Changes in Perceived Fit as a Function of Individual Differences: A Longitudinal Study of Fit in Teams

1. 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

2. 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 Person-Team Fit: A Review

3. 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 Person-Team Fit: Multidimensional

4. Fit in Teams: Conceptual Model Stable Over Time Dynamic Over Time Affective & Motivationally Oriented Individual Differences Positive Affect Person-Team Fit Other’s Emotional Appraisal Change In Needs-Supplies Fit Conscientiousness Ability Oriented Individual Differences Task Skill Change In Demands-Abilities Fit General Cognitive Ability

5. Hypotheses: Person-Team Fit Stable Over Time Affective & Motivation Oriented Individual Differences Positive Affect Person-Team Fit Other’s Emotional Appraisal 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 Conscientiousness

6. Hypotheses: Needs-Supplies Fit Dynamic Over Time Affective & Motivation Oriented Individual Differences Positive Affect Needs-Supplies Fit Other’s Emotional Appraisal 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 Conscientiousness

7. Hypotheses: Demands-Abilities Fit Dynamic Over Time Ability Oriented Individual Differences Task Skill Demands-Abilities Fit 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 General Cognitive Ability

8. 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 Research Design

9. Results N = 132 *p < .05; **p < .01

10. Results: Person-Team Fit (H1) Hypothesis 1 supported...suggesting person-team fit is essentially stable over time

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. With additional comments or questions, please contact: D. Scott DeRue Michigan State University derue@msu.edu Comments & Questions