With the knowledge that team work is not always associated with high(er) performance, we draw from the Multi-Level Theory of Psychological Contracts, Person-Environment Fit Theory, and Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to study shared perceptions of psychological contract (PC) breach in relation to shared perceptions of complementary and supplementary fit to explain why some teams perform better than other teams. We collected three repeated survey measures in a sample of 128 respondents across 46 teams. After having made sure that we met all statistical criteria, we aggregated our focal variables to the team-level and analyzed our data by means of a longitudinal three-wave autoregressive moderated-mediation model in which each relationship was one-time lag apart. We found that shared perceptions of PC breach were directly negatively related to team output and negatively related to perceived team member effectiveness through a decrease in shared perceptions of supplementary fit. However, we also demonstrated a beneficial process in that shared perceptions of PC breach were positively related to shared perceptions of complementary fit, which in turn were positively related to team output. Moreover, best team output appeared in teams that could combine high shared perceptions of complementary fit with modest to high shared perceptions of supplementary fit. Overall, our findings seem to indicate that in terms of team output there may be a bright side to perceptions of PC breach and that perceived person-team fit may play an important role in this process.

No abstract

-Working effectively in teams is

No abstract

In selection contexts that employ standardized testing, the use of accommodations must be accompanied by evidence to support their appropriateness. Three studies examined the appropriateness of extended time accommodations in cognitive ability testing. Study 1 examined the speededness of the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT) using data from 12,555 applicants to establish that speed is not a factor in the CFAT. Study 2 examined the impact of extra time in the completion of a paper-based administration of the practice CFAT for test-takers with and without a learning disability (LD). Data from 122 military trainees revealed that regardless of LD status, participants received higher scores and attempted more items. Study 3 replicated and extended the findings of study 2 using a university sample (N = 234) and a computerized test administration mode. Findings from both studies also suggested that construct- and criterion-related validity were comparable across time conditions. Overall, this research has implications for those considering time accommodations in cognitive ability testing, and contributes to the limited body of knowledge on test accommodations available to selection test developers and providers.