Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-br6xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-11T17:40:53.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An empirical examination of the emergence of collective psychological ownership in work team contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2019

Jon L. Pierce Open the ORCID record for Jon L. Pierce [Opens in a new window] ,
Dahui Li ,
Iiro Jussila  and
Jianyou Wang
Jon L. Pierce*
Affiliation:
Department of Management Studies, Labovitz School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 10 University Drive, Duluth, MN, USA
Dahui Li
Affiliation:
Department of Management Studies, Labovitz School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 10 University Drive, Duluth, MN, USA
Iiro Jussila
Affiliation:
Department of Management and International Business, School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
Jianyou Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Human Resource Management, Business School, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
*
*Corresponding author. Email: jpierce@d.umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As work teams have increasingly become the cornerstone of the post bureaucratic organization, there have been calls for a greater understanding of collective thought and action. Such understanding is deemed important for the design and management of teamwork. Theory suggests that feelings of ownership manifest themselves at the collective level, and positively affect team performance effectiveness. This study illuminates the role played by teamwork complexity and team self-management in the emergence of the psychological processes that are associated with the manifestation of job-focused collective psychological ownership (CPO). In addition, employment of serial mediation suggests that both teamwork dimensions put employees on two routes (intimate knowing of and the collective investment of the team members' selves into the job) that lead to the emergence of a collective sense of ownership, and together these two route variables and CPO sequentially mediated a positive relationship between teamwork design and team performance effectiveness.

Keywords

collective psychological ownershipcollective cognitioncollective intimate knowingcollective investment of team members' selvesteamwork performance effectiveness

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , September 2020 , pp. 657 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2019

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 159–216.Google Scholar
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & Crossley, C. (2008). What about psychological ownership and territoriality? Questions we are starting to ask. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Pierce, J. L., & Crossley, C. (2014). Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal Organizational Behavior, 35, 318–338. doi: 10.1002/job.1869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In Castellan, N. J. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–245). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1995). The group-size cohesion relationship in minimal groups. Small Group Research, 26, 86–105. doi: 10.1177/104649649561005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of comparison models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, N. J. (2015). Team cognition as interaction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 415–419. doi: 10.1177/0963721415602474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooney, R. (2004). Empowered self-management and the design of work teams. Personnel Review, 33, 677–692. doi: 10/1108/00483480410561556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cram, F., & Paton, H. (1993). Personal possessions and self-identity: The experiences of elderly women in three residential settings. Australian Journal of Aging, 12, 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Mehner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dipboye, R. L. (1977). A critical review of Korman's self-consistency theory of work motivation and occupational choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 108–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Dunham, R. B. (1976). The measurement and dimensionality of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Components of cohesion. In Group dynamics (5th ed., pp. 118–122). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Gibson, B. G. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, B. G., & Earley, C. P. (2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination, and recommendation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32, 438–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, J., Jasper, J. M., & Poletta, F. (2000). The return of the repressed: The fall and rise of emotions in social movement theory. Mobilization, 5, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., Kuljamin, G., Koslowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2016). The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1353–1386. doi: org/10.1037/ap1000136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2011). Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 417–453). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch, J. W. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Gilford Press.Google Scholar
Heino, N., Tuominen, P., Tuominen, T., & Jussila, I. (2018). The socio-psychological challenges of succession in family firms: The implications of collective psychological ownership. In E. Menili & C. Dibrell (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of heterogeneity among family firms (pp. 715–746). Palgrave.Google Scholar
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 306–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Ji, L.-J., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 943–955. doi: 10.11037/0022-3514.78-5943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management, antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 1998–2000. doi: 10.1177/0021886313479998.Google Scholar
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor. Journal of Management, 20, 403–437. doi: org/10.1016/0149-2063(94)90021-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korman, A. H. (1971). Organizational achievement, aggression and creativity: Some suggestions toward an integrated theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korman, A. H. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Management Review, 1, 50–63. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1976.4408762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korman, A. H. (2001). Self-enhancement and self-protection: Toward a theory of work motivation. In Erez, M., Kleinbeck, U., & Thierry, H. (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy (pp. 121–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Inc.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33, 335–354. doi: 10.1002/mde.2552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban graffiti as territorial markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64, 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, B., & Klein, K. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 403. doi: /10.1002/job.387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610–621. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team processes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experiences and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group & Organization Management, 40, 6–34. doi: 10.1177/105960114562000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, H., & Pierce, J. L. (2015). Job- and organization-based psychological ownership: Relationship and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 151–168. doi: 10.1108j.p07-2012-0201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 810–834. doi: 10.1002/job.628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Jussila, I., & Li, D. (2018). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings. Journal of Management & Organization, 24, 776–792. doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84–107. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680-7.1.84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinteiro, P. M., Passos, A., & Curral, L. (2016). Though self-leadership and effectiveness in self-management teams. Leadership, 12(1), 110–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rantanen, N., & Jussila, I. (2011). F-CPO: A collective psychological ownership approach to capturing realized family influence on business. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2011.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, V., & Aube, C. (2010). Team self-management behaviors and team effectiveness: The moderating effect of task routineness. Group & Organization Management, 35, 751–781. doi: 10.1177/105960110390835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helpleness. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. F., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swann, W. B., Johnson, R. E., & Bosson, J. L. (2009). Identity negotiation at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Management Issues, XVI(2), 248–265.Google Scholar
Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. (1987). Understanding, prediction, and control as moderators of the relationship between perceived stress, satisfaction and psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 538–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The gang. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 1–25. doi: 10.1077/002186305281984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yablonsky, L. (1962). The violent gang. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 97–206. doi: 10.1086/651257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar