A Consolidation of Competing Logics on Selecting for Fit

Fit plays a key role in organizational entry decisions. However, selecting staff based on
their anticipated fit is vulnerable to bias, potentially leading to inequality, stratification,
and polarization. First, we focus on person–organization fit and critically examine arguments for and against the hegemonic perspective that selecting for person–organization fit is an effective, responsible, and ethically appropriate approach. This is a controversial subject with bifurcated positions. On the one hand, there should be benefits for employers and employees, such as increased performance, productivity, motivation,
and engagement. On the other hand, there are some potentially major downsides, such
as subjective bias, reduced diversity, and fears that greater homogeneity will bring about
organizational dysfunction. We reveal that two forms of fit, organizational fit and interpersonal fit, have been conflated, and recommend disaggregating them. Second, we critically examine person–job fit and demonstrate that it too has both positive and negative sides. We produce a consolidated version of these different elements of “selecting for fit” that integrates the various literatures and informs policy. We advance five practical recommendations to improve the use of fit in personnel selection that help to realize its inclusive promise and minimize its deleterious effects.