Which perspective describes and explains personality based on the effects of the environment?

Person-Environment Fit Research

Person-environment fit theory focuses on the interaction between characteristics of the individual and the environment, whereby the individual not only influences his or her environment, but the environment also affects the individual (see earlier discussion of transactional models). The adequacy of this fit between a person and the environment can affect the person's motivation, behavior, and overall mental and physical health163; that is, if the fit is optimal, the individual's functioning may be facilitated; if it is unsuitable, the individual may experience maladaptation. For example, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician may learn that a particular school environment is not providing much needed academic programming for an academically at-risk child. The clinician can intervene, the goal being to maximize the fit between the child's needs and the schools programming. The importance of person-environment fit with parents can provide a useful rationale when a particular intervention is recommended.

The person-environment fit paradigm has been successfully integrated within a developmental framework. Within this developmental perspective, person-environment fit theory, or, more specifically, stage-environment fit theory, postulates that the combination of an individual's developmental stage and the surrounding environment produces adaptive change within the individual.164 Proponents of this perspective maintain that synchronizing the trajectory of development to the characteristics and changes in the surrounding environment will encourage positive growth and maturity.163 According to stage-environment fit theory, adaptation is more likely if changes within the individual are matched with supportive change within the child's three main environments: home, peer, and school.

One environmental change that marks early adolescence is the transition from elementary school to junior high, or middle, school. Several negative changes within the individual have been associated with this transition, such as decreases in motivation, self-concept, and self-confidence, as well as increased academic failure.163 This phenomenon may be a result of several differences between elementary schools and junior high schools that make the latter less developmentally appropriate for students in this age range. In fact, the Michigan Study of Adolescent Life Transitions revealed that, in comparison with elementary schools, junior high schools were characterized by a greater emphasis on discipline and control, fewer opportunities for the students to participate in decision making, less personal and less positive teacher-student relationships, and lower cognitive requirements for assigned tasks.163 Thus, a stage-environment mismatch within the school environment may be associated with some of the negative changes that often occur within the adolescent at this time.

Patterns of change in the adolescent's home environment are also supportive of the stage-environment hypothesis. During early adolescence, the process of establishing greater independence from parents results in greater conflict and modification of roles between the child and parents.165 Collins postulated that maladaptive conflicts may occur when there is a poor fit between the child's desire for autonomy and opportunities for such independence.166 Consideration of pubertal development has provided further support for this theory. In general, early-maturing girls report that they are less satisfied with levels of autonomy and decision making provided at home and in school than are their less physically mature peers.163 For children who must adhere to complex medical regimens, the degree of fit between home environment and their readiness to assume some responsibility for self-care can be crucial for adaptive outcomes. Specifically, the degree to which parents can facilitate a sharing of responsibility when a child is developmentally ready can have an effect on subsequent health and important medical outcomes.

Another notable aspect of stage-environment fit is how congruence, or lack thereof, in one environment may affect functioning in another environment. Current research suggests that compatibility of stage-environment match in one setting is associated with functioning in other settings. For example, a positive home environment characterized by involvement in decision making was directly associated with higher intrinsic school motivation in one study.167 This “spillover effect” is appealing from a clinical perspective insofar as positive outcomes that result from an intervention (e.g., increased congruence in the home environment) may yield positive effects in other domains (e.g., academic performance), thus making the intervention more efficient.

Stage-environment fit theory has other clinical implications as well. Specifically, the clinician may be interested in maintaining a good fit between a specific child and the specific interventions that are implemented. For instance, interventions could be designed and implemented with the developmental stage of the target child in mind. Alternatively, interventions could be tailored to suit the unique strengths and weaknesses of the individual child. In short, interventions that are developmentally appropriate, syndrome specific, and modified to fit the specific needs of a particular child are most likely to be effective.

Processes and consequences of person-environment fit

If the correlation between a person variable and a conceptually, contentwise, or practically concordant environment variable, or between profiles of concordant person and environment variables, is interpreted as “fit,” then the generic PERM in Fig. 2 can accommodate and guide more nuanced models. An example is given in Fig. 6 that extends path e of the PERM, showcasing how person-environment fit may predict multiple proximal and distal outcomes that capture the duality of persons’ identity (the intrapersonal domain) and reputation (the interpersonal domain; Hogan, 1982).

As explained in more detail, unique hypotheses concerning the intrapersonal domain are that persons with higher person-environment fit should, on average, be more crosstemporally stable in their trait-relevant enactments, show less personality change, feel more authentic, experience more positive affect in daily life, and report higher life satisfaction. Concerning the interpersonal domain, they should be easier to judge in their personalities (i.e., be good targets) and be more liked or valued by others in groups. Together, persons with higher person-environment fit could be expected to be well adjusted and, as such, have more resources at their disposal, which would enhance survival and reproduction. Given such crucial importance of person-environment fit, persons may be motivated to attain, and also monitor, specific fits to their environments.

To capture all of these complexities, the extended person-environment fit process model presented here is inspired by, and can tie together, diverse literatures (e.g., on identity, self, impression formation, group processes, niche construction, adjustment, adaptation, fitness, etc.). To my knowledge, no study has so far tested all the different effect paths proposed in Fig. 6 simultaneously, though some isolated effects have already been examined (see cursory survey of the literature below).

As can be seen in Fig. 6, a person-environment correlation (any form from Table 6), defined here as fit, may first proximally impact trait expressions: specifically, which kinds of affects, behaviors, cognitions, and desires (ABCDs; Wilt & Revelle, 2015) will be expressed how strongly and how consistently. In other words, person-environment correlations may constrain the repertoire and actualization of personality-relevant dynamics and processes in content, level, and variation. Those trait expressions, dependent upon person-environment correlations, then go on to yield more distal effects for the self (intrapersonal route) and for others (interpersonal route) in the three domains of traitedness, evaluations, and adjustment. In all cases, there can be direct effects (e.g., from trait expressions on adjustment) and more indirect or mediated effects (e.g., from the person-environment correlation to adjustment, via trait expressions, traitedness, and evaluations). Further, intra- and interpersonal processes may also depend on and coinfluence each other across time.

Intrapersonally, the ways in which traits are expressed habitually lead persons to develop a sense of their self-predictability (how well they know themselves and can anticipate how they react to certain circumstances). Self-predictability is of course also dependent on several other self- and identity-related variables and processes (Thagard & Wood, 2015; Morin & Racy, Chapter 15; Pasupathi & Adler, Chapter 16), such as (but not limited to) self-consistency, self-verification, self-concept clarity, self-insight, and schematicity of self-concept areas. Self-predictability, in turn, may be associated with own perceptions and feelings of authenticity (feeling in tune with and true to one's “real” self), and both may then lead to different indicators of intrapersonal adjustment (e.g., self-esteem, positive affect, flourishing, mental health, well-being, life-satisfaction, etc.). The degree to which perceived authenticity is tied to intrapersonal adjustment may depend also on persons’ perceived valence of the ABCDs as a moderator (e.g., how personally important or consequential they deem certain ABCDs and/or how valuable they think they are to their sociocultural reference group).

Interpersonally, the ways in which traits are expressed habitually lead others to develop a sense of targets’ predictability (how well they can be “read” and their behaviors, or personalities, predicted). Knowing about targets’ predictability may also be related to evaluations of their perceived trueness (how true to themselves they seem and to what extent they are acting “out of character”). Both, in turn, may affect how the target is accepted socially and thus also influence interpersonal adjustment (e.g., liking, status, prestige, leadership emergence, etc.). However, an important moderator will be the sociocultural valence, normativity, and importance of the involved ABCDs.

The process model in Fig. 6 rests on several assumptions but also bears novel hypotheses. First, attaining person-environment fit should be a core concern of most persons, though there may of course be interindividual differences in how strongly persons strive to pursue fit (motivation) and how much energy and resources they invest (investment). Indeed, Erikson (1968) had already described finding a fitting niche as a task for identity development. It also seems that persons will be more engaged and interested in as well as invest more into environments (e.g., occupations, social roles) that fit with or afford their goals and values (for an application of this principle to women's aspirations for pursuing STEM careers, see Diekman, Steinberg, Brown, Belanger, & Clark, 2017). Schmader and Sedikides (2018) have termed the underlying process of pursuing one's goals in an environment that affords those goals “motivational fluency” and surmised that it fosters perceptions or feelings of self-determination. Thus, persons should be motivated to approach goal-fitting environments and avoid others. Indeed, low person-environment fit may instigate selection effects (Holland & Nichols, 1964), and even after important life transitions, persons tend to create personality-fitting niches (e.g., Jonkmann, Thoemmes, Lüdtke, & Trautwein, 2014; Lüdtke, Roberts, Trautwein, & Nagy, 2011; Zimmerman & Neyer, 2013).

Second, if person-environment fit is normatively so important, then there may be monitoring systems that constantly gauge how well we fit to our environments. Indeed, this is the idea of sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995), which builds on a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995): persons monitor social cues for acceptance versus rejection, and the resulting experiential outcomes of that monitoring are feelings of self-esteem. Correspondingly, it has been found that stronger forms of psychological fit may decrease uncertainties and increase social validation, which then can lead to higher self-esteem (Hardin & Higgins, 1996; Leary, 1999). Further, persons may “feel right” when person and environment variables are synchronized (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; for similar arguments in the domain of regulatory fit when the manner of activity engagement sustains motivational orientations, see Higgins, 2005). According to Schmader and Sedikides (2018), this may lead persons to actively seek environments that afford “interpersonal fluency” (being oneself with others). Thus, if persons possess something like a “need to fit” and a corresponding generalized “fitometer” system monitoring the different ways in which they fit to their social and non-social environments, then the system's output may result in feelings of positive affect, authenticity, and self-esteem—all indicators of intrapersonal adjustment. Interesting further questions are then to what extent persons’ subjective experiences of fit align with their actual fit (e.g., Edwards et al., 2006) and the extent of interindividual differences in such fit insights.

Third, person-environment fit should be generally tied to both intra- and interpersonal adjustment.n Indeed, person-environment fit itself has been related to and even interpreted as adjustment (French Jr., Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974; Thomas & Chess, 1977). For example, living in areas matching one's personality has been shown to confer certain benefits and increased life-satisfaction (Bleidorn et al., 2016; Jokela, Bleidorn, Lamb, Gosling, & Rentfrow, 2015). Additionally, such adjustment via person-environment fit may result in greater consistency or stability of personality (Wachs, 1994). Indeed, Roberts and Robins (2004) found in a longitudinal study that students with higher fit to their university environment showed overall less personality change across time.

Fourth, a consequence of the adjustment of persons with generally high person-environment fit is that, at least within the domains that the person-environment fit pertains to, this person may be more normative and easier to judge (good target; Funder, 1995, 1999) than persons with less person-environment fit. Indeed, well-adjusted persons seem easier to judge in terms of their personality traits (Human & Biesanz, 2013; Human, Mignault, Biesanz, & Rogers, 2019), and this should also pertain to those with higher person-environment fits.

Lastly, a downstream effect of person-environment fit processes occurring at subpopulation levels is the nonrandom assortment of persons to specific environments. This means that there will be spatial clustering of personality phenotypes (and even genotypes) in certain regions (see, e.g., research on geographical and spatial distributions of personality trait levels: Jokela et al., 2015; Rentfrow, 2013; Rentfrow & Gosling, in press; Rentfrow & Jokela, 2017, 2020; Rentfrow, Gosling, & Potter, 2008), which likely confer local fitness optima for “fitting” individuals. Such spatial clustering of personality can, in turn, help explain economic growth differences between regions (Garretsen, Stoker, Soudis, Martin, & Rentfrow, 2019). However, geographical personality distributions and regional variations have also been shown to be the product of societal and economic changes decades earlier (Obschonka et al., 2018). Historically important and large-scale changes can also contribute to selective migration, which, in turn, may be seen as a macroscopic process of a large amount of persons striving to attain better person-environment fit (i.e., leaving one environment for a another one; see also Section A Systematic Account). Indeed, relations between personality traits and migration patterns have already been documented (e.g., Camperio Ciani, Capiluppi, Veronese, & Sartori, 2007; Jokela, 2014; Jokela, Elovainio, Kivimaki, & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2008), leading to drifts in both genotypes and personality phenotypes. Thus, the striving for person-environment fit, coupled with the affordances from regions, societies, cultures, countries, or nations, can also have implications for group and social identity (Schmader & Sedikides, 2018), mobility processes (Oishi, 2010), sociocultural processes and person-culture fit (Benet-Martínez, Chapter 10), and population dynamics (Camperio Ciani et al., 2007; Ciani & Capiluppi, 2011).

Contingencies of Retirement’s Implications for Later-Life Development

The person–environment fit framework of the work-to-retirement transition is useful in identifying potential contingency factors in explaining the implications of retirement to later-life development. In applying the person–environment fit framework, we see that the impacts of retirement and bridge employment on later-life development depend on person–employment/retirement fit. Transitioning into retirement or bridge employment that has features fitting an individual’s abilities and needs ought to have positive implications to later-life development, while transitioning into retirement or bridge employment without a desired level of person–environment fit will likely have negative implications to later-life development. Below, we discuss two fit-related contingencies on the impact of retirement.

First, the implications of retirement and bridge employment on later-life development may depend on whether a retiree can adapt to achieve a desired level of fit with the environment in retirement within a reasonable time period. It is not uncommon that older adults experience fluctuations in their health, psychological well-being, perception of self, and/or marital and general life satisfaction immediately following their exit from the workplace. Following the initial period, many people can gradually adjust themselves ultimately to fit their retirement environment. For these people, retirement may have minimal or even positive impacts on their later-life development in the long run. However, there are people who have great difficulties in letting go of work and adjusting to retirement. For those who could not develop sufficient fit with the features of life in retirement or take too much time to do so, later-life development may be hindered by their retirement transition experience.

Certain characteristics of the retirement transition and retirement context may make retirement a negative experience. One example is involuntary off-time retirement. As we have discussed earlier in this chapter, the retirement process is accompanied by lifespan development in multiple aspects. People retire when their needs, abilities, and resources change to the level that better aligns with the features of retirement than the features of work. For people who are forced into retirement earlier than when they have anticipated, it is more difficult to develop fit with retirement as these people’s needs may not be fulfilled by retirement. Further, people who are forced into retirement tend to have fewer resources in terms of their socioeconomic status and health condition, and will therefore face obstacles in coping with the lack of fit during the transition period immediately following retirement.

Second, the implications of retirement and bridge employment on later-life development may depend on whether one enters the retirement or bridge employment transition due to fit or lack of fit with the environment. Research on the retirement decision has found that such a decision may be driven by either negative push factors or positive pull factors (Shultz, Morton, & Weckerle, 1998). Driven by push factors, older workers exit the workplace due to a high level of person–employment misfit. For instance, poor health reduces one’s demands-abilities fit to work, and negative work conditions (e.g., employers’ unsupportive policy toward older workers) or negative feelings about work (e.g., work is boring, not appreciated, or not productive) reduces one’s needs-supplies fit to work. Driven by pull factors, older workers enter retirement due to a high level of expected person-retirement fit. For instance, one's access to sufficient financial revenue increases one’s expected demands-abilities fit to retirement, and wanting to spend time with one’s spouse, on hobbies, and in volunteer work increases one’s expected needs-supplies fit to retirement. It is important to note that the lack of fit-to-work does not guarantee fit-to-retirement. In other words, when the transition is due to misfit-to-work or negative push factors, person-retirement fit may not have been developed. Supporting this, retiring because of one’s own or one’s spouse’s health concerns “could accentuate the negative effects of the retirement transition on marital quality as individuals may shift from a fulfilling career to a time of either dependence (i.e., when one’s own health was at issue) or intensive caregiving (i.e., when the spouse’s health was at issue)” (Rauer & Jensen, 2016, p. 164). Therefore, a retirement decision driven by fit-to-retirement is expected to be associated with better post-retirement development than a retirement decision driven by misfit-to-work.

Similarly, people may engage in bridge employment due to either negative push factors or positive pull factors (Zhan & Wang, 2015). Working after retirement due to financial pressure indicates lack of fit between a retiree’s financial resources and the demands of one’s desired lifestyle in retirement, while working after retirement due to the desire to further develop one’s career or stay socially connected indicates needs-supplies fit between a retiree and bridge employment. Bridge employment participation mainly driven by fit-to-bridge employment is expected to be associated with better post-retirement development than bridge employment participation mainly driven by misfit-to-retirement.

Eccles concept of person × environment fit

The concept of person × environment fit, a theoretical outgrowth of the ecological systems perspective, was developed by Jacquelynne Eccles and her colleagues (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). She addressed the fact that many negative outcomes are observed for adolescents as they make the transition to junior high school. She examined middle school at the classroom, school, and the district levels, pointing out discrepancies between the desired directions for growth in early adolescence and the educational structure and opportunities typically provided for students in these schools. At the school and district levels, junior high schools are characterized by larger school size, departmentalized instruction, and more layers of bureaucratic administration in comparison to elementary schools. In addition, the following characteristics are common in the classroom environments at the junior high school level as compared to elementary school classes: (1) greater teacher control and discipline; (2) less personal and positive teacher-student relationships; (3) fewer opportunities for student decision-making and choice; (4) more emphasis on ability assessment and social comparison; (5) classwork in the first year of junior high school is typically less challenging than the work students experience at the end of elementary school; and (6) the use of a higher standard for grading which results in students receiving lower grades (Eccles, Lord, & Midgley, 1991).

Eccles et al. (1993) suggested that these features of the junior high school classroom are poorly matched with adolescents’ desires for autonomy and a greater role in decision-making; their need for personal and positive relationships with adults outside the family; their sensitivity to peer evaluation; and their readiness for higher level challenges in critical thinking and problem solving. As a result, when these features of the junior high school classroom are salient, students show evidence of decreases in intrinsic motivation, more school misconduct, and reduced sense of school belonging.

Person–organization fit theory

Career choice theory (Holland, 1997) and person–environment fit theory (Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004) stipulate that individuals chose careers and work environments that best fit their values, needs, and personality. Judge and Bretz (1992) found that perceived agreement between a job seeker’s values and the values put forward by the organization influences organizational attractiveness. Cable and Judge (1996) report that job seekers’ person–organization fit perceptions are predicted by the agreement between their values and their perception of the recruiting organization’s values rather than by demographic similarities between themselves and the organizational representatives. Furthermore, person–organization fit predicts job seekers’ job satisfaction, turnover intentions, willingness to recommend the organization to others, and organizational commitment once they are employed by the company (Cable & Judge, 1996). The question is: what type of organizational environment attracts individuals with dark personalities?

Theory of work adjustment

An early contribution to person-situation interactionism in the workplace, targeting person-environment (PE) fit via vocational choice (e.g., Tinsley, 1993), is Dawis, Lofquist, and colleagues’ (e.g., Dawis et al., 1964) theory of work adjustment (TWA). Work adjustment is defined as “the continuous and dynamic process by which the individual seeks to achieve and maintain correspondence with his or her work environment” (Dawis & Lofquist, 1976, p. 55). Workers are satisfied and judged satisfactory to the degree they achieve correspondence actively (e.g., job search) or reactively (e.g., rule-following). Dawis and Lofquist (1984) describe four “work styles” differentiating individuals in their approach to fit: celerity (i.e., speed of responding), pace (i.e., energy level), rhythm (i.e., steady vs. erratic), and endurance (i.e., maintaining effort over time). TWA promotes personality dynamics by modeling fit via the individual worker's choice and management of work situations serving need satisfaction and ability engagement.

TWA has been a frequent target of research. The following examples show the model's broad applicability. Dahling and Librizzi (2015) use TWA to explain how job satisfaction mediates the relationship between perceived fit and turnover intentions. Similarly, Harold, Oh, Holtz, Han, and Giacalone (2016) use it to show how frustration mediates the link between (poor) fit and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Focusing on the situation side of PE fit, Dierdorff and Morgeson (2013) cite TWA in linking values (e.g., achievement, independence) to job satisfaction via selected work characteristics (e.g., job complexity, autonomy). TWA has prompted scale development efforts (e.g., Velez & Moradi, 2012) and applications to both newcomer fit (Saks & Ashforth, 2000) and retirement planning (Harper & Shoffner, 2004).

Multiple dynamics along the action-dynamic pathway and between inner personality and the outside environment

Finally, the personality systems framework depicts more complex sets of action dynamics that may traverse the pathway between inner personality and outer environment in concert with one another. Person-environment fit involves these sets of related dynamics along the action pathway: (a) people self-select into environments that are compatible with aspects of their personality as (b) the environment reinforces them for doing so and (c) may pare away incompatible person-characteristics in a socialization process. These multiple coexisting processes often result over time in a closer match between the characteristics of the person and the environment leading to lower stress, greater satisfaction, retention, and better performance for both the person and the social group (Etzel & Nagy, 2016; Le, Robbins, & Westrick, 2014; see also Su, Murdock, & Rounds, 2015 for a discussion).

For example, many new hires may begin their jobs with a set of hopes and expectations that they will fit in well with the work environment and perform well. Work environments, however, make their own specific demands, and the on-the-job situations may facilitate or discourage some employees’ objectives, hopes, and expectations in ways they had not anticipated when they began work. For example, high time demands on the job, lower control over work, and workplace bullying behavior are all common experiences in some workplaces that lead to employees’ increased job stress (e.g., Goodboy, Martin, Knight, & Long, 2017; Wu, 2016). Employees who begin in a new work environment highly motivated to exercise autonomy over their daily tasks are likely to be surprised and stressed to discover that, in some jobs, they must document how they spend their time in 10-min increments. Individuals may reflexively make some change to their work environment to better meet their need for control, such as working with their supervisor to create a single end of day report rather than documenting time in 10-min increments. Indeed, research suggests that people who have a proactive approach to changing their work environment often report better social support and job control at work (e.g., Li, Fay, Frese, Harms, & Gao, 2014; Stiglbauer & Batinic, 2015; Zhao, Zhou, Liu, & Kang, 2016). Alternatively, some individuals learn to comply with challenging demands and to live within rules they initially regarded as demeaning by reframing the situation as lacking in autonomy but paying well or by focusing on some other positives of the work, such as the quality of their work relationships (e.g., Bergin & Jimmieson, 2013; Brough, Drummond, & Biggs, 2017; Korte, Brunhaver, & Sheppard, 2015). Finally, if individuals can neither change characteristics of their environment nor adapt to the given environmental structure, they may elect to leave their job altogether in search of an environment that will better fit their personality.

These are just a few of the possible examples of dynamics along the pathways of self-control and of action, but they illustrate the two classes of metadynamics well. We turn next to the potential implications and applications of this systems-based approach.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

In this chapter, we have summarized theories and empirical research on occupational health from a lifespan perspective. We presented the concepts of successful aging at work and the person-environment fit approach as broad theoretical frameworks that integrate a lifespan developmental perspective with research on occupational health. Research on this topic has accumulated within the last decade. With the advent of advanced statistical methods, it is now possible to investigate patterns of intraindividual change in occupational well-being over the working lifespan, as well as interindividual differences in intraindividual change. However, many open research questions remain (cf., Scheibe & Zacher, 2013; Schmitt & Bathen, 2015; Truxillo, et al., 2015; Zacher, 2015) and in the following we highlight some key implications for future research.

First, research on occupational health and well-being has primarily focused on older workers in the maintenance stage, whereas there is a lack of knowledge regarding younger workers that, according to Super (1980), are in the exploration or early establishment phase (see Fig. 15.1). Some evidence suggests that middle-aged workers face higher overall demands and may have, on average, lower well-being (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2008; Rauschenbach & Hertel, 2011); at the same time, this age group is less likely to take part in research due to their various work and nonwork requirements (Bohlmann et al., 2017). To make more overall statements on how occupational health develops across the full working lifespan, it is thus important to rely on samples that better represent the entire working population. From a statistical perspective, this means that curvilinear instead of linear relationships between chronological age and occupational health need to be tested (Bohlmann et al., 2017; Zacher & Schmitt, 2016).

Second, apart from chronological age, other conceptualizations of age have been developed. Researchers suggest that individuals with the same chronological age may differ, for instance, in terms of their subjective age, their functional health, or their organizational age (i.e., career stage, Bohlmann et al., 2017; Cleveland & Shore, 1992; Kooij et al., 2008; Schwall, 2012). However, there is a general lack of knowledge on how these different conceptualizations may specifically relate to occupational health indicators and whether and how the relationships are different from chronological age.

Third, in this article we focused on personal factors and work characteristics as contextual factors that have been shown to function as boundary conditions in the relationship between age across the working lifespan and health-related outcomes (see Fig. 15.1). Substantial future research is needed to identify further personal and contextual moderators apart from work characteristics and, thus, complement Fig. 15.1. For example, greater consideration of organizational variables such as organizational culture and climate on the relationship between age across the working lifespan and occupational health is needed (Harrison & Dawson, 2016; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Zacher & Yang, 2016). Organizational climate is one broader aspect of the organizational environment that refers to people’s shared perceptions of the norms, procedures, and practices in their work (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). These shared perceptions impact employee behavior at work (Schneider et al., 2013; Sonnentag, Pundt, & Venz, 2017). Zacher and Yang (2016) introduced the concept of organizational climate for successful aging (i.e., employee shared perceptions of the extent to which their organization promotes successful aging). The authors showed that the negative relationship between age and focus on future occupational opportunities and goals was weaker for employees who perceive a strong organizational climate for successful aging. Future research is now needed on the joint effects of organizational climate and employee age on occupational health indicators over time.

Fourth, we emphasized that age-specific changes across the lifespan relate to both gains and losses (Fig. 15.1). However, many studies in the occupational domain fail to take into consideration various underlying processes of gains and losses across the lifespan. Therefore, we lack systematic knowledge on whether, for example, motivational, emotional, and cognitive changes lead to well-being outcomes across the working lifespan (Scheibe et al., 2015). More research is especially needed on how losses in one domain (e.g., cognitive domain regarding fluid intelligence) may interact with individual gains in other domains (e.g., emotional domain, such as emotion regulation skills) and how this interplay affects occupational health.

Fifth, we need to understand better the impact and interplay of both mechanisms and boundary conditions that affect the relationship between age and occupational health across the working lifespan. It would, thus, be fruitful for additional studies to examine the overall model as proposed in Fig. 15.1 and investigate the joint effects of age, contextual, and personality factors on various indicators of occupational health (Truxillo et al., 2012).

Finally, one key gap in the literature is the lack of knowledge on the development and implementation of effective intervention approaches and programs to maintain and increase occupational health for workers across all groups (Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, & de Lange, 2014; Truxillo et al., 2015). Theory-grounded interventions are needed that are based on solid empirical evidence and that focus on how workers of different ages may benefit from organizational practices, policies, and interventions at work (e.g., mentoring programs), and adjustment in work design (Hertel et al., 2013; Kooij et al., 2014; Müller, Heiden, Herbig, Poppe, & Angerer, 2016; Truxillo et al., 2015).

1.1 Definition: What Is Fit?

The fit or match between the characteristics of the individual, on the one hand, and the characteristics of the environment, on the other, is what is generally referred to as person–environment (P–E) fit. On the person (P) side, these characteristics may include skills, abilities, personality, personal needs, goals, and interests. On the environment (E) side, these characteristics may include specific job requirements, reward systems, goals, culture, climate, and resources of the unit or organization.

The underlying assumption is that a good fit between the characteristics of people and those of the environment will result in better performance, higher job satisfaction, enhanced loyalty to the organization, more positive attitudes, and a lesser desire to leave the organization for another job. Furthermore, it is assumed that fit is a dynamic and developmental process such that a lack of fit will prompt a change in careers, jobs, groups, or organizations in the hope of achieving fit. Although this notion may appear to be intuitive, understanding how fit operates in organizational settings is complex. For example, what processes help to create fit? How can an organization best identify and attract those individuals who will better fit the organization? How can an organization assess which job applicants will ultimately be a good fit for the job, the work group, and the values and culture of the organization? Is fit always desirable? These types of questions represent the core of fit research and theory and are addressed in the following sections.

Person - Environment Fit Theories

Realizing we cannot do the theories justice, three major early contributors were Super’s (1957, 1980) theory of development of self, Holland’s (1959, 1997) theory of P-E fit, and Lofquist and Dawis’s theory of work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1969).

Super’s (1957, 1980) model perhaps most clearly linked a lifespan, lifecycle approach with the notion of P-O fit, as Super emphasized the development of self-concept as a result of experience over time. Savickas (1996, 1997, 2005) built on Super’s theory by invoking the idea of adaptation, where adaptations involve a dynamic process of engaging in action in order to increase congruence. By recognizing the ability to adapt, the way we see ourselves can change over time in response to life events and chaotic environment.

Holland (1959, 1997) posited a relationship between personality types (the hexagon of realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional) and environments. The greater the fit between the person and the environment, P-E fit, the greater the likelihood of possible outcomes, such as career satisfaction. Holland’s approach was also closely tied to the assessment of the traits or personality types, thus offering a close parallel to the use of selection instruments.

Lofquist and Dawis (1969) and Dawis and Lofquist (1984) also emphasized fit in their theory the fit between employee characteristics and the features of the organizational environment. As with other similar theories, increased P-E fit led to a number of favorable outcomes, including job satisfaction.

The career theories do share many features in common with I-O based approaches, including: (1) an emphasis on P-O or P-E fit; (2) the use of assessments; and (3) a recognition of the important role played by the individual in actively processing and adapting to information acquired during the staffing event. However, even within the vocational literature, the utility of assessments of P-E-related traits is the subject of debate (Rottinghaus & Van Esbroeck, 2011). In the selection literature, vocational interest measures have been generally regarded as having low validity (Hunter & Hunter, 1984) and while it is difficult to estimate the exact extent of usage, it would appear to be low.