This study examined the mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the relationship between team cohesion and team effectiveness by collecting data from a sample of 613 collegiate student-athletes in South Korea (hereafter referred to as “Korea”) and Hong Kong. Results revealed that team cohesion significantly predicted both OCB and team effectiveness, with OCB also exerting a strong positive influence on team effectiveness. Furthermore, OCB partially mediated the cohesion–effectiveness relationship, highlighting its critical function within sport teams. Cross-cultural comparisons showed that Korean athletes demonstrated higher levels of social cohesion and team effectiveness, while Hong Kong athletes exhibited stronger task cohesion. Notably, OCB's mediating effect was more pronounced among Korean participants. These findings offer insights into how prosocial team behaviors can be harnessed to improve performance and inform culturally responsive coaching strategies.
OrganDW. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988.
2.
RobertsBSCumberlandDMEllingerAD. Making a difference in the workplace: a systematic literature review of prosocial impact. Hum Resour Dev Rev2024; 24: 199–224.
3.
IndartiSFernandesAARHakimW. The effect of OCB in relationship between personality, organizational commitment and job satisfaction on performance. J Manag Dev2017; 36: 1283–1293.
4.
ChelladuraiPKerwinS. Human resource management in sport and recreation. 3rd ed.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2017.
5.
ChangKChelladuraiP. Comparison of part-time workers and full-time workers: commitment and citizenship behaviors in Korean sport organizations. J Sport Manag2003; 17: 394–416.
6.
HusinSChelladuraiPMusaG. HRM Practices, organizational citizenship behaviors, and perceived service quality in golf courses. J Sport Manag2012; 26: 143–158.
7.
JeongYKimEKimM, et al.Exploring relationships among organizational culture, empowerment, and organizational citizenship behavior in the South Korean professional sport industry. Sustainability2019; 11: 5412.
8.
LeeYKimSKangJ. Coach leadership effect on elite handball players’ psychological empowerment and organizational citizenship behavior. Int J Sports Sci Coach2013; 8: 327–342.
9.
AndrewDPSKimSMahonyDF, et al.Outcomes of distributive justice in intercollegiate athletics. Int J Sport Manag2009; 10: 474–498.
10.
AoyagiMWCoxRHMcGuireRT. Organizational citizenship behavior in sport: relationships with leadership, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction. J Appl Sport Psychol2008; 20: 25–41.
11.
WagstaffCFletcherDHantonS. Positive organizational psychology in sport: an ethnography of organizational function in a national sport organization. J Appl Sport Psychol2011; 24: 26–47.
12.
KimSLiuJLoveA, et al.Organizational citizenship behavior in sports: scale development and validation. Int J Sports Sci Coach2022; 17: 1018–1032.
13.
LoveAKimS. Organizational citizenship behaviors in sport: a perspective from athletes. J Sport Manag2019; 33: 25–36.
14.
OrganDWPodsakoffPMMacKenzieSB. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006.
15.
StirlingAEKerrGA. Abused athletes’ perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship. Sport Soc2009; 12: 227–239.
16.
KimSHongSMagnusenM, et al.Hard knock coaching: a cross-cultural study of the effects of abusive leader behaviors on athlete satisfaction and commitment through interactional justice. Int J Sports Sci Coach2020; 15: 597–609.
17.
BlauPM. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley, 1964.
18.
BourdieuPWacquantLJD. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
19.
CarronAVBrawleyLRWidmeyerWN. The measurement of cohesion in sport groups. Adv Sport Exerc Psychol Meas1998; 23: 213–226.
20.
MartínezRNScott TindaleR. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on performance in women’s sport teams. J Appl Sport Psychol2015; 27: 200–215.
21.
CampbellKEMarsdenPVHulbertJS. Social resources and socioeconomic status. Soc Networks1986; 8: 97–117.
22.
DekkerPUslanerE. Social capital and participation in everyday life. London: Routledge, 2001.
23.
IsraelGDBeaulieuLJHartlessG. The influence of family and community social capital on educational achievements. Rural Sociol2001; 66: 43–68.
24.
SubramanianSVLochnerKAKawachiI. Neighborhood differences in social capital: a compositional artifact or a contextual construct?Health Place2003; 9: 33–44.
25.
BowlesSGintisH. Social capital and community governance. Econ J2002; 112: F419–F436.
26.
SirianniCFriedlandL. Civic innovation and American democracy. Mag High Learn1997; 29: 14–23.
27.
LusherDRobinsGKremerP. The application of social network analysis to team sports. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci2010; 14: 211–224.
28.
GrossmanRNolanKPRoschZ, et al.The team cohesion-performance relationship: a meta-analysis exploring measurement approaches and the changing team landscape. Organ Psychol Rev2022; 12: 181–238.
29.
MuñozARVega-DíazMGonzález-GarcíaH. Team cohesion profiles: influence on the development of mental skills and stress management. J Sports Sci Med2023; 22: 637–644.
30.
MasonCMGriffinMA. Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Res2003; 34: 413–442.
31.
CarronAVColmanMMWheelerJ, et al.Cohesion and performance in sport: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol2002; 24: 168–188.
32.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPaineJB, et al.Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. J Manag2000; 26: 513–563.
33.
MacKenzieSBPodsakoffPMFetterR. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. J Mark1993; 57: 70–80.
34.
LiuDChenXPHolleyE. Help yourself by helping others: the joint impact of group member organizational citizenship behaviors and group cohesiveness on group member objective task performance change. Pers Psychol2017. DOI: 10.1111/peps.1220.
35.
EhrhartMGNaumannSE. Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: a group norms approach. J Appl Psychol2004; 89: 960–974.
36.
BolinoMCTurnleyWHGilstrapJB, et al.Citizenship under pressure: what's a “good soldier” to do?J Organ Behav2010; 31: 835–855.
37.
ChoiJN. Multilevel and cross-level effects of workplace attitudes and group member relations on interpersonal helping behavior. Hum Perform2006; 19: 383–402.
38.
CarronAVBraySREysMA. Team cohesion and team success in sport. J Sports Sci2002; 20: 119–126.
39.
Peters onEThompsonL. Negotiation teamwork: the impact of information distribution and accountability on performance depends on the relationship among team members. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process1997; 72: 364–383.
40.
FilhoEDobersekUGershgorenL, et al.The cohesion-performance relationship in sport: a 10-year retrospective meta-analysis. Sport Sci Health2014; 10: 165–177.
41.
HofstedeG. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
42.
KabasakalHDastmalchianAImerP. Organizational citizenship behaviour: a study of young executives in Canada, Iran, and Turkey. Int J Hum Resour Manag2011; 22: 2703–2729.
43.
LaiJYMLamLWLamSSK. Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: a team cultural perspective. J Organ Behav2013; 34: 1039–1056.
44.
CarronAVWidmeyerWNBrawleyLR. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: the Group Environment Questionnaire. J Sport Exerc Psychol1985; 7: 244–266.
45.
ShortSESullivanPFeltzDL. Development and preliminary validation of the Collective Efficacy Questionnaire for Sports. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci2005; 9: 181–202.
46.
HairJAndersonRTathamR, et al.Multivariate data analysis. London: Prentice Hall, 1998.
47.
KlineRB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed.New York: The Guilford Press, 2015.
48.
MatsunagaM. Item parceling in structural equation modeling: a primer. Commun Methods Meas2008; 2: 260–293.
49.
HuLTBentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling1999; 6: 1–55.
50.
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18: 39–50.
51.
GeorgeJMBettenhausenK. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: a group-level analysis in a service context. J Appl Psychol1990; 75: 698–709.
52.
HuJLidenRC. Making a difference in the teamwork: linking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Acad Manag J2014; 58: 1102–1127.
