The Causes and Consquences of Psychological Ownership in Company X
- Pages: 24
- Word count: 5790
- Category: Psychology
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
The Problem and Review of Related Literature
Management practitioners and consultants have recently focused their attention on ownership as a psychological phenomenon (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001). The concept of ownership as an important work-related attitude is on the rise. T.L. Brown stated that “the key to effectively managing in the 90’s and the 21st century is to know how to instill psychological ownership, that which makes the competitive difference and this will be the key to effective management in highly uncertain and turbulent environment” (p. 203, Pierce & Gardner, 2004).
Pierce and Gardner (2004) predicted that psychological ownership will be even more important in the 21st century as organizations continue to confront environmental turbulence, uncertainty, intense competition, and the need for change, continuous improvement and innovation.
This research proposes a nomological model of psychological ownership. The reason of having two models in this research is to determine the causes and consequences of psychological ownership. This study proposes core job characteristics as causes, while employee attitudes (i.e., organizational commitment and job satisfaction) as consequences. This study also intends to initially test the applicability of the concept of psychological ownership in Cyprus.The current research aims to investigate the causes and consequences of psychological ownership in Company X.
Review Related Literature
This section presents the study variables. These variables are job design dimensions, psychological ownership towards the organization, affective organization commitment and job satisfaction.
Job design refers to any set of activities that involve the alteration of specific jobs or independent systems of the jobs with the intent of improving the quality of employee’s job experience and their on-the-job performance (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1998). It is concerned with job characteristics, duties, and purposes. The results of the job design may have positive influences when it results to desirable behavior which leads to a feeling of greater responsibility, challenge and meaningfulness. Job design affects how much authority and decision-making an employee has over his work (Miner, 1985).
According to Evans (1984), the major elements of a job design can be classified into three categories: physical consideration, social or psychological considerations, and work methods. Physical considerations include the workplace and environment (Evans, 1984). The workplace should be designed in such a way that it assists and not hinder the worker (Evans, 1984).
For instance, the angle and height of a secretary’s chair can have a profound effect on back fatigue and job performance. The distance a worker must reach for an object or the size of a visual gauge is additional examples of physiological factors that would be considered. Machine, pieces of equipment, and tools should be in good condition, and the worker should have the necessary inputs of materials and information to accomplish his or her tasks.
Job Characteristic Theory
According to Kiggundu (1981), there are many theories of job design in the management literature, all developed to explain the relationships between affective and behavioral responses of an employee. The most popular approach to job design emanates from Hackman and Oldham’s core job characteristics.
They have developed a job design theory with five core characteristics: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback (Robbins, 2001). These job characteristics give rise to corresponding critical psychological states experienced by the employee. Skills variety, task identity, and task significance together lead to feelings of meaningfulness; autonomy leads to experienced responsibility; and job feedback leads to knowledge and results (Friday, 2003). The elements of the job characteristics model are defined below.
Skill variety is the extent to which a job requires a number of different activities using the employee’s skills and talents (Friday, 2003).
Autonomy is defined by Hackman and Oldham (as cited by Friday, 2003) as the degree to which a job provides freedom, independence and discretion.
Feedback is the extent to which the job allows people to have information about the effectiveness of their performance (Greenberg & Baron, 1997).
Task identity is the degree to which the job requires completion of a whole and identifiable process of work (Friday, 2003).
Task significance is the degree of impact the job is believed to have on others (Greenberg & Baron, 1997).
In addition, the model proposes that when an individual learns that he/she has performed well on a task that she/he cares about, the individual feels intrinsically rewarded (Hackman, as cited in Friday, 2003).
Psychological Ownership in Organizations
Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) defined psychological ownership as the psychologically experienced phenomenon in which an employee develops feelings for the target. Moreover, Furby and Dittmar, and Pierce and his colleagues (as cited in Pierce, et al., 2001) linked feelings of possession with feelings of ownership and defined psychological ownership as the state in which an individual feels that an object (i.e., material or immaterial) is experienced possessively (i.e., it’s “MINE”).
Three Motives of Psychological Ownership
Pierce et al (2001) proposed a framework for understanding psychological ownership. Three motives underlie the concept of psychological ownership. These are efficacy and effectance, self-identity, and having a place.
Efficacy and Effectance. Efficacy is concerned with people’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their own functioning and over events that affect their lives, while effectance motive is the individual’s desire to interact with his/her environment (White, as cited in Pierce et al., 2001). Furthermore, the sense of being in control and gaining desirable outcomes of controlled actions are important factors in creating psychological ownership. The desire to experience it leads to attempts to take possession and to the emergence of ownership feelings (Pierce et al., 2001).
Self-Identity. A possession serves as a symbolic expression of the self. There is a close connection among possessions, self-identity, and individuals. McCracken and Mead (as cited in Pierce et al., 2001) stated that possessions play an important role in the process of self-understanding and self-identity because of the meaning and importance ascribed to them by society (Pierce et al., 2001). Thus, people use ownership for the purpose of defining themselves, expressing their self-identity to others, and ensuring their continuity of the self across time.
Having a Place. According to Darling (as cited in Pierce et al., 2001), territory is an essence of psychological expression. For example, people devote significant amount of time, energy, and resources to acquire, protect, decorate, and display their homes. This motive arises from the need to have a certain own area (Pierce et al., 2001). This includes both actual places and objects. This familiar “area “of known targets becomes a part of the objects identity.
Effects of Psychological Ownership
This section presents the effects of psychological ownership. These effects are citizenship, personal sacrifices and the assumption of risk, Experience of responsibility and stewardship (Pierce et al., 2001).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Pierce, et al. (2001) describes citizenship as the behavior that contributes to the community’s well-being. Moreover, it is voluntary and it is intended to be positive in nature (Organ, as cited in Pierce et al., 2001). Pierce et al. (2001) stated that behavior is, in part, a function of one’s self-identity, as the individual opens to and maintains his sense of self by initiating stable patterns of behavior that infuse roles with personal meaning. Therefore, when individuals feel ownership for a social entity, they are likely to exhibit citizenship behavior towards the entity.
Personal Sacrifices and the Assumption of Risk. The willingness to assume personal risk or make personal sacrifices on behalf as a social entity is another important outcome of psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). Pierce et al. (2001) further stated that these behaviors will be prompted by feelings of ownership for the target and that target has been brought into the citadel of the self, and thus represents important results for the self.
Experience of Responsibility and Stewardship. Pierce et al. (2001) stated that psychological ownership for the target may also promote feelings of ownership because when individuals’ sense of self is closely linked to the target, a desire to maintain, protect, and enhance that the identity will result in enhanced responsibility (Dipboyle, as cited in Pierce et al., 2001).
Organizational commitment as described by Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (as cited in Morgan, 1994) pertain to the phenomenon where individuals have a strong identification of the goals and values of the organization in which they are involved in. Most definitions define organizational commitment as the link to or connection with the organization. These attachments may be considered as an emotional response, particularly when employees believe strongly in the organization’s goals and values, as demonstrated when they show their desire to remain in the organization (Testa, 2001). Organizational commitment is also seen as an emotional response to a positive assessment of the work environment (Greenberg & Baron, 1997).
Types of Organizational Commitment
As researcher began to study organizational commitment from these two perspectives, it was clear that both approaches were essential to understand organizational commitment (Greenberg, 1995). Below are the types of organizational commitment. These are continuance, normative, and calculative.
Continuance Commitment. This is related with the side bets approach. It refers to the strength of the employee’s need to continue work for the organization because they cannot afford to lose the job (Greenberg, 1995).
Affective Commitment. This refers to the strength of an employee’s desire to maintain working in the organization because he/she agrees with the organization and wants maintain a working relationship with it (Greenberg, 1995; Zangaro, 2001, 2000). According to Meyer (as cited in Hunt & Morgan, 1994), affective commitment is seen in terms of an emotional orientation to the organization.
Normative Commitment. It is the employee’s feelings or emotions with regard to their obligation to stay with the organization because of the pressures from others (Greenberg, 1995; Zangaro, 2001). The effects of organizational commitment include retention, attendance and job productivity. Conversely, lack of such commitment will result in a decrease in retention, an increase in absenteeism, and decrease in productivity (Zangaro, 2001).
Job satisfaction is referred to as the extent to which work and the work environment influence the attitude of employees (Hunt, Osborn, & Schermerhon, as cited in Testa, 2001). Similarly, George and Jones (1999) defined job satisfaction as the extent to which people feel about the various aspects of their jobs such as the kind of work they do, their co-workers, their supervisors or subordinates, their pay, and their feelings about their job itself.
Furthermore, Greenberg and Baron (1997) defined job satisfaction as a positive and fulfilling assessment of one’s job or job experience. It is an individual’s cognitive, affective and evaluative reactions to their job itself. Likewise, Cranny, Smith, and Stone (as cited in Castillo & Cano, 2004) holds that job satisfaction is a product of an individual comparison of actual results with those expected and desired outcomes emanating from the affective component of one’s being.
Job satisfaction affects the quality of relations between employee and their tasks. Therefore, the following theories of job satisfaction have very important implications for managing organizations.
Discrepancy model of Job Satisfaction. According to Greenberg and Baron (1997), the key of satisfaction is the discrepancy. Those aspects of the job one has and those one wants. The greater the discrepancy the less are people satisfied.
Locke’s value theory. According to Greenberg and Baron (1997), Locke states that job satisfaction exists within the context of job outcomes that an individual perceives to receive. The key to satisfaction is that employees should receive positive outcomes, which are of outmost value to them. The lesser the obstacles between the actual outcomes and those which are preferred, the higher is their job satisfaction level (Greenberg & Baron, 1997).
Determinants of Job Satisfaction
According to Robbins (2001), there are several work-related factors that determine job satisfaction. These are mentally challenging work, equitable rewards, supportive working conditions, and supportive colleagues.
Mentally challenging work. Most employees prefer challenging work where they can use their skills and abilities that provide for multi-tasking, freedom to do the work, and the performance appraisal regarding how well they are performing. Employees find jobs that are too light or have no challenge at all to be boring, while too much challenge can create frustration and failure on the part of the employees. However, jobs that offer moderate challenge will make employees experience pleasure as well as job satisfaction (Robbins, 2001).
Equitable rewards. Employees want their compensation system and promotion policies to be fair, just and according to their expectations. Based on job demands, when compensation is seen as fair, job satisfaction is likely result. But not every employee is after the pay. The basis in linking compensation to job satisfaction is the perception of fairness. Employees however also seek promotion policies that are fair. Promotion provides opportunities of career development, responsibility and higher social status (Robbins, 2001).
Supportive colleagues. Most employees need social interaction. Therefore, supportive and friendly co-workers can increase job satisfaction. It also shows that the behavior of one’s supervisor or superior is a determinant of job satisfaction. If the supervisor is understanding, friendly, open to opinions and criticisms, and shows interest in them, these can increase job satisfaction among employees (Robbins, 2001).
The effects of job satisfaction include satisfaction and performance. On the other hand, the lack of satisfaction may result in poor performance of employees (Luthans, 2002). If the employee take for granted that a positive relationship between satisfaction and performance. The research to indicate that there is a positive linkage between the two variables (Gibson et al., 2002). But employees are dissatisfied with their jobs they find ways of falling their experience to them (Greenberg & Baron, 1997).
Satisfaction and Performance. People assume that a positive relationship between satisfaction and performance, the research to indicate that there is a positive linkage between the two variables (Gibson et al., 2002). For example, there seem to be many possible moderating variables that affect this relationship, the most important of which is rewards. If people receive rewards they feel are equitable, they will be satisfied, and this is likely to result in greater performance effort (Luthans, 2002). Furthermore, when there is lack of job satisfaction, there is often lack of motivation and thus lower performance (Luthans, 2002).
Satisfaction and Turnover. Research has uncovered a moderately negative relationship between satisfaction and turnover. Furthermore, job dissatisfaction is likely to be just one of the many factors influencing people’s decision to report-or not to report-for work. When employees are dissatisfied with their jobs, they find ways of reducing their exposure to them (Greenberg & Baron, 1997). And in addition, high job satisfaction will not necessarily result in low absenteeism, low job satisfaction is more likely to bring turnover (Luthans, 2002).
A study conducted by Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) examined the relationship of psychological ownership with work attitudes and organizational citizenship behaviors emphasizing the importance of “feelings of ownership” for the organization. The development of the hypothesis is based on the psychology of possession. The hypothesis is then tested from three field sampling using responses from 800 respondents. The results demonstrate positive links between psychological ownership for the organization and employee attitudes, and work behavior. Psychological ownership increased explained variance in organizational based self-esteem and organizational citizenship behavior over and above effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
The study conducted by Pierce, O’Driscoll, and Coghlan (2004) examined the extent which individuals experience control over their job and the organization and used supervisory report data on work environment structure and self-reports on experienced control and psychological ownership were used to test for the mediating effects of experienced control in the relationship between work environment structure and psychological ownership. Two hundred and thirty-nine respondents from seven for-profit organizations in New Zealand were used as sample. The result showed that experienced control mediates the relationship between three sources of work environment structure- technology, autonomy, and participative decision making and psychological ownership of the job and organization.
The present study differs from the previous studies in several ways. There were no studies found indicating on the relationship of job design, using Hackman and Oldham core job characteristics and psychological ownership. Moreover, psychological ownership studies were usually conducted in Western contexts like in the United States of America and European countries (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). As to fill this, the researcher intends to investigate this phenonomenon in the context of Cyprus.
This study presents a nomological model for psychological ownership. The first model focuses on the dimension using Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristic theory (skill variety, task identity, task significance, task autonomy, feedback) as the possible cause of developing psychological ownership for the organization. Secondly, employee attitudes particularly, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, as potential consequence of psychological ownership for the organization (see Figure 1).
“Psychological ownership is the state in which an individual feels as though as the target of ownership (or a piece of target) is theirs (it’s mine!)” (p. 203, Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Belk and Dittmar (as cited in Pierce et al., 2001) stated that psychological ownership reflects a relationship between the individual and the target of ownership in which the object is experienced as having a close connection with the self, being part of the extended self. It satisfies three basic human needs: efficacy and effectance, self-identity, and having a place (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).
Job Design as Cause to Psychological Ownership
Job design refers to the process of linking specific tasks to specific jobs and deciding what techniques, equipment, and procedures should be used to perform those tasks (George & Jones, 1999). Managers design these jobs to increase motivation and encourage workers to perform well, enjoy their work, and receive the outcomes available to those who perform at an acceptable level (George & Jones, 1999). Hackman and Oldham developed a job design theory with five core job characteristics.
These are skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback (Robbins, 2001). According to Hackman and Oldham’s model, five core job characteristics are of primary importance to a job’s design and contribute to three critical psychological states that determine how workers react to the design of their jobs: experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for work outcomes, and knowledge of result (George & Jones, 1999).
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction as Consequences of Psychological Ownership
This research also studied the potential consequences of psychological ownership toward employee attitudes. These employee attitudes are job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Jex and Elacqua (as cited in Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) stated that there is a sense of self that emerges from organizational experiences and reflects employee evaluations of personal adequacy and self-worth within organizational context. Job satisfaction is proposed one of the consequences of psychological ownership of this study.
Job satisfaction is an attitude that individuals have about their jobs and it is a perception of their jobs based on the factors of the work environment such as pay, job security, policies and procedures, working conditions, and supervision (Gibson et al., 2000). Organizational commitment is another proposed consequence of psychological ownership. It is defined as the relative strength of an individual identification and involvement in an organization (Mowday, Porter & Steers, as cited in as cited by Bar-Hayim & Berman, 1992).
Causes and Consequences of Psychological Ownership
The study intends to determine the causes (i.e., job design characteristics) and consequences (i.e., organizational commitment and job satisfaction) of psychological ownership as perceived by rank and file employees of Company X.
To answer the main problem, the following sub-problems were drawn:
- What is the perception of Company X employees on their job design and its following dimensions:
- Skill variety
- Task Identity
- Task Significance
- What is the perception of Company X employees on the following employee attitudes?
- Psychological ownership
- Job satisfaction
- Organizational commitment
- Is there a significant relationship between the following dimensions of job design and psychological ownership?
- skill variety
- task identity
- task significance
- Is there a significant relationship between psychological ownership and the following employee attitudes as perceived by employees of Company X?
- Job satisfaction
- Organizational commitment
Using Pearson’s coefficient of correlation at .05 levels of significance, the following will be tested:
Ha1: Is there a significant relationship on the following core job characteristics to psychological ownership as perceived by rank and file employees of Company X?
- skill variety
- task identity
- task significance
Ha2: Is there a significant relationship between psychological ownership and the following employee attitudes as perceived by employees of Company X?
Scope and Limitations
This study intends to determine the relationship of the cause and consequences of psychological ownership. The main cause of the focal variable that was used in this research is job design, using the dimensions of Hackman and Oldham’s core job characteristics (i.e., skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback), while organizational commitment and job satisfaction as the consequences of psychological ownership.
Since the main cause of the focal variable is job design, in which managers specify the contents, methods, and relationships of jobs to satisfy both organizational and individual requirements (Ivancevich et al., 2000), the proponents chose job satisfaction as one of the consequence of psychological ownership because job satisfaction is the attitude that employees have about their jobs (Ivancevich et al., 2000), and since it is the results from the perception of their jobs based on the factors of work environment such as jobs, that is considered interesting and provide opportunities for learning and for accepting responsibility by employees.
Another consequence of the focal variable in this study is organizational commitment. Research evidence indicates that the absence of commitment reduce organizational effectiveness. Thus, if employees are committed, they are less likely to quit and accept other jobs.
Psychological ownership will be examined further and this study will be administered through self-survey to the target respondent, thus, the variables used in this research were measured only at one point. Also, our participant for this study is a single company, i.e., Company X.
Autonomy– Autonomy is defined by Hackman and Oldham as the degree to which a job provides freedom, independence and discretion. This is operationally defined in item 2, 8, and 9 of Section A of the survey questionnaire. The items were adopted from the Job Diagnostic Survey developed by Hackman and Oldham.
Feedback– The degree to which the individuals obtain direct and clear degree to which an individual is required to use a number of different skills and talent to perform a variety of different activities (Robbins, 2001). This is operationally defined in item 5, 14, and 15 on Section A of the survey questionnaire. The items were adopted from the Job Diagnostic Survey developed by Brayfield and Rothe.
Job satisfaction– It is an attitude that individuals have about their jobs and it is a perception of their jobs based on the factors of the work environment such as pay, job security, policies and procedures, working conditions, and supervision (Gibson, et al., 2000). This is operationally defined in item 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Section B of the survey questionnaire. The items were adopted from the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale developed by Brayfield and rothe (Hunt, Osborn, & Schermerhon, as cited in Testa, 2001)
Organizational commitment– it is the degree wherein an individual dedicates himself to the organization as well as its goals and keeps his membership in the organization (Robbins, 2001). This is operationally defined in item 6, 7, 10, and 11 and in Section B of the survey questionnaire. The items were adopted from the Affective Commitment Short Version Scale developed by Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (as cited in Morgan, 1994)
Psychological ownership– The state in which an individual feels as though as the target of ownership (or a piece of target) is theirs (it’s mine!) (p.204, Pierce & Gardner, 2004). This is operationally defined in item 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 of Section B of the Survey Questionnaire. The items were adopted from the Psychological Ownership Scale developed and led by Pierce in University of Minnesota (Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004).
Skill variety– The degree to which the job requires a variety of different activities (Robbins, 2001). This is operationally defined in item 1, 6, 7 of Section A of the survey questionnaire. The items were adopted from the Job Diagnostic Survey developed by Hackman and Oldham (Friday, 2003).
Task identity– It is the degree to which the job requires competition of a whole and identifiable piece of work (Robbins, 2001). This is operationally defined in item 3, 10, 11 in Section A of the survey questionnaire. The items were adopted from the Job Diagnostic Survey developed by Hackman and Oldham (Friday, 2003).
Task significance– defined as the degree to which the job had a substantial impact on the work of other (Robbins, 2001). This is operationally defined in item 4, 10, and 11 of the Job Diagnostic Survey developed by Hackman and Oldham (Greenberg & Baron, 1997).
This chapter covers the research design, participants, instruments and procedures undertaken in conducting the study.
The type of research design utilized by the proponents is the descriptive-correlational research design. Descriptive research was used because the proponents would like to determine the level of psychological ownership, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job design of the rank and file employees of Company X Incorporated.
On the other hand, correlational research refers to a non-experimental approach that measures two (2) as more variables to determine the degree of relationship between. It was used to determining whether a relationship exists between the psychological ownership and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job design dimensions.
The proponents chose the rank and file employees of Company X. Rank and file employees have a direct contact with their jobs. Since competition is tough, it is important for the organization to keep good employees who are showing a good possession to their jobs gained in keeping good employment relationship. In this research, employee profiles were divided into six categories: gender, age, employment status, tenure, tenure in current position, and department.
In determining the sample size, the researchers used a one (1) is to five (5) ratio, were one (1) question is equivalent to five (5) respondents. Total number of items used in the questionnaire (i.e., Psychological Ownership for the organization, Job Description survey, Affective Commitment survey, Overall Job Satisfaction) was 36, and since it is a one (1) is to five (5) ratio, the proponents needed a sample size of 180 respondents.
Moreover, the proponents had decided to distribute 250 questionnaires but only 243 were retrieved. However, only 239 questionnaires were usable for this study. As for the interview, out of the total 250 respondents who were asked to answer the questionnaires, 10 % was required for the interview.
In the conduct of this research, the researcher shall use standardized instruments to measure the variables utilized in this study. These included psychological ownership, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job design dimensions.
Psychological Ownership. The Psychological Ownership for Organization, a 5-item measurement instrument developed by Pierce in University of Minnesota measuring the attitude of feeling ownership of the organization shall be used. A likert-type scale anchored on 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree will be used. Cronbach alpha for this measure is.89 (VandeWalle, et al., 1995).
Organizational Commitment. The affective commitment survey for organizational commitment shall be used. This measures an employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. There is a 6 point scale by Allen and Meyer (as cited by Fields, 2002) and coefficient alpha values range from .77 to .88 (Fields, 2002).
Job Satisfaction. The proponent will use used a survey developed by Brayfield and Rothe. Response for the items were obtained using a 7-point likert scale (7- strongly agree to 1-strongly disagree). The scale yielded a coefficient alpha .83 to .94. (Fields, 2002).
Job Characteristic Dimensions. This will be measured using separate subscales that describe an employee’s perception of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback developed by Hackman and Oldham (as cited by Friday, 2003). The coefficient alphas of the five dimensions are: .69 for skill variety, .48 for task identity, .47 for task significance, .63 for autonomy, and for feedback, .59 (Fields, 2002).
The researcher will undertake the following steps for completion of the study. The researcher shall gather secondary data related to the causes and consequences of psychological ownership. A critical review of related literature was conducted to develop the hypothesized relationship of the variables: job design dimension to psychological ownership, and psychological ownership to organizational and job satisfaction.
Adapted survey questionnaires will be used in order to measure the different variables of the study. The researcher will contact and submit a letter of request to conduct the survey in the target company. Upon approval, the proponent will administer they survey instruments to the target participants. After survey administration, data gatehring and tabulation will follow. The researcher shall also conduct short interviews with 10% of the total questionnaires distributed. The statistical and qualitative results will form the basis of the study’s conclusion and recommendations.
The proponents will use descriptive statistics, computing for the variables’ mean and standard deviation. Means and standard deviation were also used in determining the level of the descriptive data: psychological ownership, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job design. For inferential statistics, the researcher will use Pearson r and regression analysis.
Pearson r will be used to determine the relationship between job design dimensions and psychological ownership and employee attitudes (i.e., organizational commitment and job satisfaction). Regression analysis was used to determine which job characteristics dimension influences psychological ownership, and whether psychological ownership influences affective commitment and job satisfaction.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior. (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bar-Hayim, A., & Berman G. S., (1992). The dimensions of organizational commitment. Journal
of Organizational Behavior. ABI/INFORM Global. 13.4.
Bowditch, J. L., & Buono, A. F. (1985). A Primer on organizational behavior. (2nded.).Canada: John Wiley & Son.
Corbett, J.M., & Martin, R., Wall ,T. B., Clegg, C. W. (1989). Technological coupling as a predictor of intrinsic job satisfaction: A replication study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. ABI/INFORM Global.
Cook. & Hunsacker. (1999). Organizational behavior. London: Financial Times Management.
Evans, J. R. (1984). Applied production and operations management. New York: West Publishing Company.
Fields., D. L. (2002). Taking the Measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational Research and Diagnosis. CA: Personnel Psychology.
Friday, B. R. (2003) Trust and the design of work: Complementary construct to satisfaction and perception. Human Relation; ABI/INFORM Global. 53.12.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1999). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Ma: Addison-Wesley.
Gibson, L. J., Ivancevich, M.J, & Donnelly, H.J. (2000). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes. Singapore: Irwin-McGraw-Hill.
Greenberg, G. (1995). Behavior in organizations. London: Prentice Hall.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. (1997). Behavior in organizations (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Kiggundu., M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of Management Review. ABI/INFORM Global. 499.
Kinlaw, D. C. (1989). Coaching for commitment: Managerial strategies for obtaining superior performance. California: Pfeiffer and company.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki. A. (1998). Organizational behavior (4th ed). McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Luthans., F. (2002). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). New York. McGraw-Hill Irwin.
McShane, S. L., & Glinow, M. (2003). Organization behavior (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Meyer, J. P., Paunenon, S., Gellatly, L., Coffin, R., & Jackson, D. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152-156.
Miner, J. B. (1985). Personnel and industrial relations. New York: McMillan Publishing Company.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1994). Organizational commitment: One of many commitments or key mediating construct: Academy of Management Journal; ABI/INFORM Global 36, 6.
Pierce, J. L, Driscoll, M. P., & Coghlan, A. M. (2004). Work environment structure and psychological ownership: Mediating effects of control. Journal of Social Psychology: Academic Research Library. (144) 5.507.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner., (2004). Organizational Behavior. New York. Prentice Hall.
Pierce, J. L., Kostovo, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organization. The Academy of Management Review. ABI/INFORM Global, (26)2.298.
Renn, R. W., & Vandenberg, R. J.(1995). The critical psychological states: an underrepresented component in job characteristics model research. Journal of Management. ABI/INFORM.
Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc.
Tayyab, S., & Tariq, N. (2001). Development of an indigenous organizational commitment: Pakistan Journal of Psychology Research. 16.31-45
Testa, W. H. (2001). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and effort in the service environment. The Journal of Psychology. 2.226-236.
VandeWalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group & Organizational Studies: ABI/INFORM Global. (20)2.210
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three fields studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Psychology: DOI: 10.1002/ 439-459.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Dobbins G. H. (1989). Contrasting groups and organizational commitment: Evidence for difference among multilevel attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior: ABI/INFORM Global. 267.
Zangaro, G. A. (2001). Organizational commitment: A concept analysis, Nursing forum.36.14-22.