When Opposites Attract: A Multi-Sample Demonstration of Complementary Person- Amy Kristof-Brown

When Opposites Attract: A Multi-Sample
Demonstration of Complementary PersonTeam Fit on Extraversion
Amy Kristof-Brown
University of Iowa
Murray R. Barrick
University of Iowa
Cynthia Kay Stevens
University of Maryland
ABSTRACT This study assessed the nature of the person-team fit
relationships for extraversion on members’ attraction toward their
teams. Unlike most studies of personality-based fit, which emphasize
similarity, we predicted that complementary fit on extraversion (i.e.,
high individual–low team or low individual–high team levels) would
result in greater attraction to the team. Data from two independent
samples of intact project teams were analyzed, including 324 MBA
students comprising 64 case analysis teams and 217 members of 26 manufacturing teams. Using polynomial regression analysis and three-dimensional surface plots, our results supported the predicted relationship. In
addition, the data indicated that individuals who were more attracted to
their teams were also better performers, as judged by their peers and
supervisors.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Academy of Management Conference in Washington, DC, August 2001.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amy Kristof-Brown,
108 PBB, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242. E-mail may be sent to [email protected]
Journal of Personality 73:4, August 2005
r Blackwell Publishing 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00334.x
936
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
WHEN OPPOSITES ATTRACT: A MULTI-SAMPLE
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT
ON EXTRAVERSION
Organizations are increasingly turning to teams to accomplish complex assignments such as strategic planning, new product development, and production management (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford,
1995). For teams to be effective at these knowledge-intensive tasks,
process issues such as the development of shared vocabularies, trust,
and strong norms have been identified as important determinants of
long-term success (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). These processes require both time and synergy among team members to develop. Accordingly, teams researchers have begun to move beyond short-term
performance determinants toward more sophisticated views of individual and team dynamics as they influence long-term team effectiveness (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).
One promising approach is to try to gain better understanding of
what influences individual team members to contribute to team effectiveness. The relational demography literature offers compelling evidence that an individual’s experience of demographic dissimilarity
from other team members influences his or her attitudes and behaviors
regarding the team (e.g., Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly, 1992). Yet, Harrison and colleagues (Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998;
Harrison, Price, Gavin & Florey 2002) suggest that while surface-level,
demographic differences are important, it is time for research to begin
examining the deep-level, psychological features of work teams.
One area of research that has been useful in this regard is personenvironment fit (P-E fit). The fundamental premise of fit theories,
whether they emphasize vocational choice (e.g., Holland, 1985), adjustment (e.g., French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1974), or individualorganizational value congruence (e.g., Chatman, 1991), is that a good
match between the environment and an individual creates compatibilities that result in positive consequences for the individual. Research demonstrates that the personality traits of salient others are
defining features of a person’s social environment (e.g., Bretz, Ash,
& Dreher, 1989; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998). Applied to team contexts, P-E fit suggests that an individual member’s
personal characteristics, such as personality, will interact with the
personal characteristics of teammates to affect his or her responses
to the team and task.
Complementary Person-Team Fit
937
At the team level, personality traits have been supported as important determinants of team processes and outcomes (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). Although numerous personality traits have
been studied, results suggest that only a few are consistently related
to team-level outcomes. Meta-analytic results suggest that agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness have positive relationships with team performance (Mount et al., 1998). Barrick,
Stewart, Neubert, & Mount (1998) also found that higher average
team levels of emotional stability and extraversion were associated
with an increased capability of teams to work together. Although
these relationships imply a direct relationship of average team personality with team outcomes, Barry and Stewart (1997) found that
extraversion demonstrated a unique curvilinear relationship with
team outcomes. Specifically, they demonstrated that teams with
moderate proportions of extraverts had higher levels of task focus
and performance than did all other teams. Similarly, Barrick et al.
(1998) found that variability on extraversion was positively associated with supervisor ratings of the team’s long-term capacity to work
together. Thus, compared to other personality traits, there appears
to be something unique about how team-level outcomes are influenced by team members’ extraversion.
This relationship may be better understood by turning to the P-E
fit literature to determine how individuals react to the extraversion
levels of their team members. Most often fit with the social environment has been operationalized as supplementary fit (Muchinsky &
Monahan, 1987), or the similarity between the personalities of individuals and others in their social environment. In general, results
suggest that when ‘‘birds of a feather flock together,’’ individuals
experience positive outcomes (Chatman, 1991; Ryan & KristofBrown, 2003). Although many studies have supported this type of
relationship for other characteristics, such as values or goals (Assouline & Meir, 1987; Burke & Deszca, 1982; Day & Bedian, 1995;
Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001), this article examines the possibility
that another type of fit is at work for extraversion. Complementary fit
occurs when the characteristics of an individual complete the environment by offsetting a weakness or filling a gap (Muchinsky &
Monahan, 1987). This concept of ‘‘opposites attract’’ is evident in
successful dance partners, where one leads and the other follows, and
is a fundamental tenet of interpersonal psychology (Gurtman, 2001).
For the trait of extraversion, there are compelling reasons to expect
938
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
that this type of fit, rather than the more commonly predicted supplementary fit, may be advantageous.
Thus, the purpose of this article was to evaluate whether complementary person-team fit on extraversion leads individual members to
experience increased levels of attraction to, and subsequently higher
levels of performance in, teams. Using polynomial regression and
three-dimensional response surface plots (Edwards & Parry, 1993),
we were able to examine the exact nature of the relationship between
individuals’ extraversion levels and those of their team members with
attraction to the team. This technique has the added advantage of
addressing whether the same relationship holds for extraverts as introverts, as the graphs depict the relationships across all levels of
extraversion. Because nonlinear relationships such as fit are often
difficult to replicate (Sackett, Gruys, & Ellington, 1998), we tested
our hypotheses in two independent samples of intact teams. To the
extent that similar results emerge across different team contexts, we
can place greater confidence in the findings.
Extraversion and Teams
As a key trait influencing social interaction, extraversion has been an
important focus of interest in the dispositional underpinnings for
social behavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Lucas, Diener, Grob,
Suh & Shao, 2000). The typical extrovert craves excitement, is adventurous, and tends to be assertive and dominant, as well as sociable. Further, extraversion is a trait for which theory has been
developed to explain its operation. For example, extraversion has
been linked to brain mechanisms associated with approach (the behavioral activation system; Gray, 1987), reward sensitivity (Lucas
et al., 2000), and positive affect (Watson & Clark, 1997). For almost
50 years, scholars have been interested in studying the impact of
extraversion in team settings. These studies consistently find some
relationship between team composition on extraversion and teamlevel outcomes; often with results suggesting that diversity on extraversion has positive team-level consequences.
Hoffman (1959) composed groups as homogeneous or heterogeneous on extraversion and had them generate solutions to two workrelated problems. The heterogeneous groups generated more inventive
solutions and reported greater satisfaction with their solutions. A second study (Hoffman & Maier, 1961) that extended this approach to
Complementary Person-Team Fit
939
additional problem-solving tasks found that heterogeneous groups also
performed better on those tasks and reported greater satisfaction. In a
field setting, Barry and Stewart (1997) hypothesized that performance
would be highest in MBA teams with a moderate proportion of extroverted members. Their results supported a curvilinear relationship,
such that teams with a moderate proportion of extraverts had higher
levels of instructor-rated performance than did teams with a smaller or
greater proportion of extraverted members. Although this result was
not replicated directly in a study by Barrick et al. (1998), they did report that variance on team member extraversion was significantly related to long-term team viability as rated by the team’s supervisor.
Taken together, these studies suggest that teams composed of
members with varying levels of extraversion may show improved
team-level performance, satisfaction, and long-term viability. Yet, it
is unclear why this effect exists. The answer may lie in how dissimilarity on extraversion is experienced by individual team members.
Viewed from this perspective, the question is, ‘‘Does the extraversion
of one team member influence the behavior of other team members?’’
Addressing this question necessitates taking a fit perspective, rather
than concentrating on team-level composition. A person-team fit
approach requires considering an individual’s level of extraversion in
the context of the level of extraversion demonstrated by other team
members. The notion of complementary fit may explain how being
different from other team members on extraversion would lead an
individual member to react positively toward the team.
Most studies of personality-based fit emphasize the benefits that
accrue from supplementary fit, or personality similarity, between individuals and others in their social environment. However, complementary fit, which exists when the characteristics of individuals and
their environments offset each other, may be more relevant to the
specific trait of extraversion. Careful consideration of the extraversion trait illustrates why complementarity, rather than similarity,
would fulfill team members’ needs and thus increase their affect toward the team. There is extensive evidence that complementarity in
dominance (a component of extraversion) and submissiveness is related to higher quality interpersonal interactions. Leary’s interpersonal circle (1957) depicts between-person variations on a single
circular array containing two axes, dominance-submissiveness and
love-hate. While similarity on the love-hate dimension is desirable,
dissimilarity is preferable on the dominance-submissiveness axis
940
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
because it establishes a reciprocal relationship in which both sides
have their needs met (Carson, 1969). Extrapolating these findings to
the broader trait of extraversion, the interpersonal behaviors demonstrated by an extravert invite a particular response from those
around them (e.g., ‘‘I would like to speak. You listen.’’). The introvert
listens, which then invites the extravert to continue speaking, thus
establishing an ongoing relationship. This type of mutually fulfilling
interaction is desirable to both sides, thereby increasing attraction.
In the work domain, there is also evidence of increased performance in dyads and teams where there is some level of complementarity. For example, Smelser (1961) investigated dyads that varied on
dominant–submissive traits and found that in cooperative problemsolving settings, the most productive dyads were those with complementary traits (a person scoring high in dominance working with a
person low in dominance). Similarly, Ghiselli and Lodahl (1958)
found that groups performed better on a cooperative task when the
group included one relatively dominant member and two or three
average- or low-dominance members. Finally, as noted earlier, Hoffman (Hoffman, 1959; Hoffman & Maier, 1961) found that individuals in groups heterogeneous on extraversion were not only more
productive (generated more solutions) but also were more satisfied
than members of groups that were similar on extraversion.
In each of these cases, it is presumed that the matching of dissimilar others helped meet an individual’s need for dominance or
extraversion, resulting in better working relationships and subsequent performance. Mullen and Copper (1994) conclude in their
meta-analysis that teams experiencing high levels of performance
become more cohesive, meaning that their members are more attracted to the team than if the team had poor performance. Therefore, if a complementary fit can help improve team performance,
individual members’ attraction to the team should also increase.
These results reveal that people have an easier time working together
when one asserts and others acquiesce. Easier working conditions,
coupled with the successful performance that should result from
such a partnership, are likely to increase individuals’ attraction to
the team. Thus, we posit the following relationship:
Hypothesis 1: Individuals will experience greater attraction toward their teams when their levels of extraversion are dissimilar,
rather than similar, to that of team members.
Complementary Person-Team Fit
941
Member Attraction and Performance
Although an individual’s attraction to a team may influence the
group’s long-term viability, a more direct consequence is the individual’s behavior in the team setting. Members who are more attracted to their teams should be more likely to perform in ways that
benefit the team. Although the relationship between team-level cohesion and team performance depends on whether the team holds
high performance norms (Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995; Mullen
and Cooper, 1994), at the individual level, a member who is attracted
to the team should consistently perform in ways that other team
members value. These individuals should strive to support their
teams in accomplishing their objectives because they value the success of the team and their continued membership in it. Schriesheim
(1980) shows attraction to a team’s leader significantly influenced the
individual’s performance in the team (r 5 .24).
Performance may take the form of direct contributions to completing task-related activities, or indirect contributions through sustaining and supporting the team (Bales, 1948). This relationship
should hold, even if the team endorses low performance norms. For
example, if a person is attracted to a team with low performance
norms, that person is still likely to act in ways that other members
see as valuable (e,g., telling jokes, socializing, doing the appropriate
amount of work to reach the agreed-upon performance goal). Thus,
that person’s contributions would be rated as high by others on his
or her team, even though they may not result in higher team performance. Thus, we predict a positive relationship between attraction and an individual’s contributions, as rated by other members of
the team.
Hypothesis 2: Individuals with higher attraction toward their
teams will be rated by others as making greater contributions
than will those who are less attracted to their teams.
METHOD
Data for this study was based on existing data collected as part of two
larger studies designed to collect multiwave data on functioning teams.
Although some of this data has been used to address other distinct re-
942
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
search questions, there is no duplication in the causal relationships reported in the previously published research and in this study.
The hypotheses were tested first on the sample of MBA project teams,
described in detail in Kristof-Brown and Stevens (2001). Data collection
for that project involved assessing a wide range of individual characteristics, including goals (the focus of Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001) and
personality traits (the focus of this study). Because nonlinear relationships, such as those predicted in this study, are often difficult to replicate,
we wanted to verify that a distinct sample would provide similar results.
Barrick et al. (1998) had collected comparable, individual-level data from
a sample of manufacturing teams. Although the measures differ slightly,
verifying that similar results exist in both samples provides stronger evidence for the relationships reported.
Despite their different settings (a university class vs. a manufacturing
organization), both samples meet the criteria outlined by Guzzo & Dickson (1996) for being considered a team. Specifically, they: (a) viewed
themselves and were viewed by others as part of a social entity (either a
self-selected team with an identifiable name or an existing work unit that
reported to a single supervisor), (b) completed interdependent work (either course assignments or assembly/maintenance of a line of small appliances), (c) were embedded in a larger social system (either a
management class or an organization), and (d) performed tasks that affect others (either assignments turned in to a professor or small appliances
sold to customers).
Study 1
Sample and procedure. Participants included 324 full-time and part-time
MBA students (65.1% male) enrolled in eight sections of a core course.
As part of their regular class activities, all students self-selected into 4- to
7-member project teams that generated a written and oral case analysis
report worth 50% of the final course grade. Average team size was 5.39
(SD 5 .81). These teams (n 5 64) represented 86% of the total student
enrollment. Their mean age was 26.35 years (SD 5 3.52), and they averaged 3.65 years of full-time work experience (SD 5 3.03) in 1.66
(SD 5 1.26) organizations. Study participants were 59% Caucasian,
17% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 24% other ethnicities.
The team task necessitated intensive work by all project team members, including turning in a preliminary outline, meeting as a team with
the instructor to receive feedback, preparing a 15-page final report, and
making a final oral presentation. Participation in the study involved providing measures of: (a) personality, self-rated at the beginning of the
course; (b) attraction to the team, self-rated after several weeks of work-
Complementary Person-Team Fit
943
ing with the team; and (c) team-member contributions, rated by peers at
the conclusion of the course after the projects were completed.
Measures. Prior to beginning work on the team case analysis, participants completed Goldberg’s (1992) measure of extraversion. This measure consists of seven sets of bipolar adjectives on which participants were
asked to rate themselves as compared to other people of their same age.
The rating scale ranged from (1) very (Trait A) to (4) neither (Trait A or
Trait B) to (7) very (Trait B). Trait A and Trait B anchors for the scale
included: introverted–extroverted, unenergetic–energetic, silent–talkative,
timid–bold, inactive–active, unassertive–assertive, unadventurous–adventurous. Responses to these items were averaged to yield an extraversion
scale score, which demonstrated acceptable reliability (a 5 .84). We calculated the average level of team extraversion for each respondent by
averaging all team members’ scores, minus the focal respondent.
To evaluate individuals’ attraction toward the team we used Seers’s
(1989) eight-item cohesiveness scale because cohesiveness, when measured
at the individual level, has been defined as the degree to which members
are attracted to the team (Gully et al., 1995; Keyton & Springston, 1990).
After several weeks of working together, but prior to receiving a final
team grade, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with statements regarding their attraction toward the team (e.g., ‘‘I’d rather not be
on this team [reverse]). All items were scored on a 7-point scale anchored
by (1) strongly disagree through (4) neutral to (7) strongly agree. The scale
demonstrated acceptable reliability (a 5 .90).
Individual performance in the team context was evaluated by peers at
the conclusion of the course using Kristof-Brown and Stevens’s (2001)
measure of interpersonal (four items, i.e., ‘‘maintained positive outlook/
sense of humor in stressful situations,’’ a 5 .82) and task-related (seven
items, i.e., ‘‘contributed original ideas to case solution,’’ a 5 .91) contributions. Each individual was rated by every other member of the team on
how often he or she engaged in behaviors that contributed to the team’s
success: (1) never, (4) sometimes, (7) always. The average of all team
members’ ratings was used to determine an interpersonal and task-related
performance score for each participant (average ICC2 5 .60).
Study 2
Sample and procedure. Participants consisted of 217 members of 26 assembly and maintenance teams employed in two manufacturing firms. All
had the responsibility of working with their team to complete their major
work assignments. Average team size was 10.68 members (SD 5 4.21).
Participants had an average tenure in their organization of 17.22 years
944
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
(SD 5 6.17), and average tenure on their teams of 3.12 years (SD 5 3.09).
As part of a larger study of team effectiveness, participants completed the
Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI; Barrick & Mount, 1995) and
reported their individual perceptions of social attachment. Participants
completed all measures (demographic information, personality questionnaire, and perceptions of attraction) during a workshop on teams. The
assessment period was part of a week-long workshop on work teams,
involving all employees of the plants.
Measures. Participants completed the PCI’s extraversion scale, which
consists of 30 items (i.e., ‘‘I like initiating conversations with people I do
not know,’’ ‘‘I tend to be more of a follower than a leader’’ reversescored) averaged to yield a scale score. They rated each item on a 3-point,
Likert-type scale (from 1 5 disagree to 3 5 agree). The scale’s internal
consistency was acceptable (a 5 .86). As with the MBA sample, we calculated the average level of team extraversion by averaging the scores of
all individual members of the team, excluding the focal member.
Attraction toward the team was measured using Stokes’s (1983) sevenitem scale of social cohesiveness. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale
(1 5 strongly disagree; 5 5 strongly agree) to rate the extent to which they
agreed with statements regarding the team (e.g., ‘‘I get along well with
other members of this team.’’). The internal consistency of the scale was
acceptable (a 5 .89).
Individual performance was assessed using supervisor’s ratings of each
team member. An eight-item measure of individual performance was developed, based on a job analysis. Sample items include ‘‘Maintains good
working relationships with others,’’ ‘‘Demonstrates a consistent, dependable work effort and a positive work attitude.’’ Each individual was rated
on a 5-point scale (1 5 somewhat below expectations; 5 5 consistently exceeds requirements). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .85.
Analyses
A complementary fit relationship could best be evaluated by examining
the exact relationship between individual and team extraversion and
attraction. Polynomial regression (Edwards, 1993, 1994), which uses unconstrained regression equations to generate corresponding three-dimensional surface graphs of the relationship, permits the requisite degree of
precision (Edwards & Parry, 1993). The equation for the predicted fit
relationship includes separate measures of person and team extraversion,
the squared terms for each, and their interaction (see Edwards 1993,
1994). The expression for the equation is:
A ¼ b0 þ b1 P þ b2 T þ b3 P2 þ b4 PT þ b5 T2
Complementary Person-Team Fit
945
in which P represents an individual’s level of extraversion, T is the average level of extraversion of the remaining team members, and A is the
individual’s attraction toward the team. To reduce multicollinearity and
facilitate interpreting the graphs, all extraversion measures were first
scale-centered (Edwards, 1994), by subtracting the scale midpoint (4 on
Goldberg’s 7-point scale, 2 on the PCI’s 3-point scale). This makes the
range of P and T extraversion values -3 to 3 in the MBA sample, and -1 to
1 in the manufacturing sample. Polynomial regression has the advantage
of allowing us to examine the relationship with attraction across all levels
of extraversion. Furthermore, control variables such as team size and
variance on extraversion can be included in the regression. This is important because it isolates the impact of individuals’ unique fit relationships, independent of team characteristics that have been shown to
influence attraction at the team level.
Therefore, if the DR2 for this set of extraversion-related predictors is
statistically significant, it suggests that some type of relationship between
individual and team members’ extraversion levels influences attraction.
However, the nature of that relationship can only be determined by examining plots of the three-dimensional surfaces generated from the unstandardized regression coefficients (b1, b2, b3, b4, b5 from above). A
simple inspection of the graph can provide useful information of attraction levels under all conditions of person-team similarity and dissimilarity. One implication is that we can determine whether the same
relationship holds for extraverts and introverts. If a similar complementary fit relationship exists, higher levels of attraction will occur whenever
individual and average team extraversion levels are maximally different,
i.e., when an introvert (-3) is in a team of extraverts (3), or an extravert (3)
is in a team of introverts (-3). In the graph, this will appear as a u-shaped
surface running from the far left corner (i.e., 3, -3 in Figure 1) to the far
right (-3, 3 in Figure 1) corner of the graph.
RESULTS
To better identify the effects of person-team fit, we controlled for
two theoretically interesting variables. First, because team size has
been found to negatively relate to cohesion at the team level (Mullen
& Cooper, 1994), we controlled for its influence on members’ attraction toward their teams. In addition, we controlled for variability
of team members’ levels of extraversion. This was included because
Barry and Stewart’s (1997) results suggest that people in general
(regardless of their level of extraversion) prefer to be in groups that
are balanced with respect to the representation of extraverts. Thus,
946
MBA Teams
3 1.8
1.8
0.6 − 0.6
− 0.6 0.6
−
1.8
−
1.8
n
−
3
Team
−3
Perso
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Attraction
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
3
Figure 1
Surface plots of unstandardized regression weights for individual
and average team extraversion with attraction to the team in the
MBA teams sample.
controlling for the variance on this trait allows stronger conclusions
regarding the impact of person-team fit to be drawn. The variance
score for each respondent was calculated using the same procedure
as for the team average, by taking the variance of all team members’
scores, minus the score of the focal respondent.
Descriptive statistics and correlations for all measures for the
MBA sample are reported in Table 1 and for the manufacturing
sample in Table 2. In both samples there is a statistically significant
positive correlation between individual extraversion and attraction
toward team. In the manufacturing sample, the correlation between
average team extraversion and attraction was also statistically significant. As expected, in both samples, attraction toward the team
was positively correlated to team variance on extraversion and negatively related to team size.
To test Hypothesis 1, we regressed individuals’ attraction to their
teams on the two control variables, followed by the five fit-related
terms (individual extraversion (P), team extraversion (T), individual
extraversion squared (P2), individual team extraversion (PT), team
extraversion squared (T2), in each sample. Table 3 reports that the
2
3
4
5
6
7
.34n
.01
.07
(.84)c
.02 .18n
.00
.10
.09
.23n .10 (.90)
.02 .03 .02 .14n .23n (.82)
.04 .01
.00 .06 .14n .64n (.91)
1
N 5 324; baverage team member extraversion is the team average minus the focal member;
values on the diagonal are a reliabilities for the scales.
c
a
.81
.04
.78
.39
.98
.46
.48
5.39
.04
5.07
5.07
5.46
6.50
6.51
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Team size
Extraversion variance
Individual extraversion (Goldberg, 1992)
Average team extraversionb
Attraction to the team (Seers, 1989)
Interpersonal contributions (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001)
Task contributions (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001)
Mean SD
Samplea
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations of Study Variables for the MBA Teams Sample
b
4.21
.08
.39
.21
.77
.84
SD
.13
.21
.41n
.22n
.25n
1
c
N 5 217; average team member extraversion is the team average minus the focal member;
values on the diagonal are a reliabilities for the scales.
a
10.68
.14
1.93
1.93
3.57
3.53
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Team size
Extraversion variance
Individual extraversion (Barrick & Mount, 1995)
Average team extraversionb
Attraction to the team (Stokes, 1983)
Individual performance (new measure)
Mean
Samplea
.07
.08
.14n
.19n
2
(.86)c
.18n
.20n
.17n
3
.16n
.09
4
(.87)
.49n
5
(.85)
6
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations of Study Variables for the Manufacturing Teams
Sample
949
Complementary Person-Team Fit
Table 3
Results From Polynomial Regressions of Attraction to the Team on
Individual and Team Extraversion
MBA teamsa
Controls:
Size
Team variance on
extraversion
P (b1)
T (b2
P2 (b3)
PT (b4)
T2 (b5)
c
R2
d
DR2
Manufacturing teamsb
.10
1.74
.43
.29
.09
.31
.15
.09n
.08n
Controls:
Size
Team variance on
extraversion
P (b1)
T (b2)
P2 (b3)
PT (b4)
T2(b5)
R2
DR2
.03n
.90
.19
.32
.11
1.78n
.08
.12n
.06n
a
N 5 317 for MBA sample; bN 5 217 for manufacturing sample; po.05
R2 is the overall explained variance for the model including all predictors.
d
DR2 indicates the increase in explained variance in the polynomial analysis due to
the addition of the fit terms.
c
amount of variance explained by the set of fit terms, beyond the
control variables, was statistically significant for both samples
(MBA sample DR2 5 .08, po.05; manufacturing sample DR2 5 .05,
po.05. Although these results suggest that some relationship exists
between individual extraversion, average team extraversion, and attraction, they do not specify the form of relationship. To determine
whether complementary fit existed, we examined the surface plots.
The resulting graphs, shown in Figures 1 and 2, for the MBA and
Manufacturing samples, respectively, showed the predicted u-shaped
relationship. Both graphs begin at a high point in the far left corner,
decline toward the middle of the graph, and then rise again on the far
right corner. This indicates that attraction to the team was highest
when the individual was high on extraversion and the team was low
and when the individual was low and the team was high. Thus, Hypothesis 1, which predicted a complementary fit relationship for extraversion and attraction to the team, was supported in both samples.
Simply stated, extraverts are more attracted to teams where others are
introverted, and introverts are more attracted to teams of extraverts.
Hypothesis 2 stated that individual members’ attraction to their
teams would be positively related to their performance in the team
950
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
Manufacturing Teams
8
7
5
4
Attraction
6
3
2
1
0
1
0. 6
0.2
− 0.2
Team − 0.6 − 1 − 1
− 0.6
0.2
− 0.2
on
r
Pe s
0.6
1
Figure 2
Surface plots of unstandardized regression weights for individual
and average team extraversion with attraction to the team in the
manufacturing teams sample.
context. For the MBA sample, we tested this hypothesis by examining the bivariate correlations of the individual performance measures with individuals’ attraction to the team. As predicted, there was
a statistically significant relationship between individuals’ attraction
to the team and peer ratings of their interpersonal (r 5 .23, po.05)
and task (r 5 .14, po.05) performance. In the manufacturing teams
sample, the bivariate correlation between individuals’ attraction to
the team and supervisor’s ratings of their individual performance
was also positive (r 5 .48, po.05), supporting Hypothesis 2 in the
field sample. Therefore, in both samples, there is evidence that individual team members who are more attracted to their teams are
viewed by others as contributing more to the team than those who
are less attracted to their teams.
DISCUSSION
This study explored whether complementary person-team fit on extraversion influences individual members’ attraction to their teams
Complementary Person-Team Fit
951
and subsequent performance. In two independent samples, we found
that members reported greater attraction to their teams when their
level of extraversion was dissimilar to the average level of extraversion of other team members. These results suggest a complementary
fit relationship between extraversion and attraction that holds for
extraverts as well as introverts. This finding is significant as it is
generally assumed that similarity on psychological characteristics
will result in more positive consequences, and complementary fit is
relevant only for knowledge or skills (Klimoski & Jones, 1995). Our
results directly contradict this assumption. In addition, we found
that when individual team members are more attracted to their
teams, they make greater individual contributions to that team’s
success. Taken together, these results underscore the need to understand more fully how personality traits of individual team members
influence their experiences in teams.
Our results contribute to the existing literatures on both P-E fit
and personality in teams. Although several authors have advocated
the importance of fit within teams (e.g., Judge & Ferris, 1992; Werbel
& Gilliland, 1999), few empirical studies have investigated this topic.
Instead, research has emphasized the fit between supervisors and
subordinates (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991; Witt, 1998), employees
and their cohorts (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991), or employees and all
existing members of their organizations (Ferris, Youngblood, &
Yates, 1985). In addition, this study used a precise analytical technique to empirically demonstrate a complementary fit relationship
across two independent samples. To our knowledge, such a relationship on a personality trait has never been reported or verified in
independent samples. Furthermore, this study contributes to the
personality in teams literature by being the first to show that individual members’ attitudes toward their teams are influenced by person-team fit, even after controlling for team-level composition. As
such, they rule out the alternative explanation that team-level variability can best explain individual-level outcomes in team settings.
As interest in personality predictors of work-related outcomes has
increased, our results demonstrate the utility of examining personality in context. Studies that show that organizations develop modal
personalities over time, supporting Schneider’s (1987) attractionselection-attrition model, may be used as models for examining
whether such processes also occur at the team level. If they do, the
implication is that teams will seek to add similar others, rather than
952
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
seeking diversity on traits like extraversion. Thus, just as Schneider,
Goldstein, and Smith (1995) warned of the ‘‘dark side of good fit’’
for organizations (i.e., the desire for supplementary fit resulting in
excessive homogeneity), there are negative consequences of allowing
such processes to occur within work teams.
Taken together, our results and those by Barry and Stewart (1997)
reveal that extraversion is especially important in work settings requiring a high degree of social interaction, such as work teams. At
the individual level, our findings show that extraversion affects
group functioning through its impact on socioemotional interactions that take place among group members, and each member’s
standing on this trait influences the effectiveness of those interactions. Specifically, dissimilarity in members’ level of extraversion
stimulated feelings of attraction toward the team. This contradicts
the notion that homogeneity in groups is the primary means by
which one enhances cohesion and communication (Byrne, 1971;
Turner, 1987). As meta-analyses have demonstrated the positive effect between individuals’ attraction to a team and their performance
in the team setting (Gully et al., 1995; Mullen & Copper, 1994), our
results also offer insight into how personality complementarity may
induce individuals to contribute more fully to team-based work.
Future research should focus on better understanding why complementarity is preferable on extraversion. We have argued that the
process is one of need fulfillment, in which extraverts and introverts
have their needs met through interpersonal interactions with each
other. This proposition could be directly tested by assessing needs
and need satisfaction in homogeneous and heterogenous teams.
Furthermore, recent research has linked extraversion with broader
constructs such as approach-motivation (Elliot & Thrash, 2002)
and positive emotionality/temperament (Watson & Clark, 1997).
It is unclear whether complementarity on these broader characteristics would be desirable or whether the more common finding
of supplementary fit would prevail. Research conducted on these
characteristics from a person-environment fit perspective would be
informative.
One limitation of this study is that individuals’ reports of extraversion and feelings of attraction were both collected using selfreports. This raises the possibility that correlated errors and common
method bias may have increased the correlation between these two
variables. However, because the relationships we demonstrated were
Complementary Person-Team Fit
953
complex, involving the additional component of team extraversion
(measured as the average of others’ self-reports), it is unlikely that
such bias could explain the pattern of our results. Moreover, the
likely impact of common method bias would have been to strengthen
the main effect for individual extraversion, making it less likely to
demonstrate the more complicated complementary fit relationship.
Moreover, this study has several strengths that bolster confidence
in our conclusions. The use of two independent samples from diverse
team settings provided a stringent test of our hypotheses. Although
both samples contained work teams experiencing genuine performance incentives, the type of work they performed was very different.
The MBA teams included demographically diverse members who
worked on a problem-solving task for several weeks. Alternatively,
the manufacturing teams were demographically similar and engaged
in behavioral tasks (McGrath, 1984) that involved high planning and
performance demands over a period of several years. Replicating the
complementary fit relationship across these diverse samples, time
frames, and tasks suggests the robustness of this phenomenon. Disadvantages of this approach, however, are that different measures
were used in both studies and a limited number of meaningful control variables existed across both contexts. Additional variables such
as leader behaviors and average team tenure might also influence
attraction in at least one of the contexts.
A second strength is that we used measures of actual average team
extraversion, rather than individuals’ perceptions of their team’s extraversion. This is beneficial because it suggests that managers can
use information obtained from personality tests to construct teams
that will result in more positive experiences for their members.
Our findings have important implications for selection as they
suggest that one should not only consider the attributes of the candidate being considered for hire but also those of the other team
members. They provide empirical support for the notion recently
advocated by others that fit should be taken into consideration during hiring and placement activities in addition to person-job fit,
which has traditionally been the emphasis of selection decisions
(Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). Our results also provide support for the
usefulness of personality tests as selection devices. As work becomes
more frequently organized using work teams, it is apparent that
noncognitive predictors, particularly those assessing social skills, will
be increasingly important to include in a selection battery.
954
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
In conclusion, the present study provides substantial support for
the complementary nature of extraversion in work teams. When
work teams have too many dominant team members (or too few),
individuals encounter more difficulties in getting along with each
other, which, in turn, may lead to worse individual performance.
Rather than birds of a feather flocking together, with regard to extraversion in work teams, opposites attract.
REFERENCES
Assouline, M., & Meir, E. I. (1987). Meta-analysis of the relationship between
congruence and well-being measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 319–
332.
Bales, R. F. (1948). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small
groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and
job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1995). The Personal Characteristics Inventory
manual. Unpublished manuscript, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating
member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance and in
self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 62–78.
Bretz, R. D., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An
examination of the attachment-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology, 42, 561–581.
Burke, R. J., & Deszca, E. (1982). Preferred organizational climates of Type A
individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 50–59.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attachment paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Day, D. V., & Bedeian, A. G. (1995). Personality similarity and work-related
outcomes among African-American nursing personnel: A test of the supplementary model of P-E congruence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 55–70.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.
Edwards, J. R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the
study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46,
641–665.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.
Complementary Person-Team Fit
955
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression
equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.
Elphick, E., Halverson, C. F. Jr., & Marszal-Wisniewska, M. (1998). Extraversion: Toward a unifying description from infancy to adulthood. In G. A. Kohnstamm & C. F. Halverson Jr., et al. (Eds). Parental descriptions of child
personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? (pp. 21–48). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Youngblood, S. A., & Yates, V. L. (1985). Personality, training
performance, and withdrawal: A test of the person-group fit hypothesis for
organizational newcomers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 377–388.
French, J. R. P. Jr., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1982). The mechanisms of
job stress and strain. London: Wiley.
Ghiselli, E.E, & Lodahl, T. M. (1958). The evaluation of foremen’s performance
in relation to the internal characteristics of their work groups. Personnel Psychology, 11, 179–187.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 493–509.
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion
and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small
Group Research, 26, 497–520.
Gurtman, M. B. (2001). Interpersonal complementarity: Integrating interpersonal
measurement with interpersonal models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48,
97–110.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research
on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47,
307–338.
Harrison, D.A, Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams,
and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on
group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045.
Harrison, D.A, Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography:
Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.
Hoffman, L. R. (1959). Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on
group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 27–32.
Hoffman, L.R, & Maier, N. R. F. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem
solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 401–407.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resource
staffing decisions. Human Resource Planning, 15 (4), 47–67.
956
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens
Keyton, J., & Springston, J. (1990). Redefining cohesiveness in groups. Small
Group Research, 21, 234–254.
Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. G. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision making:
Key issues in matching people and teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 291–
332). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Stevens, C. K. (2001). Goal congruence in project teams:
Does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1083–1095.
Lawler, E. E. III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. Jr. 1995. Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total
quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural
evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 79, 452–468.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally-based theory
and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26,
356–376.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of
personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–217.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee
attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work
units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342–358.
Ryan, A. M., & Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2003). Personality’s role in person-organization fit: Unresolved issues. Barrick, M. & Ryan, A. M. (Eds.), Personality
and work (pp. 262–288). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sackett, P. R., Gruys, M. L., & Ellington, J. E. (1998). Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
545–556.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40,
437–453.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An
update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 462–470.
Complementary Person-Team Fit
957
Schriesheim, J. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
65, 183–194.
Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for rolemaking research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43,
118–135.
Smelser, W. T. (1961). Dominance as a factor in achievement and perception in
cooperative problem solving interactions. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 62, 535–542.
Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Intermember attraction, instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Behavior, 14, 163–173.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational
demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly,
37, 547–579.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person–organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology,
44, 333–352.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core.
In R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson, et al. (Eds.). Handbook of personality psychology
(pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). Person-environment fit in the selection
process. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.). Research in personnel in human resource management: Vol. 17 (pp. 209–243). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Wiggins, J.S, & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the big
five. In R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson, et al. (Eds.) Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 737–765). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Witt, L. A. (1998). Enhancing goal congruence: A solution to organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 666–674.
958