SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 1

Submitted to: Group and Organization Management

Creating inclusive teams through perceptions of supplementary and complementary person-team

fit: Examining the relationship between person-team fit and team effectiveness

Abstract

This study focuses on the consequences of two types of perceived person-team fit on

team effectiveness. Using a multi-wave design, we examined if individual team members’

perceptions of supplementary and complementary person-team fit, as well as shared perceptions

of both fit types at the team-level, relate to team performance and team members’ satisfaction

with the team, perceived viability of the team, and creativity. In a sample of 121 college students

participants (grouped in 30 teams), the results showed that shared perceptions of both types of fit

were related to team outcomes. In particular, teams where members shared perceptions of high

supplementary and high complementary fit performed best and reported the highest levels of

satisfaction, viability, and creativity. Our results hence confirm the central tenet of Optimal

Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer, 1991) and the social inclusion/exclusion model (Shore et al.,

2011), namely that the interaction between supplementary and complementary fit matters as this

creates an inclusive climate in teams.

Keywords: Person-team fit, Team effectiveness, Creativity, Satisfaction, Performance, Viability

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 2

Creating inclusive teams through perceptions of supplementary and complementary person-team

fit: Examining the relationship between person-team fit and team effectiveness

Introduction

Teamwork in organizations is increasingly the norm, yet the challenges of working

effectively in teams are considerable (Salas, Goodwin, & Burke, 2008). Teams are opted for in a

flexible and changeable business environment to deliver creative ideas and top performances.

Hence, a key question for scholars has been to identify those conditions and characteristics of

teams that spur high levels of performance. This question became even more relevant the last

decade, as organizational teams became increasingly assorted (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000;

Webber & Donahue, 2001). This trend is demonstrated in terms of demographic attributes such

as race, sex, and age, as well as deeper-level characteristics such as values and skills (Halfhill,

Sundstrom, Lahner, Calderone, & Nielsen, 2005). A prime focus of research has therefore been

to investigate how team members’ objective (dis)similarities relate to team attitudes and

behaviors (e.g. Mannix & Neale, 2005). Because teams are also confronted with subjective

(dis)similarities, perceived person-team fit or the perceived compatibility between individual

team members and their team (Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996; Schneider, 1987) can be

considered as a concomitant challenge to team effectiveness. Team members compare their

personal characteristics with those of other team members and construct a sense of fit within the

team. These subjective perceptions of person-team fit are theoretically more likely to affect

reactions than objective fit (Caplan, 1987), meaning that studying subjective perceptions of

person-team fit is crucial to understand team performance.

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 3

Although previous research mostly showed that high degrees of fit predict positive work

outcomes, inconsistent findings have been reported (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). We believe

that these inconsistent findings are due to prior studies neglecting two fundamental aspects of fit.

First, an ongoing debate concerns the disparity of fit in terms of similarities (i.e., possessing

characteristics that are similar to an environment) versus complementarities (i.e., possessing

characteristics that complement an environment). In the person-environment fit literature the first

condition, labeled supplementary fit, has been at the forefront of research, while the second

condition, referred to as complementary fit, has been largely overlooked (Kristof, 1996; Ostroff,

2012; Piasentin & Chapman, 2007). We propose, building on Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

(ODT; - Brewer, 1991), that both types of fit need to be considered as the effects of

supplementary fit are contingent on the perceived level of complementary fit. We will argue that

teams perform best when their members perceive high levels of both supplementary and

complementary fit, as this simultaneously satisfies team members’ need for belonging and need

for uniqueness, thus creating an inclusive team (Shore et al., 2011).

Second, teams are complex systems, meaning that the combination of fit perceptions

across all team members may play a crucial role when explaining outcomes at the team level. For

example, a single team member may perform better if he or she believes that there is a good fit

with the rest of the team. But if the other team members do not share similar perceptions—they

believe that they do not fit with the rest of the team—the team is unlikely to perform well as a

group. We therefore believe argue that both individual- and team-level perceptions of fit ought to

receive attention. While Seong and Kristof-Brown (2012) state that there is a burgeoning interest

in the idea of team-level fit, an empirical test of this idea remains lacking to date.

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 4

We build on ODT (Brewer, 1991) and the social inclusion/exclusion model (Shore et al.,

2011) to argue that supplementary and complementary fit interact on the individual- and the

team-level. We will demonstrate that these interactions explain individual outcomes (satisfaction

with the team, viability of the team, creativity) and team outcomes (team performance).

Moreover, by adopting a multilevel perspective on fit (Ostroff & Schultze, 2007), we are able to

demonstrate that team-level perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit are more

important than individual-level perceptions of both fit constructs. We hence contribute to the fit

literature by illustrating the importance of separating supplementary from complementary fit, and

by revealing that person-team fit needs to be studied at the appropriate level: the team.

Person-team fit

Person-team fit is a refinement of person-environment fit, which is grounded in the

interactionist theory of behavior. This theory proposes that behavior is a function of the person

and the environment (Lewin, 1951). Consequently, person-environment fit is defined as the

degree of congruence between personal and situational characteristics (Muchinsky & Monahan,

1987). Person-environment fit is an overarching concept, meaning that individuals perceive

various types of fit such as person-organization fit, person-job fit, person-vocation fit, and

person-supervisor fit (Kristof, 1996). Perceptions of person-team fit form a relatively

underdeveloped area of research compared to these other types of fit (Kristof-Brown & Guay,

2011). Nevertheless, people continuously assess whether their own characteristics are

(dis)similar to those of other team members. From this perspective, person-team fit can be

defined as the perceived compatibility between individual team members and their team

(Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996; Schneider, 1987). Two remarks need to be made to further

clarify how we define person-team fit in this study. First, person-team fit—as any other type of

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 5

fit—can be viewed in objective and subjective terms. An objective view on fit requires that

individual and environmental characteristics are separately rated and subsequently compared

(Cable & Judge, 1996; Kristof, 1996). In contrast, subjective appraisals of fit (i.e., perceived fit)

require that individuals compare their own characteristics against those in their environment and

rate their perceived level of fit. We focus on perceptions of person-team fit, as these subjective

appraisals are more closely linked to actual behavior than objective appraisals (Caplan, 1987).

Second, person-team fit can be assessed along several dimensions, such as values, personality,

goals, needs, or abilities (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Stevens, 2005). While the fit of these

distinct dimensions can be assessed separately, research shows that they tend to be highly

correlated (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). As a result, we focus on general perceptions of fit—also

called multidimensional or molar fit (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006;

Edwards & Shipp, 2007; Seong & Kristof-Brown, 2012).

A recent meta-analysis shows that person-team fit relates positively to organizational

commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance, and negatively to intentions to quit (Oh et

al., 2013). Nonetheless, a major shortcoming of person-team fit studies to date is that they view

fit merely in terms of similarity, which refers to supplementary fit (Muchinsky & Monahan,

1987). From this perspective, fit will be experienced when team members perceive that their own

characteristics are similar to those of other team members. However, fit can also be experienced

in a particular situation of dissimilarity among individuals (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987).

Following this perspective, complementary fit will be experienced when people perceive that

their characteristics add something that was missing to the team. Ostroff (2012, p. 379) described

it as: “a complementary compilation of attributes that differ but support and reinforce one

another”. It is important to note that complementary fit does not occur simply in absence of

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 6

perceived similarity and, thus, it is not the conceptual opposite of supplementary fit (Piasentin &

Chapman, 2007). Hence, one can both feel like he or she supplements and complements a team.

Several authors have argued that studying complementary fit next to supplementary fit is

relevant for a number of reasons. First, including both types of fit provides a more holistic view

of fit and thus offers a more complete picture of reality (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). Second,

while both types of fit are proposed to be positively related, it is believed that they independently

contribute to outcomes (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Piasentin & Chapman, 2010). Third, taking

complementary fit into account may explain why previous studies yielded inconsistent results

(DeRue & Morgeson, 2007). We add a fourth argument to this list to emphasize the need to

simultaneously consider supplementary and complementary fit. Based on Optimal

Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer, 1991), both types of fit need to be considered together because

they satisfy two distinct needs of team members (the need to belong and the need to feel unique).

Inclusive teams—i.e., teams where both needs are satisfied—are theorized to be most effective

(Shore et al., 2011), meaning that the interaction between supplementary fit (which satisfies the

need to belong) and complementary fit (which satisfies the need to feel unique) should be

considered when explaining team outcomes.

Optimal distinctiveness theory and the social inclusion/exclusion model

Optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) states that two opposing needs—the need for

belonging and the need for uniqueness—have to be reconciled (Brewer, 1991; Leonardelli,

Pickett, Brewer, 2010). On the one hand, people have a desire to belong and be immersed in a

social group. Yet, on the other hand, people also want to feel unique. These two needs form

opposing forces, meaning that groups that focus solely on assimilation will satisfy the need for

belonging at the expense of the need for uniqueness. When one need is satisfied at the expense of

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 7

the other need, the individual’s sense of security and self-worth is threatened. People therefore

seek equilibrium between both needs, in which case they identify strongly with their social

group.

The social inclusion/exclusion model (Shore et al., 2011) extends ODT and posits that

team members judge if they are an esteemed group member by comparing themselves with other

group members and evaluating whether their need for belonging and need for uniqueness are

satisfied. Importantly, this model states that both needs need to be considered simultaneously to

assess whether a team is inclusive or exclusive. Shore and colleagues (2011) propose that teams

perform best when team members perceive that they are an accepted member of the team (thus

satisfying the need for belonging) and that their unique characteristics are valued by the team

(thus satisfying the need for uniqueness). By taking both needs into account, the social

inclusion/exclusion model arrives at four possible combinations (see Figure 1).

Insert Figure 1 about here

According to this model, inclusion yields desirable outcomes such as high quality

relationships between group members, increased job satisfaction, performance, organizational

citizenship, commitment, wellbeing, creativity, and intentions to stay. Shore and colleagues

(2011) argue that these positive outcomes come about because inclusion removes status

differences and levels the playing field, meaning that group members feel free to be themselves

and express their opinions. Inclusion also stimulates identification and attachment to the team,

improves trust in other team members and reduces chances of conflict in the team. Moreover,

inclusion elicits enhanced performance and organizational citizenship behavior because team

members reciprocate the favorable treatment by the team (Gouldner, 1960). Finally, inclusion

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 8

enables cognitive processes such as encoding information in multiple ways and creating many

associations between concepts, possibly stimulating creativity.

Developing hypothesesHypothesis Development

In the following section, we build on ODT and the social inclusion/exclusion model to

explain why supplementary and complementary fit influence individual- and team-level

outcomes. Figure 2 provides an overview of our research model. As can be seen in this figure,

we focus on satisfaction with the team (the degree to which the team delivers what someone

expects from it (Hackman, 1987)), team viability (the willingness to continue working as a team

(Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1987)), and creativity (the degree to which a person creates

something new that has some kind of value (Mumford, 2003)) as outcomes at the individual

level. At the team level, we focus on the performance of the team, based on third-party ratings of

performance. Moreover, we examine effects of supplementary and complementary fit as

perceived by individual team members and as shared perceptions of fit within the team.

Insert Figure 2 about here

Supplementary and complementary fit at the individual level

There is a clear link between supplementary and complementary fit on the one hand and

the needs for belonging and uniqueness on the other hand. The need for belonging assumes that

team members are assimilated, meaning that the similarity between among team members is

emphasized (Brewer, 1991). Given that supplementary person-team fit is described as similarity

between among team members, it stands to reason that supplementary person-team fit satisfies

the need for belonging. The need for uniqueness assumes that team members are valued for their

unique characteristics (Shore et al., 2011). As complementary fit can be described as having

unique characteristics that add to the team, it makes sense that complementary person-team fit

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 9

satisfies the need for uniqueness. Based on these arguments, we propose that team members who

perceive high levels of supplementary and complementary person-team fit will feel included in

their team, which will lead to positive outcomes (Shore et al., 2011).

This proposition differs from those in previous studies on diversity and fit, as we focus on

the interaction between supplementary and complementary fit. Nonetheless, these prior studies—

which focused exclusively on main effects—are informative for our study. For example, it has

been argued that similarity facilitates interpersonal attraction and liking, because interacting with

similar others leads to self-affirmation (Byrne, 1971). Studies indeed show that individuals who

perceive similarities with others are more attracted to them and are more satisfied (Bleda, 1974;

Gevers & Peeters, 2009; Strauss, Barrick, & Connerly, 2001). Moreover, supplementary person-

organization fit has been shown to relate to positive outcomes such as higher job satisfaction and

organizational commitment (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Likewise, it has

been theorized that dissimilarities between team members can improve creativity, because they

lead to a broader range of viewpoints (Roberge & Van Dick, 2010) and increased quality in

decision making (Van Knippenberg, De Drue, & Homan, 2004). Moreover, members of

complementary teams may search more broadly for information, consider more alternative

solutions, and engage in vigorous debate before taking a decision (Jackson & Joshi, 2011). Meta-

analyses support the proposition that diversity can spark creativity in team members (Bowers et

al., 2000; Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). In sum, based on prior research one could

argue that supplementary fit relates positively to outcomes such as satisfaction and perceived

viability of the team, while complementary fit relates positively to creativity.

We extend these findings by hypothesizing that the interaction between supplementary

and complementary fit needs to be considered as well. Individuals who perceive a high level of

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 10

supplementary fit will be even more satisfied with their team and perceive a higher viability of

their team, when they also perceive that team members appreciate their unique characteristics

(i.e., high complementary fit). Individuals who perceive a high level of complementary fit will be

even more creative when they also perceive that they have a lot in common with their team

members (i.e., high supplementary fit).

Hypothesis 1: At the individual-level, complementary fit moderates (i.e., acting as an enhancer)

the relationship between supplementary fit and (a) satisfaction with the team, (b) perceived

viability of the team, and (c) creativity.

Hypothesis 1a: At the individual-level, complementary fit moderates (i.e., acting as an enhancer)

the relationship between supplementary fit and satisfaction with the team.

Hypothesis 1b: At the individual-level, complementary fit moderates (i.e., acting as an enhancer)

the relationship between supplementary fit and perceived viability of the team.

Hypothesis 1c: At the individual-level, supplementary fit moderates (i.e., acting as an enhancer)

the relationship between complementary fit and creativity.

Shared perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit at the team level

While researchers have recently expressed their interest in the idea of team-level fit

(Seong & Kristof-Brown, 2012), studies to date focused mainly on individual-level perceptions.

Kozlowski and Klein (2000, p. 15) state that “many phenomena in organizations have their

theoretical foundation in the cognition, affect, behavior, and characteristics of individuals which

—through social interaction, exchange, and amplification—have emergent properties that

manifest at higher levels”. Chan (1998) mentions that person-organization fit forms an ideal

concept for multilevel research. We follow this line of reasoning and argue that shared

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 11

perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit at the team-level are relevant to examine.

According to Schneider and Reicher’s (1983) symbolic interaction explanation, shared

perceptions of fit emerge because individuals learn, through repeated interactions, if other team

members share their own perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit. It is important to

note that we consider team-level supplementary and complementary fit as shared perceptions of

team members with regards to these two fit types, meaning that we apply a direct consensus

model (Chan, 1998). In such a model, the definitions of supplementary and complementary fit

remain the same at the individual- and the team-level, except that the team-level focuses on the

degree to which team members share perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit.

Studies in other domains demonstrated that aggregate perceptions of individual-level

concepts are important to explain team- or organization-level outcomes (Ehrhart, 2004; Simons

& Roberson, 2003). In the case of supplementary and complementary fit, the social

inclusion/exclusion model proposes that “inclusive climates” should be considered (Shore et al.,

2011). In a team with an inclusive climate, resistance and conflict between team members is

minimized because all team members feel that they belong and feel respected (Shore et al.,

2011). In other words, in teams with an inclusive climate, all team members share the perception

that they simultaneously supplement and complement the team. We believe that team-level

perceptions of fit are more likely to influence team-level outcomes than individual-level

perceptions of fit. For example, suppose that team member A believes that he supplements and

complements the other team members. As shown in previous research (eg., Kristof-Brown et al.,

2005), these individual-level perceptions of fit will affect the individual’s attitudes and

behaviors. However, if other team members do not share team member A’s perceptions of high

supplementary and complementary fit, the team as a whole is unlikely to perform well. Hence,

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 12

we propose that teams will perform best, when team members share the perception of high levels

of supplementary and complementary person-team fit, meaning that the team is characterized by

an inclusive climate (Shore et al., 2011).

Hypothesis 2: At the team-level, shared perceptions of complementary fit moderate (i.e., acting

as an enhancer) the relationship between shared perceptions of supplementary fit and team

performance.

Next to the single-level relationship put forward in hypothesis 2, cross-level relationships

may also exist between team-level perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit on the

one hand and individual-level outcomes on the other (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004). In other words, team-

level fit may influence individuals’ satisfaction with their team, perceived team viability, and

creativity. This is because individual team members are likely to thrive in teams with an

inclusive climate (Shore et al., 2011). First, teams with an inclusive climate will experience

fewer conflicts between among team members, meaning that individual team members may

report higher levels of satisfaction and team viability. Second, members are more likely to share

opinions in teams with an inclusive climate, which may enhance the creativity of each individual

team member because they are exposed to heterogeneous views (Shore et al., 2011). Hence, we

expect:

Hypothesis 3a: At the team-level, shared perceptions of complementary fit moderate (i.e., acting

as an enhancer) the relationship between shared perceptions of supplementary fit and the

average level of satisfaction in the team.

Hypothesis 3b: At the team-level, shared perceptions of complementary fit moderate (i.e., acting

as an enhancer) the relationship between shared perceptions of supplementary fit and the

average level of perceived viability in the team.

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 13

Hypothesis 3c: At the team-level, shared perceptions of supplementary fit moderate (i.e., acting

as an enhancer) the relationship between shared perceptions of complementary fit and the

average level of creativity in the team.

Method

Participants and procedure

We collected multiple-wave data (during an 18-week long team project in 2010-2011) in

a group of 121 college students participating in a course on Strategic Management in a large

Dutch university. This sample contained more female (71.07%) than male (28.93%) students.

Participating students were in the xxth year of their five year curriculum and had similar ages

(M= , SD= ). All students were randomly divided into project teams with three to five members

that collaborated on the course assignment. The assignment involved a real-life company in

hospitality business for which the students had to develop new ideas for value adding practices.

Comparing the size of our sample (Nlevel1=121 students; Nlevel2=30 teams) to simulation studies on

statistical power in multilevel research suggests that we have sufficient power to detect large

(ES=.80, power=.95) to medium (ES=.50, power=.60) but low power to detect small (ES=.20,

power=.15) simple fixed-effects (Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009).

For the purpose of this study, we focus on two particular waves of data that were

collected. In the first wave (15 weeks after the group formation), the students reported on their

perceived person-team fit using an online survey (response rate = 76.86%). In the second wave

(18 weeks after group formation), they reported on the individual-level outcomes—namely

satisfaction with team, perceived viability of the team, and creativity—using a similar online

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 14

survey (response rate = 88.43%). Concurrently, each project team received a grade on their

course assignment, which we used as a third-party measure of team performance.

Measures

Perceived supplementary and complementary person-team fit - Participants completed

Piasentin and Chapman’s (2007) multidimensional1 measure of perceived fit in wave one. The

original measure consists of seventeen items (i.e. nine supplementary and eight complementary

items). However, we omitted certain items before computing scale scores for three reasons. First,

we left out one supplementary item (i.e. ‘the underlying philosophy of this organization reflects

what I value in a company’) because we did not consider it applicable in a team context. Second,

we removed three reversed-keyed items of the supplementary fit scale because respondents

consistently labeled them as confusing, which resulted in low factor loadings. Third, we removed

one supplementary fit item and three complementary fit items because they did not contain a

clear referent (e.g., values, skills, or abilities) with regards to person-team fit. Items lacking a

clear referent may pose a problem when aggregating to the team-level, because it is uncertain if

respondents referred to the same phenomenon when answering these items. Hence, only items

with a clear referent were retained (see Appendix for an overview of retained items).

The wording of the items was slightly adapted to capture person-team fit instead of

person-organization fit. We changed the words ‘employees/coworkers’ into ‘team members’ and

the words ‘company/organization’ into ‘team’. Participants were asked to rate themselves on a

seven point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Finally, because

23.14% of the responses on the supplementary and complementary fit items were missing at

1 Because shared perceptions of fit emerge over time, it is possible that supplementary and complementary person-team fit perceptions were not yet shared at the team-level after two and seven weeks. We therefore checked rwg scores of the supplementary and complementary fit scales to ensure that these prior waves of data could be used for imputation purposes. All average rwg scores exceeded .80, indicating that these earlier waves of data could indeed be used.

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 15

Time 1, we used an EM-algorithm to impute missing data. Such an imputation technique is

appropriate when it is based on previously collected waves of data containing the same variables

(Twisk & de Vente, 2002). Therefore, we used responses on the same supplementary and

complementary fit scales that we collected in two prior waves (two weeks and seven weeks after

team formation2) that are otherwise not included for the main purposes of this paper. As a result,

the amount of missing data was reduced to 2.48% of the responses on the supplementary and

complementary fit items.

Outcome variables - We measured three individual-level outcome variables in the second

wave. First, satisfaction with the team was measured with a five-item scale by Vogel and

Feldman (2009), e.g. ‘I get along well with the people of my team on a day-to-day basis’ (α

= .83)3. Second, viability of the team was measured with a five-item scale by Tekleab, Quigely,

and Tesluk (2009), e.g. ‘I would be happy to work with the team members on other projects in

the future’ (α = .88). Third, students were asked to evaluate their individual creativity in the team

project, on two self-developed items (i.e., idea generation and idea implementation, r = .57)

ranging from did not offer any… (1) to offered a lot of creative ideas (5) for item 1 and did

never…(1) to often succeeded to bring creative ideas into practice for item 2. Next to these

2 Although this scale was originally designed to measure person-group fit, a number of experts in the fit domain evaluated its validity to measure team satisfaction and all agreed that these items (i.e. Working with the other people in my group is one of the best parts of this job; I get along well with the people I work with on a day-to-day basis; There is not much conflict among the members of my group; If I had more free time, I would enjoy spending more time with my co-workers socially; There are some people I work with I try to avoid when possible) do indeed reflect relevant aspects of team satisfaction or the degree to which a team delivers what someone expects from it. Moreover, correlation coefficients indicate that the scale is only moderately related to both types of fit (r = .28 with supplementary fit & r = .24 with complementary fit).3 Although this scale was originally designed to measure person-group fit, a number of experts in the fit domain evaluated its validity to measure team satisfaction and all agreed that these items (i.e. Working with the other people in my group is one of the best parts of this job; I get along well with the people I work with on a day-to-day basis; There is not much conflict among the members of my group; If I had more free time, I would enjoy spending more time with my co-workers socially; There are some people I work with I try to avoid when possible) do indeed reflect relevant aspects of team satisfaction or the degree to which a team delivers what someone expects from it. Moreover, correlation coefficients indicate that the scale is only moderately related to both types of fit (r = .28 with supplementary fit & r = .24 with complementary fit).

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 16

individual-level outcomes, we also included team performance as a team-level outcome. Team

performance was operationalized as the grade that teams received for their assignment. Grades

were assigned by the course instructor and could range from 1 to 10.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis

We used confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to establish construct validity. Model fit

was evaluated according to a number of criteria: the χ2-statistic and its degrees of freedom, the

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the

Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). Values of CFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .90, and RMSEA ≤ .10 indicate an

acceptable fit of the model to the data, while values of CFI ≥ .95, TLI ≥ .95, and RMSEA ≤ .06

indicate a good fit of the model to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). First, we estimated the

hypothesized model with five latent factors: supplementary fit, complementary fit, satisfaction

with the team, viability of the team, and creativity (Model A – see Table 1). This model showed

an acceptable fit to the data. Next, we estimated five alternative models (Models B to F – see

Table 1) and compared these to Model A. The alternative models did not fit the data and the χ2-

difference tests showed that Model A offered a better fit to the data compared to these alternative

models. In sum, the CFA results offer support for the construct validity of our measures.

Insert Table 1 about here

Data aggregation

As we were interested in examining team-level perceptions of supplementary and

complementary fit—based on a direct consensus model (Chan, 1998)—within-group agreement

and between-group variability needed to be established before individual-level scores could be

aggregated to the team-level. In line with previous studies (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004), we estimated rwg

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 17

scores for each team, and ICC(1) and ICC(2) values. First, rwg scores assess the level of

agreement within each team and should ideally exceed .70 (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). The

average rwg scores in our sample were .87 for supplementary fit and .82 for complementary fit.

However, one team had a low agreement score (rwg=.50) for supplementary fit and two teams had

low agreement scores (rwg=.28 and rwg=.53) for complementary fit. This may indicate that shared

perceptions of supplementary or complementary fit did not yet emerge in these teams. In line

with recommendations by Klein and Kozlowski (2000), these teams were not included when

aggregating fit perceptions to the team-level. Second, we computed Iintraclass correlation

Correlation coefficientsCoefficients. Considering ICC(1) values, our results showed that 33.15%

of the variance in supplementary fit (F(28,64)=2.59, p<.001) and 32.00% of the variance in

complementary fit (F(27,60)=2.48, p<.01) could be explained by team membership. As Klein &

and Kozlowski (2000) explain, aggregation is justified when the F test for these ICC(1) values is

significant. Finally, the ICC(2) values of supplementary (.61) and complementary fit (.60) did

not meet the .70 criterion (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). However, a more liberal .60 cutoff might

be more appropriate given the small average group size of the teams in our sample (Glick, 1985).

Using the latter criterion, our findings suggest that the group means for supplementary and

complementary fit are reliable. In sum, the rwg, ICC(1) and ICC(2) values justify aggregating

supplementary and complementary fit scores to the team-level by calculating the average of both

variables for each team.

Hypothesis testing

Insert Table 2 about here

Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables.

Within-group correlations are presented below the diagonal while between-group correlations are

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 18

provided above the diagonal. The internal reliabilities (on the diagonal – based on Cronbach

alpha values) of the individual-level supplementary fit, complementary fit, satisfaction and

viability measures and of the team-level aggregate supplementary and complementary fit

measures (based on ICC(2) values) all exceeded a .60 cutoff. The internal reliability of the

creativity measure (based on correlation) fell just below this cutoff. Individual-level

supplementary fit positively correlated with satisfaction, while individual-level complementary

fit positively correlated with satisfaction and creativity. At the team-level, the aggregate of

supplementary fit positively correlated with the team average of satisfaction, viability, and

creativity, while the aggregate of complementary fit positively correlated with the team average

of creativity. No statistically significant correlations could be discerned for team performance.

Finally, we noticed several statistically significant correlations between outcomes at the

individual- and the team-level, indicating that shared variance between outcomes should be

controlled for in a path-model when testing hypotheses.

Insert Figures 3 and 4 about here

We estimated a multilevel path-model in Mplus version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2013),

in which the outcomes were allowed to covary. This model included interaction terms between

supplementary and complementary fit on the individual- and the team-level. Both fit variables

were grand-mean centered prior to computing the interaction terms. The resulting multilevel

path-model fitted well to the data (χ2(0)=.06, p<.001; RMSEA=.00; CFI=1.00; TLI=1.00). Figure

3 shows the estimated path coefficients for the individual-level, while Figure 4 shows the

estimated path coefficients for the team-level of the model. Hypotheses 1a to 1c concerned the

interaction effect of individual-level supplementary and complementary fit on satisfaction,

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 19

viability and creativity. As can be seen in Figure 3, we found a statistically significant negative

interaction effect on satisfaction. In addition, the positive main effects of complementary fit on

satisfaction and on creativity were also statistically significant. We could not support hypotheses

1b and 1c, because the individual-level interaction effects on viability and creativity were not

statistically significant. Hypotheses 2 to 3c concerned the interaction effect of team-level

supplementary and complementary fit on team performance and on the average levels of

satisfaction, viability and creativity in the teams. As shown in Figure 4, we found statistically

significant positive interaction effects for all four outcomes on the team-level. The positive main

effects of team-level supplementary fit on average levels of satisfaction, viability, and creativity

were statistically significant. Moreover, the positive main effect of team-level complementary fit

on team performance was also statistically significant.

Insert Figures 5 and 6 about here

We plotted simple slopes to probe whether the abovementioned statistically significant

interaction effects were in the hypothesized direction (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). This

means that the effect of the independent on the dependent variable was plotted for three distinct

values of the moderator (one standard deviation below the mean, the mean, one standard

deviation above the mean). Figure 5 shows the simple slopes for the individual-level interaction

effect of supplementary and complementary fit on satisfaction. As can be seen in this figure, the

positive relationship between supplementary fit and satisfaction became stronger as

complementary fit decreased. However, none of the three slopes was statistically significant

(slopelow=.25, p=.22; slopemean=.22, p=.32; slopehigh=.18, p=.43). This is because the positive

relationship between supplementary fit and satisfaction only became statistically significant for

very low values of complementary fit (<-.3.25), which fell outside of the range of observed

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 20

values of complementary fit in our study (-2.81 to 2.59). Overall, our data do not lend support to

hypothesis 1a as the direction of the interaction effect is opposite to that put forward in the

hypothesis.

Figure 6 shows the simple slopes plots for the team-level interaction effects of

supplementary and complementary fit. Considering this interaction effect on team performance,

we found that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between team-level

supplementary fit and team performance when team-level complementary fit is high

(slopehigh=1.16, p<.05). The relationship between team-level supplementary fit and team

performance is not statistically significant at mean (slopelow=.79, p=.12) and low (slopelow=-.06,

p=.83) levels of team-level complementary fit. These findings hence offer support for hypothesis

2. Turning to average satisfaction in teams, we found statistically significant positive

relationships between team-level supplementary fit and average satisfaction in teams at mean

(slopemean=.70, p<.01) and high (slopehigh=1.02, p<.001) values of team-level complementary fit.

This relationship is not statistically significant when team-level complementary fit is low

(slopelow=.38, p=.26). These findings hence lend support for hypothesis 3a. Next, the relationship

between team-level supplementary fit and average perceptions of viability in teams is positive

and statistically significant for low (slopelow=.84, p<.01), mean (slopemean=1.15, p<.001), and high

(slopehigh=1.45, p<.001) values of team-level complementary fit. Given that the effect of team-

level supplementary fit on average viability became stronger as team-level complementary fit

increases, our results support hypothesis 3b. Finally, the relationship between team-level

complementary fit and average creativity in teams is positive and statistically significant when

team-level supplementary fit is high (slopehigh=.31, p<.05). This relationship was not statistically

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 21

significant when team-level supplementary fit is low (slopelow=.17, p=.07) or average

(slopemean=.24, p=.05). This finding hence lends support for hypothesis 3c.

Discussion

Using a multilevel design, the aim of this study was to unravel the relationships between

individual- and team-level supplementary and complementary person-team fit on the one hand,

and individual- and team-level outcomes on the other hand. In doing so, our study presents two

major contributions to the literature on person-environment fit and teams. First, in line with ODT

(Brewer, 1991) and the social inclusion/exclusion model (Shore et al., 2011), we demonstrate

that the interaction between supplementary and complementary fit matters in predicting

outcomes. Prior studies almost exclusively focused on supplementary fit, and hence overlooked

that supplementary and complementary fit form distinct dimensions that both merit attention

(Piasentin & Chapman, 2007). Second, we demonstrate that a multilevel perspective is required

to fully understand the relationships between person-team fit and outcomes. The literature to date

only considered person-team fit from the individual’s perspective (e.g., Oh et al., 2013). In

contrast, our results suggest that the team-level—that is, a team’s shared perceptions of

supplementary and complementary fit—is more important than the individual-level in explaining

outcomes in a team context.

We formulated three hypotheses at the individual-level, stating that the interaction

between supplementary and complementary fit would be related to individual team members’

satisfaction with the team, perceived viability of the team, and creativity. First, with regards to

satisfaction, we indeed found a relationship with the interaction between supplementary and

complementary fit. However, the direction of this interaction effect was opposite to what we

hypothesized, as supplementary fit only appeared to positively relate to satisfaction when

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 22

complementary fit was very low. Relating this finding to the social inclusion/exclusion model

suggests that individuals report high levels of satisfaction with their team when they feel strongly

assimilated by the team (Shore et al., 2011). However, it is important to note that the practical

significance of this interaction effect was low as the value of complementary fit for which the

relationship between supplementary fit and satisfaction became statistically significant fell

outside of the observed range of complementary fit. In other words, while the interaction effect

emerged in our analyses, it may be unlikely to emerge in reality. Second, concerning viability,

neither main effects of supplementary and complementary fit nor an interaction effect of both fit

types could be discerned. Third, we found a positive relationship between complementary fit and

creativity. Put differently, people who perceived that their skills, values, personality, abilities, or

knowledge complemented those of their team members rated their own creativity higher than

people who did not perceive such complementarity. This result aligns with the proposition that

dissimilarities between team members can improve creativity due to team members being

exposed to varied opinions and, hence, taking better decisions (Bowers et al., 2000; Hülsheer et

al., 2009; Roberge & Van Dick, 2010; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

In sum, while some relationships could be discerned, our hypotheses at the individual-

level could not be supported. Consequently, our findings at the individual-level do not align with

Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT – Brewer, 1991) or with the social inclusion/exclusion

model (Shore et al., 2011). Moreover these results at the individual-level contradict Oh and

colleagues’ (2013) finding that individual-level person-team fit—viewed as supplementary fit—

positively related to outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job

performance and negatively related with turnover intentions. However, it is possible that these

individual-level relationships were suppressed due to the inclusion of team-level person-team fit,

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 23

as the central tenet of ODT and the social inclusion/exclusion model received clear support at the

team-level.

We formulated four hypotheses at the team-level, this time arguing that the interaction

between the teams’ shared perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit would be related

to team performance and to the teams’ average levels of satisfaction, viability, and creativity. A

similar interaction pattern emerged for all four outcomes. Teams with an inclusive climate—that

is, teams in which members shared perceptions of high supplementary and high complementary

fit—performed better and contained team members that were on average more satisfied,

perceived higher viability, and reported higher creativity than non-inclusive teams. These

findings offered support for the hypotheses at the team-level and aligned with ODT (Brewer,

1991) and the social inclusion/exclusion model (Shore et al., 2011). As Shore and colleagues

(2011) argue, inclusive climates foster positive outcomes because resistance and conflict

between team members is minimized and because individual team members are exposed to

varied opinions, leading to better performance and stimulating creativity. This result implies that

perceptions of supplementary and complementary person-team fit are mainly relevant at the

team-level—as opposed to the individual-level. Whereas ample research demonstrated links

between person-job and person-organization fit and individual-level outcomes (Kristof-Brown et

al., 2005), it is possible that person-team fit is more relevant when explaining team-level

outcomes. As a result, person-team fit may have been studied at an inappropriate level in past

research. Further research—incorporating individual- and team-level person-team fit—is

required to validate this novel feature of person-team fit.

Limitations

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 24

Despite a number of strengths we also need to acknowledge certain limitations of our

study. First, our sample size at the individual- and the team-level was relatively small. While it

provided sufficient power to detect large effects, it is possible that the power to detect small

effects was fraught. In particular, this may have hampered our ability to discern statistically

significant interactions between supplementary and complementary fit at the individual-level, as

interactions effects are notoriously hard to detect (McClelland & Judd, 1993). The fact that we

could discern a clear interaction pattern at the team-level suggests that these effects were strong.

Relatedly, due to the fact that the study participants were students performing a group project, it

might be a bold move to generalize the findings as transferrable into an organizational context

where teams are more often than not diverse in terms of not only race, gender, and age, but also

previous work experience. Hence, we recommend future studies to address these shortcomings

by replicating our findings in an organizational setting and, if feasible, in a larger sample.

Second, we chose to implement a direct consensus composition model (Chan, 1998), as

we were interested in shared perceptions of fit at the team-level. We made sure that all statistical

criteria were met before aggregating the supplementary and complementary fit measures to the

team-level. Nevertheless, other composition models could also be applied and may offer unique

insights into the role of fit at the team-level. For example, a process model would enable scholars

to ascertain how perceptions of fit emerge over time in teams (Kozlowski, Chao, Grand, Braun,

& Kuljanin, 2013). This would require frequent measurements of fit (e.g., daily diary design)

from the moment that teams are formed. The intergroup agreement could be calculated for each

measurement moment to assess the extent to which team members share fit perceptions. Such

research could unravel the speed by which fit perceptions become shared and could investigate

factors that affect this speed (e.g., objective fit).

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 25

Third, it is possible that certain third variables may affect the relationships in our model.

However, by randomly assigning participants to teams, we tried to reduce the influence of third

variables. Nonetheless, further research may advance our knowledge of person-team fit by

including moderators (e.g., familiarity with the task or with team members) or mediators (e.g.,

intergroup conflict). Finally, attention was paid to reduce the influence of common method

variance (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). We separated the measurement of

independent and dependent variables in time to reduce measurement context effects. In addition,

team performance was rated by a third-party to reduce common rater effects. Moreover, the clear

interaction pattern that could be observed for both self- and other-rated outcomes at the team-

level strengthens our belief that common method bias did not substantively influence our

findings.

Implications for future research

Above and beyond remedying the limitations of our study in future research, we believe

that our results open up new avenues for further research endeavors. First, if team members share

fit perceptions, a natural next step would be to examine how these shared perceptions come

about. Such research would be in line with Kozlowski and colleagues’ (2013) call for more

research on the emergence of phenomena. Several aspects of the emergence of shared fit

perceptions could be tested. For example, individual differences (e.g. disposition to trust) of team

members may accelerate or hinder the formation of shared perceptions. Moreover, contextual

factors, such as the amount of opportunities that team members have to interact with each other,

may impact the speed by which fit perceptions become shared. Second, follow-up studies could

examine the process by which supplementary and complementary person-team fit influence

outcomes. This implies the integration of mediators, such as conflict, trust, and communication

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 26

(Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001) into our research model. As ODT and the social

inclusion/exclusion model (Brewer, 1991; Shore et al., 2011) suggest, an inclusive climate leads

to positive outcomes because it reduces conflict in teams, fosters trust between team members,

and improves decision taking quality due to team members being exposed to multiple

perspectives. Including these variables as mediators would allow for empirical verification of

these theories. Finally, we focused on general perceptions of supplementary and complementary

person-team fit. However, as Seong and Kristof-Brown (2012) demonstrated, the different

dimensions of supplementary and complementary person-team fit (e.g., values, personality,

abilities, knowledge) could separately be taken into consideration. The effect of supplementary

and complementary fit on outcomes may depend on the dimension of fit under consideration.

Practical implications

Obviously, this study also has significant implications for personnel management and

companies’ HR practices. First, as Piasentin and Chapman (2007) propose, it is important to

consider both supplementary and complementary person-team fit when selecting new team

members. Organizations often pursue one of two strategies when selecting employees (Powell,

1998). They may either choose to reinforce supplementary fit by selecting employees with

characteristics that are similar to those of other team members, or they may decide to extend

complementary fit by selecting employees with characteristics that add to those of other team

members. However, based on our results we would recommend organizations to pursue a mix of

both strategies. For example, while selecting employees, attention could be paid to the extent to

which the employee resembles other team members on certain characteristics (e.g., values) and

complements other team members on other characteristics (e.g., knowledge). Deciding which

characteristics require similarity or complementarity may depend upon the objectives of the

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 27

team. Second, our findings suggest that shared perceptions of supplementary and complementary

fit are most relevant for team outcomes. Hence, organizations need to ensure that the necessary

conditions are present for these shared perceptions to emerge. In general, repeated social

interactions are likely to expedite this process (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Consequently,

organizations ought to provide ample opportunities for team members to interact. For example,

team-building activities could be organized, as these would enable team members to observe

each others characteristics in a non-work setting (Klein et al., 2009). Finally, team leaders play a

crucial role in the emergence of shared perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit. By

providing regular feedback, leaders are able to emphasize that team members both supplement

and complement each other. Moreover, they may clarify that team members not just possess

unique characteristics, but that these unique characteristics are valuable for the team. Hence, they

can ensure that team members share perceptions of high complementarity rather than shared

perceptions of high heterogeneity.

Conclusion

The current study investigated the impact of perceived supplementary and

complementary person-team fit on team effectiveness. In line with Optimal Distinctiveness

Theory (Brewer, 1991) and the social inclusion/exclusion model (Shore et al., 2011), we suggest

showed that the interaction between both fit types is key when explaining team outcomes. Teams

with an inclusive climate—that is, teams in which members share perceptions of high

supplementary and high complementary fit—are most effective. Moreover, future research ought

to consider the multilevel nature of person-team fit. Our results suggest that team-level person-

team fit may have a stronger impact on outcomes than individual-level person-team fit.

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 28

References

Bleda, P. R. (1974). Towards a clarification of the role of cognitive and affective processes in the

similarity-attraction relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 368-

373.

Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in

work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305-327.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and

empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and

organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294–311.

Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate

dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-

267.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different

levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2),

234-246.

Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person–

organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14,333–349.

DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and person-role fit

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 29

over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242-1253.

Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The

phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of

person– environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827.

Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and

outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T.A. Judge (eds.).

Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp 209-238). New York: Erlbaum.

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94.

Gevers, J. M. P., & Peeters, M. A. G. (2009). A pleasure working together? The effects of

dissimilarity in team member consciousness on team temporal processes and individual

satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 379-400.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate:

Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 601-616.

Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations.

In B. M. Staw, L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9, pp 121-

173). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.

Hackman J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch JW (Ed.), Handbook of

Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 30

personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research.

Small Group Research, 36(1), 83-105.

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009) Team-level predictors of innovation at

work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied

Psychology. 94(5), 1128-1145.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 55.

Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2011). Work team diversity. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 1, pp. 651-686). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F.

(2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40(2), 181–222.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in

organizations contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & K. J.

Klein (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,

extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing

multilevel research design: capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research

Methods, 16(4), 581–615.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its

conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Stevens, C. K. (2005). When opposites attract: A multi-

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 31

sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of

Personality, 73(4), 935-958.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 3, pp. 3-50). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’

fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-

supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

Lewin K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science, Harper Row, London.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and

reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 6(2),

31-55.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and

taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and

moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376-390.

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.

Mumford, M. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going to? Taking stock in creativity

research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107-120.

Oh, I.-S., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J.-H., Heo, C.-G., & Shin, K.-H. (2013). Fit

happens globally: A meta-analytic comparison of the relationships of person-environment fit

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 32

dimensions with work attitudes and performance across East Asia, Europe, and North

America. Personnel Psychology, early online, 1-54. doi:10.1111/peps.12026

Ostroff, C. (2012). Person-environment fit in organizational settings. In S.W.J. Kozlowski (Ed.)

The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology (pp 373-408). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2007). Multiple perspectives on fit in organizations across levels of

analysis. In C. Ostroff & T.A. Judge (Eds.) Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp 3-69).

New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2007). Perceived similarity and complementarity as

predictors of subjective person-organization fit. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 80, 341-354.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Powell, G. N. (1998). Reinforcing and extending today’s organizations: The simultaneous

pursuit of person-organization fit and diversity. Organizational Dynamics, 26(3), 50-61.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions

in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of

Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437.

Roberge, M. E., & Van Dick, R. (2010). Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and how

diversity increase group performance? Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 295-

308.

Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F., & Burke, C. S. (2008). Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations:

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 33

Cross-disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Scherbaum, C. a., & Ferreter, J. M. (2008). Estimating statistical power and required sample

sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research

Methods, 12(2), 347–367.

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

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel

Psychology, 36(1), 19-39.

Seong, J.Y., & Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2012). Testing multidimensional models of person-group

fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27 (6), 536-556.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.

(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.

Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289.

Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of

aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88(3), 432–443.

Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerly, M. L. (2001). An investigation of personality

similarity effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervision ratings and the role of

familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(5), 637-

657.

Tekleab, A. G., Quigely, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict,

conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group Organization Management,

34(2), 170-205.

SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT 34

Twisk, J., & de Vente, W. (2002). Attrition in longitudinal studies: How to deal with missing

data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(4), 329-337.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A.C. (2004). Work group diversity and

group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.

Vogel, R. M., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Integrating the levels of person-environment fit: The

roles of vocational fit and group fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 68-81.

Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work

group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis, Journal of Management, 27, 141-162.