Psychological Ownership: How Having Control...

Psychological Ownership: How HavingControl Mattersjoms_1028 869..895

Jun Liu, Hui Wang, Chun Hui and Cynthia LeeRenmin University of China; Peking University; University of Hong Kong; Northeastern University and Hong

Kong Polytechnic University

abstract The study builds a cross-level work process control-based model of psychologicalownership in a Chinese context. We operationalize individual-level control as participativedecision-making and unit-level control as the self-managing team climate. We further theorizehow the value orientation of employees to power differentials moderates the mediating effectsof psychological ownership on the relationship between the two levels of control and employeeoutcomes. We found that the positive effects of control experiences on some outcomes aremediated by psychological ownership. Additionally, power distance moderates the mediatingrole of psychological ownership. Our results suggest that, in order to cultivate the positiveeffects of perceived control on employee contributions, managers should pay attention toemployees high in power distance since these individuals are reluctant to exercise control.Training or encouraging these individuals to participate in decision making may help themcultivate the positive feelings of psychological ownership.

Keywords: organization-based self-esteem, perceived control, power distance, psychologicalownership

INTRODUCTION

Centuries ago, philosopher John Locke (1690) suggested that we are likely to feelownership for things we create, shape, or produce. Feeling that one owns something canhave powerful motivational properties. For example, Avey et al. (2009) noted that peoplecare for and nurture their possessions. They further noted that ownership in organiza-tional contexts may be more psychological than financial in nature as employees fre-quently do not own shares in the organization. In organizational contexts, can employeesperceive psychological ownership even though they might not be the founder or afinancial owner of the organization?

Pierce et al. (2003) described psychological ownership as a cognitive-affective statereflecting the individual’s awareness, thoughts, and beliefs that the target of ownership or

Address for reprints: Jun Liu, Department of Organization and Human Resources, School of Business, RenminUniversity of China, Beijing 100872, China ([email protected]).

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Management Studies © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of ManagementStudies. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Journal of Management Studies 49:5 July 2012doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01028.x

转载

http://www.paper.edu.cn中国科技论文在线

a piece of that target, such as the organization, is theirs. According to Avey et al. (2009),psychological ownership is discussed in an important emerging literature of positiveorganizational behaviour (POB) that focuses on the importance of having a sense ofpositivity and striving for accomplishment and success. Psychological ownership can beconceptualized as a positive psychological resource. Yet, research on psychologicalownership has been limited. Psychological ownership is a distinct construct that haspredictive power on outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, intent to stay, orcitizenship behaviour (e.g. Avey et al., 2009; O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Parker et al., 1997;Pendleton et al., 1998; Pierce et al., 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995; Wagner et al., 2003).For example, in an earlier study, Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) found that psychologicalownership explained variance in organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) – or the ‘theself-perceived value that individuals have of themselves as organization members actingwithin an organizational context’ (Pierce et al., 1989, p. 625) – and organizationalcitizenship behaviour (OCB; Organ, 1988) over and above the effects of job satisfactionand organizational commitment. Psychological ownership is potentially a powerfulconstruct for understanding employee motivation and the sense of positivity.

While most published studies on psychological ownership theorized and examined itseffects on work attitudes and work behaviours, only a handful of studies examined whatpromotes psychological ownership. In a study conducted in the restaurant industry,Asatryan and Oh (2008) found that customer participation (a measure combining feed-back and cooperation), a sense of belonging and identification positively related topsychological ownership. In a study of physicians’ acceptance of a clinical informationsystem, Paré et al. (2006) found that user participation (overall responsibility and com-munication activities but not hands-on activities) predicted psychological ownership.Lastly, in a study of seven for-profit non-employee-owned organizations in New Zealand,Pierce et al. (2004) found that experienced control mediated environmental structuringand psychological ownership in the workplace. However, these studies were conductedat the individual level and some (Asatryan and Oh, 2008; Paré et al., 2006) were limitedby the use of single-source data.

By reviewing the existing research, we have identified two important issues that needto be addressed in order to advance the theoretical basis of psychological ownership.First, while broader perspectives (for example, social exchange) can be used to developtheories of psychological ownership, specifying the theoretical underpinnings of psycho-logical ownership may be particularly fruitful in enhancing an in-depth understandingof the construct and in providing more immediate applications. For example, research-ers have emphasized the central role of control in understanding psychological owner-ship (Pierce et al., 2001, 2004). While control can be a theoretical building block ofpsychological ownership, its impacts across different organizational levels and how itrelates to employee outcomes remain open issues. Psychological ownership is plausiblya cross-level or meso-theoretical phenomenon in that the construct ties the individual toa larger external entity. Meso-theoretical research emphasizes the coincidental exami-nation of at least two levels of analysis (Rousseau and House, 1994). Meso-level researchalso typically integrates micro and macro theories in synthesizing psychological andsocio-economic processes. Psychological ownership is by nature a personal experienceand, understandably, its antecedents are frequently conceptualized at the individual

J. Liu et al.870

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Management Studies © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd andSociety for the Advancement of Management Studies

中国科技论文在线 http://www.paper.edu.cn

level. Personal organizational experience, however, is invariably an outcome of theorganizational context within which the experience takes place. What happens at thehigher level of analysis, such as one’s work team, is an important yet relatively neglectedantecedent of psychological ownership. The preponderance of research on psycho-logical ownership has been typically conducted at one level instead of multiple levels.The development of meso-level research will help us to gain deeper understanding ofpsychological ownership.

Second, while it is important to understand the antecedents and outcomes of psy-chological ownership, the boundary conditions for these relationships have yet to beexamined. Recent comparative studies in management have demonstrated the impor-tance of considering cultural and individual differences in understanding managementconstructs (Hui et al., 2004). Similarly, whether control matters to specific employees isan important consideration for developing a control-based theory of psychologicalownership.

The present study is an attempt to address these issues by replicating and extendingresearch on the antecedents of psychological ownership in a Chinese context. Pierceet al. (2001) suggested that experiences of control, extensive knowledge of the organiza-tion, and the opportunity of self-investment in the organization promote the feelings ofownership. Consistent with previous research, we study the relationship between par-ticipation in decision-making and psychological ownership. Using this as a foundation,we extend previous work by developing a cross-level, control-based model of psycho-logical ownership. We propose that, along with individual-level participative decision-making, a unit-level self-managing team climate is also an important antecedent.Further, to the extent that control underlies the relationships among antecedents, psy-chological ownership, and outcomes, we further propose that power distance, a culturalvalue that deals with acceptance of power or control differentials, should be a boundarycondition that moderates the mediating role of psychological ownership. We proposethat providing control of the work process through decision-making and a self-managingteam climate gives employees extensive knowledge of the work process with an oppor-tunity for self-investment in the organization. With control over their work processes,employees experience possessiveness and what they possess becomes an extension of theself. Objects that cannot be controlled are not perceived as part of the self.

The development of a cross-level, control-based model of psychological ownershipmakes several important contributions. First, the present study demonstrates the impor-tance of conceptualizing and testing a control-based meso-level theory of psychologicalownership. Second, the present study shows that the relationship between control andpsychological ownership can vary as a function of an employee’s power (or control)orientation. This argument strengthens the need to examine both contextual and person-focused variables in understanding psychological ownership. We contribute further tobuilding more generalizable theories of psychological ownership by examining howpsychological ownership functions in a transitional economy – China – where peoplegenerally accept that power in their organizations is distributed unequally. Recentcross-cultural management reviews indicated that individually held cultural values andbeliefs play an important role in how employees react to their work environment(Gelfand et al., 2007; Kirkman et al., 2009; Tsui et al., 2007). Most previous studies on

Psychological Ownership: How Having Control Matters 871

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Management Studies © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and

Society for the Advancement of Management Studies


psychological ownership, however, were conducted without reference to cultural differ-ences (e.g. O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Pendleton et al., 1998). The research framework ofour study is illustrated in Figure 1.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

The Targets and Process of Ownership

Pierce et al. (2001) defined psychological ownership as ‘that state where an individualfeels as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is “theirs” ’. Experiencingpsychological ownership implies a feeling of possessiveness and being psychologically tiedto the target of ownership (Pierce and Rodgers, 2004). ‘Target’ refers to the object ofattachment to the individual or group. This object of attachment may be as small as a setof tools for a technician, our offices, or something as big as the organization to which theindividual experiences close connection or feels a sense of possessiveness. An importantissue in understanding psychological ownership is how a sense of ownership can bedeveloped to an organization that one has not founded. Another issue concerns theabstract nature of the organization. In other words, how can one psychologically own anabstract entity such as an organization? To address these two issues, we propose thatorganizations are the target of ownership in the work processes and that the controlof these work processes induces a sense of ownership in the organization. Thus, weconceptualize control as an underlying latent construct that drives psychological own-ership, whereas organizational practices such as participative decision-making and aself-managing team climate are organizational practices through which the sense ofownership can be cultivated.

Organizations have been a frequently used target of psychological ownership research(Pierce et al., 2003; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004). In these studies, psychological owner-ship in the organization represents possessiveness towards the organization and a senseof shared responsibility towards its success. Organizations, however, are abstract andmultifaceted. They are complex systems that may include numerous targets of ownershipsuch as the products they create, the jobs, and the organizational practices (Van Dyneand Pierce, 2004). According to Chiu et al. (2007), understanding of the organization

H1 H3

Self-managing team climate

Participative decision-making Psychological ownership

Individual outcomesOrganization-based self-esteem

Affective commitment

Organizational citizenship behaviour

Power distance

H2

H4 & H5: mediating effect

H6: moderating effect on the mediation

Individual level variables

Unit level variable

Figure 1. Research framework of the study

J. Liu et al.872



and how it operates, a concern for the organization’s business conditions, as well asmonitoring the firm’s operations and performance are necessary for employees to thinkand act like owners. Work processes that employees have to be involved in represent keywork activities of the employee in an organization. An employee who ‘owns’ an organi-zation would have to first ‘own’ his/her work. Control over the work process indicatesthe ownership of one’s work. We suggest that work process control enhances an employ-ee’s understanding of how the organization operates and facilitates shared responsibilityfor the organization’s effectiveness. The work process is an important component of workthat allows the abstract organization to become concrete to the employee. Throughperception of control of the work process, the employee will experience psychologicalownership for an organization that he/she has not founded.

Experiences of Control and Psychological Ownership

Pierce et al. (2001) suggested that control is an important structural component contrib-uting to the development of psychological ownership. Perceived control is the perceptionthat one has the ability, resources, or opportunities to experience positive outcomesthrough one’s own actions (Rosenthal, 2004; Thompson, 1981). As a perception, per-ceived control is a cognitive-based appraisal that does not rely on emotional judgments,but instead is an evaluation of conditions, opportunities, and outcomes (Moorman,1993). Our work process control-based theory suggests that an important task in theo-rizing the antecedents to psychological ownership is to identify work processes that wouldallow employees to perceive and experience control. Pierce et al. (2001) noted thatorganizations provide various targets of control to employees. For example, jobs thatprovide greater autonomy offer employees greater control and hence increase the like-lihood that the job is the target of ownership. Consistent with the importance of controlexperiences, Spector’s (1986) meta-analysis of over 100 studies demonstrated that thepersonal control enjoyed by an individual was associated with high levels of job satisfac-tion, organizational commitment, motivation, and performance, and low levels of physi-cal and psychological symptoms of stress (Greenberger et al., 1988, 1989; Lee et al.,1990; Spector, 1986; Terry and Jimmieson, 1999). Furthermore, Prelinger (1959) foundthat the more an individual feels that he/she has control over an object, the more likelyit is that this object will be perceived as part of the extended self.

In this study, we propose that the experiences of work process control throughparticipation in decision-making and a self-managing team climate should contribute tothe perception of psychological ownership. Participative decision-making (PDM) is theopportunity an individual has in exercising control over matters that relate to his/herwork and work outcomes. It is a process through which influence is shared amongindividuals who are otherwise hierarchically unequal (Locke and Schweiger, 1979;Zanoni and Janssens, 2007). PDM provides employees with a sense of control to do whatis interesting and personally rewarding (Wagner et al., 2003). It strengthens a person’ssense of ownership because it implies a sharing of authority through involvement in thedecision-making process (Pierce et al., 2004). When employees engage in PDM, theyexercise control over organizational matters via their input in the decision-makingprocess. When allowed to participate in decision-making, employees are likely to believe





that they are entrusted with the responsibility of acting in the best interest of theorganization (Wagner et al., 2003). PDM gives employees the message that they are alsoowners of the organization because they have input over the management and the futureof the organization. Thus, giving employees PDM opportunities enhances their sense ofpsychological ownership. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: Participative decision-making relates positively to psychological owner-ship in the organization.

While PDM is how an individual may exercise control, we suggest that a self-managing team climate at the unit level is the larger organizational context that supportsindividual-level control and promotes ownership experiences. Hausknecht et al. (2008)defined ‘unit’ as ‘any definable set of individuals possessing an infrastructure operatingwithin an organization, such as a work group, a department, or a division’ (Rentsch andSteel, 2003, p. 186). A unit in many organizations can be operationalized as work teams.Self-management is the degree to which people experience freedom, independence, anddiscretion in their work (Hackman, 1987; Susman, 1976). Self-managing teams havebeen associated with high productivity, quality, customer service, and safety (Cohen andLedford, 1994; Wellins et al., 1990). Climate is an employee’s perceptions of the socialcontext (Taguiri and Litwin, 1968) and the meaning that the employee ascribes to theactivities that an organization expects, support and rewards (Hirst et al., 2008; Jameset al., 1988). A self-managing team climate refers to the unit members’ perception thatthe management allows employees to control their work processes. In strong self-managing team climates, employees have more control over the processes of decidingwho performs which tasks, when to perform them, and how to make work-relateddecisions. Self-management parallels the control construct at the individual level(Campion et al., 1993). We suggest that a self-managing team climate at the unit leveloffers individual members a sense of control that promotes an individual’s psychologicalownership. We therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: A self-managing team climate relates positively to psychological owner-ship in the organization.

Outcomes of Psychological Ownership

The feeling of ownership satisfies the basic human need for place (Van Dyne and Pierce,2004). This sense of belonging to a place such as one’s organization produces positiveevaluative judgments that enable people to become more attached to the things (such astheir workgroup) in the organization. The target of ownership – that is, the organization– becomes an extension of the person. Therefore, when employees develop a sense ofownership in their organizations, they should also develop positive attitudes towards theorganization and a sense that they are important to the organization. They also behavein ways that enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization.

Strong psychological ownership means that the ties between the owner and theownership target are strong. When employees develop a strong sense of psychological

J. Liu et al.874



ownership of their job and organization, they develop high levels of affective commit-ment. Committed employees view their organization as their ‘home’ or as a place ofcomfort, belonging, and personal space (Redman and Snape, 2005). The sense ofbelonging and attachment are the essence of organizational or affective commitment(Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004). The sense of ownership should also enhance employees’evaluations of their personal adequacy and self-worth in the organization or their senseof importance in the organization as in OBSE. OBSE is an important self-construct inorganizational contexts as it emerges from organizational experiences (Pierce et al.,1989) and reflects the individual’s evaluation of personal adequacy and self-worth withinthe context of his/her organization. As noted by Van Dyne and Pierce (2004), whenemployees feel that they ‘own’ the organization, they have positive self-identities andpositive self-assessments because the feelings of ownership lead people to view tangibleand intangible possessions as part of the extended self (Furby, 1978; Shepherd andCardon, 2009; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004).

Psychological ownership will also lead to behavioural consequences. When individualsfeel ownership in a social entity such as their organization, they are concerned with theoutcomes of the organization. As such, they are willing to exert extra effort in helping theorganization become efficient and effective. In other words, they are likely to engage incitizenship behaviours to help the entity (Pierce et al., 2003). Research by Van Dyne andPierce (2004) found that there are positive relationships between psychological owner-ship and outcomes including organization-based self-esteem, affective commitment, andorganizational citizenship behaviour. As a replication and extension of previous work, weexamine the generality of these relationships in China. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: Psychological ownership in the organization relates positively to:(a) OBSE, (b) affective commitment, and (c) OCB.

The Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership

Work practices have an impact on employee attitudes and behaviours because employ-ees who engage in these practices interpret and give meaning to these practices. Theinterpretation then guides the attitudes and behaviours of the employees. As suggested byMischel (1973), unstructured organizational environments provide employees with moreopportunities to exercise control over their actions. In organizations that have partici-pative decision-making and self-managing team climates, the environment is less struc-tured and it enables employees to interpret the meanings of these practices.

As discussed above, we suggest that participative decision-making and a self-managingteam climate would lead employees to experience psychological ownership of theirorganizations via experiencing a sense of control. This interpretation of employees asowners of their organizations would, in turn, motivate employees to develop affectivecommitment and OBSE and engage in citizenship behaviours. According to Pierce et al.(2001), psychological ownership can be achieved when the work environment providesemployees the opportunity to exercise control. That is, when organizational membersfeel that they have influence and control at work, have intimate knowledge about theorganization, and feel that they have invested themselves in their organizational roles





through participation in decision-making and the self-managing team climate, the gen-erated sense of ownership should lead to positive evaluative judgments. Such feelings ofcontrol are ways to enhance psychological ownership, which, in turn, leads to positiveoutcomes for both the organization and the individual employee. Thus, we suggestthat psychological ownership mediates the relationship between organizational controlpractices and employee outcomes.

Hypothesis 4: Psychological ownership in the organization mediates the relationshipsbetween participative decision-making and the outcomes of: (a) OBSE, (b) affectivecommitment, and (c) OCB.

Hypothesis 5: Psychological ownership in the organization mediates the relationshipsbetween a self-managing team climate and outcomes of: (a) OBSE, (b) affectivecommitment, and (c) OCB.

The Moderating Role of Power Distance

Although a number of researchers have examined the relationships between participa-tive decision-making and employee outcomes (e.g Miller and Monge, 1986; Spector,1986; Wagner, 1994; Wagner and Gooding, 1987), participation’s relationship with jobperformance was found to be minor when self-report studies were omitted (Lam et al.,2002; Wagner, 1994; Wagner and Gooding, 1987). Lam et al. (2002) and Wagner andGooding (1987) noted that the participation–performance relationship might beexplained by moderators such as task complexity, allocentrism, and efficacy of a workunit. As an extension, we focus on power distance as a key moderator of the mediatingrole of psychological ownership in the relationship between organizational control prac-tices and employee outcomes. Employees may react differently when work processcontrol is allowed in work practices. Similarly, the effects of ownership perceptions maydiffer because of differences in value orientations.

Although Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions of power distance and individualism(or collectivism) are derived at the societal level, Kirkman et al. (2006) found an increas-ing number of studies that examined these cultural dimensions as individual differencevariables of cultural value orientations or individually held cultural values and beliefs(e.g. Begley et al., 2002; Bochner and Hesketh, 1994; Earley, 1993; Farh et al., 2007; Leeet al., 2000). Because we focus on the moderating effect of individual power distance onthe mediating role of psychological ownership in the relationship between antecedentsand outcome, we follow the conventional practice of defining and operationalizingpower distance as an individual difference variable that has cross-cultural relevance.

A conventional and prescribed role of employees or subordinates is to follow theorders of the superior. Employees with high levels of power distance are more willing toallow authorities to make decisions in the absence of employee input and to make fewerattempts to influence the decision-making of authorities than are those with low levels ofpower distance (Kirkman and Shapiro, 1997). Therefore, employees with high levels ofpower distance may not be as responsive to high degrees of control as employees with lowlevels of power distance. Although there is no prior research on the relationship between

J. Liu et al.876



power distance and psychological ownership, a related line of research on psychologicalempowerment, a construct implying participation and self-management, may shed somelight on the issue. Psychological empowerment is the psychological state indicating theindividual’s intrinsic motivation for task accomplishment (Spreitzer, 1996). Of its fourdimensions of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, the last two dimen-sions carry the notion of giving employees a sense of control as argued here.

Research findings on empowerment suggest that empowered people from high powerdistance cultures (i.e. Asians), when compared with those from low power distancecultures (i.e. Canadians), had lower performance (Eylon and Au, 1999). Participants inIndia, a high power distance culture, had lower job satisfaction relative to participants inlow power distance cultures such as the United States (Robert et al., 2000). Similarly,employees who agree that managers should keep them at a distance (those with highlevels of power distance) are less likely to participate in management decision-makingprocesses and will be less likely to exert influence on their superiors (Kirkman andShapiro, 1997). Further, having a self-managing team climate that supports the exerciseof control may not matter as much to those with high power distance value orientations.Thus, having control over one’s work input and process may not be as essential to thedevelopment of ownership perceptions for employees with high levels of power distance.

Moreover, employees who believe that managers should not keep them at a distance(those with low levels of power distance) will respond more positively to the experience ofwork process control. For example, Newman and Nollen (1996) found that participativeleadership practices improved profitability in low power distance cultures. Earlier, wesuggested that empowerment may lead to more positive outcomes for low power distanceindividuals. We propose that the mediating role of psychological ownership on therelationship between participative decision and self-managing team climate on OBSE,affective commitment, and OCB is contingent on the employee’s power distance orien-tation. This suggests that psychological ownership and attachment to the organization willbe stronger for employees with low levels of power distance. In other words, the sense ofownership that employees with low levels of power distance have and their attachment tothe organization depend on their being able to manage themselves and on having a say inorganizational decisions. These arguments suggest that the function of psychologicalownership to mediate the relationship between work process control experiences andindividual outcomes is more likely to occur among those with low levels of power distancethan among those with high levels of power distance. Therefore, we predict:

Hypothesis 6: Power distance moderates the mediation process of psychological own-ership in the relationships between control work practices and outcomes. Specifically,the mediating effects of psychological ownership are weaker among those with highlevels of power distance than among those with low levels of power distance.

METHODS

Sample and Procedure

We collected data from two telecommunication firms in two major cities in China. Onewas located in northern China and the other in southern China. One firm was a





subsidiary of a foreign company and the other was jointly owned by the government anda private foreign company. Middle managers were approached and were invited toparticipate in our survey. With their permission, we obtained names of subordinateemployees and their direct reports (supervisors) in their respective units. From each unit,three employees were randomly selected from the direct report name list. With the helpof human resources managers, we administered separate questionnaires to 387 employ-ees and their corresponding 129 supervisors. Each employee completed a survey thatsought information on participation in decision-making, team climate, power distance,psychological ownership, organization-based self-esteem, and affective commitment.Approximately four weeks later, each supervisor evaluated three employees’ organiza-tional citizenship behaviours. To match employees with their supervisors, before distrib-uting questionnaires, we assigned an ID number to each respondent’s questionnaire. Acover letter was attached to the questionnaire to explain the purpose of our study. Hardcopies of completed questionnaires were returned to the researchers in preaddressed,sealed envelopes.

We obtained 313 out of 387 employee questionnaires – 158 from the foreign subsid-iary firm and 155 from the jointly owned firm. The employee response rate was 81 percent. Of 129 supervisors, 121 returned their questionnaires, resulting in a response rateof 94 per cent. Because we employed hierarchical linear modelling (HLM; Raudenbushand Bryk, 2002) to test our hypotheses, we deleted supervisors with only one validsubordinate respondent. In other words, we retained at least two matched cases for onesupervisor. We also deleted supervisors who did not complete employee behaviourratings. The final sample included 105 supervisors and their 284 direct employees.

Data from the two organizations were combined into one dataset to maximize variablevariation. We compared the demographics of the participants using one-way ANOVA.Participants from the two organizations differed significantly in age (F(1, 272) = 18.23,p < 0.01), gender (F(1, 276) = 9.10, p < 0.01), and organizational tenure (F(1, 279) = 28.36,p < 0.01). To address individual differences, we created a dummy variable representingthe organization as a control in our analyses.

Measures

To ensure measure equivalence in the Chinese and English versions, all the scales usedin this study were translated into Chinese and then translated by different translatorsback into English (Brislin, 1980). Two authors and two PhD students who were fluent inboth Chinese and English examined the questionnaire to ensure that the items wereinterpretable. We used a 5-point response scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to‘strongly agree’ (5) for all items. With the exception of self-managing team climate, allother variables in this study were specified at the individual level. The self-managingteam climate items (Campion et al., 1993) were phrased to reflect the perceived controlat the unit/team level.

Participative decision-making was measured by a 3-item scale developed byCampion et al. (1993). A sample item was ‘As a member of a team, I have a real say inhow the team carries out its work’. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.78.

J. Liu et al.878



Self-managing team climate was operationalized as the employee’s perceptions ofthe degree to which unit members experience freedom, independence, and discretion intheir work. We assessed self-managing team climate by a 3-item scale developed byCampion et al. (1993). A sample item was ‘The members of my team are responsible fordetermining the methods, procedures, and schedules with which the work gets done’.The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.67. Although the reliability of this scale wasbelow the critical value of 0.70 recommended by Nunnally (1967), it was still within theacceptable range for research use (Pierce et al., 1993).

According to our theorization, the individual perceptions of self-managing teamclimate should be aggregated to the unit-level. To justify the aggregation, we followedJames et al.’s (1993) procedure to test whether the ratings of unit members were reason-ably homogeneous using the Rwg index, which is an estimate of inter-rater agreement inmulti-item scales ( James et al., 1993). George and Bettenhausen (1990) argued that anRwg greater than or equal to 0.70 could be considered as an indicator of good agreementwithin a group. We justified the aggregation with a median Rwg value of 0.89(mean = 0.82). In addition, we conducted the one-way univariate analysis of variance(ANOVA) and calculated the two intra-class correlation coefficients, ICC[1] andICC[2], that demonstrated the percentage of variance between units and the stability ofunit means. ANOVA results indicated that the between-unit variance was significantlylarger than the within-unit variance (F(104, 168) = 1.45, p < 0.05). The ICC[1] and ICC[2]values were 0.14 and 0.31, respectively. Although the ICC[2] value was lower thandesired, the ICC[1] value was above the median of 0.12, which is often used in organi-zation research ( James, 1982). The low ICC[2] derived in part from the small unit sizes(Bliese, 2000) in our sample. Overall, our results indicated that the aggregation wasjustified.

Psychological ownership was measured with a 7-item scale originally developedand validated by Pierce et al. (1992) and Van Dyne and Pierce (2004). A sample item was‘I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for this organization’. The Cronbach’salpha for the scale was 0.74.

Power distance was measured using a six-item scale developed by Dorfman andHowell (1988). We modified the items’ wording by removing the double negatives. Forexample, an original item was, ‘Employees should not disagree with management deci-sions’. We modified it to read, ‘Employees should agree with their manager’s deci-sions’. This is primarily because Chinese respondents have trouble interpretingnegatively worded items. This trend is reflected in Farh et al.’s (2007) study in Chinathat dropped one negatively worded item in the perceived organizational support scalein order to improve the scale reliability. In our study, the Cronbach’s alpha for thepower distance scale was 0.75, which was close to the coefficient of 0.74 reported byFarh et al. (2007).

Organization-based self-esteem was measured by a 10-item scale developed andvalidated by Pierce and colleagues (Pierce et al., 1989, 1993). Sample items included ‘Icount around here’, ‘I am taken seriously around here’, and ‘I am an important part ofthis place’. Pierce et al. (1989, 1993) reported Cronbach’s alphas of 0.86 to 0.96. Studiesin Chinese contexts have reported Cronbach alphas of 0.91 (Chen and Aryee, 2007;Chen et al., 2005). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.89 for this study.





Affective commitment was measured by the 6-item scale developed by Porter et al.(1974) and used by Van Dyne and Pierce (2004). Sample items included ‘I am proud totell others that I am a part of this organization’ and ‘I really care about the fate of thisorganization’. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.79. This scale was also used byFarh et al. (2007) and they reported a similar reliability coefficient of 0.77.

The organizational citizenship behaviour scale was originally developed byPodsakoff et al. (1990). Lam et al. (1999) demonstrated this scale to be valid in American,Australian, Chinese, and Japanese settings. This 5-dimension scale focuses on discretion-ary behaviours that are not part of the requirements specified in the job description:(1) altruism (5 items) – discretionary behaviour that has the effect of helping a specificperson with an organizationally relevant task or problem; (2) conscientiousness (5 items)– performance of duties that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of theorganization; (3) civic virtue (5 items) – behaviour that shows that the employee respon-sibly participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the organization;(4) courtesy (6 items) – behaviour that is aimed at preventing work-related problems withothers from occurring; and (5) sportsmanship (5 items) – behaviours that indicate thewillingness of an employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining.We examined each dimension’s reliability and found 0.79, 0.81, 0.61, 0.81, and 0.82 foraltruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy, and sportsmanship, respectively. Sincethe alpha for the civic virtue dimension was relatively low, we refined the measure of thedimension by eliminating two items. The alpha for the refined dimension was 0.73.Because researchers have consistently found these five dimensions to be correlated, andthat they form an integral construct (LePine et al., 2002), we used all dimensions in thisstudy: after examining the measurement validity (see below for description of the processand results), we first averaged items within each dimension to obtain the dimensionalscore; we then averaged the five dimensional scores to obtain the OCB score.

RESULTS

Discriminant validity

Using LISREL 8 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993), we conducted confirmatory factoranalyses (CFAs) to test the psychometric properties of the criterion, predicting, andmoderating variables. We examined supervisor and employee measures separately. Inanalysing the supervisor ratings of employee OCB, we examined two models. The firstwas a first-order model that examined whether the five dimensions existed; the secondwas a second-order model that examined whether the five dimensions substantiallyloaded to a higher-order, construct level factor. Results showed that the first-order5-factor model fit the data well (c2 = 651.45, d.f. = 242, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.92;TLI = 0.90; IFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.079); the second-order factor, though fitting worsethan the first-order model (c2 = 676.99, d.f. = 247, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90;IFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.080; Dc2 = 25.54, Dd.f. = 5, p < 0.01), still generated acceptablefitness indices (i.e. CFI, TLI, IFI � 0.9 and also RMSEA � 0.08). The results suggestedthat it is reasonable to examine OCB at both dimensional and construct levels. In thepresent study, we examined it at the construct level.

J. Liu et al.880



In analysing the employee measures, we first examined the fitness of the prescribed6-factor model with 35 rating items (three items for PDM, three for self-managing teamclimate, seven for psychological ownership, six for power distance, ten for OBSE, and sixfor affective commitment); we then compared five alternative models against the baseline6-factor model. The five alternative models were specified to individually examine theconstruct distinction between those constructs having conceptual closeness. For instance,we examined the distinction between psychological ownership and affective commitmentby loading all their items into a common latent factor and checked whether this alter-native model provided the same level of fitness as the baseline model. If the alternativemodel fit worse, we would then infer that the combination of two constructs was notpreferred, thus confirming construct distinction.

Table I presents the results of CFAs to the baseline and alternative models. As shown,the baseline 6-factor model fit the data reasonably well (c2 = 993.35, d.f. = 545, p < 0.01;CFI = 0.89; TLI = 0.88; IFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.073). Although the relative fit indicessuch as CFI and TLI were lower than the normally used criterion (i.e. �0.9), given modelcomplexity caused by large numbers of indicators and that the design of those fitnessindices tend to ‘punish’ complex models (MacCallum et al., 1996) by underestimating theindices (Bearden et al., 1982), we concluded that our data provide reasonable support tothe factorial structure of those constructs. Additional examination of alternative modelssuggested that none of them generated satisfactory fit to our data (i.e. CFI, TLI, IFI � 0.9

Table I. Comparison of measurement models

c2 d.f. CFI TLI IFI RMSEA

Null model(all items are independently unrelated)

4326.79** 595 – – – –

Baseline model (6 factors) 993.35** 545 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.073

Alternative model 1 (5 factors)(items of participative decision-making andself-managing climate are merged into one factor)

1126.57** 550 0.85 0.83 0.86 0.083

Alternative model 2 (5 factors)(items of psychological ownership and affectivecommitment are merged into one factor)

1190.56** 550 0.84 0.82 0.85 0.087

Alternative model 3 (5 factors)(items of psychological ownership and OBSE aremerged into one factor)

1297.81** 550 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.095

Alternative model 4 (5 factors)(items of affective commitment and OBSE are mergedinto one factor)

1323.90** 550 0.79 0.76 0.79 0.098

Alternative model 5 (4 factors)(items of psychological ownership, affectivecommitment, and OBSE are merged into one factor)

1568.36** 554 0.75 0.72 0.75 0.105

Notes: OBSE, organization-based self-esteem.** Significant at the 0.01 level.





and also RMSEA � 0.08) (see Table I for details). In addition, comparing the models tothe baseline model, we found the alternative models fit significantly worse. Thus, therewas evidence for the construct distinctiveness of the employee-rated variables.

Common Method and Common Source Issues

The common method (CM) and common source (CV) issues (Podsakoff et al., 2003) maybe a possible threat to the validity of our findings and conclusions. In our study, all of thekey variables were evaluated by the questionnaire and Likert-scale rating methods.Employee OCB was rated by supervisors and the other key variables were rated by thesame source of employees. When we examine OCB as the outcome variable, theseparated sources provide rather robust estimations; however, when we examine OBSEand affective commitment as outcomes, the common method and common source issuesmay pose potential threats to the validity of the results.

We used Harman’s (1960) one-factor method to statistically examine whether therewere strong common method and common source effects among employee ratings.Specifically, principal factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed to determinewhether a single method and source factor explained a majority of variance. More thanone factor with eigenvalues greater than 1 were reported. We found that the first factoraccounts for 22 per cent of the total variance explained. According to Harman’s (1960)suggestion, we argue that the common method and common source variance ofemployee ratings do not appear to be pervasive problems in this study. To furtherexamine the effects of the common factor on our results, we saved the above-identifiedHarman’s factor as a ‘common source’ variable and controlled for it in all analyses ofemployee measures as outcomes.

Hypothesis Testing

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables are reported in Table II.As shown in the table, participative decision-making was positively related to psycho-logical ownership (r = 0.31, p < 0.01). Psychological ownership was also positively relatedto OBSE (r = 0.36, p < 0.01), affective commitment (r = 0.47, p < 0.01), and OCB(r = 0.17, p < 0.01).

We employed HLM to test Hypotheses 1 to 5 that involved cross-level effects. Weanalysed self-managing team climate at the group level (level 2). Participative decision-making, psychological ownership, OBSE, affective commitment, and OCB were analy-sed at the individual level (level 1). Since psychological ownership, OBSE, affectivecommitment, and OCB served as outcome variables in distinct HLM models, we beganour analyses by examining their respective intra-class coefficients (ICCs) in null models.Each null model decomposed the total variation of the outcome variable into the level-1random effect and the level-2 random effect. ICC could represent the percentage oflevel-2 effect in the total variation. A considerate amount of level-2 effect indicates thatthe use of a multi-level analytical approach is acceptable. Results from those null modelsindicated ICC values of 0.24, 0.12, 0.20, and 0.35 for psychological ownership, OBSE,

J. Liu et al.882



affective commitment, and OCB, respectively. According to the criterion (i.e.ICC � 0.059) suggested by Cohen (1988), further HLM analyses were justified.

We followed the procedures suggested by Mathieu and Taylor (2006) to test theproposed cross-level mediating effects. In addition, we performed Sobel’s (1982) test ofindirect effect significance (Mackinnon et al., 2002). We reported the unstandardizedindividual level estimates using beta coefficients and the unstandardized cross-levelestimates using gamma coefficients. We also reported Hofmann’s (1997) pseudo R2 (~R2)coefficients (see Table III for details) to indicate the percentage of the variance explainedby the predicting variables. Specifically, Level 1 ~R2 indicates the individual level effectdetermined, while Level 2 ~R2 indicates the group level effect determined due to theintroduction of predicting variables to the null model. Results of the HLM analyses arepresented in Table III. Results of the Sobel test are presented in Table IV.

As shown in Table III, participative decision-making (PDM) and self-managingteam climate (SMC) were significantly related to psychological ownership (PO)(BetaPDM-PO = 0.22, p < 0.01; GammaSMC-PO = 0.22, p < 0.01), supporting Hypotheses 1and 2. Regarding the effects of psychological ownership on outcomes, we foundthat psychological ownership has significant influence on OBSE (BetaPO-OBSE = 0.21,p < 0.01) and affective commitment (AC) (BetaPO-AC = 0.41, p < 0.01), but not OCB(BetaPO-OCB = 0.04, NS). The results supported Hypotheses 3a and 3b. Hypothesis 3c wasnot supported by our data.

Our Hypotheses 4 and 5 predict that psychological ownership mediates the relation-ships between participative decision-making (self-managing team climate) and the out-comes. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a mediation is supported if fourconditions are met: (1) the predicting variable (PV) (i.e. participative decision-making)significantly relates to the criterion variable (CV) (i.e. OBSE); (2) the PV significantlyrelates to the mediator (Me) (i.e. psychological ownership); (3) the Me significantly relatesto the CV; and (4) when both the PV and the Me are introduced to predict the CV, theMe–CV relationship holds, while the PV–CV relationship disappears (indicating full

Table II. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Company dummy – –2. Participative decision-making 3.56 0.66 -0.013. Self-managing team climatea 3.02 0.47 -0.08 0.28**4. Psychological ownership 3.04 0.57 -0.12* 0.31** 0.19**5. Power distance 2.12 0.58 0.00 -0.12* -0.10 -0.14*6. Organization-based self-esteem 3.26 0.53 -0.27** 0.34** 0.25** 0.36** -0.097. Affective commitment 3.14 0.61 -0.02 0.35** 0.12 0.47** -0.17** 0.44**8. Organizational citizenship

behaviour3.73 0.49 -0.07 -0.01 0.20** 0.17** 0.03 0.09 0.06

Notes: a Self-managing team climate scores were calculated as group-level means, assigned back to individuals.* Significant at the 0.05 level.** Significant at the 0.01 level.





Tab

leII

I.R

esul

tsof

hier

arch

ical

linea

rm

odel

ling

anal

yses

Psy

chol

ogic

alow

ners

hip

Org

aniz

atio

n-ba

sed

self-

este

emA

ffec

tive

com

mitm

ent

Org

aniz

atio

nal

citiz

ensh

ipbe

havi

our

Step

1St

ep1

Step

2St

ep1

Step

2St

ep1

Step

2

Step

1:D

irec

tef

fect

vari

able

sC

ompa

nydu

mm

y-0

.09

(0.0

8)-0

.23*

*(0

.06)

-0.2

2**

(0.0

6)-0

.04

(0.0

8)0.

03(0

.07)

-0.0

4(0

.08)

-0.0

2(0

.08)

Com

mon

sour

ceva

riab

leof

empl

oyee

ratin

gs0.

10**

(0.0

4)0.

08**

(0.0

3)0.

06*

(0.0

3)0.

09*

(0.0

4)0.

07(0

.04)

––

Pow

erdi

stan

ce-0

.11

(0.0

6)-0

.05

(0.0

6)0.

00(0

.06)

-0.1

0(0

.07)

-0.0

3(0

.07)

0.02

(0.0

3)0.

03(0

.03)

Part

icip

ativ

ede

cisi

on-m

akin

g0.

22**

(0.0

6)0.

26**

(0.0

7)0.

19*

(0.0

8)0.

19*

(0.0

8)0.

08(0

.07)

0.01

(0.0

3)0.

01(0

.04)

Self-

man

agin

gte

amcl

imat

e0.

22*

(0.0

9)0.

23**

(0.0

7)0.

16*

(0.0

7)0.

14*

(0.0

7)0.

05(0

.07)

0.20

*(0

.08)

0.19

*(0

.08)

Step

2:M

edia

tin

gva

riab

lePs

ycho

logi

calo

wne

rshi

p0.

21**

(0.0

5)0.

41**

(0.0

8)0.

04(0

.04)

Lev

el1

~R2a

15%

21%

26%

9%25

%1%

1%L

evel

2~R

2a8%

10%

13%

6%10

%7%

7%

Not

es:

Coe

ffici

ents

pare

nthe

ses

are

stan

dard

erro

rsof

the

estim

ates

.a

Var

ianc

eex

plai

ned

incr

ease

com

pare

dto

the

null

mod

el,i

nw

hich

the

outc

ome

vari

able

’sva

riat

ion

was

sim

ply

deco

mpo

sed

into

leve

l1an

dle

vel2

rand

omef

fect

s.*

Sign

ifica

ntat

the

0.05

leve

l.**

Sign

ifica

ntat

the

0.01

leve

l.

J. Liu et al.884



mediation) or diminishes (indicating partial mediation). Conditions 3 and 4 can besimultaneously tested within one set of analysis.

As shown in Table III, in Step 1 of our OBSE analyses, participative decision-making(BetaPDM-OBSE = 0.26, p < 0.01) and self-managing team climate (GammaSMC-OBSE = 0.23,p < 0.01) related to the CV (satisfying condition 1), and the effects decreased in magni-tude when the Me, psychological ownership, was simultaneously entered in Step 2 of theanalysis (BetaPDM-OBSE = 0.19, p < 0.05; GammaSMC-OBSE = 0.16, p < 0.05) (satisfying con-dition 4), while the Me had a significant impact on the CV (BetaPO-OBSE = 0.21, p < 0.01)(satisfying condition 3). A similar pattern of effect changes existed in our analyses ofaffective commitment as the CV (BetaPDM-AC decreased from 0.19 (p < 0.05; Step 1) to0.08 (NS; Step 2); GammaSMC-AC decreased from 0.14 (p < 0.05; Step 1) to 0.05 (NS; Step2)). Furthermore, participative decision-making and self-managing team climate relatedsignificantly to the Me, psychological ownership (satisfying condition 2). Taken together,these results partially supported Hypotheses 4 and 5 when OBSE (Hypotheses 4a and 5a)and affective commitment (Hypotheses 4b and 5b) were the criterion variables.

On the other hand, when OCB served as the CV, only self-managing climate wassignificantly related (GammaSMC-OCB = 0.20, p < 0.05; Step 1) and the effect did notshrink (GammaSMC-OCB = 0.19, p < 0.05; Step 2) when the Me was introduced into theequation. In addition, the Me did not relate to OCB (BetaPO-OCB = 0.04, NS; Step 2).These results, thus, did not support our Hypotheses 4c and 5c. The additional Sobel test(see Table IV for details) of indirect effects suggested the same conclusion: Hypotheses4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b were supported while Hypotheses 4c and 5c were not supported by outdata.

To test Hypothesis 6 on the moderating effects of power distance, we employed theGeneral Path Analytic Framework (GPAF) proposed by Edwards and Lambert (2007).This method combines moderation and mediation and uses bootstrapping techniques todecompose a comprehensive model into specific ‘stage’ effects to clearly demonstratehow mediation is moderated or how moderation is mediated. The moderated first-stageeffect evaluates how the relationship between the PV and the Me varies across levelsof the moderating variable (Mo, i.e. power distance). The moderated second-stageeffect evaluates how the Me–CV relationship varies across levels of the Mo. Both the

Table IV. Results of the Sobel test for indirect effects

Indirect paths Estimate Z

Participative decision-making → psychological ownership → OBSE 0.05** 3.10Participative decision-making → psychological ownership → affective commitment 0.09** 3.49Participative decision-making → psychological ownership → OCB 0.01 0.95Self-managing team climate → psychological ownership → OBSE 0.04* 2.11Self-managing team climate → psychological ownership → affective commitment 0.09* 2.23Self-managing team climate → psychological ownership → OCB 0.01 0.90

Notes: OBSE, organization-based self-esteem; OCB, organizational citizenship behaviour.* Significant at the 0.05 level.** Significant at the 0.01 level.





moderated first-stage and the second-stage effects constitute a moderated indirect effect.Because HLM does not possess the function of bootstrapping, we conducted the analysisin SPSS with the HLM estimates as the starting values (Liao et al., 2010). Table V showsthe path analytic results for all three criterion variables by splitting the data into low- andhigh-power distance employee groups. Results for group distinctions are also given in thetable.

As indicated in Table V, among six possible indirect effects, three varied significantlyacross the low- and high-power distance groups (see ‘group difference’ in the last twocolumns of Table V for details). First, the indirect effect of participative decision-makingon OBSE (via psychological ownership) was distinct (indirect path coefficient differ-ence = -0.03, p < 0.05). If employees with low levels of power distance were allowed toparticipate in the decision-making process, their sense of psychological ownership wouldbe enhanced and, in turn, their OBSE increased (indirect path coefficient = 0.05,p < 0.01). In contrast, for high power distance employees, the mediating role of psycho-logical ownership in the PDM–OBSE relationship was not present (indirect path coef-ficient = 0.02, NS). Similar distinctions existed in the SMC–PO–OBSE indirect linkage(indirect path coefficient difference = -0.04, p < 0.05) and in the SMC–PO–AC linkage(indirect path coefficient difference = -0.06, p < 0.05). These distinctions, supportingHypothesis 5, suggested that the mediating effects of psychological ownership are stron-ger for low- than for high-power distance employees. The other three indirect effects, i.e.

Table V. Comparison of path effects across low- and high-power distance employee groupsa

First stage effect(X,Me)

Second stageeffect (Me,Y)

Indirect effect(X,Me,Y)

PathPDM-PO PathSMC-PO PathPO-Y PathPDM-PO ¥PathPO-Y

PathSMC-PO ¥PathPO-Y

Control–PO–OBSE linkageFor high power distance employees 0.16** 0.04 0.10* 0.02 0.00For low power distance employees 0.20** 0.15** 0.25** 0.05** 0.04*Group difference -0.04 -0.11 -0.15 -0.03* -0.04*

Control–PO–AC linkageFor high power distance employees 0.16** 0.04 0.29** 0.05* 0.01For low power distance employees 0.20** 0.15** 0.46** 0.09** 0.07**Group difference -0.04 -0.11 -0.17 -0.04 -0.06*

Control–PO–OCB linkageFor high power distance employees 0.16** 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.00For low power distance employees 0.20** 0.15** 0.19* 0.04* 0.03*Group difference -0.04 -0.11 -0.10 -0.03 -0.03

Notes: a 1000 bootstrap samples were used to generate estimates; unstandardized path coefficients were reported.PDM, participative decision-making; SMC, self-managing team climate; PO, psychological ownership; Y, organization-based self-esteem (OBSE)/affective commitment (AC)/organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB).* Significant at the 0.05 level.** Significant at the 0.01 level.

J. Liu et al.886



the PDM–PO–AC, PDM–PO–OCB, and SMC–PO–OCB linkages, yielded insignifi-cant group distinctions (path coefficient difference = -0.04/-0.03/-0.03, NS). However,we found that all three indirect effects were positively significant in the ‘low-powerdistance’ group (indirect path coefficient = 0.09/0.04/0.03, p < 0.05), suggesting that, atleast for low power distance employees, psychological ownership mediates the relation-ship between work process control and individual outcomes.

In sum, by comparing the path analysis and regression methods, we obtained ratherconsistent results: (1) participative decision-making and self-managing team climate hadpositive effects on OBSE and affective commitment; (2) those effects were, by and large,mediated by psychological ownership; (3) self-managing team climate had a positiveimpact on OCB and this effect seemed not to be significantly mediated by psychologicalownership; (4) power distance moderated the PDM–PO–OBSE, SMC–PO–OBSE,and SMC–PO–AC indirect effects; and (5) the PDM–PO–AC, PDM–PO–OCB, andSMC–PO–OCB indirect effects were significant for low power distance employees butnot significant for high power distance employees.

DISCUSSION

Our study demonstrates that psychological ownership explains variance in OBSE,affective commitment, and OCB. Overall, our findings in a transitional economy supportVan Dyne and Pierce’s (2004) results, demonstrating the generalizability of their findingthat psychological ownership increases the ability to predict and understand employees’attitudes and behaviours at work. Managers should pay attention to employees’ feelingsof ownership since attitudes such as affective commitment and organization-basedself-esteem, and work efforts such as citizenship behaviours are important to workeffectiveness (Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004).

Based on Pierce et al.’s theory and the work process control perspective, our resultsalso demonstrate that participative decision-making and self-managing team climate areways to help employees develop a sense of psychological ownership of the organization.While perceived work process control promotes the sense of psychological ownership,recently, Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) found that the relationship between per-ceived control and voice (employees’ expression of challenging but constructive work-related opinions, concerns, or ideas) was U-shaped. That is, in their sample, voice washigher with low and high levels of work process control than at intermediate levels ofcontrol. Future studies should examine the extent to which psychological ownershiprelates to voice and under what situations would the relationships between psychologicalownership and work process control or voice take on a U-shape.

Cross-cultural researchers (cf. Adler, 1997; Guillén, 1994) note that the use of partici-pation may be inappropriate in cultures characterized by high power distance as it couldcreate an impression of managerial incompetence. Brockner et al. (2001) suggested thatemployees who are comfortable with high power distance will value control less thanemployees who are comfortable with low power distance and thus their participationfactor is less likely to influence affective commitment. This suggestion is supported by ourresults demonstrating that employees with high levels of power distance are reluctant toexercise control or accept discretionary power in their jobs. Training and revising the





reward system may be necessary to encourage them to participate in decision-makingand to facilitate the positive feelings of psychological ownership. Our study thus extendsthe literature on psychological ownership by considering the moderating role of powerdistance.

Although our study shows that, in a general sense, psychological ownership mediatesthe participation–outcome and self-managing team climate–outcome relationships, itsmediation exists among employees with low levels of power distance (see Table V forthose significant indirect effects). The results suggest that for these employees, ownershipin the organization is an ideal ‘psychological’ channel through which to express theirappreciation for work process control being granted by the employer. Employees withlow levels of power distance may not be willing to commit to and contribute to theorganization if they are not satisfied with personal needs of control and freedom.Additionally, increasing psychological ownership may be necessary to enhance OBSE,employee commitment, and extra role contributions. In contrast, we found that thebridging function of psychological ownership for high power distance employees isrelatively weak. Although perceived control is critical for enhancing psychological own-ership in the organization, power distance serves as a boundary condition that should betaken into consideration. If control is not among the important mechanisms for culti-vating psychological ownership in high power distance cultures, future studies mayexamine how mechanisms such as relationship building in collectivistic cultures mayenhance psychological ownership.

Our study extends the theorization of Pierce et al. (2001, 2003) by considering across-level work process control perspective. Although participative decision-making isimportant to promoting psychological ownership, having a self-managing team climatefurther reinforces the control experience. This is even more relevant when employeeshave a low power distance orientation since these employees seldom relinquish control toauthorities. Future studies may examine the extent to which training high power distanceemployees to exercise work process control would enhance psychological ownership andproduce positive work outcomes, including job performance and other forms of proac-tivity such as voice or taking charge beyond OCB. Additionally, our study only focuseson power distance. Other relevant attributes such as proactive personality, or the ten-dency of an individual to be relatively unconstrained by situational forces in effectingenvironmental change (Parker et al., 2006), may be examined in the context of varioustargets of psychological ownership (such as job ownership).

Future research on psychological ownership would benefit from adopting a cross-levelor multi-level perspective to investigate other types of control experience beyond workprocess control. Our study only examines the work process aspect of team climate. Otheraspects such as perceptions of training or recognition were unexamined. If self-managingteam climate and participation promote psychological ownership through entrustingemployees with the responsibility to act in the best interest of the organization, it is likelythat other aspects of organizational or team climate, including wider decisions aboutemployment, management, and the organization may further explain the psychologicalownership effects.

Given the importance of self-managing team climate found here, we concurwith Pierce et al. (2009) that it is necessary to consider ownership as a group-level

J. Liu et al.888



phenomenon. Collective psychological ownership should be explored in future psycho-logical ownership studies along with other ownership targets. For example, wouldcontrol over the work process make a stronger contribution to psychological ownershipof the job over the organization or the collective? What are positive or negative effectswhen the control process matches the ownership targets? The broader research questionresulting from matching management-related, job-related, and team-related control andthe target of ownership may enrich our understanding of psychological ownership.

Like all research, this study has several limitations. First, both of our sampled orga-nizations were in the same business sector, telecommunications. In addition, our studywas conducted in the Chinese context and thus the results do not address the issue of howperceived control and psychological ownership function in a Chinese society relative toother societies. Future studies should be conducted in other industries and culturalcontexts to examine the generalizability of our findings. Despite the difference in culturalcontext from that in Van Dyne and Pierce’s (2004) study, the results regardingthe relationship between psychological ownership and outcomes were replicated. It islikely that differences in legal and social contexts do not influence the employees’conceptualization of psychological ownership.

In elaborating on the psychological ownership construct, Pierce et al. (2003) suggestthat there are a large number of targets to which the feeling of ownership can develop.The feeling of what is ‘mine’ can be the ‘job’, ‘ideas’, or ‘workspace.’ In our study and theoriginal conceptualization of the psychological ownership construct, the target is theorganization. Our study suggests that providing employees with control over the workprocess offers experiences that give rise to feelings of organizational ownership. What isnot clear is whether the same control over the work process experience can give rise toother targets of ownership. Additionally, our study only examines control over workprocesses but it did not examine control for decisions about employment, manage-ment, and the organization. Future studies should identify and examine other targets ofownership and examine the control experiences beyond work processes.

Results of the present study suggest some optimism in theorizing psychological own-ership in terms of control. In the present study, we employed control as an underlyingtheoretical mechanism that allowed us to integrate the different variables into a morecoherent conceptual framework. We treated control as the latent construct that explainswhy PDM and self-managing team climate may relate to psychological ownership. Theexplanatory power of PDM and self-managing team climate offers suggestive evidencethat work activities that give employees control may enhance psychological owner-ship. Though suggestive, the present study did not examine directly the effects ofcontrol. Future studies may examine directly how control relates to work activities andpsychological ownership.

Our results have important implications for the more general issue of employeepositivity. As discussed above, Avey et al. (2009) suggested that psychological ownershipis consistent with the area of literature on positive organizational behaviour and can bea positive psychological resource. Results of the present study are consistent with thegeneral conclusions on the importance of positivity to management effectiveness. Basedon Higgins’ (1997, 1998) regulatory focus theory, Avey et al. (2009) extended the theo-rizing of PO to represent preventive (territoriality) and promotion (accountability,





belonging, self-efficacy, and self-identity) focus. Where those with a preventive focus aremore concerned with duties and obligations, those with a promotion focus are moreconcerned with accomplishments and aspirations. In this study, we focus on the uni-dimensionality of psychological ownership as proposed by Pierce et al. (2001). This isbecause we are interested in exploring how the manifestations of the underlying con-struct of control relate to psychological ownership. As suggested by Law et al. (1998),hypotheses at the construct level should be tested at the construct level. While treatingpsychological ownership as a uni-dimensional construct affords greater parsimony inearlier stages of theoretical development, as research on this topic gains sophisticationand richness, future research may adopt the multi-dimensional view suggested andoperationalized by Avey et al. (2009). Drawing on Higgins’ (1997, 1998) regulatoryfocus theory of motivation, they proposed and developed a measure of positively-oriented ‘promotion-focused’ aspect and a more defensive ‘prevention-focused’ aspect ofpsychological ownership that can be used to enrich our understanding of psychologicalownership.

Our sample comes from a subsidiary of a foreign-affiliated company and a jointventure organization. Despite the differences in ownership of these two firms and also inthe backgrounds of their employees, our sample does not differ significantly in partici-patory decision-making (t = 0.05, NS), self-managing team climate (t = 1.07, NS), orpower distance (t = 0.05, NS). It is possible that the economic reforms in China haveresulted in decentralizing managerial power and sharing of information with employees(Wang, 1994). Besides, because we tested for correlations and most of the variables fromthe same method and source as well (with the exception of organizational citizenshipbehaviour rated by supervisors collected four weeks later), part of our model is suscep-tible to the common method and common source threats. Although results of Harman’s(1960) one-factor test suggested the issues are not pervasive, in the current study, weperformed a more stringent, though still conservative, analysis by controlling the CSfactor in our model testing. Thus, we do not believe our results were threatened by CMand CS issues. In addition, we found moderating effects. CM and CS issues do not posethreats to non-linear effects such as moderation (Homburg et al., 2011). Moderatingeffects are, theoretically, incompatible with common method variance. CM and CSissues pose threats to linear effects because, as a function of the common method orsource, participants would report similarly to different items and, hence, inflate thecorrelation between the items. Moderating effects, however, are predicated on themoderator’s ability to yield differential patterns of results across the different levels ofthe moderator. If CM and CS issues influence moderating effects, it means that partici-pants would have to respond differently to the same sets of items as a function of themoderator. This is in direct contradiction of the effects of common methods and sources.Thus, our findings regarding moderating effects provide a safeguard against commonmethod and source threats.

Finally, as with all studies with cross-sectional designs, causality cannot be inferredand reverse and/or reciprocal causality is likely. It is plausible that our findings arevalid, however. First, our theorizing is based on Pierce et al.’s (2001, 2003) work thatcontrol experiences promote psychological ownership. Further, the results based onpsychological ownership and OBSE replicate the results of Van Dyne and Pierce (2004).

J. Liu et al.890



Nevertheless, in the future, longitudinal studies should be conducted to offer additionalevidence for causality.

CONCLUSION

The results from our study are consistent with the work of Pierce and colleagues,demonstrating the utility of the psychological ownership construct. Psychological own-ership in the organization predicts work attitudes and behaviours in a number ofcontexts, such as New Zealand (O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2004) and theUnited States (Vandewalle et al., 1995; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004). Our study, con-ducted in China, adds to the generalizability of the limited research on psychologicalownership. Providing a sense of ownership may be important for individual contribu-tions. Managers should also design work assignments that foster a climate of control tofacilitate positive feelings of possession. Following Pierce et al.’s (2001, 2003) theory, wefound that controlling the target via participative decision-making and supporting thecontrol with a self-managing team climate are two ways to facilitate the development ofpsychological ownership. Lastly, we extended Pierce’s et al.’s theory by examining indi-vidual differences in the power distance orientation as a critical moderator. Futureresearch should examine other individual differences and other boundary conditions thatmay moderate the mediating role of psychological ownership.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described in this paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the HongKong Special Administrative Region, China (HKU4647/06H) awarded to Chun Hui, and a grant from theNatural Science Foundation of China (71032001) awarded to Hui Wang. The work was also supported bythe Walsh Professorship awarded to Cynthia Lee by the College of Business Administration, NortheasternUniversity. We are grateful to Andrew Corbett and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedbackand suggestions.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (1997). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd edition. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Asatryan, V. S. and Oh, H. (2008). ‘Psychological ownership theory: an exploratory application in therestaurant industry’. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 32, 363–86.

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. R. and Luthans, F. (2009). ‘Psychological ownership: theoreticalextensions, measurement, and relation to work outcomes’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 173–91.

Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,1173–82.

Bearden, W. O., Sharma, S. and Teel, J. E. (1982). ‘Sample size effects on chi-square and other statistics usedin evaluating causal models’. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 425–30.

Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y. and Li, J. (2002). ‘Power distance as a moderator of the relationship betweenjustice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees’. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17,692–711.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). ‘Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for dataaggregation and analyses’. In Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research andMethods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 349–81.





Bochner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994). ‘Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes ina culturally diverse work group’. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 233–57.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). ‘Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials’. In Triandis, H. C. andBerry, J. W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 389–444.

Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K.,Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L. and Shapiro, D. L. (2001). ‘Culture and procedural justice:the influence of power distance on reactions to voice’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300–15.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. and Higgs, A. G. (1993). ‘Relations between work group characteristics andeffectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups’. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–45.

Chen, Z. X. and Aryee, S. (2007). ‘Delegation and employee work outcomes: an examination of the culturalcontext of mediating processes in China’. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 226–38.

Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S. and Lee, C. (2005). ‘Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support’.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 457–70.

Chiu, W. C. K., Hui, C. H. and Lai, G. W. F. (2007). ‘Psychological ownership and organizational optimismamid China’s corporate transformation: effects of an employee ownership scheme and a management-dominated board’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 303–20.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cohen, S. G. and Ledford, G. E., Jr (1994). ‘The effectiveness of self-managing teams: a quasi-experiment’.

Human Relations, 47, 13–43.Dorfman, P. W. and Howell, J. P. (1988). ‘Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership in

patterns: Hofstede revisited’. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127–50.Earley, P. C. (1993). ‘East meets West meets Mideast: further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic

work groups’. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319–48.Edwards, J. R. and Lambert, L. S. (2007). ‘Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general

analytical framework using moderated path analysis’. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.Eylon, D. and Au, K. Y. (1999). ‘Exploring empowerment cross-cultural differences along the power

distance dimension’. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 373–85.Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D. and Liang, J. (2007). ‘Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived

organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the effects of powerdistance and traditionality’. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715–29.

Furby, L. (1978). ‘Possession in humans: an exploratory study of its meaning and motivation’. Social Behaviorand Personality, 6, 49–65.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M. and Aycan, Z. (2007). ‘Cross-cultural organizational behavior’. In Posner, M. I. andRothbart, M. K. (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 58. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 479–514.

George, J. M. and Bettenhausen, K. (1990). ‘Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, andturnover: a group-level analysis in a service context’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698–709.

Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S. and Lee, S. (1988). ‘Personal control as a mediator between perceptions ofsupervisory behaviors and employee reactions’. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 405–17.

Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L. and Dunham, R. B. (1989). ‘The impact of personalcontrol on performance and satisfaction’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 29–51.

Guillén, M. (1994). Models of Management: Work, Authority, and Organization in a Comparative Perspective. Chicago,IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). ‘The design of work teams’. In Lorsch, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 315–42.

Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Hausknecht, J. P., Hiller, N. J. and Vance, R. J. (2008). ‘Work-unit absenteeism: effects of satisfaction,

commitment, labor market conditions, and time’. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1223–45.Higgins, E. T. (1997). ‘Beyond pleasure and pain’. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–300.Higgins, E. T. (1998). ‘Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle’. In Zanna,

M. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 30. New York: Academic Press, 1–46.Hirst, G., Budhwar, P. S., Cooper, B. K., West, M. A., Chen, L., Xu, C. and Shipton, H. J. (2008).

‘Cross-cultural variations in climate for autonomy, stress and organizational productivity relationships:a comparison of Chinese and UK manufacturing organizations’. Journal of International Business Studies,39, 1134–58.

Hofmann, D. A. (1997). ‘An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models’. Journal ofManagement, 23, 723–44.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hill, CA: SagePublications.

J. Liu et al.892



Homburg, Ch., Müller, M. and Klarmann, M. (2011). ‘When should the customer really be king? On theoptimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters’. Journal of Marketing, 75, 55–74.

Hui, C., Lee, C. and Rousseau, D. M. (2004). ‘Employment relationships in China: do workers relate to theorganization or the people?’. Organization Science, 15, 232–40.

James, L. R. (1982). ‘Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,219–29.

James, L. R., Joyce, W. F. and Slocum, J. W. (1988). ‘Comment: organizations do not cognize’. Academy ofManagement Review, 13, 129–32.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G. and Wolf, G. (1993). ‘Rwg: an assessment of within-group interrateragreement’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–9.

Jöreskog, K. G. and Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific SoftwareInternational.

Kirkman, B. L. and Shapiro, D. L. (1997). ‘The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams:toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness’. Academy of Management Review, 22,730–57.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B. and Gibson, C. B. (2006). ‘A quarter century of culture’s consequences: areview of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework’. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 37, 285–320.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X. and Lowe, K. B. (2009). ‘Individual power distanceorientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-cultural examina-tion’. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–64.

Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C. and Law, K. S. (1999). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: comparing perspectivesof supervisors and subordinates across four international samples’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,594–601.

Lam, S. S. K., Chen, X. P. and Schaubroeck, J. S. (2002). ‘Participative decision making and employeeperformance in different cultures: the moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy’.Academy of Management Journal, 45, 905–14.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S. and Mobley, W. (1998). ‘Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs’.Academy of Management Review, 23, 741–55.

Lee, C., Ashford, S. J. and Bobko, P. (1990). ‘The interactive effects of type A personality and perceivedpower on worker performance, job satisfaction, and somatic complaints’. Academy of Management Journal,33, 870–81.

Lee, C., Pillutla, M. M. and Law, K. S. (2000). ‘Power distance, gender, and organizational justice’. Journalof Management, 26, 685–704.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D. E. (2002). ‘The nature and dimensionality of organizationalcitizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65.

Liao, H., Liu, D. and Loi, R. (2010). ‘Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: a social cognitiveperspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity’. Academy ofManagement Journal, 53, 1090–109.

Locke, J. (1690). Two Treatises of Government. London: Awnsham Churchill.Locke, E. A. and Schweiger, D. M. (1979). ‘Participation in decision-making: one more look’. In Staw, B. M.

(Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 265–339.MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. and Sugawara, H. M. (1996). ‘Power analysis and determination of

sample size for covariance structure modeling’. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–49.MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G. and Sheets, V. (2002). ‘A comparison of

methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects’. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.Mathieu, J. E. and Taylor, S. R. (2006). ‘Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type

inferences in organizational behavior’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–56.Miller, K. I. and Monge, P. R. (1986). ‘Participation, satisfaction and productivity: a meta-analytic review’.

Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727–53.Mischel, W. (1973). ‘Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality’. Psychological

Review, 80, 252–83.Moorman, R. H. (1993). ‘The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on

the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior’. Human Relations, 46,759–76.

Newman, K. L. and Nollen, S. D. (1996). ‘Culture and congruence: the fit between management practicesand national culture’. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 753–79.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.





O’Driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L. and Coghlan, A. M. (2006). ‘The psychology of ownership: work environmentstructure, organizational commitment and citizenship behaviors’. Group and Organization Management, 31,388–416.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Paré, G., Sicotte, C. and Jacques, H. (2006). ‘The effects of creating psychological ownership on physicians’acceptance of clinical information systems’. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13,197–205.

Parker, C. P., Wall, T. D. and Jackson, P. R. (1997). ‘ “That’s not my job”: developing flexible employeework orientations’. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899–929.

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M. and Turner, N. (2006). ‘Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior atwork’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–52.

Pendleton, A., Wilson, N. and Wright, M. (1998). ‘The perception and effects of share ownership: empiricalevidence from employee buy-outs’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36, 99–123.

Pierce, J. L. and Rodgers, L. (2004). ‘The psychology of ownership and worker-owner productivity’. Groupand Organization Management, 29, 588–613.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L. and Dunham, R. B. (1989). ‘Organization-based self-esteem:construct definition, measurement, and validation’. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622–48.

Pierce, J. L., Van Dyne, L. and Cummings, L. L. (1992). Psychological Ownership: A Conceptual and OperationalExamination. Paper presented and published in the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the SouthernManagement Association, November 1992, New Orleans.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B. and Cummings, L. L. (1993). ‘Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition-employee response relationships’. Academy of Management Journal, 36,271–88.

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K. T. (2001). ‘Toward a theory of psychological ownership inorganizations’. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298–310.

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K. T. (2003). ‘The state of psychological ownership: integrating andextending a century of research’. Journal of General Psychology, 7, 84–107.

Pierce, J. L., O’Driscoll, M. P. and Coghlan, A. M. (2004). ‘Work environment structure and psychologicalownership: the mediating effects of control’. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 507–34.

Pierce, J. L., Jussila, I. and Cummings, A. (2009). ‘Psychological ownership within the job design context:revision of the job characteristics model’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 477–96.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). ‘Transformational leaderbehaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenshipbehaviors’. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–42.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). ‘Common method bias inbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 879–903.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Boulian, R. V. (1974). ‘Organizational commitment,job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–9.

Prelinger, E. (1959). ‘Extension and structure of the self ’. Journal of Psychology, 47, 13–23.Raudenbush, S. W. and Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd

edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Redman, T. and Snape, E. (2005). ‘Unpacking commitment: multiple loyalties and employee behaviour’.

Journal of Management Studies, 42, 301–28.Rentsch, J. R. and Steel, R. P. (2003). ‘What does unit-level absence mean? Issues for future unit-level

absence research’. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 185–202.Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J. J. (2000). ‘Empowerment and

continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on the basis ofthe dimensions of power distance and individualism’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 643–58.

Rosenthal, P. (2004). ‘Management control as an employee resource: the case of front-line service workers’.Journal of Management Studies, 41, 601–22.

Rousseau, D. M. and House, R. J. (1994). ‘Meso organizational behavior: avoiding three fundamentalbiases’. In Cooper, C. L. and Rousseau, D. M. (Eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 13–32.

Shepherd, D. A. and Cardon, M. S. (2009). ‘Negative emotional reactions to project failure and theself-compassion to learn from the experience’. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 923–49.

J. Liu et al.894



Sobel, M. E. (1982). ‘Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models’. In Leinhart, S.(Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 290–312.

Spector, P. E. (1986). ‘Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy andparticipation at work’. Human Relations, 39, 1005–16.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). ‘Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment’. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39, 483–504.

Susman, G. I. (1976). Autonomy at Work: A Sociotechnical Analysis of Participative Management. New York: Praeger.Taguiri, R. and Litwin, G. H. (1968). Organizational Climate. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Tangirala, S. and Ramanujam, R. (2008). ‘Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: the effects of personal

control and organizational identification’. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1189–203.Terry, D. J. and Jimmieson, N. L. (1999). ‘Work control and employee well-being: a decade review’.

In Cooper, C. L. and Robertson, I. T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Vol. 14. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 95–148.

Thompson, S. C. (1981). ‘A complex answer to a simple question: will it hurt less if I can control it?’.Psychological Bulletin, 90, 89–101.

Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S. and Ou, A. Y. (2007). ‘Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behaviorresearch: advances, gaps, and recommendations’. Journal of Management, 33, 426–78.

Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L. and Kostova, T. (1995). ‘Psychological ownership: an empirical examinationof its consequences’. Group and Organization Management, 20, 210–26.

Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J. L. (2004). ‘Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studiespredicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior’. Journal of Organizational Behavior,25, 439–59.

Wagner, J. A. (1994). ‘Participation’s effects on performance and satisfaction: a reconsideration of researchevidence’. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312–30.

Wagner, J. A. and Gooding, R. Z. (1987). ‘Shared influence and organizational behavior: a meta-analysis ofsituational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships’. Academy of ManagementJournal, 30, 524–41.

Wagner, S. H., Parker, C. P. and Christiansen, N. D. (2003). ‘Employees that think and act like owners:effects of ownership beliefs and behaviors on organizational effectiveness’. Personnel Psychology, 56,847–71.

Wang, Z. M. (1994). ‘Organizational decision making and competence utilization among Chinese manag-ers’. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9, 17–24.

Wellins, R. S., Wilson, R., Katz, A. J., Laughlin, P., Day, C. R. Jr and Price, D. (1990). Self-Directed Teams:A Study of Current Practice. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.

Zanoni, P. and Janssens, M. (2007). ‘Minority employees engaging with (diversity) management: an analysisof control, agency, and micro-emancipation’. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1371–97.





Psychological Ownership: How Having Control...

Documents

Transcript of Psychological Ownership: How Having Control...