مؤسسة الشرق الأوسط للنشر العلمي
عادةً ما يتم الرد في غضون خمس دقائق
This study examines whether and how alignment between employees’ cognitive preferences (cognitive style) and the cognitive architecture of their tasks (structure, data intensity, novelty/equivocality, complexity) translates into higher performance. We adopt a multi-wave, multi-source field design integrating employee surveys, supervisor/SME task-cognition ratings, objective performance records, and standardized supervisor evaluations. Performance is assessed using both objective indicators (e.g., error rates, throughput, sales/service KPIs) and rated criteria (task, contextual/adaptive, counterproductive), while testing mediating mechanisms (job satisfaction, organization-based self-esteem, collaboration effectiveness) and boundary conditions (macro-level economic–political instability, workplace stability—role clarity and resource adequacy—and task novelty/complexity). Findings indicate that cognitive style–task fit is positively associated with performance across independent criteria: analytic preferences yield stronger gains as task structure and data intensity rise, whereas intuitive/innovative preferences are more salient for supervisor evaluations under novel/equivocal demands. Satisfaction, professional self-esteem, and collaboration partially mediate these relationships. Macro instability attenuates the realized benefits of alignment, while workplace stability buffers this erosion. Early-career employees appear to leverage adaptive performance as a short-term compensatory route that should be complemented with targeted skill development. The study advances theory by specifying the person–environment pairing of style ↔ task cognition, strengthens methodology through multi-source performance triangulation, and offers actionable guidance for selection, placement, and job (re)design to harness measurable performance gains in volatile contexts.