Changes in Perceived Fit as a Function of Individual Differences: A Longitudinal Study of Fit in...
15
Changes in Perceived Fit as a Function of Individual Differences: A Longitudinal Study of Fit in Teams D. Scott DeRue Frederick P. Morgeson Remus Ilies Michigan State University The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management Stephen Humphrey Florida State University
-
Upload
ernest-scott -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Changes in Perceived Fit as a Function of Individual Differences: A Longitudinal Study of Fit in...
Changes in Perceived Fit as a Function of Individual Differences: A Longitudinal
Study of Fit in Teams
D. Scott DeRueFrederick P. Morgeson
Remus IliesMichigan State University
The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management
Stephen HumphreyFlorida State University
2
Person-Team Fit: A Review
Fit in Teams– Fit is experienced when an individual compares his or
her personal characteristics with those of team members, and determines they are compatible (Adkins, Ravlin, & Meglino, 1996; Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001)
– Comparisons have both cognitive and affective elements
– Traditionally, a focus on the cognitive comparisons of individual characteristics
– Neglects role of individual-level affect and emotion in perceptions of fit in teams
3
Person-Team Fit: Multidimensional
Existing literature on perceptions of fit suggest a 3-dimensional model of fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002)– Person-Organization Fit– Needs-Supplies Fit– Demands-Abilities Fit
We extend this same multidimensional conceptualization toward understanding perceptions of fit in the context of teams
4
Fit in Teams: Conceptual Model
Positive Affect
Positive Affect
Other’s Emotional Appraisal
Other’s Emotional Appraisal
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness
Task SkillTask Skill
General Cognitive
Ability
General Cognitive
Ability
Affective & Motivationally
Oriented Individual Differences
Affective & Motivationally
Oriented Individual Differences
Ability Oriented
Individual Differences
Ability Oriented
Individual Differences
Person-Team FitPerson-
Team Fit
Change In Needs-
Supplies Fit
Change In Needs-
Supplies Fit
Change In Demands-
Abilities Fit
Change In Demands-
Abilities Fit
Stable Over TimeStable Over Time Dynamic Over TimeDynamic Over Time
5
Hypotheses: Person-Team Fit
Positive Affect
Positive Affect
Other’s Emotiona
l Appraisa
l
Other’s Emotiona
l Appraisa
l
ConscientiousnessConscientiousness
Affective & Motivation Oriented
Individual Differences
Affective & Motivation Oriented
Individual Differences
Person-Team FitPerson-
Team Fit
Stable Over TimeStable Over Time
Hypotheses
1. Team members’ ratings of person-team fit will be stable over time
2a. Positive affect will be positively related to person-team fit at both Time 1 and Time 2
2b. Other’s Emotional Appraisal will be positively related to person-team fit at both Time 1 and Time 2
2c. Conscientiousness will be positively related to person-team fit at both Time 1 and Time 2
6
Hypotheses: Needs-Supplies Fit
Positive Affect
Positive Affect
Other’s Emotiona
l Appraisa
l
Other’s Emotiona
l Appraisa
l
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness
Affective & Motivation Oriented
Individual Differences
Affective & Motivation Oriented
Individual Differences
Needs-Supplies Fit
Needs-Supplies Fit
Dynamic Over TimeDynamic Over Time
Hypotheses
3a. Positive affect will be positively related to the change in needs-supplies fit over time
3b. Other’s Emotional Appraisal will be positively related to the change in needs-supplies fit over time
3c. Conscientiousness will be positively related to the change in needs-supplies fit over time
7
Hypotheses: Demands-Abilities Fit
Task SkillTask Skill
General Cognitive Ability
General Cognitive Ability
Ability Oriented
Individual Differences
Ability Oriented
Individual Differences
Demands-Abilities
Fit
Demands-Abilities
Fit
Dynamic Over Time
Dynamic Over Time
Hypotheses
4a. Task skill will be positively related to the change in demands-abilities fit over time
4b. General cognitive ability will be positively related to the change in demands-abilities fit over time
8
Research Design
4-6 member teams (undergrads) with a single leader (MBA)
Leaders responsible for selection, recruiting, training, and overall team leadership
Networked command and control simulation across 12 occasions (6 weeks)
N = 132 team members
9
Results1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Positive Affect
2. Other’s Emotional
Appraisal.36**
3. Conscientiousness .57** .25**
4. Task Skill -.06 -.09 -.14
5. General Cognitive
Ability.14 .02 .01 .27**
6. Person-Team Fit (T1) .26** .20* .30** .05 .02
7. Person-Team Fit (T2) .17* .23** .24** .07 .13 .54**
8. Needs-Supplies Fit (T1) .10 .08 .16 .10 .10 .68** .43**
9. Needs-Supplies Fit (T2) .22** .19* .27** .15 .20* .40** .63** .44**
10. Demands-Abilities Fit (T1) .11 .14 .11 .02 .06 .62** .39** .82** .42**
11. Demands-Abilities Fit (T2) .13 .11 .14 .23** .23** .34** .48** .40** .79** .43**
N = 132*p < .05; **p < .01
10
Results: Person-Team Fit (H1)
Hypothesis 1 supported...suggesting person-team fit is essentially stable over time
Paired Samples T-Test
Dimensions of Fit
N Correlation MeanStandard Deviation
Sig (2-tailed)
PTfit T1 - PTfit T2
132 .536 .026 .612 .620
NSfit T1 – NSfit T2
132 .439 .121 .719 .055
DAfit T1 – DAfit T2
132 .430 .123 .741 .057
11
Results: Person-Team Fit (H2)
Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c supported…
H2a: Positive Affect Person-Team Fit– r = .258; p < .01 (Time 1)– r = .173; p < .05 (Time 2)
H2b: Other’s Emotional Appraisal Person-Team Fit– r = .203; p < .05 (Time 1)– r = .229; p < .01 (Time 2)
H2c: Conscientiousness Person-Team Fit– r = .298; p < .01 (Time 1)– r = .243; p < .01 (Time 2)
12
Results: Needs-Supplies Fit (H3)
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c supported…
H3a: Positive Affect ∆ in Needs-Supplies Fit = .179; p < .05; ∆R2 = .032
H3b: Other’s Emotional Appraisal ∆ in Needs-Supplies Fit = .165; p < .05; ∆R2 = .027
H3c: Conscientiousness ∆ in Needs-Supplies Fit = .209; p < .01; ∆R2 = .043
13
Results: Demands-Abilities Fit (H4)
Hypotheses 4a and 4b supported…
H4a: Task Skill ∆ in Demands-Abilities Fit = ..204; p < .01; ∆R2 = .042
H4b: General Cognitive Ability ∆ in Demands-Abilities Fit = .196; p < .05; ∆R2 = .038
14
Implications
3-dimensional model of fit provides an insightful framework for understanding fit in the context of teams
Affective and emotionally-based individual differences must be considered with respect to perceptions of fit in teams
Perceptions of person-team fit are largely stable and predicted by positive affect, other’s emotional appraisal, and conscientiousness
Perceptions of needs-supplies fit are dynamic, and change in these perceptions is predicted by positive affect, other’s emotional appraisal, and conscientiousness
Perceptions of demands-abilities fit are dynamic, and change in these perceptions is predicted by task skill and general cognitive ability
15
Comments & Questions
With additional comments or questions, please contact:
D. Scott DeRueMichigan State University
