www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No.

10; October 2011

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 3
Group Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the
Stages of Group Development

Shih Yung Chou (Corresponding author)
H-E-B School of Business and Administration, University of the Incarnate Word
4301 Broadway, San Antonio, TX 78209, USA
Tel: 1-210-283-6482 E-mail: chou@uiwtx.edu

Decima Chris Garcia
H-E-B School of Business and Administration, University of the Incarnate Word
4301 Broadway, San Antonio, TX, 78209, USA
Tel: 1-210-283-6484 E-mail: dcgarcia@uiwtx.edu

Received: April 15, 2011 Accepted: May 9, 2011 Published: October 1, 2011
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p3 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p3

Abstract
It has been shown that group organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB) has a great impact on group outcomes.
Because of its importance on group performance and effectiveness, previous research has explored GOCB from
various perspectives. However, very little attention has been paid to the effect of group developmental stages on
GOCB. In this article, we develop a theoretical model of GOCB that incorporates stages of group development.
By examining GOCB in the context of group developmental stages, our model provides important theoretical
and practical implications.
Keywords: Group organizational citizenship behavior, Group development, Groups/teams
1. Introduction
As business environments have become much more complex, organizations have increasingly relied on groups to
attain organizational goals and success (Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009). Because of the impact of groups on
organizational outcomes, research on groups has increased dramatically. Among various research topics, there
has been a strong focus on group performance (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). A potential explanation provided by
the literature is that a group can perform better when group members go above and beyond their formal role
requirements. This particular phenomenon has generally been labeled as group organizational citizenship
behavior (GOCB). Although GOCB has been investigated from various perspectives, how group developmental
stages affect the extent to which GOCB is exhibited by a group has been largely ignored.
We strive to address this issue by linking stages of group development to GOCB, which we defined as the
normative level of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) performed within a group (Ehrhart, 2004). It is
important to note that GOCB in this article refers to OCB at the group level. Thus, GOCB and OCB are
conceptually distinct. Specifically, GOCB concerns the extent to which a group as a whole engages in OCB
within the group (Chen, Lam, Schaubroeck, & Naumann, 2002). GOCB is important as group and organizational
effectiveness are typically affected by collective OCB (Schnake & Dumler, 2003). Given the recent OCB
research and the shift to the group-level analysis, (e.g., Choi & Sy, 2010; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004), our focus
will be on GOCB and how the developmental stages of a group contributes to the extent of GOCB exhibited by
the group. The inclusion of group developmental stages is important because the nature of interaction among
group members and the group developmental phenomena, such as power struggles, conflict, conflict resolutions,
and roles and norms, can affect both individual and group behavior (Wanous, Reichers, & Malik, 1984).
The body of this article is organized as follows. In the second section, we provide a brief review of the literature
on the stages of group development. We then develop our theoretical model in the third section. Specifically, we
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 4
provide arguments on how the different stages of group development affect the extent of GOCB exhibited by a
group. To analyze this relationship systematically, we apply Tuckmans (1965) developmental sequence in small
groups. As we present the arguments about GOCB in each stage of group development, we specify our
propositions that can be tested empirically by future research. The fourth section of this article discusses the
implications for future research and future managerial practice as well as the limitations of this article. The final
section then concludes this article with a brief summary and how researchers and practitioners can extend the
theoretical model offered by this article.
2. Literature review
As the complexity of internal and external environments increases, organizations have recognized the importance
of the use of small groups (Kearney et al., 2009). It is suggested that the effective use of small work groups can
lead to higher job motivation, better decision making, and higher organizational performance (Heinen &
Jacobson, 1976; Kaczka & Kirk, 1967; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Because groups are essential managerial
tools (Gersick, 1988), increasing scholarly attention is being devoted to group effectiveness and performance.
One stream of research has sought to investigate the antecedents of group performance and effectiveness. For
instance, Cannon and Edmondson (2001) showed that shared beliefs about failure in work groups significantly
reduce group performance. Chang and Bordia (2001) found that group performance is positively related to group
cohesion and group cohesion is an antecedent, not a consequence, of group performance. Meglino, Lester, and
Korsgaard (2002) discovered that charismatic leadership behaviors and communication-cooperation processes
affect group potency, which in turn leads to high levels of group effort and group performance. Marrone, Tesluk,
and Carson (2007) uncovered a positive relationship between team boundary-spanning behavior and team
performance. Choi and Sy (2010) demonstrated that GOCB is related to group performance and this relationship
is mediated by relation-oriented attributes, such as gender and task-related attributes, such as tenure.
A second stream of research has attempted to explore the impact of group characteristics on group performance
and effectiveness. For example, Chang and Bordia (2001) performed a longitudinal study to examine the
relationship among group cohesion, task cohesion, social cohesion, and group performance and revealed that
group cohesion significantly affected group performance, task cohesion was a predictor of self-rated
performance, and group cohesion was an antecedent, but not the consequence, of group performance. Boone,
Van Olffen, and Van Witteloostuijn (2005) studied team financial performance in a decision-making context
using team information acquisition, team locus-of-control composition, and leadership structure and found that
information acquisition mediated the relationships between locus-of-composition and performance. Ng and Van
Dyne (2005) examined a cross-level and group-level model of helping behavior in work groups and discovered
that cooperative norms influenced individual helping behavior and the least and the most helpful group members
affected group performance significantly. Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, and Thatcher (2009) tested how social
category and information-based group faultlines affect the performance of groups and showed that group
identification moderated the performance of groups with information-based faultlines. In Chois (2009) study,
three different operationalizations of group-level helping were used to examine their impact on group outcomes.
The results demonstrated that diversity in gender and education reduced group-level helping, whereas diversity
in tenure increased group-level helping. Moreover, group-level helping was found to be positively related to
perceived competence of group members.
A third stream of research focuses on macro-level factors. For instance, Erez and Somech (1996) analyzed the
degree to which cultural collectivism affects group performance loss and found that group performance loss is
less likely to occur in a highly collectivistic subculture than in an individualistic subculture. Sparrowe, Liden,
Wayne, and Kraimer (2001) investigated the impact of advice network centrality and density on individual and
group performance and showed that the density of a work groups advice network has no impact on group
performance. However, the advice network centrality and the density of a work groups hindrance network were
found to be negatively related to group performance. Balkundi and Harrison (2006) studied how members and
leaders social network structures affect team effectiveness and demonstrated that team task performance is
positively associated with the density of members interpersonal ties and the leaders network centrality.
Similarly, Parise and Rollag (2010) examined the impact of existing social network structures on group
performance and showed that the density of pre-existing work and friendship and emergent work network
density affect group performance significantly. Frontiera (2010) employed a qualitative study that was designed
to identify successful organizational culture change cycle. He identified five themes (i.e., symptoms of a
dysfunctional culture, my way, walk the talk, embedding new culture, and our way) that formed an initial model
for organizational culture change, which leads to effective professional sport team performance.
The above three research streams have provided organizations and management with various recommendations
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 5
and suggestions on approaches for group effectiveness and performance. Among various research efforts devoted
to group performance and effectiveness, an increasing amount of research has investigated the phenomenon from
a group behavioral perspective. In this perspective, one of the important research focuses is GOCB. It is
suggested that GOCB is a product of various group functions such as the development of norms and social
interaction among members, inter-member relationships, and interpersonal dynamics (Choi & Sy, 2010; Ehrhart,
2004; Ehrhart, Bliese, & Thomas, 2006). Because OCB in the aggregate affects group outcomes (Organ, 1988),
the study of OCB at the group level provides us with a better understanding of OCB as it was originally
theorized as a group-level phenomenon (Organ & Ryan, 1995).
Given the perceived importance of GOCB, previous research has explored GOCB and its outcomes extensively.
For instance, Podsakoff, Ahearne, and MacKenzie (1997) examined the effect of OCB on the quantity and
quality of the work group performance and found that both helping behavior and sportsmanship improve
performance quantity while helping behavior affects performance quality. Chen, Lam, Naumann, and
Schaubroeck (2005) applied Chans (1998) referent-shift consensus model and showed that GOCB is positively
related to procedural justice climate and work group leadership support. Moreover, group cohesiveness and
group-organizational goal congruence were found to be the predictors of GOCB. Choi (2009) analyzed the effect
of group characteristics on group-level helping and demonstrated that within-group diversity in gender and
education decreases group-level helping, supportive and transformational management increase group-level
helping, and trustworthiness of group members positively affects group-level helping. Choi and Sy (2010)
investigated antecedents and intermediate processes that predict GOCB in small work groups and found that task
conflict increases GOCB, whereas relationship conflict decreases GOCB. Gong, Chang, and Cheung (2010)
employed a collective social exchange approach to study collective OCB and demonstrated that a high
performance work system is positively associated with collective OCB through collective affective commitment.
Shinh and Choi (2010) studied the effect of group-organizational fit and group-task fit on GOCB and found that
the positive relationship between group-organization fit and GOCB is positively mediated by cohesion, whereas
group-task fit has a direct influence on GOCB.
Although research on GOCB has increased dramatically in the past few years (Choi & Sy, 2010), what has been
missing in the literature is the relationship between group developmental stages and GOCB. Stages of group
development are essential when examining GOCB as different sets of interpersonal relationships and task
behaviors are exhibited in different group developmental stages. In addition, groups are generally changing in
social and work processes throughout time (Miller, 2003). From this standpoint, it is important to include stages
of group development when examining GOCB.
3. Theoretical model
We intend to explore the missing piece in the GOCB literature. More specifically, we develop a theoretical
model describing the extent of GOCB exhibited by a group in each of the developmental stages. From among
various group development models, we apply Tuckmans (1965) stages of small group development as it has
been considered the most widely recognized model in the literature (Cissna, 1984; Gersick, 1988; Miller, 2003;
Worchel, 1994). Tuckmans (1965) initial small group development model identifies four sequential stages
resulting in effective group functioning. These four stages include the forming, storming, norming, and
performing stage. In 1977, Tuckman and Jensen added a fifth stage, the adjourning stage, to the original model.
The first stage of group development is the forming stage. In this stage, group members are introduced to the
task and members. In the second stage, the storming stage, interpersonal conflicts occur and group members
become hostile. After successfully moving into the norming stage, group members establish group norms and
develop group cohesion. Then, the group moves into the fourth stage, the performing stage. In this stage, group
members become flexible and adaptive in terms of their roles and functions, which result in effective group
performance. The last stage of group development is called the adjourning stage. The addition of the adjourning
stage to Tuckmans (1965) model intends to reflect group termination and separation.
Thus far, we have very briefly presented the stages of group development using Tuckmans (1965) and Tuckman
and Jensens (1977) models. We now address the relationship between each stage of group development and
GOCB and derive testable propositions in detail. These propositions are developed in accordance with our
theoretical model and for future empirical research that will uncover GOCB exhibited in the stages of group
development. Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model.
3.1 Stage 1: The forming stage
The first stage of Tuckmans model is called the forming stage. In this stage, task and rules are introduced to
group members. In order to perform in the group, members assess the tasks, social behaviors, and norms within
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 6
the group. In addition, members identify the nature and boundaries of the tasks and determine what resources are
required for the tasks (Bonebright, 2010; Miller, 2003). Because group members test the degree of dependency
and inclusion and exchange personal stories that are often considered irrelevant to the group goals, group
productivity in the forming stage tends to be low (Wheelan, 2009).
In addition to assessing social and task behaviors, group members may elect leader(s) and establish relationship
with the leader(s) (Bonebright, 2010). Although the emergence of leadership can be viewed as an initial step of
establishing group structure, group members in the forming stage tend to have the characteristics of relying on
the leader(s), experiencing anxiety, and having concerns about inclusion (Wheelan & Conway, 1991). Because
the group is just formed and tasks are just introduced, the stability of group memberships is low and expectations
of interpersonal relationships are ambiguous. Group members would exhibit moderate levels of OCB in order to
stabilize the memberships and to create an expectation of positive interpersonal relationship. Moreover, because
group members in the forming stage are also characterized by dependence and testing (Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan
& Conway, 1991), moderate levels of GOCB would be observed as they attempt to solidify or preserve the
interpersonal relationships (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). This aspect is important for a group
in the forming stage to move into subsequent developmental stages.
From the impression management perspective (see Bolino, 1999; Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000; Rioux & Penner,
2001), group members might engage in OCB in order to cultivate positive impressions. Because group members
in the forming stage are expected to work collaboratively in the future, exhibiting certain levels of OCB then
become an effective means for a group member to strengthen the impression of his or her positive work
behaviors, such as being helpful and capable, onto other group members. This argument supports our first
proposition:
Proposition 1: Moderate levels of group organizational citizenship behavior will be exhibited in the forming
stage of a group.
3.2 Stage 2: The storming stage
Once a group moves into the storming stage, group members experience intergroup conflicts (Tuckman, 1965).
Specifically, groups in this stage are characterized by lack of unity, polarization, conflicts among members and
between members and leader(s), and disagreements among themselves (Bonebright, 2010; Wheelan, 2009;
Wheelan & Conway, 1991). Because of the presence of conflicts, group members question the existing norms
and search for new unified goals, norms, and values, which are essential for the group to accomplish assigned
tasks and move into the subsequent stages.
Conflict in this article refers to disagreements about personal preferences and interpersonal interactions among
group members (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). Because of its impact on interpersonal relationships, a few
studies have investigated the relationship between conflict and OCB or GOCB. For example, De Dreu and Van
Vianen (2001) found that group-level helping and compliance are negatively affected by conflict. Hodson (2002)
performed in-depth observational studies to identify the nature and consequences of management of citizenship
behavior. He found that the conflict between employees and managers and infighting among employees are
reduced when behaviors that conform to prevailing norms for leadership and for respecting workers right are
exhibited. Tjosvold, Hui, Ding, and Hu (2003) analyzed the impact of conflict behavior and conflict attitude on
OCB and found that positive conflict attitude and conflict approach behavior positively affect courteous and
conscientious behaviors. Choi and Sy (2010) examined small work groups in various industries and found that
task conflict increases GOCB in a work group, whereas relationship conflict reduces GOCB in a work group.
The above review of the literature on conflict and citizenship behavior reveals that citizenship behavior can be
exhibited when conflict is task-based versus relationship-based. Because group members in the storming stage
tend to exhibit emotional responses to one another (Bonebright, 2010), conflicts in the storming stage are often
considered interpersonal relationship conflicts rather than task conflicts. Since relationship conflicts have a
negative impact on citizenship behavior, we expect that there will be no or low levels of GOCB when a group is
in the storming stage. This leads to our second proposition.
Proposition 2: No or low levels of group organizational citizenship behavior will be exhibited in the storming
stage of a group.
3.3 Stage 3: The norming stage
Although conflict is generally viewed as destructive, a group is unable to develop culture, structure, and
cohesion without it (Deutsch, 1971; Lewin, 1936; Theodorson, 1962). Thus, after navigating conflicts
successfully, a group then enters the third phase, the norming stage. In this stage, group members establish roles
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 7
and norms, work as an entity, develop feelings, and seek to maintain and perpetuate the group (Bonebright, 2010;
Tuckman, 1965). Moreover, because group members work through conflicts that occurred in the storming stage,
they show high levels of trust to other members, commitment to the group, and willingness to cooperate
(Wheelan, 2009). Furthermore, norms developed in this stage facilitate the development of interpersonal
relationships, which in turn enhances group cohesiveness, openness, and information exchange (Miller, 2003).
Previous studies have sought to investigate the relationship between group cohesion and OCB or GOCB. For
instance, George and Bettenhausen (1990) suggested that cohesiveness could have a positive impact on OCB as
it affects group members affective states. Kidwell, Mossholder, and Bennett (1997) claimed that OCB is
facilitated in highly cohesive groups as cohesiveness promotes group social identity and members desires to
help one another. Ehrhart et al. (2006) studied military units and found a positive relationship between unit
cohesion and unit-level helping behavior. Employing structural role theory, Lamertz (2006) demonstrated that
cohesiveness is related to OCB. Studying service employees, Frenkel and Sanders (2007) discovered that group
cohesion has a strong direct effect on co-worker assistance. Although the literature has largely supported the
relationship between group cohesiveness and OCB, Kidwell et al. (1997) emphasized that this relationship is
dependent on group members perceptions of whether OCB is important to group functioning. Because group
members in the norming stage emphasize the development of shared values, norms, and work models and the
establishment of effective work methods (Bonebright, 2010; Tuckman, 1965), one could expect that group
members would be very concerned with group functioning and its effectiveness. From this perspective, high
levels of GOCB are expected to be exhibited in the norming stage of a group.
In addition to group cohesiveness, trust and commitment are found to be significant predictors of OCB. For
example, when investigating the impact of demographic dissimilarity on OCB, Chattopadhyay (1999) showed
that trust in peers positively mediates the negative relationship between demographic dissimilarity and OCB.
Examining employees in the aerospace industry, Coyle-Shapiro, Morrow, Richardson, and Dunn (2002)
demonstrated that trust is positively associated with OCB and employee cooperation. Studying service
employees in the financial service industry and food services industry, Donavan, Brown, and Mowen (2004)
found support for the positive relationship between commitment and OCB. Restubog, Hornsey, Bordia, and
Esposo (2008) conducted both longitudinal and cross-section research using working adults in business
organizations and employees in public organizations and reported that trust fully mediates the relationship
between psychological contract breach and OCB. Lavelle et al. (2009) analyzed medical clinic employees and
found that commitment is positively related to OCB.
Our above review of the literature suggests that when group members have high levels of trust, commitment, and
willingness to cooperate, group members tend to exhibit high levels of collective OCB. Because high levels of
trust, commitment, cohesion, and willingness to cooperate are generally found in the norming stage of a group
(Bonebright, 2010; Miller, 2003; Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan, 2009), one could expect that high levels of GOCB
would be exhibited when a group is in the norming stage. This suggests a third proposition:
Proposition 3: High levels of group organizational citizenship behavior will be exhibited in the norming stage of
a group.
3.4 Stage 4: The performing stage
The final stage of Tuckmans (1965) small group development model is labeled as the performing stage. In this
stage, group members become flexible and adaptive in terms of their roles and functions, which in turn enhance
task performance and facilitate group energy (Tuckman, 1965). Groups in the performing stage are characterized
by emphasis on functional roles, task activities, task performance, and problem solving (Bonebright, 2010;
Miller, 2003; Tuckman, 1965). As group members in the performing stage direct much attention to the tasks and
little attention to emotional interactions, group productivity is expected to be high.
Previous studies have discussed and examined the relationship between citizenship behavior and productivity at
the unit level. For instance, Organ (1988) claimed that OCB is aggregated over individuals and time and thus
should have a positive impact on group-level productivity. George (1990) further commented that the analysis of
GOCB and productivity at the group level is plausible. Similarly, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach
(2000) noted that the impact of collective OCB on group performance and productivity is likely to occur as
group members are able to develop the best practices through helping other members. Recent empirical research
has also shown the positive relationship between productivity and GOCB. For example, when exploring the
effect of GOCB on the work group and the organization, Chen et al. (2005) found that GOCB is positively
associated with group performance and negatively related to turnover intentions. Bachrach, Powell, Collins, and
Richey (2006) conducted a laboratory study analyzing the effect of task interdependence on the impact of
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 8
helping and group performance and found that the helping form of GOCB leads to better group performance, but
this relationship depends on the level of task interdependence. Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin (2007) compared
the effect of group-level citizenship behavior and individual-level citizenship behavior on job performance and
discovered that group-level citizenship behavior significantly moderates the relationship between
individual-level citizenship behavior and job performance. Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting, and Podsakoff (2009)
conducted a meta-analysis and examined the consequences of OCB at the individual and organizational level.
These researchers observed a strong positive relationship between OCB and unit-level performance. Another
meta-analytical study performed by Whitman, Van Rooy, and Viswesvaran (2010) showed that unit-level OCB
has a moderately strong relationship with unit-level performance.
Our review of the previous studies reveals that there is a positive relationship between GOCB and group
performance. Given high levels of group performance and productivity can be found in the performing stage of a
group, one could expect that high levels of GOCB will be exhibited in the performing stage of a group. This
supports our fourth proposition:
Proposition 4: High levels of group organizational citizenship behavior will be exhibited in the performing stage
of a group.
4. Discussion
We have intended to develop a theoretical model describing the extent of GOCB exhibited in each
developmental stage of a group. Our purpose is to establish a GOCB model that includes different group
characteristics affected by its development in time. This approach has been largely ignored in the GOCB
literature. Specifically, the majority of previous GOCB studies have overlooked the importance of group
developmental stage. This could result in overestimating or underestimating GOCB as we have argued earlier
that a group can exhibit different levels of GOCB in different group developmental stages. Thus, our basic
assumption is that the stages of group development can affect the extent of GOCB exhibited by a group.
Regarding the relationship between group development and GOCB, we have argued that different levels of
GOCB will be exhibited in different group developmental stages. Specifically, in the forming stage, moderate
levels of GOCB will be exhibited. This is because a group is just formed and tasks are just introduced; some
GOCBs, such as courteous and conscientious behaviors, may be needed in order to stabilize group memberships
and task and behavioral expectations. However, high levels of GOCB will not be exhibited in the forming stage
as group members are still engaging in certain behaviors that are not relevant to the task such as exchanging
personal stories (Wheelan, 2009). Once the group moves into the storming stage, the presence of intergroup
conflicts and hostility impedes and minimizes GOCB. In the norming stage, norms are established and cohesion
is developed as group members show high levels of acceptance for other members opinions and feelings
(Bonebright, 2010). Thus, it is expected that higher levels of GOCB will be exhibited in the norming stage of a
group. In the performing stage, group members develop adaptive functional roles and relatedness (Tuckman,
1965). Task performance, therefore, is facilitated. Because the GOCB literature has largely supported the
positive association between GOCB and task performance, it is expected that high levels of GOCB will be
exhibited in the performing stage of a group.
4.1 Implications for empirical research
In this section, we provide the implications of our theoretical model for future empirical research. Proposition 1
to 4 could be tested by employing a survey and/or an in-depth interview approach. Specifically, future
researchers can conduct an experimental study by forming a task group. After a group is formed and members
and tasks are introduced, GOCB then can be measured. Discussions on the procedures of measuring OCB at the
group level can be found in Chen et al. (2005), Euwerna, Wendt, and van Emmerik (2007), and Choi and Sy
(2010). Moreover, the literature has suggested two techniques to obtain GOCB. Specifically, future research can
measure GOCB using group descriptive items or using individual/self-referenced items (see Klein, Conn, Smith,
& Sorra, 2001). When using individual/self-referenced items, both self-reported and supervisor-rated survey can
be employed as both techniques have been used in the literature extensively (e.g., Bommer, Miles, & Grover,
2003; Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 1997; Restubog et al., 2008). After group members work
through the forming stage and start to experience conflicts, fights, and emotional disagreements, researchers then
can use self-reported or supervisor-rated survey to obtain GOCB exhibited in the storming stage and test
proposition 2.
To test proposition 3, researchers need to observe whether conflicts have been successfully navigated, whether
group norms have been established, and whether shared mental models and most effective ways to work have
been discovered by group members as described in Neuman and Wright (1999) and Ehrhart and Naumann
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 9
(2004). If a group successfully demonstrates group characteristics shown in Tuckmans (1965) model, a self- or
supervisor-rated survey and/or in-depth interview then can be employed to obtain GOCB in the norming stage.
To evaluate proposition 4, the presence of functional role relatedness (Tuckman, 1965: 387) is essential.
Specifically, group members play and adapt roles that will enhance task outcomes (Bonebright, 2010). In other
words, the key characteristics of a group in the performing stage are group members abilities and willingness to
engage in problem-solving and adaptive behaviors. To assess these characteristics, researcher can apply the
survey methods discussed in Manners (1975), Hendrick (1979), Waller (1999), and Johnson, Hollenbeck,
Humphrey, Ilgen, Jundt, and Meyer (2006). Once a group demonstrates the characteristics of the performing
stage described in Tuckmans (1965) model, a self- or supervisor-reported survey and/or in-depth interview can
be administered.
So far, we have discussed how future empirical studies can be conducted to validate our propositions. The key
determinant of testing the propositions is whether a group has successfully demonstrated characteristics in each
stage described in Tuckmans (1965) model. As mentioned earlier, Tuckman and Jensen (1977) provided an
updated model of his original small group development model by adding a fifth stage, the adjourning stage.
The adjourning stage describes the final stage of a group, separation and termination. It is suggested that the
adjourning stage in group development is an important phenomenon to study as strong interpersonal feelings and
emotions can still be exhibited (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Because of its importance, the characteristics in the
adjourning (some studies use separation, termination, disengagement, or ending) stage has been discussed in
various small group development models (e.g., Bratten, 1975; Gibbard & Hartman, 1973; Yalom, 1970).
However, we do not discuss the degree of GOCB exhibited in the adjourning stage as it has limited relevance to
the GOCB literature and practice.
4.2 Implications for practice
If validated by future empirical studies, our theoretical model could have important practical implications. First,
understanding GOCB in the context of group development may provide insight into group performance and
effectiveness as organizations and managers can employ organizational practices that facilitate group
developmental process, which in turn fosters an environment where GOCB is maximized. For instance,
Tuckmans (1965) model suggests that group members establish roles and norms in the norming stage.
Meanwhile, we have argued earlier, higher levels of GOCB will be exhibited in the norming stage of a group.
Thus, organizations and managers can facilitate and enforce the formation of norms in order to help a group
move into the norming stage more quickly. As suggested by Feldman (1984), organizations and managers can
foster the development of group norms by explicitly stating norms related to group survival. It is also suggested
that powerful group members can facilitate norm development (Whyte, 1955). From this standpoint, managers
can proactively and explicitly state group norms and/or can identify powerful group members to establish group
norms.
Second, by understanding the degree and the various dimensions (i.e., sportsmanship, helping behaviors to
include courtesy and conscientiousness, altruism and civic virtue) of GOCB exhibited in each stage of group
development, managers will be able to manage group performance more effectively. Specifically, it has been
suggested that GOCB is positively associated with group performance (e.g., Nielsen, Hrivnak, & Shaw, 2009;
Podsakoff et al., 1997). Thus, managers can encourage GOCB by implementing managerial strategies that are
suitable to the developmental stage of a group. For example, in the storming stage, groups are characterized by
intergroup conflicts that result from interpersonal issues and the focus of individuality (Tuckman, 1965); and as a
result, GOCB is discouraged. Managers in the storming stage then can assign group tasks that are irrelevant to
the group purposes but bring unity to the group, such as assessing outgroup products (Brown, Schmidt, &
Collins, 1988). Moreover, by minimizing dyadic communication, group conflicts can be reduced (Swabb,
Phillips, Diermeier, & Medvec, 2008). Besides the shifting of a groups focus away from interpersonal conflict
towards a task orientation in the storming phase, managers can also help better prepare groups for the storming
phase by reinforcing the GOCB dimensions of courtesy and conscientiousness through training and the use of
peer-based reward systems (Stewart, Courtright, & Barrick, 2009; Erez, Lepine, & Elms, 2002) in the forming
stage.
By exploring GOCB in each stage of group development, we provide another perspective to understand GOCB
as groups generally go through various developmental stages. We recognize there are various theoretically
relevant small group development models in the literature (e.g., Gersick, 1988; Heinen & Jacobson, 1976; Miller,
2003; Wanous et al., 1984). We use Tuckmans (1965) four-stage small group development model as it has been
widely recognized in the literature and practice. However, this article is not without limitations. A first limitation
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 10
is related to Tuckmans (1965) model itself. Specifically, Tuckman (1965) suggested that his model does not
represent group development in all settings as his samples were drawn mainly from the therapy groups. Thus, the
model developed by Tuckman (1965) might not be applicable to other types of work groups. However, we
believe that the use of Tuckmans (1965) model is appropriate as it has been the most commonly referred to and
the most widely recognized theory in the literature (Miller, 2003). In addition, the model has been proven to be
useful for practice (Bonebright, 2010) and for theory development (Rickards & Moger, 2000).
When examining group process and development, previous research has shown that factors outside a group
could have a great impact on the group. For instance, leadership styles and leader-follower relations have been
demonstrated as having a great impact on GOCB (e.g., Boerner, Dutschke, & Wied, 2008; Bowler, Halbesleben,
& Paul, 2010; Ehrhart, 2004; Euwerna et al., 2007). Moreover, it has been shown that organizational factors such
as organizational justice (e.g., Niehoff & Moorman, 1993), organizational commitment (e.g., Lavelle et al.,
2009), and organizational learning (e.g., Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004) could affect GOCB significantly. Thus,
a second limitation of this article is that it does not account for those factors. However, our main objective is to
introduce a new perspective when investigating GOCB. Future research that includes group- and
organizational-level factors, therefore, is needed to validate and strengthen our theoretical model.
A final limitation is that our theoretical model focuses much on GOCB as the dependent variable with limited
discussion of the dimensions of GOCB, which include altruism, helping, courtesy, conscientiousness,
sportsmanship, and civic virtue (Organ, 1988; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Because groups in
different developmental stages are likely to exhibit certain GOCB dimensions, future theoretical and empirical
research is needed to assess the distribution of these dimensions throughout the various group developmental
stages. Despite the potential limitations, this article provides important implications for empirical research and
practice.
5. Conclusion
We have sought to develop a theoretical model that explains GOCB by incorporating Tuckmans (1965) small
group development model. This emphasis has been neglected in the GOCB literature. Thus, we believe that
GOCB can be conceptually better understood when group developmental transitions and time are included. We
provide the theoretical model and the propositions that guide future theoretical and empirical research. In
addition, we offer managers and organizations suggestions and recommendations on how the proposed
theoretical model and propositions can be used to enhance group performance through encouraging high levels
of GOCB.
References
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the
relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1396-1405.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1396
Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network
structures effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 49-68.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A
moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20, 35-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0379
Boerner, S., Dutschke, E., & Wied, S. (2008). Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior:
Examining the role of stressors and strain. Human Resource Development International, 11, 507-521.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678860802417643
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of
Management Review, 24, 82-98.
Bommer, W., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence mitigate relevance? The moderating
effect of group-level OCB on employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1481-1494.
Bommer, W., Miles, E., & Grover, S. (2003). Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on
employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 181-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.187
Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckmans model of small group
development. Human Resource Development International, 13, 111-120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099
Boone, C., Van Olffen, W., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2005). Team locus-of-control composition, leadership
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 11
structure, information acquisition, and financial performance: A business simulation study. Academy of
Management Journal, 48, 889-909.
Bowler, W. M., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Paul, J. R. B. (2010). If youre close with the leader, you must be a
brownnose: The role of leader-member relationships in follower, leader, and coworker attributions of
organizational citizenship behavior motives. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 309-316.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.04.001
Braaten, L. J. (1974-75). Developmental phases of encounter groups and related intensive groups: A critical
review of models and a new proposal. Interpersonal Development, 5, 112-129.
Brown, J. D., Schmidt, G. W., & Collins, R. L. (1988). Personal involvement and the evaluation of group
products. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 177-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180208
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences of shared
beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 161-177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.85
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, 234-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance
relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200401
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 273-287.
Chen, X. P., Lam, S. S. K., Naumann, S. E., & Schaubroeck, J. (2005). Group citizenship behavior:
Conceptualization and preliminary tests of its antecedents and consequences. Management & Organization
Review, 1, 273-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00012.x
Chen, X. P., Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Naumann, S. (2002, August). Group organizational citizenship
behavior: A conceptualization and preliminary test of its antecedents and consequences. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
Choi, J. N. (2009). Collective dynamics of citizenship behavior: What group characteristics promote group-level
helping? Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1396-1420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00851.x
Choi, J. N., & Sy, T. (2010). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of demographic faultlines
and conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1032-1054.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.661
Cissna, K. (1984). Phases in group development: The negative evidence. Small Group Behavior, 15, 3-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649648401500101
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., Morrow, P. C., Richardson, R., & Dunn, S. R. (2002). Using profit sharing to enhance
employee attitudes: A longitudinal examination of the effects on trust and commitment. Human Resource
Management, 41, 423-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10052
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of
organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.71
Deutsch, M. (1971). Toward an understanding of conflict. International Journal of Group Tensions, 1, 42-54.
Donavan, T. D., Brown, T. J., & Mowen, J. C. (2004). Internal benefits of service-worker customer orientation:
Job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 68, 128-146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1059/jmkg.68.1.128.24034
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
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, 159-173.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1902_4
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960-974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960
Erez, A., Lepine, J.A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 12
and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929-948.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.x
Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of cultural and
group-based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1513-1537.
Euwerna, M. C., Wendt, H., & van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship
behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 1035-1057. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.496
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9,
47-53.
Frenkel, S. J., & Sanders, K. (2007). Explaining variations in co-worker assistance in organizations.
Organization Studies, 28, 797-823. http://dx.doi.org/10.11177/0170840607073079
Frontiera, J. (2010). Leadership and organizational culture transformation in professional sport. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 71-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809345253
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107-116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107
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, 698-709.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.698
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development.
Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
Gibbard, G., & Hartman, J. (1973). The oedipal paradigm in group development: A clinical and empirical study.
Small Group Behavior, 4, 305-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649647300400302
Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S. (2010). High performance work system and collective OCB: A collective
social exchange perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 119-137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00123.x
Hendrick, H. W. (1979). Differences in group problem-solving behavior and effectiveness as a function of
abstractness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 518-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.518
Heinen, S. J., & Jacobson, E. (1976). A model of task group development in complex organizations and a
strategy of implementation. Academy of Management Review, 1, 98-111.
Hodson, R. (2002). Management citizenship behavior and its consequences. Work & Occupations, 29, 64-96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0730888402029001004
Hui, C., Lam, S., & Law, K. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A
field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822-828.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.822
Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on
intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561-575.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.
Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J. (2006). Cutthroat
cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal,
49, 103-119.
Kaczka, E. E., & Kirk, R. V. (1967). Managerial climate, work groups, and organizational performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 253-272.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of
team members need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581-598.
Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior:
A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23, 775-793.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300605
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of
within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 13
2-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.3
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen,
& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 333-375).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Lamertz, K. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior as performance in multiple network positions.
Organization Studies, 27, 79-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840605056397
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009).
Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multifoci analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 337-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.518
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Manners Jr., G. E. (1975). Another look at group size, group problem solving, and member consensus. Academy
of Management Journal, 18, 715-724.
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences
of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423-1439.
Meglino, B. M., Lester, S. W., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency:
A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352-268.
Miller, D. L. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team processes.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20, 121-134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2003.tb00698.x
Neuman, G., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 376-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.376
Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work
groups: A multilevel analysis. Group & Organizational Management, 30, 514-540.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601104269107
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.
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, 555-577.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496409339630
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature,
antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-800.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
Parise, S., & Rollag, K. (2010). Emergent network structure and initial group performance: The moderating role
of pre-existing relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 877-897. doi: 10.1002/job.656,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.656
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-106.
Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B. D., Whiting, S. W., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level
consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
122-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013079
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, 513-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
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, 262-270.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 14
Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of psychological contract breach
on organizational citizenship behavior: Insights from the group value model. Journal of Management Studies, 45,
1377-1400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467.6486.2008.00792.x
Richards, T., & Moger, S. (2000). Creative leadership processes in project team development: An alternative to
Tuckmans stage model. British Journal of Management, 11, 273-283.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00173
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306-1314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1306
Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational
citizenship behavior research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 283-301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647184
Shinh, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2010). What makes a group of good citizens? The role of perceived group-level fit and
critical psychological states in organizational teams. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83,
531-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X440233
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior from an organizational
perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77, 281-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752709
Sparrowe, R., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of
individual and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316-325.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2009). Peer Based Reward and Individual Performance: A
Field Examination. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2009, 1-7.
Swaab, R., Phillips, K. W., Diermeier, D., & Medvec, V. H. (2008). The pros and cons of dyadic side
conversations in small groups: The impact of group norms and task type. Small Group Research, 39, 372-390.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317044
Theodorson, G. A. (1962). The function of hostility in small groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 57-66.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., Ding, D. Z., & Hu, J. (2003). Conflict values and team relationships: Conflicts
contribution to team effectiveness and citizenship in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 69-88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.108
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization
Management, 2, 419-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and
definitional clarity: A bridge over muddied waters. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-287.
Waller, M. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 127-137.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Malik, S. D. (1984). Organizational socialization and group development:
Toward an integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 9, 670-683.
Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40,
247-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328703
Wheelan, S. A., & Conway, C. (1991). Group development as a framework to understand and promote school
readiness to engage in an organizational development project. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 2, 59-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0201_4
Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and
performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63, 41-81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01162.x
Whyte, W. F. (1955). Street corner society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Worchel, S. (1994). You can go home again: Returning group research to the group context with an eye on
development issues. Small Group Research, 25, 205-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496494252004
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10; October 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 15
Yalom, I. (1970). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.



















Figure 1. Proposed Theoretical Model






G
r
o
u
p

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l


C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
h
i
p
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
High
Low
Stage of Group Development
Forming Storming Norming Performing