When Opposites Attract: A Multi-Sample Demonstration of ...sitesbysarah.com/mbwp/Pubs/2005_Kristof-Brown_Barrick_Stevens_JOP.pdfMeta-analytic results suggest that agreea-bleness, emotional

When Opposites Attract: A Multi-Sample

Demonstration of Complementary Person-

Team 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 fitrelationships for extraversion on members’ attraction toward theirteams. Unlike most studies of personality-based fit, which emphasizesimilarity, we predicted that complementary fit on extraversion (i.e.,high individual–low team or low individual–high team levels) wouldresult in greater attraction to the team. Data from two independentsamples of intact project teams were analyzed, including 324 MBAstudents comprising 64 case analysis teams and 217 members of 26 man-ufacturing teams. Using polynomial regression analysis and three-dimen-sional surface plots, our results supported the predicted relationship. Inaddition, the data indicated that individuals who were more attracted totheir teams were also better performers, as judged by their peers andsupervisors.

An earlier version of this article was presented at the Academy of Management Con-

ference 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 amy-

[email protected].

Journal of Personality 73:4, August 2005r Blackwell Publishing 2005DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00334.x

WHEN OPPOSITES ATTRACT: A MULTI-SAMPLEDEMONSTRATION OF COMPLEMENTARY PERSON-TEAM FIT

ON EXTRAVERSION

Organizations are increasingly turning to teams to accomplish com-

plex assignments such as strategic planning, new product develop-ment, 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 re-quire both time and synergy among team members to develop. Ac-

cordingly, teams researchers have begun to move beyond short-termperformance determinants toward more sophisticated views of indi-

vidual and team dynamics as they influence long-term team effec-tiveness (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).

One promising approach is to try to gain better understanding ofwhat influences individual team members to contribute to team effec-

tiveness. The relational demography literature offers compelling evi-dence that an individual’s experience of demographic dissimilarityfrom other teammembers influences his or her attitudes and behaviors

regarding the team (e.g., Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui, Egan & O’Re-illy, 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 person-

environment fit (P-E fit). The fundamental premise of fit theories,whether they emphasize vocational choice (e.g., Holland, 1985), ad-justment (e.g., French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1974), or individual-

organizational value congruence (e.g., Chatman, 1991), is that a goodmatch between the environment and an individual creates compat-

ibilities that result in positive consequences for the individual. Re-search 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). Ap-

plied to team contexts, P-E fit suggests that an individual member’spersonal characteristics, such as personality, will interact with the

personal characteristics of teammates to affect his or her responsesto the team and task.

936 Kristof-Brown, Barrick, Stevens

At the team level, personality traits have been supported as im-

portant determinants of team processes and outcomes (Mount, Bar-rick, & Stewart, 1998). Although numerous personality traits have

been studied, results suggest that only a few are consistently relatedto team-level outcomes. Meta-analytic results suggest that agreea-

bleness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness have positive re-lationships with team performance (Mount et al., 1998). Barrick,

Stewart, Neubert, & Mount (1998) also found that higher averageteam levels of emotional stability and extraversion were associated

with an increased capability of teams to work together. Althoughthese relationships imply a direct relationship of average team per-sonality with team outcomes, Barry and Stewart (1997) found that

extraversion demonstrated a unique curvilinear relationship withteam outcomes. Specifically, they demonstrated that teams with

moderate proportions of extraverts had higher levels of task focusand performance than did all other teams. Similarly, Barrick et al.

(1998) found that variability on extraversion was positively associ-ated with supervisor ratings of the team’s long-term capacity to work

together. Thus, compared to other personality traits, there appearsto be something unique about how team-level outcomes are influ-enced by team members’ extraversion.

This relationship may be better understood by turning to the P-Efit literature to determine how individuals react to the extraversion

levels of their team members. Most often fit with the social environ-ment has been operationalized as supplementary fit (Muchinsky &

Monahan, 1987), or the similarity between the personalities of indi-viduals and others in their social environment. In general, results

suggest that when ‘‘birds of a feather flock together,’’ individualsexperience positive outcomes (Chatman, 1991; Ryan & Kristof-

Brown, 2003). Although many studies have supported this type ofrelationship for other characteristics, such as values or goals (As-souline & Meir, 1987; Burke & Deszca, 1982; Day & Bedian, 1995;

Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001), this article examines the possibilitythat another type of fit is at work for extraversion. Complementary fit

occurs when the characteristics of an individual complete the envi-ronment by offsetting a weakness or filling a gap (Muchinsky &

Monahan, 1987). This concept of ‘‘opposites attract’’ is evident insuccessful 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

Complementary Person-Team Fit 937

that this type of fit, rather than the more commonly predicted sup-

plementary fit, may be advantageous.Thus, the purpose of this article was to evaluate whether comple-

mentary person-team fit on extraversion leads individual members toexperience increased levels of attraction to, and subsequently higher

levels of performance in, teams. Using polynomial regression andthree-dimensional response surface plots (Edwards & Parry, 1993),

we were able to examine the exact nature of the relationship betweenindividuals’ extraversion levels and those of their team members withattraction to the team. This technique has the added advantage of

addressing whether the same relationship holds for extraverts as in-troverts, as the graphs depict the relationships across all levels of

extraversion. Because nonlinear relationships such as fit are oftendifficult to replicate (Sackett, Gruys, & Ellington, 1998), we tested

our hypotheses in two independent samples of intact teams. To theextent 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 animportant focus of interest in the dispositional underpinnings forsocial behavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Lucas, Diener, Grob,

Suh & Shao, 2000). The typical extrovert craves excitement, is ad-venturous, and tends to be assertive and dominant, as well as socia-

ble. Further, extraversion is a trait for which theory has beendeveloped to explain its operation. For example, extraversion has

been linked to brain mechanisms associated with approach (the be-havioral activation system; Gray, 1987), reward sensitivity (Lucas

et al., 2000), and positive affect (Watson & Clark, 1997). For almost50 years, scholars have been interested in studying the impact ofextraversion in team settings. These studies consistently find some

relationship between team composition on extraversion and team-level outcomes; often with results suggesting that diversity on extra-

version has positive team-level consequences.Hoffman (1959) composed groups as homogeneous or heterogene-

ous on extraversion and had them generate solutions to two work-related problems. The heterogeneous groups generated more inventive

solutions and reported greater satisfaction with their solutions. A sec-ond study (Hoffman & Maier, 1961) that extended this approach to


additional problem-solving tasks found that heterogeneous groups also

performed better on those tasks and reported greater satisfaction. In afield setting, Barry and Stewart (1997) hypothesized that performance

would be highest in MBA teams with a moderate proportion of ex-troverted members. Their results supported a curvilinear relationship,

such that teams with a moderate proportion of extraverts had higherlevels of instructor-rated performance than did teams with a smaller or

greater proportion of extraverted members. Although this result wasnot replicated directly in a study by Barrick et al. (1998), they did re-

port that variance on team member extraversion was significantly re-lated 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 improvedteam-level performance, satisfaction, and long-term viability. Yet, it

is unclear why this effect exists. The answer may lie in how dissim-ilarity on extraversion is experienced by individual team members.

Viewed from this perspective, the question is, ‘‘Does the extraversionof one team member influence the behavior of other team members?’’

Addressing this question necessitates taking a fit perspective, ratherthan concentrating on team-level composition. A person-team fitapproach requires considering an individual’s level of extraversion in

the context of the level of extraversion demonstrated by other teammembers. The notion of complementary fit may explain how being

different from other team members on extraversion would lead anindividual member to react positively toward the team.

Most studies of personality-based fit emphasize the benefits thataccrue from supplementary fit, or personality similarity, between in-

dividuals and others in their social environment. However, comple-mentary fit, which exists when the characteristics of individuals and

their environments offset each other, may be more relevant to thespecific trait of extraversion. Careful consideration of the extraver-sion trait illustrates why complementarity, rather than similarity,

would fulfill team members’ needs and thus increase their affect to-ward the team. There is extensive evidence that complementarity in

dominance (a component of extraversion) and submissiveness is re-lated to higher quality interpersonal interactions. Leary’s interper-

sonal circle (1957) depicts between-person variations on a singlecircular 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


because it establishes a reciprocal relationship in which both sides

have their needs met (Carson, 1969). Extrapolating these findings tothe broader trait of extraversion, the interpersonal behaviors dem-

onstrated by an extravert invite a particular response from thosearound them (e.g., ‘‘I would like to speak. You listen.’’). The introvert

listens, which then invites the extravert to continue speaking, thusestablishing 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 perform-

ance in dyads and teams where there is some level of complement-

arity. For example, Smelser (1961) investigated dyads that varied ondominant–submissive traits and found that in cooperative problem-

solving settings, the most productive dyads were those with comple-mentary 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 threeaverage- or low-dominance members. Finally, as noted earlier, Hoff-

man (Hoffman, 1959; Hoffman & Maier, 1961) found that individ-uals in groups heterogeneous on extraversion were not only moreproductive (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 dis-

similar others helped meet an individual’s need for dominance orextraversion, resulting in better working relationships and subse-

quent performance. Mullen and Copper (1994) conclude in theirmeta-analysis that teams experiencing high levels of performance

become more cohesive, meaning that their members are more at-tracted to the team than if the team had poor performance. There-fore, 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 tothe team. Thus, we posit the following relationship:

Hypothesis 1: Individuals will experience greater attraction to-

ward their teams when their levels of extraversion are dissimilar,rather than similar, to that of team members.


Member Attraction and Performance

Although an individual’s attraction to a team may influence thegroup’s long-term viability, a more direct consequence is the indi-

vidual’s behavior in the team setting. Members who are more at-tracted to their teams should be more likely to perform in ways that

benefit the team. Although the relationship between team-level co-hesion and team performance depends on whether the team holds

high performance norms (Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995; Mullenand Cooper, 1994), at the individual level, a member who is attractedto the team should consistently perform in ways that other team

members value. These individuals should strive to support theirteams in accomplishing their objectives because they value the suc-

cess 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 (r5 .24).Performance may take the form of direct contributions to com-

pleting task-related activities, or indirect contributions through sus-taining and supporting the team (Bales, 1948). This relationship

should hold, even if the team endorses low performance norms. Forexample, if a person is attracted to a team with low performancenorms, that person is still likely to act in ways that other members

see as valuable (e,g., telling jokes, socializing, doing the appropriateamount of work to reach the agreed-upon performance goal). Thus,

that person’s contributions would be rated as high by others on hisor her team, even though they may not result in higher team per-

formance. Thus, we predict a positive relationship between attrac-tion and an individual’s contributions, as rated by other members of

the team.

Hypothesis 2: Individuals with higher attraction toward theirteams will be rated by others as making greater contributionsthan will those who are less attracted to their teams.

METHOD

Data for this study was based on existing data collected as part of twolarger studies designed to collect multiwave data on functioning teams.Although some of this data has been used to address other distinct re-


search questions, there is no duplication in the causal relationships re-ported 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 collectionfor that project involved assessing a wide range of individual character-istics, including goals (the focus of Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001) andpersonality traits (the focus of this study). Because nonlinear relation-ships, 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 froma sample of manufacturing teams. Although the measures differ slightly,verifying that similar results exist in both samples provides stronger ev-idence for the relationships reported.

Despite their different settings (a university class vs. a manufacturingorganization), both samples meet the criteria outlined by Guzzo & Di-ckson (1996) for being considered a team. Specifically, they: (a) viewedthemselves and were viewed by others as part of a social entity (either aself-selected team with an identifiable name or an existing work unit thatreported to a single supervisor), (b) completed interdependent work (ei-ther course assignments or assembly/maintenance of a line of small ap-pliances), (c) were embedded in a larger social system (either amanagement class or an organization), and (d) performed tasks that af-fect others (either assignments turned in to a professor or small appliancessold to customers).

Study 1

Sample and procedure. Participants included 324 full-time and part-timeMBA 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- to7-member project teams that generated a written and oral case analysisreport worth 50% of the final course grade. Average team size was 5.39(SD5 .81). These teams (n5 64) represented 86% of the total studentenrollment. Their mean age was 26.35 years (SD5 3.52), and they aver-aged 3.65 years of full-time work experience (SD5 3.03) in 1.66(SD5 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 mem-bers, including turning in a preliminary outline, meeting as a team withthe instructor to receive feedback, preparing a 15-page final report, andmaking a final oral presentation. Participation in the study involved pro-viding measures of: (a) personality, self-rated at the beginning of thecourse; (b) attraction to the team, self-rated after several weeks of work-


ing with the team; and (c) team-member contributions, rated by peers atthe conclusion of the course after the projects were completed.

Measures. Prior to beginning work on the team case analysis, partici-pants completed Goldberg’s (1992) measure of extraversion. This meas-ure consists of seven sets of bipolar adjectives on which participants wereasked 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 orTrait B) to (7) very (Trait B). Trait A and Trait B anchors for the scaleincluded: introverted–extroverted, unenergetic–energetic, silent–talkative,timid–bold, inactive–active, unassertive–assertive, unadventurous–adven-turous. Responses to these items were averaged to yield an extraversionscale score, which demonstrated acceptable reliability (a5 .84). We cal-culated the average level of team extraversion for each respondent byaveraging 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 measuredat the individual level, has been defined as the degree to which membersare attracted to the team (Gully et al., 1995; Keyton & Springston, 1990).After several weeks of working together, but prior to receiving a finalteam grade, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with state-ments regarding their attraction toward the team (e.g., ‘‘I’d rather not beon this team [reverse]). All items were scored on a 7-point scale anchoredby (1) strongly disagree through (4) neutral to (7) strongly agree. The scaledemonstrated acceptable reliability (a5 .90).

Individual performance in the team context was evaluated by peers atthe 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,’’ a5 .82) and task-related (sevenitems, i.e., ‘‘contributed original ideas to case solution,’’ a5 .91) contri-butions. Each individual was rated by every other member of the team onhow often he or she engaged in behaviors that contributed to the team’ssuccess: (1) never, (4) sometimes, (7) always. The average of all teammembers’ ratings was used to determine an interpersonal and task-relatedperformance score for each participant (average ICC25 .60).

Study 2

Sample and procedure. Participants consisted of 217 members of 26 as-sembly and maintenance teams employed in two manufacturing firms. Allhad the responsibility of working with their team to complete their majorwork assignments. Average team size was 10.68 members (SD5 4.21).Participants had an average tenure in their organization of 17.22 years


(SD5 6.17), and average tenure on their teams of 3.12 years (SD5 3.09).As part of a larger study of team effectiveness, participants completed thePersonal Characteristics Inventory (PCI; Barrick & Mount, 1995) andreported their individual perceptions of social attachment. Participantscompleted all measures (demographic information, personality question-naire, and perceptions of attraction) during a workshop on teams. Theassessment 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, whichconsists of 30 items (i.e., ‘‘I like initiating conversations with people I donot know,’’ ‘‘I tend to be more of a follower than a leader’’ reverse-scored) averaged to yield a scale score. They rated each item on a 3-point,Likert-type scale (from 15 disagree to 35 agree). The scale’s internalconsistency was acceptable (a5 .86). As with the MBA sample, we cal-culated the average level of team extraversion by averaging the scores ofall individual members of the team, excluding the focal member.

Attraction toward the team was measured using Stokes’s (1983) seven-item scale of social cohesiveness. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale(15 strongly disagree; 55 strongly agree) to rate the extent to which theyagreed with statements regarding the team (e.g., ‘‘I get along well withother members of this team.’’). The internal consistency of the scale wasacceptable (a5 .89).

Individual performance was assessed using supervisor’s ratings of eachteam member. An eight-item measure of individual performance was de-veloped, based on a job analysis. Sample items include ‘‘Maintains goodworking relationships with others,’’ ‘‘Demonstrates a consistent, depend-able work effort and a positive work attitude.’’ Each individual was ratedon a 5-point scale (15 somewhat below expectations; 55 consistently ex-ceeds requirements). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .85.

Analyses

A complementary fit relationship could best be evaluated by examiningthe exact relationship between individual and team extraversion andattraction. Polynomial regression (Edwards, 1993, 1994), which uses un-constrained regression equations to generate corresponding three-dimen-sional surface graphs of the relationship, permits the requisite degree ofprecision (Edwards & Parry, 1993). The equation for the predicted fitrelationship 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 b1Pþ b2Tþ b3P2 þ b4PTþ b5T

2


in which P represents an individual’s level of extraversion, T is the av-erage level of extraversion of the remaining team members, and A is theindividual’s attraction toward the team. To reduce multicollinearity andfacilitate interpreting the graphs, all extraversion measures were firstscale-centered (Edwards, 1994), by subtracting the scale midpoint (4 onGoldberg’s 7-point scale, 2 on the PCI’s 3-point scale). This makes therange of P and T extraversion values -3 to 3 in the MBA sample, and -1 to1 in the manufacturing sample. Polynomial regression has the advantageof allowing us to examine the relationship with attraction across all levelsof extraversion. Furthermore, control variables such as team size andvariance on extraversion can be included in the regression. This is im-portant because it isolates the impact of individuals’ unique fit relation-ships, independent of team characteristics that have been shown toinfluence attraction at the team level.

Therefore, if the DR2 for this set of extraversion-related predictors isstatistically significant, it suggests that some type of relationship betweenindividual and team members’ extraversion levels influences attraction.However, the nature of that relationship can only be determined by ex-amining plots of the three-dimensional surfaces generated from the un-standardized regression coefficients (b1, b2, b3, b4, b5 from above). Asimple inspection of the graph can provide useful information of attrac-tion levels under all conditions of person-team similarity and dissimilar-ity. One implication is that we can determine whether the samerelationship holds for extraverts and introverts. If a similar complemen-tary fit relationship exists, higher levels of attraction will occur wheneverindividual 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-shapedsurface running from the far left corner (i.e., 3, -3 in Figure 1) to the farright (-3, 3 in Figure 1) corner of the graph.

RESULTS

To better identify the effects of person-team fit, we controlled fortwo theoretically interesting variables. First, because team size hasbeen found to negatively relate to cohesion at the team level (Mullen

& Cooper, 1994), we controlled for its influence on members’ at-traction toward their teams. In addition, we controlled for variability

of team members’ levels of extraversion. This was included becauseBarry and Stewart’s (1997) results suggest that people in general

(regardless of their level of extraversion) prefer to be in groups thatare balanced with respect to the representation of extraverts. Thus,


controlling for the variance on this trait allows stronger conclusionsregarding the impact of person-team fit to be drawn. The variance

score for each respondent was calculated using the same procedureas 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 manufacturingsample in Table 2. In both samples there is a statistically significant

positive correlation between individual extraversion and attractiontoward team. In the manufacturing sample, the correlation betweenaverage team extraversion and attraction was also statistically sig-

nificant. As expected, in both samples, attraction toward the teamwas positively correlated to team variance on extraversion and neg-

atively 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-relatedterms (individual extraversion (P), team extraversion (T), individual

extraversion squared (P2), individual � team extraversion (PT), teamextraversion squared (T2), in each sample. Table 3 reports that the

− 3 − 1.8 − 0.6 0.6 1.8 3

− 3− 1.8− 0.60.61.8301

23

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

Attrac

tion

PersonTeam

MBA Teams

Figure 1Surface plots of unstandardized regression weights for individual

and average team extraversion with attraction to the team in theMBA teams sample.


Ta

ble

1M

ea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

De

via

tio

ns,

Re

lia

bil

itie

s,a

nd

Co

rre

lati

on

so

fSt

ud

yV

ari

ab

les

for

the

MB

ATe

am

sSa

mp

le

Samplea

Mean

SD

12

34

56

7

1.Team

size

5.39

.81

2.Extraversionvariance

.04

.04�.34n

3.Individualextraversion(G

oldberg,1992)

5.07

.78

.01

.07

(.84)c

4.Averageteam

extraversionb

5.07

.39

.02�.18n

.00

5.Attractionto

theteam

(Seers,1989)

5.46

.98�.10

.09

.23n

.10

(.90)

6.Interpersonalcontributions(K

ristof-Brown&

Stevens,2001)

6.50

.46�.02�.03�.02

.14n

.23n

(.82)

7.Task

contributions(K

ristof-Brown&

Stevens,2001)

6.51

.48�.04�.01

.00

.06

.14n

.64n

(.91)

aN

5324;baverageteam

mem

ber

extraversionistheteam

averageminusthefocalmem

ber;

cvalues

onthediagonalare

areliabilitiesforthescales.

Ta

ble

2M

ea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

De

via

tio

ns,

Re

lia

bil

itie

s,a

nd

Co

rre

lati

on

so

fSt

ud

yV

ari

ab

les

for

the

Ma

nu

fac

turi

ng

Tea

ms

Sam

ple

Samplea

Mean

SD

12

34

56

1.Team

size

10.68

4.21

2.Extraversionvariance

.14

.08

�.13

3.Individualextraversion(Barrick&

Mount,1995)

1.93

.39

�.21

�.07

(.86)c

4.Averageteam

extraversionb

1.93

.21

�.41n

.08

.18n

5.Attractionto

theteam

(Stokes,1983)

3.57

.77

�.22n

.14n

.20n

.16n

(.87)

6.Individualperform

ance

(new

measure)

3.53

.84

�.25n

.19n

.17n

.09

.49n

(.85)

aN

5217;baverageteam

mem

ber

extraversionistheteam

averageminusthefocalmem

ber;

cvalues

onthediagonalare

areliabilitiesforthescales.

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 existsbetween individual extraversion, average team extraversion, and at-

traction, they do not specify the form of relationship. To determinewhether complementary fit existed, we examined the surface plots.

The resulting graphs, shown in Figures 1 and 2, for the MBA andManufacturing 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 farright corner. This indicates that attraction to the team was highest

when the individual was high on extraversion and the team was lowand when the individual was low and the team was high. Thus, Hy-

pothesis 1, which predicted a complementary fit relationship for ex-traversion and attraction to the team, was supported in both samples.

Simply stated, extraverts are more attracted to teams where others areintroverted, and introverts are more attracted to teams of extraverts.

Hypothesis 2 stated that individual members’ attraction to theirteams would be positively related to their performance in the team

Table 3Results From Polynomial Regressions of Attraction to the Team on

Individual and Team Extraversion

MBA teamsa Manufacturing teamsb

Controls: Controls:

Size � .10 Size � .03n

Team variance on

extraversion

1.74 Team variance on

extraversion

.90

P (b1) .43 P (b1) .19

T (b2 .29 T (b2) .32

P2(b3) .09 P2

(b3) .11

PT (b4) � .31 PT (b4) � 1.78n

T2(b5) .15 T2

(b5) .08

R2c .09n R2 .12n

DR2d .08n DR2 .06n

aN5 317 for MBA sample; bN5 217 for manufacturing sample; po.05cR2 is the overall explained variance for the model including all predictors.dDR2 indicates the increase in explained variance in the polynomial analysis due to

the addition of the fit terms.


context. For the MBA sample, we tested this hypothesis by exam-ining the bivariate correlations of the individual performance meas-

ures with individuals’ attraction to the team. As predicted, there wasa statistically significant relationship between individuals’ attractionto the team and peer ratings of their interpersonal (r5 .23, po.05)

and task (r5 .14, po.05) performance. In the manufacturing teamssample, the bivariate correlation between individuals’ attraction to

the team and supervisor’s ratings of their individual performancewas also positive (r5 .48, po.05), supporting Hypothesis 2 in the

field sample. Therefore, in both samples, there is evidence that in-dividual team members who are more attracted to their teams are

viewed by others as contributing more to the team than those whoare less attracted to their teams.

DISCUSSION

This study explored whether complementary person-team fit on ex-traversion influences individual members’ attraction to their teams

− 1 − 0.6 − 0.2 0.2 0.6 1

− 1− 0.6− 0.20.20. 610

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Attrac

tion

PersonTeam

Manufacturing Teams

Figure 2Surface plots of unstandardized regression weights for individual

and average team extraversion with attraction to the team in themanufacturing teams sample.


and subsequent performance. In two independent samples, we found

that members reported greater attraction to their teams when theirlevel of extraversion was dissimilar to the average level of extraver-

sion of other team members. These results suggest a complementaryfit relationship between extraversion and attraction that holds for

extraverts as well as introverts. This finding is significant as it isgenerally assumed that similarity on psychological characteristics

will result in more positive consequences, and complementary fit isrelevant only for knowledge or skills (Klimoski & Jones, 1995). Our

results directly contradict this assumption. In addition, we foundthat when individual team members are more attracted to theirteams, they make greater individual contributions to that team’s

success. Taken together, these results underscore the need to under-stand 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 advocatedthe 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 andsubordinates (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991; Witt, 1998), employees

and their cohorts (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991), or employees and allexisting members of their organizations (Ferris, Youngblood, &

Yates, 1985). In addition, this study used a precise analytical tech-nique to empirically demonstrate a complementary fit relationship

across two independent samples. To our knowledge, such a rela-tionship on a personality trait has never been reported or verified in

independent samples. Furthermore, this study contributes to thepersonality in teams literature by being the first to show that indi-

vidual members’ attitudes toward their teams are influenced by per-son-team fit, even after controlling for team-level composition. Assuch, they rule out the alternative explanation that team-level var-

iability 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 person-ality in context. Studies that show that organizations develop modal

personalities over time, supporting Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition model, may be used as models for examining

whether such processes also occur at the team level. If they do, theimplication is that teams will seek to add similar others, rather than


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 allowingsuch 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 re-

quiring a high degree of social interaction, such as work teams. Atthe individual level, our findings show that extraversion affectsgroup functioning through its impact on socioemotional interac-

tions that take place among group members, and each member’sstanding on this trait influences the effectiveness of those interac-

tions. Specifically, dissimilarity in members’ level of extraversionstimulated feelings of attraction toward the team. This contradicts

the notion that homogeneity in groups is the primary means bywhich one enhances cohesion and communication (Byrne, 1971;

Turner, 1987). As meta-analyses have demonstrated the positive ef-fect between individuals’ attraction to a team and their performance

in the team setting (Gully et al., 1995; Mullen & Copper, 1994), ourresults also offer insight into how personality complementarity mayinduce individuals to contribute more fully to team-based work.

Future research should focus on better understanding why com-plementarity is preferable on extraversion. We have argued that the

process is one of need fulfillment, in which extraverts and introvertshave their needs met through interpersonal interactions with each

other. This proposition could be directly tested by assessing needsand need satisfaction in homogeneous and heterogenous teams.

Furthermore, recent research has linked extraversion with broaderconstructs such as approach-motivation (Elliot & Thrash, 2002)and positive emotionality/temperament (Watson & Clark, 1997).

It is unclear whether complementarity on these broader character-istics would be desirable or whether the more common finding

of supplementary fit would prevail. Research conducted on thesecharacteristics from a person-environment fit perspective would be

informative.One limitation of this study is that individuals’ reports of extra-

version and feelings of attraction were both collected using self-reports. This raises the possibility that correlated errors and common

method bias may have increased the correlation between these twovariables. However, because the relationships we demonstrated were


complex, involving the additional component of team extraversion

(measured as the average of others’ self-reports), it is unlikely thatsuch bias could explain the pattern of our results. Moreover, the

likely impact of common method bias would have been to strengthenthe 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 diverseteam settings provided a stringent test of our hypotheses. Although

both samples contained work teams experiencing genuine perform-ance 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 andperformance demands over a period of several years. Replicating the

complementary fit relationship across these diverse samples, timeframes, and tasks suggests the robustness of this phenomenon. Dis-

advantages of this approach, however, are that different measureswere used in both studies and a limited number of meaningful con-trol variables existed across both contexts. Additional variables such

as leader behaviors and average team tenure might also influenceattraction in at least one of the contexts.

A second strength is that we used measures of actual average teamextraversion, rather than individuals’ perceptions of their team’s ex-

traversion. This is beneficial because it suggests that managers canuse 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 can-didate being considered for hire but also those of the other teammembers. They provide empirical support for the notion recently

advocated by others that fit should be taken into consideration dur-ing 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 becomesmore frequently organized using work teams, it is apparent that

noncognitive predictors, particularly those assessing social skills, willbe increasingly important to include in a selection battery.


In conclusion, the present study provides substantial support for

the complementary nature of extraversion in work teams. Whenwork teams have too many dominant team members (or too few),

individuals encounter more difficulties in getting along with eachother, which, in turn, may lead to worse individual performance.

Rather than birds of a feather flocking together, with regard to ex-traversion 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 Psy-

chology, 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 socializat-

ion 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 supple-

mentary 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 re-

search: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Hu-

man Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.


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 person-

ality: 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). Extraver-

sion: Toward a unifying description from infancy to adulthood. In G. A. Ko-

hnstamm & 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 Psy-

chology, 11, 179–187.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor struc-

ture. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Jour-

nal 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 co-

hesion. 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.


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 Asso-

ciates (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 mat-

ter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1083–1095.

Lawler, E. E. III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. Jr. 1995. Creating high per-

formance 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. Hu-

man Performance, 11, 145–165.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment con-

gruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vo-

cational 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-organ-

ization 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 inter-

actions 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 or-

ganizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 462–470.


Schriesheim, J. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An in-

vestigation of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology,

65, 183–194.

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-

making 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 Psy-

chology, 62, 535–542.

Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Intermember attraction, in-

strumental 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 per-

son–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 man-

agement: 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 psy-

chology (pp. 737–765). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Witt, L. A. (1998). Enhancing goal congruence: A solution to organizational pol-

itics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 666–674.


958

Documents

When Opposites Attract: A Multi-Sample Demonstration of ...sitesbysarah.com/mbwp/Pubs/2005_Kristof-Brown_Barrick_Stevens_JOP.pdfMeta-analytic results suggest that agreea-bleness, emotional