From Static Congruence to Dynamic Alignment: Person–Organization Fit Practices and Their Contribution to Sustainable HRM in Poland

Abstract

Value alignment between employees and organizations is a salient concern in sustainable human resource management (sHRM). Previous research has mainly treated person–organization (P–O) fit as a static condition assessed at entry, while little is known about its processual nature across the employee lifecycle or about how assessments relate to organizational responses to misfit. Addressing this gap, the present study examines how organizations operationalize value alignment across stages, methods, and remedial responses using original multidimensional indices. A cross-sectional survey of 104 HR managers in Poland was conducted, introducing the Fit Stage Score (assessment points across the lifecycle), the Fit Method Score (breadth of diagnostic tools), and the Misfit Response Score (remedial actions applied when misfit occurs). Results show that foreign-owned firms rely on more diverse diagnostic methods, sectoral variation appears only in the number of assessment stages, and neither executive gender nor ownership form has systematic effects. The strongest finding is the robust association between broader assessments and broader remedial measures, confirming the existence of an integrated “assessment–response bundle.” The study advances theory by providing empirical evidence for a dynamic, multidimensional view of P–O fit. Practically, it highlights that organizations can strengthen alignment by expanding assessment methods and coupling them with concrete remedial strategies such as training, mentoring, or internal mobility.

1. Introduction

The alignment of employee and organizational values has become an essential aspect for scholars of work and organizations. Classical approaches to person–organization (P–O) fit conceptualize it as the congruence of individual and organizational values, typically assessed at the entry stage of employment [1,2,3]. This static perspective, with value congruence as the dominant dimension, shaped much of the early literature.

More recent contributions emphasize a processual understanding of fit. Alignment is increasingly viewed as unfolding dynamically across the employee lifecycle, from attraction and selection to onboarding, development, and even exit [4,5,6,7]. However, empirical studies remain concentrated on initial stages, and evidence of how organizations operationalize alignment across multiple phases is scarce.

This debate has also been embedded in sustainable human resource management (sHRM), which integrates organizational practices with long-term resilience and the agenda of decent work [8,9]. Within this framework, value alignment can be understood as a mechanism linking employee well-being and sustainable organizational outcomes. Recent studies highlight this explicitly: Chomać-Pierzecka et al. demonstrated that sustainable HR practices shape psychological well-being and performance in Polish firms [10], while Bai conceptualized sHRM as a system designed to promote employee well-being [11]. The introduction of workplace well-being frameworks such as PERMA (Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment) further illustrates how alignment practices connect sustainability with flourishing at work [12,13]. Despite these advances, little is known about how organizations translate such principles into concrete, lifecycle-oriented alignment practices.

In post-transitional economies, the gap is particularly salient, as sHRM remains in an early stage of institutionalization and adoption is fragmented [14,15,16]. In these contexts, the ability to embed alignment systematically may represent both a challenge and a capability. Building on this foundation, the study is grounded in three complementary perspectives: person–organization fit theory (highlighting value congruence and its dynamic nature), sustainable HRM (linking alignment with organizational resilience and decent work), and workplace well-being frameworks such as PERMA (illustrating how alignment connects sustainability with flourishing at work).

Poland provides a particularly relevant context for studying value alignment and sustainable HRM. As a post-transition economy, it combines the characteristics of an advanced EU and OECD member with institutional legacies of centralized governance, fragmented HR practices, and persistent cultural barriers such as low social trust. Scholars highlight that HRM adoption in Central and Eastern Europe is often declarative rather than systemic, with management by values still at an early stage of institutionalization [14,15,16]. This makes Poland an important case for examining how value alignment can be embedded in HRM systems under conditions of partial institutionalization, with insights that are transferable to other emerging and transitional contexts.

The present study aims to answer the key research question: How do organizations in a post-transitional context operationalize value alignment across the employee lifecycle, and to what extent are diagnostic assessments connected to remedial responses to misfit? To capture alignment as a multidimensional process, three original composite indices were introduced: the Fit Stage Score (breadth of stages at which alignment is assessed), the Fit Method Score (range of diagnostic tools), and the Misfit Response Score (remedial actions when misfit occurs). This design allows for testing whether structural characteristics—ownership, leadership gender, form of ownership, and sector—affect alignment practices, and whether broader assessment practices co-occur with stronger remedial responses. In doing so, the study contributes empirical evidence for a dynamic view of P–O fit and advances the operationalization of alignment within sHRM. To visually summarize the logic of the study, Figure 1 maps the research gap, the study’s aim, and the resulting theoretical and practical contributions.

2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

The theoretical framework combines three complementary perspectives that jointly illuminate how organizations operationalize value alignment. The theory of values and person–organization fit provides the micro-foundations, showing how individual and organizational values interact and evolve across the employee lifecycle. The sustainable HRM perspective situates these practices within broader concerns of legitimacy, employee well-being, and long-term resilience. Finally, the dynamic capabilities view highlights that alignment practices function most effectively not as isolated instruments, but as bundled capabilities that enable organizations to adapt to changing institutional and market conditions. Taken together, these perspectives allow the study to conceptualize alignment simultaneously as an individual–organizational match, a sustainability practice, and a systemic organizational capability.

2.1. Values and Value Alignment

Values represent fundamental beliefs that guide attitudes and behaviors, shaping both individual and organizational decision-making. Schwartz proposed a universal model of values organized into higher-order dimensions: self-transcendence, conservation, openness to change, and self-enhancement [17,18]. In work settings, these values are translated into functional categories of work values. Ros et al. [19] identified intrinsic values (autonomy, creativity, personal growth), extrinsic values (pay, job security), social values (collegiality, belonging, contribution), and prestige values (recognition, influence, advancement). Such work values are central to employment choices, job satisfaction, and perceptions of fairness [1,2,3].

In organizational contexts, the alignment of personal and organizational values—often described as value congruence or value alignment—has been consistently linked with stronger commitment, performance, and retention. Elkington embedded values within the sustainability paradigm, highlighting the interplay of economic, social, and environmental goals [20]. This view encourages treating value alignment not only as an HR instrument but also as a sustainability-oriented practice. In post-transformational contexts, scholars stress the role of values in strengthening organizational legitimacy and resilience. Piwowar-Sulej and Mroziewski showed how management by values is gradually being adopted by Polish firms [15], while Carballo-Penela et al. demonstrated that value alignment embedded in sustainable recruitment enhances motivation across countries [21]. Recent contributions further extend this line of research by explicitly linking alignment with well-being frameworks such as PERMA [11,12,13].

These insights provide the conceptual basis for person–organization fit theory, which directly connects individual and organizational values as a central explanatory mechanism.

2.2. Person–Organization Fit: Static and Dynamic Perspectives

Building on the value framework, person–organization (P–O) fit theory explains how such values translate into compatibility between employees and organizations.

Early approaches conceptualized person–organization (P–O) fit as a static match between individual and organizational characteristics, typically assessed at a single point in time, most often during entry [1,2,3]. Subsequent work introduced temporal and relational dynamics. Edwards and Cable argued that value congruence evolves over time, while Boon and Biron demonstrated that alignment can shift during the employment lifecycle as individual needs and organizational conditions change [4,6]. Bibliometric reviews confirm that research has diversified into dynamic and multidimensional perspectives, but empirical studies remain fragmented and largely limited to recruitment [22].

Recent contributions illustrate how HR practices shape the evolution of fit. Formal mentoring support reduces newcomers’ intention to leave by strengthening their perceived P–O and P–J (Person–Job) fit, while also mediating the effect of supervisory support [23]. This highlights the importance of interpersonal relationships and structured developmental practices in sustaining alignment over time.

Equally important are onboarding and socialization processes. A meta-analytic review demonstrated that systematic newcomer adjustment predicts higher commitment, lower turnover intentions, and stronger perceptions of fit [24]. Such evidence underscores that alignment cannot be reduced to static matching but rather must be treated as a dynamic process embedded in organizational systems and practices. This process-oriented understanding of fit directly connects to sustainable HRM, where value alignment is embedded in broader goals of organizational legitimacy, employee well-being, and long-term resilience.

2.3. Value Alignment Within Sustainable HRM

The concept of sustainable HRM integrates employee-related practices into a broader sustainability framework. It emphasizes the role of people management in balancing economic, social, and environmental goals and in supporting long-term organizational resilience. Scholars argue that sustainable HRM provides not only efficiency but also employee well-being and legitimacy. This perspective positions value alignment as a critical mechanism that links HR practices with sustainable outcomes [8,9,25].

In post-transformational contexts, such as Central and Eastern Europe, the adoption of sustainable HRM remains fragmented and limited. Research shows that organizations in these economies often implement practices declaratively rather than systemically. Bombiak documented advances in Polish enterprises, while Poór et al. highlighted the challenges of HRM in CEE countries [14,16]. Piwowar-Sulej and Mroziewski illustrated how management by values is gradually spreading in Polish firms, and Chomać-Pierzecka et al. demonstrated that sustainable HR practices can directly influence employee well-being [10,15].

At the same time, cross-national research demonstrates that the development of sustainable HRM is context-dependent. Bai proposed a conceptual framework of sustainable HRM in China, while Lu et al. provided empirical evidence that sustainable HRM practices foster employee resilience and positive outcomes [11,26]. Järlström et al. analyzed practices in Finnish companies, illustrating how local institutions shape adoption [27]. More broadly, recent contributions stress that institutional pressures and sustainability logics influence HRM adoption internationally [28] and that sustainable HRM enhances organizational resilience [29]. The integration of employee well-being frameworks such as PERMA further supports this perspective, with recent validation studies confirming its applicability in the Polish context [12,13], where the adoption of sustainable HRM illustrates both progress and limitations. Research shows that while organizations increasingly refer to values and sustainability in corporate communications, actual implementation remains fragmented and often symbolic, raising concerns of “greenwashing HR” [14]. Studies of CEE economies confirm that systemic institutionalization of sustainable HRM is still partial and uneven [16], with significant variation between foreign-owned and domestic firms [15]. This duality reinforces the importance of studying how alignment practices are operationalized in practice, and why findings from Poland are relevant for both local and global debates on sustainable HRM.

2.4. Dynamic Capabilities and Bundled Practices

The dynamic capabilities view has been widely applied in strategic management and emphasizes the ability of organizations to integrate, build, and reconfigure resources in response to environmental changes [30]. This perspective highlights that organizational advantage depends not only on individual practices but also on the capacity to orchestrate them in coherent and adaptive ways.

In HRM literature, this resonates with research demonstrating that bundles of practices rather than isolated measures produce stronger outcomes [31,32,33]. Evidence shows that HRM systems are effective when implemented as internally consistent sets rather than discrete elements [33]. This aligns with meta-analytic evidence that HR practices influence performance primarily when measured as systems [34]. At the same time, methodological debates have raised concerns about the validity of composite indices and unweighted counts [9].

Recent research has reinforced these insights. Huo and Boxall showed that employees’ work values shape their responses to HR practice bundles [35], underscoring the contextual sensitivity of alignment. Bučiūnienė provided new evidence that sustainable HRM bundles mitigate negative effects of organizational challenges and enhance employee outcomes [36], while Kersten identified distinct types of HRM bundles through latent class analysis, illustrating the diversity of systemic HR approaches [37]. Mansour demonstrated empirically that HRM bundles can simultaneously reduce employee exhaustion and improve service performance, extending the evidence for bundled complementarities [38]. Together, these findings confirm that value alignment is most robust when practices are implemented as bundles, reflecting both classical strategic HRM insights and contemporary sustainable HRM perspectives. Taken together, these perspectives enable conceptualizing alignment simultaneously as an individual–organizational match (P–O fit), a sustainability-oriented practice (sHRM), and a systemic capability that evolves through bundled HRM practices (dynamic capabilities).

2.5. Research Questions and Hypotheses

As outlined in Section 1, this study addresses the identified research gap by analyzing how organizations operationalize alignment practices across the employee lifecycle. To this end, we introduce three composite indices—the Fit Stage Score, the Fit Method Score, and the Misfit Response Score—which capture the multidimensional and processual nature of alignment.

The choice of explanatory variables is grounded in prior theory and contextual evidence. Ownership status (foreign vs. domestic) reflects the literature on HRM transfer, which emphasizes that multinational corporations often diffuse more standardized and diverse HR practices, whereas domestic firms are shaped by local institutional constraints [28,39]. Executive gender has been linked to differences in leadership style, risk orientation, and people management approaches [40,41]—this provides theoretical justification for testing whether leadership gender influences the scope of fit practices. Ownership form (public vs. private) reflects enduring institutional legacies: public organizations in Poland still bear traces of pre-transition governance, such as bureaucracy, nepotism, and limited market orientation, which may hinder the institutionalization of modern HR practices. Sectoral variation is also a relevant dimension, as industries differ in risk exposure, workforce composition, and HR priorities. For example, large-scale manufacturing often emphasizes shop-floor employees and standardized processes, while service sectors (e.g., retail or IT) tend to concentrate on white-collar staff. These contrasts may shape where and how alignment practices are introduced.

Finally, by linking breadth of assessment practices with breadth of remedial responses, the study investigates whether organizations treat alignment as isolated instruments or as an integrated, bundled capability. This approach connects P–O fit research with broader debates in sustainable HRM, which emphasize decent work not only as employment security but as encompassing well-being, fairness, and opportunities for personal growth [8].

Based on these considerations, the following research questions and hypotheses were formulated:

RQ1. Does ownership status (foreign vs. Polish) affect the scope and sophistication of fit practices?

H1. 

Foreign-owned firms will report significantly broader use of fit-related practices than domestic firms.

RQ2. Does the gender of executive leadership influence the application of fit practices?

H2. 

Female-led organizations will exhibit greater use of fit-related practices than male-led firms.

RQ3. Does public vs. private ownership affect the implementation of fit practices?

H3. 

Public organizations will report significantly broader use of fit-related practices than private firms.

RQ4. Do fit practices vary significantly across sectors?

H4. 

Fit-related practices will differ significantly across sectors.

RQ5. Do organizations that apply a broader range of fit assessment practices also implement more structured misfit responses?

H5. 

Firms reporting broader use of fit-related practices will also report more structured misfit responses.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

A quantitative, cross-sectional survey design was employed to investigate how Polish organizations operationalize person–organization (P–O) fit across the employee lifecycle. Moving beyond static, entry-stage assessments, the study adopted a processual perspective, conceptualizing alignment as a sequence of practices embedded in different stages of employment. This perspective reflects contemporary theorizing that fit is not a one-time condition but develops dynamically as employees and organizations interact over time.

To capture this multidimensional view, three composite indices were developed: the Fit Stage Score, the Fit Method Score, and the Misfit Response Score. Together, these indices make it possible to observe alignment not only as a static congruence of values but as a set of ongoing practices:

• Fit Stage Score identifies where in the employee lifecycle organizations assess alignment, moving beyond the traditional focus on recruitment.
• Fit Method Score captures how alignment is evaluated, providing a measure of methodological diversity and formality.
• Misfit Response Score addresses what happens when misfit is detected, offering insight into whether organizations adopt structured remedial practices or ignore such challenges.

This tripartite operationalization reflects both theoretical and practical motivations. Theoretically, it translates the notion of dynamic alignment into measurable constructs. Practically, it allows the identification of organizational routines that constitute an emerging HR capability, consistent with the sustainable HRM perspective.

Crucially, the indices include only structured and institutionally embedded practices, excluding ad hoc or informal interactions. This ensures that the analysis captures systemic HRM approaches rather than isolated managerial discretion. By doing so, the study documents alignment not as incidental activities but as organizationally codified practices that may gradually institutionalize into a coherent system.

Although the sample size (N = 104) is sufficient to illustrate empirical patterns, statistical power is limited, and results should be interpreted with caution. The design is further informed by the sustainable HRM framework, which integrates economic, social, and environmental dimensions of organizational practice.

3.2. Sample

The study sample comprised 104 individuals directly responsible for human resource management processes in organizations operating in Poland. The definition of “HR manager” was applied broadly to include both (a) formally designated HR executives and (b) line managers who oversee recruitment, training, or employee development in smaller organizations where dedicated HR departments are absent. This inclusive definition reflects the Polish context, in which HR functions are often distributed across managerial roles rather than concentrated in specialized departments. Data were collected in 2022 using the Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) method [42]. Respondents were recruited through a professional research panel provider, which ensured access to verified organizational representatives. Importantly, this was not a convenience sample: participants were drawn from a managed panel with established quality control procedures. While the procedure did not generate a probability-based sample, it provided a structured way to reach respondents from diverse organizations across the economy. The sample captured variation in ownership origin (domestic vs. foreign capital), ownership form (public vs. private), executive gender, sector, and organizational size. This heterogeneity allowed for meaningful group comparisons, although representativeness relative to the entire Polish economy cannot be claimed. For this reason, the findings are positioned as exploratory: they provide insight into structural variation in fit practices but should not be generalized without caution. Concerns about potential sampling bias were addressed by reporting the detailed structure of the sample, including ownership, gender, sectoral distribution, and size. These characteristics are presented in

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Variable	Category	N	%
Ownership	Foreign-owned subsidiaries	34	32.7
	Domestic-owned	70	67.3
Form of ownership	Private	35	33.7
	Public	10	9.6
	Other (cooperative, mixed ownership, NGO)	59	56.7
Executive gender	Male	30	28.8
	Female	74	71.2
Sector	Trade	22	21.2
	Manufacturing/Logistics/Construction	24	23.1
	IT & Professional Services (incl. Finance)	28	26.9
	Education/Health/Public	17	16.3
	Other (incl. agriculture)	13	12.5

Note. In defining ownership, organizations were coded as foreign if they reported foreign legal/ownership forms (m3 codes 2, 3, 8) or if they identified as subsidiaries of multinational corporations (m4 = 1); all others were coded as domestic. This dual criterion was chosen to capture both legal-structural ownership ties and functional integration with international capital. For analyses of H3, only private and public organizations were included (N = 45). Sector categories were aggregated from detailed industry codes to balance sample sizes and maintain substantive coherence; in particular, Finance & Insurance were included within IT & Professional Services. Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on survey data (N = 104).

.

3.3. Measures

To capture the multidimensional nature of person–organization (P–O) fit, three composite indices were developed. Each index was constructed as an unweighted sum of practices, reflecting the breadth rather than the intensity of application. This approach follows earlier research in strategic and sustainable HRM, where bundles of practices are operationalized through additive indices in order to represent systemic rather than isolated effects [9,31,32,33,34].

• Fit Stage Score (0–4): Measures the number of employment lifecycle stages at which alignment is assessed (CV screening, job interview, probation, permanent employment). This operationalization reflects the processual perspective on P–O fit, emphasizing that alignment is not limited to entry but may be revisited at later stages [4,6,7]. The selection of these four stages is consistent with the employee lifecycle perspective frequently applied in HRM research [43,44], yet the index itself represents an original operationalization developed for this study. As such, it provides an exploratory but systematic way to capture alignment across multiple phases of the employment relationship (see Supplementary Table S1).
• Fit Method Score (0–7): Captures the range of diagnostic tools used to evaluate alignment (structured interviews, psychometric tests, surveys, observation, supervisor consultation, and external consultancy or audit). The inclusion of diverse methods reflects both the static and dynamic perspectives in fit research, where different instruments can capture congruence at multiple points in time [22] (see Supplementary Table S2).
• Misfit Response Score (0–4): Records the extent of formalized organizational actions taken when misfit is identified (training, coaching or mentoring, job rotation or internal mobility, termination or exit procedures). Only structured, institutionally embedded practices were included, while informal or ad hoc interactions (e.g., one-off conversations or feedback) were excluded to ensure that the index captures systemic HRM responses rather than individual managerial discretion (see Supplementary Table S3).

The selection of variables was grounded in theory. The indices directly operationalize the dynamic and bundled character of alignment practices, as emphasized in strategic HRM and sustainable HRM literature. This allows the study to move beyond descriptive accounts of isolated practices and to capture whether organizations approach alignment as a systemic capability. It is acknowledged that the number of variables is relatively large compared to the sample size (N = 104). However, this design was intentional: the study sought to explore structural variation across ownership, gender, sector, and governance form, even at the cost of reduced statistical power. The analytical strategy (Section 3.4) explicitly relies on non-parametric methods appropriate for small samples and ordinal measures. In this sense, the design prioritizes conceptual validity (capturing the multidimensionality of fit) over statistical efficiency. The trade-off is openly recognized in the Discussion and Limitations sections. Detailed item wording, coding rules, and extended frequency distributions are provided in Supplementary Tables S1–S3.

3.4. Analytical Strategy

The analysis proceeded in several steps. First, descriptive statistics were calculated to establish baseline distributions of the three composite indices—Fit Stage Score, Fit Method Score, and Misfit Response Score—and to identify missing values. Tests of normality (Shapiro–Wilk) confirmed significant departures from normality, and the indices represent ordinal count measures [45]. Accordingly, non-parametric procedures were applied, which are robust to non-normality and suitable for relatively small samples. Specifically, Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis H, and Fisher’s exact tests were used for group comparisons, and Spearman’s rank correlation was applied to assess associations between alignment indices [46,47,48].

Each research question and hypothesis was systematically linked to the appropriate statistical test (

Table 2. Research questions, hypotheses, concepts, constructs, and statistical tests.

Research Question (RQ)	Hypothesis (H)	Concept (Independent Variable)	Construct (Dependent Variable)	Statistical Test
RQ1: Do ownership patterns matter for fit practices?	H1a	Ownership (foreign vs. domestic)	Fit Stage Score	Mann–Whitney U
	H1b	Ownership (foreign vs. domestic)	Fit Method Score	Mann–Whitney U
	H1c	Ownership (foreign vs. domestic)	Misfit Response Score	Mann–Whitney U
RQ2: Does executive gender influence fit practices?	H2a	Executive gender (male vs. female)	Fit Stage Score	Mann–Whitney U
	H2b	Executive gender (male vs. female)	Fit Method Score	Mann–Whitney U
	H2c	Executive gender (male vs. female)	Misfit Response Score	Mann–Whitney U
RQ3: Does ownership form influence fit practices?	H3a	Form of ownership (private vs. public)	Fit Stage Score	Mann–Whitney U
	H3b	Form of ownership (private vs. public)	Fit Method Score	Mann–Whitney U
	H3c	Form of ownership (private vs. public)	Misfit Response Score	Mann–Whitney U
RQ4: Do sectors differ in fit practices?	H4a	Sector (5 categories)	Fit Stage Score	Kruskal–Wallis H
	H4b	Sector (5 categories)	Fit Method Score	Kruskal–Wallis H
	H4c	Sector (5 categories)	Misfit Response Score	Kruskal–Wallis H
RQ5: Are fit assessments linked with misfit responses?	H5a	Fit assessment (yes/no)	Misfit Response (any vs. none)	Fisher’s exact test
	H5b	Fit Method (intensity)	Misfit Response (intensity)	Spearman’s rank correlation

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on research design.

). Because the three indices represent analytically distinct dimensions of alignment, each research question was disaggregated into sub-hypotheses (a, b, c).

This ensured that ownership, gender, or sectoral differences could be examined separately for Fit Stage Score, Fit Method Score, and Misfit Response Score, rather than collapsing them into an undifferentiated composite measure.

For descriptive transparency, additional comparisons across terciles of Fit Method use were conducted to illustrate differences in median Misfit Response scores. This step allowed for clearer interpretation of the correlation by showing how remedial actions expand across low, medium, and high levels of diagnostic intensity.

The choice of non-parametric methods also reflects the modest sample size (N = 104). With subgroup analyses (e.g., female-led firms, public organizations), statistical power is limited, which increases the risk of non-significant results despite potentially meaningful effects. This limitation is acknowledged explicitly in the Discussion and Limitations sections. However, the analytical design prioritizes conceptual validity—capturing the multidimensionality of fit and testing it across structural conditions—over statistical efficiency. By combining multiple procedures and disaggregating hypotheses, the study aims to balance rigor with transparency.

Complete statistical outputs, including sample sizes, medians, test statistics, and p-values, are provided in Supplementary Table S4. All analyses were conducted in Python 3.11 (pandas, SciPy, NumPy). In addition to non-parametric tests used for hypothesis testing, descriptive statistics were computed for each index, including means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals. This supplementary reporting was introduced to provide a fuller account of data variability and the precision of estimates.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

The survey was conducted in 2022 using the Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) method. On the opening page of the questionnaire, participants were informed about the academic purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, the anonymity and confidentiality of responses, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequences. Informed consent was obtained electronically, with respondents proceeding to the survey only after confirming their agreement.

The study did not involve sensitive data and carried no foreseeable risks to participants. No personal identifiers were collected, and all data were fully anonymized. As the research was limited to organizational practices and professional experiences, formal approval from an institutional review board was not required. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and in full compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). No incentives were offered to participants.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

4.1.1. Screening Questions

Screening questions revealed that all organizations in the sample declared considering value alignment at some point in the employee lifecycle. Specifically, 100% of HR managers indicated at least one stage where alignment is considered (p1), 100% reported using at least one diagnostic method to verify alignment (p4), and 100% acknowledged taking some form of remedial action when misfit occurs (p8). These results suggest that, at the declarative level, alignment is universally present across organizations. Nonetheless, further results reveal that in practice, such assessments are overwhelmingly concentrated at the entry stage. Specifically, although all respondents indicated that alignment was measured at some point, 86% restricted such assessments to recruitment or probation only, with little evidence of follow-up at later stages of the employee lifecycle. This discrepancy illustrates a well-documented gap between declarative adoption and systematic implementation of HR practices, particularly in post-transitional economies [13,14,15] of Alignment Indices.

4.1.2. Descriptive Statistics of Alignment Indices

Before testing the hypotheses, descriptive statistics were calculated for the three indices of value alignment (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for alignment indices.

Index	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
Fit Stage Score	104	1.62	0.92	1	4	1.44	1.79
Fit Method Score	104	1.97	1.09	1	6	1.76	2.18
Misfit Response Score	104	1.21	0.50	1	3	1.12	1.31

Source: Authors’ own survey data (N = 104).

). The results indicate that alignment practices are limited in scope: on average, organizations applied fewer than two assessment stages, fewer than two diagnostic methods, and only one remedial response. Confidence intervals are relatively narrow, which suggests that the estimates are stable despite the relatively modest sample size.

These descriptive results provide an overall picture of alignment practices across organizations. They suggest that while some variation exists, the general scope of practices remains narrow and fragmented, supporting the interpretation of partial institutionalization.

4.2. Ownership and the Scope of Fit Practices (H1)

To explore the role of ownership origin, the study compared foreign and domestic organizations in terms of value alignment across stages, methods, and responses to misfit. The results are presented in

Table 4. Results for H1 (Foreign vs. Domestic ownership).

Hypothesis	Construct (Dependent Variable)	Median (Foreign)	Median (Domestic)	U Statistic/p-Value
H1a	Fit Stage Score (0–4)	1.0	1.0	1379.0/0.151
H1b	Fit Method Score (0–7)	2.0	1.5	1463.0/0.048
H1c	Misfit Response Score (0–4)	1.0	1.0	1409.5/0.099

Source: Authors’ own survey data (N = 104).

. The only significant difference (Figure 2) emerged for Fit Method Score: foreign-owned organizations employed a broader repertoire of assessment methods than their domestic counterparts (median 2.0 vs. 1.5; Mann–Whitney U = 1463.0, p = 0.048). By contrast, no systematic differences were observed in Fit Stage Score (1.0 vs. 1.0; p = 0.151) or Misfit Response Score (1.0 vs. 1.0; p = 0.099). These findings suggest that while foreign ownership may stimulate greater methodological variety in assessing person–organization fit, it does not translate into broader coverage across the employment cycle or into stronger organizational responses to misfit.

4.3. Executive Gender and Fit Practices (H2)

Turning to leadership characteristics, the results show that executive gender did not shape differences in alignment practices (

Table 5. Results for H2 (Executive gender: female vs. male).

Hypothesis	Construct (Dependent Variable)	Median (Female)	Median (Male)	U Statistic/p-Value
H2a	Fit Stage Score (0–4)	1.0	1.0	1115.0/0.972
H2b	Fit Method Score (0–7)	1.5	2.0	1023.5/0.519
H2c	Misfit Response Score (0–4)	1.0	1.0	1042.0/0.598

Source: Authors’ own survey data (N = 104).

). Median scores were nearly identical across female- and male-led organizations: Fit Stage Score (1.0 vs. 1.0; Mann–Whitney U = 1115.0, p = 0.972), Fit Method Score (1.5 vs. 2.0; U = 1023.5, p = 0.519), and Misfit Response Score (1.0 vs. 1.0; U = 1042.0, p = 0.598). These findings suggest that leadership gender does not systematically shape how organizations operationalize value alignment across stages, methods, or responses.

4.4. Ownership Form (H3)

When considering ownership form, no systematic variation emerged between public and private organizations, as presented in

Table 6. Results for H3 (private vs. public ownership).

Hypothesis	Construct (Dependent Variable)	Median (Private)	Median (Public)	U Statistic/p-Value
H3a	Fit Stage Score (0–4)	1.0	1.0	150.0/0.454
H3b	Fit Method Score (0–7)	1.0	1.0	168.0/0.851
H3c	Misfit Response Score (0–4)	1.0	1.0	157.0/0.605

Source: Authors’ own survey data (N = 45).

. Median scores for Fit Stage Score, Fit Method Score, and Misfit Response Score were identical across ownership forms (all medians = 1.0). Statistical tests confirmed the absence of differences. These findings indicate that ownership form, unlike ownership origin, does not play a role in shaping how organizations operationalize value alignment.

4.5. Sectoral Differences in Fit Practices (H4)

Sectoral context proved more influential. As depicted in

Table 7. Results for H4 (sectoral differences across industries).

Hypothesis	Construct (Dependent Variable)	Test Statistic	p-Value
H4a	Fit Stage Score (0–4)	10.344	0.035
H4b	Fit Method Score (0–7)	2.863	0.582
H4c	Misfit Response Score (0–4)	2.906	0.574

Source: Authors’ own survey data (N = 104).

, significant differences were found only for Fit Stage Score (Kruskal–Wallis H = 10.344, p = 0.035). Post hoc inspection indicated that organizations in Manufacturing/Logistics/Construction tended to report higher Fit Stage Scores (median = 1.5) compared with other sectors (all medians = 1.0). By contrast, no sectoral variation was observed for Fit Method Score (H = 2.863, p = 0.582) or Misfit Response Score (H = 2.906, p = 0.574). These results suggest that sectoral context influences the breadth of stages at which alignment is assessed, but not the range of methods used or the responses to misfit.

4.6. Fit Assessment and Misfit Response Strategies (H5)

Finally, the analyses tested whether broader assessments co-occur with broader remedial responses, revealing a strong and consistent relationship. Results are summarized in

Table 8. Results for H5a (Fit assessment vs. Misfit response).

Hypothesis	Groups Compared	p-Value
H5a	Assessment vs. Response	p < 0.001

Source: Authors’ own survey data (N = 104).

and

Table 9. Results for H5b (Fit Method intensity vs. Misfit Response).

Hypothesis	Variables Compared	ρ/p-Value	Tercile Medians (Low/Medium/High)
H5b	Fit Method Score vs. Misfit Response	0.57/p < 0.001	1.0/2.0/2.0

and Figure 3.

For H5a, Fisher’s exact test showed a strong association between conducting any fit assessment and the presence of organizational responses to misfit (p < 0.001). This indicates that organizations that engage in fit assessment are also more likely to implement corrective or remedial actions when misfit is identified.

For H5b, the intensity of fit assessment methods was positively related to the breadth of misfit responses. Spearman’s rank correlation confirmed a strong and significant relationship (ρ = 0.57, p < 0.001). Descriptive comparison across tertiles of Fit Method Score further illustrated this pattern: median Misfit Response Scores were 1.0 (low), 2.0 (medium), and 2.0 (high). These results suggest that organizations using more methods to assess fit also report broader repertoires of responses to misfit.

5. Discussion

5.1. Main Findings and Interpretation

The findings of this study reveal a selective influence of structural conditions on person–organization fit practices in Polish organizations. While all surveyed organizations declared that they consider value alignment at some point in the employee lifecycle, in practice, such assessments remain narrowly concentrated at the entry stage. Specifically, although every HR manager reported the use of at least one diagnostic method and at least one remedial response, 86% of firms limited alignment assessment to recruitment or probation only, with little evidence of follow-up later in the lifecycle. This discrepancy underscores the partial institutionalization of sustainable HRM practices in post-transitional economies, where declarative adoption of alignment is widespread but systematic implementation remains weak. Such a pattern reflects a broader decoupling between formal HR declarations and enacted routines, a phenomenon commonly observed in post-transitional contexts where institutional pressures encourage symbolic compliance before genuine integration [49].

Foreign-owned companies employed a broader repertoire of assessment methods than domestic firms, although no differences were observed in the number of stages at which alignment was assessed or in the breadth of organizational responses to misfit. This pattern is consistent with comparative HRM research showing that multinational corporations diffuse standardized HR practices across subsidiaries while balancing global legitimacy with local adaptation [39,50,51]. Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe further documents that Multinational Corporations (MNCs) have been key drivers of HR modernization in post-transitional economies, including Poland, where they introduced more formalized selection, appraisal, and development systems [16]. These findings support the interpretation that international exposure stimulates methodological variety, while broader lifecycle integration of alignment practices remains constrained by contextual barriers (RQ1). From the perspective of institutional theory, this reflects isomorphic pressures and the transfer of global HR models, where adoption is strongest among foreign subsidiaries, while domestic firms remain embedded in legacy routines [50,52].

By contrast, neither executive gender nor ownership form systematically shaped alignment practices. The absence of gender effects is consistent with the structural realities of the Polish context, where women remain underrepresented in top management. The Biznes na wysokich obcasach (Business on High Heels) report [53] shows that women constitute 25% of board members and 28% of company presidents, but only 3–5% hold CEO positions. Such low representation limits statistical power in subgroup comparisons and, together with patriarchal cultural norms and weak institutional support for diversity, may mute the translation of female leadership into distinct HRM practices (RQ2) [41,54].

Similarly, the absence of statistically significant differences between public and private organizations (RQ3) should not be read as evidence of similarity in capacity, but rather as a manifestation of institutional path dependency. Historical governance patterns and entrenched administrative routines have constrained HRM development across both sectors, reducing variation rather than amplifying it. In the public sector, bureaucratic legacies and hierarchical governance structures limit the institutionalization of alignment routines, while in the private sector, market orientation has not yet translated into systematic adoption of assessment–response bundles. These converging constraints help explain why alignment practices remain fragmented in both domains, despite modernization efforts and external pressures for reform [55,56].

Sectoral variation emerged only for the breadth of stages: manufacturing, logistics, and construction reported slightly higher coverage than other industries. This likely reflects stronger risk management and process standardization in these sectors, which translates into more checkpoints in the employee lifecycle (e.g., combining selection with probation), without necessarily expanding the range of diagnostic methods or remedial responses (RQ4). In terms of strategic HRM, this suggests that alignment is operationalized in line with sector-specific strategic priorities, where process control dominates over diagnostic diversity. This interpretation is consistent with prior research showing that HRM practices vary significantly across sectors and industries, with manufacturing often emphasizing process integration and control, while service-oriented sectors prioritize flexibility and knowledge-based practices [57,58].

Most importantly, organizations that invested in more extensive assessment practices also reported a broader range of responses to misfit, with a strong and significant association between the two dimensions. This supports a dynamic view of person–organization fit, in which alignment unfolds across the employee lifecycle [4,6,7,22]. The assessment–response linkage suggests that fit practices function less as isolated instruments and more as an organizational capability embedded in HR systems (RQ5). While the cross-sectional design restricts causal inference, the robustness of this co-occurrence indicates that these practices may evolve as bundled routines, offering a plausible mechanism for dynamic alignment. This interpretation resonates with strategic HRM research on bundles [32,33,59,60] and with institutional perspectives that highlight how HRM practices are shaped by both global diffusion and local constraints [61].

At the same time, the generally low medians for Fit Stage Scores and Misfit Response Scores indicate that practices remain narrow in scope for many organizations, resonating with evidence on the early and uneven institutionalization of sustainable HRM in post-transitional economies [32,33,59,60]. Taken together, the results indicate partial institutionalization: methodological variety is linked to international exposure; sectoral logics shape stage coverage; leadership gender and ownership form exert limited effects; and the co-occurrence of assessment and response reflects an emergent capability. This interpretation strengthens the theoretical grounding of value alignment as both a dynamic process and a bundled practice, consistent with the broader agenda of sustainable HRM [20,26].

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to theory by reconceptualizing person–organization (P–O) fit as a dynamic organizational capability rather than a static condition. Earlier perspectives emphasized entry-stage congruence [2,3], while later work called for a processual view in which alignment evolves over time [6,7,22]. The present findings advance this debate by showing that diagnostic and remedial practices systematically co-occur, indicating that alignment is continuously shaped through routinized organizational processes. Seen through the lens of dynamic capabilities, as proposed by Teece [30], these processes can be understood as routines of sensing misfit, seizing opportunities for corrective action, and reconfiguring HR practices accordingly. By embedding P–O fit in this framework, the study provides not only empirical support for a dynamic and bundled perspective but also a theoretical bridge between alignment research and capability-based theories of organizational adaptation.

Sensing. The introduction of the Fit Stage Score and the Fit Method Score operationalizes how organizations identify value alignment across different stages of the employee lifecycle and through diverse diagnostic methods. These indices translate abstract notions of dynamic fit into measurable constructs, showing how organizations develop routines for recognizing opportunities and risks in alignment [2,4,6,22].

Seizing. The Misfit Response Score reflects how organizations respond once misfit has been identified, capturing bundled corrective actions such as mentoring, training, internal mobility, or exit. The robust association between diagnostic intensity and remedial breadth indicates that organizations seize opportunities not through isolated practices but through bundled responses, resonating with the strategic HRM literature on high-performance work systems [31,35,62]. In this sense, alignment can be understood as a routinized ability to mobilize resources for corrective action rather than leaving misfit unaddressed.

Reconfiguring. The co-occurrence of diagnostic and remedial practices also suggests that organizations are not only sensing and seizing but also reconfiguring HR routines in response to misfit. This interpretation positions alignment as an emergent capability that evolves over time, but the evidence also shows limits to this process: foreign subsidiaries diffuse global HR standards [50,51,52], while domestic firms remain embedded in legacy routines, resulting in partial institutionalization [14,15,16]. This pattern illustrates the tension between global diffusion and local path dependency [55,56], extending institutional theory to explain why systemic alignment practices remain fragmented in post-transitional economies.

Taken together, these dimensions provide a unifying theoretical thread: the three indices jointly illustrate how sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring capabilities underpin the operationalization of alignment within sustainable HRM [8,9,26,27,29]. This perspective moves beyond earlier descriptive counts of practices [32,34] by framing alignment as a systemic capability through which organizations operationalize sustainable HRM and adapt to institutional pressures. It thereby advances both strategic HRM and institutional theory by bridging micro-level HR practices with macro-level sustainability agendas.

It also clarifies debates on whether alignment is best understood as a static condition, a bundle of practices, or an evolving capability: the findings suggest it is all three, but in interconnected ways.

This reconceptualization also refines current theoretical understanding. Rather than simply providing “empirical support” or “refined measurement,” the study shows that alignment practices themselves constitute a dynamic capability through which organizations enact sustainable HRM and navigate institutional constraints. In doing so, it positions partial institutionalization as a transitional stage in the diffusion of alignment routines, linking dynamic capabilities theory with the broader framework of sustainable HRM [8,21,25,60].

5.3. Practical Implications

Recent labor-market evidence underscores the practical importance of value alignment. The 2025 State of Careers Report (ManpowerGroup) shows that 43% of European employees would refuse or leave a job if organizational values conflict with their own [63]. Complementing this, the Randstad Workmonitor 2025 (Poland) indicates that 48% of employees would reject an offer due to value misalignment, 55% would consider leaving if they felt no sense of community, and 44% have already left jobs because of toxic culture [64]. These findings highlight that alignment is not peripheral but a decisive factor in attraction, retention, and engagement.

To operationalize these insights, the recommendations derived from this study have been prioritized according to their strategic importance and practical feasibility.

• Expand diagnostic practices. The foundation of alignment is systematic diagnosis. Organizations should extend assessment across multiple stages of the employee lifecycle (recruitment, probation, development, promotion, and exit) and diversify methods (structured interviews, validated psychometric tools, surveys, 360-degree feedback, audits). Diagnostics should be repeatable and comparable over time, allowing benchmarking and continuous improvement.
• Integrate diagnostics with responses. Assessments must always be connected to corrective measures. Effective bundles include mentoring, coaching, targeted training, job rotation, or structured exit when misfit persists. Diagnostics without follow-up risk becoming symbolic and eroding trust.
• Address sectoral logics. Process-oriented sectors (manufacturing, logistics, construction) already apply multiple checkpoints, but remedial actions remain underdeveloped. These industries should strengthen mentoring, training, and internal mobility. In service-oriented sectors (IT, retail, professional services), remedial actions are more common, but diagnostics remain narrow; extending assessments beyond early entry stages is the priority here.
• Strengthen public-sector practices. Even if statistical results showed no clear divergence, institutional legacies of bureaucracy and hierarchical governance continue to hinder alignment in public organizations. Introducing systematic assessment–response bundles would modernize HR systems and rebuild legitimacy.
• Embed alignment as a sustainable HRM capability. Corrective strategies allow employees to cope with misfit without immediate exit, reducing stress and increasing perceptions of fairness. By embedding assessment–response bundles into HRM systems, organizations can enhance both resilience and employee well-being.

5.4. Limitations

As with any empirical study, this research is subject to several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.

First, the cross-sectional survey design provides only a static snapshot of alignment practices at one point in time. While the conceptual framework emphasizes the dynamic and processual nature of person–organization fit, the present study cannot capture temporal evolution or establish causal relationships. Longitudinal research and designs using causal modeling (e.g., structural equation modeling) would be necessary to test underlying mechanisms more rigorously.

Second, the data were self-reported by HR managers. Although respondents were recruited through a professional CAWI panel and anonymity was assured, the possibility of social desirability bias cannot be excluded. HR managers may have exaggerated the scope of alignment practices, consciously or unconsciously presenting their organizations in a more favorable light.

Third, because the survey was conducted via a panel provider, the exact number of invitations distributed is not known, and therefore, the response rate cannot be precisely calculated. This limits the ability to assess potential non-response bias. At the same time, the recruitment procedure ensured that only individuals directly responsible for HR processes were eligible, which strengthened the relevance of responses.

Fourth, the sample size (N = 104) is modest relative to the number of explanatory variables and hypotheses tested. This constrains statistical power, particularly in subgroup comparisons (e.g., female-led firms or public organizations). While non-parametric methods such as Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis H, Fisher’s exact test, and Spearman’s correlation are robust for small samples and ordinal data, some non-significant results may reflect limited power rather than the true absence of effects. To enhance transparency, descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals were reported, but these estimates should still be interpreted with caution.

Finally, the study is situated in the specific institutional context of Poland, a post-transitional economy. This provides valuable insights into an under-researched setting but also constrains generalizability to countries with different institutional legacies and HR systems. Comparative analyses across Central and Eastern Europe and with Western economies will be needed to determine whether the patterns observed here are context-specific or indicative of broader trends in sustainable HRM.

In sum, these limitations constrain causal inference and external validity, yet they also highlight directions for future research. By openly acknowledging issues of design, sampling, and context, this study contributes a transparent and replicable step toward refining the measurement of alignment practices and situating them within the broader agenda of sustainable HRM.

5.5. Future Research Directions

Future research should continue to refine the dynamic conceptualization of person–organization fit. While the present study illustrates that diagnostic and remedial practices can be linked into an integrated process, longitudinal and process-oriented designs are needed to capture how such practices evolve over time. Following organizations across multiple stages of the employee lifecycle would allow scholars to examine whether alignment strengthens, weakens, or transforms in response to organizational and institutional change, thereby moving beyond the static limitations of cross-sectional data. In addition, mixed method approaches that combine surveys with in-depth interviews could offer richer insights into the mechanisms through which alignment practices are adopted, adapted, and institutionalized.

Another promising direction concerns the role of contextual and cultural factors. The present findings indicated no systematic influence of executive gender or ownership form, despite hypotheses grounded in prior literature. This suggests that institutional legacies and organizational cultures in Poland may override such demographic differences. Future studies should therefore integrate contextual moderators—such as leadership style, governance traditions, or cultural norms—into models of alignment to explain why certain expected effects fail to materialize. Comparative and cross-national perspectives also remain essential. Poland offers valuable insights as a post-transitional economy, but the patterns observed here may differ substantially from those in Western contexts with longer traditions of institutionalized HRM. Extending the analysis across Central and Eastern Europe, and contrasting it with mature economies, would clarify whether assessment–response bundles are context-specific or reflect a more universal logic of sustainable HRM. Comparative studies could also explore sector-specific differences more systematically, identifying whether industries with distinct operational risks (e.g., manufacturing vs. IT services) institutionalize alignment practices in divergent ways. Finally, future research should more directly integrate the sustainability agenda. Although this study positioned alignment within the broader framework of sustainable HRM, further work could embed sustainability outcomes directly into measurement frameworks—for example, by including indicators of employee well-being, organizational resilience, or governance quality alongside alignment indices. In this way, alignment research could contribute more explicitly to bridging micro-level HR practices with macro-level sustainability goals, strengthening the theoretical and practical relevance of sustainable HRM.

6. Conclusions

Person–organization fit emerges as a dynamic capability rooted in sustainable HRM systems rather than a static condition of congruence. Evidence from Polish organizations shows that alignment practices are widely declared yet unevenly implemented, with assessments concentrated at early employment stages and limited follow-up thereafter. The interdependence between diagnostic and remedial practices reveals alignment as a routinized capability of sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring HR processes. Viewed through this lens, alignment connects strategic HRM with institutional theory—illustrating how global standards diffuse while local legacies constrain their integration. The findings clarify long-standing debates on whether fit represents a state, a bundle, or a capability, demonstrating that it functions as all three in interrelated ways. Ultimately, alignment practices provide a tangible pathway for embedding sustainability principles into organizational routines, linking everyday HR decisions with broader goals of decent work and responsible growth.

Looking ahead, future inquiry should trace how alignment capabilities evolve across sectors and over time, offering comparative insights into the institutionalization of sustainable HRM within and beyond post-transitional economies.