Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-bslzr Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-03-15T21:33:32.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2017

Jon L Pierce ,
Iiro Jussila  and
Dahui Li
Jon L Pierce*
Affiliation:
Department of Management Studies, Labovitz School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA
Iiro Jussila
Affiliation:
Department of Management and International Business, School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
Dahui Li
Affiliation:
Department of Finance and Management Information Sciences, Labovitz School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA
*
Corresponding author: jpierce@d.umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, there emerged a theory of collective psychological ownership – an intersubjective sense of possession for different objects within the work and organizational context (e.g., work space). This shared mind-set has been cast as having the potential to explain a variety of collective, work-related attitudes, and actions. Preventing scientific inquiry into this phenomenon is the absence of an instrument for the measurement of this construct. The purpose of this work was the development and validation of such an instrument. To this end, work with a panel of judges and three sequentially conducted field studies was undertaken. Construct validation evidence (e.g., content, discriminant, nomological, and incremental validity) for an instrument for the assessment of collective psychological ownership is provided.

Keywords

collective psychological ownershipcollective cognitionscale developmentconstruct validationteamwork
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 24 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 776 - 792
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory and crowding . Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.Google Scholar
Brown, G., & Crossley, C. (2008). What about psychological ownership and territoriality? Questions we are starting to ask. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, August, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organization. Academy of Management Review, 30, 577–594.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.Google Scholar
Cooke, N. J. (2015). Team cognition as interaction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 415–419.Google Scholar
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 325–334.Google Scholar
Darling, F. F. (1937). A herd of red deer. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning and heedful interrelating. Human Relations, 55, 283–314.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 465–468.Google Scholar
Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 28, 78–95.Google Scholar
Furby, L. (1978). Possessions in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behaviour and Personality, 6(1), 49–65.Google Scholar
Furby, L. (1980). The origins and early development of possessive behavior. Political Psychology, 2(1), 30–42.Google Scholar
George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191–202.Google Scholar
Gibson, B. G. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 121–134.Google Scholar
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1967 [1927]). Being and time. (Translated by J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analyses: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1955). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Isaacs, S. (1933). Social development in young children. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 306–309.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birklebach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 435–455.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.Google Scholar
Ley, D, & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban graffiti as territorial markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64, 491–505.Google Scholar
Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610–621.Google Scholar
Litwinski, L. (1947). The psychology of ‘mine’. Philosophy, 22, 240–251.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experiences and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group and Organization Management, 40, 6–34.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.Google Scholar
Monks, R. A. G., & Minow, N. (2001). Corporate governance. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moorman, R. M., & Blakeley, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 48, 775–802.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265.Google Scholar
Parsons, T., & Shils, E. N. (1951). Toward a general theory of social actions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 810–834.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research evidence, and application. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
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, 84–107.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Van Dyne, L., & Cummings, L. L. (1992). Psychological ownership: A conceptual and operational examination. In M. Schnake (Ed.), Southern management association proceedings (pp. 203–211). Southern Management Association, Valdosta, GA.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.Google Scholar
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 3–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.Google Scholar
Smith, F. J. (1976). The Index of Organizational Reactions (IOR). JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6:54, Ms No. 1265.Google Scholar
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.Google Scholar
Steffens, M. K., Shemla, M., Wegge, J., & Diestel, S. (2014). Organizational tenure and employee performance: A multilevel analysis. Group and Organization Management, 39, 664–690.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group and Organization Management, 34, 170–205.Google Scholar
Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The gang. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tseng, Y.-C., & Uen, J.-F. (2013). The relationships among transformational leadership, collective psychological ownership and organizational citizenship behavior: The case of hospitality industry. Masters Degree Thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439–459.Google Scholar
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 1–25.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen, & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357–381.Google Scholar
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–330.Google Scholar
Yablonsky, L. (1962). The violent gang. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar