“On the banks of a pond, an arrogant duck said to himself: What wonderful gifts have I received! Three elements are subject to my wishes: Tired of walking, I fly when I want; Tired of flying, I swim. Listening two steps away, a snake called him and said in his ear: I don’t see in all this enough to cry wonder; For you cannot, friend, fly like a hawk, soar like a deer, swim like a fish. In one thing it is better to be skillful than to know more than a thousand.” (The Duck and The Snake)

The Lame Duck Theory I am introducing in this paper is built upon the idea that employees often find themselves in roles where their skills and competencies are not effectively aligned with the tasks they are expected to perform. Rooted in P-E Fit Theory, which asserts that attitudes and behaviors result from the congruence between attributes of the person and the environment (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Pervin, 1989; Schneider, 1987), the Lame Duck Theory focuses on a specific but underexplored dimension of P-E Fit: competence-task fit, highlighting the misalignment between employees’ competencies and the tasks assigned to them. The Lame Duck phenomenon occurs when task-specific misalignment creates inefficiencies, causing employees with latent potential to be misallocated in their roles. In other words, even when an employee is a good fit for the organization overall, if their day-to-day tasks do not align with their core competencies, their effectiveness and satisfaction can suffer. P-E Fit Theory has traditionally concentrated on perceptions of fit as predicting decisions to join organizations (Cable & Judge, 1997; Turban & Keon, 1993), behaviors and attitudes while employed (Tziner, 1987; Westerman & Cyr, 2004), and intentions to quit (O’Reilly et al., 1991). For instance, research on psychological need fulfillment (Edwards, 1991) emphasizes the importance of the fit between individual desires and organizational resources, while studies on value congruence (Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996) highlight the positive effects of shared values on trust and communication within the workplace. However, the task-level misfit proposed by the Lame Duck theory is not widely addressed in P-E Fit research, which tends to emphasize complementary and supplementary fit between individuals and the broader organizational environment.

A critical unresolved issue in the P-E Fit paradigm is its limited attention to task-level alignment. While research has extensively examined how complementary fit (e.g., the alignment between psychological needs and organizational supplies) and supplementary fit (e.g., value congruence) impact organizational outcomes, there has been minimal focus on how fit at the task level affects employee performance and satisfaction. This gap is significant because organizations, especially in rapidly evolving industries, often face the challenge of dynamically assigning tasks to employees based on changing needs, sometimes leading to a misallocation of competencies. Addressing this gap is crucial because competence-task misalignment can undermine the potential of highly skilled employees, turning them into ‘lame ducks’—present but ineffective. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to extend P-E Fit Theory by introducing the concept of competence-task fit as articulated through the Lame Duck phenomenon. While P-E Fit research has focused heavily on broader environmental and organizational fit (e.g., person-organization, person-job fit), this paper argues that task-level fit is an equally important predictor of employee performance and satisfaction. Specifically, it will examine how misalignment at the task level—where employees are assigned tasks that do not align with their core competencies—leads to inefficiencies and the lame duck phenomenon.

This paper addresses the unresolved issue of task-level misalignment by developing and empirically testing the Lame Duck Theory. By integrating task-specific fit into the P-E Fit framework, the paper seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how to optimize employee output and organizational efficiency. Through a mixed-methods approach involving case studies and quantitative data, the study will explore how competence-task misfit affects key outcomes such as employee performance, engagement, and organizational productivity. It will demonstrate that even in organizations where person-organization or person-job fit is high, task-level misfit can lead to underperformance and disengagement. The critical implication of this research is that organizations need to go beyond broad P-E fit evaluations and implement more granular task assignment strategies based on employees’ core competencies. The Lame Duck Theory suggests that by addressing competence-task fit, organizations can unlock the full potential of their workforce, reducing inefficiencies and improving overall performance. This theory will also emphasize the importance of dynamic task allocation in response to employee skill sets and organizational needs, offering a strategic solution to the issues related to latent potential often seen in large enterprises.

References

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person–organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied psychology, 82(4), 546.

Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 333-349.

Chatman, J. A. (1989, August). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. In Academy of Management proceedings (Vol. 1989, No. 1, pp. 199-203). Academy of Management.

Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–357). Wiley.

Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Wiley.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person‐organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel psychology, 49(1), 1-49.

O’Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 487-516.

Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 350–360.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel psychology, 40(3), 437-453.

Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organization attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 184–193.

Tziner, A. (1987). Congruency issue retested using Fineman’s achievement climate notion. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(1), 63-78.

Westerman, J. W., & Cyr, L. A. (2004). An integrative analysis of person–organization fit theories. International Journal of selection and assessment, 12(3), 252-261.