Analysis of Self-Reported Motives for Task-Related Helping: Implications for an Integrated Theory of Helping
- 783 Downloads
In organizations where work is complex, dynamic and interdependent, maintaining an environment where employees offer help to one another is essential for organizational effectiveness. This research is aimed at understanding the antecedent motives underlying task-related interpersonal helping.
The research took an atypical approach by asking employees directly to explain in their own words why they would, or would not, help co-workers with work-related problems. Content analysis yielded five categories of motives for helping. The qualitative motive categories were able to explain variance in quantitative scales assessing respondents’ affect, attitudes, organizational perceptions, and demographics.
Employees who gave altruistic reasons for helping (i.e., helping was a personal value or a contribution to the team) reported performing more helping behaviors, expressed greater organizational commitment, and perceived more organizational justice than did employees who expected reciprocity for helping, or whose help was contingent.
No existing theory of helping explains the total collection of motives identified in this research. We encourage researchers to develop integrated theories capable of explaining the totality of motives for task-related helping. Our research identities several essential parameters of such integrated theories and provides guidance for carrying out the task of theory integration.
This phenomenological research is the only empirical investigations into task-related helping based on respondents’ own reasons for helping. It also is one of the few to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
KeywordsHelping OCB Motivation Norms Social exchange Qualitative
The authors thank Dr. Marcus Crede and Dr. Dianna Stone for their comments and suggestions on this research
- Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.Google Scholar
- Crede, M. (2011). Personal communication.Google Scholar
- Dovido, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2010). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 898–918.Google Scholar
- Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1099–1116.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Leeds, R. (1963). Altruism and the norm of giving. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9, 229–240.Google Scholar
- LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26, 67–84.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29, 388–403.Google Scholar
- Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). The handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield: M.A. Pittman.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 11–31.Google Scholar
- Sommerfield, E. (2010). The subjective experience of generosity. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and BEHAVIOR: The better angels of our nature, (Chap. 16). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 97–105.Google Scholar
- Weick, K. (1995). Sense-making in organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Weick, K. (2000). Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Wents, D. R. (1994). Prosocial organizational behavior and the dimension of beneficiary. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar