If you fit, you commit? The relationship between the organizational climate and employees’ commitment: the moderating role of the person-environment fit

Abstract

Purpose

Based on the theory of organizational socialization, this article broadens the knowledge in the field of organizational commitment by determining the relationship between the organizational climate (OC) and the employees’ commitment, as well as the moderating role of the person-environment (P-E) fit.

Design/methodology/approach

We conducted quantitative research using three psychometric questionnaires. We investigated a large sample (N = 1,032) of employees hired in Poland.

Findings

We found strong relationships between the OC, the employees’ fit and their commitment. Moreover, both supplementary and complementary fit significantly moderated the relationships between the majority of climate dimensions and, especially, affective commitment. Interestingly, highly fitted employees with longer tenure showed a stronger relationship between material climate dimensions and commitment compared to similarly fitted newcomers, for whom the most important were relationships with co-workers and superiors.

Research limitations/implications

We analyzed only a subjective fit among employees working in Poland. Although it was beneficial for developing the OC knowledge of non-American sample, the results require cautious generalization.

Practical implications

Assessing a candidate’s fit with the organization through detailed interviews, behavioral questions or practical tasks during the selection process can improve candidates' and employees’ P-E fit. A better fit can increase commitment, even if the OC or other factors are not perfect. Socialization tactics aimed at strengthening the fit can facilitate better alignment with the climate and higher commitment among employees with longer tenure.

Originality/value

This study is the first to empirically verify the moderating role of the P-E fit on the relations between OC and organizational commitment. It also considers the comparison between more experienced employees and newcomers.

Citation

Oleksa-Marewska, K. and Springer, A. (2024), "If you fit, you commit? The relationship between the organizational climate and employees’ commitment: the moderating role of the person-environment fit", Central European Management Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-05-2023-0212

Introduction

Nowadays, organizations face many challenges in diminishing turnover and maintaining employees’ efficiency. Considering the attitudes of employees and building strong commitment could be a solution to those issues. Organizational commitment, particularly affective one, serves as an important moderator between employees’ intent to quit and actual turnover, and it is a significant mediator between organizational climate and employee performance (i.e. Kim, Bonn, Lee, & Kim, 2019; Yadav, 2019; Rahmat, Abdillah, Priadana, Wu, & Usman, 2020; Wang, Weng, & Jiang, 2020). Although the research on identifying the antecedents and consequences of commitment has a four-decade history (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Morrow & McElroy, 1986), scholars continue to explore it across various sectors (Suárez-Albanchez, Blazquez-Resino, Gutierrez-Broncano, & Jimenez-Estevez, 2021; Serhan, Nehmeh, & Sioufi, 2022; Wu & Liu, 2022). However, it still requires further research.

As Barth (1974) states, researchers initially measured the commitment in relation to organizational conditions or personal factors like person-environment fit. Through the years, researchers have broadly examined those relations but mainly separately. It would be essential to link organizational and personal factors in describing the development of commitment, because, referring to the ASA model (attraction-selection-attrition), people are attracted to the organization based on a fit between their individual characteristics and organizational specifications (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). Although some researchers have analyzed those relationships, it is still not comprehensively investigated and is frequently limited to general conclusions, as well as single organizations, specific circumstances, or samples (Guzley, 1992; McMurray, Scott, & Pace, 2004; Woznyj, Heggestad, Kennerly, & Yap, 2019).

We aimed to extend the organizational commitment literature by identifying the relationship between the organizational climate – which is a set of employees’ perceptions and assessments about the workplace – and organizational factors (Rosenstiel & Boegel, 1992), and the employees’ commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), as well as the moderating role of the person-environment fit (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987) on that relationship.

Referring to the organizational socialization theory, we may perceive both the organizational climate and organizational commitment as an outcome of socialization processes through which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to pursue an organizational role (Maanen & Schein, 1977; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Although socialization is well-recognized in the literature, the increasing instability and need for flexibility in work environments make it essential to explore what enhances successful socialization, which in turn affects long-term outcomes like organizational commitment (Zhao, Liu, Zawacki, Michel, & Li, 2023). Considering the impact of work context on socialization processes (Ashforth, 2012), we adopted the concept of the organizational climate (OC) by Rosenstiel and Boegel (1992). They claim that OC is not an organization’s attribute nor the individual feature, but the result of employees’ impressions and assessments of the organizational factors, emerging from interactions between employees. Moreover, scholars analyze the person-organization fit from the perspective of organizational processes (Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Cable & Parsons, 2001). According to Saks and Ashforth (1997), learning through organizational socialization can first improve the person-organization fit, which then leads to higher organizational commitment and better adaptability to the organization’s culture and climate. The majority of research in the field of organizational socialization has traditionally centered on newcomers (e.g. Chi, Fang, Shen, & Fan, 2020; Kammeyer-Mueller, Rubenstein, & Song, 2013). However, we find it valuable to compare how commitment, organizational factors, and the moderating role of P-E fit relate to each other for both new and long-term employees because implementing socialization tactics can improve alignment with the organization and enhance commitment (Cable & Parsons, 2001).

The study fills the research gap by examining the relationships among chosen variables that scholars rarely explore in one model. We tested the hypotheses on a large sample and divided them into groups with different tenures and levels of fit. Consequently, the findings extend conclusions regarding organizational determinants of commitment in both newcomer and more experienced employee groups, thus, addressing a gap in the existing literature.

This article adds value by investigating seven dimensions of organizational climate (Rosenstiel & Boegel, 1992), allowing for practical conclusions to be drawn for selection, motivation, and development processes. Moreover, we conducted the study on a Polish sample, which enriches knowledge about chosen variables in Europe, as previous studies mainly used North American samples. Poland is a country with a “western-like” national culture (Wolinska & Rakowska, 2014) with a stable economy and social situation and one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe.

Theoretical framework and literature review

Adopting organizational socialization as the theoretical framework, we should note that socialization processes can occur in different phases. According to Feldman (1981), the second phase called “encounter” leads to adaptation to the group’s shared norms, which constitutes the organizational climate, and then the third phase “change and acquisition” helps employees to adopt the necessary skills to perform their work, and adjust to organization roles, which is important in shaping commitment. Moreover, bearing in mind that the socialization processes aim to facilitate fit, which should be predicted by selection to help newcomers integrate with the organization (Anderson & Ostroff, 1997), we decided to treat P-E fit as a moderating variable between the climate and organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment

Initially, scholars treated the concept of organizational commitment as a unidimensional construct focusing on emotional attachment (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Nowadays, researchers investigate the attitudinal approach to OC more often, mainly due to Meyer and Allen’s (1991) conceptualization, which distinguishes three components of OC. These include the affective commitment, which refers to employees’ emotional attachment to the organization, the continuance commitment based on the costs that employees associate with leaving, and the normative component of commitment, reflecting feelings of obligation to remain with the organization. This proposal allows for a better understanding of employees’ intentions to quit, as their commitment can differ regarding each of the aforementioned components (Morin, Meyer, McInerney, Marsh, & Ganotice, 2015).

Organizational climate

Field theory, which assumes human behavior results from personality and the surrounding environment (Schneider & Reichers, 1990), shaped the concept of organizational climate. It is separate from the organizational culture, as we may define it as a way of employees’ perception and assessment of organizational factors like remuneration, interpersonal relations, or work design, which affects their attitudes and behavior towards the organization (Payne, Pheysey, & Pugh, 1971; Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990; Rosenstiel & Boegel, 1992) and also regulates the social interactions within the organization (Denison, 1996). The assessment of the work environment results from the interaction between subjective feelings and objective organizational factors that constitute the perception of reality and the workplace atmosphere (Moran & Volkwein, 1992; Rosenstiel & Boegel, 1992). The assessment of the climate may concern the entire organization or one department; the basis is the social structure, not the workplace itself (Rosenstiel & Boegel, 1992). The organizational climate influences employees’ attitudes and behavior (Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak, 2013) and it correlates with different attitudes and commitment among them (Barth, 1974; Mullins, 2010; Berberoglu, 2018).

The relationship between the organizational climate and employees’ commitment

Noteworthy, both the organizational climate and the commitment to the organization are not one-dimensional concepts. A large part of the climate-commitment research is of a global character or selective, i.e. limited to selected climate components or types of commitment. Some studies confirm a positive relationship between the general commitment to the organization and the assessment of interpersonal relations (Morrison, 2008), shared and ethical leadership (Wu & Chen, 2018; Qing, Asif, Hussain, & Jameel, 2020), employees’ adaptability (Angle & Perry, 1981), perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, job autonomy (Stinglhamber et al., 2015), or satisfactory communication and clear feedback (Varona, 2002). The relationships between commitment and climate dimensions vary for each type of commitment, e.g. development opportunities are more important for affective commitment (AC), while benefits obtained are more important for continuance commitment (CC) (Meyer & Smith, 2000). Noteworthy, affective and normative commitment show more correlations with climate dimensions than continuance commitment (Noordin, Omar, Sehan, & Idrus, 2010). Hence, in this study, we assessed the relationship between commitment and the climate considering all the dimensions of climate distinguished by Rosenstiel and Boegel (1992) in the context of all three types of commitment.

Person-environment fit as a moderator

Adjusting an individual to their environment is one of the most important determinants of social and professional functioning (Schneider, 1987; Pervin, 1989). Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) noticed that two different processes lie at the base of the fit. One relates to the pursuit of fulfilling the needs (the complementary fit) and the second – to value consistency (the supplementary fit). Both these processes are equally important in building positive employee attitudes (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Complementary fit occurs when the financial, psychosocial, or organizational resources align with the employee’s needs, and simultaneously, the knowledge, skills, or attitudes of the employee correspond to the organizational requirements. Conversely, supplementary fit is grounded in the similarity of values, norms, and goals between the employee and the organization, in which both of these processes are equally important in building positive employee attitudes (Kristof, 1996). The P-E fit strongly correlates with commitment to the organization (Edwards & Billsberry, 2010; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). As some studies use the fit theory as an antecedent of organizational commitment (Lau, McLean, Hsu, & Lien, 2017), we assume it can influence the strength of the relationship between the organizational factors and OC. Therefore, we analyzed the P-E fit as a moderator. Employees with high P-E fit may engage in favorable attitudes such as job crafting more eagerly (Griep, Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2022) or they can have an increased level of psychological empowerment, which is significant in building organizational commitment (Joo & Shim, 2010). Moreover, the fit-organizational climate examination is based on respondent perception and not objective indicators (Dinu, 2013).

The moderating significance of the fit is sometimes discussed. Some studies have demonstrated the significant moderating role of the supplementary fit for behaviors manifested by employees (Mostafa & Gould-Williams, 2014; Ruiz-Palomino & Martínez-Cañas, 2014; Kakar, Mansor, & Saufi, 2020) and in the case of the complementary fit for increasing the effectiveness of employee development activities (Chang, Chi, & Chuang, 2010). However, at the same time, in the case of the requirement-commitment relation, scholars have not confirmed the moderating importance of the fit (Ugwu & Onyishi, 2020).

Hypotheses development

Rosenstiel and Boegel (1992) proposed studying the organizational climate in seven dimensions. These are overall management intentions, relationships among the employees, management style, work organization, information flow, and communication within the company, representation of employee interests, and remuneration and occupational development possibilities like motivation, evaluation, and promotion (Durniat, 2012). Considering that the comfort of the work experience and causal attribution are key antecedents of affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), we assumed that:

H1a.

The correlation between organizational climate and affective commitment will be stronger than correlations of the organizational climate with normative and continuance commitment.

Since continuance commitment is linked to labor market situations and job alternatives perception (Meyer & Allen, 1991), only crucial climate components for an actual job’s market value are thought to be related to CC:

H1b.

The higher the assessment of remuneration and occupational development possibilities, the stronger the continuance commitment.

The third component of commitment, i.e. the normative component is conditioned by a moral obligation to stay in the organization, i.e. because the organization spent time and money training employees (Meyer & Allen, 1997). For this reason, the authors stated that only those components of climate that build reciprocity will affect the normative commitment:

H1c.

The higher the assessment of remuneration and occupational development, and the representation of employees’ interests, the higher the level of normative commitment.

The climate-commitment relationship may vary depending on whether employees fit complementarily or supplementarily. As climate is not a homogeneous construct, it includes factors for internal and external self-motivation. In the case of the supplementary fit, we expected that the material climate factors would be less important in building commitment. The above assumption is in line with the results of previous studies showing that supplementary fit can counteract objective barriers to building organizational commitment (Seong, Hong, & Park, 2012). Meanwhile, the complementary fit is primarily based on the subjective sense of the individual that the organization provides them with the necessary resources to meet their psychological needs (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Thus, we assumed that this type of fit would strengthen the positive relationship between all the climate components and the commitment.

Therefore, we hypothesized:

H2.

The person-environment fit moderates the relationship between the organizational climate and the commitment.

H3a.

The complementary fit will moderate all the climate components and the commitment.

H3b.

The supplementary fit will mainly moderate the relation between non-material climate components (such as Relationships Among the Employees and with supervisors) and the commitment.

The moderating role of fit may significantly vary depending on differentiating variables such as tenure. Most literature on organizational socialization processes is focused on newcomers. However, it is valuable to compare employees with different tenures, as over time, learning through organizational socialization can result in a higher level of commitment or adaptability to the climate (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Therefore, we developed the fourth hypothesis:

H4.

With longer tenure, the strength of the relationship between climate dimensions and commitment increases.

Method

Procedure and sample

We conducted the study in February and March 2020. The sample comprised 1,032 employees (56% women and 44% men) The average age of the respondents was 32.3 and the average seniority was 10.8 years. People with a bachelor’s or master’s degree (53%) dominated the sample. Employees participating in the study worked in small (32.7%), medium (32.8%), and large (34.5%) enterprises, both national and international, operating in Poland.

Data collection methods varied based on the type of work: online forms for office workers (68% of the sample) and paper questionnaires for production workers (32%), who usually do not have company email addresses. In both situations, we ensured respondents’ anonymity and used the same set of questions. The survey consisted of questionnaires with variants of choice and no open questions. Participation was voluntary and the data obtained was confidential and anonymized at every stage of the study, which makes it impossible to identify the respondents.

Measures

We used three questionnaires with verified psychometric properties to diagnose the variables. We adopted the quantitative research design because it enabled us to statistically analyze hypotheses of previously explored concepts.

To diagnose the organizational climate, we used. a questionnaire created by Rosenstiel and Boegel (1992) and adapted to Polish conditions by Durniat (2012). The tool consists of 5-point Likert Scale and 55 statements constituting seven scales: overall management intentions (e.g. “In our company, we make efforts to ensure that working conditions are respectful,” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was 0.77), relationships among the employees (e.g. “We lack a sense of community; everyone is only concerned on themselves,” α = 0.77), management style and relations with supervisors (e.g. “Supervisors treat us fairly,” α = 0.86), work organization (e.g. “To meet deadlines, it is necessary to do a lot of additional work or work extra hours,” α = 0.75), information flow and communication (e.g. “We often receive contradictory information,” α = 0.82), representation of employee interests (“Our organization fully considers employee’s interests,” α = 0.69), remuneration and occupational development possibilities (“There are many promotion opportunities,” α = 0.80).

We measured the person-organization fit using a questionnaire by Czarnota-Bojarska (2010), in which she showed satisfactory reliability and tool validity, according to the approach of Muchinsky and Monahan (1987). The tool measures the fit of a subjective nature and allows for the isolation of two factors – the supplementary fit (18 items, e.g. “My character aligns with the organization’s expectations,” α = 0.90) and the complementary fit (16 items, e.g. “The company meets my expectations regarding working conditions and the workplace,” α = 0.94). The respondents answered using a 6-point scale.

To investigate organizational commitment, we used the Polish adaptation of Meyer and Allen (1991) questionnaire, developed by Wnuk (2017). It consists of three scales, i.e. affective commitment (e.g. “I feel like part of the family in my organization,” α = 0.74), continuance commitment (e.g. “It would be hard for me to leave the company right now, even if I wanted to,” α = 0.58), and normative (e.g. “I believe that a person must always be loyal to their organization,” α = 0.70). Each scale consisted of six questions and the respondents answered on a 6-point scale. Despite the relatively low level of reliability of the continuance commitment, we used this construct due to its compliance with the adopted theoretical model and previous works confirming the tool’s correctness (Wnuk, 2017).

Data analysis

To calculate the results, we conducted the PLS-SEM in WarpPLS 7.0 software. We selected the classic PLS algorithm to establish a reflective variables measurement model and path estimates in the proposed model (Kock & Mayfield, 2015). We checked the construct validity and discriminant validity heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratios and showed no common-method bias occurrence average variance extracted coefficients and calculated zero-order correlations. The obtained reliability of all the constructs shows that the measurement accuracy of the used measurements was high. To check if multi-collinearity between variables exists, we calculated the full collinearity variance inflation factor. All the results were below 3.0. Therefore, we could treat all the components of the climate as predictors.

Findings

The obtained results indicate statistically significant positive relations between the climate dimensions and all types of commitment. To verify H1, we used partial least squares path modeling (Table 1).

The path estimates showed that the positive correlation of the organizational climate and affective commitment relates to an increased assessment of four dimensions (management general intentions, relations with superiors, information flow and communication, representation of employees’ interests) and a decreased level of the work organization. For the normative commitment, it was an increased assessment of three dimensions (information flow and communication, representation of employees’ interests, and relations with superiors), and a decreased level of the relationship with co-workers. For the continuance commitment, the increased level of representation of employees’ interests and the decreased level of relationships with co-workers were significant. The highest assessment of the climate was related to AC. Hence, we accepted H1a. Although the conducted analyses confirmed the limited role of climate in predicting normative commitment (NC) and CC, other than previously predicted climate components were included in the models. However, the results did not allow us to accept hypotheses H1b and H1c. Because the R-square for both models was very low, the prediction of the normative and continuance commitment by the organizational climate was unjustified.

To verify Hypothesis 2 and the moderating role of the fit in the climate-commitment relation, we conducted a multi-group analysis (MGA). Before conducting the MGA analysis, we analyzed the root mean square values in PLS-SEM paths. The analyses demonstrated that the climate dimensions explain, to the highest degree, the variability of the affective commitment (r2 = 0.17, which denotes an explanation of the variability of commitment by the climate at the level of 17%). Although the remaining two types of commitment were significant, the variability of the climate assessment affected them to a slight degree (for NC r2 = 0.06, for CC rs = 0.02). Therefore, we decided not to include them in the moderation formula and further analyses.

Hence, we conducted the MGA analysis only for affective commitment. As a moderator, we analyzed the supplementary and complementary fits. The MGA results showed that in the highly complementary fitted group relation between AC and relationship with co-workers, information flow and communication, and representation of employees’ interests was stronger than in the low fitted group. However, we observed an inverted effect in the relationship between management's general intentions and AC. Table 2 shows the results.

Regarding the supplementary fit, the analysis showed that the relations between AC and management general intentions, remuneration, and occupational development opportunities were more positive in the low-fitted group than the high-fitted group. However, the relationship between AC and relationship with co-workers, and representation of employees’ interests were more positive in the high-fitted group than the low-fitted group (see Table 3).

Both the supplementary and complementary fits moderated the climate-affective commitment relationship in four out of seven analyzed climate dimensions. This result sufficed to accept H2. In three situations, in the supplementary and complementary fits, moderation concerned the same climate components, and the direction of moderation was independent of the type of fit. The findings were insufficient to accept H3a and H3b.

To verify hypothesis H4 and considering that climate dimensions explain variability in CC and NC to a small extent, we conducted the MGA analysis only for affective commitment. We divided the respondents into eight groups based on tenure (up to one year and over one year) and the level of supplementary and complementary fit (high or low). The results indicated (see Table 4) that a high P-E fit significantly moderates the relationships between commitment and a greater number of climate dimensions than a low fit (for high complementary fit, four out of seven dimensions, whereas for low, only two; and for high supplementary fit, five dimensions, while for low, three out of seven). The obtained results enabled us to accept H4 only partially. In the group with tenure exceeding one year, the significance of dimensions such as work organization, communication and information flow, and representing employees’ interests increased in shaping the commitment (and in the case of low supplementary fit, also remuneration and opportunities for development). However, in the group with tenure lower than one year, all dimensions become less significant, except for relations with co-workers and superiors, which exhibit a significantly stronger relationship with affective commitment than in the group of more experienced employees.

Discussion

The research showed significant relationships between analyzed variables and confirmed the important role of the fit in moderating mainly the affective commitment. Interestingly, the fit affected how climate and commitment were related, and this effect differed for people with different tenure levels. For those with lower initial fit, over time, they focus more on external motivators like promotions and higher salaries and less on relationships with colleagues or supervisors. This finding will help develop organizational socialization theory. Moreover, this makes it important to implement organizational socialization tactics to enhance employee fit over time, not only among newcomers. Employers can achieve this through institutionalized socialization tactics and by promoting proactive employee behaviors, such as relationship building (Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005).

Relationship between the organizational climate, organizational commitment, and person-environment fit

Different dimensions of the organizational climate determine each type of commitment. The largest number of climate dimensions were associated with the affective commitment, then normative, and the fewest with the continuance commitment, which corresponds to other studies (Noordin et al., 2010). Bearing in mind that the labor market and subjective perception of job alternatives are important for the continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), the weak climate-commitment relationship may be due to Poland’s low unemployment rate (around 3%), which makes it easier to find a new job and renders CC independent of employer effort. Affective commitment is positively related to communication, relationship with superiors, and their positive intentions and negatively with the work organization (e.g. the allocation of tasks). The results are interesting and suggest that if an employee values other factors more than work design, their affective commitment might increase to compensate for lower work satisfaction.

According to PLS-SEM analysis, the variability of organizational climate explains well only affective commitment. Meanwhile, climate evaluation only slightly influences normative and continuance commitment. We can explain the results with the nature of each commitment: affective is based on the desire to stay and identify with the organization, normative – on the obligation to stay, and continuance – on the cost-avoidance of leaving (Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010). Other studies confirm these results. They indicate that work experience can determine affective commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002), while normative commitment can be more related to the organizational culture (Meyer, Stanley, Jackson, McInnis, Maltin, & Sheppard, 2012), not the climate, and the continuance commitment to extra-organizational factors as the employee’s age or the material status (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The finding may add to the debate on organizational commitment and its factor analysis, as continuance commitment is sometimes considered a distinct construct known as entrenchment (Blau, 2001; Scheible & Bastos, 2014).

The moderating role of the P-E fit on the relationship between the organizational climate and organizational commitment

In further analyses, we investigated the moderating role of P-E fit in the relationship between the climate dimensions and commitment. Climate rating variability explained satisfactorily (16%) only affective commitment. Hence, we tested only this type of commitment. Both types of fit significantly moderated the climate-affective commitment relationship. Employees with better complementary and supplementary fit showed higher affective commitment when the climate dimensions aligned with their fit. Even when climate dimensions were rated lower, fit still mattered because it triggered a compensation mechanism, increasing affective commitment by compensating for lower-rated factors with others that match the employee’s fit. The affective commitment mechanism is a need to pursue actions relevant to the target and a need for involvement and identification with an organization sharing similar values (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), which corresponds to the essence of the supplementary fit. Simultaneously, the supplementary fit is connected to meaningful work, which leads to proximal outcomes, with commitment among them (Duffy, Dik, & Steger, 2011; Allan, Batz-Barbarich, Sterling, & Tay, 2019). Therefore, in the situation of a low assessment of overall management intentions and remuneration and development opportunities, a high P-E fit can shape affective commitment.

Regarding the complementary fit mechanism, based on the competencies-rewards relation (Cable & Edwards, 2004), dissatisfaction with the dimensions t concerning relations, communication, and respect for the employee, can activate a compensation mechanism. Thus, a highly complementarily fitted employee will feel a stronger commitment emotionally due to satisfying the material needs or the need for fulfillment (Edwards, 1991).

When grouped by tenure, results indicate two significant conclusions. First, high fit moderates more relationships between climate dimensions and affective commitment, regardless of tenure. Therefore, improving fit in both newcomers and experienced employees is vital for commitment development. Second, the strength of the relationship between climate’s dimensions and AC varies regarding the tenure. For individuals with less than one year of experience, relationships with colleagues and superiors significantly strengthen affective commitment, while with increasing tenure, the importance of relationships decreases, and factors such as work organization, communication, information flow, or opportunities to develop become more significant. The results for individuals with less than one year of tenure align with the literature, indicating the significant importance of relationships in the socialization process of newcomers leading to higher commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Griffin, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000; Simosi, 2010; Filstad, 2011; Lee & Jacobs, 2023). Over time, as the fit between the employee and the organization improves, tangible aspects of the climate become more important. For more experienced employees with low fit, the link between development opportunities and affective commitment strengthens. Once again, the explanation behind it is the compensation mechanism, i.e. tangible aspects of the climate broaden the sense of personal significance, which may compensate for lower fit (Buchanan, 1974).

Limitations and future research

The study has certain limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the measurement does not allow for inferring causation between the variables. Nevertheless, the organizational factors are a confirmed significant predictor of commitment; for the affective component, they are stronger than socio-demographic factors (Lee, Allen, Meyer, & Rhee, 2001). Second, the strength of the relationships may vary depending on the sector of activity or position. However, we did not analyze this aspect, because we considered it to lie beyond the article scope. Finally, the MGA method used only shows differences in parameters between groups, without providing a comprehensive evaluation of the obtained models after moderation.

Regarding further research directions, we recommend the project of longitudinal studies monitoring the level of employee commitment resulting from organizational interventions aimed at improving the climate and the fit, especially, in the light of results emerging from comparing employees with different tenures. Moreover, further valuable insights could emerge from an analysis of variance among different groups based on industry or company type, as well as a comparison of findings from Poland to other countries, such as the USA.

Practical implications for HR and managerial practices

The research results bring practical implications for HR professionals and managers. Considering the significant climate dimensions for affective commitment, it would be beneficial to introduce training, coaching, and mentoring programs about transparent communication and employee-oriented leadership (like transactional leadership), and maintaining the feeling of justice, which are also of importance from the perspective of building affective commitment (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Meyer et al., 2002). Regardless of tenure, the high fit is a significant moderator of commitment. Therefore, it is essential to take care of actions enhancing the fit, e.g. by carefully planning job descriptions and workload. For HR activities like selection, recruitment, and training, it is important to diagnose the employee’s fit with the organization using in-depth interviews, behavioral questions, or practical tasks. In the light of the current study, caring for a high level of fit should be a consistent strategy, because fit significantly moderates the relationship between organizational factors and affective commitment with increasing tenure. Based on research, to achieve positive outcomes such as higher organizational commitment, supervisors need to reinforce the socialization process, especially for newcomers, for example, by encouraging proactive behaviors (Zhao et al., 2023). Our research also showed the need to promote socialization tactics among employees with higher tenure.

Table 1

Estimates of the path results

Path	β	t	p	Rˆ2	adj.Rˆ2
Management General Intentions → Affective Commitment	0.09	2.84	0.002	0.16	0.15
Co-workers → Affective Commitment	0.05	1.49	0.069
Superiors → Affective Commitment	0.16	5.08	<0.001
Work Organization → Affective Commitment	−0.08	−2.64	0.004
Communication and Information Flow → Affective Commitment	0.07	2.26	0.012
Representation of employees’ interests → Affective Commitment	0.14	4.65	<0.001
Remuneration and opportunities for development → Affective Commitment	0.04	1.13	0.13
Management General Intentions → Continuance Commitment	−0.02	−0.56	0.289	0.02	0.01
Co-workers → Continuance Commitment	−0.15	−4.80	<0.001
Superiors → Continuance Commitment	0.05	1.59	0.057
Work Organization → Continuance Commitment	0.04	1.19	0.116
Communication and Information Flow → Continuance Commitment	−0.01	−0.17	0.431
Representation of employees’ interests → Continuance Commitment	0.11	3.43	<0.001
Remuneration and opportunities for development → Continuance Commitment	−0.03	−0.96	0.169
Management General Intentions → Normative Commitment	0.05	1.55	0.061	0.07	0.06
Co-workers → Normative Commitment	−0.09	−2.77	0.003
Superiors → Normative Commitment	0.07	2.24	0.013
Work Organization → Normative Commitment	−0.02	−0.59	0.278
Communication and Information Flow → Normative Commitment	0.09	2.95	0.002
Representation of employees’ interests → Normative Commitment	0.15	4.99	<0.001
Remuneration and opportunities for development → Normative Commitment	−0.01	−0.28	0.39

Note(s): p < 0.05. The italicized data are statistically significant

Source(s): Own elaboration

Table 2

Results of the conducted PLS-SEM multi-group analysis – moderator: complementary fit

Path	Split by median		t	p
	Low	High
	β	β
Management General Intentions → Affective Commitment	0.12	−0.06	2,855	0.002
Co-workers → Affective Commitment	0.01	0.14	2,183	0.015
Superiors → Affective Commitment	0.12	0.03	1,496	0.067
Work Organization → Affective Commitment	−0.15	−0.08	1,247	0.106
Communication and Information Flow → Affective Commitment	0.01	0.13	1,936	0.026
Representation of employees’ interests → Affective Commitment	0.09	0.20	1,785	0.037
Remuneration and opportunities for development → Affective Commitment	0.01	−0.06	1,138	0.127

Note(s): p < 0.05. The italicized data are statistically significant

Source(s): Own elaboration

Table 3

Results of the conducted PLS-SEM multi-group analysis (moderator: supplementary fit)

Path	Split by median		t	p
	Low	High
	β	β
Management General Intentions → Affective Commitment	0.11	−0.04	2.41	0.008
Co-workers → Affective Commitment	−0.04	0.08	2.02	0.022
Superiors → Affective Commitment	0.18	0.08	1.63	0.052
Work Organization → Affective Commitment	−0.08	−0.13	0.82	0.206
Communication and Information Flow → Affective Commitment	0.04	0.04	0.09	0.463
Representation of employees’ interests → Affective Commitment	0.05	0.27	3.263	<0.001
Remuneration and opportunities for development → Affective Commitment	0.09	−0.05	2.35	0.009

Note(s): p < 0.05. The italicized data are statistically significant

Source(s): Own elaboration

Table 4

Results of the conducted PLS-SEM multi-group analysis for respondents with high and low P-E fit (moderator: employee tenure in organization)

Path	High complementary fit			High supplementary fit
	Emp. Tenure		p	Emp. Tenure		p
	<1y N = 160	>1y N = 356		<1y N = 160	>1y N = 356
	β	β		β	β
Management General Intentions → AC	−0.09	−0.02	0.24	0.04	−0.01	0.31
Co-workers → AC	0.36	0.08	0.00	0.18	−0.03	0.01
Superiors → AC	0.14	−0.02	0.04	0.30	−0.03	<0.001
Work Organization → AC	−0.28	0.02	<0.001	−0.29	0.01	<0.001
Communication and Information Flow → AC	−0.01	0.18	0.02	−0.03	0.17	0.02
Representation of employees’ interests → AC	0.24	0.19	0.26	0.12	0.32	0.02
Remuneration and opportunities for development → AC	−0.15	−0.07	0.21	0.00	−0.14	0.06

Path	Low complementary fit			Low supplementary fit
	Emp. Tenure		p	Emp. Tenure		p
	<1y N=181	>1y N = 335		<1y N = 181	>1y N = 335
	β	β		β	β
Management General Intentions → AC	0.09	0.08	0.47	0.08	0.09	0.44
Co-workers → AC	0.07	0.02	0.31	0.08	−0.13	0.01
Superiors → AC	0.32	0.02	<0.001	0.23	0.24	0.49
Work Organization → AC	−0.09	−0.18	0.16	−0.07	−0.05	0.43
Communication and Information Flow → AC	−0.15	0.11	0.01	−0.14	0.00	0.06
Representation of employees’ interests → AC	0.16	0.08	0.18	0.25	0.02	0.01
Remuneration and opportunities for development → AC	−0.03	0.08	0.12	−0.07	0.23	<0.001

Note(s): p < 0.05. The italicized data are statistically significant

Source(s): Own elaboration