In this article Jin Nam Choi has supported the idea of the importance of studying the group-level organizational citizenship behaviour, believing that the construct of OCB may well be a group-level phenomenon (Schnake and Dumler, 2003). Relationships within a group might have an effect on theorganizational performance; at the same time relationships are affected by the characteristics of the group which are diverse and which may or may not stimulate spontaneous group-level helping.
Choi’s article explains the findings of research done with data collected from a division of an electronic company in Korea, showing empirical evidence on some interesting hypotheses that have been listed.For instance, there is a belief that leadership can conduct and increase group-level helping in an organization; however, if a leader is managing a demographically diverse group, group helping may not occur. It seems that the only way to mitigate the negative effect of demographic diversity is when members of the group perceive that the others have integrity and are competent, placing more valueon high integrity.
So, individuals within an organization do not help colleagues spontaneously? Do people always analyze the value and convenience of providing help within a group? Do people discriminate who should and who should not receive help? Does it have to do with, being social beings, looking for acceptance and identity? People give high importance to relationships and help but want toestablish these only with people similar to them.
KEY OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Organizational citizenship behaviour has been defined as individual helping behaviours and gestures that are organizationally beneficial, but are not formally required (Organ, 1990). In consequence, group processes are obtained; the group helping behaviour (understood as collaboration, backup, cooperation etc.) hasemerged as one of these processes that has awakened interest from researchers. This behaviour appears in a group as a way to get group cohesion and to get the individual intention to remain in a group. All these individual purposes together with demographic and moral distinctiveness build the group characteristics which, at the same time, play a role that lead to the helping behaviour to bespontaneously offered or denied to some members of the group.
At the top of organizations, leaders are responsible for making the members aware of the common vision and goals. Groups suppose to work as teams oriented by a leader, again demonstrating that group processes involving interactions among the members are evident.
“Collective virtuosity - seem to occur during fleeting periods of engagedinteraction and deep experience, which are actively catalyzed by group members and/or the leader. But, it is the leader/facilitator who carries the greatest responsibility for creating such circumstances” (Roos, 2006). I understood this deep experience as an intense group-level helping, cohesion and identity among members with the leader and with the organizational vision. Managing a group withnotorious differences would make things more difficult. Choi’s article suggests that people feel more connected and are more supportive with those most similar to themselves. Therefore, when selecting people to join groups, one should take into account that cohesion and relationship construction are spontaneous between similar personalities and backgrounds of team members.
Although identity andconnectedness are key factors for group-level helping, trustworthiness, integrity and competence of members are also determinant aspects that encourage helping behaviour. It is the idea to have a fair relationships among individuals, people expect reciprocity; no one member of a group within an organization offers help without believing that he or she may need help in the future.
Could we say that...