Interactive Effects of Person–Group Fit and Team-Member Exchange in Predicting Continuous Improvement
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. PG Fit and Continuous Improvement
2.2. The Moderating Role of TMX
3. Methods
3.1. Data and Sample
3.2. Measures
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Hypothesis Testing
5. Discussion
5.1. Summary of Findings
5.2. Theoretical Implications
5.3. Practical Implications
5.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Imai, M. Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- McLean, R.S.; Antony, J.; Dahlgaard, J.J. Failure of continuous improvement initiatives in manufacturing environments: A systematic review of the evidence. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2017, 28, 219–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez-Ruiz, L.; Gomez-Lopez, R.; Blanco, B. Barriers to effectively implementing continuous improvement in Spanish firms. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2020, 31, 1409–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhuiyan, N.; Baghel, A. An overview of continuous improvement: From the past to the present. Manag. Dec. 2005, 43, 761–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Álvarez-García, J.; Durán-Sánchez, A.; Cruz del Río-Rama, M. Systematic bibliometric analysis on kaizen in scientific journals. TQM J. 2018, 30, 356–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carnerud, D.; Jaca, C.; Bäckström, I. Kaizen and continuous improvement: Trends and patterns over 30 years. TQM J. 2018, 30, 1754–2731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Stevens, C.K. Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goal matter? J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 1083–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Werbel, J.D.; Gilliland, S.W. Person–environment fit in the selection process. In Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management; Ferris, G.R., Ed.; JAI Press: Stamford, CT, USA, 1999; pp. 209–243. [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.S.; Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Nielsen, J.D. Fitting in a group: Theoretical development and validation of the multidimensional perceived person-group fit scale. Pers. Psychol. 2019, 72, 139–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seong, J.Y.; Kristof-Brown, A.L. Testing multidimensional models of person-group fit. J. Manag. Psychol. 2012, 27, 536–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muchinsky, P.M.; Monahan, C.J. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. J. Voc. Behav. 1987, 31, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, J.R.; Shipp, A.J. The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In Perspectives on Organizational Fit; Ostroff, C., Judge, T.A., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 209–258. [Google Scholar]
- Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Zimmerman, R.D.; Johnson, E.C. Consequences of individuals fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 2005, 58, 281–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seong, J.Y.; Choi, J.N. Multilevel homology and discontinuity of person–group fit on individual and team creativity. J. Soc. Psychol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sung, S.; Seong, J.Y.; Kim, Y. Seeking sustainable development in teams: Towards improving team commitment through person-group fit. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johns, G. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 386–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, H.; Gray, B.; Harrison, D.A. Triggering faultline effects in teams: The importance of bridging friendship ties and breaching animosity ties. Org. Sci. 2015, 26, 390–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, D.; Patel, P.C.; Thatcher, S.M. It depends: Environmental context and the effects of faultlines on top management team performance. Org. Sci. 2014, 25, 633–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, J.-C.; Lee, J.-W.; Seong, J.Y. Sustainable competitive advantage through entrepreneurship, market-oriented culture, and trust. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, H.; Liu, D.; Loi, R. Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 1090–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollenbeck, J.R.; Beersma, B.; Schouten, M.E. Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012, 37, 82–106. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K. The joint effects of leader-member exchange and team-member exchange in predicting job crafting. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jørgensen, F.; Laugen, B.T.; Boer, H. Human resource management for continuous improvement. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2007, 16, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandel, N. Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. J. Cons. Res. 2003, 30, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banks, G.C.; Batchelor, J.H.; Seers, A.; O’Boyle, E.H., Jr.; Pollack, J.M.; Gower, K. What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. J. Org. Behav. 2014, 35, 273–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farh, C.I.C.; Lanaj, K.; Ilies, R. Resource-based contingencies of when team–member exchange helps member performance in teams. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 1117–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seers, A. Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1989, 43, 118–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dierdorff, E.C.; Bell, S.T.; Belohlav, J.A. The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Loi, R.; Lam, L.W. Linking organizational identification and employee performance in teams: The moderating role of team-member exchange. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 22, 3187–3201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.; Liu, Y.; Kim, Y.; Gao, P. How does emotional conflict affect innovation behavior? The moderating roles of leader-member exchange and team-member exchange. Inter. J. Conf. Manag. 2018, 29, 327–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jurburg, D.; Viles, E.; Tanco, M.; Mateo, R. What motivates employees to participate in continuous improvement activities? Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2017, 28, 1469–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez, L.; Blanco, B. Three decades of continuous improvement. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2014, 25, 986–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werbel, J.D.; Johnson, D.J. The use of person–group fit for employment selection: A missing link in person–environment fit. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2001, 40, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tett, R.P.; Guterman, H.A. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. J. Res. Person. 2000, 34, 397–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lievens, F.; Chasteen, C.S.; Day, E.A.; Christiansen, N.D. Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Christopher, R.C.; Probst, T.M.; Martocchio, F.D.; Lawler, J.J. Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 643–658. [Google Scholar]
- Rosow, J.; Zager, R. Training: The Competitive Edge; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Cable, D.M.; DeRue, D.S. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 875–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cammann, C.; Fichman, M.; Jenkins, G.D.; Klesh, J. Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices; Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P.H., Cammann, C., Eds.; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 71–138. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H. The role of competence-based trust and organizational identification in continuous improvement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2004, 19, 623–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seong, J.Y.; Park, W.W.; Yun, S. The effect of person-environment (organization, supervisor, coworker) fit, on organizational citizenship behavior and performance, and the mediating effect of justice. Korean J. Manag. 2008, 16, 1–62. [Google Scholar]
- Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Dawson, J.F.; Richter, A.W. Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of slope difference test. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 917–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, B. The people make the place. Pers. Psychol. 1987, 40, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Age | 40.04 | 9.47 | - | ||||||||
2. | Gender | 1.06 | 0.24 | −0.34 ** | - | |||||||
3. | Education | 2.65 | 0.84 | 0.17 | −0.11 | - | ||||||
4. | Team tenure | 11.63 | 8.67 | 0.68 ** | −0.18 ** | −0.04 | ||||||
5. | Rank | 5.01 | 6.27 | 0.36 ** | −0.12 | −0.01 | 0.48 ** | |||||
6. | PG value fit | 5.70 | 1.26 | 0.15 | 0.03 | −0.11 | 0.22 * | 0.17 | ||||
7. | PG ability fit | 5.69 | 1.15 | 0.31 ** | 0.07 | −0.22 * | 0.19 * | 0.17 | 0.63 ** | |||
8. | TMX | 5.60 | 0.80 | 0.08 | 0.01 | −0.17 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.49 ** | 0.52 ** | (0.96) | |
9. | Continuous Improvement | 6.60 | 0.51 | −0.16 | 0.07 | −0.03 | 0.03 | −0.24 ** | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.21 * | (0.96) |
Variables | Continuous Improvement | ||
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
Step 1: Controls | |||
Age | −0.35 ** | −0.35 ** | −0.32 * |
Gender | −0.00 | −0.00 | −0.01 |
Education | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
Team tenure | 0.43 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.43 ** |
Rank | −0.33 ** | −0.34 ** | −0.37 *** |
Step 2: Main effects | |||
PG value fit | 0.13 | −0.28 | |
PG ability fit | −0.14 | 0.26 | |
TMX | 0.25 * | 0.27 * | |
Step 3: Interactive effects | |||
PG value fit × TMX | −0.27 * | ||
PG ability fit × TMX | 0.34 ** | ||
Overall F | 3.28 ** | 3.37 ** | 3.74 *** |
R2 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.29 |
R2 change | 0.15 ** | 0.07 * | 0.06 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, L.; Seong, J.Y.; Hong, D.-S. Interactive Effects of Person–Group Fit and Team-Member Exchange in Predicting Continuous Improvement. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416567
Zhang L, Seong JY, Hong D-S. Interactive Effects of Person–Group Fit and Team-Member Exchange in Predicting Continuous Improvement. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416567
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Linyuan, Jee Young Seong, and Doo-Seung Hong. 2022. "Interactive Effects of Person–Group Fit and Team-Member Exchange in Predicting Continuous Improvement" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416567
APA StyleZhang, L., Seong, J. Y., & Hong, D. -S. (2022). Interactive Effects of Person–Group Fit and Team-Member Exchange in Predicting Continuous Improvement. Sustainability, 14(24), 16567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416567