Person-Environment-Correspondence Counseling
Freya Cooper-Richardson
Troy University-Phenix City
Vocational Psychology and Career Development
PSY 6635
Dr. Thomas Peavy
April 01, 2011

Person-Environment-Correspondence Counseling The concept of person-environment fit (P-E fit) is central to research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human resource management (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Edwards, Caplan, & Harrison, 1998; Holland, 1997; Kristof, 1996; Walsh, Craik & Price, 2000). P-E fit has been examined in reference to various person and environment constructs, such as employee needs and work- related rewards (Dawis, 1992; Edwards & Harrison, 1993; Rice, McFarlin, & Bennett, 1989), employee abilities
Indeed, the use of P-O fit for selection purposes appears to be on the increase (Arthur Jr., Bell, Villado, and Doverspike). For example, Adams et al. (1994) suggested that the focus on employment interviews should shift from the prediction of performance approach to a focus that stresses the interview’s usefulness for assessing P-O fit. In a similar vein, Judge, Higgins, and Cable (2000) reviewed recent developments in the employment interview research that focus on the use of the interview as a means of assessing P-O fit (Arthur, et al. 2006). Although there is nothing inherently find objectionable in the use of P-O fit in employment decision making, in the absence of evidence demonstrating its job relatedness, (Arthur, et al. 2006) are somewhat wary of its migration into personnel selection for a variety of reasons. First, when used in this manner, P-O fit serves and functions as a test. Under these circumstances, it must be held to the same psychometric and legal standards expected of other personnel tests and predictors. In particular P-O fit should be job related, as typically conceptualized in standard employment testing contexts; that is, better fit should result in higher outcomes that are acknowledged as appropriate test validation criteria by the CRA (1964, 1991) and the EEOC (1978) ((Arthur, et al. 2006). Second, in contrast to