CHAPTER SIX: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK GUIDING THIS STUDY
6.4 Person-Environment (P-E) Fit theory
141
personal dispositional mechanism that facilitates the choice to seek strategies and ways of coping with stressors.
The model precisely suggests that a decrease in resources and increase in demands predicts work-family conflict. Additionally, the model portrays work-family conflict as a phenomenon that goes in two directions as work spills over to family and vice versa, a standpoint that this study does not take into account. And with respect to bi-directionality, the model adopts domain-specific predictors (Mauno & Rantanen, 2013). The model views the predictors of work-based work-family conflict as primarily having its source in the sphere of work while factors relating to the family are viewed as the greatest predictors of family-based work-family conflict (Frone et al., 1992; Frone, Russell, et al., 1997; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Mauno
& Rantanen, 2013; Voydanoff, 2005a).
Nevertheless, this study focused on organisational resources (WLBS) and individual SOC as predictors. According to Mauno and Rantanen (2013) report, scholars have called for researchers in the stress area to pay less attention to stressors/challenges and focus on stress- protective elements; that is resources (Hobfoll, 1998; Hobfoll, 1989; Wheaton, 1983).
According to scholars these resources are available in an individual before the occurrence of stress (Antonovsky, 1993; Taylor & Stanton, 2007; Wheaton, 1983). The present study followed this suggestion.
142
Kristof-Brown, 2000; Westman & Eden, 1992), plus individual differences among other organisational members (Schneider, 1987). Literature reveals that the theory is connected to satisfaction with work, decisions concerning staffing and selection, intention to leave the employment, performance, wellness and loyalty to the organisation (Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Spokane, Meir, & Catalano, 2000; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003; Werbel &
Gilliland, 1999).
P-E fit is described as the alignment of the individual and the environment (Chatman, 1989;
Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). The way in which an individual views this match is subjective. According to Edwards et al. (2006), although many studies have investigated the causal and resulting effects of P-E fit, not much is known about the way in which individuals integrate their perception of themselves and their environment in the P-E fit analysis. However, Edwards et al. (1998) report that stress is the result of a mismatch between the individual and environment. Additionally, they differentiated between objective and subjective manifestations in the individual and the environment. The objective individual denotes all the existing traits of the individual while the subjective individual refers to the way an individual perceives his/her personal attributes (i.e. self-uniqueness and self-impression). In the same manner, objective environment encompasses all the existing physiological and sociological circumstances and events, separate from the individual’s experience and feelings. On the other hand, subjective environment points to circumstances and events experienced and felt by the individual. They concluded that there is a causal relationship between the objective individual and environment and subjective individual and environment (Edwards et al., 1998; Harrison, 1985).
However, there exists a flawed association between the objective and subjective factors due to the fact that individuals reason differently (Weick, 1979), have restricted natural abilities to process information (March & Simon, 1958), as well as the organisational systems which restrict individual right to factual information (Caplan, 1987; Harrison, 1978).
According to Caplan (1983), if stressors are too strong, there could be the resultant effect of a kind of disconnection from the objective part of the circumstance or self which could subdue worry and promote adjustment thereby conversely facilitating psychological wellness (Lazarus
& DeLongis, 1983; Taylor & Brown, 1988). For example, the effect of overwhelming absence of autonomy in job roles can result in an individual succumbing to the desire to mentally disengage from the resultant role conflicts and inefficiency; this can reduce anxiety and foster
143
well-being. If there are enabling facilities in the environment to address the needs of the environment and improve the individual abilities, employees may be able to cope with stressors.
Edward et al. (1998) suggest that the alignment of the needs (demands) of the environment plus the capacity (ability) of the individual should be differentiated. Needs (demands) include the measurable and expressible work obligations, functional anticipations, as well as team and workplace norms; while capacity (abilities) comprises talents, time, expertise, education and strength required to satisfy the demands. There is another type of P-E fit that considers the alignment of what a person needs and what the environment can supply that is relevant to the need of the individual. The theory views needs in a holistic manner as comprising inborn organic and mental requirements, virtues gained through association and education, plus desires to succeed (Harrison, 1985; French & Kahn, 1962). Supplies denote the internal and external resources needed to satisfy an individual’s needs such as house, food, financial resources, social engagements and the prospects of achieving desired goals (Harrison, 1985;
Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).
The present study is in no way analysing the person-environment constructs for fitness, rather it is investigating the effect of WLBS on an individual employee’s SOC with the intention to observe the influence that the outcome of these have on the achievement of WLB by an individual. Additionally, work and family stressors are examined to establish their influence on employee SOC. Stress, according to Edwards et al. (1998), is a result of the situation where supplies in an environment are not sufficient to address the individual’s needs, or the capacity of the individual is unable to measure up to that required to receive what the environment supplies. In their opinion, stress is a subjective phenomenon rather than an objective oddity in the person-environment concepts. They defined stress as “a subjective appraisal indicating that supplies are insufficient to fulfil a person’s needs, with the provision that insufficient supplies may occur as a consequence of unmet demands” (Edwards et al., 1998). This means that where an individual’s abilities and resources are unable to assist in his/her coping with stressors, he/she will experience stress, but where the resources available in the workplace and/or family are sufficient to assist him/her to cope with the stressors, he/she may be able to cope with challenging demands. For instance, a female employee may not be a great cook even though the husband likes home-made meals. In this case, the stress of not being able to cook at home
144
can be mitigated if she finds a paid cook or gets support from the husband’s retired aunt who is a great cook.
According to Edward et al. (1998), coping involves endeavours to advance objective P-E fit, by either altering the objective individual (i.e. by making adjustments) or the objective environment (by understanding the environment) (French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974), cited in Tomer (2013) and Edwards (2008). For instance, an individual experiencing pressure from the family domain with respect to child care could decide to hire a baby minder (nanny) or make use of the crèche provided at the workplace. The P-E fit theory thus provides a good frame that can be used in addressing work-life issues by integrating WLBS and support to enhance an individual’s SOC in order to achieve meaningful WLB.
Harrison (1978) reports that stress could also rise when demands are more than the abilities of the individual if the extra demands limit the acceptance of the supplies needed to satisfy them (Edward et al., 1998). What this means is that proficiency in the technical expertise required to perform a given job may not be very useful in meeting the needs or satisfying another work goal. Contrarily, skill in managing workplace assignments may hinder the performance of family roles like parenting and house-keeping. However, extraordinary abilities could cause a reduction on stress by making provisions for needs like achieving the target of completing a given assignment ahead of time, thereby creating more time to read, socialise or engage in leisure activities (Edwards, 2008; Harrison, 1978). Conversely, extraordinary abilities could reduce stress by assisting the individual in conserving their own resources (e.g. strength and time) for future needs. Harrison (1978) further suggests that extraordinary abilities could increase stress if the individual has to excessively use such abilities for inferior motives, for instance, if a highly skilled individual proficient in a given job is given a job with ambiguous description or inferior to the individual’s skill. Also, a person having excess abilities may forget how to use them if he/she continuously engages in jobs that do not require the use of the excess skills (Edwards et al., 1998).
The P-E theory signifies the process assumption (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970) because it specifies the way in which the person and environment concepts work together to affect stress (Harrison, 1985; Edwards et al., 1998). It also shows that the form of association among P-E fit and stress hinges on the salience of the domain from which the individual and environment are assessed. This refers to the ranking that the person gives to the needs from say work or family. Therefore, salience could be seen as a moderator of the association between P-
145
E and stress. The use of salience as a go-between in the connection between P-E and stress is in sync with philosophies of wellness and satisfaction (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998;
Judge & Watanabe, 1994; Locke, 1976; Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980; Rice et al., 1985).
Moreover, the P-E theory has been extended to encompass that of the individual and the workplace. Harrison (1985) reports that in the same way that a person’s effectiveness and survival hinges on the satisfaction of needs, organisations’ efficiency and survival depends on the satisfaction of the demands placed on workers. Impliedly, workplaces that have the capacity to play the roles that employees see as important in meeting their own needs could record lesser turnover than those that are unable to satisfy these demands (Scott & Meyer, 1994; Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992).
Although this theory is useful in gaining insight into the person and environment constructs and the way in which the combination results in stress, as well as how coping could help solve the problem of mismatch, it has many shortcomings and boundaries (Edwards et al., 1998). It does not specify how the association with stress is predicted; rather it pinpoints groups of possible associations and assumes P-E fit associations for particular domain contents, and views manifestation of stress as an empirical issue (Edwards et al., 1998). Literature reveals that the association between P-E fit and stress could traverse not just domains contents and manifestations of stress only but through occupations (Caplan et al., 1980). The P-E fit theory also does not predict coping strategies. For instance, it does not suggest the standards which an individual could adopt in choosing ways of settling misfit in P-E (Edwards et al., 1998).
There have been questions raised about the P-E fit theory because of the observed flaws in the meaning of P-E fit and the way it is experienced by individuals. Such questions include the following: If a person reflects on his/her salary and considers that it is more than or less than what he/she expects (Hollenbeck, Williams, & Klein, 1989; Locke, 1969; Sweeney, McFarlin,
& Inderrieden, 1990), is there any way that he/she could calculate the disparity between the apparent and desired salary? Where individuals report that their capabilities are more than what is required for them to do their jobs (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, 2000), are they subtracting their perceived abilities from the demands of the job? (Edwards et al., 2006).
Scholars’ calls for studies that should answer these questions among others have not been responded to (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Kristof, 1996). Edwards et al. (2006) suggest that studies investigating the interface of the individual and the environment to apparent P-E alignment could contribute meaningfully to literature. Therefore, the present study attempts to
146
examine the linkage between WLB and SOC to ascertain if stressors affect SOC. It also seeks to determine if SOC connects to WLB through the use of WLBS. It identifies SOC as the factor that determines the choice that an individual will make in the face of stressors and the decision to pursue the WLB journey or not.