Group Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Stages of Group Development

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.


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 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 Tuckman's (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.

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 Choi's (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 group's advice network has no impact on group performance.However, the advice network centrality and the density of a work group's 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 member's interpersonal ties and the leader's 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 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 Chan's (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.

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 Tuckman's (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).Tuckman's (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 Tuckman's (1965) model intends to reflect group termination and separation.
Thus far, we have very briefly presented the stages of group development using Tuckman's (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen's (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.

Stage 1: The forming stage
The first stage of Tuckman's 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 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.

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 worker's 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.

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 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.

Stage 4: The performing stage
The final stage of Tuckman's (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 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.

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.

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 (2004).If a group successfully demonstrates group characteristics shown in Tuckman's (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), andJohnson, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Ilgen, Jundt, andMeyer (2006).Once a group demonstrates the characteristics of the performing stage described in Tuckman's (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 Tuckman's (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.

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, Tuckman's (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 group's focus away from interpersonal conflict towards a task orientation in the storming phase, manager's 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 Tuckman's (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 is related to Tuckman's (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 Tuckman's (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.

Conclusion
We have sought to develop a theoretical model that explains GOCB by incorporating Tuckman's (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.Yalom, I. (1970).The theory and practice of group psychotherapy.New York, NY: Basic Books.

Figure
Figure 1.Proposed Theoretical Model