Advertisement

The Link Between Heterogeneity in Employment Arrangements, Team Cohesion and Team Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model

  • Xuan Wang
  • Yanglinfeng Zheng
  • Xiaoye QianEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1002)

Abstract

With the worldwide popularity of flexible employment arrangements in the last two decades, how to manage the employment blending team has aroused more research interests. This study investigates a moderated mediation model linking heterogeneity in employment arrangements with team organizational citizenship behavior based on social identity theory. Collecting data from four Chinese medical organizations, we provide evidence that heterogeneity in employment arrangements influences team organizational citizenship behavior through team cohesion, and the relationship between heterogeneity in employment arrangements and team cohesion is moderated by leader humility.

Keywords

Heterogeneity in employment arrangements Team cohesion Team organizational citizenship behavior Leader humility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank for the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.71402108 and No.71872117), the Philosophy and Social Science Fund of Sichuan Province (Grant No. SC17B053) and the Sichuan University Special Research Project under “Double First-Class” Initiative (Grant No. SKSYL201703).

References

  1. 1.
    Banerjee, M., Tolbert, P.S., DiCiccio, T.: Friend or foe? The effects of contingent employees on standard employees’ work attitudes. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 23(11), 2180–2204 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blau, P.M.: Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure, vol. 7. New York (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bollen, K.A., Hoyle, R.H.: Perceived cohesion: a conceptual and empirical examination. Soc. Forces 69(2), 479–504 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewer, M.B.: Intergroup Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broschak, J.P., Davis-Blake, A.: Mixing standard work and nonstandard deals: the consequences of heterogeneity in employment arrangements. Acad. Manag. J. 49(2), 371–393 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chattopahyay, P., George, E.: Examining the effects of work externalization through the lens of social identity theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(4), 781 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, J., Sy, T.: Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: effects of demographic faultlines and conflict in small work groups. J. Organ. Behav. 31(7), 1032–1054 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guillaume, P., Sullivan, S.E., et al.: Are there major differences in the attitudes and service quality of standard and seasonal employees? An empirical examination and implications for practice. Hum. Resour. Manag. (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ho, H.: Blending nonstandard and standard employment relations. In: Academy of Management Proceedings. Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510, vol 2016, p 18007 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, X., Li, X.: Employment-status-based faultlines in diverse employment work groups and their activating factors: a grounded theory exploration. Chin. J. Manag. 7, 009 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mullen, B., Brown, R., Smith, C.: Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: an integration. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 22(2), 103–122 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ou, A.Y., Tsui, A.S., et al.: Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Adm. Sci. Q. 59(1), 34–72 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Owens, B.P., Hekman, D.R.: How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Acad. Manag. J. 59(3), 1088–1111 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Owens, B.P., Johnson, M.D., Mitchell, T.R.: Expressed humility in organizations: implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organ. Sci. 24(5), 1517–1538 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Owens, B.P., Wallace, A.S., Waldman, D.A.: Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: the counterbalancing effect of leader humility. J. Appl. Psychol. 100(4), 1203 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rego, A., Simpson, A.V., et al.: The perceived impact of leaders’ humility on team effectiveness: an empirical study. J. Bus. Ethics 148(1), 205–218 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sobel, M.E.: Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol. Methodol. 13, 290–312 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., et al.: Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1(2), 149–178 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terry, D.J., Callan, V.J.: In-group bias in response to an organizational merger. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2(2), 67 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., et al.: Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haines III, V.Y., Doray-Demers, P., Martin, V.: Good, bad, and not so sad part-time employment. J. Vocat. Behav. 104, 128–140 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E.: Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 17(3), 601–617 (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations