. ,omparing )ob satisfaction among public an%

private sector employees. 6merican evie of Public 6%ministration+ 2'+ !2(-!#!.

9. %ar%s+ ". . 200*/. Person-nvironment 3it in @rganiations: 6n 6ssessment of

T4eoretical Progress. 'he Academy of %anagement Annals, 21/+ 1'(Q2!0.

10. llic5son+ A. ,. 2002/. Determinants of )ob satisfaction of municipal government

employees. Public Personnel Aanagement+ !1+ !#!-!$9.

11. Cabrani 6+ Cabrani "+ Petrela + Waimi + Lo4a 6+ 6v%ullari an% Duli A.

@rganiational ,ommitment an% )ob satisfaction among nurses in public 4ospitals in

6lbania 201!/

2(


26/27

12. Larman + Glum A+ Stefani " an% Ta4o 6+ 6lbanian Turnover: Bs t4e "ob

mbe%%e%ness ,onstruct Pre%ictive in an 6lbanian ,ontetR 2009/

1!. Loffman+ G.+ oe4r+ D. 200'/ 6 quantitative revie of t4e relations4ip beteen

person-organiation fit an% be4avioural outcomes. "ournal of &ocational Ge4avior+

'*+ !*9-!99.

14" 4ttp:FF.s4tetieb.orgF2012F09F2$Fse5tori-publi5-%4e-s4erbimet-publi5eF

1$. ?asimati+ A. 2011/ : "ob satisfaction an% turnover un%er t4e effect of

personorganiation fit in 6lbanian public organiations+ "ournal for ast uropean

Aanagement Stu%ies+ BSSU 09#9-'1*1+ Lampp+ Aering+ &ol. 1'+ Bss. #+ pp. !1$-!!(

1'. ?noop . elations4ips among "ob Bnvolvement+ "ob satisfaction an% @rganiational

,ommitment for Uurses. " Psyc4ol 199$K 29: '#!-'#9.

1(. ?ristof+ 6. 7. 199'/. Person-organiation fit: 6n integrative revie of its

conceptualiations+ measurements+ an% implications.Personnel Psychology, )1/+ 1Q

#9.

1*. ?ristof-Gron+ 6. 7.+ Wimmerman+ . D.+ > "o4nson+ . ,. 200$/. ,onsequences of

in%ivi%uals8 fit at or5: 6 meta-analysis of person-)ob+ person-organiation+ person-

group+ an% person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psyc4ology+ $*2/+ 2*1Q!#2.

19. 7ut4ans 3+ 200*/ rganizational /eha!ior 11t4e%./. AcCra-LillFBrin

20. Aarc4+ ". C.+ > Simon+ L. 6. 19$*/. rganizations. Ue Xor5: "o4n iley.

21. Auc4ins5y+ P.A. an% Aona4an+ ,.". 19*(/ 4at is personQenvironment congruence:

supplementary versus complementarycomplementary mo%els of fit. "ournal of

&ocational Ge4avior+ !1+ 2'*Q2((.

22. @=eilly+ ,. 6.+ > ,4atman+ ". 19*'/. @rganiation commitment an% psyc4ological

attac4ment: T4e influences of compliance+ i%entification+ internaliation on pro-social

be4avior. "ournal of 6pplie% Psyc4ology+ (1+ #92-#99.

2!. os+ A++ Sc4art+ S+ L++ > Sur5iss+ S+ 1999/+ Gasic in%ivi%ual values+ or5 values+

an% t4e meaning of or5.Applied Psychology: An #nternational (e!iew, )0, #9-(1.

2#. Silvert4orne+ ,. 200#/. T4e impact of organiational culture an% person-organiation

fit on organiational commitment an% )ob satisfaction in Taian.eadership

rganization "e!elopment $ornal, 23, $92-$99.

2+
http://www.shtetiweb.org/2012/09/25/sektori-publik-dhe-sherbimet-publike/http://www.shtetiweb.org/2012/09/25/sektori-publik-dhe-sherbimet-publike/


27/27

2$. Siti Uorasyi5in 6b%ul Lami%a+ ?4uli%a ?irana Xa4ya 2011/.;elations4ip beteen

person-)ob fit an% person-organiation fit on employees= or5 engagement: a stu%y

among engineers in semicon%uctor companies in Aalaysia.; 6nnual ,onference on

Bnnovations in Gusiness > Aanagement 7on%on+ J?+ 2011.

2'. Smit4 D. Bncreasing mployee Pro%uctivity+ "ob Satisfaction+ an% @rganiational

,ommitment. Losp Lealt4 Serv6%m 199'K #1: 1'0-1(#.

2(. Smit4+ P.,.+ 7.A. ?en%all an% ,.7. Lulin+ 19'9. T4e Aeasurement of Satisfaction in

or5 an% etirement: 6 Strategy for t4e Stu%y of 6ttitu%es. 1st %n.+ an% AcUally+

,4icago+ pp: 1*'.

2*. Tepeci+ A. > Gartlett+ 6.7.G. 2002/. T4e 4ospitality in%ustry culture profile: a

measure of in%ivi%ual value+ organiational culture+ an% person-organiation fit as

pre%ictors of )ob satisfaction an% be4avioral intentions.#nternational $ornal of

Hospitality %anagement+ 212/+ 1$1-1(0.

29. &erquer+ A. 7.+ Gee4r+ T. 6.+ > agner+ S. L. 200!/. 6 meta-analysis of relations

beteen person-organiation fit an% or5 attitu%es.$ornal of 4ocational /eha!ior,

&!/+ #(!Q#*9.

!0. esterman+ ". .+ > ,yr+ 7. 6. 200#/. 6n integrative analysis of person-

organiation fit t4eories.#nternational $ornal of *election and Assessment, 12, 2$2-

2'1.

!1. rig4t+ G. .+ > Davis+ G. S. 200!/. "ob satisfaction in t4e public sector: T4e role of

t4e or5 environment. 6merican evie of Public 6%ministration+ !!+ (0-90.

person-organization fit report ada

Documents