Personnel Assessment and Personnel Assessment and Decisions Decisions

Whereas


positions,
for others, they are chosen by their communities via local ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Calls for police reform have become commonplace.The enactment of organizational interventions that facilitate reform requires support from senior law enforcement leadership.Personnel selection for key law enforcement officials (e.g., sheriff, district attorneys) happens via local elections.Although organizational scientists have been integral in designing personnel selection systems that support goal accomplishment for nonelected positions, whether knowledge of personnel assessment and decisions for nonelected positions generalizes to elected positions is unknown.This study examines the extent to which the tenets of P-E fit theory generalize to personnel selection for sheriff.Results suggest that voters form unique perceptions of candidates' person-job and person-organization fit, these perceptions are heavily influenced by partisa beliefs about policing that vary within and across political parties, perceptions of both forms of compatibility meaningfully influence personnel assessment and decisions, and voters are approximately 40% more likely to endorse candidates with lower job-related qualifications when they share their political affiliations.These findings largely support the generalizability of PE fit theory to personnel selection for elected positions and offer insight concerning how organizational scientists might aid the hiring of officials who are willing and able to institute police reform initiatives that support the wants and needs of their communities.

ReseaRch aRticles

elections.

Elected law enforcement positions include sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys general.Advocates for police reform understand the importance of these positions for advancing change.President Barack Obama (2020), for example, recently espoused in his essay How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change that, "the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels" (paragraph 6).This is because sheriffs have wide discretion when it comes to deciding how to police their jurisdictions (Pishko, 2019),

ReseaRch aRticles
elections.
Elected law enforcement positions include sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys general.Advocates for police reform understand the importance of these positions for advancing change.President Barack Obama (2020), for example, recently espoused in his essay How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change that, "the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels" (paragraph 6).This is because sheriffs have wide discretion when it comes to deciding how to police their jurisdictions (Pishko, 2019), district attorneys determine how and whether to charge people with crimes (Ben & Jerry's, 2020), and state attorneys general investigate police abuse with the power to mandate court-enforced reform acts like requiring officers to wear body cameras and undergo de-escalation training (Rushin & Mazzone, 2020).
district attorneys determine how and whether to charge people with crimes (Ben & Jerry's, 2020), and state attorneys general investigate police abuse with the power to mandate court-enforced reform acts like requiring officers to wear body cameras and undergo de-escalation training (Rushin & Mazzone, 2020).

Organizational scientists have been instrumental in advancing hiring practices that have meaningfully benefited personnel selection across a wide variety of work.In their historical review of the field, Zickar and colleagues (2007), for example, note that, "employee selection always has been the bread-and-butter issue for American I-O psychologists" (p.73).The extent to which our understanding of personnel assessment and decisions applies to the hiring of elected officials, however, is largely unknown.Over a decade ago, Silvester and Dykes (2007) lamented Organizational scientists have been instrumental in advancing hiring practices that have meaningfully benefited personnel selection across a wide variety of work.In their historical review of the field, Zickar and colleagues (2007), for example, note that, "employee selection always has been the bread-and-butter issue for American I-O psychologists" (p.73).The extent to which our understanding of personnel assessment and decisions applies to the hiring of elected officials, however, is largely unknown.Over a decade ago, Silvester and Dykes (2007) lamented that, "There has been surprisingly little consideration of how selection of political candidates compares with employee selection" given that selection "lies at the heart" of elections (p.11).Across federal, state, and local organizations, those who are employed in elected positions now lead approximately 15% of the U.S. workforce-over 24 million public sector employees whose jobs shape the economy, healthcare, educations, municipal services, and law enforcement (Hill, 2020).Nevertheless, little is known concerning whether the psychology that is understood to influence employment decisions for nonelected positions generalizes to, and can subsequently benefit, decision making for employment in elected positions.
hat, "There has been surprisingly little consideration of how selection of political candidates compares with employee selection" given that selection "lies at the heart" of elections (p.11).Across federal, state, and local organizations, those who are employed in elected positions now lead approximately 15% of the U.S. workforce-over 24 million public sector employees whose jobs shape the economy, healthcare, educations, municipal services, and law enforcement (Hill, 2020).Nevertheless, little is known concerning whether the psychology that is understood to influence employment decisions for nonelected positions generalizes to, and can subsequently benefit, decision making for employment in elected positions.

In this study, we examine personnel selection for an elected law enforcement position (i In this study, we examine personnel selection for an elected law enforcement position (i.e., Sheriff) through the lens of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology.More specifically, we examine the extent to which the tenets of person-environment (P-E) fit theory (c.f., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) generalize to judgment and decision making in this context.Research on P-E fit and personnel selection has consistently demonstrated that perceptions of personjob (P-J) and person-organization (P-O) fit uniquely influence hiring decisions across a variety of contexts, with perceptions of P-J fit (i.e., fit between worker capabilities and job demands) typically having a greater influence on these decisions than perceptions of P-O fit (i.e., fit between worker values and organizational culture; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005;Nolan et al., 2016;Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011).

., Sheriff) through the lens of industrial-orga
izational (I-O) psychology.More specifically, we examine the extent to which the tenets of person-environment (P-E) fit theory (c.f., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) generalize to judgment and decision making in this context.Research on P-E fit and personnel selection has consistently demonstrated that perceptions of personjob (P-J) and person-organization (P-O) fit uniquely influence hiring decisions across a variety of contexts, with perceptions of P-J fit (i.e., fit between worker capabilities and job demands) typically having a greater influence on these decisions than perceptions of P-O fit (i.e., fit between worker values and organizational culture; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005;Nolan et al., 2016;Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011).

Political science research, however, suggests that value-laden partisan beliefs often influence decisions more greatly than merit-based criteria, especially in today's highly polarized political climate (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).By examining the extent to which the tenets of P-E fit theory apply to the election of senior law enforcement leadership, this research supplements our understanding of voter behavior-which has largely come from political science paradigms-and affords insight concerning how organizational scientists might contribute to the design of selection contexts in ways that facilitate the hiring of executives who are willing and able to institute police reform (i.e., organizational change) initiatives that support the wants and ne Political science research, however, suggests that value-laden partisan beliefs often influence decisions more greatly than merit-based criteria, especially in today's highly polarized political climate (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).By examining the extent to which the tenets of P-E fit theory apply to the election of senior law enforcement leadership, this research supplements our understanding of voter behavior-which has largely come from political science paradigms-and affords insight concerning how organizational scientists might contribute to the design of selection contexts in ways that facilitate the hiring of executives who are willing and able to institute police reform (i.e., organizational change) initiatives that support the wants and needs of their communities.
ds of their communities.


Person-Environment Fit and Personnel Selection

P-E fit concerns the compatibility that results from individual and work environment characteristics being well matched (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).Fit occurs across multiple aspects of the work environment, with P-J and P-O fit being particularly pertinent to personnel selection (Cable & DeRue, 2002).P-J fit refers to the compatibility between an individual's attributes and those of the job or tasks that are performed at work (Edwards, 1991).This dimension of fit typifies the traditional view of personnel selection wherein emphasis is placed on the matching of employee knowledge, skills, abilities, and other qualities to job demands (Ployhart et al., 2005).P-O fit, on the other hand, refers to the compatibility between an individual's characteristics (e.g., values) and those that define an organization's unique culture (Kristof, 1996).Consistent with the tenets of Schneider's (1987) attraction-selection-attrition theory, this dimension of fit is similarly recognized as a key factor influencing personnel selection decisions (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006).Although fit theory is so well supported as to be considered, "a cornerstone of industrial/organizational psychology and human resource management" (Saks & Ashforth, 1997, p.395), there are several reasons why fit theory scholarship might not generalize to the hiring of elected law enforcement officials in ways that are faithful to personnel selection for the nonelected positions that have been the subject for much of this research.

Whereas personnel selection decisions for nonelected positions are typically made by a select few organizational insiders, employment decisions for elected positions are made by a diverse body of outsiders for whom the organizations serve (Mirvis & Hackett, 1983).The organizational insiders who practice personnel selection for nonelected positions are expected to have in-depth knowledge of job requirements for the positions being filled, the cultures of employing organizations, the work-related qualifications and characteristics of job candidates, and the legal guidelines that govern personnel selection (Farr & Tippins, 2010;Guion, 2011).Political science research, however, suggests


Personnel Assessment And decisions

Politics And lAw enforcement that voters commonly lack commensurate insights about personnel selection for elected positions.Rather, "one of the most striking contributions to political science of a half century of survey research has been to document how poorly ordinary citizens approximate a classical ideal of informed democratic citizenship" (Bartels, 1996, p.195).In what is being called a "democratic dilemma" (Lupia & McCubbins, 1998, p.1), research suggests that voters are largely unaware of the work performed by politicians and their standing on specific policy matters (Althaus, 1998;Ashworth & Bueno De Mesquita, 2014;Delli Carpini, & Keeter, 1996).Instead, voters have been found to rely heavily on heuristics when evaluating political candidates, especially their party identification (e.g., Democrat, Republican; Dancey & Sheagley, 2013; Lau & Redlawsk, 2001;Popkin, 1991).Reliance on partisan heuristics to evaluate politicians has risen sharply since the 1980s (Haidt & Hetherington, 2012;Iyengar et al., 2012), with affective polarization resulting in increasingly negative views of the out party and its supporters (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015;Munro et al., 2010).Because voters rely so heavily on party-based heuristics to evaluate candidates, whether they form distinct perceptions of the candidates' P-J and P-O fit in ways that are commensurate with what has been reported in personnel selection research for nonelected positions is questionable; and the extent to which those perceptions might be influenced by objective work-related information versus the candidates' political affiliations is unknown.Therefore, we sought answers to the following research questions.When given basic information about candidates (e.g., education, experience, political party identification) and the elected positions they are seeking (e.g., job duties):

Research Question 1: Do voters form distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit?


Research Question 2:

To what extent might voters' perceptions of P-J and P-O fit be informed by candidates' job-related qualifications versus their political affiliations?

Research Question 3: How do Democrat and Republican voters differ in terms of their beliefs about the police practices their own political party values/supports and their beliefs about the practices the other party values/supports?Should voters form distinct perceptions

Person-Environment Fit and Personnel Selection
P-E fit concerns the compatibility that results from individual and work environment characteristics being well matched (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).Fit occurs across multiple aspects of the work environment, with P-J and P-O fit being particularly pertinent to personnel selection (Cable & DeRue, 2002).P-J fit refers to the compatibility between an individual's attributes and those of the job or tasks that are performed at work (Edwards, 1991).This dimension of fit typifies the traditional view of personnel selection wherein emphasis is placed on the matching of employee knowledge, skills, abilities, and other qualities to job demands (Ployhart et al., 2005).P-O fit, on the other hand, refers to the compatibility between an individual's characteristics (e.g., values) and those that define an organization's unique culture (Kristof, 1996).Consistent with the tenets of Schneider's (1987) attraction-selection-attrition theory, this dimension of fit is similarly recognized as a key factor influencing personnel selection decisions (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006).Although fit theory is so well supported as to be considered, "a cornerstone of industrial/organizational psychology and human resource management" (Saks & Ashforth, 1997, p.395), there are several reasons why fit theory scholarship might not generalize to the hiring of elected law enforcement officials in ways that are faithful to personnel selection for the nonelected positions that have been the subject for much of this research.
Whereas personnel selection decisions for nonelected positions are typically made by a select few organizational insiders, employment decisions for elected positions are made by a diverse body of outsiders for whom the organizations serve (Mirvis & Hackett, 1983).The organizational insiders who practice personnel selection for nonelected positions are expected to have in-depth knowledge of job requirements for the positions being filled, the cultures of employing organizations, the work-related qualifications and characteristics of job candidates, and the legal guidelines that govern personnel selection (Farr & Tippins, 2010;Guion, 2011).Political science research, however, suggests

Personnel Assessment And decisions
Politics And lAw enforcement that voters commonly lack commensurate insights about personnel selection for elected positions.Rather, "one of the most striking contributions to political science of a half century of survey research has been to document how poorly ordinary citizens approximate a classical ideal of informed democratic citizenship" (Bartels, 1996, p.195).In what is being called a "democratic dilemma" (Lupia & McCubbins, 1998, p.1), research suggests that voters are largely unaware of the work performed by politicians and their standing on specific policy matters (Althaus, 1998;Ashworth & Bueno De Mesquita, 2014;Delli Carpini, & Keeter, 1996).Instead, voters have been found to rely heavily on heuristics when evaluating political candidates, especially their party identification (e.g., Democrat, Republican; Dancey & Sheagley, 2013; Lau & Redlawsk, 2001;Popkin, 1991).Reliance on partisan heuristics to evaluate politicians has risen sharply since the 1980s (Haidt & Hetherington, 2012;Iyengar et al., 2012), with affective polarization resulting in increasingly negative views of the out party and its supporters (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015;Munro et al., 2010).Because voters rely so heavily on party-based heuristics to evaluate candidates, whether they form distinct perceptions of the candidates' P-J and P-O fit in ways that are commensurate with what has been reported in personnel selection research for nonelected positions is questionable; and the extent to which those perceptions might be influenced by objective work-related information versus the candidates' political affiliations is unknown.Therefore, we sought answers to the following research questions.When given basic information about candidates (e.g., education, experience, political party identification) and the elected positions they are seeking (e.g., job duties): Research Question 1: Do voters form distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit?

Research Question 2:
To what extent might voters' perceptions of P-J and P-O fit be informed by candidates' job-related qualifications versus their political affiliations?
Research Question 3: How do Democrat and Republican voters differ in terms of their beliefs about the police practices their own political party values/supports and their beliefs about the practices the other party values/supports?Should voters form distinct perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit, whether those perceptions influence their hiring decisions in ways that are commensurate with the trends observed in research on personnel selection for nonelected positions, is also questionable for a variety of reasons.For example, the legal and practical guidelines that govern personnel selection for nonelected positions emphasize the importance of placing greater weight on the compatibility between candidates' job-related qualifications and job requirements (i.e., P-J fit) than the compatibility between their character (e.g., values) and organizational culture (i.e., P-O fit), largely because subject evaluations of the latter form of compatibility tend to be heavily influenced by idiosyncratic beliefs and biases that facilitate discriminatory hiring decisions (Arthur et al., 2006;Guion, 2011;Highhouse et al., 2015).Accordingly, research on personnel selection for non-elected positions has consistently demonstrated that evaluations of P-J fit have a greater influence on hiring decisions than evaluations of P-O fit across a variety of contexts (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005;Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011).Personnel selection for elected positions, however, is not governed by similar guidelines emphasizing the importance of basing hiring decisions on P-J fit.Rather, from political campaigns to the design of election ballots, the decision contexts surrounding elections purposefully focus attention on value-laden ideological differences between candidates based on their party affiliations (e.g., Democrat, Republican).Accordingly, political science research suggests that people often eschew objective measures of merit in favor of partisan bias (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).Because political party heuristics are inherently value-laden (e.g., conservative, liberal), it is possible that-contrary to the trends observed in personnel selection for nonelected positionshiring decisions for elected positions are more heavily influenced by perceptions of P-O fit than perceptions of P-J fit.

f candida
es' P-J and P-O fit, whether those perceptions influence their hiring decisions in ways that are commensurate with the trends observed in research on personnel selection for nonelected positions, is also questionable for a variety of reasons.For example, the legal and practical guidelines that govern personnel selection for nonelected positions emphasize the importance of placing greater weight on the compatibility between candidates' job-related qualifications and job requirements (i.e., P-J fit) than the compatibility between their character (e.g., values) and organizational culture (i.e., P-O fit), largely because subject evaluation of the latter form of compatibility tend to be heavily influenced by idiosyncratic beliefs and biases that facilitate discriminatory hiring decisions (Arthur et al., 2006;Guion, 2011;Highhouse et al., 2015).Accordingly, research on personnel selection for non-elected positions has consistently demonstrated that evaluations of P-J fit have a greater influence on hiring decisions than evaluations of P-O fit across a variety of contexts (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005;Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011).Personnel selection for elected positions, however, is not governed by similar guidelines emphasizing the importance of basing hiring decisions on P-J fit.Rather, from political campaigns to the design of election ballots, the decision contexts surrounding elections purposefully focus attention on value-laden ideological differences between candidates based on their party affiliations (e.g., Democrat, Republican).Accordingly, political science research suggests that people often eschew objective measures of merit in favor of partisan bias (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).Because political party heuristics are inherently value-laden (e.g., conservative, liberal), it is possible that-contrary to the trends observed in personnel selection for nonelected positionshiring decisions for elected positions are more heavily influenced by perceptions of P-O fit than perceptions of P-J fit.

Another factor casting doubt on the extent to which trends observed in personnel selection for nonelected positions generalize to the hiring of elected officials concerns where the positions stand in terms of organizational hierarchy.Research examining how assessments of P-J and P-O fit influence personnel selection for nonelected positions has near exclusively focused on rank-and-file workers (Giberson et al., 2005).Whether the trends observed during hiring for these positions apply to the executive leadership positions for which election decisions are made is uncertain given fundamental differences in the nature of work performed.

Executives are the most influential members of top management and are ultimately responsible for the success of their organizations (Mintzberg, 1979).Unlike lower level positions, the work performed by executives is directed toward the development and administration of the organization as a whole (Silzer, 2002).They are expected to adopt a long-term perspective of their organization within its environment and generate short-term Another factor casting doubt on the extent to which trends observed in personnel selection for nonelected positions generalize to the hiring of elected officials concerns where the positions stand in terms of organizational hierarchy.Research examining how assessments of P-J and P-O fit influence personnel selection for nonelected positions has near exclusively focused on rank-and-file workers (Giberson et al., 2005).Whether the trends observed during hiring for these positions apply to the executive leadership positions for which election decisions are made is uncertain given fundamental differences in the nature of work performed.
Executives are the most influential members of top management and are ultimately responsible for the success of their organizations (Mintzberg, 1979).Unlike lower level positions, the work performed by executives is directed toward the development and administration of the organization as a whole (Silzer, 2002).They are expected to adopt a long-term perspective of their organization within its environment and generate short-term goals and strategies that are consistent with this perspective.In their planning and execution of social influence, executives must balance a myriad of conflicting constituencies, demands, goals, and oals and strategies that are consistent with this perspective.In their planning and execution of social influence, executives must balance a myriad of conflicting constituencies, demands, goals, and


ReseaRch aRticles

requirements both within and beyond their organizations (Zaccaro, 1996).Although the scope of this work is unique, executive leadership, like leadership at other organizational levels, still involves task and relational components (Barnard, 1938;Fiedler, 1996).Accordingly, "fit" is recognized as an important factor considered during personnel selection for executive positions (Hollenbeck, 2009).Hollenbeck (2009) noted that the successful selection of executives is contingent upon fit among three sets of variables: those of candidates, organizations, and external environments.Sessa and Taylor (2000) likewise claimed that assessing fit among the characteristics of candidates, organizations, and business strategies is of upmost importance when hiring executives.Moses and Eggebeen (1999) further espoused the need to base executive selection on the fit between individual candidates and organizational climates as they change over time.Research by the Center for Creative Leadership supports that two of the top reasons cited for why organizational executives are hired are that the candidates were the "best fit to the job" and "best fit to organizational culture" (Sessa et al., 1998).Despite general agreement that "fit" is an important factor influencing personnel selection for executive positions, a shortcoming of the limited empirical research that has examined fit and hiring at this level of leadership is that "fit" is often conceptualized/operationalized in ways that include/confound multiple dimensions of P-E fit (e.g., combine P-J and P-O fit; c.f., Harris & Ellis, 2018).This lack of methodological rigor, combined with fundamental differences in the work performed by executive leaders versus rank-and-file workers, has resulted in divergent beliefs about how fit is considered during the hiring of executives.

The extent to which executives are responsible for shaping their organizations has led to alternative views about how P-E fit affects performance at this level of leadership.Whereas some assert that high l

ReseaRch aRticles
requirements both within and beyond their organizations (Zaccaro, 1996).Although the scope of this work is unique, executive leadership, like leadership at other organizational levels, still involves task and relational components (Barnard, 1938;Fiedler, 1996).Accordingly, "fit" is recognized as an important factor considered during personnel selection for executive positions (Hollenbeck, 2009).Hollenbeck (2009) noted that the successful selection of executives is contingent upon fit among three sets of variables: those of candidates, organizations, and external environments.Sessa and Taylor (2000) likewise claimed that assessing fit among the characteristics of candidates, organizations, and business strategies is of upmost importance when hiring executives.Moses and Eggebeen (1999) further espoused the need to base executive selection on the fit between individual candidates and organizational climates as they change over time.Research by the Center for Creative Leadership supports that two of the top reasons cited for why organizational executives are hired are that the candidates were the "best fit to the job" and "best fit to organizational culture" (Sessa et al., 1998).Despite general agreement that "fit" is an important factor influencing personnel selection for executive positions, a shortcoming of the limited empirical research that has examined fit and hiring at this level of leadership is that "fit" is often conceptualized/operationalized in ways that include/confound multiple dimensions of P-E fit (e.g., combine P-J and P-O fit; c.f., Harris & Ellis, 2018).This lack of methodological rigor, combined with fundamental differences in the work performed by executive leaders versus rank-and-file workers, has resulted in divergent beliefs about how fit is considered during the hiring of executives.
The extent to which executives are responsible for shaping their organizations has led to alternative views about how P-E fit affects performance at this level of leadership.Whereas some assert that high levels of fit benefit organizational performance (i.e., the similarity perspective), others argue that misfits are better suited to lead organizations as agents of change (i.e., the dissimilarity perspective; Rutherford, 2017).Those who ascribe to the similarity perspective of leader congruence believe that high fit between an executive and an organization facilitates performance by enhancing the executive's ability to correctly assess and interpret the organizational environment, which benefits strategic decision making (Westerman & Vanka, 2005).Furthermore, when an executive's behavior is aligned with the espoused values of an organization's culture, it is expected to foster collective goal commitment through sending unambiguous signals about the kinds of behavior that are expected, supported, and rewarded (Hartnell et al., 2016).The dissimilarity perspective of leader congruence is informed by the negative connotations associated with concepts like groupthink, wherein too much consensus suppresses healthy conflict and innovation (Rutherford, 2017), and Schneider's (1987) assertion that excessive homogeneity stifles organizational development through myopic perspective.Whereas similarities between executive leadership and organizational culture are considered inefficient as they convey redundant information (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), misfit is valued for the introduction of new ideas and actions that stimulate organizational change and development (Hartnell et al., 2016;Walsh, 1988).With executives having such influence over the organizations they lead, these divergent perspectives on how fit-especially P-O fit-influences performance raise further questions about whether the trends observed in personnel selection for nonelected, rankand-file positions generalize to the hiring of elected executives.To better understand how work-related qualifications, political affiliations, and perceptions of fit influence hiring for elected leadership positions, this research also sought answers to the following research questions.

els of fit benefit or
anizational performance (i.e., the similarity perspective), others argue that misfits are better suited to lead organizations as agents of change (i.e., the di similarity perspective; Rutherford, 2017).Those who ascribe to the similarity perspective of leader congruence believe that high fit between an executive and an o

facili
ates performance by enhancing the executive's ability to correctly assess and interpret the organizational environment, which benefits strategic decision making (Westerman & Vanka, 2005).Furthermore, when an executive's behavior is aligned with the espoused values of an organization's culture, it is expected to foster collective goal commitment through sending unambiguous signals about the kinds of behavior that are expected, supported, and rewarded (Hartnell et al., 2016).The dissimilarity perspective of leader congruence is informed by the negative connotations associated with concepts like groupt

nk, wherein too much
onsensus suppresses healthy conflict and innovation (Rutherford, 2017), and Schneider's (1987) assertion that excessive homogeneity stifles organizational development through myopic perspective.Whereas similarities between executive leadership and organizational culture are considered inefficient as they convey redundant information (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), misfit is valued for the introduction of new ideas and actions that stimulate organizational change and development (Hartnell et al., 2016;Walsh, 1988).With executives having such influence over the organizations they lead, these divergent perspectives on how fit-especially

O fit-influences performance raise
urther questions about whether the trends observed in personnel selection for nonelected, rankand-file positions generalize to the hiring of elected executives.To better understand how work-related qualifications, political affiliations, and perceptions of fit influence hiring for elected leadership positions, this research also sought answers to the following research questions.


Research Question 4:

To what extent do voters' perceptions of P-J and P-O fit influence their overall evaluations of candidates' suitability for employment and election decisions?

Research Question 5: How likely are voters to choose a candidate with lower job-related qualifications because that candidate shares their political affiliation?


METHOD


Sample

An initial sample of n = 475 self-reported registered voters was recruited via MTurk.Par

Research Question 4:
To what extent do voters' perceptions of P-J and P-O fit influence their overall evaluations of candidates' suitability for employment and election decisions?
Research Question 5: How likely are voters to choose a candidate with lower job-related qualifications because that candidate shares their political affiliation?

Sample
An initial sample of n = 475 self-reported registered voters was recruited via MTurk.Participants who incorrectly responded to prompts embedded in the survey and/or failed to complete the full survey were removed.The final sample (n = 393) was primarily between the ages of 25-34 (32.1%), male (50.1%), White (83.1%)Democrat (52.9%), hold a bachelor's degree from a 4-year college or university (48.8%), and represent 43 of the 50 United States.General support for the representativeness of the sample is afforded by a comparison of these statistics with those of Gramlich (2020), as shown in Table 1.

cipants w
o incorrectly responded to prompts embedded in the survey and/or failed to complete the full survey were removed.The fi

l sample (
= 393) was primarily between the ages of 25-34 (32.1%), male (50.1%), White (83.1%)Democrat (52.9%), hold a bachelor's degree from a 4-year college or university (48.8%), and represent 43 of the 50 United States.General support for the representativeness of the sample is afforded by a comparison of these statistics with those of Gramlich (2020), as shown in Table 1.


Design and Procedure

After reading a brief job description for sheriff (App

Design and Procedure
After reading a brief job description for sheriff (Appendix A), participants were provided resumes for two candidates (Appendix B) and asked to jointly evaluate them in terms of their person-job fit, person-organization fit, and overall suitability for the position, and then select the candidate for whom they would vote.Resumes were modeled after those commonly found on candidates' websites and presented in pairs such that each participant evaluated one candidate with higher job-related qualifications and the other with lower job-related qualifications.In each pairing, one candidate was a Republican and the other was a Dem- ndix A), participants were provided resumes for two candidates (Appendix B) and asked to jointly evaluate them in terms of their person-job fit, person-organization fit, and overall suitability for the position, and then select the candidate for whom they would vote.Resumes were modeled after those commonly found on candidates' websites and presented in pairs such that each participant evaluated one candidate with higher job-related qualifications and the other with lower job-related qualifications.In each pairing, one candidate was a Republican and the other was a Dem-


Personnel Assessment And decisions

Politics And lAw enforcement ocrat, except for in a control condition wherein no political affiliations were reported for either candidate.Across study conditions, pairings

Personnel Assessment And decisions
Politics And lAw enforcement ocrat, except for in a control condition wherein no political affiliations were reported for either candidate.Across study conditions, pairings of job-related qualifications (high, low) and political affiliations (Democrat, Republican) were presented evenly and counterbalanced to avoid order effects.
f job-related qualifications (high, low) and political affiliations (Democrat, Republican) were presented evenly and counterbalanced to avoid order effects.

The pairings presented in each study condition are outlined in Figure 1 below.The results of a pilot test, which suggest that stimuli were considered realistic and the manip The pairings presented in each study condition are outlined in Figure 1 below.The results of a pilot test, which suggest that stimuli were considered realistic and the manipulations were perceived as intended, are available from the first author upon request.After evaluating the candidates, participants were asked to rank order 12 statements about policing to reflect beliefs about how much they are supported/valued by Republicans and Democrats, and then complete demographic measures (Appendix C).
lations were perceived as intended, are available from the first author upon request.After evaluating the candidates, participants were asked to rank order 12 statements about policing to reflect beliefs about how much they are supported/valued by Republicans and Dem

rats, an
then complete demographic measures (Appendix C).


Measures

All measures were completed using a 5-point (Strongly


ReseaRch aRticles

Disagree-Strongly Agree) response scale unless otherwise noted.

Person-job fit was evaluated using a 4-item modified version of Lauver and Kristof-Brown's (2001) measure of perceived demands-abilities fit (α = .87).This measure was modified to fit the existing decision context, aligning the items with the job of sheriff.An example item from the scale is, "There is a good fit between this cand

Measures
All measures were completed using a 5-point (Strongly

ReseaRch aRticles
Disagree-Strongly Agree) response scale unless otherwise noted.
Person-job fit was evaluated using a 4-item modified version of Lauver and Kristof-Brown's (2001) measure of perceived demands-abilities fit (α = .87).This measure was modified to fit the existing decision context, aligning the items with the job of sheriff.An example item from the scale is, "There is a good fit between this candidate's personality and the kind of personality that should characterize the culture of the sheriff's department." date's personality and the kind of personality that should characterize the culture of the sheriff's department."

Person-organization fit was evaluated using a 4-item modified version of Cable and Judge's (1996) measure of perceived person-organization fit (α = .89).This measure was modified by aligning the items with the organizational context of the sheriff's department.An example item from this scale is, "There is a good fit between this candidates' values and the kinds of values that should characterize the culture of the sheriff's department."Assessing beliefs about compatibility between the candidates and what attributes should characterize the culture of the department rather than what attributes actually characterize the department was done in recognition of leader mandates to change/manage organizational culture and the lack of a rich cultural portrayal in the job description.

Suitability for employment was evaluated using a 4-item modified version of Fritzsche and Marcus' (2013) measure of candidate suitability (α = .90).This modification was to improve the congruence between the measure and the job of sheriff.An example item from this scale is, "This candidate is an attractive choice for sheriff."

Rankings of police value/support were collected by asking participants to rank order 12 statements about policing twice: once in terms of the extent to which Republicans value/support them, and then again in terms of the extent to which Democrats value/support them.


RESULTS

Analyses involving participants' perceptions of the candidates' Person-organization fit was evaluated using a 4-item modified version of Cable and Judge's (1996) measure of perceived person-organization fit (α = .89).This measure was modified by aligning the items with the organizational context of the sheriff's department.An example item from this scale is, "There is a good fit between this candidates' values and the kinds of values that should characterize the culture of the sheriff's department."Assessing beliefs about compatibility between the candidates and what attributes should characterize the culture of the department rather than what attributes actually characterize the department was done in recognition of leader mandates to change/manage organizational culture and the lack of a rich cultural portrayal in the job description.
Suitability for employment was evaluated using a 4-item modified version of Fritzsche and Marcus' (2013) measure of candidate suitability (α = .90).This modification was to improve the congruence between the measure and the job of sheriff.An example item from this scale is, "This candidate is an attractive choice for sheriff." Rankings of police value/support were collected by asking participants to rank order 12 statements about policing twice: once in terms of the extent to which Republicans value/support them, and then again in terms of the extent to which Democrats value/support them.

RESULTS
Analyses involving participants' perceptions of the candidates' P-J fit, P-O fit, and suitability for employment were conducted using long-form data to most appropriately address the research questions.Consistent with best practice, a subject variable representing each individual's multiple responses was entered as a control variable in the analyses.Doing so serves to model nonindependence accompanying the conversion of within-subjects data to person-period format (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002;Cable & Yu, 2006;Nolan & Harold, 2010;Ployhart et al., 2002).
-J fit, P-O fit, and suitability for employment were conducted using long-form data to most appropriately address the research questions.Consistent with best practice, a subject variable representing each individual's multiple responses was entered as a control variable in the analyses.Doing so serves to model nonindependence accompanying the conversion of within-subjects data to person-period format (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002;Cable & Yu, 2006;Nolan & Harold, 2010;Ployhart et al., 2002).

With political science research suggesting that voters' evaluations of candidates are more often influenced by value-laden partisan heuristics than objective information, whether they form distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit in ways that are similar to personnel selection for nonelected positions is unknown.To address this research question (RQ1), confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the underlying factor structure of the measures used in the study.Results suggest that a three-factor model (perceived P-J With political science research suggesting that voters' evaluations of candidates are more often influenced by value-laden partisan heuristics than objective information, whether they form distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit in ways that are similar to personnel selection for nonelected positions is unknown.To address this research question (RQ1), confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the underlying factor structure of the measures used in the study.Results suggest that a three-factor model (perceived P-J fit, perceived P-O fit, perceived suitability for employment), χ(51)2 = 297, p < .001,CFI = .962,TLI = .951,RMSEA = .078(see Table 2), better fit the data than a two-factor model wherein perceptions of P-J and P-O fit were combined into a single "fit" factor (perceived "fit," suitability for employment), χ(53)2 = 1112, p < .001,CFI = .836,TLI = .796,RMSEA = .159,or a one-factor model wherein perceptions of P-J fit, P-O fit, and suitability for employment were combined into a single "general evaluation'" factor, χ(54)2 = 1300, p < .001,CFI = .807,TLI = .764,RMSEA = .171.These findings support the construct validity of the scales used in the study and suggest that voters-similar to decision makers for personnel selection to nonelected positions-formed distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit, and that these perceptions are unique from their overall evaluations of candidates' suitability for employment.Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for study measures are provided in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
it, perceived P-O fit, perceived suitability for employment), χ(51)2 = 297, p < .001,CFI = .962,TLI = .951,RMSEA = .078(see Table 2), better fit the data than a two-factor model wherein perceptions of P-J and P-O fit were combined into a single "fit" factor (perceived "fit," suitability for employment), χ(53)2 = 1112, p < .001,CFI = .836,TLI = .796,RMSEA = .159,or a one-factor model wherein perceptions of P-J fit, P-O fit, and suitability for employment were combined into a single "general evaluation'" factor, χ(54)2 = 1300, p < .001,CFI = .807,TLI = .764,RMSEA = .171.These findings support the construct validity of the scales used in the study and suggest that voters-similar to decision makers for personnel selection to nonelected positions-formed distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit, and that these perceptions are unique from their overall evaluations of candidates' suitability for employment.Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for study measures are provided in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

Although the results of confirmatory factor analysis support that voters form distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit, the extent to which these beliefs are informed by candidates' job-related qualifications versus their political affiliations is unknown.To address this research question (RQ2),


Correlations of Study Measures

the candidates' job-related qualifications but also the combination of their own political affiliations with the candidates' political affiliations, especially for Republican voters who generally reported that Democratic candidates were less capable of performing these demands than Republican candidates.

Concerning P-O fit, results suggest that participants' perceptions of this form of congruence were also affected by candidates' job-related qualifications, F(1,775) = 16.113,p < .001(higher qualifications: M = 4.03, 95%CI [3.96,4.11];lower qualifications: M = 3.83, 95% CI [3.75,3.90])and political affiliations, F(2,775) = 3.198, p = .041.The main effect of candidates' political affiliations, however, was again superseded by a significant candidates' political affiliations x participants' political affiliations interaction, F(4,775) = 8.21, p < .001(Table 6, Figure 3).Whereas both Republican (M = 3.96, 95% CI [3.79,4.12])and Democratic (M = 3.95, 95% CI [3.83,4.08],d = .028)participants rated Democratic candidates similarly in terms of their P-O fit, Democratic participants (M = 3.73, 95% CI [3.60, Although the results of confirmatory factor analysis support that voters form distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit, the extent to which these beliefs are informed by candidates' job-related qualifications versus their political affiliations is unknown.To address this research question (RQ2),

Correlations of Study Measures
the candidates' job-related qualifications but also the combination of their own political affiliations with the candidates' political affiliations, especially for Republican voters who generally reported that Democratic candidates were less capable of performing these demands than Republican candidates.
Concerning P-O fit, results suggest that participants' perceptions of this form of congruence were also affected by candidates' job-related qualifications, F(1,775) = 16.113,p < .001(higher qualifications: M = 4.03, 95%CI [3.96,4.11];lower qualifications: M = 3.83, 95% CI [3.75,3.90])and political affiliations, F(2,775) = 3.198, p = .041.The main effect of candidates' political affiliations, however, was again superseded by a significant candidates' political affiliations x participants' political affiliations interaction, F(4,775) = 8.21, p < .001(Table 6, Figure 3).Whereas both Republican (M = 3.96, 95% CI [3.79,4.12])and Democratic (M = 3.95, 95% CI [3.83,4.08],d = .028)participants rated Democratic candidates similarly in terms of their P-O fit, Democratic participants (M = 3.73, 95% CI [3.60, 3.85]) rated Republican candidates significantly lower than Republican participants (M = 4.11,95% CI [3.94,4.28],d = -.483).Model fit measures suggest that factoring political affiliations, both candidates' and participants', into the model approximately tripled the amount of variance in perceptions of P-O fit that were accounted for by the model above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications.These findings suggest that voters' beliefs about the compatibility between candidates and organizational culture were influenced by both the candidates' job-related qualifications as well as the combination of their own political affiliations with the candidates' political affiliations, especially for Democratic voters who generally reported that Republican candidates were less culturally compatible than Democratic candidates.
3.85]) rated Republican candidates significantly lower than Republican participants (M = 4.11,95% CI [3.94,4.28],d = -.483).Model fit measures suggest that factoring political affiliations, both candidates' and participants', into the model approximately tripled the amount of variance in perceptions of P-O fit that were accounted for by the model above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications.These findings suggest that voters' beliefs about the compatibility between candidates and organizational culture were influenced by both the candidates' job-related qualifications as well as the combination of their own political affiliations with the candidates' political affiliations, especially for Democratic voters who generally reported that Republican candidates were less culturally compatible than Democratic candidates.

Having found support for the idea that voters form unique perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit, and that these perceptions are meaningfully influenced by the combination of their political affiliations and the candidates' political affiliations, the rankings participants assigned to the 12 statements about policing were next examined to better understand how Democratic and Republican voters differ in terms of their beliefs about the police practices their own political party values/supports and their beliefs about the practices the other party values/supports (RQ3).Each participant ranked the statements twice: once in terms of the extent to which Republicans value/support them, and then again in terms of the extent to which Democrats value/ support them.Splitting these rankings according to participants' self-reported political affiliations afforded comparisons between Republicans' beliefs about Republicans, Democrats' beliefs about Republicans, Democrats' beliefs about Democrats, and Having found support for the idea that voters form unique perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit, and that these perceptions are meaningfully influenced by the combination of their political affiliations and the candidates' political affiliations, the rankings participants assigned to the 12 statements about policing were next examined to better understand how Democratic and Republican voters differ in terms of their beliefs about the police practices their own political party values/supports and their beliefs about the practices the other party values/supports (RQ3).Each participant ranked the statements twice: once in terms of the extent to which Republicans value/support them, and then again in terms of the extent to which Democrats value/ support them.Splitting these rankings according to participants' self-reported political affiliations afforded comparisons between Republicans' beliefs about Republicans, Democrats' beliefs about Republicans, Democrats' beliefs about Democrats, and Republicans' beliefs about Democrats.First, for ease of interpretation, the 12 rankings were clustered in terms of priority, with those statements ranked Republicans' beliefs about Democrats.First, for ease of interpretation, the 12 rankings were clustered in terms of priority, with those statements ranked


ReseaRch aRticles

stepwise linear regression with accompanying ANOVA output was conducted to examine the effects of candidates' qualifications, candidates' political affiliations, and participants' political affiliations on their perceptions of P-J and P-O fit.Using the general linear model in this way allowed for the modeling of nonindependence associated with using within-subjects data in person-period format (Cable & Yu, 2006;Nolan & Harold, 2010;Ployhart et al., 2002) while also providing estimates of the incremental variance in perceptions of fit that political affiliations (participant, candidate, participant x candidate) account for above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications (Keith, 2006).Two separate analyses were conducted, one for perceptions of P-J

ReseaRch aRticles
stepwise linear regression with accompanying ANOVA output was conducted to examine the effects of candidates' qualifications, candidates' political affiliations, and participants' political affiliations on their perceptions of P-J and P-O fit.Using the general linear model in this way allowed for the modeling of nonindependence associated with using within-subjects data in person-period format (Cable & Yu, 2006;Nolan & Harold, 2010;Ployhart et al., 2002) while also providing estimates of the incremental variance in perceptions of fit that political affiliations (participant, candidate, participant x candidate) account for above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications (Keith, 2006).Two separate analyses were conducted, one for perceptions of P-J fit and the other for perceptions of P-O fit.In both analyses, the subject variable was entered in Block 1 of the model to account for nonindependence in the data, the main effect of candidate qualifications was entered into Block 2 of the model, the main effects of candidates' political affiliations and participants' political affiliations were entered into Block 3 of the model, and an interaction term representing the combination of candidate' political affiliations x participants' affiliations was entered into Block 4 of the model.

it and the other for perceptions of P-O fit.In both analyses, the subject variabl
was entered in Block 1 of the model to account for nonindependence in the data, the main effect of candidate qualifications was entered into Block 2 of the model, the main effects of candidates' political affiliations and participants' political affiliations were entered into Block 3 of the model, and an interaction term representing the combination of candidate' political affiliati ns x participants' affiliations was entered into Block 4 of the model.

Results suggest that perceptions of P-J fit were affected by candidates' job-related qualifications, F(1,775) = 30.79,p < .001(higher qualifications: M = 4.39, 95% CI [4.32,4.45];lower qualifications: M = 4.13, 95% CI [4.07,4.20])and participants' political affiliations, F(4,775) = 10.31,p < .001;with the effect of participants' political affiliations being superseded by a significant candidates' political affiliations x participants' political affiliations interaction, F(4,775) = 5.91, p < .001(Table 5, Figure 2   Personnel Assessment And decisions Politics And lAw enforcement 1-4 labeled "high priority," 5-8 labeled "medium priority,"' and 9-12 labeled "low priority."Frequency counts for how often Republican and Democratic participants assigned these rankings to the statements were then tallied and converted in percentages (Table 7, Figure 4).A review of differences in the percentages of Democratic and Republican participants ranking statements about policing as being "high" priority for Democrats and Republicans offers insight into why candidates' political affiliations affected participants' beliefs about their ability to perform job demands well (P-J fit) and create/maintain a desirable organizational culture (P-O fit).Multiple noteworthy differences were observed in the rankings Democratic a Results suggest that perceptions of P-J fit were affected by candidates' job-related qualifications, F(1,775) = 30.79,p < .001(higher qualifications: M = 4.39, 95% CI [4.32,4.45];lower qualifications: M = 4.13, 95% CI [4.07,4.20])and participants' political affiliations, F(4,775) = 10.31,p < .001;with the effect of participants' political affiliations being superseded by a significant candidates' political affiliations x participants' political affiliations interaction, F(4,775) = 5.91, p < .001(Table 5, Figure 2   Personnel Assessment And decisions Politics And lAw enforcement 1-4 labeled "high priority," 5-8 labeled "medium priority,"' and 9-12 labeled "low priority."Frequency counts for how often Republican and Democratic participants assigned these rankings to the statements were then tallied and converted in percentages (Table 7, Figure 4).A review of differences in the percentages of Democratic and Republican participants ranking statements about policing as being "high" priority for Democrats and Republicans offers insight into why candidates' political affiliations affected participants' beliefs about their ability to perform job demands well (P-J fit) and create/maintain a desirable organizational culture (P-O fit).Multiple noteworthy differences were observed in the rankings Democratic and Republican participants ascribed to statements about what their own political parties value/ support.These differences highlight actual points of disparity between party members in terms of their policing priorities.Notable findings include: 42% of Democratic participants versus 19% of Republican participants indicating that "increased police accountability" was a high priority for their respective parties, 49% of Republican participants versus 24% of Democratic participants reporting that support for "broken windows policing" is a high priority their respective parties, 70% of Republican participants versus 22% of Democratic participants indicating that support for "stop-and-frisk practices" is a high priority issue their respective parties, and 48% of Democratic participants versus 29% of Republican participants indicating that "defunding the police" is of high priority for their respective political parties.
d Republican participants ascribed to statements about what their own political parties value/ support.These differences highlight actual points of disparity between party members in terms of their policing priorities.Notable findings include: 42% of Democratic participants versus 19% of Republican participants indicating that "increased police accountability" was a high priority for their respective parties, 49% of Republican participants versus 24% of Democratic participants reporting that support for "broken windows policing" is a high priority their respective parties, 70% of Republican participants versus 22% of Democratic participants indicat

g that support for "stop-and-frisk practices" is a high priority issu
their respective parties, and 48% of Democratic participants versus 29% of Republican participants indicating that "defu ding the police" is of high priority for their respective political parties.

In addition to actual differences between members of the political parties concerning what issues they consider to be of high priority for their respective parties, a variety of notable differences were also observed between what participants from one political party reported were high priority for their party and what they perceived were high priority issues for the other political party.For example, whereas 46% of Democratic participants ranked "police surveillance" as a high priority for the Republican party, only 29% of Republican participants actually reported the issue as high priority for their party.Likewise, whereas 73% of Republican participants reported that "defunding the police" is a high priority issue for the Democratic party, only 48% of Democratic participants actually reported it as a high priority issue for their party.windows policing" is a high priority issue for the Republican party, only 49% of Republican participants likewise endorsed the issue as being of high priority.These findings serve to highlight voters' partisan beliefs about policing and offer insight into why the combination of voters' and candidates' political affiliations affect voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit.

Stepwise multiple regression was next conducted to examine the relationships between participants' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit and their beliefs about the candidates' suitability for employment, and if the relative magnitude of these relationships are consisten In addition to actual differences between members of the political parties concerning what issues they consider to be of high priority for their respective parties, a variety of notable differences were also observed between what participants from one political party reported were high priority for their party and what they perceived were high priority issues for the other political party.For example, whereas 46% of Democratic participants ranked "police surveillance" as a high priority for the Republican party, only 29% of Republican participants actually reported the issue as high priority for their party.Likewise, whereas 73% of Republican participants reported that "defunding the police" is a high priority issue for the Democratic party, only 48% of Democratic participants actually reported it as a high priority issue for their party.windows policing" is a high priority issue for the Republican party, only 49% of Republican participants likewise endorsed the issue as being of high priority.These findings serve to highlight voters' partisan beliefs about policing and offer insight into why the combination of voters' and candidates' political affiliations affect voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit.
Stepwise multiple regression was next conducted to examine the relationships between participants' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit and their beliefs about the candidates' suitability for employment, and if the relative magnitude of these relationships are consistent with those found in research on personnel selection for nonelected positions (RQ4).The subject variable was entered in Block 1 of the model to account for nonindependence in the data, measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit were entered into Block 2 of the model, and the interaction between measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit was entered into Block 3 of the model.Results (see Table 8) suggest that voters' beliefs about the candidates' suitability for employment were significantly influenced by their perceptions of both the candidates' P-J fit (β = .30,95%CI [.25,.35]) and their perceptions of the candidates' P-O fit (β = .59,95%CI [.54, .64]),F(3,782) = 463.70,R 2 = .64,p < .001.The interaction between P-J and P-O fit, however, was nonsignificant.Like personnel selection for nonelected positions, these findings suggest that perceptions of both forms of compatibility meaningfully influenced evaluations of suitability for employment.Unlike personnel selection for nonelected positions, however, perceptions of P-O fit-not perceptions of P-J fit-had the greater influence on these judgments.
with those found in research on personnel selection for nonelected positions (RQ4).The subject variable was entered in Block 1 of the model to account for nonindependence in the data, measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit were entered into Block 2 of the model, and the interaction between measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit was entered into Block 3 of the model.Results (see Table 8) suggest that voters' beliefs about the candidates' suitability for employment were significantly influenced by their perceptions of both the candidates' P-J fit (β = .30,95%CI [.25,.35]) and their perceptions of the candidates' P-O fit (β = .59,95%CI [.54, .64]),F(3,782) = 463.70,R 2 = .64,p < .001.The interaction between P-J and P-O fit, however, was nonsignificant.Like personnel selection for nonelected positions, these findings suggest that perceptions of both forms of compatibility meaningfully influenced evaluations of suitability for employment.Unlike personnel selection for nonelected positions, however, perceptions of P-O fit-not perceptions of P-J fit-had the greater influence on these judgments.

Stepwise logistic regression was also conducted to examine the relationships between voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit and their selection of candidates to employ in the position (RQ4).Again, the subject variable was entered in Block 1 of the model to account for nonindependence in the data, measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit were entered into Block 2 of the model, and the interaction between measures of p Stepwise logistic regression was also conducted to examine the relationships between voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit and their selection of candidates to employ in the position (RQ4).Again, the subject variable was entered in Block 1 of the model to account for nonindependence in the data, measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit were entered into Block 2 of the model, and the interaction between measures of perceived P-J and P-O fit was entered into Block 3 of the model.Results (see Table 9) suggest that voters' choice of candidate to employ was meaningfully influenced by their perceptions of both P-J (β = .60,95%CI [.32, .87],odds ratio = 1.82,Z = 4.25) and P-O fit (β = .39,95%CI [.15,.63], odds ratio = 1.48,Z = 3.19), χ2(3)= 60.00, R 2 McF = .06,p < .001,Accuracy = .62.The interaction of P-J and P-O fit on decision making, however, was nonsignificant.Although results of the previous analysis suggest that voters' beliefs about the candidates' suitability for employment were more strongly influenced by their perceptions of P-O than P-J fit, the results of this analysis suggest that voters' selection of which candidate to employ was more strongly influenced by their perceptions  Percentage of High Priority Rankings for Values/ Supported Practices of P-J than PO-fit, although overlapping confidence intervals suggest this difference should be tentatively interpreted.
rceived P-J and P-O fit was entered into Block 3 of the model.Results (see Table 9) suggest that voters' choice of candidate to employ was meaningfully influenced by their perceptions of both P-J (β = .60,95%CI [.32, .87],odds ratio = 1.82,Z = 4.25) and P-O fit (β = .39,95%CI [.15,.63], odds ratio = 1.48,Z = 3.19), χ2(3)= 60.00, R 2 McF = .06,p < .001,Accuracy = .62.The interaction of P-J and P-O fit on decision making, however, was nonsignificant.Although results of the previous analysis suggest that voters' beliefs about the candidates' suitability for employment were more strongly influenced by their perceptions of P-O than P-J fit, the results of this analysis suggest that voters' selection of which candidate to

mploy was m
re strongly influenced by their perceptions  Percentage of High Priority Rankings for Values/ Supported Practices of P-J than PO-fit, although overlapping confidence intervals suggest this difference should be tentatively interpreted.

The findings of this research support that participants' evaluations of candidates' suitability for the position and their subsequent selection of which candidates to employ in the position were both significantly influenced by their perceptions of the candidates' P-J and P-O fit, and that these perceptions were meaningfully affected by candidates' job-related qualifications well as the combination of candidates' and participants' political affiliations.To more fully understand how the manipulation of candidates' job-related qualifications and political affiliations directly affected participants' judgment and decision making, two additional analyses were conducted.First, linear regression, with accompanying ANOVA output, was conducted to examine the effects of candidates' qualifications, candidates' political affiliations, and participants' political affiliations on their beliefs about the candidates' overall suitability for the position.Subject variables were entered in Block 1 of the model.The main effect of candidates' qualifications was then entered into Block 2 of the model.Next, candidates' political affiliations and par The findings of this research support that participants' evaluations of candidates' suitability for the position and their subsequent selection of which candidates to employ in the position were both significantly influenced by their perceptions of the candidates' P-J and P-O fit, and that these perceptions were meaningfully affected by candidates' job-related qualifications well as the combination of candidates' and participants' political affiliations.To more fully understand how the manipulation of candidates' job-related qualifications and political affiliations directly affected participants' judgment and decision making, two additional analyses were conducted.First, linear regression, with accompanying ANOVA output, was conducted to examine the effects of candidates' qualifications, candidates' political affiliations, and participants' political affiliations on their beliefs about the candidates' overall suitability for the position.Subject variables were entered in Block 1 of the model.The main effect of candidates' qualifications was then entered into Block 2 of the model.Next, candidates' political affiliations and participants' political affiliations were entered into Block 3 of the model.The candidates' political affiliations x participants' political affiliations interaction term was then entered into Block 4 of the model.This approach allowed for an examination of these effects as well as an investigation into the incremental variance combinations of political affiliations account for above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications.
icipants' political affiliations were entered into Block 3 of the model.The candidates' political affiliations x participants' political affiliations interaction term was then entered into Block 4 of the model.This approach allowed for an examination of these effects as well as an investigation into the incremental variance combinations of political affiliations account for above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications.

Results suggest significant main effects for candidates' qualifications, F(1,755) = 24.70,p < .001,and candidates' political affiliations F(2,755) = 8.21, p < .001.However, the main effect of candidates' political affiliations was superseded by a significant candidates' political affiliations x participants' political affiliations interaction, F(4,755) = 5.81, p < .001(Table 10).Participants with independent/ other political affiliations generally rated both Democratic and Republican candidates similarly in terms of their overall suitability for employment (Figure 5).Democratic participants, however, tended to rate Democratic candidates (M = 4.11,95% CI [3.98,4.25])as more suitable than Republican candidates (M = 4.00, 95% CI [3.83,4.18]),d = .44,and Republican participants tended to rate Republican candidates (M = 4.27,95% CI [4.09,4.44])as more suitable than Democratic candidates (M = 3.74, 95%CI [3.60,3.87]),d = .27.Model fit measures suggest that factoring political affiliations, both candidates' and participants', into the model approximately doubled the amount of variance in judgments of suitability that were accounted for by the model above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications.These findings support that voters' evaluations of candidates are heavily influenced by partisan heuristics but also suggest that voters will consider work-related objective information (e.g., job responsibilities and candidates work-related experiences) when it is provided in the decision context.

Next, the extent to which voters are likely to choose a candidate with lower job-related qualifications because that candidate shares their political affiliation (RQ5) was next examined using a Z-test for the difference between independent proportions.Results suggest that participants were approximately 39% (95%CI [22.77%, 52.22%]) more likely to vote for the candidate with lower job-related qual-  11).This finding further highlights the important role partisan heuristics play in shaping personnel selection for elected positions.


Model


DISCUSSION

Organizational scientists have the capacity to meaningfully contribute to police reform in a multitude of ways.The enactment of this capacity, however, will require buy in an Results suggest significant main effects for candidates' qualifications, F(1,755) = 24.70,p < .001,and candidates' political affiliations F(2,755) = 8.21, p < .001.However, the main effect of candidates' political affiliations was superseded by a significant candidates' political affiliations x participants' political affiliations interaction, F(4,755) = 5.81, p < .001(Table 10).Participants with independent/ other political affiliations generally rated both Democratic and Republican candidates similarly in terms of their overall suitability for employment (Figure 5).Democratic participants, however, tended to rate Democratic candidates (M = 4.11,95% CI [3.98,4.25])as more suitable than Republican candidates (M = 4.00, 95% CI [3.83,4.18]),d = .44,and Republican participants tended to rate Republican candidates (M = 4.27,95% CI [4.09,4.44])as more suitable than Democratic candidates (M = 3.74, 95%CI [3.60,3.87]),d = .27.Model fit measures suggest that factoring political affiliations, both candidates' and participants', into the model approximately doubled the amount of variance in judgments of suitability that were accounted for by the model above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications.These findings support that voters' evaluations of candidates are heavily influenced by partisan heuristics but also suggest that voters will consider work-related objective information (e.g., job responsibilities and candidates work-related experiences) when it is provided in the decision context.
Next, the extent to which voters are likely to choose a candidate with lower job-related qualifications because that candidate shares their political affiliation (RQ5) was next examined using a Z-test for the difference between independent proportions.Results suggest that participants were approximately 39% (95%CI [22.77%, 52.22%]) more likely to vote for the candidate with lower job-related qual-  11).This finding further highlights the important role partisan heuristics play in shaping personnel selection for elected positions.

DISCUSSION
Organizational scientists have the capacity to meaningfully contribute to police reform in a multitude of ways.The enactment of this capacity, however, will require buy in and support from senior law enforcement leadership.Personnel selection for multiple leadership positions that have been identified as crucial for facilitating police reform (e.g., sheriffs, attorneys general, district attorneys) occurs via local elections.Although personnel selection is considered a "bread-and-butter" issue for organizational scientists (Zickar et al., 2007, p.73), little is known concerning the extent to which our understanding of assessment and decision making for nonelected positions generalizes to, and can subsequently benefit, personnel selection for elected positions (Silvester & Dykes, 2007).This research provides an initial examination of whether the tenets of person-environment (P-E) fit theory, and the associated trends observed in empirical research on personnel selection for nonelected positions, apply to personnel selection for elected law enforcement positions.Focusing on the elected position of sheriff, findings offer insight into the perceptions of fit that voters form, factors that influence these perceptions, and how voters' perceptions of fit influence their evaluations of candidates' suitability for employment and choice of which candidate to hire.

support from senio
law enforcement leadership.Personnel selection for multiple leadership positions that have been identified as crucial for facilitating police reform (e.g., sheriffs, attorneys general, district attorneys) occurs via local elections.Although personnel selection is considered a "bread-and-butter" issue for organizational scientists (Zickar et al., 2007, p.73), little is known concerning the extent to which our understanding of assessment and decision making for nonelected positions generalizes to, and can subsequently benefit, personnel selection for elected positions (Silvester & Dykes, 2007).This research provides an initial examination of whether the tenets of person-environment (P-E) fit theory, and the associated trends observed in empirical research on personnel selection for nonelected positions, apply to personnel selection for elected law enforcement positions.Focusing on the elected position of sheriff, findings offer insight into the perceptions of fit that voters form, factors that influence these perceptions, and ho

voters' perceptions of fit influenc
their evaluations of candidates' suitability for employment and choice of which candidate to hire.

Whereas personnel selection for nonelected positions is typically conducted by organizational insiders who have in-depth knowledge about candidates and the positions for which they are being considered, personnel selection for elected positions is principally conducted by organizational outsiders who are often poorly informed about candidates and the offices they are pursuing (Althaus, 1998;Ashworth & Bueno De Mesquita, 2014;Lupia & McCubbins, 1998).Voters tend to base their selection decisions on partisan heuristics (Dancey & Sheagley, 2013;Lau & Redlawsk, 2001) and have been found to eschew merit-based information in favor of these stereotypical beliefs about political affiliations (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).Given their reliance on value-laden partisan heuristics, whether voters form unique perceptions of candidates' person-job (P-J) and person-organization (P-O) fit in ways that are commensurate with what has been observed in personnel selection for nonelected positions was investigated first to test the generalizability of P-E fit theory to this con-   When provided basic information about the position and candidates, participants were found to form unique perceptions of both P-J and P-O fit, and these perceptions of compatibility were distinct from their evaluations of the candidates' overall suitability for employment.These findings are consistent with what has been observed in personnel selection for nonelected positions.Also consistent with research on personnel selection for nonelected positions, participants' perceptions of fit were affected by candidates' job-related qualifications, with variance in these qualifications principally affecting perceptions of P-J fit.Nevertheless, in line with political science research suggesting that voters' are primarily influenced by partisan heuristics, participants' perceptions of both P-J and P-O fit were heavily influenced by the combination of their political affiliations and the candidates' political affiliations, with model fit indices reporting that approximately twice the variance in perceptions of P-J fit and three times the variance in perceptions of P-O fit was accounted for when these combinations were included in the statistical models above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications.Insights into why political affiliations affected participants' beliefs about candidates' compatibility with job requirements and organizational culture are provided by the 12 statements about policing that participants rank ordered in terms of the extent to which they believed that Democrats and Republicans value Whereas personnel selection for nonelected positions is typically conducted by organizational insiders who have in-depth knowledge about candidates and the positions for which they are being considered, personnel selection for elected positions is principally conducted by organizational outsiders who are often poorly informed about candidates and the offices they are pursuing (Althaus, 1998;Ashworth & Bueno De Mesquita, 2014;Lupia & McCubbins, 1998).Voters tend to base their selection decisions on partisan heuristics (Dancey & Sheagley, 2013;Lau & Redlawsk, 2001) and have been found to eschew merit-based information in favor of these stereotypical beliefs about political affiliations (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).Given their reliance on value-laden partisan heuristics, whether voters form unique perceptions of candidates' person-job (P-J) and person-organization (P-O) fit in ways that are commensurate with what has been observed in personnel selection for nonelected positions was investigated first to test the generalizability of P-E fit theory to this con-   When provided basic information about the position and candidates, participants were found to form unique perceptions of both P-J and P-O fit, and these perceptions of compatibility were distinct from their evaluations of the candidates' overall suitability for employment.These findings are consistent with what has been observed in personnel selection for nonelected positions.Also consistent with research on personnel selection for nonelected positions, participants' perceptions of fit were affected by candidates' job-related qualifications, with variance in these qualifications principally affecting perceptions of P-J fit.Nevertheless, in line with political science research suggesting that voters' are primarily influenced by partisan heuristics, participants' perceptions of both P-J and P-O fit were heavily influenced by the combination of their political affiliations and the candidates' political affiliations, with model fit indices reporting that approximately twice the variance in perceptions of P-J fit and three times the variance in perceptions of P-O fit was accounted for when these combinations were included in the statistical models above and beyond candidates' job-related qualifications.Insights into why political affiliations affected participants' beliefs about candidates' compatibility with job requirements and organizational culture are provided by the 12 statements about policing that participants rank ordered in terms of the extent to which they believed that Democrats and Republicans value/ support them.Multiple noteworthy differences were observed between what Democrats and Republicans reported as top priorities for their respective political parties.Democrats, for example, were nearly twice as likely to report increased police accountability as a top priority for their party than Republicans.Furthermore, whereas 50% of Democratic voters endorsed use-of-force reform as a top priority of their party, only 37% of Republicans did the same.Republicans, instead, were approximately three to three and a half times more likely than Democrats to report support for broken windows policing and stop-and-frisk practices as top priorities for their party.The results of this exercise also revealed multiple instances wherein voters' beliefs about the top priorities of their own political parties meaningfully differed from nonmembers' beliefs about their parties.For example, Democrats tended to overestimate Republicans in terms of their value/support for police surveillance and broken windows policing, and underestimate them in terms of support them.Multiple noteworthy differences were observed between what Democrats and Republicans reported as top priorities for their respective political parties.Democrats, for example, were nearly twice as likely to report increased police accountability as a top priority for their party than Republicans.Furthermore, whereas 50% of Democratic voters endorsed use-of-force reform as a top priority of their party, only 37% of Republicans did the same.Republicans, instead, were approximately three to three and a half times more likely than Democrats to report support for broken windows policing and stop-and-frisk practices as top priorities for their party.The results of this exercise also revealed multiple instances wherein voters' beliefs about the top priorities of their own political parties meaningfully differed from nonmembers' beliefs about their parties.For example, Democrats tended to overestimate Republicans in terms of their value/support for police surveillance and broken windows policing, and underestimate them in terms of


ReseaRch aRticles


Model


Personnel Assessment And decisions

Politics And lAw enforcement their value/support for de-escalation training, diversity initiatives, and community-oriented policing.Republicans, on the other hand, tended to overestimate Democrat

Personnel Assessment And decisions
Politics And lAw enforcement their value/support for de-escalation training, diversity initiatives, and community-oriented policing.Republicans, on the other hand, tended to overestimate Democrats in terms of their value/support for defunding the police, stop-andfrisk practices, and broken windows policing, and underestimate them in terms of their value/support for increased police accountability, crisis intervention training, de-escalation training, and the protection of civil liberties.

in terms of
heir value/support for defunding the police, stop-andfrisk practices, and broken windows policing, and underestimate them in terms of their value/support for increased police accountability, crisis intervention training, de-escalation training, and the protection of civil liberties.

In identifying what voters believe are top priorities for Democratic and Republican candidates running for elected law enforcement positions, the results of this exercise provide insight into the partisan heuristics that affect voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit above and beyond their objective job-related qualifications (i.e., education and work experience).Given the outsized influence these heuristics have on voters' evaluations of candidates, discrepancies in several of the trends observed are of particular interest.First, the multitude of discrepancies observed between voters' beliefs about their own political parties and how the political parties are perceived by outgroup members suggests that In identifying what voters believe are top priorities for Democratic and Republican candidates running for elected law enforcement positions, the results of this exercise provide insight into the partisan heuristics that affect voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit above and beyond their objective job-related qualifications (i.e., education and work experience).Given the outsized influence these heuristics have on voters' evaluations of candidates, discrepancies in several of the trends observed are of particular interest.First, the multitude of discrepancies observed between voters' beliefs about their own political parties and how the political parties are perceived by outgroup members suggests that voters hold a variety of inaccurate views about the extent to which candidates from other political parties value/support police practices.This finding is consistent with research suggesting that political party members commonly hold a variety of misperceptions about opposing party supporters, and that these misperceptionsalthough associated with partisan affect-largely stem from members lacking information about the out-party (Ahler & Sood, 2018).Second, the range of discrepancies observed within the political parties concerning voters' beliefs about the police practices their own parties value/support suggests that voters' also hold a variety of inaccurate views about the extent to which candidates from their own political parties value/support police practices.Although these discrepancies might reflect geographic differences among participants that lessen when sampling is contained to voters in specific locales (e.g., urban vs. rural elections), political science research suggests that members of political parties regularly overestimate the level of attitude similarity among their party supporters (Stern, 2020).Together, these findings suggest that personnel selection for elected law enforcement positions would benefit from providing voters with specific information about the police practices that candidates value/ support (perhaps even on ballots-i.e., directly in the decision context) rather than having them base their selections on potentially inaccurate political heuristics.
oters hold a variety of inaccurate views about the extent to which candidates from other political parties value/support police practices.This finding is consistent with research suggesting that political party members commonly hold a variety of misperceptions about opposing party supporters, and that these misperceptionsalthough associated with partisan affect-largely stem from members lacking information about the out-party (Ahler & Sood, 2018).Second, the range of discrepancies observed within the political parties concerning voters' beliefs about the police practices their own parties value/support suggests that voters' also hold a variety of inaccurate views about the extent to which candidates from their own political parties value/support police practices.Although these discrepancies might reflect geographic differences among participants that lessen when sampling is contained to voters in specific locales (e.g., urban vs. rural elections), political science research suggests that members of political parties regularly overestimate the level of attitude similarity among their party supporters (Stern, 2020).Together, these findings suggest that personnel selection for elected law enforcement positions would benefi from providing voters with specific information about the police practices that candidates value/ support (perhaps even on ballots-i.e., directly in the decision context) rather than having them base their selections on potentially inaccurate political heuristics.

Ensuring that voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit are accurately informed is important, as the results of this research suggest that perceptions of both forms of compatibility significantly influenced voters' evaluations of the candidates' suitability for employment and ultimate choice of which candidate to employ.These findings are consistent with the trends observed in research on personnel selection for nonelected positions.A noteworthy difference observed in this context, however, is the strength of the relationships between perceptions of P-O fit and the outcome measures.Perceptions of P-O fit had as much or more influence on voters' judgments and decisions about candidates as perceptions of P-J fit.This trend is likely attributed to the value-laden nature of political heuristics.Elected law enforcement positions are also unique from those rankand-file positions that have traditionally been studied in research on personnel selection for nonelected positions in that executive leaders are ultimately responsible for shaping and managing organizational culture.The weight assigned to perceptions of P-O fit might reflect voters' recognition of th Ensuring that voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit are accurately informed is important, as the results of this research suggest that perceptions of both forms of compatibility significantly influenced voters' evaluations of the candidates' suitability for employment and ultimate choice of which candidate to employ.These findings are consistent with the trends observed in research on personnel selection for nonelected positions.A noteworthy difference observed in this context, however, is the strength of the relationships between perceptions of P-O fit and the outcome measures.Perceptions of P-O fit had as much or more influence on voters' judgments and decisions about candidates as perceptions of P-J fit.This trend is likely attributed to the value-laden nature of political heuristics.Elected law enforcement positions are also unique from those rankand-file positions that have traditionally been studied in research on personnel selection for nonelected positions in that executive leaders are ultimately responsible for shaping and managing organizational culture.The weight assigned to perceptions of P-O fit might reflect voters' recognition of the important roles elected law enforcement officials play in determining the values that characterize law enforcement agencies.

enforce
ent officials play in determining the values that characterize law enforcement agencies.


Participant


ReseaRch aRticles


Conclusions

The results of this research generally support the application of P-E fit theory to personnel selection for elected (law enforcemen

Conclusions
The results of this research generally support the application of P-E fit theory to personnel selection for elected (law enforcement) positions.Voters' formed distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit (RQ1), these perceptions were affected by both the candidates' job-related qualifications as well as the combination of voters' and candidates' political affiliations (RQ2).Voters' partisan heuristics concerning the extent to which Democrats and Republicans value/ support police practices were found to vary both within and across political parties (RQ3).Reliance on these heuristics to form perceptions of P-J and P-O fit is concerning as beliefs about both forms of compatibility significantly influenced voters' evaluations of candidates' suitability for employment and choice of which candidate to employ in the position (RQ4), with voters being approximately 40% more likely to endorse the candidate with lower job-related qualifications when that candidate shared their political affiliations (RQ5).

positions.
oters' formed distinct perceptions of P-J and P-O fit (RQ1), these perceptions were affected by both the candidates' job-re

s (RQ2).Vot
Activists recognize the important roles elected law enforcement officials play in police reform.Their support for initiatives that facilitate change is integral in making reform a reality.The results of this study suggest that the Democratic Party is generally perceived as being more supportive of practices that align with common calls for police reform than the Republican Party.Both Democratic and Republican voters, however, overestimated and underestimated the extent to which members of their own party and the other party value/support a range of police practices.Given these partisan heuristics influence voters' judgment and decision making, communities may be well-served by research (such as this) and awareness campaigns that serve to more accurately calibrate voters' beliefs about the police practices that candidates value/support.Furthermore, having found initial support for the generalizability of P-E fit theory to personnel selection for elected positions, organizational scientists might help to identify ways to more effectively inform voters' perceptions of candidates' P-J and P-O fit through targeted messaging strategies and/or direct placement of critical information in the decision context, for example.

placement
Limitations and future directions.There are several limitations to this research that should be acknowledged.First, sheriff is only one of several law enforcement positions for which personnel selection is conducted via election.District attorneys and state attorneys general are also elected positions that are recognized to play important roles in police reform.It is encouraged that future studies examining the factors that influence personnel selection for elected law enforcement positions include these jobs in their designs.Second, participants in this study were provided brief resumes of the candidates to review before making their assessments/decisions.Although these resumes were modeled after those found online for sheriff candidates, voters are likely to vary in their knowledge of the candidates, with some having greater knowledge than the resumes provided and others having less.Future research is encouraged to move beyond paper people and examine voters' knowledge and beliefs about real-life job candidates.The list of 12 statements about policing that voters rank ordered in terms of the extent to which they are believed to be prioritized by Democrats and Republicans also offers limited insight into the full range of issues affected by politics that influence personnel selection decisions.Future research is encouraged to take a more inductive approach to examining these issues.
FIGURE 2. Multiple Regression Model With ANOVA Output: Person-Job Fit

FIGURE 3 .
FIGURE 3. Mean Person--Organization Fit by Candidate and Participant Political Affiliation FIGURE 5. Mean Suitability for Employment by Candidate and Participant Political Affiliation

TABLE 1 .
Study Demographics Compared to 2020 U.S. Registered Voter Demographics

TABLE 3 .
Descriptive Statistics for Candidates by Qualifications and Political Affiliations

TABLE 4 .
These findings suggest that voters' beliefs about candidates' ability to perform job demands were not only affected by Multiple Regression Model With ANOVA Output: Person-Job Fit Similarly, whereas 67% of Democratic participants reported that support for "broken Multiple Regression Model With ANOVA Output: Person-Organization Fit

TABLE 10 .
Multiple Regression Model With ANOVA Output: Suitability for Employment

TABLE 11 .
Z-Test for the Difference Between Independent Proportions: Participants who Voted for Candidate With Lower Job-Related Qualifications by Shared Political Affiliation.