“Impact of person-environment fit on innovative work behavior: Mediating role of work engagement”

Organizations must cope with the current business demands and strive for a competitive advantage. Apart from many measures to enhance competitive advantage, employees’ innovative work behavior is instrumental. Hence, this study aims to measure the contribution of person-environment fit (person-job fit and person-organization fit) on innovative work behavior directly and indirectly through creating work engagement. Cross-sectional perceptual data were collected through surveys from the employees working in humanitarian non-profit organizations in Nepal. After ensuring the goodness of fit index, 499 responses were analyzed in the structural equation model showing path analysis with the help of AMOS. The conservation of resource theory was a foundation to test and analyze the hypotheses adopting positivist research philosophy and deductive reasoning approach. Regression analysis revealed a positive effect of person-job fit ( B = .23, p < .001) and person-organization fit ( B = .20, p < .001) on employees’ innovative work behavior. Work engagement mediated the influence of person-job fit and person-organization fit on innovative work behavior. Out of the total effect size of employees’ compatibility on innovative work behavior, 30% effect size of person-job fit and 23% effect size of person-organizational fit on innovative work behavior went through work engagement.


INTRODUCTION
Differentiation, ongoing innovation, and encouraging staff to develop and implement new ideas are vital methods for attaining a competitive advantage in every firm due to the fierce rivalry in the market and the danger of new competitors (Tajeddini & Trueman, 2008).Employee innovation is crucial for organizational goals and firm performance (Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006).Smith and Tushman (2005) highlighted innovation for any firm to stay profitable and competitive.Moreover, humanitarian development organization has to serve diversified people in diversified community impending customized approach.Therefore, for employees working in such a domain, the creation, as well as execution of innovative ideas and behavior, is vital.
Likewise, employees in modern organizations are expected to be invested in their work, exhibit initiative, and be innovative.To help them do this, employers should set up working circumstances with enough energizing and inspiring tools (Hakanen et al., 2008).In this regard, employee compatibility (i.e., person-job fit and person-organization fit) is essential for good organizational and employee results and the abundance of job resources at work (Kiazad et al., 2014;Mackey et al., 2017).Using employees as resources at work not only enables individuals to purchase the items they desire but also increases their capacity and motivation for work, creating opportunities for them to obtain further resources.Hence, employee compatibility may be advantageous for workplace engagement.However, no empirical support has been found about the impact of employees' compatibility (in the form of person-job fit and person-organization fit) on their work engagement.
According to the literature on inventive work behavior, the amount of job resources was investigated as a predictive factor for innovative conduct and examples like transformational leadership (Elenkov & Manev, 2005), job autonomy (Troyer et al., 2000), occupational fairness, intrinsic drive, rewards, psychological contracts, and working relationships of a high standard (Pons et al., 2016).However, it was not tested that job resources, in the form of employees' compatibility with job and organization (i.e., person-job fit and person-organization fit), directly impact innovative work behavior and indirectly through work engagement.Moreover, the effect of person-organization fit and person-job fit on innovative work behavior is worth examining because these actions are voluntary and not specified as part of an employee's job description (Janssen, 2000).
In the Nepalese context, due to unemployment as well as the ingrained practice of Bhansun (to affect the course of decision-making for one's advantage through political leaders, union leaders, or any other prominent individual) in recruitment and promotion (Bhattarai, 2021a), attention on employees' compatibility (or incompatibility) is not in priority.Likewise, Bhattarai (2021b) states that consideration of a particular context is crucial to develop and testing theories because culture might be different across the context, and that might influence a specific idea.Vleugels et al. (2018) state that person-organization fit and person-job fit best capture the concept of person-environment fit though there are other natures of employee fits within the workplace.Personorganization and person-job fit, which stand for, respectively, the match between the individual and the organization and between the individual and the job, are two types of person-environment fit that are significant in each stage of an employee's work experience, from entry to long-term employment (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006).According to Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), the person-organization fit is believed to happen when people and organizations have comparable core values and objectives and are drawn to one another because of this resemblance.On the other hand, person-job fit is the alignment of an individual's personality, knowledge, skills, and talents with the demands of a particular work (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).

LITERATURE REVIEW
Similarly, work engagement is a happy, contented state of motivation tied to one's job.Engaged employees see themselves in their work, so they do it with energy, dedication, and a deep sense of absorption (Timms et al., 2015).Similar to this, in-novation has been described as the deliberate introduction and use of ideas, methods, products, or procedures inside a position, group, or organization that are original to the relevant unit of adoption and intended to benefit the person, the group, or greater society (West & Farr, 1990) significantly.
In this study, an association of employee-environment fit (i.e., person-job fit and person-organization fit) with their work engagement and innovative working behaviors are discussed from the perspective of the conservation of resource (COR) theory of Hobfoll (1989).The core idea of COR theory is that people seek to protect, build, and conserve valuable resources and that the danger to these goals is the potential or actual loss of these resources (Hobfoll, 1989).Resources are described as those things, traits, circumstances, or energy that a person values or that provide a way for them to acquire those things, qualities, events, or powers (Hobfoll, 1989).As previously indicated, the model defines four types of resources whose loss and acquisition cause stress or eustress (Hobfoll, 1989).
Connecting the person-environment fit as resources as advocated by COR theory, Wheeler et al. (2013) hypothesize that person-environment fit represents the availability of the personal resources people need to satisfy the demands of their workplace.Wheeler et al. (2013) believe that, from a resource perspective, this fit might be viewed as matching the organization (e.g., supplemental) or bringing something new to the individual or organization (e.g., complementary).Ultimately, it all comes down to whether or not the person has what they need to deal with their surroundings.Resources used by people are frequently threatened by or depleted due to environmental factors.Especially status, position, financial security, relationships with loved ones, fundamental convictions, or self-esteem may all be threatened.Moreover, this study considers the expiation of COR theory by Kiazad et  This study views the perceived person-environment fit as a personal resource because it is highly prized and sought after, which helps workers cope better with stressful situations (Edwards & Cable, 2009) and allows them to protect and amass their resources.
Moreover, compatibility (or incompatibility) of the employees with their current job and organization is a workplace condition that is a resource, as explained by COR theory.Everyone values and seeks a favorable working situation (better compatibility) to lessen stress and produce more resources.According to Hobfoll (1989), circumstances (i.e., resources) that individuals or groups value may shed light on their capacity for stress tolerance.Furthermore, Kiazad et al. (2014) considered the extent to which an individual is a good fit with their workplace to be a valuable resource.It motivates workers and increases their productivity, which in turn helps them financially (i.e., increased remuneration, enticing new tasks, or a chance to move up the corporate ladder).
Therefore, from the COR point of view, people with high levels of perceived person-organization fit are motivated to act in the form of conformity or good citizenship inside the company (Yu, 2009) so that they may continue to feel like they belong there.According to the COR theory, an employee with a strong person-organization fit would be reluctant to leave their current position because of all the benefits they receive from their existing company (Wheeler et al., 2013).According to the job-demand resource paradigm, various workplace variables that can be thought of as either job resources or job demands are linked to employee well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).High job resources are associated with successful work results through a motivational process, whereas excessive job expectations and a lack of job resources sap employees' vitality (Hu et al., 2011).Moreover, those with a high degree of person-organization fit are more likely to succeed than those without because they are more capable of allocating and investing their resources to expand those resources and optimize their fit within their environment (Hobfoll, 1989).
According to studies on person-environment fit, the employee and the company benefit when an individual's characteristics are consistent with their workplace.Company benefit includes higher job satisfaction rates, greater commitment levels, involvement in both on-the-job and off-theclock activities, and lower employee turnover rates (Verquer et al., 2003).According to Bui et al. (2017), a person's happiness in both their personal and professional lives depends on how well they mesh with their career.Employees are thought to exhibit high levels of citizenship behavior if their values align more closely with their organizations' and their jobs' ideals (Vigoda, 2000).Identity conflict has been linked to psychological pressure on workers, which reduces their creativity ability (Affleck, 1999).On the other hand, employees' stress and anxiety levels will decrease due to identity synergy (Duan et al., 2015).Therefore, considering the COR theory and empirical evidence regarding the contribution of resources to the well-being and positive outcomes for employees and organizations, this study demands measuring the impact of employees' compatibility with their job and organization on their innovative working behavior.Janssen (2000) says that employees can limit innovative work behavior because creative activities are extra tasks that are not required by the company and are, therefore, more or less in their own hands.When levels of work engagement are high, good things happen at work, like increased employee commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational performance (Kotze, 2018).Similar to this, the more comprehensive job-demands resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001) contends that a job's "motivational potential" is increased by a combination of high resources and high demands, which promotes work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).Job resources, according to Demerouti et al. (2001), are those elements of a job that are physical, psychological, social, or organizational.Moreover, that not only has the potential to lessen the adverse effects of a job's demands and aid in achieving work objectives but also promote personal development, learning, and a favorable state of work engagement.
The stress and motivational processes have a great deal of scientific backing.For instance, working in a challenging profession with low resources is linked to burnout, illness absence, perceived ill health, and health complaints (Hakanen et al., 2008;Llorens et al., 2006).Additionally, the motivational process links job resources with organizational commitment through work engagement, low turnover intention, and extracurricular activities (Llorens et al., 2006).The job-demand resource model further postulates two moderating effects, which act in tandem with two cumulative processes.First, employees' health and well-being are less likely to suffer due to high workplace demands because of access to employment resources.Secondly, high job demands combined with ample resources lead to increased engagement on the job (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).Bakker et al. (2003), who employed a composite indicator of work demands and job resources, corroborated this notion by showing that sufficient job resources mitigated the impact of high job demands on fatigue (Salanova et al., 2010).
Employees' proper fit with their job and organization generates a fulfillment of psychological resources.Then, this condition energies to protect current resources and acquire more resources, as explained by COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989).Consequently, they become more engaged in their assigned work as a positive effect of resources.Again, dedicated engagement generates innovative behavior as additional well-being results, as proposed by the resource generation and regeneration model of COR theory.The discussion of theoretical and empirical evidence indicates that employees' appropriate compatibility as a job resource may enhance work engagement, and greater work engagement again may cause to increase in their inventive working behavior.
Therefore, this study aims to measure empirically (a) the impact of person-environment fit (i.e., person-job fit and person-organization fit) as a job resource on innovative work behavior; (b) the role of work engagement in the relationship between person-environment fit (i.e., person-job fit and person-organization fit) and innovative working behavior; and (c) the direct and indirect (through work engagement) effect size of person-environment fit (i.e., person-job fit and person-organization fit) on innovative working behavior.Hence, this study postulates the following hypotheses to test the stated objectives empirically: H1: Employees' perception of person-job fit positively influences their innovative working behavior.
H2: Employees' perception of person-organization fit positively contributes to their innovative working behavior.
H3: Employees' perception of person-job fit increases work engagement, in turn increasing innovative working behavior.
H4: Employees' perception of person-organization fit increases work engagement, in turn increasing innovative working behavior.

Measures
Perceived person-organization fit was measured by three items developed by Cable and DeRue (2002).The items are "The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my organization values," "My values match my organization's values and culture," and "My organization's values and culture fit well with the things I value in life."The current study measured the composite reliability as .91.
Likewise, perceived person-job fit was measured by three items developed by Donavan et al. (2004).
The items are "My skills and abilities perfectly match what my job demands," "My likes and dislikes match perfectly what my job demands," and "There is a good fit between my job and me."In the current study, the composite reliability of the measure of person-job fit was .92.All the items measuring construct person-job fit and person-organization fit were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, in its 9-item form, was used to measure employees' levels of commitment at the workplace (Schaufeli et al., 2006).This version provides three different objects for each component of the engagement: vigor (for instance, "At my work, I feel bursting with energy"), dedication (for instance, "I am enthusiastic about my job"), and absorption (for instance, "I am immersed in my work").Items were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 ('never') to 5 ('always').In previous studies, the three aspects are interconnected, as confirmed by factor analysis (Schaufeli et al., 2006;Sonnentag, 2003).In addition, the current study measured good index fit as a single dimension (rather than three).Hence, the present study has used one overall index for work engagement.This study measured the composite reliability of the general work engagement index as .95.Likewise, Janssen's (2000) nine-item scale was used to assess individual employees' self-rated innovative work behavior.A sample item was "I transform innovative ideas into useful applications."Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale indicating a strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).The current study measured the composite reliability of innovative behavior as .96.

Sampling and questionnaire administration
All the perceptual data were measured through a survey reaching their actual workplace.Questionnaires were prepared to capture self-reported perceptual data covering all the study variables.Respondents were randomly selected from the employees working in Nepalese humanitarian non-government organizations (NGOs) affiliated with Nepal's Social Welfare Council (SWC).Nepalese humanitarian NGOs are charitable non-profit making organizations.These organizations carried out different projects getting donations from national or internal donor agencies.The common objective of these organizations is to support people or communities free of cost who are underprivileged from the mainstream.Employees working in these sectors should operate at the grass-root level in the different communities with their varied ethnicity, culture, educational background, economic condition, personal disabilities, etc.To work in such a sector, the employee should exhibit new thinking and ideas to handle different working situations (or issues) that emerge at the grass-roots level.Hence, this study selected respondents from this industry.
With the assistance of the human resources department of the relevant NGO, 700 questionnaires were delivered to the employees.However, 499 (71%) responses were considered for analysis after ensuring the goodness of fit index through confirmatory factor analysis.Surveyed respondents were 294 (58.90 %) male and 205 (41.10 %) female employees.Likewise, 39 (7.80 %) were senior managers, 194 (39.90 %) were middle managers, 242 (48.5%) were officers, and the remaining 266 (53.10%) were assistant-level employees.

Common method variance
This study has implemented a few ways to reduce the common method variance, as Podsakoff et al. (2003) recommended.First, the items used to measure the four sets of variables were counterbalanced to prevent respondents from mistaking one set of items for another set's construct.Second, to reduce the replies pattern bias by asserting opposed expressed items, eight items (33%), covering all constructs, were reverse scored.As a result of these corrections, the outcome of Harman's single-factor test is now 27.15%, which is below the 50% criteria (Cho & Perry, 2012).Though it may slightly inflate or deflate regression findings, this finding shows that the bias is not severe enough to invalidate the study, as pointed out by Cho and Perry (2012).It follows that the data can be processed and analyzed without any issues.

Measurement model
Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) version 23 was used to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) before testing hypotheses.All 24 instruments used to measure the four latent variables were not successfully loaded.Three items measuring 'work engagement' and one measuring 'innovative behavior' were removed from the measurement model, one by one, because their corresponding latent constructs loaded less than .60, the threshold for inclusion in the model (Awang, 2015).
Next, since the covariance error term was more extensive than .30,five pairs of error terms (i.e., two duos within the work engagement and three duos within the inventive behavior) were correlated to set as a free parameter estimate, which improved the goodness of fit index (Awang, 2015).As a result, Hu and Bentler's (1999) cutoff criteria for the goodness of fit index (i.e., Chi-Square value (CMIN)/Degree of freedom (DF), The Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and P-value of the null hypothesis (PClose)), as shown in Table 1, were met.Table 1 shows that the model's appropriate index (CMIN/DF = 2.29, CFI = .98,RMSEA = .05,and PCLOSE = .41)is over the threshold required to be considered excellent.

Structural equation model
A structural equation model was developed after its quality was confirmed, as measured by the fit index.The structural equation model was used to test the hypothesized model, which outlined the connections (paths) between latent variables.The hypothesized model's goodness of fit index was above the minimum standard of Awang (2015) and Gaskin and Lim (2016).Each model also attained a statistically significant R 2 and a satisfactory fit.The structural equation model's unstandardized regression coefficient was also used to examine postulated direct impacts.Figure 1 displays all of the various paths with an unstandardized coefficient.In Figure 1, the latent variables are outlined within the oval.This figure was taken from the complete structural equation modeling (Bhattarai, 2022).

RESULTS
When developing a measuring model, it is crucial to establish both reliability and convergent and discriminant validity (Gaskin & Lim, 2016).Since the difference between Cronbach's alpha and Composite Reliability (CR) is usually small, the latter is used in structural equation modeling (SEM) (Peterson & Kim, 2013).As can be seen in Table 2, CR values for all latent constructs were above the .70criterion established by Hair et al. (2010).Therefore, the internal consistency of this study is guaranteed by each measure employed.
Table 2 shows that the average variance extracted (AVE) for all latent constructs was more than the .50threshold established by Hair et al. (2010).Like the individual reliabilities, the composite ones were above the .60threshold (Malhotra & Dash, 2011).As a result, the convergent validity of the inferences was guaranteed.Table 2 shows that Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) is always smaller than Average Valid Estimate (AVE) (Hair et al., 2010).The correlation between all latent constructs is never more significant than .85(Awang, 2015).The square roots of all AVE are always greater than their corresponding inter-construct correlations (Gaskin & Lim, 2016).As a result, the discriminant validity of conclusions was guaranteed by the measurements employed in this study.
All the results depicted in Figure 1 are calculated from the primary data surveyed for the current study.As shown in Figure 1, employees perceived person-job fit was positively associated (B = .23,p < .001)with predicting their innovative behavior.Hence, H1 was supported.To predict employees' innovative work behavior, the coefficient of person-organization fit was statistically significant (B = .20,p < .001)and positive.Therefore, H2 was supported.
The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship of person-job fit to innovative behavior; and in the relationship of person-job fit to innovative behavior was calculated as per the procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986).These procedures are inbuilt into the path model (Figure 1).Besides the tested H1 and H2, as depicted in Figure 1, the coefficient of person-job fit to predict work engagement was positive and statistically significant (B = .47,p < .001).Association of person-job fit to predict work engagement was significant and positive (B = .28,p < .001).Similarly, their work engage-ment positively and significantly (B = .22,p < .001)predicted innovative behavior.
As depicted in Table 3, the indirect effect of person-job fit on innovative behavior through work engagement was statistically significant (B = .10,p < .001)and positive.Hence, H3 was supported.
As shown in Table 3, the total effect size (i.e., coefficient) of person-job fit to predict innovative behavior was .33 (direct effect = .23and indirect effect via work engagement = .10).30% effect of person-job fit on innovative behavior goes through work engagement.
Similarly, the indirect impact of person-organization fit on innovative behavior through work engagement was positive and statistically significant (B = .06,p < .001).Hence, H4 was accepted.As shown in Table 3, the total effect size (i.e., coefficient) of person-organization fit to predict innovative behavior was .26(direct effect = .20

DISCUSSION
This study offers evidence on person-environment fit, work engagement, and innovative working behavior that contribute to the betterment of both organizations and employees.Firstly, the study's results measured that employees' fit with their working environment (especially with job and organization) directly enhances their degree of engagement towards their work and innovative behavior at the workplace.This result suggests that employees' proper matching with their working conditions is essential for their work engagement and to exhibit innovative behavior at the workplace.That is why the organization should pay attention to their employees' perceptual matching with their job and organization, especially in terms of job demand and employees' ability and value, norms, attitudes, and behavior with their organizational culture, value, perspective, behaviors, etc. Employees are more vigorous, dedicated, and absorbed in their assigned duties in a workplace condition where such matching is ensured.Besides being engaged in assigned tasks, due to compatibility with the working environment, employees exhibit involvement in non-assigned responsibilities in the form of innovative behavior at the workplace.
Secondly, employees' work engagement increases their innovativeness in working behavior.This indicates that if the employees are engaged with their job due to their concertation, dedication, ef-forts (physical and mental), and intrinsic motivational arouser, they involve in innovative behavior.Hence, the organization may concentrate their activities to enhance and sustain their employee's engagement with work so that employees' innovative work behavior will be ensured at the workplace.
Thirdly, employee engagement mediates the relationship between person-environment fit and innovative work behavior.This result suggests that employees' compatibility with their job and organization cause to enhance their engagement towards work; then, increased work engagement causes to increase in their innovative working behavior.Therefore, the organization may pay attention to human resource management activities (e.g., recruitment, selection, training and development, retention, etc.) to ensure employees' compatibility with the job and organization so that employees' work engagement and innovative behavior will be flourished.
These results correspond with the notion of the COR theory of Hobfoll (1989) 2013).As the COR theory suggests, employees actively work to preserve, expand, and maintain their access to resources.Their greatest danger comes from the possibility of, or actual loss of, these precious assets; therefore, they concentrate on gaining more resources.The COR theory further states that such gained resources result in cumulative eustress (well-being) directly or indirectly.Therefore, a high level of person-environment fit is desirable because it increases the likelihood that an individual will stay in their cur-  rent position rather than risk losing the benefits of their current situation by switching employers (Wheeler et al., 2013).
These results also support Holland's job fit theory (Holland, 1997) Yu (2009), who stated that better person-environment fit ensures the proactive behaviors through the motivational process.Hence, the result of the current study contributes to (a) the broader use of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) connecting with the job demands-resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001) and providing a specific tool for enhancing employee's innovative behavior through managing their compatibility with working environment as well as work engagement.
Despite the perceived fit construct's well-established nature, many complex problems still need to be solved, especially how fit experiences evolve and alter over time (Vleugels et al., 2018).For example, empirical studies illustrate that fit perceptions are dynamic and tap into different cognitive processes, and subjective fit experiences are influenced by affective and behavioral factors (Gabriel et al., 2014).Similarly, in theory, the person-environment fit is an overarching notion that includes several different kinds of fit, including person-organization fit, person-job fit, group fit, supervisor fit, and vocation fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).However, this study has not considered the dynamic aspect of the person-environment fit and included only person-organization fit and person-job fit, among other fits, as stated above.

CONCLUSION
This study was carried out to measure the direct impact of person-environment fit (i.e., person-job fit and person-organization fit) on innovative work behavior and an indirect effect of person-environment fit on innovative work behavior through work engagement.The paper offers several statements.Firstly, person-environment fit (person-job fit and person-organization) directly impacted work engagement and innovative behavior.Secondly, work engagement mediated the relationship between person-environment fit (i.e., person-job fit and person-organization fit) and innovative work environment.Thirdly, the impact of person-job fit and person-organization fit on innovative work behavior was direct and indirect through work engagement.
However, the effect size of the person-job fit and person-organization fit on innovative work behavior was differ in direct and indirect impact.Hence, employees' proper compatibility (i.e., person-job fit and person-environment fit) at the workplace enhances their work engagement and innovative work behavior.Likewise, employees' proper compatibility with work and organization enhances their work engagement, and improved work engagement increases innovative work behavior.Therefore, organizations can enhance their employees' creative working behavior by maintaining proper compatibility of employees with their job and organization.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Path model reflecting the coefficient values from structural equation modeling and further explanations by Kiazad et al. (2014), Mackey et al. (2017), and Wheeler et al. (

Variables and relationships as shown in the model (Figure 1 )
Effect Size (B) PercentageThe direct effect of person-job fit on innovative behavior .23***The indirect effect of person-job fit on innovative behavior through work engagement .10***The total effect of person-job fit on innovative behavior .33***The ratio of the indirect effect of person-job fit on innovative behavior through work engagement 30% The direct effect of person-organization fit on innovative behavior .20***The indirect effect of person-organization fit on innovative behavior through work engagement .06***The total effect of person-organization fit on innovative behavior (direct plus indirect) .26***The ratio of the indirect effect of person-organization fit on innovative behavior through work engagement 23%Note: *** indicates the significance of the coefficient at the .001level.

Table 1 .
Model fit measure

Table 2 .
Reliability and validity indicatorsNote: *** indicates the relationship is significant at a .001level.Value in parenthesis indicates the square root of the AVE.Note: *** indicates the significance of the coefficient at the .001level.

Table 3 .
Direct and indirect effect size