Supporting team citizenship: The influence of team social resources on team‐level affiliation‐oriented and challenge‐oriented behaviour

Abstract

Using a conservation of resources theoretical framework, we connect within‐team social resources with team‐level citizenship behaviours. In a sample of 385 employees situated in 70 teams from China, we confirm that team social support and team psychological safety interact to influence both affiliation‐oriented (AOCB) and challenge‐oriented (COCB) citizenship. Specifically, the two social resources substitute for one another, such that “either” team social support “or” psychological safety may be sufficient to increase AOCB. We find a consistent yet more complex pattern for COCB. Furthermore, drawing on the team prosocial motivation literature, we uncover team effort as a mediator to the effects of both social resources on AOCB. Our findings suggest that managers may enhance team citizenship by promoting team‐level social resources (social support and psychological safety), and they may only need to focus their energies on one of these resources, as exerting effort towards both may be redundant and inefficient.

Social support at work: An integrative review

“…With respect to the (behavioral vs. perceptual) form of social support, one study explicitly defined social support as a combination of behaviors and perceptions (Halbesleben, Zellars, Carlson, Perrewé, & Rotondo, 2010), and an equal number defined social support in terms of behaviors ( k = 6: e.g., da Costa, Zhou, & Ferreira, 2018; Quade, Perry, & Hunter, 2019) or perceptions ( k = 6: Halbesleben et al, 2012; Garcia, Ng, Capezio, Restubog, & Tang, 2017). Six studies were vague in delineating the nature of social support (e.g., Campbell, Liao, Chuang, Zhou, & Dong, 2017; Stoverink, Chiaburu, Li, & Zheng, 2018).…”

“…Regarding the source of social support, only a few studies clearly indicated that support was provided by a supervisor ( k = 5: e.g., Hammer, Kossek, Bodner, & Crain, 2013; Munc, Eschleman, & Donnelly, 2017), a team ( k = 1: Stoverink et al, 2018), or coworkers ( k = 1: da Costa et al, 2018). Seven studies (e.g., Halbesleben et al, 2012; Owens, Baker, Sumpter, & Cameron, 2016) vaguely used “others” or “other people” without direct reference to the roles occupied by those others (e.g., supervisors, upper managers, coworkers, friends, and family members).…”

“…However, six studies were not particularly clear about the type of social support; instead, many of them simply defined social support as “an important resource” (Toker et al, 2015) or “the experience of supportive social relationships” (Owens et al, 2016). Three studies used definitions that encompassed emotional, instrumental, appraisal, and/or informational support (Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Gunter, & Germeys, 2012; Stoverink et al, 2018; ten Brummelhuis, Oosterwaal, & Bakker, 2012). Finally, many studies ( k = 8: e.g., Hoppe, Toker, Schachler, & Ziegler, 2017; Tucker & Jimmieson, 2017) did not offer a clear definition of social support.…”

Toward a Work Motivation Conceptualization of Grit in Organizations

“…Similarly, social support influences coping with negative feedback because it provides unique avenues of resource access (Sarason, 1974; Stoverink, Chiaburu, Li, & Zheng, 2018). Others contend that social support broadens resource inventory when unexpected threats or opportunities appear (Feeney & Collins, 2015; Pluut, Ilies, Curşeu, & Liu, 2018).…”

The Chinese Mode of Supporting Social Organizations: A New Framework

“…The western supporting social organizations' identity is similar to that of ordinary social organizations, with strong folk and grass roots nature, relatively pure positioning, and more focused support for social organizations. While under the historical and political influence, China's supporting social organizations not only provide support and guidance, but also play the role in transferring government functions and satisfying the demand of social governance [7]. It can be said that the complexity and diversity of China's supporting social organizations are unique.…”