ehavior towards supervisor and coworker differently, <strong>in</strong> another word, tak<strong>in</strong>g a multi-fociperspective, would deepen our understand<strong>in</strong>g of help<strong>in</strong>g behavior. Besides, most research onhelp<strong>in</strong>g behavior and work family l<strong>in</strong>kages was conducted <strong>in</strong> United States, and did not take<strong>in</strong>to consideration of cultural context. Among a small number of studies about work familyl<strong>in</strong>kages that were conducted cross cultural context, researchers focus on work family conflict(Aryee, Fields, & Luk. 1999;Nang, Chen, Choi, & Zou. 2000; Yang, Hawk<strong>in</strong>s, & Ferris.2004;Casper, Harris, Taylor-Bianco, & Wayne. 2011). For work family l<strong>in</strong>kages, past crosscultural research only explored the different mean<strong>in</strong>gs of help<strong>in</strong>g behavior <strong>in</strong> differentcultures (Farh, Zhong, & Organ. 2004). <strong>The</strong>refore, <strong>in</strong> the need of tak<strong>in</strong>g multi-foci approachfor study<strong>in</strong>g help<strong>in</strong>g behavior, and the need of cross cultural perspective for study<strong>in</strong>g bothhelp<strong>in</strong>g behavior and work to family l<strong>in</strong>kages, I decided to take a multi-foci approach to seehow help<strong>in</strong>g behavior towards supervisor and coworker differ <strong>in</strong> their consequences andexam<strong>in</strong>e the <strong>in</strong>fluence of culture context on the relationship. Thus, this study could make twoother contributions: 3) exam<strong>in</strong>e the multi-foci nature of help<strong>in</strong>g behavior and theirdifferential consequences, and 4) <strong>in</strong>vestigate the <strong>in</strong>fluence of culture context on therelationship <strong>between</strong> help<strong>in</strong>g behavior towards coworkers or supervisors and work to familyenrichment.Research Question: What is the relationship <strong>between</strong> help<strong>in</strong>g behavior <strong>in</strong> the workplace andwork to family enrichment? How does culture <strong>in</strong>fluence the relationship, <strong>in</strong> particular, therelationship <strong>between</strong> the multi-foci(s) of help<strong>in</strong>g behavior and work to family enrichment?<strong>The</strong>oretical BackgroundHelp<strong>in</strong>g Behavior <strong>in</strong> the Workplace
Help<strong>in</strong>g behavior <strong>in</strong> the workplace, for <strong>in</strong>stance, help<strong>in</strong>g the supervisor to coach a newemployee or with coworkers’ heavy workload, is characterized by discretional andspontaneous assistance to others. <strong>The</strong> k<strong>in</strong>d of assistance is not stated <strong>in</strong> the formal jobdescription and not rewarded explicitly by the employer (Organ, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie.2006). Help<strong>in</strong>g behavior can not only lead to better social exchange relationships withsupervisors and coworkers, but also enhance their <strong>in</strong>terpersonal trust as well as personallik<strong>in</strong>g (Allen & Rush. 1998), <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that help<strong>in</strong>g behavior can change the situation <strong>in</strong>which the helper works.Furthermore, help<strong>in</strong>g behavior may be towards two different beneficiaries, namely,organization and <strong>in</strong>dividuals. Lavelle, Rupp and Brockner (2007) named the beneficiary as“foci” and suggested citizenship behavior has two foci(s): citizenship behavior towards teammembers/coworkers and citizenship behavior towards supervisors (Lavelle, Rupp, &Brockner. 2007). Although they did not conclude help<strong>in</strong>g behavior has two foci(s) likecitizenship behavior, it is reasonable to <strong>in</strong>fer so because help<strong>in</strong>g behavior is one dimension ofcitizenship behavior. Besides, Lavelle, McMahan and Harris (2009) found the two foci(s) ofcitizenship behavior---towards team/members/coworkers and supervisors have differentialantecedent: perceived supervisor support (PSS) and perceived workgroup support (PWS)respectively. Although they did not conclude help<strong>in</strong>g behavior towards coworkers andsupervisors have differential antecedents as citizenship behavior towards coworkers andsupervisors do, once aga<strong>in</strong>, it is reasonable to <strong>in</strong>fer so because help<strong>in</strong>g behavior is onedimension of citizenship behavior. Take one step further, we may also <strong>in</strong>fer that help<strong>in</strong>gbehavior towards coworkers and supervisors have differential consequences, which will beexam<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> this study.
- Page 8 and 9: Work to Family EnrichmentWork to fa
- Page 10 and 11: Hypotheses DevelopmentThe Relations
- Page 12 and 13: Hypothesis 1c: Helping behavior tow
- Page 14 and 15: orientation such as China (scored a
- Page 16 and 17: segment or integrate work and famil
- Page 18 and 19: Cultural ContextHelping behaviorH1a
- Page 20 and 21: explains to some extent the bigger
- Page 23 and 24: Then fourteen items were analyzed b
- Page 25 and 26: ResultsTable 1 reports the correlat
- Page 27 and 28: Table 3Regression analysis predicti
- Page 29 and 30: supported, the moderating effect of
- Page 31 and 32: for cultural context but this proxy
- Page 33 and 34: 5.53). All above imply that Chinese
- Page 35: Theoretical Contribution and Practi
- Page 39 and 40: Hill, E. J.,Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J
- Page 41 and 42: Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & M
- Page 43 and 44: Weinstein, N. & Ryan, R. M. (2010).
- Page 45 and 46: 性 别 : 男 / 女年 龄 :婚 姻
- Page 47: Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk he