Some employees succeed in their work by becoming highly productive, while others fail to achieve the desired results that contribute to organizational objectives. According to Hams (2011), this difference arises from the diversity in the level of ownership of job or organization. The concept of ownership relates to the feeling of “owning” something. In organizational settings, ownership emanates from taking control of an outcome or target. As a result, ownership improves the chances of an individual to deliver positive results since it boosts performance. Psychological ownership is about the potential of employees to take responsibility or being accountable for their work (Ghafoor, Qureshi, Khan, & Hijazi, 2011). Thus, psychological ownership entails innovativeness and finding solutions to issues affecting the target of ownership, such as the job or an organization.
The concept of psychological ownership is a relevant area of research in organizations because of the considerable impact on the way employees relate to their work and the overall performance outcome. Dawkins, Tian, Newman, and Martin (2017) define the concept as the state of feeling as if the target of ownership belongs to self. The target of ownership, in this perspective, is the job or an organization. Dirik and Eryilmaz (2016) further define the concept as the overall feeling of possession and attachment towards the target of ownership. From this perspective, the dimension of self-identification emerges in which case the person identifies with the object of ownership. Employees should identify with the purpose or target of ownership to have a secure attachment.
Research reveals various elements of psychological attachment that are critical to identifying its impact on organizational performance. Brown, Crossley, and Robinson (2014) investigate several aspects of psychological ownership, including trust, a sense of belongingness, and territoriality. The authors developed and tested a theory on the effect of trust in workplaces as a precondition for the connection between territoriality and psychological ownership. According to the findings of their study, depending on the organizational context, psychological ownership can result in territorial behaviors that affect teamwork in the workplace (Brown, Crossley, & Robinson, 2014). Hence, psychological ownership depends on the level of trust in the workplace that further affects the level of contribution in team activities. The study qualifies the findings by Dirik and Eryilmaz (2016) regarding the connection between psychological ownership and workaholism. The outcome emanates from the strong feeling an individual has towards one’s work.
Further evidence reveals other aspects of psychological ownership that impact on the organizational behavior and outcome. In their study, Ghafoor, Qureshi, Khan, and Hijazi (2011) investigated “the relationship between transformational leadership, employee engagement and employee performance” (p.7391). Similar to the research by Brown, Crossley, and Robinson (2014), Ghafoor, Qureshi, Khan, and Hijazi (2011) revealed some important intervening dimensions of psychological ownership that determine its effect on the outcome of employees in the workplace. According to Ghafoor, Qureshi, Khan, and Hijazi (2011), some of the essential dimensions are self-efficacy, belongingness, self-identity, and accountability, which have implications on the potential of an individual to feel a strong attachment to the object of ownership such as a job or an organization. Therefore, the elements explain the tendency of the individual to feel a high level of responsibility for the work and results.
Evidence shows a positive aspect of psychological ownership from the perspectives of self-efficacy, accountability, a sense of belongingness and self-identity. According to Avey, Avolio, Crossley, and Luthans (2009), when these aspects are evident, employees develop strong attachments with their work with a positive effect on their overall performance. Ghafoor, Qureshi, Khan, and Hijazi (2011) add that the variables have critical impact on employee performance in the presence of strong transformational leadership. Self-efficacy, belongingness, self-identity, and accountability promote the level of psychological ownership in the individual employees, and hence, improving their performance outcomes and productivity (Ghafoor, Qureshi, Khan, & Hijazi (2011; Brown, Crossley, & Robinson, 2014). Consequently, leaders should understand the connection between the important variables to improve performance in their companies.
One of the debatable areas of psychological ownership is the effect on organizational behavior through human performance. Various researchers agree on the impact of the construct of the core feelings of employees (Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009; Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2014). According to Avey, Avolio, Crossley, and Luthans (2009), the work setting presents various opportunities to develop psychological ownership. In addition, Brown, Pierce, and Crossley (2014) suggest that psychological ownership is an important resource in affecting performance of employees in organizational settings. However, Avey, Avolio, Crossley, and Luthans (2009) suggest limitations in the research on the development of the feelings of ownership that cause the positive effect on the work settings. However, the researchers still focus on the aspects of ownership that influence employees to behave in a particular manner towards their organizations and their work. Dawkins, Tian, Newman, and Martin (2017) reveal the expansion in research connecting psychological ownership to employees’ outcomes in organizational settings.
Researchers have further investigated the relationship between psychological ownership and various employee outcomes in the workplace. One such researcher is Dirik and Eryilmaz (2016) who explores “the causal relationship between psychological ownership and employee workaholism behavior” (p.1434). The connection emanates from strong feelings of ownership towards one’s work that enhances an individual to invest in positive outcomes. Brown, Crossley, and Robinson (2014) support the effect of psychological ownership on employee and organizational outcomes by investigating the role the construct plays in promoting the contribution of each employee to the corporate objectives. Psychological ownership creates a high degree of trust within the firm that supports the work relationships between employees.
While researchers have revealed the positive effect of psychological ownership in employee performance and organizational outcomes, managers and leaders are cautioned to be careful when applying the construct in their workplace settings. Unlike Dirik and Eryilmaz (2016) who considers the positive contribution of psychological ownership on performance, Brown, Crossley, and Robinson (2014) reveal two sides of the environment built on trust and related psychological ownership. According to Brown, Crossley, and Robinson (2014), the environment built on trust is a “double-edged sword” (p.463). In addition, the authors conclude that the environment built on a high level of trust can lower the territorial behavior connected to psychological ownership. Conversely, in high trust environments, the occurrence of territorial behavior leads to a lower rating of territorial contributions to the team by employees. Therefore, managers should understand the balance of territorial behavior as an important aspect of psychological ownership. Furthermore, additional research is critical to establish the application of psychological ownership and its dimensions to organizational settings.
The research findings have major implications on the organizational settings, especially the need to boost psychological ownership to gain positive results. Workers who rate high in ownership tend to be self-driven to obtain individual results and contribute towards the achievement of organizational objectives (Dawkins, Tian, Newman, & Martin, 2017). Such individuals play a significant role in positive transformations in the workplace since they can identify opportunities for improvement. Consequently, Ghafoor, Qureshi, Khan, and Hijazi (2011) propose the association between transformational leadership and psychological ownership. Such leadership is driven by results that come from a strong feeling of possession and attachment to the firm. In addition, effective employees are accountable for their actions and the consequences of their behavior (Hams, 2011). Notably, people who rate high in psychological ownership are never afraid of taking risks to achieve personal and organizational objectives. Thus, psychological ownership is critical for organizations that aim at attaining a high level of productivity.
Although researchers reveal a relationship between psychological ownership and various employee outcomes in the workplace, a research gap exists that require further investigation to promote a clearer understanding of this critical relationship. According to Dawkins, Tian, Newman, and Martin (2017), significant limitations are evident in theoretical foundations of psychological ownership, including the forces that influence the development of the concept and the means through which it affects employees and organizational outcomes. The limitations form the basis for the prevailing research agenda in establishing the actual role of psychological ownership on the performance results in the workplace (Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009; Dawkins, Tian, Newman, & Martin, 2017). Future research should focus on the need for further refinement of the conceptualization and measurement of psychological ownership. Such evidence would be critical in promoting psychological outcome if proven effective in encouraging positive behavior and organizational outcomes. It would be important for managers in various workplaces to understand how to influence the concept to improve their productivity.
References
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(2), 173-191.
Brown, G., Crossley, C., & Robinson, S. L. (2014). Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 463-485.
Brown, G., Pierce, J. L., & Crossley, C. (2014). Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 318-338.
Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163-183.
Dirik, D., & Eryilmaz, İ. (2016). A research on the relationship between psychological ownership and workaholism. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 21(4), 1433-1448.
Ghafoor, A., Qureshi, T. M., Khan, M. A., & Hijazi, S. T. (2011). Transformational leadership, employee engagement and performance: Mediating effect of psychological ownership. African Journal of Business Management, 5(17), 7391-7403.
Hams, B. (2011). Ownership thinking: How to end entitlement and create a culture of accountability, purpose, and profit. New York: McGraw Hill.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
