The Emergence of Team Helping Norms: Foundations Within Members ' Attributes and Behavior

The emergence of team helping norms:
Foundations within members attributes and

behavior
JANA L. RAVER
1
*
, MARK G. EHRHART
2
AND INGRID C. CHADWICK
1
1
Queens University Queens School of Business, Goodes Hall, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
2
San Diego State University Department of Psychology, College of Sciences, San Diego, California, U.S.A.
Summary This research examined the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior helping norms in teams, spe-
cically with regard to how members personality, values, beliefs, and helping behavior predict the emergence
of helping norms in newly formed project teams. We drew from theory on emergent phenomena and team
composition research to propose and test a compilation model of how helping norms are inuenced by having
at least one member with particularly low (minimum) or high (maximum) levels of attributes that may inu-
ence helping-norm development (i.e., conscientiousness, agreeableness, other-oriented values, personal help-
ing beliefs). We further examined the extent to which members helping behaviors, as rated by peers,
predicted helping norms and whether these behaviors mediated the relationship between individual attributes
and helping norms. The results of a longitudinal study of 47 student project teams revealed that teams min-
imums on agreeableness, other-oriented values, and personal helping beliefs had direct relationships with
helping-norm emergence, and the effects of agreeableness were mediated through mean helping behavior.
By contrast, teams maximums on these attributes showed no relationships with helping norms, and only
a team maximum on agreeableness was associated with teams mean helping behavior. Copyright # 2011
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: teams; personality composition; organizational citizenship behavior; helping; norms
Research on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efcient and effective func-
tioning of the organization (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006, p. 8)has been abundant over the past 25
years and has resulted in many meaningful implications. One important conclusion is that groups that exhibit high
levels of OCB outperform groups with low levels of OCB (Organ et al., 2006), consistent with Katz and Kahns
(1966) and Organs (1988) theoretical arguments regarding the benets of OCB for group and organizational effec-
tiveness. The performance benets of high group OCB have been found in a range of contexts across many out-
comes (e.g., Ehrhart, Bliese & Thomas, 2006; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Koys, 2001; Podsakoff, Ahearne,
& MacKenzie, 1997), and a recent meta-analysis revealed a .43 correlation between unit-level OCB and perfor-
mance based upon a sample of over 3600 groups (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).
Given the strong support for the link between groups OCB and their effectiveness, it has become critical for scholars
to investigate the antecedents to group OCB. The few studies that have investigated antecedents of group OCB have
focused largely on leadership (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Mayer et al., 2009; Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005), with min-
imal attention to how members characteristics may inuence group OCB (see Choi, 2009 and Porter et al., 2003 for
*Correspondence to: Jana L. Raver, Queens University, Queens School of Business, Goodes Hall, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. E-
mail: [email protected]
Copyright #2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 7 February 2010
Revised 15 May 2011, Accepted 11 June 2011
Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 616637 (2012)
Published online 23 August 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.772
notable exceptions). This may be due, at least in part, to evidence on antecedents to individual-level OCB, which has
shown that relationships between individuals attributes and their OCB are generally small (Organ & Ryan, 1995).
However, group and individual OCB are not necessarily isomorphic nor are their nomological networks. Group
OCB has been conceptualized and measured as a referent-shift construct (Chan, 1998) that reects group norms
and is distinct from the simple average of individuals OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). One cannot assume that
individual-level relationships hold at the group level (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999; Rousseau, 1985), particularly
when examining emergent group constructs that may be inuenced by discontinuous patterns of members charac-
teristics (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In short, theory and research on how group members attributes may predict
group OCB are needed to advance our understanding of the ways to develop and sustain these benecial group
behaviors.
In line with this discussion, the purpose of this investigation was to examine how members personality, beliefs,
values, and helping behavior combine to predict the OCB norms that develop over time in newly formed groups. We
drew from Kozlowski and Kleins (2000) theory of emergent phenomena and research on group composition (e.g.,
Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Bell, 2007) to examine compilation models of members attributes. We
rst investigated whether groups OCB norms are inuenced by having at least one member with low levels of help-
ing-relevant attributes (i.e., team minimum), including conscientiousness, agreeableness, other-oriented values, and/
or personal helping beliefs. We further examined the extent to which members helping behaviors, as rated by peers,
also predicted OCB norms, and whether these behaviors mediated the effects of members attributes on OCB norms.
Second, we conducted parallel exploratory analyses to establish whether having at least one member with high levels
of these attributes (i.e., team maximum) is benecial for establishing helping norms. We aimed to examine these
relationships in a naturalistic setting over time, yet we also aimed to rule out the possibility that helping norms might
develop because of self-selection into groups of similar people (cf., Schneider, 1987). Therefore, we examined our
hypotheses on the basis of a sample of 47 randomly assigned student groups who worked together on a large-scale
project with multiple deliverables over a semester. Figure 1 provides a summary of the proposed relationships. Ulti-
mately, this research illuminates the ways in which groups OCB norms develop as a function of the minimum/max-
imum attributes and the helping behaviors of their members.
Theoretical and Research Background
Conceptualizing organizational citizenship behavior in groups
In response to the growing tide of research showing the link between aggregated OCB and group effectiveness
(see summaries by Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997, and meta-analyses by Nielsen, Hrivnak,
& Shaw, 2009 and Podsakoff et al., 2009), scholars have claried the conceptualization and measurement of OCB
as a group-level construct (Choi, 2009; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Naumann & Ehrhart, 2005; Ng & van Dyne,
2005; Schnake & Dumler, 2003). One way in which group OCB has been studied is by averaging members indi-
vidual behavior ratings (e.g., Bommer, Miles, & Grover, 2003). Averaging individuals behavior without regard for
agreement among members implies an additive multilevel composition model (Chan, 1998), consistent with study-
ing rates of behavior such as absenteeism. A second way in which group OCB has been studied is by asking partic-
ipants to report the extent to which members of the group typically perform OCB (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1997).
When participants are asked to reect on the overall patterns of behavior in their group, and then researchers ensure
that these perceptions are indeed shared among group members, this reects a shared (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) or
referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998), which is consistent with studying group norms. Although neither
approach is inherently superior, scholars need to specify the nature of the constructs under examination to avoid
confusion.
TEAM HELPING NORMS 617
Copyright #2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 616637 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/job
In our research, we drew from Ehrhart and Naumanns (2004) group norms theory of OCB and focused speci-
cally on the antecedents of descriptive norms (i.e., what people typically do in a given situation; Cialdini, 2007;
Cialdini, Bator, & Guadagno, 1999). OCB norms are the level of OCB that is viewed as typical within the work unit
by unit members. Their theory and denition are consistent with prior work that has treated group OCB as a shared,
referent-shift construct. Conceptualizing OCB as normative behavior also highlights the pervasive nature of group
norms, species the ways in which they link to other aspects of group functioning, and how they are also closely
linked to groups identities (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).
Evidence on antecedents to organizational citizenship behavior in groups
The literature on antecedents of group OCB has increased over the past several years and has developed an emphasis
on leadership and other situational antecedents. For instance, Ehrhart (2004) found that servant leadership was pos-
itively associated with OCB norms, as mediated by procedural justice climate. Euwema, Wendt, and Van Emmerik
(2007) found that directive leadership was negatively related, and supportive leadership was positively related to
group OCB. Other antecedents of group OCB include team leadership, commitment, support, size (Pearce & Herbik,
2004), transformational leadership and climate of involvement (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005), trust toward the
leader (Lau & Lam, 2008), ethical leadership (Mayer et al., 2009), organizational learning (Somech & Drach-
Zahavy, 2004), and group task satisfaction (Mason & Grifn, 2005). Note that most of these are cross-sectional eld
studies and thus have not examined factors inuencing the early development of OCB norms.
There has been far less attention to the relationship between group members attributes and group OCB, yet ev-
idence from two studies suggests that members characteristics may collectively inuence group OCB. Although not
Figure 1. Summary of proposed relationships between members attributes, helping behavior, and helping norms in new teams
618 J. L. RAVER ET AL.
DOI: 10.1002/job
explicitly described as group OCB, Porter et al. (2003) examined relationships between teams mean personality and
team backing-up behaviors (e.g., helping teammates complete their goals when they are unable to do so themselves)
in a laboratory simulation. Teams mean level of conscientiousness and extroversion predicted backing-up behaviors,
as moderated by the legitimacy of need. They found no relationship between mean agreeableness and backing-up
behaviors but suggested that this may have been due to their measure of agreeableness so called for future research.
More recently, Choi (2009) examined the relationships between group-level composition and OCB, and he focused
on four group diversity indices: gender, education, tenure, and hierarchical status. His results showed that gender
and education diversity were negatively associated with group OCB, whereas tenure and hierarchical status diversity
were positively associated with group OCB.
These studies provide initial evidence that individual attributes may combine to predict group OCB, yet research
is needed on additional helping-related attributes, on alternative group composition models, and on how helping
norms develop in new groups. Group composition, the conguration of member attributes (Levine & Moreland,
1990), may inuence group processes and performance as a function of the mean group level or heterogeneity
(diversity) among members on the attribute of interest. However, both the minimum score and the maximum score
on the attribute have also been conceptualized and shown to be important inuences on group functioning (e.g.,
Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Bell, 2007; Halfhill, Sundstrom, Lahner, Calderone, & Nielsen, 2005;
LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997; Mohammed & Angell, 2003; Neuman, Wagner, & Christiansen,
1999). We used this scholarship on group composition in our work to provide a bridge between the bodies of work
on group OCB, group composition, and the emergence of group norms in the following hypotheses.
Current Research: Rationale and Hypotheses
We developed and tested theory with regard to how particular combinations of individual members attributes (i.e.,
personality, beliefs, values) and individual helping behaviors may inuence whether teams establish positive helping
norms. We focused on OCB directed toward other individuals (i.e., helping) rather than OCB directed toward orga-
nizations both because of the nature of our sample (project teams outside of an organization) and because we aimed
to study behaviors that could be witnessed by and relevant to fellow teammates. Helping behavior exemplies inter-
personally directed OCB and is the most commonly studied dimension of OCB (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine &
Bachrach, 2000).
Individual inuences on the emergence of group constructs
We grounded our model and hypotheses within Kozlowski and Kleins (2000) theory of emergent phenomena.
According to Kozlowski and Klein,
a phenomenon is emergent when it originates in the cognition, affect, behaviors, or other characteristics of indi-
viduals, is amplied by their interactions, and manifests as a higher-level, collective phenomenon . . . Individual
cognition, affect, behavior, and other characteristics denote elemental content. Elemental content is the raw
material of emergence (2000, p. 55).
They described the ways in which elemental content combineand are amplied by interactionsto ultimately cre-
ate group-level phenomena. Most group research has focused on isomorphism-based composition (e.g., means), yet
emergent phenomena are not always convergent, uniform, and linear in their development (Kozlowski & Klein,
2000; see also House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Rousseau, 1985). Therefore, it is necessary for scholars
DOI: 10.1002/job
to consider compilation models of emergence, which are discontinuous and non-linear, where the phenomena are in
a common domain yet are distinctly different across levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Of particular relevance for our research is the minimummaximum compilation model, where group-level phe-
nomena are inuenced by either the minimum or the maximum members score on an attribute of interest
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; see also Barrick et al., 1998; Bell, 2007; McGrath, 1998). Figure 1 depicts compilation
as the mechanism through which individual attributes emerge to characterize the group. Operationally, these models
are indexed by using the score of the lowest scoring member (minimum model) or the highest scoring member (max-
imum model) to represent the group as a whole. An example of a minimum model would be a string quartet, where
one player missing notes or playing off rhythm will impact the assessment of the quality of the group as a whole.
Similar situations emerge in a diversity of contexts where each members contributions is noticeable, including
for sports teams and project presentation teams. An example of a maximum model would be a complex group
decision-making task where a single members expertise or ability can lead the group to superior performance.
Our primary focus was on minimum compilation models due to the stronger theoretical and empirical foundations
for developing a priori hypotheses for group minimums. Scholars have theorized that bad apples (Felps, Mitchell,
& Byington, 2006) and counter-role models (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) impair group functioning because of their
detrimental effects on teammates negative affect, feelings of injustice, and subsequent unwillingness to contribute.
Felps et al. (2006) argue that compared with positive members, negative members are more damaging for group pro-
cesses because of the bad is stronger than good principle (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer & Vohs, 2001).
That is, negative cognitions, affect, and events produce stronger and longer lasting effects compared with the equiv-
alent positive cognitions, affect, and events (Baumeister et al., 2001), especially in the social realm (Lewicka,
Czapinski, & Peeters, 1992; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989). In addition, group minimums are more strongly related
to negative processes and performance than are group maximums; indeed, minimums are often as strongly related to
team functioning as the group mean (for reviews, see Bell, 2007; Halfhill et al., 2005). Even though our hypotheses
focus on team minimums, we also report exploratory analyses on the extent to which team maximums produced par-
allel results, thereby allowing a comparison of these models and enhancing the contribution of this research.
Individual inuences on team helping norms
We propose that individual team members attributes constitute elemental content (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) that is
inuential in predicting the project teams average levels of helping and, ultimately, helping norms. We rst discuss
members helping behaviors as the most proximal predictor of the team helping norms. We then turn to four differ-
ent individual attributes, namely conscientiousness, agreeableness, other-oriented values, and personal helping
beliefs that we also proposed would inuence team helping-norm development.
Mean helping behavior in teams
Scholarly treatments of norm development have described the process as one in which there is a close connection be-
tween behaviors and norm development, especially at early stages in team development (Feldman, 1984; Graham,
2003; Kameda, Takezawa, & Hastie, 2003; Levine, Higgins, & Choi, 2000). As far back as Sherifs (1936) classic
experiments with the autokinetic effect, researchers have recognized that groups quickly form norms on the basis of
group members initial behaviors, and then these norms may persist across time (Cialdini et al., 1999). Once developed,
norms regulate social interactions and inuence the social identity of members (Brown, 2000). When team members
come to share a common conception of the way things are in their team, this common understanding reects the
teams identity. Shared understandings also contain expectations of behavioral tendencies among members, which
allow members to predict behavior and thus reduce uncertainty and enhance coordination (Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997).
As implied by this discussion and depicted in Figure 1, helping behaviors exhibited by group members early in the
life of the group may have long-term consequences for norm development. As team members help other members
early in the teams life span, the team will begin to develop shared judgments regarding the extent to which the
DOI: 10.1002/job
teams overall identity and behavior patterns are consistent with helping each other (i.e., we generally help each
other). As this behavior pattern becomes self-reinforcing and institutionalized, members will develop shared posi-
tive perceptions of the teams helping norms. Accordingly,
Hypothesis 1: Mean team levels of helping behavior midway through the project are positively related to teams
helping norms developed by project completion.
Minimums of individual attributes
We also proposed that teams minimum levels on several member attributes, including agreeableness, conscientious-
ness, other-oriented values, and personal helping beliefs, would be positively related to mean helping and to helping
norms. As shown in Figure 1, teams with a higher minimum (i.e., all members of the team have a moderate or high
level of the trait) will tend to develop high team mean helping midway through the project and positive norms by the
projects completion, relative to teams with low minimums.
In terms of the two personality dimensions, reviews of the individual-level relationships between personality and
helping behavior have revealed consistent but small correlations for agreeableness and conscientiousness with OCB
(Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Although personality
traits have been the primary individual-difference variables studied as antecedents of individual-level OCB,
researchers have increasingly focused on other individual attributes predictive of individual-level OCB. For
instance, a number of studies have focused on the role of values in predicting OCB, including Rioux and Penners
(2001) study of prosocial values, Moorman and Blakelys (1995) research on collectivistic values, and Lester,
Meglino, and Korsgaards (2008) focus on other-oriented values. In addition, researchers have shown that indivi-
duals beliefs about the importance or instrumentality of OCB can affect their OCB in a positive manner (Haworth
& Levy, 2001; Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000; McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007). On the basis of this
promising line of research on the relationship of values and beliefs with OCB, we examined the inuence of
other-oriented values (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Ravlin & Meglino, 1989) and personal helping beliefs (i.e., beliefs
about ones individual obligation to perform helping; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) on the emergence of team helping
norms.
As noted earlier, research has shown that the attributes studied here are related (albeit weakly) with individual
helping behavior (e.g., Borman et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Thus, we would antic-
ipate that if the minimum team member has low conscientiousness, agreeableness, other-oriented values, and/or per-
sonal helping beliefs, he or she will have a tendency to avoid helping others and will refrain from doing so when
possible. Therefore, this persons low levels of helping behavior will bring down the overall team mean of helping
behavior. Above and beyond this simple effect, there are team-level dynamics that can lead to a negative relationship
between the team minimum on these four attributes and teams mean helping behavior. Specically, when team-
mates discover that a focal team member is unreliable, disagreeable, self-focused, and/or does not believe that help-
ing others is necessary, they will be less likely to help that person and may also begin to question the value of their
own extra-role contributions. In short, they will perceive an inequity and want to avoid being the only member of the
team who goes above and beyond the call of duty (i.e., sucker aversion; Chen & Bachrach, 2003; Jackson &
Harkins, 1985; Schroeder, Steel, Woodell, & Bembenek, 2003). Therefore, members of the team subsequently ad-
just their own helping contributions downward to restore equity and avoid being the sucker who supports a free-
rider. Accordingly,
Hypothesis 2: Minimum team levels of (i) conscientiousness, (ii) agreeableness, (iii) other-oriented values, and
(iv) personal helping beliefs are positively related to mean team levels of helping behavior midway through
the project.
Individual-level relationships between attributes and OCB are not very large (Borman et al., 2001; Organ et al.,
2006) because of factors such as a perceived obligation to help among those who would otherwise not do so or a
DOI: 10.1002/job
low opportunity to help among those who would generally be inclined to help others. In a similar way, norms are not
only impacted by behavior but also can be shaped by a number of other factors (e.g., nonverbal communication,
expectations; Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997). These additional mechanisms are ways in which individuals attributes
may inuence norm development directly, as depicted in the direct link between team attributes and the team helping
norm in Figure 1. For example, a person low on agreeableness, other-oriented values, or personal helping beliefs
may choose to help coworkers if he or she is asked or if he or she perceives that it is expected of him or her. How-
ever, he or she may verbally or non-verbally express his or her dissatisfaction (e.g., grumbling under his breath,
scowling, exasperated sighs) and make it clear to coworkers that he or she does not appreciate wasting his or her
time helping others. In this way, a person low on these attributes may actually perform helping behaviors, yet his
or her evident frustration still signals to others that he or she does not care much about others and will avoid helping
if given an opportunity. As a result, other members will adjust their expectations and perceptions of team norms
downward accordingly. By the end of the project, this counter-role model will have impaired the establishment of
norms supportive of helping (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Note that this process can occur even without many op-
portunities for helping, as team members may conclude by the persons lack of a warm, caring personality (i.e., low
agreeableness), disinterest in others (i.e., low other-oriented values), or communication that helping is not important
(i.e., low personal helping beliefs) that he or she would not be helpful if given the opportunity in the future.
This same rationale would also hold for conscientiousness but for different reasons. A team member low in con-
scientiousness is likely to be viewed as undependable and irresponsible. He or she may be helpful at times but not at
others. A lack of consistency is problematic for norm development; even if he or she helps most of the time when
needed, the times he or she does not follow through will represent behavioral inconsistencies that impair the devel-
opment of pro-helping norms (cf., Graham, 2003; Kameda et al., 2003). A lack of follow through by a person low in
conscientiousness may result in team members questioning whether the individual would actually help when asked
or needed in the future. These downward expectations should be linked to the development of lower perceptions of
team helping norms by the projects completion.
Hypothesis 3: Minimum team levels of (i) conscientiousness, (i) agreeableness, (iii) other-oriented values, and
(iv) personal helping beliefs are positively related to teams helping norms developed by project completion.
Mediated relationships
Implicit in the preceding hypotheses is the full mediated model in Figure 1, wherein teams minimum scores on the
four attributes are related to helping norms through their relationships with teams mean levels of helping behavior.
In other words, part of the reason minimum attribute scores will be related to the emergence of team helping norms is
their inuence on helping behavior enacted early in the teams life span. Members with low scores on the four attri-
butes are less likely to help, and then teammates reduce helping in return, thereby decreasing the mean team helping.
As we have described, these early helping behaviors are inuential for determining the extent to which helping
norms emerge, and thus these behaviors should mediate the effects of attributes on norms. At the same time, we have
argued that there are alternative ways in which members attributes may directly inuence helping norms (e.g., ver-
bal and non-verbal displays of frustration with helping), which exist independently of any actual helping behavior
that occurs. We therefore propose that the relationship between teams minimum levels on each attribute and teams
helping norms will be partially mediated by the mean levels of helping behavior exhibited by team members.
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between minimum team levels of (i) conscientiousness, (ii) agreeableness, (iii)
other-oriented values, and (iv) personal helping beliefs and teams helping norms at the projects completion is
partially mediated by mean team levels of helping behavior at midway through the project.
Maximums of individual attributes
As detailed in the preceding paragraphs, we developed a priori hypotheses based upon the minimum compilation
model, consistent with existing theories (e.g., Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Felps et al., 2006) and evidence (e.g., Bell,
DOI: 10.1002/job
2007; Halfhill et al., 2005) indicating that negative team members may have stronger effects on team functioning
than positive team members. However, given that this is the rst study to investigate the composition of member
attributes in relation to groups helping behavior and helping norms, prior evidence does not speak to this issue. Re-
search comparing the predictive ability of minimum and maximum models would be useful to determine if bad is
stronger than good (Baumeister et al., 2001) when it comes to individuals attributes inuencing the development
of helping norms. However, because of the weaker theoretical basis for developing relationships between team at-
tribute maximums and helping norms, we pose this as a research question in comparison with the minimum compi-
lation model. Specically, we offer the following:
Research Question 1: To what extent will the maximum compilation model for (i) conscientiousness, (ii) agree-
ableness, (iii) other-oriented values, and (iv) personal helping beliefs produce parallel results to those for the min-
imum compilation model?
Method
Participants and procedures
Participants for this study were members of project teams in an introductory marketing course at a Canadian univer-
sity. In this required rst-year course, the students completed an in-depth project that consisted of developing a mar-
keting plan for a business. This creative, semester-long project entailed several components and deliverables along
the way (e.g., segmentation analysis, nal report, presentation of a commercial), which required that students work
interdependently across time. The students also had opportunities to work together both during class and outside of
class on other course tasks (e.g., in-class exercises, study for examinations).
During the second week of classes, a member of the research team made an announcement about this study to all
sections of the marketing course. We offered the students extra credit in exchange for their participation. If students
chose to participate, we gave them an informed consent form and a time 1 survey, which contained the measures of
individual attributes. We required the participants to complete and submit the time 1 survey by the end of the second
week of classes to receive credit. They provided their email addresses for further contact to complete the time 2 and
time 3 surveys online. The instructors randomly assigned the students to teams during the third week of classes and
provided us with a nal list of student teams, which allowed for customization of online survey programming for
each team. After the participants submitted the rst major deliverable for the project (midway through the semester),
we emailed and asked them to complete the time 2 survey online, in which they were asked to rate each of their
teammates helping behaviors. Finally, after the nal project deadline at the end of the semester, we contacted the
participants to complete the time 3 survey, in which the participants rated their teams helping norms.
To be included in our sample, the participants needed to complete all three surveys; also, to produce reliable team-
level metrics, each team needed to have at least three respondents at each time point (Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson,
2002; Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998). Four hundred twenty-two participants
completed the time 1 survey, 388 completed the time 2 survey (81 percent), and 279 completed the time 3 survey
(66 percent). Although most participants completed at least two of the three surveys, the sample of participants who
completed all three (and were therefore eligible for inclusion in the nal sample) was 203 students (48 percent). Of
these participants, 36 came from teams with only one or two respondents, so their data could not be used to compute
team-level metrics. Therefore, the nal sample consisted of 167 members distributed across 47 project teams. The
average team size was 3.55 members. The demographic distribution was 53 percent women, 60 percent Caucasian,
27 percent Asian, and 13 percent other races. The average age was 18.4years. Analyses comparing the sample who
completed the time 1 survey to the nal sample revealed that there were no signicant differences between these
samples on any of the hypothesized attributes nor on their demographics.
1
DOI: 10.1002/job
Measures
Personality
We assessed conscientiousness and agreeableness using Goldbergs (1999) 10-item scales for each of these con-
structs. Examples for conscientiousness include I am exacting in my work and I pay attention to details. Exam-
ples for agreeableness include I sympathize with others feelings and I feel little concern for others (reversed).
We asked the participants to indicate how accurately each of the items described themselves, on a scale ranging from
1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). We averaged their responses to create scores for each personality trait. Co-
efcient alphas were .82 for conscientiousness and .81 for agreeableness.
Other-oriented values
We administered the student version of the Comparative Emphasis Scale (CES; Korsgaard, Meglino, & Lester,
1996, 1997; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Ravlin & Meglino, 1989) to assess other-oriented values. The CES is a 24-
item forced-choice value measure designed to assess four values that operate in the workplace: concern for
others/helping, achievement/working hard, fairness, and honesty/integrity. The participants choose between two
competing values for each item; each time that the participants choose an option that corresponds to a given value
(e.g., they choose the other-concern option instead of fairness), they score one point on that value. This forced-
choice format is one of the best ways to assess values because values become most evident in choice situations,
and they are highly socially desirable. This format has been shown to reduce social desirability biases shown by
other formats (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). Because it is an ipsative measure, the scale only produces a rank ordering
of the values, yet work by Meglino and colleagues has shown that non-ipsative usage of the CES is appropriate if the
participants scores on a single value are compared. We were only interested in the other-oriented values component
of the measure, and thus, we only compared the participants on that value (cf., Lester et al., 2008). Examples of
other-concern items include Helping others on difcult projects or assignments, Encouraging someone who is
having a difcult day, and Offering help to others when they are having a tough time. Scores could range from
0 to 12. It is not possible to obtain a coefcient alpha on an ipsative measure, yet prior validation evidence on the
normative versions of CES items has produced alphas of .94 or greater (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987), and CES four-
week testretest reliability was .70 (Lester et al., 2008).
Personal helping beliefs
We wrote four items to assess the extent to which team members believe that they have a personal obligation
to perform helping OCB when working in a team. This conceptualization of OCB beliefs is consistent with
Ehrhart and Naumanns (2004) and Cialdini and Trosts (1998, p. 160) discussions of personal norms, wherein
both the standards and the sanctions for activating normative behavior are located within the self. Items were
answered on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A conrmatory factor analysis
revealed excellent t for the scale (w
2
(2)
=0.10; comparative t index=1.00; root mean square error of approximation
=0.000; standardized root mean square residual =0.003). The items and their factor loadings are as follows:
I would feel bad about myself if I did not help out a fellow team member when needed (.83), I expect myself
to help other team members if needed (.79), Not helping a fellow team member when needed is unacceptable
behavior for me (.74), and It is personally important for me to help out my fellow teammates (.57). Coefcient
alpha was .81.
1
On average, 88% of the members within each group (3.55 members out of four possible) participated in our research, so we computed team at-
tribute scores from all group members scores in most cases. For teams where only three members participated, we computed team attribute scores
from these members data. This raises the possibility that these teams minimum scores may have been lower than indexed here (cf., Marcus &
Schtz, 2005). This potential range reduction in our sample may have attenuated some of the observed effects.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Mean helping behavior in teams
In the time 2 survey, team members rated each of their teammates on the degree to which that teammate had
engaged in helping behaviors. We modeled the items after items from Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and
Fetter (1990) but adapted to this team context. The participants received a list of all their team members on their
survey, and we asked them to write the name of one teammate in the rst section. They then answered the following
two questions: How much was this group member willing to help other group members? and How much did this
group member provide other group members with extra assistance on course-related tasks? on a scale from 1
(very slightly or not at all) to 5 (a lot). Participants repeated this process for each of the remaining team members.
To compute a helping score for each individual, we averaged all peer ratings on these two items; we did not include
participants self-ratings of helping behaviors in their scores. We averaged all members individual helping behavior
scores to compute a mean team helping behavior score. Individual-level coefcient alpha was .86 and team-level
coefcient alpha was .90.
Helping norms
Team members completed a 4-item version of the Podsakoff et al. (1990) measure of altruistic (helping) citizenship
behavior, a group norms measure validated in prior work (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004). The participants indicated the extent
to which OCB occurred in their team as a whole on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Examples include Members of my team willingly help others in the group who have work-related problems, and
Members of my team are always ready to lend a helping hand to other team members. We computed team scores
by mean aggregating all members responses, after justifying aggregation. Individual-level coefcient alpha was .86;
team-level coefcient alpha was .82.
Covariates
We controlled for three team characteristics in all analyses, including teams degree of task information exchange,
the gender balance of the group, and the teams average ability. First, it is possible that teams who interact more ex-
tensively on the task may have greater opportunities to evidence helping behaviors and develop helping norms. We
therefore controlled for the degree of task-related information exchange by administering an item from van Dick,
van Knippenberg, Hgele, Guillaume, and Brodbeck (2008), Members of my project group discuss the content of
our work a lot, on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Second, there is some evidence
for gender differences in personality (Costa, Terraciano, & McCrae, 2001) and in expectations for OCB (e.g., Farrell
& Finkelstein, 2007), so we also controlled for groups gender ratios (i.e., percentage of group that was male) in all
analyses. Finally, it is possible that teams with higher ability may be less likely to establish helping norms because
members are more self-reliant and less likely to need help. Therefore, we controlled for teams average ability by
asking members to report their high school grade average (percentage) as part of the time 1 survey, then we com-
puted team ability metric by averaging members scores.
Analyses and Results
We rst examined whether individual characteristics were related to peers ratings of helping behavior at the indi-
vidual level, consistent with prior work. Table 1 shows the individual-level descriptive statistics and correlations.
Conscientiousness was positively related to peer ratings of helping behavior (r=.25, p<.05) but agreeableness
(r=.14, not signicant (ns)), other-oriented values (r=.03, ns), and personal helping beliefs (r=.04, ns) were
non-signicant. These results are consistent with prior work showing modest or null relationships between individ-
ual-level attributes and OCB.
At the team level of analysis, we rst assessed the appropriateness of aggregating helping norms to the team
level, consistent with recommendations for studying referent-shift consensus constructs in multilevel research
DOI: 10.1002/job
(Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The r
wg(j)
results based on a uniform null distribution demonstrated high
levels of within-team agreement on team helping norms, with a median value of 0.94 and mean of 0.92. The values
ranged from 0.69 to 1.00. A one-way analysis of variance with team membership as the predictor was signicant
( p<.05) and had an eta-squared value of 0.42 and an ICC(1) value of .13, which meets generally accepted standards
for aggregation (Bliese, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). We thus aggregated helping norms. Table 2 provides the
descriptive statistics and correlations for team-level variables.
2
Hypothesis tests for group minimums
We conducted hierarchical linear regressions to test Hypotheses 1 through 3, with covariates entered in the
rst step. As seen in Table 3 (Model 1), supporting Hypothesis 1, the relationship between teams initial levels
of mean helping behavior and team helping norms several weeks later was positive and signicant ( =.44,
R
2
=.13, p<.01). Thus, average helping behaviors inuence the helping norms that develop, but these variables
are not redundant. In other words, it appears that factors other than helping behavior also inuence the development
of norms.
The results for relationships between minimum team attributes and team helping (Hypothesis 2(i)(iv))
can be seen in the upper portion of Table 4. As hypothesized, minimum agreeableness was signicantly related
to mean team helping behavior (Model 2: =.30, R
2
=.09, p<.05). However, minimum conscientiousness
(Model 1: =.10, R
2
=.01, ns), other-oriented values (Model 3: =.08, R
2
=.01, ns), and personal helping
beliefs (Model 4: =.12, R
2
=.01, ns) were not. Therefore, only Hypothesis 2(ii) was supported in this set of
analyses.
Hypothesis 3(i)(iv) stated that minimum team levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness, other-oriented values,
and personal helping beliefs would be directly positively related to teams helping norms. The upper portion of
Table 3 shows the results. Minimum levels of agreeableness (Model 3: =.30, R
2
=.09, p<.05), other-oriented
values (Model 4: =.37, R
2
=.13, p<.01), and personal helping beliefs (Model 5: =.27, R
2
=.07, p<.05) were
directly signicantly related to teams helping norms. Minimum levels of conscientiousness were unrelated to teams
helping norms (Model 2: =.01, R
2
=.00, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 3(ii)(iv) were supported, whereas Hypoth-
esis 3(i) was not.
For the proposed meditational relationships between minimum attributes and helping norms (Hypothesis 4(i)
(iv)), minimum agreeableness was the only individual attribute related to teams mean helping behaviors, so it
was the only attribute for which mediation could be tested. We used the mediation criteria set forth by Baron and
2
As noted by LeBreton and Senter (2008), researchers tend to rely on the uniform null distribution when estimating r
wg(j)
despite recommenda-
tions otherwise dating back to James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984). As an alternative to the uniform distribution, we also used expected error var-
iances from LeBreton and Senter (2008) to take into account the possibility of a slight positive leniency bias (consistent with Kozlowski and Hults,
1987). The results from this analysis also supported strong within-team agreement, with a median value of 0.90 and mean of 0.85.
Table 1. Individual-level descriptive statistics and correlations.
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Conscientiousness 3.43 0.65 1.00
2. Agreeableness 3.84 0.52 .00 1.00
3. Other-oriented values 6.05 2.60 .20 .26 1.00
4. Helping beliefs 3.97 0.63 .04 .54 .25 1.00
5. Individual helping behavior 3.87 0.61 .25 .14 .03 .04 1.00
6. Grade average 91.00 3.25 .28 .14 .09 .12 .06
Note: n=167. Correlations at or above |.16| are statistically signicant at p<.05 (two-tailed).
DOI: 10.1002/job
T
a
b
l
e
2
.
G
r
o
u
p
-
l
e
v
e
l
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
a
n
d
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
M
e
a
n
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
.
C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s
(
m
i
n
)
2
.
8
0
0
.
4
6
1
.
0
0
2
.
A
g
r
e
e
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
s
(
m
i
n
)
3
.
3
9
0
.
4
7
.
2
9
1
.
0
0
3
.
O
t
h
e
r
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
v
a
l
u
e
s
(
m
i
n
)
3
.
4
7
1
.
9
3
.
2
1
.
4
4
1
.
0
0
4
.
H
e
l
p
i
n
g
b
e
l
i
e
f
s
(
m
i
n
)
3
.
3
4
0
.
5
4
.
1
1
.
6
4
.
2
4
1
.
0
0
5
.
C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s
(
m
a
x
)
4
.
0
9
0
.
4
8
.
3
6
.
2
3
.
3
0
.
0
6
1
.
0
0
6
.
A
g
r
e
e
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
s
(
m
a
x
)
4
.
3
0
0
.
3
7
.
0
6
.
3
1
.
3
8
.
0
3
.
1
3
1
.
0
0
7
.
O
t
h
e
r
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
v
a
l
u
e
s
(
m
a
x
)
8
.
4
9
1
.
7
2
.
1
0
.
1
7
.
3
9
.
0
9
.
3
1
.
3
0
1
.
0
0
8
.
H
e
l
p
i
n
g
b
e
l
i
e
f
s
(
m
a
x
)
4
.
6
2
0
.
3
1
.
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
9
.
1
7
.
0
1
.
2
2
.
0
6
1
.
0
0
9
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
h
e
l
p
i
n
g
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
(
m
e
a
n
)
3
.
8
7
0
.
4
7
.
2
0
.
3
7
.
0
1
.
2
0
.
1
6
.
2
8
.
0
3
.
1
1
1
.
0
0
1
0
.
H
e
l
p
i
n
g
n
o
r
m
s
(
m
e
a
n
)
4
.
0
2
0
.
3
8
.
1
5
.
3
5
.
3
2
.
2
9
.
0
7
.
3
3
.
1
0
.
0
6
.
5
3
1
.
0
0
1
1
.
T
a
s
k
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
3
.
9
3
0
.
6
4
.
3
3
.
1
3
.
1
3
.
1
2
.
1
3
.
1
2
.
1
1
.
0
5
.
5
4
.
4
4
1
.
0
0
1
2
.
T
e
a
m
g
r
a
d
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
9
0
.
9
3
1
.
6
7
.
4
1
.
1
3
.
0
1
.
1
9
.
1
5
.
0
5
.
4
3
.
1
2
.
0
7
.
0
4
.
1
1
1
.
0
0
1
3
.
T
e
a
m
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
m
a
l
e
0
.
4
9
0
.
2
7
.
0
4
.
1
1
.
2
3
.
0
3
.
1
5
.
5
9
.
1
4
.
1
0
.
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
1
.
0
6
n
=
4
7
t
e
a
m
s
.
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
o
r
a
b
o
v
e
|
.
2
9
|
a
r
e
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
s
i
g
n
i
c
a
n
t
a
t
p
<
.
0
5
(
t
w
o
-
t
a
i
l
e
d
)
.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Kenny (1986) and summarized the results in Table 3. Minimum agreeableness was signicantly related to teams
helping norms (Model 3; =.30, R
2
=.09, p<.05), and mean helping behaviors were also signicantly related to
teams helping norms (Model 1; =.44, R
2
=.13, p<.01). Finally, as seen in Model 6, mean helping behavior
remained signicantly related to helping norms when minimum agreeableness was controlled ( =.36, R
2
=.16,
p<.01), and minimum team agreeableness was no longer signicantly related to teams helping norms ( =.19,
ns). Thus, the results supported full mediation rather than the partial mediation predicted in Hypothesis 4(ii). How-
ever, as noted by Baron and Kenny (1986), the strongest evidence for mediation is when the direct path is reduced to
zero, and a non-zero direct effect (even if non-signicant) suggests multiple mediators. The size of the agreeableness
residual direct effect (.19) suggests that there may be mechanisms other than mean helping that explain the relation-
ship between minimum agreeableness and helping norms. As a follow-up analysis, we tested the strength of the in-
direct effect using bootstrapping. Several scholars (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher & Hayes,
2004, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002) have argued that bootstrapping is the preferred approach because it does not
assume a normal distribution for the indirect effect like the more commonly used Sobel test. These results revealed
a signicant indirect effect between agreeableness and helping norms through teams mean helping behaviors
( =.20, p<.05).
For interested readers, we presented the multivariate model including all minimum group attributes and helping
behavior simultaneously as predictors of helping norms in Table 3. As seen in Model 7, teams mean helping behav-
ior signicantly predicted helping norms after controlling for all team minimum attributes. Because minimum agree-
ableness and helping beliefs are correlated at .64, it is not surprising that they drop to non-signicance in the
Table 3. Regression results for helping behaviors and individual attributes predicting group helping norms.
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Step 1: covariates
Task information exchange .42** .42** .42** .42** .42** .42** .42**
Team grade average .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Team percentage male .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15
Step 2: group minimums
Helping behaviors, mean .44** .36* .41*
Conscientiousness group
minimum
.01 .03
Agreeableness group minimum .30* .19 .08
Other-oriented values minimum .37** .33*
Helping beliefs minimum .27* .17
Step 2 R
2
.13** .00 .09* .13** .07* .16** .26**
Overall model R
2
.35 .21 .30 .34 .28 .38 .47
Step 2: group maximums
Helping behaviors, mean .44** .44*
maximum
.03 .03
Agreeableness group maximum .29 .05
Other-oriented values maximum .16 .15
Helping beliefs maximum .06 .08
Step 2 R
2
.13** .00 .06 .02 .00 .17
Overall model R
2
.35 .21 .27 .23 .22 .38
*p<.05.
**p<.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
multivariate model even though each is independently related to helping norms. However, teams minimum other-
oriented values remained signicantly related to helping norms, suggesting that values predict unique variance in
this dependent variable beyond that accounted for by personality or beliefs.
Research question for group maximum
In addition to the preceding results on the minimum compilation model, we explored the extent to which the
maximum compilation model would produce parallel results. We presented the results for the relationships be-
tween maximum team attributes and team helping in the bottom portion of Table 4. The conclusions are virtually
identical to those from the minimum compilation model. Specically, maximum agreeableness was signicantly re-
lated to mean team helping behavior (Model 2: =.36, R
2
=.08, p<.05). However, maximum conscientiousness
(Model 1: =.11, R
2
=.01, ns), other-oriented values (Model 3: =.02, R
2
=.00, ns), and personal helping
beliefs (Model 4: =.13, R
2
=.02, ns) were not. Thus, relationships between maximum attributes and mean help-
ing behavior were parallel to the relationships observed for minimum attributes.
In contrast, the maximum compilation model produced very different results for helping norms. As can be seen
in the lower portion of Table 3, there were no signicant relationships between any of the maximum team attri-
butes and the helping norms that emerged in teams by the end of their project: conscientiousness (Model 2:
=.03, R
2
=.00, ns), agreeableness (Model 3: =.29, R
2
=.06, ns), other-oriented values (Model 4: =.16,
R
2
=.02, ns), and personal helping beliefs (Model 5: =.06, R
2
=.00, ns). The non-signicant relationships
Table 4. Regression results for individual attributes predicting mean helping behaviors.
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Step 1: covariates
Task information exchange .56** .56** .56** .56** .56**
Team grade average .13 .13 .13 .13 .13
Team percentage male .04 .04 .04 .04 .04
Step 2: group minimums
minimum
.10 .27
Agreeableness group minimum .30* .52**
Other-oriented values minimum .08 .07
Helping beliefs minimum .12 .18
Step 2 R
2
.01 .09* .01 .01 .15*
Overall model R
2
.32 .40 .32 .32 .46
Step 2: group maximums
maximum
.11 .10
Agreeableness group maximum .36* .50**
Other-oriented values maximum .02 .09
Helping beliefs maximum .13 .26
Step 2 R
2
.01 .08* .00 .02 .16*
Overall model R
2
.32 .40 .31 .33 .47
*p<.05.
**p<.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
between maximum attributes and helping norms were also retained in the multivariate model containing helping be-
havior (Model 7), suggesting that none of the maximum attributes predicted helping norms either independently or
after controlling for helping behavior.
Discussion
In light of the strong relationship between group OCB and group effectiveness (Nielsen et al., 2009; Podsakoff
et al., 2009), it is important for scholars to better understand the ways in which groups may develop and sustain
helping norms among group members. With this research, we moved beyond the current OCB literatures focus
on leadership and situational determinants of group OCB (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Pearce & Herbik, 2004; Richardson
& Vandenberg, 2005) with an investigation of whether groups helping norms are impaired by having at least one
member with low levels of helping-related attributes (i.e., conscientiousness, agreeableness, other-oriented values,
personal helping beliefs). As such, this research bridges the OCB literature with theory on the emergence of group
constructs (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) and with the growing body of work on group composition (e.g., Bell, 2007;
Halfhill et al., 2005), particularly regarding the detrimental effects of negative group members (Felps et al., 2006).
We investigated whether teams minimums on each attribute were associated with average helping behavior
exhibited by members early in the teams life span and were subsequently associated with helping norms that
emerged. We also explored whether teams maximums on each of these attributes (i.e., having at least one member
with highly altruistic attributes) had parallel effects. The results of a longitudinal study of 47 newly formed project
teams revealed several effects in line with our hypotheses as well as unexpected results, as discussed in the
succeeding paragraphs.
Implications for research and theory
Antecedents to group helping behavior and norms
One of the most important implications for future theory and research is that the effects of individuals attributes on
OCB are non-isomorphic at the individual and group levels. Group minimums on agreeableness, other-oriented
values, and personal helping beliefs predicted helping norms, yet at the individual level, these attributes were unre-
lated to individual helping. At the group level, characterizing a group on the basis of its lowest scoring member on
these attributes explained between 7 and 13 per cent of the variance in the helping norms. These results underscore
the relevance of group composition when trying to develop group norms that encourage OCB. It only takes a single
member who is disagreeable, unconcerned about others, or does not believe in the importance of helping to nega-
tively inuence the emergence of group helping norms. This evidence also speaks to the need for additional attention
to OCB within the group personality composition literature. Group composition research has focused primarily on
predicting group performance (Bell, 2007), with less attention to relational group processes. In their group compo-
sition review, Halfhill and colleagues (2005) found only a few studies on relational criteria (e.g., conict, cohesion,
viability), and OCB was not among them. Our results suggest that greater attention to group composition and rela-
tional group processes such as OCB is a fruitful avenue for future inquiry.
We had proposed that each of the minimum team attributes would be associated with groups helping norms as
mediated through group helping behavior. As expected, agreeableness was associated with teams helping norms
through its relationship with actual helping behavior. Disagreeable people have a slight tendency to avoid helping
others, but this effect is magnied at the group level such that merely having a disagreeable person in ones group
may lead the rest of the group members to reduce discretionary contributions, resulting in a low group helping mean.
We theorized that this may be due to the sucker aversion effect (Chen & Bachrach, 2003; Jackson & Harkins,
1985; Schroeder, et al., 2003), in that other members feel inequity when they realize that helping is not being
DOI: 10.1002/job
reciprocated by a disagreeable member, so they also reduce helping. Future research that directly assesses team-
mates reactions when they are exposed to a non-contributor would be useful. The low mean level of helping within
a group is subsequently detrimental for the development of group helping norms, in line with research showing that
early behaviors have an inuence on norm development (Graham, 2003; Kameda et al., 2003). Mean helping me-
diated the relationship between teams minimum agreeableness and helping norms, but the non-zero residual direct
effect of agreeableness suggests that there may also be other mechanisms through which agreeableness inuences
group norms, as discussed in more depth below.
Mediated effects did not emerge for other-oriented values or personal helping beliefs because neither of these con-
structs was associated with groups average helping behaviors. These null relationships were surprising and deserve
further attention. Values are concepts or beliefs that pertain to desirable end states and that guide individuals selec-
tion and/or evaluation of behavior (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Other-oriented values and personal helping beliefs
reect the extent to which individuals consider helping to be desirable and important. In contrast, personality traits
refer to patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions (McCrae & Costa, 1991), so they reect what people are like
more so than what people consider important (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz & Knafo, 2002). Because of the close link
between personality and behavior patterns (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994), personality may be a better predictor of initial
helping behavior. At the same time, values and beliefs inuence individuals preferred interaction styles and inter-
pretations of others behavior. Values and beliefs may become more inuential over time as members learn about
each other and develop patterns and routines that reect members preferences. Consistent with this, other-oriented
values and personal helping beliefs both exhibited signicant direct relationships with groups helping norms, even
though they were unrelated to mean helping behavior early in the teams development. Indeed, other-oriented values
predicted unique variance in norms above and beyond all other attributes and helping behavior.
The existence of these direct, unmediated relationships between individual attributes and helping norms suggests
that there must be alternative avenues through which members altruistic orientations (traits, beliefs, or values,
broadly speaking) are revealed to their teammates, other than through their helping behaviors. Although we did
not examine such behaviors in our study, we strongly encourage scholars to investigate reasons for these direct rela-
tionships. We speculate that team members may engage in OCB even though they do not want to, and their peers
may be able to pick up on their resistance to performing OCB because of verbal or non-verbal cues. Possible cues
include explicitly stating that they do not have time to help others, that they want to work alone, or that teammates
should divide up the tasks and work independently. Less explicit cues might include scowling at a coworker who is
struggling to complete his or her work, acting impatient when asked to help others, refusing to return emails that
request assistance, and never offering help even when other teammates do (e.g., not saying just let me know if
you need any help).
The results for conscientiousness were also contrary to expectations, such that groups minimum conscientious-
ness was unrelated to average helping behavior and helping norms. However, conscientiousness is one of the only
individual attributes that typically predicts individual OCB (e.g., Organ & Ryan, 1995), as was upheld in our study.
When considered with the results for other aforementioned attributes, the evidence suggest that interpersonally rel-
evant attributes may be most inuential when examining the emergence of group-level helping norms, whereas the
dutifulness associated with conscientiousness affects individual behavior. Given that it is OCB in the aggregate that
improves the functioning of groups and organizations (Organ, 1988; Organ et al., 2006), it may be benecial for
scholars to shift their focus toward interpersonally relevant attributes when trying to understand the antecedents
to OCB at the group level.
Bad apples versus good eggs
We also examined whether having at least one member with high levels on these attributes would produce parallel
results. In colloquial terms, we investigated if good eggs were as inuential as bad apples for mean helping be-
havior and helping norms. The results led to different conclusions for these two outcomes. When mean helping be-
havior was the criterion, the results were virtually identical for the minimum and the maximum compilation model.
Having at least one highly agreeable person on the team was associated with high average levels of helping across
DOI: 10.1002/job
members. Although this is likely due, in part, to the highly agreeable persons tendency to help others increasing the
group mean, recipients of helping would have also felt obligated to reciprocate helping toward the help giver due to
the social exchange principle (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). This may have initially increased the helping mean. Sim-
ilar to the results for the minimum compilation model, other-oriented values, personal helping beliefs, and consci-
entiousness were unrelated to groups mean helping.
When team helping norms was the criterion, the team maximum on the four attributes did not signicantly relate
to the emergence of team helping norms, whereas three out of four team minimum attributes were associated with
team helping norms. Even if highly agreeable members increase team helping behaviors early in the teams life span,
prosocial behaviors do not necessarily become institutionalized and become part of the groups shared identity.
When it comes to recognizing whether helping behavior is characteristic of the group as a whole, the positive inu-
ence of one persons positive attributes do not carry the same weight as another persons negative attributes, consis-
tent with the bad is stronger than good principle (Baumeister et al., 2001). This ts with arguments by Felps et al.
(2006) about the especially detrimental effects of having a negative group member and with evidence showing that
negative events produce longer lasting negative cognitions and affect compared with equivalent positive events
(Baumeister et al., 2001; Lewicka et al., 1992; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989). It is likely that those cognitions
and affect inuence norm formation, perhaps even more so than the initial behavior of group members. Overall,
the results support the adage that one bad apple may spoil the barrel; however, one good egg will not produce
a basket of good eggs.
Strengths and limitations
There are several strengths of our research design, including the random assignment to teams, the comparability of
tasks across teams, the time-lagged research design, and the use of multiple sources of data (i.e., peer ratings). The
design of our study helps draw stronger conclusions about the inuence of individual attributes on helping norms
compared with research on intact work groups. Participants were randomly assigned to project teams working in
the same setting on the same task. In such a context, the teams could have developed similar norms, which would
have limited the variance available to uncover effects (i.e., it was a conservative setting to study between-team dif-
ferences). However, distinct team norms did emerge, and 13 per cent of the variance in those norms was explained
by team membership, representing a medium effect size (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Also, random assignment en-
sured that attractionselectionattrition processes were not in operation, whereas they typically operate in most or-
ganizational settings (Schneider, 1987). This ensured that people did not self-select into groups composed of others
with similar attributes, which would reduce variance and attenuate effects. Random assignment into groups and
comparable tasks allowed for a fair test of the effects of group composition on average group helping behavior
and group helping norms.
There are also limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting our results. Although we ensured that
participants self-reports of helping behaviors were excluded when calculating the average for the team, it was nec-
essary to index teams helping norms by asking all team members to rate those norms. This is consistent with the
conceptualization of norms as being socially shared and available to all members (e.g., Cialdini & Trost, 1998),
but it does raise the possibility of common method variance between the peer ratings of helping behavior and the
team ratings on OCB norms. A six-week temporal separation in measurement helped minimize a number of response
processes that can produce common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), and the differ-
ent results for average helping behavior versus helping norms also suggest that this concern was reduced.
With regard to methodological limitations, there was no existing measure for personal helping beliefs, so we
wrote items for this construct, and we adapted the individual helping behavior measure to our context. Both of these
measures evidenced good reliability and related as expected to other constructs. The new personal helping beliefs
measure showed good t and high factor loadings, but a full validation was not possible with the given sample. An-
other concern is sample attrition and the resulting sample size. Students received email reminders encouraging them
DOI: 10.1002/job
to complete the online surveys, but only 78 percent completed the time 2 survey, and 64 percent completed time 3;
when combined, 47 percent of the original sample completed all surveys. Students at this university have access to
numerous competing extra credit research studies and may have opted to complete other studies instead. Fortunately,
t-tests indicated that the original sample and the nal sample did not differ in any meaningful ways. Although a
larger sample would have allowed for greater power to detect effects, this did not appear to adversely inuence
our conclusions, and our sample size appears to be fairly similar to other teams research (e.g., Bell, 2007; LePine,
Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008).
The use of student project teams may be perceived as a limitation of this research, given the goal of understanding
OCB helping norms. Randomly assigning working adults in organizations to teams and tracking their teams norm de-
velopment over time is not realistic in actual work settings, yet the use of student project teams allowed for these design
benets. One option for future research would be for scholars who have access to older-adult student populations to rep-
licate this study. Also, some readers may consider the absence of team performance data as a limitation, although this
was not the goal of this research and these relationships are already well established meta-analytically (Nielsen et al.
2009; Podsakoff et al., 2009). We did consider this possibility but were only able to obtain team performance data
from instructors for a small subset of the teams in our sample, making this option unavailable for our research.
Practical implications and conclusion
We conclude with implications of these ndings for managers. These results indicate that teams OCB helping norms
can be negatively inuenced by having even a single member of the team who is low on agreeableness, shows low
concern for others, and/or who believes that there is little reason for him or her to help others. Having a bad apple
with these attributes on the team can keep the rest of the team from realizing its full potential for collaboration, which
will ultimately lead to norms that keep members from going above and beyond the call of duty to help the team suc-
ceed. Also, having an altruistic good egg on the team is unlikely to encourage the team to develop OCB norms. It is
therefore important to attend closely to the characteristics and behaviors of potential team members when designing a
newteam. If all members of a team are concerned about others and believe in the importance of prosocial actions, they
will naturally develop group norms that encourage OCB, which should then enhance team effectiveness.
Although the use of attributes as a selection criterion for team members may be the best route to developing help-
ing norms, it is not always realistic nor is it the only route managers should take. Managers must nd other ways to
encourage employees to display helping behaviors regardless of the individual attributes possessed by the team
members they manage. One important rst step would be for managers to formally commit to and continuously
communicate the importance of teammate support and helping. That is, managers may prescribe norms, rather than
just allowing them to emerge (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Managers own helping behavior may also be an impor-
tant stimulus that evokes helping behavior due to the principles of behavior modeling (Bandura, 1986) and social
exchange (Blau, 1964). Given the strong link between early helping behaviors and the formation of team helping
norms, it is important for leaders to set prosocial behavioral expectations early, model these behaviors, and reward
helping as well.
With regard to performance management, leaders can foster an environment in which employees are recognized
and rewarded for their helping behaviors in several ways. We encourage organizations to create performance ap-
praisal and recognition systems that take into account teammates experiences with other members. For example,
they might consider implementing a team player award where one employee per team is recognized for his or
her extraordinary contributions to helping others succeed. Symbolic awards such as this reiterate the importance
of helping and are likely to be especially powerful if accompanied by team recognition as well (e.g., catered lunches,
off-site events). These practices should encourage helping behaviors and helping norms in teams, and they may also
reduce negative implications of existing bad apples, as these individuals begin to behave in line with expectations.
Developing and maintaining strong team helping norms is not easy, and bad apples must be kept from impairing
them, but once these norms are established, the whole team may benet.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Author biographies
Jana L. Raver is an Associate Professor and E. Marie Shantz Fellow of Organizational Behavior at Queens School
of Business, Queens University. Her research examines interpersonal relations and group processes at work, with an
emphasis upon the ways in which employees support each other and build high-performance environments (e.g.,
helping, promoting learning) versus engage in counterproductive actions that undermine each other (e.g., harassment,
exclusion). She holds a Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from the University of Maryland.
Mark G. Ehrhart is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at San Diego State University. He
received his Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from the University of Maryland. His current
research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, organizational climate and culture, leadership, work
stress, and diversity, and the application of these topics across levels of analysis and in service and health/mental
health settings.
Ingrid C. Chadwick is a Ph.D. student in Organizational Behavior at Queens School of Business, Queens University.
She has an M.Ed. in Adult Education from Queens University. Her research interests include interpersonal relations,
group processes, learning, and culture.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations for thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
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, 377391.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General
Psychology, 5, 323370.
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 92, 595615.
Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality. European Journal of Personality, 8, 163181.
Blau, O. M. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Mul-
tilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. (2003). Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker inuences on employee
citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 181196.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. Inter-
national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 5269.
Brown, R. (2000). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd edn). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of
composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234246.
Chen, X. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2003). Tolerance of free-riding: The effects of defection size, defection pattern, and social ori-
entation in a repeated public goods dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 139147.
Choi, J. N. (2009). Collective dynamics of citizenship behaviour: What group characteristics promote group-level helping? Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 46, 13961420.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72, 263268.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social inuence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske,
& G. Lindzey (Eds)., The handbook of social psychology (4th edn, Vol. 2, pp. 151192). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cialdini, R. B., Bator, R. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (1999). Normative inuences in organizations. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine,
& D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 195211). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice cli-
mate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83109.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Costa, P. T., Terraciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surpris-
ing ndings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322331.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior.
Personnel Psychology, 57, 6194.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 960974.
Ehrhart, M. G., Bliese, P. D., & Thomas, J. L. (2006). Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness: Examining the incremental effect of
helping behavior. Human Performance, 19, 159173.
Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & Van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across
cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 10351057.
Farrell, S. K., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2007). Organizational citizenship behavior and gender: Expectations and attributions for per-
formance. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 8196.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 4753.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and
dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175222.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level
analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698709.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several
ve-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. DeFruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7,
pp. 728). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Graham, C. R. (2003). A model of norm development for computer-mediated teamwork. Small Group Research, 34, 322352.
Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. (2005). Group personality composition and group effective-
ness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36, 83105.
Haworth, C. L., & Levy, P. E. (2001). The importance of instrumentality beliefs in the prediction of organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 6475.
House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. J. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and
macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71114.
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A eld
quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822858.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 869879.
Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An exploration of the social loang effect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 11991206.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 8598.
Kameda, T., Takezawa, M., & Hastie, R. (2003). The logic of social sharing: An evolutionary game analysis of adaptive norm
development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 219.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behaviour and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
656669.
Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., & Lester, S. W. (1996). The effect of other-oriented values on decision making: A test of pro-
positions of a theory of concern for others in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68,
234245.
Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., & Lester, S. W. (1997). Beyond helping: Do other-oriented values have broader implications
in organizations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 160177.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational
effectiveness: A unit-level longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101114.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical updating and performance. Personnel Psy-
chology, 40, 539563.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal,
and emergent processes. In K. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations
(pp. 390). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kraiger, K., & Wenzel, L. (1997). Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measures of shared mental models as
indicators of team effectiveness. In M. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement
(pp. 6384). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lau, D. C., & Lam, L. W. (2008). Effects of trusting and being trusted on team citizenship behaviours in chain stores. Asian Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 11, 141149.
DOI: 10.1002/job
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 11, 815852.
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of
hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803811.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of
a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273307.
Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2008). The role of other orientation in organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 829841.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small-group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585634.
Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, H.-S. (2000). Development of strategic norms in groups. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 82, 88101.
Lewicka, M., Czapinski, J., & Peeters, G. (1992). Positivenegative asymmetry or When the heart needs a reason. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 425434.
MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., & Williams J. (2004). Condence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product
and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99128.
Marcus, B., & Schtz, A. (2005). Who are the people reluctant to participate in research? Personality correlates of four different
types of nonresponse as inferred from self- and observer ratings. Journal of Personality, 73, 960984.
Mason, C. M., & Grifn, M. A. (2005). Group task satisfaction: The groups shared attitude to its task and work environment.
Group & Organization Management, 30, 625652.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership ow? Test of a
trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 113.
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role
breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efcacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
12001211.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full ve-factor model and well-being. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227232.
McGrath, J. E. (1998).A view of group composition through a group-theoretic lens. In M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix, & D. H.
Gruenfeld (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 255272). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of
Management, 24, 351389.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team per-
formance? Small Group Research, 34, 651677.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational cit-
izenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127142.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel
research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249265.
Naumann, S. E., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2005). A unit-level perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. In D. L. Turnipseed
(Ed.), Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 143156). Hauppauge NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and
the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24, 2845.
Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work groups: A multilevel
analysis. Group & Organization Management, 30, 514540.
Nielsen, T. M., Hrivnak, G. A., & Shaw, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior and performance: A meta-analysis of
group-level research. Small Group Research, 40, 555577.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship
behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775802.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and
consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership, team
commitment, perceived team support, and team size. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 293310.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance:
A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133151.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of
work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262270.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A crit-
ical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on
followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical
review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 615621.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of
organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122141.
Porter, C. O. L. H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams:
The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 391403.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in mul-
tiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879891.
Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Issues in work values measurement. In W. C. Frederick (Ed.), Research in corporate
social performance and policy (Vol. 9, pp. 153183). New York: JAI.
Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1989). The transitivity of work values: Hierarchical preference ordering of socially desirable
stimuli. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 494508.
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-
unit model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561589.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 13061314.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789801.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Orga-
nizational Behavior, 7, 137.
Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behaviour
research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 283301.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437453.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Tests of a
causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150163.
Schroeder, D. A., Steel, J. E., Woodell, A. J., & Bembenek, A. F. (2003). Justice within social dilemmas. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 74, 374387.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 53, 550562.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommenda-
tions. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation a review of explanations.
Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131142.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behaviour from an organizational perspective: The
relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 77, 281298.
van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., Hgele, S., Guillaume, Y. R. F., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2008). Group diversity and group iden-
tication: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations, 61, 14631492.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Copyright of Journal of Organizational Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The Emergence of Team Helping Norms: Foundations Within Members ' Attributes and Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Emergence of Team Helping Norms: Foundations Within Members ' Attributes and Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Emergence of Team Helping Norms: Foundations Within Members ' Attributes and Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The emergence of team helping norms:

Foundations within members attributes and

You might also like