The two ontologies of person-organization fit

Person-organization (PO) fit turns on the idea of compatibility between people and organizations, but fit research has typically approached compatibility through a limited set of assumptions. Most PO fit research adopts a correspondence ontology, treating fit as a measurable alignment between individual traits and features of the organization. Drawing on constructivist psychology and interpretivist theory, this article distinguishes the established correspondence ontology of PO fit, expressed as aligned fit, from a constitutive ontology, expressed as constructed fit. I argue that PO fit theory rests on two distinct and often unacknowledged ontologies, each with its own epistemological foundations and methodological implications. Correspondence-based approaches explain fit as attribute alignment between person and organization, whereas constitutive approaches explain fit as the lived capacity to sustain a workable sense of self in organizational life through interpretation, identity work, and affective experience. A process model is developed for each ontology, illustrating how they generate distinct explanatory pathways linking organizational participation, experience, and outcomes. Recognizing these ontological differences allows researchers to specify more precisely what their studies seek to explain when they invoke the language of fit. The article advances a pluralist research agenda that preserves theoretical coherence while expanding the explanatory scope of fit research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).