Help yourself by helping others: The joint impact of group member organizational citizenship behaviors and group cohesiveness on group member objective task performance change

Abstract

This paper examines how a group member's individual‐targeted citizenship behavior (OCBI) and organization‐targeted citizenship behavior (OCBO) interact with a salient group‐level contextual variable, group cohesiveness, to foster positive change for that group member, starting with job self‐efficacy change, and followed by objective task performance change. Over a span of 6 months, we engaged in multilevel, multisource, multistage data collection and surveyed 587 members in 83 work groups. Our results indicate that a group member's OCBI, in comparison with OCBO, is more positively related to his or her job self‐efficacy change. Group cohesiveness was found to attenuate the relationship between a group member's OCBI and job self‐efficacy change, and conversely, to accentuate the relationship between a group member's OCBO and job self‐efficacy change. Furthermore, a group member's job self‐efficacy change mediated the interactive effects of the group member's OCBI and group cohesiveness (as well as the group member's OCBO and group cohesiveness) on his or her objective task performance change.

When Caring Leaders Are Constrained: The Impact of LMX Differentiation on Leader Empathic Concern in Predicting Discretionary Work Behaviors

“…For the person–situation interaction effects, we examine two discretionary work behaviors: interpersonal facilitation, which is individual focused, and job dedication, which is organization focused. Many studies examining nonmandated work outcomes focus on discretionary efforts that are beneficial to either individual workgroup members or the organization (e.g., Becker, Cropanzano, Van Wagoner, & Keplinger, 2017; Liu, Chen, & Holley, 2017). By examining both individually and organizationally beneficial discretionary work behaviors, such studies allow for the potential of nuanced effects unique to the particular behavioral target to be found.…”

Organisational Power, Cohesiveness and Culture of Taiwan’s Cosmetology Industry

“…Organisational cohesiveness is highly expected to: (1) inspire members' recognition to their organisations with obedience, in accordance to organisational decrees (Al-Rawi, 2008), (2) invigorate organisational members' loyalty in order to decrease employees' turnover rate (Sun, Ayoun, & Calhoun, 2013), and (3) encourage all members to dedicate themselves to the organisation with mutual accreditations, and core values (Liu et al, 2017). Organisational cohesiveness not only plays the imperative role to reciprocally attract team members, but also to enhance the core values for organisational operations (Stashevsky & Koslowsky, 2006) as well as effectively encourage members to fully cooperate for organisational goals.…”

“…In that regard, Asians are also more prone towards showing "authority" rather than "rules", and the person holding the power is trusted for his/her knowledge, expertise and achievement. In addition, some scholars (Liu, Chen, & Holley, 2017) argued that the management philosophy and organisational culture have been rooted in and guided by Confucianism, more specifically, the concept of guanxi, which is a social concept prevailing in the Chinese community. This concept relies on personal relationships, loyalty, and modesty of the in-group community (Silverthorne, 2004).…”

An Examination of Individualism within Employee Help-Seeking Networks

“…Some researchers have concluded that individualists make collective action more difficult because they are less inclined to collaborate or to build strong ties with others; ties that are essential for the emergence of cohesiveness and unity within groups (e.g., Earley, 1993;Gelfand, Triandis, & Chan, 1996). A considerable amount of research has investigated interpersonal helping in organizations (see Ocampo, Acedillo, Bacunador, Balo, et al, 2018), finding them to enable effective group functioning (e.g., Liu, Chen, & Holley, 2017) and high-quality dyadic exchange relationships (e.g., Settoon, Bennett & Liden, 1996;Shore & Wayne, 1993). As might be expected, however, individualists have been shown to be less likely than collectivists to help others (e.g., Moorman & Blakely, 1995).…”