Article Text

Download PDFPDF

How people fit in at work: systematic review of the association between person–organisation and person–group fit with staff outcomes in healthcare
  1. Jessica Herkes,
  2. Kate Churruca,
  3. Louise A Ellis,
  4. Chiara Pomare,
  5. Jeffrey Braithwaite
  1. Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Ms Jessica Herkes; jess.herkes{at}mq.edu.au

Abstract

Objectives People interact with their work environment through being, to a greater or lesser extent, compatible with aspects of their setting. This interaction between person and environment is particularly relevant in healthcare settings where compatibility affects not only the healthcare professionals, but also potentially the patient. One way to examine this association is to investigate person–organisation (P-O) fit and person–group (P-G) fit. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise knowledge on both P-O fit and P-G fit in healthcare to determine their association with staff outcomes. It was hypothesised that there would be a positive relationship between fit and staff outcomes, such that the experience of compatibility and ‘fitting in’ would be associated with better staff outcomes.

Design A systematic review was conducted based on an extensive search strategy guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses to identify relevant literature.

Data sources CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus.

Eligibility criteria Articles were included if they were empirical studies, published in peer-reviewed journals in English language, set in a healthcare context and addressed the association that staff outcomes have with P-O and/or P-G fit.

Data extraction and synthesis Included texts were examined for study characteristics, fit constructs examined and types of staff outcomes assessed. The Quality Assessment Tool was used to assess risk of bias.

Results Twenty-eight articles were included in the review. Of these, 96.4% (27/28) reported a significant, positive association between perception of fit and staff outcomes in healthcare contexts, such that a sense of compatibility had various positive implications for staff, including job satisfaction and retention.

Conclusion Although the results, as with all systematic reviews, are prone to bias and definitional ambiguity, they are still informative. Generally, the evidence suggests an association between employees’ perceived compatibility with the workplace or organisation and a variety of staff outcomes in healthcare settings.

  • organisational development
  • organisation of health services
  • human resource management

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors JH conceptualised and drafted the manuscript. JH, KC and CP were involved in the search strategy and data extraction. KC, LAE and JB edited the manuscript and critically reviewed its intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding JH was funded by a Research Training Program Master of Research stipend scholarship at Macquarie University. JB is supported by multiple NHMRC Council grants.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and public were not involved in this research.