Identification and Explanation of Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological Ownership in Public Organizations Bushehr Province

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Student in Organizational Behavior Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad International Campus

2 Professor Department of Management Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University Of Mashhad,

3 Professor of Management Department, Faculty of Administrative and Economic Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

4 Associate Professor Department of Management Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University Of Mashhad

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Abstract
Psychological ownership is one of the main issues taken into account by management theorists and experts in recent years in an effort to motivate employees. In this regard, the research objectives included the identification and prioritization of antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in public organizations. The present study is developmental in terms of objective and analytical exploratory survey in terms of methodology. In the first stage of study which was qualitative, systematic review method has been used for identification of antecedent and consequences components. For data collection and evaluation of model variables, questionnaire has been used, the validity and reliability of which had been previously confirmed. The statistical population of study included the employees working in public organizations under supervision of 16 ministries in Bushehr city, out of which 333 subjects were selected as sample through stratified random method. For analysis of collected data, structural equation modeling through AMOS software has been used. The findings showed that using precedents of this study can lead to promotion of the psychological ownership and as a consequent, the achievement of the intended consequences in the studied organizations are expected.. 
Introduction
Public services organizations represent government in practice; therefore, the government seeks to promote these organizations more than before. Recently, psychological approach toward increasing organizations' performance has been taken into account; based on which the promotion of psychological aspects in organization could elevate the organizational performance more than other factors. One of the organizational variables considered in recent years is psychological ownership. The investigations indicate that there are various factors (organizational, individual and contextual) that provide the ground for formation of psychological ownership. Moreover, through creating internal motivation, the psychological ownership highly affect the organizational variables such as organizational commitment, responsibility, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational competitiveness and etc. The searching of databases shows that there is no reliable integrated model for realization and prioritization of antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in public sector. This study seeks to identify and prioritize the constituting factors and the consequences of this variable in public organizations.
Case Study
For identification of antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership, the statistical population of study included texts related to subject matter in local and foreign books and journals. In addition, for their prioritization, the management experts with orientations of organizational behavior, public management and human resources of 8 superior universities of the country and Persian Gulf University of Bushehr (as a result of local context) and the managers of organizations and deputies of human resources of public services organizations of 16 ministries in Bushehr city have been taken into account. From this population, 30 experts and 32 managers and deputies have been selected as the sample of the study. In second stage, for testing final model, the statistical population included the employees working in abovementioned organizations. Using Cochran formula, the minimum volume of sample had been specified as 333 subjects.
Materials and Methods
The present study is developmental in terms of objective and it has been carried out based on positivism paradigm and consequently comparative approach. To determine the validity of questionnaire, content and construct validity have been used. The reliability of the study has been examined through Cronbach Alpha. The collected data have been analyzed through Structural Equation Modeling via AMOS.
Discussion and Results
The results of Friedman test showed that four factors of person-job fit, participation in decision-making, transformational leadership and perceived control are the main influential factors and organizational commitment, job motivation, organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction are the main consequences of psychological ownership. For testing hypothesis, partial index (p-value) and significant number have been used. Concerning p-value and significant number of hypotheses which are respectively less than 0.05 and more than 1.96; it can be concluded that all research hypotheses are confirmed at reliability level of 95%. Therefore, the relationship between antecedents and consequences and psychological ownership is meaningful and the mediating role of psychological ownership in antecedents and consequences relation is confirmed.
Conclusion
The confirmation of relationship between person-job fit and psychological ownership indicates that person-job fit highlights the mediating role of this variable (psychological ownership) in addition to forming psychological ownership. This finding shows the significance of designing jobs and careers in organizations. Consideration of this issue not only enhances the feeling of ownership, it also has a good predictability role in enhancing occupational attitudes including organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior and job motivation of employees. This is also true in relation with participation in decision making, perceived control and transformational leadership. Through participating in decision making, individuals feel that they have freedom of action in determining the fate of organization which is indicative of the feeling of ownership. More importantly, participation in decision making has been effective in prediction of individual consequences as previously mentioned (commitment, satisfaction, citizenship behavior and motivation). Out of 4 effective factors on attitudinal and behavioral consequences through psychological ownership, participation in decision making has higher predictability power in comparison with other three predictors. As far as transformational leadership mostly reminds human identity in comparison with transactional leadership, it has been effective in shaping psychological ownership as well as enhancing the consequences mostly related to individual level the same as two former antecedents. Finally, the perceived control which embeds to some extent assurance and predictability indicates that providing the ground for delegation of responsibility to employees not only enhances the empowerment, it also could be effective in shaping effective psychological ownership and have good predictability role in enhancing the occupational attitudes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction and citizenship behavior and job motivation of employees. This factor is in the second rank in terms of importance from among four effective factors on attitudinal and behavioral consequences.

Keywords

References

1-Asatryan, V.S. & Oh, H. (2008). Psychological Ownership Theory: An Exploratory Application in the Restaurant Industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32(3), 363-386.
2-Asatryan, V. S., Slevitch, L., Larzelere, R., Morosan, C & Kwun, D.J. (2013). Effects of Psychological Ownership on Students’ Commitment and Satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 25, 169–179.
3-Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Crossley, C.D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement, and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 173–191.
4-Baldwin, N. J. (1990). Perceptions of Public versus Private Sector Personnel and Informal Red Tape: "Their Impact on Motivation. American Review of Public Administration, 20(1), 7 – 28.
5-Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,   15(2), 139-168.
6-Blau, G. (1999). Testing the Longitudinal Impact of Work Variables and Performance Appraisal Satisfaction on Subsequent Overall Job Satisfaction, Human Relations, 52, 1099–113.
7-Brown, G., Pierce, J.L. & Crossley, C. (2014). Toward an Understanding of the Development of Ownership Feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 318–338.
8-Cable, D. M & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of   Subjective Fit Perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.
9-Torp, S. &  Nielsen, B.B. (2018). Psychological ownership and financial firm performance: The interplay of employee stock ownership and participative leadership, Australian Journal of Management, 43(3), 1-16.
10-Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.
11-Grunebaum, J. O. (1987). Private Ownership. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
12-Han, T-S., Chiang, H-H., Mc Conville, D & Chiang, C-L. (2015). A Longitudinal Investigation of Person–Organization Fit, Person–Job Fit, and Contextual Performance: The Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership, Human Performance, 28, 425–439.
13-Han, T-S., Chiang., H-H & Chan, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision making, psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(12), 2218–2233.
14-Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
15-Lazarus, R. (1991). Progress on a cognitive motivational relational theory of emotion. The American psychologist, 46, 819 -834.
16-Liu, F; Chow, I.H-S., Zhang; J-C & Huang, M. (2017). Organizational innovation climate and individual innovative behavior: exploring the moderating effects of psychological ownership and psychological empowerment. Review of Managerial Science, 1, 1-19.
17-Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological Ownership: How Having Control Matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 869-895.
18-Lucas, G. H., Babakus, E & Ingram, T.N. (1990). An Empirical Test of the Job Satisfaction-Turnover Relationship: Assessing the Role of Job Performance for Retail   Managers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(3), 199-208.
19-Luoma, J J. M. (2015). Understanding change management through the psychological ownership framework: examination of antecedents of successful change. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, in Ylistönrinne, hall
20-Mayhew, M.G., Ashkanasy, N.M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings.  Journal of Social Psychology, 147 (5), 477–500.
21-Mustafa, M., Martin, L., & Hughes, H. (2016). Psychological Ownership, Job Satisfaction, And Middle Manager Entrepreneurial Behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 23(3), 272-287.
22-O’Driscoll, M.P., Pierce, J.L., & Coghlan, A-M. (2006). The Psychology of Ownership: Work Environment Structure, Organizational Commitment, And Citizenship Behaviors. Group Organization Management, 31(3), 388-416.
23-Ozler, H., Yelmaz, A., & Ozler, D. (2008). Psychological ownership: an empirical study on its antecedents and impacts upon organizational behaviors. Problems and Perspectives in   Management, 6(3), 38-47.
24-Park, C.H., Song, Ji. H., Yoon, S.Won & Kim, J.w. (2013). A missing link: psychological ownership as a mediator between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, Human Resource Development International, 16(5), 558–574.
25-Park, C, H., Kim, W., & Song, J. H. (2015). The Impact of Ethical Leadership on Employees’ In-Role Performance: The Mediating Effect of Employees’ Psychological Ownership. Human Resource Development Quaterly, 26(4), 385-408.
26-Pendleton, A., Wilson, N., & Wright, M. (1998). The perception and effects of share ownership: empirical evidence from employee buy-outs. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36(1), 99-123.
27-Peng, H., & Pierce, J. (2015). Job - and organization-based psychological ownership: relationship and outcomes", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30 (2), 151 – 168.
28-Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K.T. (2001). Towards a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.
29-Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K.T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership:  integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.
30-Pierce, J.L., O’driscoll, M.P  &  Coghlan, A-M. (2004). Work Environment Structure and Psychological Ownership: The Mediating Effects of Control. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(5), 507–534.
31-Pierce, J.L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological Ownership and the Organizational Context: Theory, Research Evidence, and Application. Edward Elgar Publishing.
32-Pierce, J. L. & Rodgers, L. (2004). The Psychology of Ownership and Worker-Owner Productivity. Group & Organization Management, 29(5), 588-613.
33-Pierce, J. L & Furo, C. A. (1990). Employee ownership: Implications for management. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 32-43.
34-Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
35-Poutsma, E., Eert, C. v., & Ligthart, P.E.M. (2015). Employee Ownership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: High Performance Ownership Systems and the Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership. In Kauhanen, A. (ed.), Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory & Labor-Managed Firms, (pp. 223-248). Bradford, UK: Emerald.
36-Robinson, S.L & Bennett, R.J. (1993). A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
37-Ruh, R. A., White, J. K., & Wood, R. R. (1975). Job involvement, values, personal background, participation in decision making, and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 18(2), 300-312.
38-Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, JM. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the search for optimal motivation and performance. Academic Press, San Diego.
39-Shukla , A. (2019). Soldier or actor? The role of psychological ownership as a marker for genuine citizenship behavior. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(1), 94 – 108.
40-Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc McNally.
41-Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442– 1465.
42-Staufenbiel, T. and C. Hartz (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior: Entwicklung und erste Validierung eines Messinstrumentes [Organizational citizenship behavior: Development and first validation of a measure]’, Diagnostica, 46, 73–83.
43-VandeWalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group and Organization Management, 20(2), 210-226.
44-Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J.L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics