The continuous growth of employee attrition, especially within the highly skilled talent pool, is becoming increasingly problematic. Therefore, one should continually explore the different factors that impact employee retention and performance. This casts the attention to the person–environment fit and workplace flourishing (WF).
This study explored relationships among person–environment fit, WF, intention to leave (ITL), in-role performance and organisational citizenship behaviour.
Disease-driven research heavily outweighs health promotion research. Therefore, more research is needed regarding positive employee behaviours such as strengths, optimal functioning and flourishing.
A cross-sectional survey design was used with 258 secondary school teachers from two Gauteng districts. The Perceived Fit, Flourishing-at-Work, Turnover Intention, In-Role Behaviour and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour scales were administered. Structural equation modelling and mediational analyses were performed.
Results confirmed WF’s three-factor structure. Person–environment fit positively associated with WF. Workplace flourishing negatively related to ITL, while positively relating to in-role performance and organisational citizenship behaviour. Person–environment fit indirectly affected in-role performance and organisational citizenship behaviour via WF.
Organisations should continually modify their strategic frameworks to maintain a healthy balance between individual and environmental characteristics. This will lay the foundation for a favourable work environment. When such an environment is institutionalised, talent retention and performance should follow.
The study results should provide new insight into the relationship between the person–environment fit and WF, as well as the effect it may have on ITL and performance.
The continuous growth and manifestation of employee attrition, especially within the highly skilled talent pool, is becoming increasingly problematic. When organisations establish policies that retain productive personnel, remove unproductive personnel and select the most suitable new candidates, they should have a favourable composition of qualified and talented employees (Adnot, Dee, Katz, & Wyckoff,
The concept of flourishing in life (Keyes,
Using the Flourishing-at-Work Scale (FAWS; Rautenbach,
The study aim was to examine relationships among PEF, WF, ITL, in-role performance and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB).
Emotional well-being incorporates three employee judgements: job satisfaction, positive emotions and negative emotions. Job satisfaction reflects the amount of congruence between employees’ perceptions and standards (Weiss & Cropanzano,
Psychological well-being at work includes dimensions (autonomy, personal growth, mastery, meaning, purpose and positive relations) in Ryff and Singer’s (
Social well-being includes five dimensions: social acceptance (the acceptance of the diversity of colleagues), actualisation (the belief in one’s organisation, team and colleagues’ potential), coherence (the belief that one’s organisation and social relations at work are both meaningful and comprehensible), contribution (the belief that one’s daily work tasks add value to one’s team, department, and organisation) and integration (the belief that one experiences a sense of communal connectedness and belongingness) and the mental health continuum (MHC) (Keyes,
Fishbein and Ajzen (
Cable and DeRue (
Traditionally, fit literature posits that if congruence is reached between the employee and the work environment, positive outcomes ensue. The work adjustment theory (TWA; Dawis & Lofquist,
Apart from the preceding frameworks, various studies suggest that PEF links to WF elements, including job satisfaction (Cable & DeRue,
Apart from ITL, in-role performance and OCB have also been associated with WF (Redelinghuys, Rothmann, & Botha,
Although the association between WF, in-role performance and OCB has been studied before (Redelinghuys et al.,
In addition to the preceding framework, numerous studies suggest that WF elements link to performance (in-role and extra-role) to varying degrees. For example, job satisfaction (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton,
The following hypotheses stemmed from the discussion:
A survey was conducted among personnel fulfilling a teaching role in the Sedibeng East and West districts in Gauteng. The teaching profession is a good framework for studies on flourishing, as research that assumes a disease-driven or dysfunctional behaviour stance (e.g. O’Brennan, Pas, & Bradshaw,
Characteristics of the participants (
Item | Frequency | % |
---|---|---|
Male | 62 | 24.0 |
Female | 90 | 73.7 |
Missing values | 6 | 2.3 |
21–35 years | 106 | 41.1 |
Older than 35 years | 129 | 50.0 |
Missing values | 23 | 8.9 |
African people | 48 | 18.6 |
Mixed Race people | 2 | 0.8 |
Indian people | 9 | 3.5 |
White people | 192 | 74.4 |
Other people | 1 | 0.4 |
Missing values | 6 | 2.3 |
0–10 years | 104 | 40.3 |
More than 10 years | 134 | 51.9 |
Missing values | 20 | 7.8 |
The Flourishing-at-Work Scale (FAWS; Rautenbach,
The Perceived Fit Scale (PFS; Cable & DeRue,
The Turnover Intention Scale (Sjöberg & Sverke,
The In-role Behaviour Scale (Williams & Anderson,
The Organisational Citizenship Behaviour Scale (OCBS; Rothmann,
Once ethical permissions had been obtained from the necessary authorities, the researchers communicated with the secondary school principals in the selected districts. The researchers arranged dates and times with probable research participants at their respective schools to discuss the study purpose and to obtain informed consent. Paper questionnaires, with English as instructional language, were distributed to consenting participants; granting them a 2-week period to complete the questionnaires. Arrangements were made for participants to securely return their questionnaires.
Mplus 7.41 (Muthén & Muthén,
Four opposing measurement models were specified and tested to make model comparison possible as suggested by Wang and Wang (
Discriminant validity of the constructs was assessed using a method proposed by Farrell (
Indirect effects were assessed in Mplus 7.41. Bootstrapping with 10 000 samples was applied to construct two-sided bias-corrected 95% CIs (Hayes,
Authorisation for the study was acquired from the Gauteng Department of Education, the Sedibeng East and West District offices, as well as ethical clearance from the North-West University’s Ethics Committee.
Confirmatory factor analyses were carried out with the scales through Mplus 7.41 (Muthén & Muthén,
The model comprised one third-order factor (WF), two second-order factors (PEF and OCB) and two first-order factors (ITL: measured by three observed variables, and in-role performance: measured by seven observed variables). WF comprised three second-order factors: emotional well-being, psychological well-being, and social well-being. Emotional well-being comprised three first-order factors (each measured by three observed variables): positive affect, negative affect and job satisfaction. Psychological well-being comprised six first-order factors: autonomy, competence, relatedness (each measured by three observed variables), learning (measured by two observed variables), meaningful work (measured by three observed variables) and engagement (measured by seven observed variables). Social well-being comprised five first-order factors (each measured by three observed variables): social contribution, integration, actualisation, acceptance and coherence. Person–environment fit comprised three first-order factors (each measured by three observed variables): person–organisation fit, needs–supplies fit and demands–abilities fit. Organisational citizenship behaviour comprised two first-order factors (each measured by three observed variables): citizenship behaviour towards co-workers and citizenship behaviour towards the organisation. All latent variables were correlated.
A χ2 of 4668.46 (
Following the same blueprint as Model 1, Models 2–5 were similarly specified and tested, with minor changes to the models. In Model 2, PEF consisted of one first-order variable: fit (measured by nine observed variables). In Model 3, WF consisted of 3 second-order variables: emotional well-being (measured by 9 observed variables), psychological well-being (measured by 21 observed variables) and social well-being (measured by 15 observed variables). In Model 4, WF consisted of two second-order variables: hedonic well-being (measured by nine observed variables) and eudaimonic well-being (measured by 36 observed variables). In Model 5, PEF and WF jointly consisted of one first-order variable: well-being (measured by 54 observed variables).
Goodness-of-fit statistics of competing measurement models.
Model | TLI | CFI | RMSEA |
WRMR | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | 90% CI | ||||||
1 | 4668.462 |
2313 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.06 | 0.060, 0.065 | 1.62 |
2 | 5028.588 |
2316 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.07 | 0.065, 0.070 | 1.74 |
3 | 6133.391 |
2327 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.08 | 0.077, 0.082 | 2.03 |
4 | 7080.640 |
2328 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.09 | 0.087, 0.091 | 2.27 |
5 | 8894.941 |
2337 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.102, 0.107 | 2.68 |
χ2, chi-square statistic;
Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, correlation coefficients and discriminant validity.
Variable | M | SD | q | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Person–organisation fit | 5.14 | 1.48 | 0.94 | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.14 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.31 | |
2. Needs–supplies fit | 4.89 | 1.42 | 0.92 | 0.63 | 0.41 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.46 | |
3. Demands–abilities fit | 5.85 | .95 | 0.81 | 0.52 | 0.64 | 0.22 | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.31 | |
4. Positive affect | 4.40 | 1.05 | 0.83 | 0.47 | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.36 | 0.64 | 0.46 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.45 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.44 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.42 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.32 | |
5. Negative affect | 2.90 | 1.16 | 0.75 | -0.38 | -0.47 | -0.38 | -0.60 | 0.42 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.21 | |
6. Job satisfaction | 4.01 | 1.25 | 0.90 | 0.50 | 0.62 | 0.51 | 0.80 | -0.65 | 0.52 | 0.27 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.50 | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.37 | |
7. Autonomy satisfaction | 4.29 | 1.26 | 0.80 | 0.50 | 0.61 | 0.50 | 0.68 | -0.55 | 0.72 | 0.30 | 0.44 | 0.37 | 0.56 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0.52 | 0.37 | 0.47 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.36 | |
8. Competence satisfaction | 4.83 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 0.36 | 0.49 | -0.39 | 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.29 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.19 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.18 | |
9. Relatedness satisfaction | 4.09 | 1.15 | 0.85 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.47 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.47 | 0.27 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.27 | |
10. Meaning | 4.59 | 1.21 | 0.91 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.40 | 0.54 | -0.43 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.23 | |
11. Engagement | 4.75 | 0.97 | 0.89 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.49 | 0.67 | -0.54 | 0.71 | 0.75 | 0.54 | 0.65 | 0.60 | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.26 | 0.35 | |
12. Learning | 4.61 | 0.96 | 0.81 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.40 | 0.54 | -0.44 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.24 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.23 | |
13. Social contribution | 4.51 | 1.16 | 0.84 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.47 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.44 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.61 | 0.49 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.42 | 0.53 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.27 | |
14. Social integration | 4.30 | 1.29 | 0.91 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.49 | 0.66 | -0.54 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.51 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.56 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.55 | 0.69 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.51 | 0.35 | |
15. Social actualisation | 3.69 | 1.34 | 0.89 | 0.50 | 0.61 | 0.51 | 0.68 | -0.55 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.62 | 0.57 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 0.76 | 0.87 | 0.58 | 0.72 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.28 | 0.37 | |
16. Social acceptance | 4.18 | 1.23 | 0.91 | 0.42 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.47 | 0.62 | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.49 | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.53 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.27 | |
17. Social coherence | 4.06 | 1.29 | 0.92 | 0.47 | 0.58 | 0.48 | 0.65 | -0.52 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.49 | 0.59 | 0.54 | 0.68 | 0.55 | 0.73 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.73 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.34 | |
18. In-role performance | 6.21 | 0.73 | 0.81 | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.36 | -0.29 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.30 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.12 | 0.26 | 0.04 | |
19. OCB co-workers | 5.29 | 1.14 | 0.80 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.34 | -0.28 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.26 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.46 | 0.05 | |
20. OCB organisation | 5.42 | 1.16 | 0.85 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.49 | -0.40 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.41 | 0.51 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.53 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.68 | 0.10 | |
21. Intention to leave | 2.81 | 1.29 | 0.91 | -0.56 | -0.68 | -0.56 | -0.57 | 0.46 | -0.61 | -0.60 | -0.43 | -0.52 | -0.48 | -0.59 | -0.48 | -0.52 | -0.59 | -0.61 | -0.52 | -0.58 | -0.20 | -0.22 | -0.32 |
AVE, average variance extracted estimates on the diagonal, and squared correlations above the diagonal; OCB, organisational citizenship behaviour; SD, standard deviation; M, mean.
Note: All correlations are statistically significant (
The reliabilities of the measuring instruments were acceptable, ranging from 0.75 to 0.94 (Nunnally & Bernstein,
Most of the flourishing dimensions were practically and statistically significantly related to ITL (large effects), except for negative affect (0.46), competence (−0.43), meaning (−0.48) and learning (−0.48). Most flourishing dimensions were practically and statistically significantly related to in-role performance with a medium effect, except for negative affect (−0.29) and competence (0.28). Most flourishing dimensions were practically and statistically significantly related to OCB (to co-workers) with a medium effect, as well as OCB (to the organisation), ranging from medium to large effects.
Discriminant validity is supported.
A structural model (Model 6) was specified and tested based on Model 1 (the best fitting measurement model). No difference in the chi-square values (4668.462) of the best fitting measurement and structural models, indicated acceptable model specification. Model 6 yielded the following fit statistics: χ² = 4668.462;
Difference testing for competing structural models.
Model | ∆ |
∆ |
|
---|---|---|---|
Model 6a | 277.888 | 1 | <0.0001 |
Model 6b | 23.568 | 3 | <0.0001 |
,
The structural model – Standardised solution with standard errors in parentheses.
POF, person–organisation fit; NSF, needs–supplies fit; DAF, demands–abilities fit; PEF, person–environment fit; WF, workplace flourishing; EWB, emotional well-being; PWB, psychological well-being; SWB, social well-being; ITL, intention to leave; IRP, in-role performance; OCB, organisational citizenship behaviour; SE, standard error;
*,
For the model portion predicting WF, PEF’s path coefficient (β = 0.82;
For the model portion predicting ITL, the path coefficients of PEF (β = –0.60;
For the model portion predicting in-role performance, WF’s path coefficient (β = 0.34;
For the model portion predicting OCB, WF’s path coefficient (β = 0.54;
Regarding effect sizes (Cohen,
To establish whether PEF indirectly affected ITL, in-role performance and OCB, the authors used Hayes’s (
Indirect effect of person–environment fit on intention to leave, in-role performance and organisational citizenship behaviour via workplace flourishing.
Variable | Estimate | SE | 95% BC CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Indirect effect on intention to leave | 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.33, 0.23 |
Indirect effect on in-role performance | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.05, 0.55 |
Indirect effect on organisational citizenship behaviour | 0.44 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.21, 0.68 |
SE, standard error; BC CI, bias-corrected confidence interval.
The study aim was to examine relationships among PEF, WF, ITL, in-role performance and OCB. When employees fit, feel well and function well both psychologically and socially, positive outcomes ensue (i.e. lower ITL, higher in-role performance and OCB).
Results confirmed WF’s three-factor structure, endorsing its construct validity beyond the fast-moving consumer goods industry (Rautenbach,
The results indicated that PEF positively associated with WF. Therefore, when employees perceive high similarity between their own values and the values of their organisation, between the compensation they receive in response to the work they deliver, and similarity between their job demands and their capabilities, they should experience elevated emotional well-being, psychological well-being and social well-being levels at work. The results are consistent with the TWA (Dawis & Lofquist,
WF negatively associated with ITL. Numerous theories suggest that WF elements relate to ITL. Lee and Mitchell’s (
WF positively associated with in-role performance and OCB. Numerous theories can explain the flourishing–performance relationship. The happy and/or productive worker thesis suggests that happy (predominantly measured by job satisfaction) employees are productive employees. Quantitative and qualitative reviews of the job satisfaction–job performance relationship have also shown that job satisfaction positively associates with job performance (Judge et al.,
Results showed a direct association between PEF and ITL, proposing that PEF reduces participant intent to leave, regardless of their flourishing levels. The ASA model (Schneider,
With regard to the indirect effect of PEF on in-role performance and OCB via WF, respectively, results confirmed this effect. Hence, PEF’s association with in-role performance and OCB is an indirect one, suggesting that PEF increases participant performance (in-role and extra-role), as long as participant flourishing levels remain sufficiently high. Therefore, PEF should first elevate employee flourishing levels to subsequently increase in-role performance and OCB. Although the preceding associations have not been studied before, they seem consistent with Fishbein and Ajzen’s (
Several study limitations are prominent. Firstly, the cross-sectional research approach impedes the assessment of causality among the variables under scrutiny. Secondly, the study did not assess interpersonal PEF aspects such as person–group and person–supervisor fit. Thirdly, because of certain restrictions (e.g. occupation and geographical location), the generalisation of findings to other settings should proceed with caution. Lastly, a specific modelling strategy was used to assess the constructs, another strategy (e.g. bifactor modelling) may possibly yield different results.
In practice, the probability of employees experiencing different levels (poor, average, and good) of fit and well-being is highly plausible. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect organisations to have a universal blueprint for collectively addressing the fit and well-being of their workforce because of the diversity of employee needs, beliefs, perceptions and attitudes. Although organisations should have generic fit and well-being initiatives embedded within their strategic framework (e.g. change management, organisational development, training and development, recruitment and selection), they should continually update and modify these strategies to ensure a healthy balance is maintained between individual (values, abilities and needs) and environmental (values, demands, and supplies) characteristics. This will lay the foundation for a favourable work environment, an environment where employees can experience a sense of acceptance, enjoyment, integration, meaningfulness and relatedness (among others). When such an environment is institutionalised, talent retention and performance should follow.
Future studies should aim to explore additional outcomes and antecedents related to WF. Research should also aim to assess the causality between the constructs, as none of the constructs is static in nature. A bifactor modelling strategy could provide more clarity on the psychometric properties of the FAWS (Rautenbach,
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. The views expressed in this article are our own and do not reflect the official position of the institution or funder.
K.R. coordinated the data collection process. S.R. assisted with data analysis and interpretation. K.R., S.R. and E.B. made contributions regarding the conceptualisation, as well as writing and editing, of the article.