2012. Vol.3, No.12, 1010-1017
Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
The Influence of Team Demographic Composition on Individual
Helping Behavior
Igor Kotlyar1, Leonard Karakowsky2
1Faculty of Business and Information Technology, University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
Oshawa, Canada
2School of Administrative Studies York University, Toronto, Canada
Received September 29th, 2012; revised October 31st, 2012; accepted November 27th, 2012
The aim of our laboratory study was to examine how the demographic composition (in terms of gender
and culture) of work teams can influence levels of helping behavior demonstrated among group members.
Participants included 216 university students from undergraduate business programs in two large North
American universities (108 men, 108 women) who were randomly assigned to small groups for the pur-
pose of engaging in business case discussions. Discussions were videotaped in order to observe helping
behavior among individuals. Our findings indicated that the numerical minority member (measured in
terms of gender or ethnicity) was less likely to engage in the helping activity. These findings suggest that
the effects of numerical minority status are not confined to task-performance related behaviors like par-
ticipation and emergent leadership, but also influence behaviors that involve how members relate to one
and other, and whether they engage in helping behavior.
Keywords: Helping Behaviour; Gender; Ethnicity; Groups
The influence of demographic diversity on the behavior of
group members has been a topic of interest and controversy for
a number of years. Organizational demography researchers
have long been concerned with the effect of gender and cultural
diversity on behavior, group processes, and team performance.
With the advancement of women in organizations and a trend
toward globalization, more studies have been focusing on the
impact of demographic differences on business practices and
outcomes (e.g., Chou & Pearson, 2011; Davis, Babakus, Englis,
& Pett, 2010; Gilbert, Burnett, Phau, & Haar, 2010; Lauring &
Selmer, 2011; Mahadeo, Soobaroyen, & Hanuman, 2012).
Given the growth of demographically diverse teams, it is
important to understand how demographic composition can
impact helping behavior (c.f., Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert,
2005). It has been observed that the effectiveness of work
teams depends on whether members help each other to fulfill
their tasks and solve problems (Holland, Gaston, & Gomez,
2000). Research has demonstrated that there are attitudinal and
behavioral consequences for members of diverse groups (e.g.,
Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2001; Jones & Schaubroeck, 2004;
Kirkman, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2004; Steers & Sanchez-Runde,
2002), and a number of studies have specifically investigated
demographic differences, including gender and culture, as po-
tential antecedents of helping behaviors (e.g., Farrell & Finkel-
stein, 2007; Kwantes, 2003; Lin & Ho, 2010).
Despite the available research, several gaps remain with re-
spect to the existing knowledge of how gender and culture di-
versity affects individual helping behavior in demographically
diverse teams. First, research has tended to focus on the impli-
cations of group diversity at the group and organizational level
outcomes, and has not fully addressed issues related to individ-
ual member behavior. Second, while it has been demonstrated
that individual’s gender and culture can affect their helping
behaviors, the results have been inconsistent and the nature of
the actual impact remains unclear. Third, while research has
attempted to examine the direct effect of a person’s gender and
culture on helping behavior, and in doing so, ironically, it has
overlooked the effects of group demographic composition in
diverse groups. This is a major omission, because differences in
group member behavior may be more than simply a product of
underlying gender or culture, but can also stem from the demo-
graphic composition of the group itself. The aim of our study,
reported below, was to attempt to address those gaps. This
study examined within an experimental setting, the influence of
group demographic diversity on helping behavior of individual
group members.
Proportional Representation and Helping
Behavior in Team Contexts
Organizational citizenship behavior facilitates the accom-
plishment of organizational goals and increases group and or-
ganizational effectiveness (George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Or-
gan, 1988, 1990; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume,
2009). Organ (1988, 1990) proposed several dimensions of
organizational citizenship behavior, including altruism, cour-
tesy, cheerleading, peacekeeping, sportsmanship, civic virtue,
and conscientiousness. However, according to a meta-analysis
conducted by LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002), most of these
dimensions are highly related to one another and there are no
apparent differences in relationships with the most popular set
of predictors. Further, managers often have difficulty distin-
guishing among some of these dimensions and tend to lump
altruism, courtesy, cheerleading, and peacekeeping into a single
helping behavior dimension (Bachrach, Bendoly, & Podsakoff,
2001; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993; Podsakoff
& MacKenzie, 1994, 1997). Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, &
Blume (2009) suggest that helping behavior is best viewed as a
second-order latent construct comprising these above four di-
mensions and involves behaviors that help others with work-
related problems (Podsakoff, Aherne, & MacKenzie, 1997).
Helping behavior can be defined as members’ discretionary or
extra role behaviors aimed at benefiting other group members
or the group as a whole (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006:
p. 308; Sparrowe, Soetjipto, & Kraimer, 2006).
It has been suggested that helping behaviors have their roots,
in part, in cultural values and norms (Erez, 1997; Kwantes,
2003), and a link between culture and helping behavior has
been demonstrated by a number of studies (e.g., Lin & Ho,
2010; Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Similarly, there has been
some research to suggest that helping behavior may also be
connected to gender (Eagly & Crowley, 1986; Mann, 2007;
Farrell & Finkelstein, 2007; Heilman & Chen, 2005). However,
the claim that gender or culture will dictate helping behavior
has not yielded any consistent findings. Rather than targeting
culture or gender per se, we believe that the role of proportional
representation of diverse social categories needs be considered
in exploring the effect of group demographic diversity on help-
ing behavior (discussed below).
Early research on work group demographic composition and
individual member behavior was conducted by Kanter (1977),
who was ultimately concerned with explaining specific behav-
ioral outcomes stemming from the proportional representation
of different social categories (based on race, gender etc.) in the
workplace and specifically, numerical under-representation.
Kanter (1977) offered valuable insights regarding the influence
of demographic composition on individual behavior by atten-
tion to both the social category which an individual represents
and the proportion of this social category in a group. Kanter
(1977a, 1977b) asserted that when a social category (gender or
culture category) has solo status in a group, several critical
consequences arise. These consequences can be evident in
“tilted” groups (where between 15% and 35% of the group are
members of a minority social category) but are most pro-
nounced in “skewed” groups (i.e. when a social category con-
stitutes 15% or less of a group). These assertions have received
research support (e.g., Li, Karakowsky, & Siegel, 1999).
According to Kanter (1977), a group member who exists in
the numerical minority (based on a social category) is in a posi-
tion of representing their ascribed category in the group, re-
gardless of any deliberate choice to do so, and tends to feel
isolated from the numerical majority (Kanter, 1977a). These
assertions are congruent with the implications of social identity
theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1982) and self-categorization theory
(Turner, 1982), an extension of SIT. According to Kanter
(1977), individuals in numerical minority positions possess the
perception of being highly visible to the rest of the group. In
other words, a group member who represents the numerical
minority in a group will typically be acutely aware of this status
(Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978).
Given the impact of numerical status, as indicated above, the
behavior of the numerical minority is typically equated with an
inhibited, passive quality (Kanter, 1977b). That is, the salience
of their social category makes them feel excluded from the
in-group. With regard to the variables of interest to this study,
based on Kanter’s (1977) assertions, those in the numerical
minority in a group are less likely to exhibit helping behavior in
their groups. The passive behavior commonly associated with
an “outsider” or numerical minority is incongruent with dem-
onstrations of helping behavior. In other words, for the purpose
of our study, Kanter’s structural approach would predict a main
effect of proportional representation in the group on measures
of exhibited helping behavior. In line with this reasoning, we
propose that the proportional representation of social categories
based on gender or culture within a team will influence levels
of helping behavior exhibited by various team members.
Hypothesis 1: A team member, who has numerical minority
status based on gender, will be less likely to engage in helping
behavior compared to an individual who is in a numerically
balanced or dominant position.
Hypothesis 2: A team member, who has numerical minority
status based on culture, will be less likely to engage in helping
behavior compared to an individual who is in a numerically
balanced or dominant position.
The hypotheses were tested via a laboratory study. Par-
ticipants included 216 university students from undergraduate
business programs in two large North American universities
(108 men, 108 women). The average age of the participants was
20.5 years old (SD = 3.99).
Participants were randomly assigned to 36 groups with six
members per group and were given 30 minutes to develop
documented solutions for two assigned business-related cases
(Karakowsky & Siegel, 1999). Given that individuals may
respond differently to gender-biased tasks (e.g., Carr, Thomas,
& Mednick, 1985; Vancouver & Ilgen, 1989), we used two sets
of tasks or cases. The two cases employed in the study, from
Karakowsky & Siegel (1999), differed in terms of their gender
orientation. One case involved male-stereotyped content, the
other—female-stereotyped content. Group members were
randomly seated around a table (roundtable) for the duration of
this discussion. The research assistant (RA) distributed the first
case, allowed the group several minutes to read it, and then
activated the video-recording equipment. The RA placed a pad
of paper and pen in the center of the group’s table, equidistant
from all members. The RA then left the room for the duration
of the group discussion. The video camera recorded the key
event—the action of a member voluntarily taking the pen and
paper in hand and becoming the “volunteer scribe” for the
group. After the allotted time, the RA returned, shut off the
video recorder and distributed the first set of questionnaires.
The RA followed identical procedures for the second group
discussion task. Once again, the video camera recorded the
event of a member becoming the “volunteer scribe” for the
group. To control for possible confounding effects, the order of
the two types of case discussion tasks were counterbalanced, as
was the use of a male or female RA in facilitating the data
collection. The statistical analysis of data was conducted by
using a weighted-logistic regression model in SPSS.
Dependent Variable
Helping Behavior. In this study, and consistent with previ-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 1011
ous research, we conceptualized helping behavior as a single
act. In this case, the act of volunteering to serve as the group’s
secretary or documenter of the group’s discussion was consider
to be a critical helping behavior. The RA observed the video-
taped discussions and noted which individual had volunteered
to act as scribe for the group’s discussion.
Independent Variable s
Numerical Status. This variable reflected the proportional
representation in the group based on gender. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of three types of mixed gender
groups: Male-dominated (five men and one woman), female-
dominated (five women and one man), or gender balanced
(three men and three women).
Relational Demography. This variable reflected the pro-
portional representation based on culture. The relational de-
mography score is a measure of the difference between an indi-
vidual and all other group members in terms of a specific
demographic attribute. We calculated a relational demography
score for each group member using Tsui et al.’s (1992) formula.
An individual with a larger score differed more in terms of this
characteristic from other individuals in the group than an indi-
vidual with a smaller score. For the purpose of this study, we
used the following item as a proxy for participant’s familiarity
with North American culture: “Living in North America for at
least 10 years” or “Living in North America for less than 10
years”. Relational demography was based on random assign-
ment without recognition of culture a priori.
Covariates/Control Variables
Masculinity-Femininity. In addition to recording the gender
of each participant, following the group’s second discussion
task, each participant completed the Bem Sex-Role Inventory
(BSRI) (Bem, 1974). For the purpose of this study, the stan-
dardized masculinity and femininity scores were used as co-
variates. Given that prior research has connected these scores
with intra-group behavior, we controlled for its variation across
members. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the masculin-
ity and femininity measures were .87 and .77, respectively.
Self-Efficacy in Communication. Following completion of
the second discussion task, the participants completed a ques-
tionnaire which provided a self-report measure of self-efficacy
with regard to the ability to communicate in a group context (Li,
Karakowsky, & Siegel, 1999). This instrument contained
eight-items scored on 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. We controlled for this
because member comfort in discussion groups may have af-
fected their willingness to engage in helping behavior. The
Alpha coefficient for this measure was .86.
Prior Familiarity with Other Group Members. Following
the study, participants were required to indicate whether they
had known group members prior to joining the study. In ana-
lyzing the data, the Familiarity covariate was composed of three
categories: No prior familiarity with any other group members;
prior familiarity with one other group member; prior familiarity
with two group members (no participants indicated that they
were familiar with more than two other members). Once again,
we felt that this factor should be controlled for since it might
affect helping behavior.
Age. Following the study, participants were requested to in-
dicate their age.
Location. Because participants were students from two dif-
ferent universities (156 participants forming 26 groups from
one university, 60 participants forming 10 groups from another)
it was necessary to ensure that the two sub-sets did not differ in
any way that could confound the results of the study.
Other. Two other variables were included to control for pos-
sible confounds: 1) Gender of the research assistant and 2) the
order in which the tasks were presented to the group, where the
order of the presentation of the two cases was counterbalanced.
Summaries of descriptive statistics of all the variables in this
study across both the masculine and feminine-oriented tasks are
presented in Tables 1 and 2.
We used a weighted-logistic regression to analyze helping
behavior for each of the masculine-oriented and feminine-or-
iented tasks separately. The numerical status factor, due to its
interpretation in the design of this experiment, resulted in fewer
(24) individuals in gender-based minority positions, more (72)
individuals in gender-based balanced positions, and many (120)
individuals in gender-based majority positions. Logistic re-
gression is a frequency-based procedure and, therefore, the
results of an unweighted analysis would be distorted by the
differences in frequencies inherent in the design. To eliminate
this effect, each person in a gender minority position was as-
signed a weight of 15, in a gender balanced position was as-
signed a weight of 5, and in a gender majority position was
assigned a weight of 3. The assigned weights were inversely
proportionate to the number of individuals in each position.
We conducted separate analyses of helping behavior for each
of the two types of tasks. First, we present results with respect
to the masculine-oriented task. Using a predicted probability of
being a volunteer of above 50% as indicating that the model
predicted that person’s volunteering behavior, the model cor-
rectly predicted the volunteering status of 100% of the
non-volunteers and 76% of those who had become volunteers
(Table 3).
According to the results of our analysis, the gender-based
numerical status of the participant (i.e., numerically balanced
vs. minority; numerical majority vs. minority) had a significant
influence on the likelihood of helping behavior (see Table 3).
Individuals in a gender minority position were significantly less
likely to volunteer as a scribe than individuals in either a gender
balanced position (B = 3.03, p < .01) or a gender majority posi-
tion (B = 1.74, p < .01). In terms of magnitude, those in a gen-
der minority position were 23 times less likely to volunteer than
were those in a gender balanced position and 61 times less
likely to volunteer than those in the gender majority position.
Therefore, these results provide support for Hypothesis 1 with
respect to the masculine-oriented task.
Pertaining to relational demography, our results indicate that
the more participants differed from their group members in
terms of the length of time they lived in North America, the less
likely they were to engage in helping behaviors (B = 5.45, p
< .01). In other words, a greater level of relational demography
was associated with a lower likelihood of volunteering as a
scribe. This result is consistent with the prediction of Hypothe-
sis 2, as it pertains to the masculine-oriented task.
Next, we present results with respect to the feminine-oriented
task. As above, using a predicted probability of being a volunteer
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 1013
Table 1.
Summary of descriptive statistics for the observed sample on the masculine oriented task (N = 216), (weighted N = 1080).
Weighted spearman correlations
Variable M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Citizenship
behavior - - - 1
2 Gender of
subject - - - 2 .25**
3 Gender of R.A. - - - 3 .05 0
4 Order of the
tasks - - - 4 .05 0 0
- - - 5 .2** 0 0 0
6 Location - - - 6 .21 ** 0 .45** .33** 0
.43 .51 - 7 .28** .07* .29** .34** .04 .65**
8 Age 23.9 7.22 - 8 .24** .07* .03 .08* .19** .24** .2**
9 One friend in
the group .09 .28 - 9 .04 .18** .13** .29** .01 .16** .01 .2**
10 Two friends in
the group .06 .24 - 10 .09** .12** .05.05 .18** .3** .07* .26** .12**
11 Self-efficacy in
communication 42.87 9.06 .86 11 .09** .27** .26** .05 .25** .17** .11** .08* .16** .2**
12 Bem-masc.
score 50.52 11.2 .87 12 .03 .46** .18** .21** .17** .43** .29** .31** .04 .04 .56**
13 Bem-fem. score 48.53 10.39 .77 13 .4** .49** .21** .13** .08* .25** .21** .16** .24** .2** .23** .13**
Note: M, SD, and α are unweighted. *p < .05; **p < .01.
Table 2.
Summary of descriptive statistics for the observed sample on the feminine oriented task (N = 216), (weighted N = 1080).
Weighted spearman correlations
Variable M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Citizenshi
behavior - - - 1
2 Gender of
subject - - - 2 .28**
3 Gender of
R.A. - - - 3 .03 0
4 Order of the
tasks - - - 4 .08** 0 0
- - - 5 .15** 0 0 0
6 Location - - - 6 .11** .01 .47** .34** .01
.43 .51 - 7 .04 .05 .24** .36** .04 .66**
8 Age 23.9 7.22 - 8 .35** .05 .01 .03 .14** .26** .21**
9 One friend in
the group .09 .28 - 9 .28** .16** .22** .22** .08**.13** .14** .11**
10 Two friends
in the group .06 .24 - 10 .05 .1** .09** .09** .15** .31**.12** .33** .11**
42.87 9.06 .8611 .26** .25** .2** .03 .23**.28** .07* .17** 0 .25**
12 Bem-masc.
score 50.52 11.2 .8712 .05 .44**.16** .25**.19** .36** .26** .25** .06* .04 .59**
13 Bem-fem.
score 48.53 10.39 .7713 .45** .62** .15** .09** .15** .32** .11** .37** .02 .24** .17** .12**
Note: M, SD, and α are unweighted. *p < .05; **p < .01.
Table 3.
Summary of weighted logistic regression analysis of characteristics
influencing the likelihood of citizenship behavior in the case of the
masculine oriented task.
Variable B (SE)
Location 6.12** (.85)
Age –.12** (.03)
One friend in group 5.49** (.78)
Two friends in group 6.24**(1.24)
Self-efficacy in communication –.10* (.05)
Bem-masculine score .22** (.04)
Bem-feminine score .31** (.04)
Gender of subject –1.86** (.40)
Gender of RA .87** (.28)
Order of the tasks 1.73** (.31)
Relational demography (culture) –5.45** (.73)
Numerical status (gender balanced vs. gender
minority) 3.03** (.50)
Numerical status (gender majority vs. gender
minority) 1.74** (.48)
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.
of above 50% as indicating that the model predicted a person’s
volunteering behavior, the model correctly predicted the volun-
teering status of 100% of the time for non-volunteers and 81%
of those who had volunteered (Table 4).
Again, the numerical status based on gender had a significant
effect on helping behavior of participants. Group members in
gender minority positions were less likely to engage in helping
behavior compared to members in balanced (B = 2.42, p < .01)
or majority positions (B = 2.41, p < .01). These results provide
support for Hypothesis 1.
Increases in relational demography tended to decrease the
likelihood of becoming a volunteer (B = –1.75, p < .01). Once
again, this finding is consistent with the assertion of Hypothesis
2. All other influences were by control factors and, therefore,
not of direct interest in this study.
Discussion and Summary
Our paper attempts to move the organizational citizenship
behavior research forward by considering that gender or ethnic-
ity alone does not necessarily predict levels of helping behavior.
Rather, we need to view helping behavior within the larger
social context. This demands we recognize the impact of pro-
portional representation of diverse social categories. Being in
the perceived minority position can have a damaging impact on
helping behavior. If a group member feels isolated from the
majority (like the proverbial “fish out of water”), this might
inhibit behaviors commonly associated with helping behavior.
A consideration of Kanter’s (1977) view of proportional repre-
sentation suggests that perceptions of influence are affected by
the numerical presence of different social categories. Such
situations of tokenism enhance the visibility of the token and
Table 4.
Summary of hierarchical weighted logistic regression analysis of char-
acteristics influencing the likelihood of citizenship behavior in the case
of the female oriented task.
Variable B (SE)
Location 2.59** (.66)
Age .28** (.05)
One friend in group 9.11** (1.02)
Two friends in group 6.03**(1.42)
Self-efficacy in communication .29* (.04)
Bem-masculine score .03 (.03)
Bem-feminine score .30** (.05)
Gender of subject .83* (.39)
Gender of RA .49 (.26)
Order of the tasks 1.63** (.29)
Relational demography (culture) 1.75** (.64)
Numerical status (gender balanced vs. gender
minority) 2.42** (.46)
Numerical status (gender majority vs. gender
minority) 2.41** (.49)
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.
may inhibit helping behavior.
Our study suggests that being in the perceived minority posi-
tion can have a damaging impact on helping behavior. This
makes intuitive sense. If one feels isolated from the majority,
this might inhibit behaviors commonly associated with helping
behavior. Our study underscores the necessity of integrating an
understanding of the dynamics of proportional representation
into studies that endeavor to measure helping behavior in di-
verse populations.
There are a number of limitations regarding our research de-
sign as well as a number of questions that remained unanswered
by our study. First, the issue of generalizability must be con-
sidered. The use of a university student sample and the short-
term duration of the work groups under examination place lim-
its on the degree to which we can generalize our findings to the
workplace. Second, the experimental design employed in this
study could not avoid the problem of lack of independence
among subjects. Specifically, the behavior of a target subject
clearly can be influenced by the behavior of their group mem-
bers. Consequently, one member’s helping behavior, for exam-
ple, is partly a function of the other members’ lack of involve-
ment. This violates the assumption of independence implicit in
the statistical analyses (c.f., Raudenbush, 1997). Third, while
this study attempted to control for a number of individual dif-
ferences such as masculinity-femininity and self-efficacy, it
would be of interest to consider the effects of other pertinent
characteristics including extroversion-introversion as measured
by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers &
McCaully, 1985) with regard to helping behavior. In addition,
while the measure used to assess gender roles, Bem’s Sex-role
Inventory (Bem, 1974, 1993), has been widely employed, the
research has offered evidence that traditional masculine and
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
feminine gender role perceptions may be weakening (c.f., Holt
& Ellis, 1998). Consequently, what constitutes the most appro-
priate measure of gender roles needs to be continually re-
In practical terms, this paper’s message is important for
managers—employees that are in a numerical minority position
may not feel fully prepared to engage in helping behavior for a
variety of reasons. At one level, it could simply be inhibitions
experienced that prevent the employee from “going out on a
limb” to display behavior that is more typically associated with
a numerical majority member. The experience of tokenism can
lead a member to feel somewhat incapable of engaging in
meaningful or valued helping behavior. The need to develop
“team players” requires an intimate understanding of how the
mix of diverse members in a team context will influence mem-
ber behaviors and potentially inhibit helping behavior if not
managed properly.
Our study raises an important cautionary note for managers
and for any individual that functions in a team. An individual
who is cast in a numerical minority role may in fact be inhibited
from performing a variety of group roles. While the impact on
performance has been debated, the phenomenon of helping
behavior may be subject to different dynamics—particularly
because it is not a formally mandated expectation of the group
—it has a voluntary dimension. Lone women performers in
teams may overcome the inhibitions of minority status in order
to perform successfully in her group. However, will those rele-
gated to numerical minority positions also feel comfortable to
go above and beyond performance expectations and engage in
voluntary citizenship behaviors? What is striking in our study is
that the results suggest that numerical minority status (based on
both gender and culture) can inhibit such behavior. Such im-
pediments could become a self-fulfilling prophecy—with the
numerical minority member feeling and acting like an outsider.
Given the impression management aspect of helping behavior
this could also further undermine chances for member
achievement or reward in the group.
This paper underscores the need to more fully consider what
can be done at the group level to facilitate the effective integra-
tion of diverse team members in order to maximize the effect-
tiveness of team decision-making. How team members feel
about their ability to contribute to the overall well-being of the
group has critical implications for helping behavior. Conse-
quently, it is critical to identify those factors that can influence
perceptions of member identity and comfort in the group. This
study suggests that without consciously managing team diver-
sity, numerically under-represented groups members may be
potentially inhibited from engaging in extra role behavior.
If the aim of a work team is to increase member involvement,
then our paper begs the question—what technique(s) might
minimize the detrimental effects of variations in imputed ex-
pertise and numerical minority status? It certainly appears
critical to engage in team activities that minimize any feelings
of in group out-group perceptions among team members. In-
volvement in team performance will spill over to extra role
behavior, so activities that ensure ample participation among all
members will be fruitful. For example, previous research has
suggested that designating a group member as facilitator or
gate-keeper in group discussions could help ensure that all
group members are encouraged to contribute their ideas (Kelt-
ner, 1989). The use of facilitation to enhance group work is not
a new concept, and has proven to be a productive technique in a
range of areas such as group brainstorming (e.g., Keltner, 1989).
Consistent with Karakowsky, Mann and McBey’s (2010), in
order to assist the integration of members within diverse work
teams, the research should continue to consider what methods
or techniques can enhance member involvement in group activ-
ity (both in role and extra role) and what factors encourage
members to generate positive perceptions regarding the value of
their contributions to the group. In light of the rapidly growing
diverse workforce, more research should quickly address this
critical issue.
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (2001). The influence of rate gender on
organizational helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 31, 2561-2587. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00191.x
Bachrach, D. G., Bendoly, E., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2001). Attributions
of the “causes” of group performance as an alternative explanation of
the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and or-
ganizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1285-
1293. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1285
Belansky, E. S., & Boggiano, A. K. (1994). Predicting helping behav-
iors: The role of gender and instrumental/expressive self-schemata.
Sex Roles, 30, 647-661. doi:10.1007/BF01544668
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal
of Consulting and Cl i n i c a l P s y c h o l o gy, 42, 155-162.
Blakely, G. L., Srivastava, A. & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The effects of
nationality, work role centrality and work locus of control on role
definitions of OCB. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Stud-
ies, 12, 103-117. doi:10.1177/107179190501200109
Bowes-Sperry, L., Veiga, J. F., & Yanouzas, J. N. (1997). An analysis
of managerial helping responses based on social role theory. Group
& Organization Studies, 22, 445-459.
Carr, P. G., Thomas, V. G., & Mednick, M. T. (1985). Evaluation of
sex-typed tasks by black men and women. Sex Roles, 13, 311-316.
Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication of social
identities in American scenes. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Choi, J. N. (2009). Collective dynamics of citizenship behaviour: What
group characteristics promote group-level helping? Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 46, 1396-1420.
Chou, S. Y., & Pearson, J. (2011). A demographic study of information
technology professionals organizational citizenship behavior. Jour-
nal of Management Research, 3, 1-15. doi:10.5296/jmr.v3i2.625
Coon, H. M. & Kemmelmeier, M. (2001). Cultural orientations in the
United States: Re-examining differences among ethnic groups. Jour-
nal of Cross-Cultural Psychol ogy , 32, 348-364.
Danzis, D. A., & Stone-Romero, E. (2009). Effects of helper sex, re-
cipient attractiveness, and recipient femininity on helping behavior in
organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 722-737.
Davis, P. S., Babakus, E., Englis, P. D., & Pett, T. (2010). The influ-
ence of CEO gender on market orientation and performance in ser-
vice small and medium-sized service businesses. Journal of Small
Business Management, 48, 475-496.
Dovidio, J., Brown, C., Ellyson, S., Keating, C., & Heltman, K. (1988).
The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance
between men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 54, 233-242. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.233
Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychologi-
cal analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971-981.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 1015
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A
meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 1 0 0 , 283-308. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283
Erez, M. (1997). A culture based model of work motivation. In P. C.
Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international indus-
trial/organizational psychology (pp. 193-242). San Francisco, CA:
Farrell, S. K., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2007). Organizational citizenship
behavior and gender: Expectations and attributions for performance.
North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 81-95.
George, J. M. & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial
behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in
a service context. Jo urnal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.
George, D., Carroll, P., Kersnick, R., & Calderon, K. (1998). Gender-
related patterns of helping among friends. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 22, 685-704. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00185.x
Gilbert, G. R., Burnett, M. F., Phau, I., & Haar, J. (2010). Does gender
matter? A review of work-related gender commonalities. Gender in
Management, 25, 676-699. doi:10.1108/17542411011092336
Graves, L. M., & Elsass, P. M. (2005). Sex and sex dissimilarity effects
in ongoing teams: Some surprising findings. Human Relations, 58,
191-221. doi:10.1177/0018726705052181
Grob, L. M., Meyers, R. A., & Schuh, R. (1997). Powerful/powerless
language use in group interactions: Sex differences or similarities?
Communication Quarterly, 45 , 282-304.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different conse-
quences: Reactions to mens and womens altruistic citizenship be-
havior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431-441.
Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. J. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social
identity. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory:
Constructive and critical advances (pp. 48-70). New York: Springer-
Holland, S., Gaston, K., & Gomes, J. (2000). Critical success factors
for cross-functional teamwork in the new product development. In-
ternational Journal of M a n ag e m e n t Reviews, 2, 231-259.
Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the
Bem sex-role inventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929-941.
Hood, J. N., & Koberg, C. S. (1994). Patterns of differential assimila-
tion and acculturation for women in business organizations. Human
Relations, 47, 159-159. doi:10.1177/001872679404700202
Johnson, R. A., & Schulman, G. I. (1989). Gender-role composition
and role-entrapment in decision-making groups. Gender & Society, 3,
353-372. doi:10.1177/089124389003003005
Jones, J. R. & Schaubroeck, J. (2004). Mediators of the relationship
between race and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 16, 505-527.
Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Some effects of proportions in group life:
Skewed sex ratios and responses to numerical minority women.
American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990. doi:10.1086/226425
Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Men and women of the corporation. New York:
Basic Books.
Kanter, R. M. (1980). A tale of “O”. New York: Harper & Row Pub-
Karakowsky, L., Mann, S., & McBey, K. (2010). Feeling (and acting)
like a fish out of water: Numerical minority status, gendered work
and citizenship behavior in mixed gender work teams. Team Per-
formance Management, 16, 413-430.
Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., & Miller, D. L. (2004). Gender, perceived
competence, and power displays. Small Group Research, 35, 407-
439. doi:10.1177/1046496404263728
Karakowsky, L., & Siegel, J. P. (1999). The effects of proportional
representation and gender-orientation of the task on emergent lead-
ership behavior in mixed-gender groups. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 84, 620-631. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.620
Kidder, D., & Judi McLean Parks (2001). The good soldier: Who is
s(he)? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 939-959.
Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of
demographic heterogeneity and team leader-team member demo-
graphic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group & Or-
ganization Management, 29, 334-368.
Kwantes, C. T. (2003). Organizational citizenship and withdrawal
behaviors in the USA and India: Does commitment make a differ-
ence? Cross Cultural Management, 3, 5-26.
Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates
across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
594. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.594
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2011). Multicultural organizations: Common
language, knowledge sharing and performance. Personnel Review,
40, 324-343. doi:10.1108/00483481111118649
Lenartowicz, T. & Roth, K. (2001). Does subculture within a country
matter? A cross cultural study of motivational domains and business
performance in Brazil. Journal of International Business Studies, 32,
305-326. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490954
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and di-
mensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied P s ycholo gy, 87, 52-65.
Li, J., Karakowsky, L. & Siegel, J. P. (1999). The effects of propor-
tional representation on intragroup behavior in mixed-race deci-
sion-making groups. Small Group Research, 30, 259-279.
Lin, L., & Ho, Y. (2010). Guanxi and OCB: The Chinese cases. Journal
of Business Ethics, 96, 285-298. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0465-6
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants
of managerial evaluations of salespersons performance. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decisio n Processes, 50, 123-123.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of
organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson
performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70-70. doi:10.2307/1252058
Mahadeo, J. D., Soobaroyen, T., & Hanuman, V. O. (2012). Board
composition and financial performance: Uncovering the effects of
diversity in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105,
375-388. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0973-z
Mann, S. L. (2007). Values as incremental predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Toronto:
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism
as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Organiz ational Beha vior, 16, 127-142.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the de-
velopment and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizen-
ship behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective
determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 74, 157-164. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.157
Organ, D. W., Possakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organiza-
tional 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, 775-802.
Paine, J. B., & Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organiza-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 1017
tional citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and em-
pirical observations. Human Resources Management Review, 10,
45-59. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00038-8
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Relational demography and perceptions of group
conflict and performance: A field investigation. The International
Journal of Conflict Ma n agement, 7, 230-246. doi:10.1108/eb022783
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work
group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). The impact of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior on evaluations of sales person perform-
ance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70-81.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citi-
zenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing
Research, 31, 351-363. doi:10.2307/3152222
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational
citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and
suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133-151.
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 re-
search. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D.
(2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organ-
izational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 122. doi:10.1037/a0013079
Pratt, M. B. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organiza-
tional identification. In D. A. Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Iden-
tity in organizations (pp. 171-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Reskin, B. F, McBrier, D. B, & Kmec, J. A. (1999). The determinants
and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual
Review of Sociology, 25, 335-361. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.335
Raudenbush, S. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for
cluster randomized trials, Psychological Methods, 2, 173-185.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system in
interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191-216.
Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. (2006). Do leaders
influence tactics relate to members helping behavior? It depends on
the quality of the relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
1194-1208. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478645
Steers, R. M., & Sanchez-Runde, C. J. (2002). Culture, motivation, and
work behavior. In M. J. Gannon, & K. L. Newman (Eds.), The
blackwell handbook of principles of cross-cultural management (pp.
190-216). Bodmin, UK: MPG Books.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, T. F, Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978).
Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping.
Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology, 36(7), 778-793.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different:
Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579. doi:10.2307/2393472
Turner, J. (1982). Toward a cognitive definition of the group. In H.
Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Van de Vliert, E. (2005). Effects of perceived
skill dissimilarity and task interdependence on helping in work teams.
Journal of Management, 31, 73-89. doi:10.1177/0149206304271382
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement and
validation. Academy o f Management Journal, 37, 765-802.
Van Dyne, L., Vadewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cum-
mings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem
as predictors of organizational citizenship behavior in a non-work
setting. Journal of Or gani zati onal Behavior, 21, 3-23.
Vancouver, J. B., & Ilgen, D. R. (1989). Effects of interpersonal orien-
tation and the sex-type of the task on choosing to work alone or in
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 927-934.
Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men
in the female professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267.
Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style
as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 341-347.