Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates provided and received social support among team members on meeting-related outcomes based on their person–group fit perspective. It further examines whether this support-based need–supply fit, as indicated by support congruence, relates to their verbal behaviors. Results of cubic polynomial regressions across 303 participants nested in 53 teams reveal that social support congruence predicts team members’ meeting citizenship behavior. Moreover, perceived support congruence functions as a mediator of the relationship between relations-oriented verbal behaviors and meeting citizenship behavior. Theoretical and practical implications for the role of support congruence and verbal behaviors during team meetings are discussed.

Keywords

social support congruence meeting citizenship behavior verbal meeting behaviors cubic polynomial regression analysis meetings

Team meetings act as a magnifying glass for organizational processes, providing insights into interpersonal communication and collaboration dynamics. They also offer a perspective on the transaction of relevant social and organizational resources (for a recent review, see Allen & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023). Social support serves as one of these resources for keeping the flow of effective and positive team collaboration and can manifest in numerous ways (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Jolly et al., 2021). The personal relevance of support exchanges is reflected in the perceived and received forms of social support and is determined by the source of support (Jolly et al., 2021). Although research on the support phenomenon has a long tradition in organizational contexts, the majority of studies have focused on the one-way perspective of support transactions. These support transactions mostly relate to how individuals perceive that support is available (i.e., perceived support), or how they receive personal support provided by others at work (i.e., received support; for overviews, see Bavik et al., 2020; Feeney & Collins, 2015; Jolly et al., 2021). In response to recent calls to study the phenomenon from an interactionist perspective, a growing body of research is accumulating (e.g., Patterer et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2018; Zeijen, Petrou, Bakker, & Gelderen, 2020; Zeijen et al., 2024). This study extends this line of research by explicitly exploring reciprocated social support interactions. These interactions encompass the perceived support that team members both receive and provide (i.e., two-way exchange processes; Zeijen et al., 2024).

In addition, we seek to deepen the understanding of the support phenomenon by deciphering how social support exchanges shape team-related behaviors and attitudes (e.g., Lübstorf & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2020). Given the nature of support reciprocity, supportive team interactions may have both resource-enhancing and resource-depleting effects simultaneously, which is a paradoxical mechanism (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Ehrhardt & Ragins, 2019; Patterer et al., 2023). In other words, with reciprocity, team members can experience both benefits and costs: they gain help and support when they are supported (i.e., receiving support) and face costs and constraints when they support others (i.e., providing support). From an individual perspective, these experiences may be perceived differently by each team member in order to satisfy their personal needs to receive and provide support. Drawing from this conclusion, the present study suggests that perceived support congruence indicates how well team members’ basic psychological needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence are met (i.e., basic needs theory; Ryan & Deci, 2017) through support exchanges between team members. However, since little is known about this exchange process, a more nuanced investigation of reciprocal support is needed to illuminate these effects from a congruence perspective and examine their implications for team and organizational processes.

In the context of team meetings, meeting citizenship behavior is particularly important for the functioning of meetings and for fostering a social and psychological environment in which team performance emerges (Baran et al., 2012). Building on previous research showing the positive impact of exchange processes on citizenship behaviors (e.g., Yoshikawa et al., 2020) and on meeting citizenship behaviors (Baran et al., 2012), we aim to examine the paradoxical mechanism of social support in interaction processes and, therefore, perceived support congruence as a facilitator of team members’ citizenship behavior in meetings. Furthermore, the interaction dynamics displayed during team meetings can influence both internal meeting processes and meeting outcomes (Allen & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023). Given the importance of reciprocated resource exchanges, we suggest that verbal behaviors, such as those displayed in meetings, are antecedents to the satisfaction of team members’ basic psychological needs, as reflected in their perceived support congruence. Accordingly, they influence the extent to which team members perceive congruence of social support and, therefore, impact their meeting citizenship behaviors.

Taken together, this study theoretically and methodologically extends the literature in three main ways: First it addresses the limitations of previous research (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Jolly et al., 2021) by modeling social support from a congruence perspective, focusing on the alignment between provided and received social support as perceived by team members. In doing so, we extend team social support literature by investigating the social support paradox (e.g., Ehrhardt & Ragins, 2019) and how it affects subsequent citizenship behaviors in the context of meetings. Secondly, we extend social support literature by pronouncing the emergence of support congruence among team members driven by the antecedents of their verbal behaviors. This study examines team members’ relations-, task-, and change-oriented verbal behaviors (e.g., Allen & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023; Gerpott et al., 2019) and their connections to their perceptions of social support congruence. Finally, since both self-report measures and behavioral indicators are considered the gold standard for assessing interactions among team members, we respond to this call by integrating both approaches into this research design to evaluate social support interactions (e.g., Banks et al., 2023; Baumeister et al., 2007). In addition, this study outlines both managerial and scholarly understanding of the benefits of social support interactions during team meetings.

Theoretical Background

The Role of Reciprocated Social Support Exchanges Among Team Members

Team members engage in frequent interactions, are readily accessible due to their comparable status, and possess equivalent authority. As a result, they occupy a distinctive position in support-related exchanges (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). The extent of supportive interactions among team members is reflected in behaviors such as the frequency with which team members inform each other (i.e., informational support), help each other (i.e., instrumental support), and care for each other (i.e., emotional support; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Drach-Zahavy, 2004; Mathieu et al., 2019). In this manner, team members engage in the exchange of these resources during interactions to reach their relational and task-related objectives. This exchange relies on reciprocal resource sharing, where one team member provides and another receives, and vice versa (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Tse & Dasborough, 2008). More specifically, perceived social support in teams can be described as “team members’ efforts to provide emotional and psychological strength to one another” (Carson et al., 2007, p. 1222). On one hand, support among team members includes encouragement and recognition for individual accomplishments. On the other hand, support is also necessary for the collective pursuit of task and performance measures, requiring team members to make informational and instrumental contributions (Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011; Hüffmeier et al., 2014). Therefore, the supportive exchanges observed and perceived individually by team members form the building blocks of collaboration and are important prerequisites for fostering a beneficial and resourceful work environment (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Patterer et al., 2023).

Despite the influence of social support for team and work-related outcomes (e.g., Hüffmeier et al., 2014; Torka et al., 2021), there remains a paucity of knowledge regarding the specific social interaction processes in which team members engage with each other (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Hüffmeier et al., 2014). A substantial body of research has demonstrated the positive effects of received social support while identifying social support, in general, as one of the core job-related resources (e.g., Jolly et al., 2021). However, these insights have primarily emerged from studies focused on investigating social support through perceived and individual perspectives, with notable less research on reciprocated exchanges of social support (Bavik et al., 2020; Jolly et al., 2021; for exceptions, see for example, Weinstein & Ryan, 2010; Zeijen et al., 2024). Conversely, the provision of social support can result in adverse and costly consequences, such as limitations on time and energy for other work responsibilities (e.g., Patterer et al., 2023). A more recent body of research has started to underscore the draining effects on those who provide support. Research shows that offering support can become a social burden, limiting the availability of other job-related resources (e.g., Gallagher et al., 2022; Hughes & Freier, 2023; Yang et al., 2018).

Therefore, it is crucial to address social support exchanges between team members from both the reception and provision perspectives simultaneously. More specifically, this line of research suggests that the effects of social support depend on a team member’s perception of the congruence between receiving and providing support: when the provision and receipt of support are incongruent, they can paradoxically affect an individual’s resource pool, leading to both resource depletion and enhancement in an imbalanced manner (Hüffmeier et al., 2014; Patterer et al., 2023; Shumaker & Brownell, 1984). Therefore, we conceptualize the support phenomenon from an interactionist perspective and define social support as “an exchange of resources between at least two individuals perceived by the provider or the recipient to be intended to enhance the well-being of the recipient” (Shumaker & Brownell, 1984, p. 13).

To investigate the support paradox phenomenon within perceived social support exchanges among team members, we build on the work of Ehrhardt and Ragins (2019) and utilize the framework of person–group fit (P–G fit) theory, a branch of person–environment fit theory (P–E fit; Kristof-Brown et al., 2023; Shinn et al., 1984). P–G fit theory is predicated on the examination of the compatibility (i.e., congruence) between an individual and their immediate team (Li et al., 2019). The theory primarily addresses an individual’s experiences and perceptions of the extent to which their attitudes, values, motivation, and behavior are aligned or misaligned (i.e., (in)congruent) with those of their team. This perceptual (mis)alignment subsequently impacts further interaction processes and outcomes (Kristof-Brown et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019). To provide a more in-depth understanding of different P–G fit types, Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) expanded P–G fit theory by introducing the dimension of needs–supply match. This concept refers to the perception that an individual’s “psychological needs are being met by the workgroup or group task” (Li et al., 2019, p. 144). Building on this concept, the impact of a team member’s need for support fulfillment depends on how it aligns with the support provided (i.e., supply) by the team or other members. The extent to which this perceived congruence influences future interactions is then determined by the match between the needs of the team members receiving support and the available resources (Ehrhardt & Ragins, 2019; Shinn et al., 1984, Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Therefore, P–G fit offers a more nuanced approach to the examination of social support exchanges and provides a theoretical avenue for understanding the underlying mechanisms that explain why team members’ need fulfillment through support provision and reception arises and how it impacts their perceived support congruence.

To deepen the understanding of needs fulfillment, Ryan and Deci’s (2000) theoretical paradigm of basic psychological needs (BPN, see also self-determination theory) is particularly relevant. According to BPN, each individual simultaneously desires the satisfaction of three fundamental needs: the need for genuine relatedness and closeness with others, the need for autonomy in choices and a sense of ownership over tasks, and the need for competence in effectively achieving sustainable results. Generally, social contexts that satisfy these three needs are crucial for psychological and motivational functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Ryan et al., 2022). Support exchanges, in particular, have been shown to fulfill these three fundamental needs (Jolly et al., 2021; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010; Zeijen, Petrou, Bakker, & Gelderen, 2020). Consequently, intrinsic motivation within team contexts and through team members’ support exchanges influences subsequent attitudes and behaviors. This implies that every individual occupies the dual role of both recipient and provider of support, which is characteristic of a reciprocal relationship and particularly relevant in team contexts.

Given this dual role of team members, recent empirical research has revealed that team members who provide support tend to experience heightened fulfillment of their basic needs (e.g., Weinstein & Ryan, 2010; Zeijen, Petrou, Bakker, & Gelderen, 2020). Firstly, the provision of support to peers strengthens the relational connection between team members, which in turn contributes to their need for relatedness (Tse & Dasborough, 2008; Zeijen et al., 2022). Moreover, team members who provide assistance with regard to task-related or social matters, such as offering advice or feedback, experience a sense of competence (Tse & Dasborough, 2008). Additionally, team members might experience increased autonomy when they choose whom to assist and how to assist them (Uy et al., 2017). This includes their perception that they are taking responsibility for others, through which they experience higher self-esteem (Hüffmeier et al., 2014). For example, Zeijen et al. (2022) found that coworkers who provide support to their counterparts experience more positive emotions, even beyond the workplace, and experience a greater sense of significance at work. Although this evidence underlines the general notion that support provision is pivotal to maintaining a positive team climate (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Stoverink et al., 2018), it is important to note that it can occasionally have negative consequences for those team members who provide support. For example, in some contexts, social support may be experienced as a burden, negatively affecting the team member providing support (Hüffmeier et al., 2014; Hughes & Freier, 2023). Therefore, it is likely that none of the three fundamental needs will be satisfied.

As for the receiving support, a substantial body of empirical evidence indicates that the receipt of adequate support can maintain engagement and motivation in individuals (Hüffmeier et al., 2014). Conversely, the receipt of support may also result in unintended detrimental effects, particularly when it leads to a reduction in perceived competence and autonomy. For example, when team members perceive excessive support as undermining their competence, independence, and autonomy, such support may lead to feelings of being overwhelmed (Ehrhardt & Ragins, 2019). This phenomenon is also referred to as the “too-much-of-a-good-thing effect” (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013, p. 313). However, if the support received does not undermine the need for personal competence and autonomy, and if team members recognize assistance in accomplishing their responsibilities, they may experience feelings of gratitude from accepting support (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). In light of these considerations, the receipt of support fulfills the need for relatedness.

Overall, this review of literature reveals a positive relationship between support provision and reception (e.g., Bowling et al., 2005; Zeijen et al., 2024). Nevertheless, the findings suggest the necessity for further investigation into congruence perceptions of provided-received support. In other words, for team members to receive social support that satisfies their basic needs, the costs and benefits of both providing and receiving support are similar in enhancing or undermining their need satisfaction (e.g., Zeijen, Petrou, Bakker, & Gelderen, 2020). However, team members may exhibit varying degrees of satisfaction, with some individuals being more inclined to reciprocate social support received, leading to either congruent or incongruent perception of need satisfaction (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gervasi et al., 2021; Perugini et al., 2003).

In conclusion, there is a lack of understanding concerning the phenomenon of these paradoxical support effects and therefore of the potential of perceived support congruence to contribute to the comprehension of social support as an exchange process (e.g., Patterer et al., 2023; Zeijen et al., 2024). Therefore, this study proposes that perceived support congruence is crucial for revealing relational processes that exert slightly different effects on social and work-related outcomes. Indeed, the precise effects when perceived support congruence is present, and when this congruence is perceived based on higher or lesser exchanges, remain unclear. The aim of this study is to examine team members’ perceptions of social support congruence and to elucidate how variations in support congruence influence team functioning during meetings.

Support Congruence and Meeting Citizenship Behavior

Meetings serve as occasions for teams to discuss and coordinate matters related to their relational dynamics, thereby influencing the formation of interpersonal collaboration cultures (Allen & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023; Scott & Allen, 2023). These gatherings subsequently influence attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (e.g., Allen & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012; Meinecke et al., 2020). Consequently, it is crucial to cultivate functional meeting behaviors and extra-role attitudes that actually benefit the team and organizational processes (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2016; Scott & Allen, 2023).

A factor that highlights the significant impact of meetings on team and organizational functions is team members’ propensity for meeting citizenship behaviors (Baran et al., 2012). Meeting citizenship behaviors are discretionary actions exhibited by team members during meetings that contribute to the overall effectiveness, functioning, and positive atmosphere of the meeting, thereby facilitating the achievement of the meeting objectives (Baran et al., 2012). In addition, meeting citizenship behaviors are also necessary to foster a positive social-psychological atmosphere among meeting attendees.

Given the relevance of meeting citizenship behaviors and meta-analytic findings (Mathieu et al., 2019) demonstrating strong positive relationships between social–emotional and task-related support and extra-role performance, this study argues that perceived support congruence is likely to affect these behaviors among team members. This theory is supported by previous team research demonstrating that functional meeting behaviors occur at significantly higher rates when they are supported by other team members (Berg & Kauffeld, 2024; Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009). For the receipt-provision of support, reciprocated support exchange processes have been shown to affect team-relevant outcomes in certain social situations and beyond such contexts (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Stoverink et al., 2018). Congruent with P–G fit, in theory, these findings can be explained through the fulfillment of sociopsychological needs, which enables resources for other team and performance outcomes. For example, the receipt-provision of support enables team members to fully engage in meetings and increase their cognitive capacity to take on additional duties (e.g., Farh et al., 2017). Previous research suggests that satisfaction of such basic needs translates into resource gains (for a review, see van den Broeck et al., 2021; Wörtler et al., 2020). Resource gains energize team members, motivating them to go the extra mile and demonstrate (meeting) citizenship behaviors (Ilies et al., 2018; Stoverink et al., 2018; Wörtler et al., 2020). When team members perceive their relational interactions as fulfilling their psychological needs, their intrinsic motivation and reciprocation efforts increase (Ilies et al., 2018). In fact, the support literature supports these arguments by explaining the increase in sociopsychological resources through an individual’s felt obligation to reciprocate good deeds to others, and vice versa (e.g., Blau, 1964; Cropanzano et al., 2017; Ilies et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2020). Team members who perceive support exchanges may have an increased capacity to proactively engage in the meeting beyond formal requirements or expectations. This increased capacity may include speaking up, volunteering, securing meeting structures, and supporting each other (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2016). For example, Ilies et al. (2018) showed that when employees’ basic needs are satisfied through interpersonal support exchanges, this indirectly leads to increased levels of organizational citizenship behavior (through job satisfaction). In addition, both review and meta-analytical evidence supports the notion that satisfaction of these three fundamental needs is positively linked with performance and citizenship behavior at both the individual and organizational level (van den Broeck et al., 2016, 2021).

Moreover, recent findings by Ehrhardt and Ragins (2019) highlighted general support benefits. Their research on coworkers’ congruent perceived support revealed that general citizenship behavior was indeed derived from coworkers’ fit between their needs and the supply of support through work relationships. That is, instead of positive impacts coming from merely general support received, these findings also imply that neither general support received nor support that exceeds the needs (i.e., too-much-of-a-good-thing effect; Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) are effective in fostering citizenship behaviors. Therefore, this study suggests that team members may execute higher levels of meeting citizenship behaviors if they perceive the support they provide as congruent to the support of their peers. Taken together, we hypothesize that perceptions of congruent supportive exchanges, both provided and received, may cultivate the satisfaction of basic needs that extends to involvement in extra-role behaviors, such as meeting citizenship.

Hypothesis 1a: Team members who perceive their social support provided to (x) and received from (y) team members as congruent, engage in more meeting citizenship behaviors (z), than those who do not.

Nevertheless, while perceived support congruence is generally beneficial in overcoming the resource loss associated with support provision (Kaiser et al., 2018; Zeijen et al., 2024), there are potential interpersonal differences among team members (e.g., Patterer et al., 2023; Wörtler et al., 2020). Some team members may perceive that their fundamental needs for support have already been met with relatively fewer support exchanges. Consequently, they experience a lower degree of the perceived social support paradox, leading to a reduced needs–supply match and perceived support congruence. On the other hand, some team members may require more extensive support exchanges to satisfy their needs. They may experience a greater paradox in providing and receiving social support and as well as higher levels of needs–supply alignment to achieve perceived support congruence.

In light of these interpersonal distinctions, this study further posits that the level of perceived support congruence (e.g., low–low vs. high–high) matters. When team members engage in low reciprocity support exchanges (i.e., low-reciprocity), they perceive equally low levels of support provided and received. When team members engage in higher reciprocity exchanges (i.e., high-reciprocity), they perceive higher levels of support provision and receipt between themselves and their peers. In contrast to the high-reciprocity pattern where team members actively invest support in order to receive it back, low-reciprocity is characterized by minimal support exchanges (Patterer et al., 2023). According to BPN, both low and high reciprocity patterns contribute to the satisfaction of needs as individual needs–supply match (e.g., Ilies et al., 2018). However, we hypothesize that high-reciprocating patterns result in higher levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction due to an increased flow of support exchanges. In contrast, low-reciprocating patterns lead to lower satisfaction of these needs. As a result, these team members experience higher levels of fulfillment and reciprocate the satisfying support exchanges further (Figure 1).

Hypothesis 1b: At higher levels of perceived congruent support (vs. lower levels), team members engage in more meeting citizenship behavior than team members with lower perceived congruent support levels.

Figure 1.

Conceptual mediation model (H4).

Verbal Behaviors and Support Congruence in Team Meetings

Communication and verbal behaviors are important factors in the formation and reinforcement of perceptions regarding the support provided and received by team members (Berg & Kauffeld, 2024; Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009). Verbal communications delivered during meetings are of particular importance for expressing resource needs and related to the psychosocial, task, and performance aspects of a team (Gerpott et al., 2019). Consequently, we argue that verbal behaviors during meetings serve as antecedents to perceived support congruence (Ryan et al., 2022; van den Broeck et al., 2016). The theoretical accounts of BPN (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2023) indicate that different forms of verbal behaviors—namely relations-, task-, and change-oriented (Gerpott et al., 2019)—may serve as potential antecedents of perceived support congruence.

From the perspective of BPN, resource exchange (i.e., verbal meeting behavior) is important to satisfy team members’ basic needs during meeting interactions (e.g., Goldman & Brann, 2016; Hodis et al., 2023). These interpersonal resource exchanges can involve psychosocial, information, and task-related resources (Tse & Dasborough, 2008). Furthermore, only an interpersonal exchange of relations-, task- and change-oriented behaviors that supply team members with necessary resources is suitable to fulfill their basic needs (cf. need–supply match; e.g., Gagné et al., 2022; Slemp et al., 2021). With regard to the psychosocial resource exchange, the research proposes that relations-oriented verbal behaviors are crucial for fostering good interpersonal relationships among team members to address the need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017; van den Broeck et al., 2016). When team members feel connected and interpersonally cared for in a meeting, they perceive it as a positive experience. This favorability is created through reciprocated communication, recognition and the integration of each team member. To address the fulfillment of autonomy and competence needs in meetings, team members’ change-oriented and task-oriented verbal behaviors are crucial (e.g., Slemp et al., 2021). Change-oriented behavior is achieved by challenging norms, suggesting new ideas, and seizing opportunities to initiate change. The entire team experiences ownership over their influence beyond the meeting context. Task-oriented verbal behaviors include efficient information sharing and task monitoring, which enhance their coordination and performance in the long run (e.g., Marks et al., 2001). Productive meeting behavior has the potential to meet the needs of team members because they actively participate (e.g., sharing information) and benefit from the behavior of others (e.g., retrieving needed information). These meeting behaviors also lead to higher support congruence perceptions.

Hypothesis 2a, b, c: There is a positive relationship between team members’ relations-, task- and change-oriented verbal behaviors and their perceived social support congruence.

Moreover, research demonstrated the positive impact of productive verbal meeting behavior on employees’ satisfaction with meetings, team productivity, employee engagement and organizational success (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2016). In addition, recent findings show that satisfied team members tend to reciprocate through higher meeting citizenship behaviors (Ilies et al., 2018). In support of these findings, we also expect that relations-, task-, and change-oriented verbal behaviors during team meetings are positively linked to meeting citizenship behavior.

Hypothesis 3a, b, c: Team meeting verbal relations-, task- and change-oriented verbal behaviors are positively associated with meeting citizenship behavior.

Additionally, we draw on the paradoxical effects of received-provided support, leading to the relevance of perceived support congruence. Despite the fact that team members’ relations, task, and change-oriented verbal behaviors may collectively serve to satisfy the basic needs of the team members involved, it is necessary to consider the individual needs–supply congruence of team members in order to understand why verbal meeting behaviors are positively related to meeting citizenship behavior: Verbal meeting behaviors promote social support congruence and satisfaction of team members’ needs, enabling them to invest in additional citizenship behavior in the meeting. Therefore, we hypothesize a mediated model to explain this relationship:

Hypothesis 4a, b, c (indirect effect): The effect of team member’s relations-, task- and change-oriented verbal behaviors on meeting citizenship behavior is mediated by social support congruence.

Methods

Sample and Procedure

This study received ethical approval by the university’s review board and was conducted as part of a broader project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. All participants voluntarily enrolled and provided consent to take part in the study. Data were collected from 303 participants (58% females; M_age = 30.55, SD_age = 6.14) nested in 53 teams during regular team meetings, which focused on research, project-related, or managerial topics. These teams were affiliated with German universities or comparable research institutions and consisted of an average of 7.18 team members (SD_size = 2.36). Initially, each team’s meeting was videotaped to subsequently code team members’ verbal behaviors. Typically, team meetings had an average duration of 70 min (M_time = 72.43, SD_time = 24.96). After the meeting, participants completed a questionnaire that assessed their support perception ratings within the team, team meeting citizenship behaviors, and team member demographics.

Survey Measures

To assess diverse perceptions of support among team members, we applied network analysis and created a team-specific support matrix where social support was defined as a comprehensive construct (cf. Heuer et al., 2020; Mathieu et al., 2019). Initially, we familiarized team members with the social support construct by providing a comprehensive explanation. Then, each team member incorporated every other team member into the support matrix using letter abbreviations, provided ratings for the support they perceived themselves to be extending (i.e., perceived support provided), and provided rating for the support they felt they were receiving (i.e., perceived support received) by responding to the question “How much do you support each other generally?”. Participants also evaluated the extent of mutual support they believed existed among their colleagues (i.e., perceived support that is received) using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (no support at all) to 4 (very high support). As a final step, we derived, and then computed, two distinct variables: the first capturing the average perceived support a team member believed they extended to their peers, the second reflecting the average perceived support a team member received from the other team members.

Participants’ meeting citizenship behavior (MCB) was measured with Baran et al.’s (2012) eight-items scale. Meeting citizenship behaviors comprise the way a team member voluntarily and proactively engages during meetings and contributes to their improved outcomes. Example items included were, “I communicate my ideas in meetings.”, and “I come prepared to meetings.”. Participants were asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α was .79.

Coding Verbal Behaviors in Team Meetings

Table 1 displays the verbal behavioral fine-grained coding of relations-, task-, and change-oriented behaviors during team meetings. We derived these by analyzing the videorecorded team meetings using the act4teams coding scheme, which originally encompasses 42 different categories and exclusively matches with one specific minor verbal behavior during the course of team meetings (cf. Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Following the procedure by Gerpott et al. (2019), we coded relations-, task-, and change-oriented verbal behaviors: Relations-oriented statements included five distinct verbal behaviors (cf. Table 1) directed at improving relationships and fostering a positive meeting atmosphere. These verbal behaviors involve utilizing praise and various forms of recognition to express appreciation for fellow team members, as well as engaging others actively and encouraging their participation within the team. Second, statements representing task-oriented interactions were coded into 16 distinct verbal behaviors. These verbal acts reflect how team tasks are performed and monitored during collaboration through, for example, procedural suggestions, task distribution or identification or description of problems and solutions. Additionally, team members engaged in problem-solving discussions and shared or elucidated task-related knowledge, guaranteeing the tasks advanced according to the meeting agenda. Lastly, statements that fall into the change-oriented category describe five verbal acts of a proactive and forward-thinking approach to achieving objectives. These include defining or outlining a goal or vision, expressing interest in change, articulating visions or objectives to foster commitment to actions, and promoting and supporting change initiatives (cf. Gerpott et al., 2019). Team interaction verbal behavioral data were standardized to encompass a 60-minute meeting duration (cf. Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).

Table 1.

Coding Scheme with Overarching Categories of Team Interaction and Matching Verbal Behaviors.

Categories
Relations-oriented verbal behaviors	Task-oriented verbal behaviors	Change-oriented verbal behaviors
Recognition of team members (active listening, supporting others’ suggestions, offering praise by making positive remarks)	Performance of team tasks (identifying and describing problems or solutions, outlining connections with problems or solutions, sharing knowledge, referring to others who might possess required knowledge, weighting the costs and benefits of a solution, clarifying and summarizing others’ contributions, visualizing content	Envision team goals (defining or pointing out a goal or vision, prioritizing tasks and procedures in line with the goal or the vision)
Integration of team members (involving others through questions, encouraging participation)	Monitoring the team meeting (time management, discussing procedures, raising procedural questions, delegating tasks during the discussion)	Facilitation of change (signaling interest in change and new ideas, taking on responsibility for implementing change and innovation, action planning)

Source. Overarching categories are adopted from Gerpott et al. (2019).

Note. Verbal behaviors codes were developed within act4teams coding scheme for micro communication analysis (see Kauffeld et al., 2018, for a full explanation).

In order to facilitate sufficient coding, two research assistants were trained (200 hr) on act4teams interaction coding using INTERACT software (Mangold, 2023). Their inter-rater reliability yielded sufficient results of κ = .71, p < .01 by double-coding a random subset of seven video-taped meetings (Koch & Landis, 1977). In total, 27,560 behavioral units were coded.

Control Variables

We selected control variables based on previous literature indicating their significant impact on outcomes (e.g., Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2015). We controlled for the influence of team members’ demographic (i.e., age, gender) and meeting characteristics (i.e., team size) in our analyses.

Cubic Response Surface Analysis

To test our hypotheses (H1), we performed one set of cubic polynomial regressions with response surface methodology at individual-level. Additionally, we ran a regression (H2 and H3) and a mediation analysis with block variables (H4). We provide further details for each step below.

In our model, the commensurable predictor variables (i.e., predictors are measured on a comparable scale) are the mutual perceptions of perceived support provided to team members (x) and perceived support received from team members (y). Before conducting the analysis, we grand-mean centered and standardized the predictors to ease the interpretation (Humberg et al., 2022). To test the (in)congruence hypotheses, researchers have suggested the use of second-order polynomial regression with response surface analysis (RSA). The general advantage of this type of analysis is that it offers a higher exploratory potential of two combined predictor variables (x, y)—over the application of difference scores as measures of discrepancy (Barranti et al., 2017; Edwards & Cable, 2009)—to investigate the extent to which (in)congruence between these two predictor variables, their higher order-terms, and their interactions, relate to a dependent outcome (Edwards & Parry, 1993; Humberg et al., 2019; Schönbrodt, 2016). However, such second-order polynomial regressions fall short in testing specific hypothesis about, for example, what happens when one predictor exceeds the other predictor (x > y) rather than the other way around (y > x). These specific hypotheses could be tested with third-order polynomial models, using nine regression coefficients (b₁−b₉). Given that our theoretical considerations on the congruence effects of support interaction perspectives are more complex, we follow the recent extension towards third-order polynomial models to investigate asymmetric and level-dependent congruence effects that stretch beyond the congruence effect investigations (i.e., cubic response surface analysis; Humberg et al., 2022). The general mathematical form of this cubic polynomial regression follows the equation of Z = b₀ + b₁X + b₂Y + b₃X² + b₄XY + b₅Y² + b₆X³ + b₇X²Y + b₈XY² + b₉Y³ + e. In total, five polynomial regression models were fitted to predict the outcome variable (z) (meeting citizenship behaviors, in our case) as a congruence effect of one centered predictor (x; i.e., provided support) and another centered predictor variable (y; i.e., received support), their interactions, their higher-order terms, and the residual term (e).

Based on our hypothesis (H1a and b), we empirically investigated the model fit via two steps. First, as it is mathematically complex to interpret the full cubic model, Humberg et al. (2022) suggested that a set of respective congruence-conforming models (i.e., strict cubic asymmetry (CA), strict level-dependent congruence (CL), rising ridge cubic asymmetry (RRCA), rising ridge cubic level-dependent (RRCL; cf. see Supplemental Appendix, Table 1) should be tested against the full third-order model (cubic) to inspect whether these models statistically adhere to full cubic model—that is, the constraints applied to these models do not significantly deviate these models from the full cubic model. Likelihood ratio tests and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) are both employed to estimate and test the four constrained models against each other and against the unconstrained full cubic polynomial model. Second, if the hypothesis-based congruence-conforming model does not fit the data worse than the full cubic model, the coefficients (b₁−b₉) of this model are tested upon significance levels, expected direction and variance explained (R²). Additionally, the graph of the model is used as a visual representation of a three-dimensional cube (for further explanation, see Humberg et al., 2019, 2022). These analyses were conducted using RSA package (Schönbrodt & Humberg, 2020) in R studio (RStudio Team, 2020).

Regression Analyses

Moreover, to examine the direct effects of verbal behavioral team interactions of relations-, task-, and change-oriented behavior on perceived support congruence (H2a–c, see below for computation of support congruence) and meeting citizenship behavior (H3a–c), we conducted regression analyses with these behaviors as the predictors, support congruence and meeting citizenship behavior (respectively) as the outcome variable, and age, gender, and team size as the control variables.

Mediation Analyses with Block Variables

Lastly, to test the mediation hypotheses that team interactions’ relations-, task-, and change-oriented verbal behaviors predict meeting citizenship behaviors via perceived provided-received support congruence, we added provided-received support congruence as a mediator through block-variable approach: Following the recommendations by Edwards and Cable (2009) to perform block variables and, thus, to estimate the joint effects of the different polynomial terms, we first regressed meeting citizenship behavior (Z) on the predictors’ (X and Y) third-order polynomial (i.e., Z = b₀ + b₁X + b₂Y + b₃X² + b₄XY + b₅Y² + b₆X³ + b₇X²Y + b₈XY² + b₉Y³ + e). Next, we multiplied each variable (i.e., X, Y, X², XY, Y², X³, X²Y, XY², Y³) with their corresponding regression coefficients (i.e., b₁−b₉) obtained from the regression analyses. Finally, we created a block variable by taking the average of all of these variables. We, then, used the block variable as a mediator for the subsequent mediation analysis to investigate if relations-oriented verbal behavioral team interactions have an indirect effect on meeting citizenship behaviors, through the block variable (H4a–c). The mediation analysis was conducted with PROCESS (Hayes, 2012).

Results

Table 2 displays descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for sample characteristics and primary variables used in the preceding analyses. The results showed that the perceived social support provided and received are positively correlated with meeting citizenship behavior, and with team members’ verbal behaviors (except for task-oriented verbal behaviors with support provided). Additionally, the team interaction verbal behaviors were positively associated with meeting citizenship behavior.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender	1.42	0.49
2. Age	30.52	6.14	−.11
3. Team size	7.15	2.35	.06	.01
4. Perceived social support received	2.57	0.89	−.01	.12*	−.13*
5. Perceived social support provided	2.61	0.83	.03	−.05	−.15**	.69**
6. Relations-oriented verbal behaviors	6.78	8.34	−.11	.29**	−.26**	.29**	.14*
7. Task-oriented verbal behaviors	2.54	4.07	−.13*	.27**	−.21**	.24**	.08	.86**
8. Change-oriented verbal behaviors	1.46	2.55	−.14*	.34**	−.18**	.25**	.13*	.77**	.74**
9. Meeting citizenship behavior	4.20	0.54	−.09	.18**	−.11	.29**	.19**	.36**	.28**	.35**

Note. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Cubic Response Surface Analysis

Descriptive analysis of the levels of congruence between perceived social support provided and received showed that 57% of estimates indicated a state of approximate congruence, 22% gave more support than they received, and 20% received more support than they gave.

To test the first hypothesis (H1a and b), we compared model fits, especially compared to the full cubic model. The rising ridge cubic level-dependent (RRCL) model fit the data second best (see Table 3) as compared to the fit of the third-order full cubic model (χ²(7) = 8.45, p < .21; see Table 4). That is, the data supported the constraints imposed by the RRCL model, justifying our progression to investigate this model further in a second analytical step (see Figure 2 for the graph). This supports H1a.

Table 3.

Model Comparison with Meeting Citizenship Behavior as Outcome Variable and Perceived Provided and Received Social Support as Predictors.

Model	K	Log likelihood	AICc	ΔAICc	AICc weight	R ²	Adjusted R²
RRCL	8	−403.74	823.98	0.00	0.73	.15	.13
CL	7	−405.96	826.30	2.32	0.23	.14	.12
Full cubic	14	−400.24	829.95	5.97	0.04	.17	.13
RRCA	8	−408.13	832.75	8.77	0.01	.12	.10
CA	7	−414.82	844.03	20.05	0.00	.08	.07
Null	5	−420.20	850.59	26.61	0.00	.05	.04

Note. RRCL = rising ridge cubic level-dependent; RRCA = rising ridge cubic asymmetry; CL = strict level-dependent congruence; CA = strict cubic asymmetry; K = number of estimated parameters; we employed AICc = Akaike information criterion (corrected); ΔAICc = difference in AICc between best model and indicated model; AICc weight = the Akaike weights (indicate level of support for a model being the most parsimonious).

Table 4.

Model Comparison (Full Cubic vs. RRCL) with p-Values.

Model	df	k	χ²	Δχ²	p-Value (χ²)	AICc	R ²	Adjusted R²
Full cubic	0	12	0.00			829.95	.17	.13
RRCL	6	6	7.00	8.45	.21	823.98	.15	.13

Note. Full cubic = full cubic model; RRCL = rising ridge cubic level-dependent; K = number of estimated parameters; AICc = Akaike information criterion (corrected).

Figure 2.

Results of rising ridge cubic level-dependent model (RRCL) for congruence of social support on meeting citizenship behavior (with control variables).

The RRCL model imposes two main constraints that need consideration during the next two analytical steps following Humberg et al. (2022). As a first step, we inspected the rising ridge of the RRCL model by the coefficient of the linear level effect û₁ (û₁ = b̂₁ + b̂₂ > 0; cf. Table 5) which displays the relationship between outcome variable and two mean predictor levels (in an either positive (+) or negative (−) direction). Results showed a significant positive linear level effect (û₁ = 0.099, p < .001) indicating that as perceived provided-received scores (not necessarily in congruence) increase, so does meeting citizenship behavior (MCB) in a positive linear direction.

Table 5.

Cubic RSA Results.

Model	b̂ ₀	b̂ ₁	b̂ ₂	b̂ ₃	b̂ ₄	b̂ ₅	b̂ ₆	b̂ ₇	b̂ ₈	b̂ ₉	û ₁	Δχ²	R ²
RRCL	7.46	0.070	0.070	0.006	−0.013	0.006	0.099	−0.099	−0.099	0.099	0.139	8.45	.15
p-Values	<.001	.046	.046				<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	.002	.21
Full model	7.46	−0.081	0.170	−0.510	0.116	0.037	0.188	−0.33	0.052	0.102	0.088		.17
p-Values	<.001	.567	.228	.592	.378	.597	.019	.027	.601	.004	.44

Note. RRCL = rising ridge cubic level-dependent. Full model = full third-order polynomial model. The coefficients b̂₀ to b̂₉ stand for the full cubic model with the equation of Z = b₀ + b₁X + b₂Y + b₃X² + b₄XY + b₅Y² + b₆X³ + b₇X²Y + b₈XY² + b₉Y³. Δχ² stands for the difference between the full cubic model and the RRCL. b̂₆ = reflects the level-dependency of the RRCL model; û₁ = reflects the linear level effect of the RRCL as û₁ = b̂₁ + b̂ ₂ > 0.

As a second step, we investigated level dependency. That is, level-dependent refers to that this model can test whether the level-dependent congruence exists for low and high congruence predictor levels, which are then either associated with the highest (or lowest) outcomes values, or vice versa. This is comparable to a moderation effect. To inspect level dependency, we examined the coefficient b̂₆, including both significance level and whether it is greater or smaller than zero (for details, see Humberg et al., 2022). Results showed that ĉ₃ = b̂₆ > 0 (cf. Table 5) was positive and greater than 0 (b̂₆ = 0.139, p < .01), reflecting the level-dependent cubic congruence effect (see Table 5). Contrary to our hypothesis 1b, these results mean that when provided-received congruence is low for both predictors (i.e., values of 1–1), MCB is high. On the flip side, when both predictors are congruent at their high levels (i.e., values of 5–5), MCB is at the lowest level. This result does not support H1b.

Visual inspection of the surface plot revealed these effects (see Figure 2). At the beginning of the line of congruence (i.e., the blue line from the front of the cube to the end of the cube), there is a negative curvature representing that more congruence is associated with highest MCB values. However, this pattern reverses at the end of the line of congruence. That is, for higher congruence levels, MCB is not at its highest values. Therefore, although congruence is important for low and medium levels of the predictors (i.e., received and provided social support), congruence at higher values of the predictors might not be important to foster MCB.

Regression Analyses

The results from regression analyses to test H2 (a–c) demonstrated a significant positive relationship between relations-oriented verbal behaviors and the block variable (support congruence, b = 0.001, SE = 0.000, t = 2.28, p < .05), supporting H2a. In contrast, the effects of task- and change-oriented behaviors on block variable were not significant (b = −0.00, SE = 0.001, t = −0.13, p > .05, and b = 0.002, SE = 0.001, t = 1.13, p > .05, respectively). Thus, H2b and H2c are not supported. Furthermore, the analyses to test H3 (a–c) showed both relations-oriented behaviors (b = 0.02, SE = 0.007, t = 2.65, p < .01) and change-oriented behaviors (b = 0.04, SE = 0.02, t = 2.12, p < .05) were significantly and positively associated with MCB. However, task-oriented verbal behaviors was not significantly associated with MCB (b = −0.02, SE = 0.01, t = −1.38, p > .05). These results support H3a and H3c. H3b is not supported.

Mediation Analyses with Block Variables

Furthermore, to test our proposed mediation hypothesis that perceived provided-received support congruence (i.e., the block variable) mediates the effect of team members’ relations-, task-, and change-oriented verbal behaviors on MCB, we relied on bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals. We found a significant indirect effect of relations-oriented verbal behaviors on meeting citizenship behavior mediated by support congruence, ab = 0.005, SE = 0.002, and 95% CI [0.001, 0.009], supporting H4a. For task-oriented (b = −0.0016, SE = 0.0033, 95% CI [−0.0080, 0.0057]) and change-oriented verbal behaviors (b = 0.0058, SE = 0.0051, 95% CI [−0.0039, 0.0165]) as predictors, the indirect effects were not significant. This did not support H4b and c. For a detailed analysis, see Table 6.

Table 6.

Regression Results of Mediation Model.

	Block variable			Meeting citizenship behavior
Predictor	b	t	β	b	t	β
(Intercept)	0.01	0.39		3.96**	21.16
Gender	−0.00	−0.26	−.01	−0.04	−0.69	−.04
Age	−0.00	−0.08	−.00	0.01	1.20	.07
Team size	−0.00	−0.99	−.06	−0.00	−0.23	−.01
Task-oriented verbal behaviors	−0.00	−0.42	−.05	−0.02	−1.31	−.14
Relations-oriented verbal behaviors	0.00*	2.42	.29	0.02*	2.08	.23
Change-oriented verbal behaviors	0.00	1.14	.10	0.03	1.86	.16
Block variable (social support provided × social support received)	—	—	—	3.54**	4.87	.27
F	6.88			11.50
R ²	.12			.21

Note. b represents unstandardized regression weights. β indicates the standardized regression weights.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

The central aims of the current investigation were twofold: First, we investigated the effect of perceived support congruence among team members on their citizenship behavior in the context of meetings. To that end, we conducted a cubic polynomial regression with response surface methodology to test the rising ridge (i.e., linear and congruent) and level-dependent (i.e., high–high vs. low–low) congruence effects between team members’ perceptions of support provision and receipt on their meeting citizenship behavior. The findings revealed a positive effect of perceived provided-received support on meeting citizenship behavior. That is, team members who perceived high provided and high received support showed higher levels of meeting citizenship behavior, whereas team members perceiving low provided and low received support demonstrated lower levels of meeting citizenship behavior. In contrast to our second prediction that the higher the congruence, the higher the levels of meeting citizenship behavior, our results suggest a level-dependent congruence effect: when team members perceive low levels of congruent provided-received support, they exhibit the highest levels of meeting citizenship behavior. When perceived support congruence is at high levels, the lowest levels of meeting citizenship behavior are exhibited.

Second, we examined the mediating effects of perceived support congruence on team members’ meeting citizenship behavior with the verbal behaviors of team interactions as predictors. The findings of this micro-level behavioral analysis during team meetings showed that relations- and change-oriented communication is related to meeting citizenship behavior. Further, we found a significant mediation effect of only relations-oriented verbal behaviors on meeting citizenship behavior via perceived support congruence.

Theoretical Implications

Overall, our study has important theoretical implications deriving from P–G fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019) and conceptualizing social support among team members as resource exchanges. Specifically, the results concern the resource-enhancing and -depleting effects of social support for an individual, which reveals a paradoxical effect (e.g., Ehrhardt & Ragins, 2019; Hobfoll et al., 2018). In particular, the application of cubic polynomial regression and response surface analysis revealed a significant effect of perceived support congruence on meeting citizenship behavior. These findings underscore the theoretical relevance of considering needs–supply match and P–G fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019). They align with arguments that fit and interpersonal need fulfillment increases intrinsic motivation and thereby, fosters engagement, as indicated by citizenship behaviors (e.g., Ilies et al., 2018; Kristof-Brown et al., 2023). From an opposite perspective, these findings support and extend the literature on helping depletion. For example, Gabriel et al. (2018) showed in a diary study that employees experience exhaustion from helping their colleagues, which leads them to refrain from supporting their coworkers. However, these findings go beyond these conclusions and support the concept that helping depletion effects might be hindered when individuals perceive that they receive and provide congruent social support in teams. Moreover, these findings contribute to theoretical discussions concerning the general complexity of the support construct, especially when viewed from an interactionist perspective (Jolly et al., 2021).

Secondly, these findings on the effects of provided-received support on citizenship behaviors during meetings underscore the significance of comprehending support provision and reception as a resource exchange process and as a social interaction process (Hüffmeier et al., 2014; Jolly et al., 2021). Both perspectives are vital to highlight that social support effects are contingent on reciprocity, which may culminate in a cyclical process between at least one support provider and receiver (Zeijen, Petrou, & Bakker, 2020, Zeijen et al., 2024). This represents a contribution to the broader field of support research, which has predominantly focused on individual support perspectives, with comparatively less attention devoted to the two-way exchange process of support provision and reception (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Jolly et al., 2021; Zeijen, Petrou, & Bakker, 2020, Zeijen et al., 2024). Further, these findings shed light on the resource transaction processes involved among team members and challenge the widely held belief that support is always beneficial for both the recipients and providers (e.g., Ehrhardt & Ragins, 2019; Gabriel et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018).

Thirdly, these findings reveal relationships concerning interpersonal need satisfaction through supportive exchanges that may initially seem counterintuitive: these results suggest that when team members perceive lower levels of congruent support, they are more likely to exhibit meeting citizenship behaviors. Meanwhile, those team members who experience higher levels of congruent support tend to engage in less meeting citizenship behavior. These findings do not align with the theoretical avenues of BPN theory and social exchange, which state that satisfaction of basic needs increases intrinsic motivation and increases the likelihood of individuals reciprocating (e.g., Ryan et al., 2022). A possible explanation for this finding may be that team members who are high on perceived support congruence are not necessarily motivated to additionally go the extra mile in terms of meeting citizenship behaviors in order to reciprocate the satisfying inducements. They may have already engaged in resource exchange to such an extent that they are simply exhausted and have no additional resources to contribute to meeting objectives. This could be supported by the general notion that when individuals experience exhaustion from helping their coworkers, they are more likely to refrain from supporting their coworkers (Gabriel et al., 2018). On the other hand, we stated that team members at lower levels of perceived support congruence may be less satisfied with their needs and thus engage in fewer resource exchanges. However, given the results showing that they engage in meeting citizenship, a possible explanation could be that they strategically invest in other areas (i.e., meeting citizenship behaviors) besides their supportive resource exchanges (e.g., Hetrick & Jacobson, 2024). This stipulation is also consistent with Patterer et al. (2023), who state that an active resource exchange does not take place when individuals engage in low-reciprocity exchanges. Because of this inactivity in resource exchange, team members may be strategically compelled to invest in other work domains in order to stimulate the resource exchange.

Furthermore, another major theoretical implication of the current study was to investigate the relationship between verbal behaviors and support congruence and, by doing so, to demonstrate that resource exchanges play a pivotal role in satisfying fundamental needs and are important contributors to maximizing team collaboration outcomes by ensuring team and meeting objectives. In this regard, a theoretical contribution is that perceived congruence on supportive resource exchanges is only reached when needs and the supply of resources are indeed matched.

First, the findings indicated that both relations and change-oriented verbal behaviors exert a direct influence on perceived support congruence. From both a theoretical and practical perspective, it could be said that frequent relations and change-oriented verbal behaviors increase the visibility of supportive behaviors or create supportive exchange perceptions. Therefore, when these communication behaviors in team meetings are high, they create the perception that team members both receive and provide balanced social support. Moreover, the direct effect between relations- and change-oriented types of verbal behaviors and meeting citizenship behaviors serves to reinforce the theoretical rationale that communication indeed represents a resource exchange pool and contributes to team benefits. These findings highlight the significance of meetings in fostering collaboration by establishing positive relationships and promoting participation through the exchange of information and engagement (Beck et al., 2024; Lübstorf & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2020).

In addition, the results showed that while team members engage in relations-oriented verbal behaviors, they tend to perceive support congruence, which influences their meeting citizenship behavior. In other words, the need for supportive resource exchanges among team members, which can be met through the exchange of relations-oriented verbal behaviors, appears to be an important preliminary step in fostering their engagement and contribution to meeting objectives, which can be measured by meeting citizenship behavior. These resource exchanges must encompass and transcend psychosocial resources (e.g., Hobfoll et al., 2018), as opposed to informational or instrumental-based resources (i.e., either change-oriented or task-oriented verbal behaviors). In a specific context such as team meetings, an excessive resource flow encompassing informational or instrumental-based resources may not lead to the perception of supportive interactions. Indeed, an excessive focus on task-related efforts among team members may undermine their competence. As a result, such efforts might not be perceived as congruently supportive. Furthermore, it may induce a sense of pressure in team members, which may result in a lack of satisfaction with their need for autonomy. After all, these predominant verbal exchanges might not contribute to the perception of interactions as congruently supportive. Given these observations, it is not surprising that communication, exchanging psychosocial resources, and fostering positive relationships have a significant impact on motivating the creation of subsequent efforts to engage in extra-role behavior; that is, meeting citizenship behavior. This perspective is supported by evidence from the engagement literature, which indicates that reciprocal effects between resources have been shown to provoke higher work engagement among employees (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2018). These findings further underscore that meetings can indeed function as a positive catalyst for fostering psychological empowerment (Allen et al., 2016).

With the present study, we draw from the meeting science tradition, which states that by measuring verbal behavior types with moment-to-moment actual interaction behaviors, researchers capture snapshots of organizational behavior during meetings that ultimately affect what happens outside of meetings in relation to team performance and attitude outcomes (Allen & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023; Klonek et al., 2019). Specifically, we combine behavioral-based analysis (i.e., verbal behaviors) with perceptual-based self-report measures (i.e., meeting citizenship behavior) and investigate social exchange processes in teams. Whereas previous research was often based on self-reported social exchanges (i.e., Banks et al., 2023) and studied dyads (e.g., Zeijen, Petrou, Bakker, & Gelderen, 2020), we demonstrate how verbal team interactions influence these social exchange processes.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study offer managerial implications. Firstly, we reinforce the understanding of potential resource benefits and costs of support exchange processes at work (e.g., Gabriel et al., 2018; Hughes & Freier, 2023; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). While support research has often emphasized pure benefits, these findings imply that support exchange processes among team members can be most impactful when they are perceived as congruent among members. By highlighting these resource exchange processes, we showcase their relevance to raise awareness of the dual roles inherent in one team member who acts both as a potential provider and receiver of social support. A practical suggestion for organizations and managers could be to create awareness of the losses and gains associated with providing and receiving support, which can influence subsequent motivation and performance outcomes. To raise awareness, team check-ins that reflect ongoing support systems may be crucial practices that lead to an increased understanding of support-reciprocation cycles. Such interventions reinforce the improvement of more generalized team support and ideally encourage role-modeling of support-reciprocation cycles.

Secondly, these results indicate that it may be beneficial for organizations to consider team processes inside (communication) and outside (support perceptions) of meetings to influence meeting behavior. In particular, meeting participants’ perceived support congruence may affect their citizenship behavior differently under certain circumstances (i.e., low–low vs. high–high support congruence). Regarding this relationship, it becomes crucial to emphasize the strategic engagement of employees. In team contexts characterized by low support provision and reception (i.e., low–low), team members may experience heightened pressure to strategically invest in meeting citizenship behaviors to increase their resource pool (i.e., high–high). From a practical point of view, managers and meeting facilitators are advised to consider resource losses that become evident in decreased engagement during meetings despite well-functioning support systems among team members. Less citizenship behavior resulting from performance pressure has been shown to increase when individuals perceive inadequate support (Hetrick & Jacobson, 2024). In this context, research by Hetrick and Jacobson (2024) demonstrates that the experience of support alleviates exhaustion and boosts individuals’ citizenship behavior.

This study suggests that managers and meeting facilitators can enhance meeting citizenship behavior by creating an atmosphere where all team members comfortably express opinions and ideas, fostering active participation. Methods for establishing this behavior as a social norm (Jacobson et al., 2015) may include providing regular feedback on positive citizenship behaviors exhibited during and outside of meetings. For example, teams can conduct a value workshop, where they collaboratively develop values and behavioral anchors to guide their interactions with each other.

It is important to urge some caution with regard to the communication processes during meetings. Based on the presented evidence, managers and meeting facilitators want to direct steps to increase both change- and relations-oriented communication during meetings, but not necessarily task-oriented communication. In light of recent findings on resource depletion effects from task or performance pressure (e.g., Hetrick & Jacobson, 2024), this research highlights the potential for resource gains and motivation from communication relevant to team members’ relationships and autonomy, as opposed to merely increasing task performance, while still recognizing the benefits of task-related communication (cf. Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Team members’ reflection and communication skills could be trained through a workshop with integrated feedback that addresses verbal behaviors based on interaction analysis (cf. Neininger & Kauffeld, 2009). The utilization of video observation and feedback mechanisms, such as the use of act4teams, can significantly strengthen communication patterns within teams, improving collaboration (Kauffeld et al., 2018; Meinecke et al., 2020). Additionally, team leaders could serve as role models for relation-oriented communication, which this study’s findings show to be particularly important for expanding support systems and increasing functional meeting behaviors among team members. Organizations can extend the benefits of this approach by implementing it to enhance interventions for successful change- and relations-oriented team communication. This can be achieved practically through activities like role-playing and the integration of new feedback systems aiming at encouraging discussions between self-rating and objective measures.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite applying a novel and robust approach (i.e., cubic polynomial regression and response surface methodology as well as verbal behavioral data) to the meeting science and team research literature, this study also has several shortcomings.

First, although we applied a team-specific matrix to capture a differentiated perspective on social support among team members, this operationalization did not differentiate between emotional and instrumental support facets, as is sometimes done (Mathieu et al., 2019). Although Mathieu et al. (2019) found a strong correlation between these two facets of social support, and a similar pattern of findings, future research could test these hypotheses while differentiating between these two facets—each via a congruence approach. Moreover, in work contexts, the team leader has a profound impact on support perceptions and represents the organization as being either supportive or not (e.g., Thompson et al., 2020). By not taking the source (team member and leader) of social support into consideration, this study could have missed potentially crucial differences in individual team members’ perceptions of support provision. However, since this study is in a team meeting context, where both team members and leaders provide and receive social support, and the reality for an individual team member is their perception (Cable & DeRue, 2002), we expect no differences in how congruence perceptions of team members are related to outcome variables depending on the social support source. This claim requires further empirical evidence.

Another potential limitation of this study could be the level of analysis. Specifically, we conceptualized social support at the individual level, despite recent suggestions to take this to the team level (Patterer et al., 2023). We focused on the individual perspective to identify the effects of team members’ individual perceptions of provided and received support, which is hypothesized to be more important than an aggregated perspective as we examined effects on individual meeting citizenship behavior. Nevertheless, future studies could investigate how team resources in terms of social support are related to more team-level constructs such as relational (team trust and commitment) and performance (team effectiveness and performance) outcomes (e.g., Baer et al., 2021; Stoverink et al., 2018).

Fourth, although, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to incorporate two strong methodological approaches in the context of meetings—that is, investigating perceptual congruence effects and actual verbal behaviors—this might be only a small part of further fruitful research avenues (Allen & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023). Future research could for example investigate fit perspectives in terms of leader–member congruence on distinct constructs during team meetings (Kristof-Brown et al., 2023).

Conclusion

The present study underlines the importance of social support as a perceived congruent exchange process among team members. In particular, team members’ perceived support provided and received influences their subsequent citizenship behavior during meetings, as the resources gained from congruent support cascade into more positive outcomes for meeting behaviors. However, at their perceived congruence levels of either lower support congruence or higher support congruence, they exhibited respectively more or less citizenship behavior. To strengthen the idea that the meeting context plays a significant role in team- and organizational outcomes, this study shows that relations-oriented verbal behaviors among team members predict their meeting citizenship behavior, mediated by their perceived support congruence. Taken together, the results of this study reveal the need for further exploration of (in)congruence perceptions in the context of team meetings and offer practical implications for meetings.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgr-10.1177_10464964241298605 – Supplemental material for Social Support Congruence Among Team Members: A Cubic Response Surface Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgr-10.1177_10464964241298605 for Social Support Congruence Among Team Members: A Cubic Response Surface Analysis by Ann-Kathleen Berg, Eva-Maria Schulte-Seitz and Simone Kauffeld in Small Group Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: The research leading to these results received funding from a research grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF,Number: 16FWN005).

ORCID iD

Ann-Kathleen Berg

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Ann-Kathleen Berg,PhD,is a Research Associate at Technische Universität Braunschweig,Germany. Her research focuses on team interaction processes during meetings,utilizing non-linear and behavior-based methodological advances.

Eva-Maria Schulte-Seitz,PhD,is a Senior Research Associate at Technische Universität Braunschweig,Germany. Her research focuses on teams,leadership,well-being,and coaching.

Simone Kauffeld,PhD,holds the Chair of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Technische Universität Braunschweig,Germany. Her research focuses on teams and leadership,competence development,coaching,and organizational development.

References

Allen

J. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2023). The key features of workplace meetings: Conceptualizing the why, how, and what of meetings at work. Organizational Psychology Review, 13(4), 355–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221129231

Allen

J. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Sands

S. J.

(2016). Meetings as a positive boost? How and when meeting satisfaction impacts employee empowerment. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4340–4347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.011

Baer

M. D.

Frank

E. L.

Matta

F. K.

Luciano

M. M.

Wellman

(2021). Undertrusted, overtrusted, or just right? The fairness of (in)congruence between trust wanted and trust received. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2018.0334

Banks

G. C.

Woznyj

H. M.

Mansfield

C. A.

(2023). Where is “behavior” in organizational behavior? A call for a revolution in leadership research and beyond. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), 101581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101581

Baran

B. E.

Shanock

L. R.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Scott

C. W.

(2012). Leading group meetings: Supervisors’ actions, employee behaviors, and upward perceptions. Small Group Research, 43(3), 330–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411418252

Barranti

Carlson

E. N.

Côté

(2017). How to test questions about similarity in personality and social psychology research. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617698204

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Funder

D. C.

(2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x

Bavik

Y. L.

Shaw

J. D.

Wang

X.-H.

(2020). Social support: Multidisciplinary review, synthesis, and future agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 726–758. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0148

Beck

S. J.

Paskewitz

E. A.

Allen

J. A.

(2024). Toward a strategic perspective of meeting participation. Organizational Psychology Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231226405

10.

Berg

A.-K.

Kauffeld

(2024). Proactive verbal behavior in team meetings: Effects of supportive and critical responses on satisfaction and performance. Current Psychology, 43(23), 20640–20654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05806-y

11.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x

12.

Bowling

N. A.

Beehr

T. A.

Swader

W. M.

(2005). Giving and receiving social support at work: The roles of personality and reciprocity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.004

13.

Cable

D. M.

DeRue

D. S.

(2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875

14.

Carson

Tesluk

Marrone

(2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159921

15.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Harrison

D. A.

(2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082

16.

Cropanzano

Anthony

E. L.

Daniels

S. R.

Hall

A. V.

(2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099

17.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

18.

Drach-Zahavy

(2004). Exploring team support: The role of team’s design, values, and leader’s support. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.8.4.235

19.

Edwards

J. R.

Cable

D. M.

(2009). The value of value congruence. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891

20.

Edwards

J. R.

Parry

M. E.

(1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.5465/256822

21.

Ehrhardt

Ragins

B. R.

(2019). Relational attachment at work: A complementary fit perspective on the role of relationships in organizational life. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1), 248–282. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0245

22.

Farh

C. I.

Lanaj

Ilies

(2017). Resource-based contingencies of when team–member exchange helps member performance in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1117–1137. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0261

23.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222

24.

Gabriel

A. S.

Koopman

Rosen

C. C.

Johnson

R. E.

(2018). Helping others or helping oneself? An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12229

25.

Gagné

Parker

S. K.

Griffin

M. A.

Dunlop

P. D.

Knight

Klonek

F. E.

Parent-Rocheleau

(2022). Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(7), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00056-w

26.

Gallagher

C. M.

Hughes

I. M.

Keith

M. G.

(2022). From social burden to support elicitation: Development and validation of a new measure of workplace support elicitation experiences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(4), 675–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09769-w

27.

Gerpott

F. H.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Voelpel

S. C.

van Vugt

(2019). It’s not just what is said, but when it’s said: A temporal account of verbal behaviors and emergent leadership in self-managed teams. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 717–738. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0149

28.

Gervasi

Faldetta

Pellegrini

M. M.

Maley

(2021). Reciprocity in organizational behavior studies: A systematic literature review of contents, types, and directions. European Management Journal, 40(3), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.07.008

29.

Goldman

Z. W.

Brann

(2016). Motivating college students: An exploration of psychological needs from a communication perspective. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 17(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2015.1088890

30.

Hayes

A. F.

(2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. http://www.afhayes.com/

31.

Hetrick

A. L.

Jacobson

R. P.

(2024). Receiving help at work mitigates the negative consequences of performance pressure: Implications for depletion and citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2023.2298890

32.

Heuer

Müller-Frommeyer

L. C.

Kauffeld

(2020). Language matters: The double-edged role of linguistic style matching in work groups. Small Group Research, 51(2), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419874498

33.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J.-P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

34.

Hodis

G. M.

Hodis

F. A.

Bardhan

N. R.

(2023). University students’ communication in learning settings and basic psychological needs: A latent profile analysis of their interrelationships. Communication Research and Practice, 9(3), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2023.2225900

35.

Hüffmeier

Hertel

(2011). Many cheers make light the work: How social support triggers process gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111112631

36.

Hüffmeier

Wessolowski

van Randenborgh

Bothin

Schmid-Loertzer

Hertel

(2014). Social support from fellow group members triggers additional effort in groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2021

37.

Hughes

I. M.

Freier

L. M.

(2023). The other side of emotional support: The moderating role of personality in the relations between emotionally-valenced support elicitation experiences and strain. Applied Psychology, 73(2), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12463

38.

Humberg

Nestler

Back

M. D.

(2019). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600

39.

Humberg

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Back

M. D.

Nestler

(2022). Cubic response surface analysis: Investigating asymmetric and level-dependent congruence effects with third-order polynomial models. Psychological Methods, 27(4), 622–649. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000352

40.

Ilies

Lanaj

Pluut

Goh

(2018). Intrapersonal and interpersonal need fulfillment at work: Differential antecedents and incremental validity in explaining job satisfaction and citizenship behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 108, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.005

41.

Jacobson

R. P.

Jacobson

K. J. L.

Hood

J. N.

(2015). Social norm perceptions predict citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2013-0408

42.

Jolly

P. M.

Kong

D. T.

Kim

K. Y.

(2021). Social support at work: An integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2485

43.

Kaiser

Patras

Martinussen

(2018). Linking interprofessional work to outcomes for employees: A meta-analysis. Research in Nursing & Health, 41(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21858

44.

Kauffeld

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meeting on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599

45.

Kauffeld

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Meinecke

A. L.

(2018). The advanced interaction analysis for teams (act4teams) coding scheme. In Brauner

Boos

Kolbe

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 422–431). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286302.022

46.

Kauffeld

Meyers

R. A.

(2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701693209

47.

Klonek

Gerpott

F. H.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Parker

S. K.

(2019). Time to go wild: How to conceptualize and measure process dynamics in real teams with high-resolution. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(4), 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619886674

48.

Koch

G. G.

Landis

J. R.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529309

49.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Schneider

(2023). Person-organization fit theory and research: Conundrums, conclusions, and calls to action. Personnel Psychology, 76(2), 375–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12581

50.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Allen

J. A.

Belyeu

(2016). Our love/hate relationship with meetings. Management Research Review, 39(10), 1293–1312. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-08-2015-0195

51.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Meinecke

A. L.

Rowold

Kauffeld

(2015). How transformational leadership works during team interactions: A behavioral process analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1017–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.003

52.

C. S.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Nielsen

J. D.

(2019). Fitting in a group: Theoretical development and validation of the multidimensional perceived person–group fit scale. Personnel Psychology, 72(1), 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12295

53.

Lübstorf

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2020). Are meetings really just another stressor? The relevance of team meetings for individual wellbeing. In Meinecke

A. L.

Allen

J. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(Eds.), Managing meetings in organizations (pp. 47–69). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-085620200000020003

54.

Mangold. (2023). INTERACT (Version 20.9.3) [Computer software]. Mangold International GmbH. www.mangold-international.com/

55.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, (26), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/259182

56.

Mathieu

Eschleman

K. J.

Cheng

(2019). Meta-analytic and multiwave comparison of emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(3), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000135

57.

Meinecke

A. L.

Allen

J. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(Eds.). (2020). Managing meetings in organizations. Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-0856202020

58.

Muchinsky

P. M.

Monahan

C. J.

(1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90043-1

59.

Neininger

Kauffeld

(2009). Reflexion als schlüssel zur weiterentwicklung von gruppenarbeit. In Kauffeld

Grote

Frieling

(Eds.), Handbuch kompetenzentwicklung (pp. 233–255). Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag.

60.

Patterer

A. S.

Yanagida

Kühnel

Korunka

(2023). Daily receiving and providing of social support at work: Identifying support exchange patterns in hierarchical data. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(4), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2177537

61.

Perugini

Gallucci

Presaghi

Ercolani

A. P.

(2003). The personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17(4), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.474

62.

Pierce

J. R.

Aguinis

(2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410060

63.

RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R. PBC, Boston. http://www.rstudio.com/

64.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

65.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

66.

Ryan

R. M.

Duineveld

J. J.

Di Domenico

S. I.

Ryan

W. S.

Steward

B. A.

Bradshaw

E. L.

(2022). We know this much is (meta-analytically) true: A meta-review of meta-analytic findings evaluating self-determination theory. Psychological Bulletin, 148(11–12), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000385

67.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

(2016, November 25). Testing fit patterns with polynomial regression models. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ndggf

68.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Humberg

(2020). RSA: An R package for response surface analysis (version 0.10.0) [Computer software].

69.

Scott

C. W.

Allen

J. A.

(2023). Toward an organizational theory of meetings: Structuration of organizational meeting culture. Organizational Psychology Review, 13(4), 506–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221127249

70.

Shinn

Lehmann

Wong

N. W.

(1984). Social interaction and social support. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01107.x

71.

Shumaker

S. A.

Brownell

(1984). Toward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01105.x

72.

Slemp

G. R.

Lee

M. A.

Mossman

L. H.

(2021). Interventions to support autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs in organizations: A systematic review with recommendations for research and practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 427–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12338

73.

Stoverink

A. C.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Zheng

(2018). Supporting team citizenship: The influence of team social resources on team-level affiliation-oriented and challenge-oriented behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12173

74.

Thompson

P. S.

Bergeron

D. M.

Bolino

M. C.

(2020). No obligation? How gender influences the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1338–1350. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000481

75.

Torka

A.-K.

Mazei

Hüffmeier

(2021). Together, everyone achieves more-or, less? An interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in teams. Psychological Bulletin, 147(5), 504–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000251

76.

Tse

H. H. M.

Dasborough

M. T.

(2008). A Study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106293779

77.

M. A.

Lin

K. J.

Ilies

(2017). Is it better to give or receive? The role of help in buffering the depleting effects of surface acting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1442–1461. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0611

78.

van den Broeck

Ferris

D. L.

Chang

C.-H.

Rosen

C. C.

(2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058

79.

van den Broeck

Howard

J. L.

van Vaerenbergh

Leroy

Gagné

(2021). Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(3), 240–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211006173

80.

Vansteenkiste

Soenens

Ryan

R. M.

(2023). Basic psychological needs theory. In Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 84–123). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.5

81.

Weinstein

Ryan

R. M.

(2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016984

82.

Wörtler

van Yperen

N. W.

Barelds

D. P. H.

(2020). Do individual differences in need strength moderate the relations between basic psychological need satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior? Motivation and Emotion, 44(2), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09775-9

83.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003

84.

Yang

L.-Q.

Sliter

Cheung

J. H.

Sinclair

R. R.

Mohr

(2018). The dark side of helping: Does returning the favor from coworkers hurt employee work engagement? Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(6), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9522-9

85.

Yoshikawa

C.-H.

Lee

H.-J.

(2020). Generalized exchange orientation: Conceptualization and scale development. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(3), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000438

86.

Zeijen

M. E. L.

Bakker

A. B.

Petrou

(2022). Providing social support at work matters and spills over to home: A multi-source diary study. Current Psychology, 42(35), 30924–30938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04108-5

87.

Zeijen

M. E. L.

Petrou

Bakker

A. B.

(2020). The daily exchange of social support between coworkers: Implications for momentary work engagement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(6), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000262

88.

Zeijen

M. E. L.

Petrou

Bakker

A. B.

(2024). Giving and taking social support at work: An experience sampling study among coworker dyads. Applied Psychology, 73(3), 1361–1385. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12520

89.

Zeijen

M. E. L.

Petrou

Bakker

A. B.

Gelderen

B. R.

(2020). Dyadic support exchange and work engagement: An episodic test and expansion of self-determination theory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(3), 687–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12311

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB