Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:33:41.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A METHOD FOR PRESCRIBING PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP: A PROJECT HANDOVER CASE STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Michelle Rose Cedeno*
Affiliation:
Imperial College London;
Weston Baxter
Affiliation:
Imperial College London;
Tayla Porat
Affiliation:
Imperial College London;
Joann Peck
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Madison
*
Cedeno, Michelle Rose, Imperial College London, United Kingdom, m.cedeno20@imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Among the topics of psychological ownership (PO) within current literature, a significant gap exists in understanding PO within a prescriptive lens. This study will examine how instigating the PO mapping method will help us understand how the PO mapping method can support an ownership journey. In addition, we want to see how we can create a prescriptive ownership structure that one follows rather than using the tool as a descriptive method. To do this we will follow a Research Through Design methodology and test the PO mapping method in an organisational case study. We believe that the PO mapping method can help frame and guide organisational project handovers. We want to examine the factors that influence the parties (project teams) emergence and relinquishment of ownership, and how that affects the feeling of ownership of a project over time. Based on this understanding we will derive prescriptive phases to integrate into our PO mapping method. Thus this study demonstrates how the PO mapping method can be used in different contexts to support and provide prescriptive guidance for ownership journeys.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Aguinis, H., Glavas, A. (2019). On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management, 45, 10571086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. R., Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement, and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 173191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, W.L., Aurisicchio, M. & Childs, P.R.N. (2015a) A psychological ownership approach to designing object attachment. Journal of Engineering Design. [Online] 26 (4-6), 140156. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1030371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, W.L., Aurisicchio, M. & Childs, P.R.N. (2015c) Using psychological ownership to guide strategies for slower consumption. In: Product Lifetimes And The Environment (PLATE) Conference Proceedings, 17-19 June - Nottingham UK. Edited by T. Cooper, N.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, C. B. (2019). Small actions, big difference: Leveraging corporate sustainability to drive business and societal value. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedeño, M., Baxter, W., Porat, T., and Peck, J. (2022) Toward a method of psychological ownership mapping, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.601Google Scholar
Council, Design. “A study of the design process – The Double Diamond.” 2005.Google Scholar
Peck, J., & Luangrath, A. W. (2023). A Review and Future Avenues for Psychological Ownership in Consumer Research. Consumer Psychology Review. 6(1), 5274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, J. & Shu, S.B. (2009) The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership. Journal of Consumer Research. [Online] 36 (3), 434447. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/597330.CrossRefGoogle 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 (1), 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. & Dirks, K.T. (2001) Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations. Academy of Management Review. [Online] 26 (2), 298310. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J.L., Rubenfeld, S.A. & Morgan, S. (1991) Employee Ownership: A Conceptual Model of Process and Effects. Academy of Management Review. [Online] 16 (1), 121144. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1991.4279000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Amstel, Ploos, Kuijer, D., van der Lugt, L., Eggen, R., B. A Psychological Ownership Based Design Tool to Close the Resource Loop in Product Service Systems: A Bike Sharing Case. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106207Google Scholar
Shu, S.B. & Peck, J. (2011) Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 21 (4), 439452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. (1790) The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 6th Edition. London, A. Millar.Google Scholar
Stappers, P. J., & Giaccardi, E. (2017). Research through Design. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.).Google Scholar
Snare, F. (1972) The concept of property. American Philosophical Quarterly. 9 (2), 200–20Google 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 (4), 439459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar