Table of Contents
Helping behavior is a type of interpersonal, cooperative, and affiliative extra-role behavior directed toward agro-processing group members (Liao et al., 2008; Van Dyne et al., 2008; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Helping behavior is not specific in group members’ requirements, meaning that they may not be rewarded by the group’s compensation system (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998).
In contrast, in role behavior they tend to be specific in job descriptions and reflected in the group’s system. Group members generally have discretion in deciding whether or not to go beyond their call of duty to help other members. However, when team members willingly engage in such helping behavior toward them, then this will enhance overall team effectiveness (Liao et al., 2008; Murnighan and Conlon, 1991). Helping behaviors are thus especially significant for the effectiveness of groups when roles are inter-reliant and when greater team member cooperation can promote group performance (Nemeth and Staw, 1989).
Although much research has been carried out on helping at the individual level (e.g., Liao et al., 2008; Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998), scholars have argued that the potential benefits of helping on the performance of a collective, such as the performance of an agro-processing group, increase through the collective effects of such behavior, rather than as a result of secluded incidents (Organ, 1988), and so should also be studied as a collective trend in this perspective (Bommer et al., 2007; Choi, 2009).
127 our experts are availableright now
Previous studies have posited that the construct of group-level helping is akin to that of positive team processes, which have been defined as group members’ affect attitude, motivation, and behavior to promote collective goals (Campion, Medsker, and Higgs, 1993; Ferrin, Bligh, and Kohles, 2007; Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). For this reason, it is necessary to consider team-level helping as part of team processes (Choi, 2009; Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro, 2001).
The mediating role of group cohesion
Group cohesion is the power that binds group members to each other and to their groups (Guzzo and Shea, 1992). It is an active process that reflects in the tendency of a group to be together and remain united in the quest of its objectives (rCarron, Brawley, and Widmeyer, 1998). Group cohesion has been used as an index of social integration in research into work groups, (Gully, Devine, and Whitney, 1995; Harrison et al., 1998; Hoegl and Proserpio, 2004).
Bayazit and Mannix (2003) claimed that greater diversity with regard to age and ethnicity reduces the level of cohesion and thus increases members’ intention to leave their groups. Harrison et al. (1998) also argued that group diversity at both the surface and deep levels is negatively related to group cohesion. Certainly, past studies have shown that group diversity can be a double-edged sword, resulting in additional high-quality solutions and higher ingenuity, but also leading to decrease in group cohesion (McLeod, Lobel, and Cox, 1996; Milliken and Martins, 1996; O’Reilly, Caldwell, and Barnett, 1989; Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen, 1993).
The similarity–attraction perception argues that the view of similarities in traits, attitudes, ethics, and demographic characteristics, can result in attraction among group members (O’Reilly et al., 1989). So, groups that are quite homogenous in the areas of traits, attitudes, ethics, and demographic variables, such as gender and age, will experience better cohesion than groups with more heterogeneous compositions (Smith et al., 1994). It is therefore plausible that group members who identify a higher level of group diversity are also likely to be less cohesive.
The mediating role of team cooperation
In addition to team cohesion, the relationship between group diversity and group helping may be mediated by team cooperation. Cooperation is the enthusiastic contribution of personal effort in the completion of group tasks (Wagner, 1995) and involves communication and related activities to interactive support. It can be seen as a group process in which the acts of group members translate inputs into outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities aimed at achieving group goals (Collins & Smith, 2006; Marks et al., 2001).
Drawing on the similarity-attraction perspective (Byrne, 1971) and the social categorization perspective (Turner et al.,1987,1994), it is argued that the group diversities related to age, gender, and personality may influence members’ perceptions of categorization in a group, which further influences their decision to make greater effort (or not) in the completion of interdependent work. As social categorization reduces cooperation in the group (Van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007), greater group diversity may reduce cooperative behavior.
When group members are able to work with others in a cooperative manner, they will be more willing to provide help to other group members and thus to contribute to group performance. For instance, Szulanski (1996) found that group cooperation enhances group members’ willingness to share information. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) argued that cooperation between group members is a key factor that drives knowledge exchange and combination processes in teams. In line with those findings, we propose that a more cooperative team will be more committed to its common goals and will exhibit higher levels of the group helping among its members.
