Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings

Abstract

Recently, there emerged a theory of collective psychological ownership – an intersubjective sense of possession for different objects within the work and organizational context (e.g., work space). This shared mind-set has been cast as having the potential to explain a variety of collective, work-related attitudes, and actions. Preventing scientific inquiry into this phenomenon is the absence of an instrument for the measurement of this construct. The purpose of this work was the development and validation of such an instrument. To this end, work with a panel of judges and three sequentially conducted field studies was undertaken. Construct validation evidence (e.g., content, discriminant, nomological, and incremental validity) for an instrument for the assessment of collective psychological ownership is provided.

Antecedents and consequences of collective psychological ownership: The validation of a conceptual model

“…For a group of individuals to experience a referent shift from “I” to “us” and from “mine” to “ours,” the group must share experiences that are related to the target (Costa et al, ; Kozlowski et al, ). Therefore, consistent with Pierce et al (), in the current study, we use all the members of the team as a collective referent, that is, “We all …”/“All of us.” This sentence structure was designed to allow the measure to be easily adapted for different CPO targets, by simply replacing TEAMWORK OUTPUT (in capitals, to focus participants' attention on the specific target they have selected) with another target of ownership feelings.…”

“…This sense of “us” held by individual team members creates a basis for the “self‐extension” of the team to include work products within its collective identity as “ours.” Determining the boundaries of a team and the “ sharedeness ” of a specific teamwork product (Pierce & Jussila, ) requires attention to person–object, other person–object, and person–person interactions. Thus, CPO requires the activation of a collective self, with each team member recognizing that not only is he or she psychologically tied to the work product, but also that others are too, prompting a referent shift from the self to the group, from “mine” to “ours” (Pierce, Jussila, & Li, ). This shows the importance of not only how members relate to one another , but also how members relate to the work they do , that is, the specific tasks undertaken collectively and the work products they produce (McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, ).…”

“…In a group where team members have high CPO, the shared creation is incorporated within the group boundaries and serves as a means for the team to demonstrate to each other and to external audiences the fruits of their shared efforts, including through their discretionary behaviors. Indeed, CPO has been empirically related to individual psychological empowerment, feelings of responsibility, affective commitment, job satisfaction, and citizenship behaviors (Pierce et al, ), which can be expected to enhance team performance. Pierce et al () also found that CPO is positively related to group‐level outcomes, including psychological safety, group potency, and group learning, all of which can be viewed as proxies for team effectiveness and are negatively related to social loafing.…”

“…Indeed, CPO has been empirically related to individual psychological empowerment, feelings of responsibility, affective commitment, job satisfaction, and citizenship behaviors (Pierce et al, ), which can be expected to enhance team performance. Pierce et al () also found that CPO is positively related to group‐level outcomes, including psychological safety, group potency, and group learning, all of which can be viewed as proxies for team effectiveness and are negatively related to social loafing. As a result of believing that the ownership of a work product is collective, team members realize that their goals and values are congruent and will be more willing to participate actively in activities that manifest the shared “we‐intention”: “we will all work hard to improve this product” (Bagozzi & Lee, ).…”

Linking Tolerance to Workplace Incivility, Service Innovative, Knowledge Hiding, and Job Search Behavior: The Mediating Role of Employee Cynicism

“…According to Pierce et al (2001), PO is a state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is theirs. POK delineates employees feeling of knowledge ownership and its possession (Han et al, 2010;Pierce, Jussila, & Li, 2017), which may result in knowledge sharing or hiding. Ownership can be conceptualized as both an objective and a psychological state (Pierce & Jussila, 2011).…”