Me, My Job, and I - University of St.Gallen [PDF]

Ashworth, Higgs, & Carr, 1996). Second, cross-sectional studies allow for the conduct of “relevant” research. Wh

5 downloads 16 Views 9MB Size

Recommend Stories


my sibling, and me
Don't count the days, make the days count. Muhammad Ali

my bottle, my resentments, and me
If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. African proverb

My Mind, My Soul | It's all about me, myself and I [PDF]
Baru dpt call dari supervisor utk LI (Latihan Industri). Kali ni lecturer aku sendiri yg dtg evaluate. Aku penah masuk klas dia dulu. Kalo tak silap dia ajar subjek machine n drive. Okla kot since dia pun major dlm machine n power. So nanti takdelah

PDF Download Lies My Teacher Told Me
You have survived, EVERY SINGLE bad day so far. Anonymous

[PDF] Download Lies My Teacher Told Me
Ask yourself: Am I a better person today, than I was yesterday? Next

PdF Lies My Teacher Told Me
We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone. Ronald Reagan

How I Got My Dream Job - Linn Mollberg - Novoresume [PDF]
Find out the process of getting your dream job as written by our close friend Linn Mollberg.

[PDF] Lies My Teacher Told Me
Ask yourself: Is work-life balance important to me? Next

[PDF]Books Lies My Teacher Told Me
We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone. Ronald Reagan

Review PdF Lies My Teacher Told Me
Ask yourself: Do I take things personally? Next

Idea Transcript


Me, My Job, and I Managing Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings Based on Intrapersonal Factors

DISSERTATION of the University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences and International Affairs to obtain the title of Doctor of Philosophy in Management

submitted by Andreas Hess from Wald (Zurich) and Zurich

Approved on the application of Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Jenewein and Prof. Dr. Torsten Tomczak

Dissertation no. 4603 Rosch-Buch, Schesslitz 2017

The University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences and International Affairs hereby consents to the printing of the present dissertation, without hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein expressed. St. Gallen, October 24, 2016

The President: Prof. Dr. Thomas Bieger

I

Preface The topic of this dissertation arose from discussions with friends about finding a job that truly matches an individual’s personality and interests. Considering the many opportunities we have at home and abroad, the wide range of choices can make it even more difficult to find the right job that fulfills all of one’s needs and desires. In this light, I often have asked myself what properties a job needs to have in order to be perceived as appealing and part of one’s own personality. In the course of my PhD studies I discovered the construct of psychological ownership. This construct captured my attention and enthusiasm because it helps explain how individuals become emotionally attached to their job and organization. In this regard, the research of this dissertation enabled me to answer my personal question relating to the requirements of an ideal job. I wrote this dissertation in memory of my father, who passed away shortly before I started my PhD studies at the University of St. Gallen. I’m very thankful that he encouraged me to follow my interest and start the work to gain a PhD. His characteristic way of approaching problems and asking questions has shaped me immensely and supported me in this research. Nevertheless, I often missed his unique thoughts and advice during the last years. I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Jenewein for his professional advice during the entire dissertation process. His inspiring feedback and managerial perspective on this research topic have substantially contributed to the development of this dissertation. Moreover, the last years in his team have been a very instructive and valuable time for me. Similarly, I thank my co-supervisor Prof. Dr. Torsten Tomczak for his exceptional advice and helpful thoughts throughout the last years. I very much appreciate his expertise and assistance in keeping me focused on the relevant aspects of my research. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Philipp Scharfenberger for helping me to find and define my research topic and for supporting me in conducting my empirical research. I also express my thanks to Dr. cand. Axel Berger for his ongoing and excellent advice in all aspects of my research from the beginning to the end of my dissertation project. It was an extraordinary time to share the same office with him for several years and to become friends over time. Moreover, I would like to thank Dr. Kai Kruthoff for the close and amicable cooperation on many exiting business projects with leading industry partners. I greatly appreciated being able to develop and conduct

II

several executive education trainings with him. Dr. Fabio Lenzlinger has my gratitude as well for his personal and valuable advice during the recent years. I value our friendship and appreciate the fact that he familiarized me with the University of St. Gallen. Also, I thank Dr. cand. Nicola Schweitzer for her valuable thoughts and personal support in all respects in the last year of my dissertation work, as well as Torsten Weber for supporting me in carrying out a major study of this research that significantly contributed to the managerial relevance of this dissertation. Most importantly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my mother, Annelies Hess, and sister, Dr. med. Simone Hess, for their compassion and support during the last years. They were always there to give me the emotional stability and even from time to time the financial backing to complete my studies. Their love and attention are very important and precious to me.

St. Gallen, in October 2016

Andreas Hess

III

Abstract Psychological ownership refers to the experience of possessive feelings toward an entity. Every day, individuals interact with various material and immaterial objects to which they feel psychologically attached. As a result, these objects become part of the individual’s identity. In organizations, psychological ownership is likely to lead to pronouns usage such as “my job” and “our organization.” Most importantly, feelings of ownership have been found to have major emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral consequences. For that reason, a great deal of research has examined the influence of psychological ownership on work-related outcomes. However, comparatively little research has studied differences in intrapersonal factors that give rise to this mental state. The objective of this dissertation is to explore how stable intrapersonal factors influence the emergence of psychological ownership, which in turn affects employee performance. For that purpose, three studies were conducted based on a conceptual model. The first study identified six intrapersonal factors that influence the emergence of psychological ownership (n = 370). The second study explored the impact of these intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership and employee performance in the existing jobs of a German SME company (n = 823). The third study investigated in the Swiss and German overall population how these intrapersonal factors affect different desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting (n = 626). This research is the first known attempt to identify several intrapersonal factors as antecedents of psychological ownership. The findings provide conclusive evidence for the emergence of job- and organization-based psychological ownership through three routes: controlling the target, coming to intimately know the target, and investing the self into the target of ownership. Furthermore, the results identify several work-related outcomes of job- and organization-based psychological ownership, which emphasize the importance of this mental state as a core feeling in the experience of work. In addition, this research is the first known study to detect different desires for psychological ownership that relate to the personal importance of psychological ownership in the ideal job setting. Based on these findings, management tools are developed with recommendations on how to make employees feel as if they own their job and organization. In this manner, this dissertation provides a basis for the creation of optimal working conditions that encourage employees to make decisions in the best interest of their company.

IV

Zusammenfassung Psychologisches Eigentum (Psychological Ownership) bezieht sich auf das Empfinden von Besitzgefühlen gegenüber einem Objekt. Diese Besitzgefühle entstehen, indem Individuen jeden Tag mit materiellen und immateriellen Objekten interagieren. Infolgedessen werden diese Objekte als ein Teil der eigenen Identität wahrgenommen. In Unternehmen kann dies dazu führen, dass Mitarbeiter von “meinem Job” und “unserem Unternehmen” sprechen. Insbesondere hat sich gezeigt, dass diese Besitzgefühle wichtige emotionale, einstellungs- und verhaltensbezogene Auswirkungen haben. Viele Studien haben daher den Einfluss von psychologischem Eigentum auf arbeitsbezogene Ergebnisse untersucht. Indes haben nur wenige Studien erforscht, wie intrapersonelle Faktoren diesen mentalen Zustand beeinflussen. Diese Dissertation hat zum Ziel, den Einfluss von intrapersonellen Faktoren auf das Entstehen von psychologischem Eigentum zu untersuchen, welches wiederum auf die Mitarbeiterleistung einwirkt. Hierzu wurden auf Basis eines konzeptionellen Modells drei Studien durchgeführt. Die erste Studie identifizierte sechs intrapersonelle Faktoren, welche die Entstehung von psychologischem Eigentum beeinflussen (n = 370). Die zweite Studie erforschte die Auswirkung dieser Fakoren auf die Entstehung von Besitzgefühlen und die Mitarbeiterleistung bei bestehenden Arbeitsplätzen eines mittelständigen Deutschen Unternehmens (n = 823). Die dritte Studie untersuchte in der Deutschen und Schweizer Gesamtbevölkerung, wie diese Faktoren Bedürfnisse nach psychologischem Eigentum am idealen Arbeitsplatz beeinflussen (n = 626). Die Untersuchung dieser Dissertation stellt einen ersten Versuch dar, verschiedene intrapersonelle Faktoren als Beeinflussungsgrössen von psychologischem Eigentum zu identifizieren. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass psychologisches Eigentum über drei Routen entsteht: Ausübung von Kontrolle, Aneignung von Wissen und kreatives Einbringen der eigenen Person. Zudem deuten die Ergebnisse darauf hin, dass psychologisches Eigentum die Mitarbeiterleistung positiv beeinflusst und daher ein Kerngefühl in der Wahrnehmung von Arbeit darstellt. Ferner ist diese Untersuchung die erste Studie, welche verschiedene Bedürfnisse für psychologisches Eigentum am idealen Arbeitsplatz identifiziert. Basierend auf den Ergebnissen werden Führungsinstrumente entwickelt mit Empfehlungen, wie Mitarbeiter zu psychologischen Eigentümern ihres Arbeitsplatzes und Unternehmens gemacht werden können. Auf diese Weise liefert diese Dissertation Erkenntnisse zur Entwicklung von optimalen Arbeitsbedingungen, welche Mitarbeiter motivieren, Entscheidungen im besten Sinne ihres Unternehmens zu treffen.

V

Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................. I Abstract ........................................................................................................................III Zusammenfassung....................................................................................................... IV Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... V List of Figures ...........................................................................................................VIII List of Tables ............................................................................................................... IX List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................... X 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

2

Problem Setting and Relevance ...................................................................... 1 Research Questions and Objectives ................................................................ 3 Structure of the Dissertation ........................................................................... 5

Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations........................................................... 6 2.1 Theoretical Foundation of Psychological Ownership ..................................... 6 2.1.1 Perspectives on Ownership ......................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Role of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings .................... 7 2.1.3 Distinction of Psychological Ownership from Related Constructs ............ 9 2.1.4 Motives Underlying Psychological Ownership ........................................ 10 2.1.5 Routes to Psychological Ownership ......................................................... 11 2.2 Intrapersonal Factors Affecting Psychological Ownership .......................... 15 2.2.1 Perspectives on Intrapersonal Factors....................................................... 15 2.2.2 Role of Intrapersonal Factors in Organizational Settings ......................... 17 2.2.3 Influence of Intrapersonal Factors on Psychological Ownership ............. 18 2.2.4 Potential Intrapersonal Factors Affecting Psychological Ownership ....... 20 2.3 Conceptual Model ......................................................................................... 25 2.3.1 Effects of Psychological Ownership on Employee Performance ............. 25 2.3.2 Effects of Routes on Psychological Ownership ........................................ 26 2.3.3 Effects of Intrapersonal Factors on Routes and Desires ........................... 26 2.3.4 Summary of Conceptual Model ................................................................ 27

3

Empirical Analysis .............................................................................................. 28 3.1 3.2

Overview of Empirical Approach ................................................................. 28 Study 1: Identification of Intrapersonal Factors ........................................... 30

VI

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

Overview ................................................................................................... 30 Participants and Procedure........................................................................ 30 Measures ................................................................................................... 31

3.2.4 3.2.5

Results ....................................................................................................... 35 Discussion ................................................................................................. 41

3.3 Study 2: Psychological Ownership in the Existing Job ................................ 43 3.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 43 3.3.2 Participants and Procedure........................................................................ 43 3.3.3 3.3.4

Measures ................................................................................................... 45 Results ....................................................................................................... 48

3.3.5 Discussion ................................................................................................. 59 3.4 Study 3: Psychological Ownership in the Ideal Job ..................................... 62 3.4.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 62 3.4.2 Participants and Procedure........................................................................ 62 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 4

Measures ................................................................................................... 64 Results ....................................................................................................... 65 Discussion ................................................................................................. 71

General Discussion .............................................................................................. 74 4.1 Summary of Findings .................................................................................... 75 4.2 Theoretical Contributions ............................................................................. 80 4.2.1 Contribution to Research on Psychological Ownership ........................... 80 4.2.2 Contribution to Research on Intrapersonal Factors .................................. 81 4.2.3 Contribution to Research on Age-Related Differences ............................ 83 4.3 Managerial Contributions ............................................................................. 85 4.3.1 Role of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings .................. 85 4.3.2 Managing Psychological Ownership Based on Intrapersonal Factors ..... 86 4.3.3 Managing Age-Related Differences in Intrapersonal Factors .................. 89 4.4 Limitations .................................................................................................... 93 4.5 Future Research ............................................................................................ 95 4.5.1 Future Research on Psychological Ownership ......................................... 95 4.5.2 Future Research on Intrapersonal Factors ................................................ 96 4.5.3 Future Research on Age-Related Differences .......................................... 96

5

Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 98

References .................................................................................................................. 100 Appendices ................................................................................................................. 113

VII

Appendix 1: Measures of Study 1 ........................................................................... 113 Appendix 2: Validity and Reliability Assessment of Study 1 ................................ 119 Appendix 3: Measures of Study 2 ........................................................................... 121 Appendix 4: Validity and Reliability Assessment of Study 2 ................................ 128 Appendix 5: Measures of Study 3 ........................................................................... 130 Appendix 6: Validity and Reliability Assessment of Study 3 ................................ 135

VIII

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Structure of the Dissertation ........................................................................ 5 Figure 2-1: Conceptual Model ...................................................................................... 27 Figure 3-1: Descriptive Sample Statistics of Study 1 ................................................... 31 Figure 3-2: Intrapersonal Factors Affecting Psychological Ownership ....................... 41 Figure 3-3: Descriptive Sample Statistics of Study 2 ................................................... 44 Figure 3-4: Job-Based Structural Model ....................................................................... 54 Figure 3-5: Organization-Based Structural Model ....................................................... 54 Figure 3-6: Total Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Psychological Ownership .......... 55 Figure 3-7: Total Effect of Desire for Authenticity on Psychological Ownership ....... 56 Figure 3-8: Total Effect of Self-Efficacy on Psychological Ownership....................... 56 Figure 3-9: Total Effect of Intrinsic Motivation on Psychological Ownership ............ 57 Figure 3-10: Total Effect of Extrinsic Motivation on Psychological Ownership ......... 57 Figure 3-11: Total Effect of Importance of Work on Psychological Ownership ......... 58 Figure 3-12: Descriptive Sample Statistics of Study 3 ................................................. 63 Figure 3-13: Intrapersonal Factors Affecting Desires for Psychological Ownership .. 69 Figure 3-14: Influence of Age on Intrapersonal Factors............................................... 71 Figure 4-1: Comparison of Studies ............................................................................... 77 Figure 4-2: Management Tool to Identify the Relevant Routes ................................... 87 Figure 4-3: Management Tool to Enable Control in Organizations ............................. 88 Figure 4-4: Management Tool to Enable Intimate Knowledge in Organizations ........ 88 Figure 4-5: Management Tool to Enable Investment of Self in Organizations ............ 89

IX

List of Tables Table 2-1: Distinction of Psychological Ownership from Related Constructs............... 9 Table 2-2: Routes to Psychological Ownership ............................................................ 14 Table 2-3: Identification of a Relevant Set of Intrapersonal Factors ............................ 21 Table 2-4: Description of Intrapersonal Factors ........................................................... 24 Table 3-1: Overview of Studies .................................................................................... 29 Table 3-2: Average Variances Extracted and Squared Correlations of Construct ....... 37 Table 3-3: Modification Process of Job-Based Model ................................................. 39 Table 3-4: Modification Process of Organization-Based Model .................................. 40 Table 3-5: Average Variances Extracted and Squared Correlations of Constructs ...... 51 Table 3-6: Modification Process of Job-Based Model ................................................. 52 Table 3-7: Modification Process of Organization-Based Model .................................. 53 Table 3-8: R-Square Statistics of Job- and Organization-Based Models ..................... 58 Table 3-9: Average Variances Extracted and Squared Correlations of Constructs ...... 66 Table 3-10: Modification Process of Job-Based Model ............................................... 68 Table 3-11: Modification Process of Organization-Based Model ................................ 68 Table 3-12: R-Square Statistics of Job- and Organization-Based Models ................... 70 Table 4-1: Total Effect of Intrapersonal Factors on Psychological Ownership ........... 79

X

List of Abbreviations AVE

Average Variance Extracted

CFI CHF

Comparative Fit Index Swiss Francs

CR df

Composite Reliability Degrees of freedom

e.g. etc.

Exempli gratia (for example) Et cetera (and the rest)

et al. EUR

Et alii (and others) Euro

f. ff.

Folio (following page) Folio (following pages)

i.e. Mgmt mTurk n p p. pp. RQ SME SRMR TLI USD α ß χ2 z

Id est (that is) Management Amazon Mechanical Turk Sample size Probability value Page Pages Research question Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Standardized Root Mean Square Residual Tucker Lewis Index United States Dollar Cronbach’s alpha Regression coefficient Chi-square Z score

1

1 Introduction 1.1 Problem Setting and Relevance “When managers talk about ownership, what they typically want to instill is not financial ownership but psychological ownership–a feeling on the part of the employees that they have a responsibility to make decisions that are in the long term interest of the company.” (O’Reilly, 2002, p. 19) The concept of psychological ownership has received a great deal of attention from researchers and practitioners as an important driver of work-related attitudes and behaviors. For instance, psychological ownership was found to have a positive effect on job satisfaction (Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009; Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner, 2007; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle, Van Dyne, & Kostova, 1995), intention to stay (Avey et al., 2009; Peng & Pierce, 2015), organizational commitment (Avey et al., 2009; Liu, Wang, Hui, & Lee, 2012; Mayhew et al., 2007; O’Driscoll, Pierce, & Coghlan, 2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), and sales performance (Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2014). For this reason, psychological ownership is increasingly recognized as a core feeling in the experience of work and is considered to be among the most promising concepts for employee management and motivation in recent years (Brown, Crossley, & Robinson, 2014). Psychological ownership refers to the experience of possessive feelings toward an object. These feelings are fundamental to human life, as individuals regularly interact with numerous material or immaterial objects to which they feel psychologically attached. Psychological ownership is defined as a mental state in which an individual develops possessive feelings for an object in such a way that it becomes part of their identity (Belk, 1988; Pierce, O’Driscoll, & Coghlan, 2004). As a result, individuals feel as though the target of ownership is theirs (e.g., “it is mine”). Calling an object, a person, or a job “mine” suggests that there is an emotional connection to it. In organizational settings, employees are likely to feel ownership for various organizational factors (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001, 2003). In this manner, feelings of ownership can lead to the perception of the job as part of the individual’s own identity in the same way that employees may think about their job as “Me, My Job, and I.” These feelings help to explain how employees’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviors connect with the particular work setting in the organization.

2

The concept of psychological ownership is of particular importance for management research and practice. On the one hand, a recent study by Gallup (2016) revealed that 68 percent of the employees in the United States are not engaged and not committed to their work. In this regard, psychological ownership is likely to increase job satisfaction and commitment of employees (O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Peng & Pierce, 2015). On the other hand, a global study by Insead, Head Foundation, and Universum (2014) with more than 16,000 participants stressed that today’s young individuals, who represent the workforce of the future, are mainly concerned about not finding a job that matches their personality and getting stuck with no development opportunities. In this respect, psychological ownership helps to make employees feel as if they are owners, and thus they can turn the job into part of their own identity. As a result, psychological ownership is expected to align the employee’s behavior with the best interests of the organization (Pierce et al., 2001; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).

3

1.2 Research Questions and Objectives In order to increase employees’ sense of ownership and produce positive work-related outcomes, it is important to understand how feelings of ownership emerge among employees with different intrapersonal factors. While there is ample research on the work-related outcomes of psychological ownership (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), prior research has neglected to explore which intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership. Contributors to the literature on psychological ownership have theorized that three major routes give rise to feelings of ownership. Employees are proposed to feel ownership when they are able to control organizational targets, can come to intimately know organizational targets, and can invest themselves into organizational targets (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014; Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). Despite these assertions, there is no conclusive evidence showing that psychological ownership emerges through these theorized routes in practice. Moreover, there is a lack of empirical evidence that psychological ownership establishes a link between intrapersonal factors and employee performance. Prior research has neglected to uncover desires for psychological ownership, which relate to the personal importance of psychological ownership in the ideal job setting, as opposed to one’s existing job. The identification of these desires allows for the development of recommendations on how to create the best possible working conditions to tap the full potential of psychological ownership. Building upon this background, the general research question of this dissertation aims to explore how intrapersonal factors affect psychological ownership in the existing and ideal job setting. Based on this general research question, the following specific research questions (RQ) are defined:

RQ1: Which intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership? RQ2: To what extent does psychological ownership establish a link between intrapersonal factors and employee performance in the existing job setting? RQ3: How do intrapersonal factors affect the desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting?

4

Exploration of these research questions is based on two major objectives: (1) the development of a theoretical understanding and conceptual model of how intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership in the existing job and lead to different work-related outcomes; and (2) the elaboration of recommendations relating to the ideal job setting that enable managers to create the best possible working conditions for the emergence of feelings of ownership. From a theoretical point of view, this dissertation contributes to the literature on organizational behavior and personality in several ways: First, to the author’s best knowledge, this study is the first attempt to identify intrapersonal factors as antecedents of psychological ownership. Second, this research offers conclusive empirical evidence for the emergence of job- and organization-based psychological ownership through three routes. Third, this research is the first known to identify different desires for psychological ownership related to the ideal job as opposed to the existing job. Fourth, the findings explore work-related outcomes of job- and organization-based psychological ownership. Finally, this study advances the literature on personality by conceptually linking different intrapersonal factors with the routes to psychological ownership and by identifying age-related differences in intrapersonal factors. From a managerial point of view, this research contributes to practice in various ways. First, the findings show that the emergence of feelings of ownership depends on temporally stable intrapersonal factors that vary among employees. Second, the identification of several work-related outcomes of job- and organization-based psychological ownership highlights the importance of psychological ownership as a core feeling in the experience of work. Third, the detection of different routes to psychological ownership provides insight into the organizational experiences that lead to job- and organization-based psychological ownership. Fourth, the findings permit identification of desires for psychological ownership, which in turn allow detection of the personal importance of feelings of ownership in the ideal job setting. In this manner, several management tools are developed with recommendations on how to stimulate feelings of ownership based on intrapersonal factors. Finally, this research leads to the identification of several age-related differences in intrapersonal factors of today’s young employees, who represent the workforce of the future.

5

1.3 Structure of the Dissertation The present dissertation is divided into five chapters. This chapter is followed by an overview of the theoretical and conceptual foundations of this research. Following that, Chapter 3 outlines and discusses three studies that were conducted on the basis of an overall conceptual model. Chapter 4 summarizes and compares the results of the different studies in order to derive theoretical and practical implications. Also, limitations and future research directions are discussed. The final chapter provides a closing overview of this research.

Figure 1-1: Structure of the Dissertation Chapter 1: Introduction

Formulation of research questions based on problem setting and relevance (pp.1-5)

Chapter 2: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations

Outline of theoretical foundations and development of conceptual model (pp. 6-27)

Chapter 3: Empirical Analysis Documentation and discussion of studies (pp. 28-73)

Chapter 4: General Discussion

Discussion of overall findings, implications, limitations and directions for future research (pp. 74-97)

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Closing overview of research project (pp. 98-99)

6

2 Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations 2.1 Theoretical Foundation of Psychological Ownership The following sections present the theoretical foundation of psychological ownership. The first section introduces ownership as a legal and psychological phenomenon. The succeeding section discusses the role of psychological ownership in organizational settings. Afterward, psychological ownership is distinguished from related constructs. The following section presents different motives that explain why psychological ownership exists. The last section introduces the routes to feelings of ownership that explain how this mental state emerges among individuals. 2.1.1 Perspectives on Ownership Most conceptual definitions of ownership have treated it as a legal phenomenon. This legal perspective views ownership as a “bundle of rights” that provides individuals with certain rights and responsibilities (Etzioni, 1991; Pierce, Rubenfeld, & Morgan, 1991). According to this view, legal ownership is based on three fundamental rights: (1) a right to possession of some shares of the owned object; (2) a right to exercise control over the object; (3) a right to information about the status of the object (Pierce et al., 1991). Even in the absence of legal status, ownership can exist as a psychological phenomenon (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Etzioni, 1991; Furby, 1980; Isaacs, 1933; Rousseau & Shperling, 2003). This psychological perspective views ownership as a mental state that is rooted in feelings of ownership. A number of different disciplines form the basis for this perspective, such as sociology (e.g., Furby, 1978a; Kline & France, 1899), psychology (e.g., Etzioni, 1991; Isaacs, 1933; James, 1890; Litwinski, 1942; Rochberg-Halton, 1984), philosophy (e.g., Heidegger, 1927; Sartre, 1943), consumer behavior (e.g., Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992), and organizational behavior (e.g., Pierce et al., 2001, 2003; Pratt, 1998). Each of these different disciplines has focused on the psychology of considering something as “mine,” possession, and property (Pierce & Jussila, 2010; Pierce et al., 2003). For instance, the philosopher and psychologist James (1890) suggested that individuals feel and act about certain possessions the same way they feel and act about themselves. In view of this, he concluded that a man’s self is the sum of all he can call his, such as his body, his wife, his friends, and his reputation. Similarly, the educational psychologist Isaacs

7

(1933) stated that “what is mine becomes (in my feelings) a part of ME” (p. 225). Later on, the French philosopher Sartre (1943) emphasized in a similar way that “the totality of my possessions reflects the totality of my being... I am what I have... What is mine is myself” (pp. 591-592). In this light, Dittmar (1992) concluded that people regularly experience a connection between their selves and their possessions. These possessions play such a crucial role in the identity of the owner that they become part of the extended self (Belk, 1988). Building on these different works from various disciplines, Pierce and colleagues developed their theory of psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 1991, 2001, 2003). 2.1.2 Role of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings Ownership was first introduced as a psychological phenomenon in the management literature by Pierce et al. (1991). In their early conceptualization, psychological ownership was described as an outcome of legal ownership. Later on, psychological ownership was proposed to exist independently of legal ownership (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). In this respect, psychological ownership is defined as “that state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership (material or immaterial in nature) or a piece of it is ‘theirs’ (i.e., ‘It is MINE!’)” (Pierce et al., 2001, p. 299). According to this view, psychological ownership refers to the experience of possessive feelings for an object. Such feelings are crucial to human life. Every day, individuals interact with numerous material or immaterial objects to which they feel psychologically attached. As a result, the target of ownership is experienced as having a close link to the self (Pierce et al., 2001, 2004). In this manner, the target becomes part of the extended self and is likely to be perceived as “mine” (Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992; Furby, 1978a). In organizations, feelings of ownership become apparent with possessive pronouns such as “my job” and “our organization” (Vandewalle et al., 1995). As a result, the employee’s job is likely to be perceived as part of the individual’s own identity (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). Moreover, psychological ownership is expected to encourage employees to make decisions in the best interest of their organization. Pierce et al. (2001) concluded that (1) feelings of ownership are inherently human, (2) psychological ownership can occur with material and immaterial targets, and (3) psychological ownership has important emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes. Of particular note is the interchangeable use of the terms “feelings of possession” and “feelings of ownership” in the literature on psychological ownership

8

(Dittmar, 1992; Furby, 1978b). Psychological ownership is also referred to as “perceived or felt ownership” (Beggan, 1992; Cooley, Payne, Loersch, & Lei, 2015; O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Peck, Barger, & Webb, 2013). Many scholars have tried to identify targets for which individuals develop feelings of ownership (Kamptner, 1991; Rochberg-Halton, 1979; Rudmin & Berry, 1987). Although there does not seem to exist a “theory of target,” psychological ownership was found to emerge toward a wide range of objects (Pierce et al., 2003). Potential targets are, for instance, body parts (Rudmin & Berry, 1987), ideas (Isaacs, 1933; Pierce & Jussila, 2010; Prelinger, 1959), tools (Ellis, 1985), automobiles (Dittmar, 1992), homes (Dittmar, 1992; Pierce & Jussila, 2010), friends (Ellis, 1985; Prelinger, 1959; Rudmin & Berry, 1987), words and rhymes (Isaacs, 1933), and other types of creations (Pierce & Jussila, 2010; Rudmin & Berry, 1987). Feelings of ownership were found to emerge in organizations too. They can be directed at the organization as a whole or specific factors such as job tasks, work tools, or team members (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997; Rudmin & Berry, 1987; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). In this light, the existing research on psychological ownership has focused on the emergence of feelings of ownership toward the job and organization, as they are considered to be the two major targets of ownership in organizations (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Pierce, Jussila, & Cummings, 2009). Therefore, this dissertation focuses on job- and organization-based psychological ownership. Most importantly, psychological ownership was found to have a positive impact on various work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction (Avey et al., 2009; Mayhew et al., 2007; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), intention to stay (Avey et al., 2009; Peng & Pierce, 2015), organizational commitment (Avey et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2012; Mayhew et al., 2007; O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), organization-based self-esteem (Liu et al., 2012; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), and extra-role behavior (O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), which refers to behaviors that are not critical to the job tasks but serve to facilitate organizational functioning (Dalal, Lam, Weiss, Welch, & Hulin, 2009). For this reason, psychological ownership is increasingly recognized as a core feeling in the experience of work (Brown, Crossley, et al., 2014).

9

2.1.3 Distinction of Psychological Ownership from Related Constructs The introduction of psychological ownership as a relatively new construct in the literature raises the question of whether it is redundant with already existing constructs (Morrow, 1983). With regard to the distinction of this mental state from related constructs, the following work-related constructs were found to be of particular interest (Pierce et al., 2001): (1) organizational identification; (2) organizational internalization; and (3) organizational commitment. Table 2-1 outlines how psychological ownership differs from these related constructs.

Table 2-1: Distinction of Psychological Ownership from Related Constructs

Question

Psychological Ownership

Commitment

Identification

Internalization

What do I feel is mine?

Should I maintain membership?

Who am I?

What do I believe?

Conceptual Core

Possessiveness

Desire to remain affiliated

Use of characteristics of Shared goals or the organization to values define oneself

Type of State

Affective, Cognitive

Affective

Cognitive, Perceptual

Motivational Base

Efficacy and Effectance Self-identity Need for place

Attraction Security Affiliation Belongingness Beliefs and values Holism

Need to be right Beliefs and values

Organizational Context

Imposition of the self on the target of ownership

Decision to maintain membership

Adoption of the organization’s goals or values

Categorization of self with organization

Cognitive, Objective

Adapted from Brown, Pierce, et al. (2014); Pierce et al. (2001); and Pratt (1998).

Psychological ownership differs from these work-related constructs because it involves feelings of possession (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). For that reason, psychological ownership is proposed to refer to possessive feelings and to ask the question “How much do I feel this organization (workplace) is mine?” (Pierce et al., 2001). The other constructs, by contrast, take a different perspective on the relationship between individuals and their organization. For instance, organizational

10

commitment refers to the desire to stay employed. It answers the question “Why should I maintain my membership in this organization?” (Meyer & Allen, 1991). In comparison, organizational identification relates to the use of characteristics of the organization to define oneself. It asks the question “Who am I?” (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Mael & Tetrick, 1992; Pratt, 1998). Internalization refers to the adoption of values and goals of the organization and asks the question “What do I believe?” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). In light of these findings, Pierce et al. (2001) claimed that psychological ownership refers to a unique set of motives, emerges through a unique set of processes, and corresponds to a unique psychological state with unique outcomes. Thus, they concluded that psychological ownership is conceptually distinct from other work-related attitudes. 2.1.4 Motives Underlying Psychological Ownership From an intra-individual perspective, there are three fundamental motives that explain why psychological ownership exists (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). These human motives are theorized to facilitate the emergence of psychological ownership, but they are not seen as the direct cause of its existence (Pierce et al., 2009). Once these motives are satisfied, feelings of ownership are likely to emerge (Pierce et al., 2009). Efficacy and Effectance: The first motive underlying feelings of ownership is the desire to be in control (Isaacs, 1933). Control over possessions enables individuals to explore and change the environment and to produce desired outcomes (Furby, 1978a, 1980; White, 1959). The freedom to control one’s own actions leads to feelings of efficacy and enjoyment, which arise from “being the cause” (Furby, 1978a; White, 1959). In organizational settings, these feelings can encourage employees to take on responsibility for tasks, processes, and procedures and to feel responsible for achieving success (Avey et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). Self-Identity: The second motive reflects the desire for self-identity (Mead, 1934). In the first place, possessions act as symbolic expressions of personal values and attitudes displayed to others (Dittmar, 1992; Levy, 1959; Rochberg-Halton, 1984). In the second place, possessions help individuals to get to know themselves better, as they learn something about themselves through interaction with their possessions (Dittmar, 1992). Therefore, possessions are often used to describe self-identity (Avey et al., 2009). For example, individuals may perceive themselves as an antique collector, a sports car driver, or a yacht owner. In the third place, possessions serve as an emotional connection between self and the past and therefore help maintain continuity

11

of the self (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Kamptner, 1991; Price, Arnould, & Curasi, 2000). For these reasons, it is suggested that organizations play a central role for the self-identity of employees (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000). Belongingness: The third motive reflects the desire for having a home in which to dwell. Heidegger (1927) noted that being at home refers to being in the world. This psychological state emerges when an individual can infuse the self in a target of ownership. As a result, feelings of being “within” or “part of” the target of ownership arise (Heidegger, 1927; Polanyi, 1958). Further, when individuals inhabit something, that something is no longer a meaningless object for them, but a part of them (“my place”) (Heidegger, 1927; Pierce et al., 2003; Polanyi, 1958; Porteous, 1976). Home occurs through interactions with the environment, as these interactions promote familiarity with a particular place (Dreyfus, 1990). In organizations, having a place refers to a feeling that one belongs to the organization. This need to belong may be satisfied by different organizational factors such as the job and the organization (Avey et al., 2009). When the desire for “having a place” is fulfilled in organizations, employees start to feel as if they own their work. In this manner, employees are expected to find meaning in their work (Pierce & Jussila, 2010; Pierce et al., 2003). Overall, psychological ownership is proposed to satisfy three fundamental motives: efficacy and effectance, self-identity, and belongingness. These motives help to explain why this mental state exists. However, they are not seen as the direct cause of the existence of this mental state (O’Driscoll et al., 2006). 2.1.5 Routes to Psychological Ownership Three major routes or mechanisms explain how psychological ownership emerges: (1) controlling the target; (2) intimate knowledge of the target; and (3) investment of self into the target. The following sections describe the emergence of psychological ownership through these different routes. Route 1: Control Control is a core aspect that facilitates the emergence of psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). As previously described (see Section 2.1.4), control over an object gives rise to feelings of ownership toward that object (Furby, 1980; McClelland, 1951; Rochberg-Halton, 1979; Sartre, 1943; White, 1959). Similar to parts of the body, objects that can be controlled are likely to be experienced as part of the self (McClelland, 1951; Prelinger, 1959; White, 1959). Furby (1978b) argued that the

12

greater the amount of control, the more the object is psychologically experienced as part of the self. Accordingly, objects over which individuals have a large amount of control are likely to be perceived as part of the self (Rudmin & Berry, 1987). Organizations are a primary target of psychological ownership, as they offer many opportunities to exercise control over organizational factors (Pierce et al., 2003). There is a causal relationship between the amount of control an employee has over an organizational factor and the emergence of psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). Liu et al. (2012) suggest that high levels of job autonomy and decision-making lead to perceived control over organizational factors, which is likely to give rise to feelings of ownership. Route 2: Intimate Knowledge Intimate knowledge is another aspect that explains how feelings of ownership emerge (Pierce et al., 2001). Over a hundred years ago, James (1890) stated that individuals develop feelings of ownership through interactions with objects. Later on, Beaglehole (1932) suggested that through intimate knowledge of an object, the target of ownership becomes part of the self. Weil (1952) illustrated this with a gardener who comes to feel that the garden belongs to him. In a similar way, Rudmin and Berry (1987) suggested that individuals tend to prefer their possessions because they know them more intimately than other objects. Organizations are a primary target of psychological ownership, as individuals regularly get to know a number of organizational factors through their work (Pierce et al., 2003). Potential organizational targets are, for instance, the job, work tasks, projects, and work groups (Pierce et al., 2003). When employees come to know organizational factors, they are likely to develop psychological ownership toward them. The more an individual comes to intimately know an organizational factor, the more likely it will be perceived as part of the self (Pierce et al., 2001). Also, a longer period of employment is expected to lead to a more thorough understanding of different organizational factors and to give rise to feelings of ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). Route 3: Investment of Self Investment of self facilitates the emergence of psychological ownership as well (Pierce et al., 2001). A long time ago, the English philosopher Locke (1690) emphasized that individuals own their labor, and therefore they feel that they own what they create, shape, and produce. Likewise, Durkheim (1957) argued that individuals own objects

13

they have created in the same way they own themselves. In the 1800s Marx argued that these objects are likely to be perceived as representations of the self, similar to a person’s thoughts, emotions, and words (Marx, 1976). In this light, Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) concluded that the investment of energy, time, and effort into objects leads to the fusion of self with that object. Organizations are a primary target of psychological ownership, as they offer many opportunities for employees to invest themselves into different aspects. In organizations, the investment of time, ideas, skills, and energy into organizational factors is likely to induce feelings of ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). Pierce et al. (2003) suggested that the more an individual can invest the self into an organizational target, the more this target is experienced as part of the self. Potential organizational targets are job tasks, projects, work groups, products, and even customers (Beaglehole, 1931). As a result, employees are expected to develop feelings of ownership toward these organizational targets (Pierce et al., 2001). Summing up, feelings of ownership are likely to arise in organizations when individuals can control, can come to intimately know, and can invest themselves into organizational factors. These are the three major routes that explain how psychological ownership emerges in the existing job. However, prior research has not considered how important these routes are for employees in the ideal job setting. Therefore, this dissertation intends to examine the desires for psychological ownership that refer to the ideal job as opposed to the existing job. The detection of such desires for psychological ownership is expected to provide insights into the ideal working conditions for the emergence of feelings of ownership. Table 2-2 outlines the relationship between routes and psychological ownership.

14

Table 2-2: Routes to Psychological Ownership Relationship between Routes and Psychological Ownership

Route 1: Control

Route 2: Intimate Knowledge

Route 3: Investment of Self

The control over organizational factors such as job tasks, projects, and team members facilitates the emergence of psychological ownership The more control an individual has over an organizational factor, the higher the degree of ownership felt toward that factor The acquisition of profound information about different organizational factors facilitates the emergence of psychological ownership The more an individual comes to know an organizational factor, the higher the degree of ownership felt toward that factor The investment of time, ideas, skills, and energy into an organizational factor facilitates the emergence of psychological ownership The more an individual invests the self into an organizational factor, the higher the degree of ownership felt toward that factor

15

2.2 Intrapersonal Factors Affecting Psychological Ownership 2.2.1 Perspectives on Intrapersonal Factors Individuals vary in a wide range of intrapersonal factors. The study of individual differences strives to explain how individuals differ from each other and in what ways they are similar (Prentice, 1987). In psychology, differences in intrapersonal factors have been studied from several theoretical perspectives. Each perspective offers an explanation of how individuals differ in their thinking, feeling, and behavior by focusing on a particular phenomenon. These differences are of interest, as intrapersonal factors have been found to influence work-related outcomes (Locke, 1976; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). One perspective on intrapersonal factors is rooted in the trait theory, which has a rich history in psychology (Allport, 1937; Solomon, 2015). Personality traits generally are defined as “dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions” (McCrae & Costa, 2003, p. 25). Thus, personality traits are individual characteristics that are stable across situations and over time (Allport, 1937; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). They form a person’s unique and stable psychological characteristics and determine the way individuals react to their environment (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Solomon, 2015). To a large extent, personality traits are inborn qualities (Olver & Mooradian, 2003). There is evidence that genetic factors considerably affect personality traits (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Also, personality traits are considered not to conflict with one another, as individuals can express several personality traits at the same time (Olver & Mooradian, 2003). The most common model to describe the human trait structure incorporates five major factors. These factors are often referred to as the “big five” personality traits, which are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Scholars have used these five factors to predict individual differences in various settings (Roccas et al., 2002). As a whole, this perspective explains individual differences by focusing on enduring dispositions that are stable over time and describe how individuals are. Another perspective on intrapersonal factors is rooted in the value theory. Values, like personality traits, are intrapersonal factors that are stable over time. They refer to cognitive representations of desirable, abstract goals (e.g., security, justice) (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992; Sears & Kinder, 1985). In this manner, values serve as guiding

16

principles in daily life and form the basis for judging one’s own behavior and that of others (Rokeach, 1973). To a large extent, values are considered to be determinants of attitudes, which refer to the evaluation of a particular situation with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Vinson, Scott, & Lamont, 1977). The effect of values on behavior is expected to flow from abstract values to mid-range attitudes to specific behaviors (Homer & Kahle, 1988). An essential characteristic of values is that they are ordered by importance (Vinson et al., 1977). The location of different values in this hierarchy of importance determines the perception and behavior of individuals in a particular situation (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Hence, an individual will act according to the more important value when two values are in conflict (Parks & Guay, 2009). Compared to personality traits that are considered to be enduring dispositions (McCrae & Costa, 2003), values are enduring goals (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Traits describe what individuals are like and do not refer to the intention behind their behavior. In contrast, values relate to the goals that individuals pursue and give insight into what individuals consider important (Roccas et al., 2002). Moreover, personal values are socially learned beliefs (Rokeach, 1973), whereas personality traits are considered to be relatively inborn qualities (Olver & Mooradian, 2003). As a whole, this perspective explains individual differences by focusing on the intentions behind the behavior of individuals. The third perspective on intrapersonal factors is rooted in the theory of needs and motives. This view assumes that individual differences can be explained by fluctuations of needs that influence an individual’s behavior (Carver & Scheier, 2004). A need refers to an internal state that is not satisfactory but required for well-being. Some needs are biological (e.g., need for food, need for water), whereas others are psychogenic (e.g., need for power, need for affiliation) (Murray, 1938). According to this perspective, needs vary across time and situations. Moreover, individuals appear to have different levels of specific needs. The ongoing fluctuation of needs can explain the behavior of individuals at different times. When one need is satisfied, and others are getting stronger, individuals move from doing one thing to something else (Carver & Scheier, 2004; Murray, 1938). Hence, the particular behavior of a person depends on which need is strongest at that point in time. It is theorized that needs influence behavior through motives (McClelland, 1965). Individuals experience motives as conscious or unconscious intentions and goals (Parks & Guay, 2009; Winter, John, Stewart, Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998). Motives cause individuals to reach the desired end-point (McCabe & Fleeson, 2016). They provide insight into the “why” of

17

behavior, as each motive reflects an underlying need (McClelland, 1985). Thus, according to this view, individual differences can be described by focusing on the fluctuation of needs that influence the motives and behavior of individuals. Summing up, each perspective explains differences in intrapersonal factors based on another theoretical foundation. Because the constructs of these various perspectives (e.g., personality traits, values) were found to only partially overlap (Roccas et al., 2002), each construct is considered to predict distinct work-related outcomes (Buchanan & Bardi, 2015; McClelland, 1951). Given that the present research aims to identify all relevant intrapersonal factors affecting psychological ownership, each of these perspectives is adopted in this dissertation. 2.2.2 Role of Intrapersonal Factors in Organizational Settings Intrapersonal factors play a major role in organizational settings, as they were found to have an impact on several work-related constructs, such as employee motivation (Locke, 1991), decision making (Feather, 1995; Ravlin & Meglino, 1987), organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), turnover intentions (Peltokorpi, Allen, & Froese, 2015), extra-role behavior (Feather & Rauter, 2004), and job satisfaction (Locke, 1976). For that reason, prior research has examined various intrapersonal factors (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Rhodes, 1983; Twenge, 2010; Woodward, Vongswasdi, & More, 2015) in order to facilitate the anticipation of employee reactions to different tasks, incentives, and work environments (Lyons, Higgins, & Duxbury, 2010). Most importantly, the individual consideration of employees’ intrapersonal factors is a core element of contemporary and effective leadership behavior (Jenewein & Morhart, 2008; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Effective leaders are said to raise the motives, beliefs, and values of their employees to higher levels by showing idealized influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985, 1999; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). They were found to pay attention to the differences among their employees by showing a genuine interest in the needs and concerns of their followers (Avolio & Bass, 2002; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). This empowers leaders to discover what motivates their employees and to support them in their growth (Bass, 1999). As a result, the individual consideration of intrapersonal factors is suggested to bring out the best from every employee (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). In this light, Waldman, Bass, and Einstein (1987) found empirical evidence for a positive effect of individualized consideration on employee

18

performance. Furthermore, individual consideration was found to increase affective commitment, career certainty, job satisfaction, and the employees’ satisfaction with the working relationship (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Summing up, intrapersonal factors play an important role in organizational settings. On the one hand, the understanding of intrapersonal factors facilitates the anticipation of how individuals will react to different tasks, incentives, and work environments. On the other hand, the consideration of intrapersonal factors forms the basis for employee management and motivation. 2.2.3 Influence of Intrapersonal Factors on Psychological Ownership Individuals are considered to have different needs for psychological ownership, depending on their intrapersonal factors (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). The reason for this is that each intrapersonal factor is assumed to affect feelings of ownership in a particular way. The subsequent section explains how differences in intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership by referring to the three perspectives on intrapersonal factors that were outlined previously (see Section 2.2.1). According to the trait theory, personality traits are likely to influence the motives and behavior of individuals (Winter et al., 1998). For instance, individuals with a high selfesteem are assumed to pursue rather intrinsic targets, whereas those with a low selfesteem are expected to prefer rather materialistic targets (Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Pierce et al., 2003). For this reason, Pierce et al. (2003) suggest that personality traits determine how individuals select their target of ownership. As a consequence, the different personality traits of individuals are likely to affect the emergence of psychological ownership in a particular way. According to the value theory, individual values affect the preference for targets of ownership. As previously outlined, values are ordered by importance (Vinson et al., 1977). This makes some objects more or less preferred. In light of this, Pierce et al. (2003) conclude that individuals prefer different targets of ownership according to their personal values. For this reason, the different values of individuals are likely to affect the emergence of psychological ownership in a particular way. According to the theory of needs and motives, fluctuations of needs and motives affect the behavior of individuals. This theory considers individual behavior to depend on the need that is strongest at a certain point in time. Pierce et al. (2003) suggest that the ongoing fluctuation of needs and motives affects the actual need for psychological

19

ownership. As a consequence, the different individual needs and motives are likely to affect the emergence of psychological ownership in a particular way. Moreover, age-related differences of members of the workforce are likely to affect the emergence of psychological ownership. Twenge and Campbell (2008), for instance, found evidence that an increasing number of employees have high creativity demands. This observed increase in creativity demand is expected to have an influence on the route relating to investment of self. Additionally, younger employees are found to be more me-oriented (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Twenge, Campbell, & Freeman, 2012; Twenge, 2010) and to have stronger positive self-views compared to their older counterparts (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010; Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2012). As a result, these age-related differences in intrapersonal factors are expected to affect the routes to psychological ownership. Summing up, each intrapersonal factor is proposed to affect the emergence of psychological ownership in a particular way. The specific influence of intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership can be explained by referring to different theoretical foundations of intrapersonal factors.

20

2.2.4 Potential Intrapersonal Factors Affecting Psychological Ownership The most systematic research to date on intrapersonal factors can be found in the literature on age-related and generational differences. In order to determine a relevant set of intrapersonal factors likely to affect psychological ownership, several major literature reviews over the past decades were examined for the present research (i.e., Kooij, De Lange, Jansen, Kanfer, & Dikkers, 2011; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Rhodes, 1983; Twenge & Campbell, 2008; Twenge, 2010; Woodward et al., 2015). Based on these literature reviews covering hundreds of studies, the most frequently reported intrapersonal factors were identified. Table 2-3 provides an overview of the intrapersonal factors reported in each literature review and shows how these factors are grouped in this dissertation. It has to be mentioned that the table does not contain factors referring to job-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, job commitment, intention to stay). The following sections explain the major characteristics of the intrapersonal factors identified in the literature reviews. Self-esteem refers to the individual’s self-evaluation or judgment of his or her own worth (Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). Most of the literature treats self-esteem as a global dimension that relates to the individual’s positive or negative attitude toward the self as a totality (Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995; Rosenberg, 1965). Recent research distinguishes among different facets of self-esteem, such as academic and social self-esteem (Rosenberg et al., 1995). Narcissism refers to a positive and inflated view of the self, in particular relating to agentic traits such as intellectual skills or physical attractiveness (Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008). Individuals who score high on narcissism are likely to behave in a way that enhances their sense of personal worth (Twenge et al., 2008), such as seeking a high-status partner (Campbell, 1999) or attracting attention (Buss & Chiodo, 1991). According to the widely used Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), narcissism is characterized by a tendency toward authority, exhibitionism, superiority, vanity, exploitativeness, entitlement, and self-sufficiency (Raskin & Terry, 1988).

Affiliation, Altruistic Values, Work Ethic

Absence, Accidents, Job Involvement, Need for Affiliation

Others (not included)

1) Allocation to multiple categories

Leisure Values, Work Centrality

Work Values

Importance of Work

Power Importance

Need for Security

Extrinsic Motivation

Helping People, Working with People

Benefits, Compensation, Job Security, Prestige, Recognition, Status

Development or Challenge, Interesting Work, Use of Skills1)

Internal Work Motivation, Need for Growth1), Need for SelfActualization1)

Intrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic Values

Accomplishment or Achievement

Use of Skills1)

Kooij et al. (2011)

Need for Growth1)

Intrinsic Values

True Fulfillment

Individualistic Traits & Attitudes

Twenge (2010)

Achievement Importance

External Locus of Control

Anxiety, Depression Appreciation of Authenticity

Need for Social Approval

Self-Esteem Narcissism

Twenge & Campbell (2008)

Need for Growth1)

Need for Autonomy, Need for SelfActualization1) Need for SelfActualization1)

Need for Esteem

Rhodes (1983)

Self-Efficacy

Desire for Authenticity

Neuroticism

Individualism

Need for Uniqueness

Self-Esteem Narcissism

Relevant Set of Intrapersonal Factors

Table 2-3: Identification of a Relevant Set of Intrapersonal Factors Lyons & Kuron (2014)

External Locus of Control, Learning1), Personal Growth1), Training & Development1) Achievement, Career Success1), Personal Growth1), Progression, Promotion1) Intellectual Stimulation, Personal Enjoyment, Personal Growth1), Training & Development1), Learning1) Career Success1), Extrinsic Values, Gratification, Promotion1), Status Power Flexible Work Hours, Importance of Work, Work-Life Balance Affiliation, Altruism, Authority, Craftsmanship, Conservation Values, Independence, Openness, Using Technology

Leisure Values, WorkLife Balance Altruism, Authority, Communication, Compliance, Job Mobility, Leadership Preferences, Social Values, Technology, Teamwork, Work Ethic Career Mobility, Competitiveness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Teamwork, Work Ethic

Power

Extrinsic Values, Good Pay, Job Security, Recognition, Status

Advancement Opportunities1), Intrinsic Values, Job Itself, Learning & Growth1)

Advancement Opportunities1), Learning & Growth1)

Learning & Growth1)

Autonomy

Woodward et al. (2015)

Leisure Values, Work Centrality

Material Reward

True Fulfillment

Self-Esteem Narcissism Individual-Focused "Me" Orientation, Leadership, Self-Enhancement Individualistic Needs Individualism, SelfIndividual Consideration Reliance Anxiety, Depression Neuroticism

Self-Esteem Narcissism

Parry & Urwin (2011)

21

22

Need for uniqueness refers to a striving for distinctiveness relative to other individuals for the purpose of enhancing the self- and social-image (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001). Individuals with a high need for uniqueness are likely to show behaviors that reduce similarities to others (Simonson & Nowlis, 2000). Highuniqueness consumers are more apt to desire scarce, innovative, and customized products (Lynn & Harris, 1997). As all individuals appear to long for being unique to some extent, need for uniqueness is conceptualized as a universal, cross-cultural trait (Tian et al., 2001). Individualism refers to giving priority to personal goals over in-group goals, whereas collectivism puts an emphasis on subordinating personal goals to in-group goals (Hofstede, 1984; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). The research on individualism differentiates between horizontal and vertical individualism. Horizontal individualism refers to the emphasis on autonomous individuals who are more or less equal in status. In contrast, vertical individualism refers to autonomous individuals who want to become distinguished and acquire status (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Neuroticism refers to the tendency to be emotionally unstable. Mostly it is characterized by anxiety, anger, depression, impulsiveness, and vulnerability (Costa & McCrae, 1987). Hence, neuroticism consists partly of the absence of optimism (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). Individuals who score high on neuroticism are likely to experience negative emotions, intense mood swings, nervousness, and irritability (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985). Desire for authenticity refers to the search for something that is real, genuine, or true. It is expected that authenticity helps individuals to find meaning in their lives (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). In the person-centered conception, authenticity relates to the consistency between the actual experience, the individual’s values and beliefs, and the degree to which the individual accepts the influence of others (BarrettLennard, 1998; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008). Beverland and Farrelly (2010) showed that individuals seek authenticity in different kinds of experiences, depending on their goals. Self-efficacy refers to the belief in one’s own ability to perform a specific task (Bandura, 1977). Moreover, it determines whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be spent, and how long it will be maintained even in difficult situations (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982; Bandura, 1977). Perceived self-efficacy

23

is assumed to influence the choice of environment, such as the organization an individual chooses to work for (Bandura, 1977; Gist, 1987). Achievement importance refers to the value placed on personal success in line with social standards. It emphasizes the active demonstration of competence in everyday situations (e.g., ambitious) in order to obtain social recognition and admiration (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Schwartz, 1992). Achievement is related to characteristics such as ambition, success, capability, influence, and intelligence (Schwartz, 1992). What constitutes achievement as a basis for social recognition is likely to depend on sociocultural and contextual factors (Salili, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Intrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activity for the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself (Deci, 1972; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Intrinsic motivation arises from the substance of the work (Amabile, Hil, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). Individuals who score high in intrinsic motivation are likely to seek out novelty and challenges, to explore and to acquire new knowledge (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). However, there is evidence that various external influences such as rewards can reduce individuals’ intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1972). Extrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activity because it leads to external rewards (e.g., money, status, approval) (Deci, 1972). Extrinsic motivation arises from the desire to obtain some outcomes that are separate from the work itself (Amabile et al., 1994). Individuals who score high in extrinsic motivation are likely to satisfy their needs indirectly, especially through monetary compensation (Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Power importance refers to the value placed by an individual on achievement of social status and control over people and resources (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990). Individuals who score high in power importance are likely to value authority, wealth, social power, preserving one’s image, and social recognition. Hence, power importance focuses on the individual’s outcomes in the hierarchical structure of a society (Schwartz, 1992). Importance of work relates to the value of work relative to other areas of life (Kanungo, 1982). It represents the extent to which a person identifies with work (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000). Individuals who score high in importance of work are likely to derive personal meaning from work and to be prepared to work long hours (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000; Kanungo, 1982; Sturges & Guest, 2004). Hence,

24

importance of work represents the relative allocation of time and effort among various life domains (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000). Table 2-4 summarizes the central characteristics of the intrapersonal factors discussed above.

Table 2-4: Description of Intrapersonal Factors Intrapersonal Factor

Description

Self-Esteem

Evaluation or judgment of self-worth

Narcissism

Positive and inflated view of the self

Need for Uniqueness

Striving for distinctiveness relative to others

Individualism

Giving priority to personal goals over in-group goals

Neuroticism

Tendency to be emotionally unstable

Desire for Authenticity

Search for something that is real, genuine, or true

Self-Efficacy

Belief in the ability to perform a specific task

Achievement Importance

Value of personal success in line with social standards

Intrinsic Motivation

Performance of an activity for the enjoyment of it

Extrinsic Motivation

Performance of an activity because of external rewards

Power Importance

Value placed on achievement of status and control

Importance of Work

Value placed on work relative to other areas of life

25

2.3 Conceptual Model The following sections develop a conceptual model of the effect of intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership and employee performance. The model is based on the previously outlined theoretical foundations. 2.3.1 Effects of Psychological Ownership on Employee Performance A large quantity of research has found evidence that psychological ownership has a positive effect on job satisfaction (Avey et al., 2009; Mayhew et al., 2007; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), which refers to the extent to which individuals feel positive or negative about their jobs (Fischer & Lück, 1972). Likewise, psychological ownership was found to affect intention to stay (Avey et al., 2009; Peng & Pierce, 2015), which reflects the decision of an employee to remain in the organization (Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009). Furthermore, research has shown that psychological ownership influences affective commitment (Avey et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2012; Mayhew et al., 2007; O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), which reflects the emotional attachment to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). In addition, there is evidence for an influence of psychological ownership on organization-based self-esteem (Liu et al., 2012; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), which refers to the perceived value that employees have of themselves (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989). Similarly, psychological ownership was found to affect extra-role behavior, which is also known as citizenship behavior (O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995). It refers to behaviors that are not critical to the job tasks but serve to facilitate organizational functioning (Dalal et al., 2009). Finally, psychological ownership is assumed to influence other performance measures (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) such as work overtime, i.e., the hours an employee works beyond the normal schedule (Baird & Beccia, 1980). Based on the evidence above, both job- and organization-based psychological ownership are proposed to have a positive effect on employee performance. In this research, employee performance is conceptualized as job satisfaction, intention to stay, affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, extra-role behavior, and work overtime.

26

2.3.2 Effects of Routes on Psychological Ownership Three major routes are suggested to give rise to feelings of ownership. As previously outlined (see Section 2.1.5), when members of an organization are able to control, can intimately come to know, and can invest themselves into the target of ownership, feelings of ownership are likely to arise toward that target. It is through these routes that individuals come to feel psychologically attached to their job and organization. Despite a significant amount of literature theorizing that psychological ownership emerges through these routes (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014; Pierce et al., 2001, 2003, 2004, 2009), little research has empirically explored the existence of these routes in practice. To the author’s best knowledge, only Brown, Pierce, et al. (2014) have found empirical evidence for the emergence of job-based psychological ownership through these routes. Moreover, existing research lacks empirical evidence for the emergence of organization-based psychological ownership through these routes. Against this background, control, intimate knowledge, and investment of self are proposed to give rise to feelings of ownership for the job and organization. 2.3.3 Effects of Intrapersonal Factors on Routes and Desires As previously mentioned (see Section 2.2.3), the emergence of psychological ownership is proposed to depend on intrapersonal factors, which are stable over time and vary among individuals. In this regard, this research examines how intrapersonal factors affect the routes to job- and organization-based psychological ownership. These routes explain how psychological ownership of the job and organization emerges in the existing job setting. Moreover, this dissertation is the first study to examine how intrapersonal factors stimulate different desires for job- and organization-based psychological ownership. These desires relate to the ideal job setting as opposed to the existing job. In this manner, the desires provide insight into the personal importance that individuals attach to psychological ownership. In addition, it’s possible to deduce implications of these desires for creation of the best possible working conditions to increase employees’ sense of ownership. Based on these considerations, this dissertation explores the influence of twelve intrapersonal factors (see Section 2.2.4) on the routes to psychological ownership and on the desires for psychological ownership: Self-Esteem, Narcissism, Need for Uniqueness, Individualism, Neuroticism, Desire for Authenticity, Self-Efficacy,

27

Achievement

Importance,

Intrinsic

Motivation,

Extrinsic

Motivation,

Power

Importance, and Importance of Work. 2.3.4 Summary of Conceptual Model Following from the above, a conceptual model was developed of the influence of intrapersonal factors on routes, psychological ownership, and performance. Figure 2-1 depicts the conceptual model of this dissertation.

Figure 2-1: Conceptual Model

Note: Org. = Organization

The conceptual model shows that twelve intrapersonal factors are proposed to influence the routes to job- and organization-based psychological ownership in the existing job setting, and these routes and resulting psychological ownership in turn are suggested to have an impact on employee performance. Likewise, these intrapersonal factors are expected to affect the desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting. Next, Chapter 3 outlines the empirical investigation of this conceptual model.

28

3 Empirical Analysis The following section gives an introductory overview of the empirical approach that facilitates answering the research questions.

3.1 Overview of Empirical Approach Based on the conceptual model of this dissertation, three studies were conducted. Each study had the objective to answer one of the three research questions. Study 1 identified several intrapersonal factors affecting psychological ownership. This study addressed the first research question: “Which intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership?” Study 2 focused on the existing job and examined how intrapersonal factors influence psychological ownership and employee performance. This study addressed the second research question: “To what extent does psychological ownership establish a link between intrapersonal factors and employee performance in the existing job setting?” Study 3 focused on the ideal job and examined the relationship between intrapersonal factors and the desires for psychological ownership, which relate to the personal importance of psychological ownership. The identification of these desires aims to uncover the best possible working conditions that lead to psychological ownership. This study addressed the third research question: “How do intrapersonal factors affect the desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting?” For data collection, cross-sectional survey designs were conducted, which refers to the analysis of data from a particular point in time (Malhotra & Grover, 1998). Crosssectional studies have several advantages: First, cross-sectional survey designs permit the collection of numerous characteristics from a large group of people (Schneider, Ashworth, Higgs, & Carr, 1996). Second, cross-sectional studies allow for the conduct of “relevant” research. While the term “relevance” is debatable, it has emphasized the importance of field-based research in the business context where practice occurs (Malhotra & Grover, 1998). Third, cross-sectional studies provide a basis for managerial decision making, as they permit detection of differences that are relevant at a certain time (Parry & Urwin, 2011). Finally, and most importantly, cross-sectional studies are particularly suitable for exploratory research, in which there is usually no clear model since the objective is to better understand a specific topic (Malhotra & Grover, 1998). Because all these aspects correspond to the research objectives of this dissertation, cross-sectional studies were considered to constitute an appropriate

29

methodological approach. Table 3-1 summarizes the three studies that were conducted to examine the overall conceptual model.

Table 3-1: Overview of Studies Study 1: Detection of Relevant Intrapersonal Factors Objective

Detection of intrapersonal factors affecting psychological ownership

Participants

Consumer panel

Sample Size

370

Study 2: Psychological Ownership in the Existing Job Objective

Effect of intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership and performance

Participants

Employees across all hierarchical levels of a leading SME company in Germany

Sample Size

823

Study 3: Psychological Ownership in the Ideal Job Objective

Effect of intrapersonal factors on desires for psychological ownership

Participants

Representative sample of the overall population in Germany and Switzerland

Sample Size

626

For data analysis, a structural equation modeling approach was adopted in each study. Structural equation models are considered to be a powerful tool to analyze the relationship between manifest and latent constructs (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). These models can simultaneously examine complex interdependencies among several endogenous constructs (Grewal, Cote, & Baumgartner, 2004). In addition, they have the ability to account for measurement error (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and they offer good potential for further theory development (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Because each of the studies in this research examined a complex relationship among several latent constructs that included measurement errors, a structural equation modeling approach was chosen. In this manner, it was possible to compare the results of the different studies.

30

3.2 Study 1: Identification of Intrapersonal Factors 3.2.1 Overview The objective of Study 1 was to identify intrapersonal factors that affect the emergence of job- and organization-based psychological ownership. Thereby this study addressed the first research question of this dissertation (see Section 1.2). For this purpose, an online survey was conducted. The survey included questions relating to psychological ownership and the set of intrapersonal factors determined in Section 2.2.4. It aimed to lay the groundwork for Studies 2 and 3. According to the theory of psychological ownership, feelings of ownership are inherently human and emerge toward various targets every day (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). In this light, this study focused on the desires for psychological ownership in the general population to identify intrapersonal factors that affect the general emergence of feelings of ownership. Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk), which is said to be a valuable source for data collection in science. Further, and most importantly, mTurk participants are described as more representative of the general population than other convenience samples (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). The study was conducted online for several reasons: First, online data collection permits reaching a wide variety of individuals. Second, the online format made it possible to include a large number of measures in the survey, which was required in order to identify all relevant intrapersonal factors affecting psychological ownership. Third, the online setting allowed individuals to participate anonymously at any point in time. 3.2.2 Participants and Procedure Overall, 407 respondents participated in this first study, with 37 participants excluded from the analysis due to invalid responses (see Section 3.2.4 for further information). This resulted in a total sample size of 370 participants. All received a small amount of money as compensation. All participants indicated that they reside in the United States of America. The average response time was 12 minutes. Demographically, 48 percent of the participants were male. The average age of the participants was 38.1 years. Almost 80 percent of the respondents had an annual

31

income of up to USD 60,000. Further, 54 percent of the respondents were employed, 35 percent were self-employed, and 11 percent were unemployed. Figure 3-1 outlines the descriptive statistics of the participants.

Figure 3-1: Descriptive Sample Statistics of Study 1

The participants were informed that this study was being conducted for academic purposes only and that all information would be analyzed anonymously. The invitation on the website of mTurk included a link that directed participants to the survey. The first section of the online survey included several questions relating to desires for psychological ownership of the job and organization. The next section was composed of questions pertaining to intrapersonal factors. The last section included questions relating to personal details of the participants. 3.2.3 Measures All measures of this study were published in English. Unless otherwise stated, all items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Because this study included a large number of measures relating to twelve intrapersonal factors and different aspects of psychological ownership, several measures had to be shortened. For this purpose, items with the lowest factor loadings

32

reported in the original measurement paper were removed in this study. Appendix 1 lists all measures used in this study. Desires for Psychological Ownership The desires for psychological ownership were measured on an adapted scale referring to the routes to psychological ownership, which was developed by Brown, Crossley, et al. (2014). For this purpose, the items pertaining to the routes were rephrased to relate to the corresponding desires for psychological ownership. The desire for job-based control was measured with the following items: I would like to have influence over the things that affect me on the job / I would like to have influence over the tasks or parts of tasks that I do / I would like to have influence over job-related decisions that affect me / I would like to set my own work deadlines / I would like to control the pace and scheduling of the work that I do / In general, I would like to have control over my job. The desire for organization-based control was assessed with the following items: I would like to have influence over the things that affect the organization / I would like to have influence over the organization or parts of the organization / I would like to have influence over organization-related decisions / In general, I would like to have control over my organization. The desire for job-based intimate knowledge was measured by employing the following items: I would like to have a depth of knowledge as it relates to the job / I would like to have a comprehensive understanding of the work that I am asked to do / I would like to have a broad understanding of my job. Organization-based intimate knowledge was assessed with the following items: I would like to have a depth of knowledge as it relates to the organization / I would like to have a comprehensive understanding of the activities of the organization / I would like to have a broad understanding of my organization. Job-based investment of self was assessed by employing the following items: I would like to invest a major part of “myself” into my job / I would like to invest many of my ideas into my job / I would like to invest a number of my talents into my job / I would like to invest a significant amount of my life into my job / In general, I would like to invest a lot in my job. Organization-based investment of self was measured with the following items: I would like to invest a major part of “myself” into my organization / I would like to invest many of my ideas into my organization / I would like to invest a number of my talents into my organization / I would like to invest a significant amount

33

of my life into my organization / In general, I would like to invest a lot in my organization. Intrapersonal Factors Self-esteem was measured on the short-form scale of Bachman and O’Malley (1977), which was developed on the basis of the Rosenberg (1965) scale. The following items were used: At times I think I am no good at all / I feel that I have a number of good qualities / I am able to do things as well as most other people / I feel I do not have much to be proud of / I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others / I take a positive attitude toward myself. Narcissism was assessed by employing the Raskin and Terry (1988) scale. The following items were used in line with the short-form scale of Schütz, Marcus, and Sellin (2004) in the German language: I wish somebody would someday write my biography / I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so / I am an extraordinary person / I am going to be a great person / I think I am a special person. Need for uniqueness was measured with the following items from the Ruvio, Shoham, and Brencic (2008) scale: I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-themill products because I enjoy being original / I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness by buying special products or brands / I have often violated the understood rules of my social group regarding what to buy or own / I have often gone against the understood rules of my social group regarding when and how certain products are properly used / I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population / The more commonplace a product or brand is among the general population, the less interested I am in buying it. Individualism was measured by employing the Triandis et al. (1988) scale. Horizontal individualism was assessed with the following items: I’d rather depend on myself than others / I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others / I often do "my own thing" / My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me. The following items were used to measure vertical individualism: It is important that I do my job better than others / Winning is everything / Competition is the law of nature / When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused. Neuroticism was measured with items from the Francis, Brown, and Philipchalk (1992) scale extending from (1) completely false to (7) completely true. The following items were used: Does your mood often go up and down? / Do you often feel “fed-

34

up”? / Would you call yourself a nervous person? / Are you a worrier? / Do you suffer from “nerves”? / Do you often feel lonely? Desire for authenticity was assessed with the following slightly adapted items of the Wood et al. (2008) scale: I am true to myself in most situations / I live in accordance with my values and beliefs / I am not influenced by the opinions of others / I usually do what I want to do / I feel as if I know myself very well / I feel in touch with the “real me.” Self-efficacy was measured by employing the short-form scale of Beierlein, Kovaleva, Kemper, and Rammstedt (2012) that was developed on the basis of the Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1999) scale. The measure included the following items: I can rely on my own abilities in difficult situations / I am able to solve most problems on my own / I can usually solve even challenging and complex tasks well. Achievement importance was assessed with the Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) scale extending from (1) not at all important to (7) extremely important. The following items were used: Successful (achieving goals) / Capable (competent, effective, efficient) / Ambitious (hardworking, aspiring) / Influential (having an impact on people and events) / Intelligent (logical, thinking). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were measured on the Amabile et al. (1994) scale. The following items were used to measure intrinsic motivation: I want my work to provide me with opportunities for increasing my knowledge and skills / It is important for me to have an outlet for self-expression / What matters most to me is enjoying what I do / I enjoy trying to solve complex problems. The following items were used to measure extrinsic motivation: I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people / I have to feel that I’m earning something for what I do / I am keenly aware of the income goals I have for myself / I am strongly motivated by the money I can earn. Power importance was assessed on a scale developed by Burroughs and Rindfleisch, (2002) ranging from (1) not at all important to (7) extremely important. The following items were applied: Social power (control over others, dominance) / Authority (the right to lead or command) / Wealth (material possessions, money) / Preserving my public image (protecting my “face”) / Social recognition (respect, approval by others). Importance of work was measured by employing the following items of the Kanungo (1982) scale: Work is something people should get involved in most of the time /

35

Work should be considered central to life / In my view, an individual’s personal life goals should be work-oriented. Controls This study controlled for a number of individual demographics that are likely to affect intrapersonal factors and psychological ownership. For that purpose, participants were asked to indicate their gender, their age (year of birth), and their job position (see Appendix 1 for further information). Furthermore, social desirability was measured on a scale of Kemper, Beierlein, Bensch, Kovaleva, and Rammstedt (2014) using the following items: It has happened that I have taken advantage of someone in the past / Even if I am feeling stressed, I am always friendly and polite to others / Sometimes I only help people if I expect to get something in return / In an argument, I always remain objective and stick to the facts / I have occasionally thrown litter away in the countryside or onto the road / When talking to someone I always listen carefully to what the other person says. In addition, honesty was measured by asking the participants to indicate whether they had answered the survey honestly on a 7-point Likert scale extending from (1) seldom honestly to (7) always honestly. 3.2.4 Results This section reports the results of Study 1. The first section describes the findings of a confirmatory factor analysis that was conducted to assess the measurement model. The subsequent section reports the findings of the structural equation model, which was used to identify those intrapersonal factors that affect the emergence of psychological ownership. All analyses were run in the lavaan package (Version 0.5-20) for R (Version 3.1.2). Evaluation of Measurement Model Data cleansing was carried out prior to data analysis. Twenty-three responses were excluded due to the response time, as only the 5–95 percentile range was included in the analysis in order to adjust for outliers. Ten responses were excluded due to social desirability concerns, as all answers on the short scale of Kemper et al. (2014) were socially desirable. An additional four responses were excluded because the respondents indicated having answered the survey with a low level of honesty (answers < 4) on a 7-point Likert scale extending from (1) seldom honestly to (7) always honestly. This resulted in a final sample size of 370 responses.

36

To assess measurement reliability, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Overall, there is evidence for an acceptable fit of the measurement model with the data. More specifically, squared multiple correlations of the items are higher than the critical value of 0.4 (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994). In addition, Cronbach’s alpha (CA) of the constructs exceeds the threshold value of 0.6 for exploratory research (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). The majority of constructs even have alpha values higher than 0.8 (Rossiter, 2002). In addition, the composite reliability (CR) scores are larger than the threshold value of 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Similarly, average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct is larger than the critical value of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Because all scores exceed the recommended threshold values, there is evidence for a high internal consistency of the different measures. Appendix 2 reports the final measurement model. It includes the AVE, CR, and CA of each measure and lists the standardized loadings and squared correlations of the items. Discriminant validity, the degree to which the measures of the constructs are distinct from each other, was examined on the basis of Fornell and Larcker (1981). For this purpose, the squared correlation between each of the measures had to be smaller than the average variance extracted of those measures. Table 3-2 shows the squared correlations and the average variance extracted in this measurement model. Of particular note is the relatively high correlation between the measures of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Also, extrinsic motivation was found to have a rather high correlation with achievement importance and power importance. Similarly, horizontal individualism had a rather high correlation with desire for authenticity and selfefficacy. However, as all these measures with high correlations were removed in the modification process of the structural equation models (see Table 3-3 and Table 3-4), there is proof of discriminant validity in this measurement model.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

(.65) -.23 (.50) (.55) (.83) -.43 (.73) (.67) (.49)

3. Need for Uniqueness

4. Individualism (Horizontal)

5. Individualism (Vertical)

6. Neuroticism

7. Desire for Authenticity

8. Self-Efficacy

9. Achievement Importance

(.53) (.62) -.15 (.65) (.82) (.68) (.77) (.71) (.78)

12. Power Importance

13. Importance of Work

14. Desire for Control (Job)

15. Desire for Control (Org.)

16. Desire for Investment of Self (Job)

17. Desire for Investment of Self (Org.)

18. Desire for Intimate Knowledge (Job)

19. Desire for Intimate Knowledge (Org.)

.10

.19

.19

-.02

.39

.18

.14

.20

.21

.29

.26

.30

.06

-.14

.53

.15

-.02

-

Note: AVE = Average Variance Extracted; Org. = Organization

.42

.14

.31

.44

.22

.27

.03

.20

(.50)

11. Extrinsic Motivation

.37

(.75)

10. Intrinsic Motivation

.55

.69

.53

.14

.47

.18

(.54)

2. Narcissism

-

(.66)

1. Self-Esteem

.01

.07

.07

.05

-.04

.01

.10

.44

.20

-.08

.10

-.19

-.25

.57

.14

-.13

-

.35

.09

.20

.44

.14

.29

-.19

.01

.29

.30

.49

.58

.58

-.13

.21

-

.06

.37

.22

-.01

.31

.21

.46

.53

.47

.15

.32

.19

-.01

-.05

-

-.07

-.04

.02

-.01

-.03

-.01

.05

.22

.13

-.25

-.04

-.36

-.25

-

.37

.15

.32

.47

.16

.32

-.21

-.15

.12

.26

.55

.59

-

.43

.14

.32

.45

.28

.34

-.16

.03

.17

.58

.57

-

.47

.40

.46

.58

.38

.48

.09

.49

.58

.37

-

.32

.27

.26

.29

.29

.34

.08

.03

.03

-

.17

.18

.32

.24

.31

.28

.20

.63

-

.10

.23

.18

.11

.16

.14

.39

-

-.02

.53

-.01

-.19

.10

.01

-

.51

.31

.46

.62

.49

-

.40

.40

.59

.27

-

.63

.27

.64

-

.49

.41

.47

-

AVE (.66) (.54) (.65) (.50) (.55) (.83) (.73) (.67) (.49) (.75) (.50) (.53) (.62) (.65) (.82) (.68) (.77) (.71) (.78)

1.

Squared Correlations

Table 3-2: Average Variances Extracted and Squared Correlations of Construct

37

38

Multicollinearity, or high correlations among the latent exogenous constructs, can cause problems in structural equation models. The issue of multicollinearity is closely related to discriminant validity. If constructs are highly correlated, they lack discriminant validity (Grewal et al., 2004). Some scholars have reasoned that multicollinearity can lead to estimates far from the true parameters and may increase standard errors (Grapentine, 2000; Jagpal, 1982). Others believe that structural equation models are robust against multicollinearity (Malhotra, Peterson, & Kleiser, 1999) or can even solve multicollinearity problems (Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2000). To assess whether multicollinearity causes problems in this measurement model, the rules suggested by Grewal et al. (2004) were followed. For this purpose, correlations between exogenous constructs should be lower than 0.9. Further, composite reliability should be above 0.7 to avoid problems of multicollinearity. As the highest correlation between exogenous constructs is 0.7 (correlation between self-esteem and selfefficacy, see Table 3-2) and the lowest composite reliability is 0.7 (measure of extrinsic motivation, see Appendix 2), there is no evidence for multicollinearity problems in this measurement model. Estimation of Structural Model Several structural equation models were estimated to identify those intrapersonal factors that affect psychological ownership. Wald tests of free parameters (Bentler & Dijkstra, 1985; Chou & Bentler, 1990) helped to detect paths that should be dropped from the model. Further, Lagrange multiplier tests were performed to detect parameters that should be included in the model (Bentler & Dijkstra, 1985; Chou & Bentler, 1990). The base model contained a path from every intrapersonal factor to each of the three desires for psychological ownership. Afterward, this base model was purified by estimating a series of structural equation models. This led to a revised jobbased and organization-based model, which included only paths with a significant effect on the desires for psychological ownership. In this manner, it was possible to identify those intrapersonal factors that affected the desires for psychological ownership in this study. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 report the series of modifications that led to the revised joband organization-based models. Fit indices were calculated on the basis of the SatorraBentler corrections in order to account for non-normal distribution, which was found in the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Satorra & Bentler, 1994). There is proof of a good overall fit of both revised models after controlling for age, income, marital status, and job position (revised job-based model: CFI = .950, TLI =

39

.936, RMSEA = .041, SRMR = .046; revised organization-based model: CFI = .959, TLI = .945, RMSEA = .040, SRMR = .038). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) are higher than the threshold value of 0.9 in both models (Bentler, 1990; Homburg & Baumgartner, 1995). Moreover, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is below the recommended maximum value of 0.6 in both models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Likewise, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is below the critical value of 0.08 in both models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The subsequent Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 summarize the modification processes leading from the base models to the revised job-based and organization-based models.

Table 3-3: Modification Process of Job-Based Model Model

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

Base Model

.907

.885

.046

.052

Step 1

.921

.900

.048

.050

Step 2

.946

.930

.043

.054

Step 3

.949

.936

.041

.044

Revised Model

.950

.936

.041

.046

Modifications (none – base model) Drop: SEst (entirely) Drop: Nar (entirely) Drop: Ind (entirely) Drop: Neur (entirely) Drop: AI (entirely) Drop: PI (entirely) Drop: SE → DCOJob Drop: IoW → DCOJob Drop: IM → DIKJob Drop: SE → DISJob Drop: EM → DISJob Drop: NfU → DCOJob Drop: NfU → DISJob

Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; AI = Achievement Importance; EM = Extrinsic Motivation; IM = Intrinsic Motivation; Ind = Individualism; IoW = Importance of Work; Narc = Narcissism; Neur = Neuroticism; NfU = Need for Uniqueness; PI = Power Importance; SE = Self-Efficacy; SEst = Self-Esteem; DCOJob = Desire for Job-Based Control; DIKJob = Desire for Job-Based Intimate Knowledge; DISJob = Desire for Job-Based Investment of Self

40

Table 3-4: Modification Process of Organization-Based Model Model

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

Base Model

.913

.891

.046

.050

Step 1

.945

.928

.040

.039

Step 2

.958

.945

.040

.034

Step 3

.958

.945

.040

.037

Revised Model

.959

.945

.040

.038

Modifications (none – base model) Drop: SEst (entirely) Drop: AI (entirely) Drop: PI (entirely) Drop: Nar (entirely) Drop: Ind (entirely) Drop: Neur (entirely) Drop: NfU → DCOOrg Drop: SE → DCOOrg Drop: DfA→ DCOOrg Drop: SE → DIKOrg Drop: IoW → DIKOrg Drop: EM → DISOrg Drop: IoW → DISOrg Drop: IoW → DCOOrg Drop: IM → DISOrg

Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; AI = Achievement Importance; DfA = Desire for Authenticity; EM = Extrinsic Motivation; IM = Intrinsic Motivation; Ind = Individualism; IoW = Importance of Work; Narc = Narcissism; Neur = Neuroticism; NfU = Need for Uniqueness; PI = Power Importance; SE = Self-Efficacy; SEst = Self-Esteem; DCOOrg = Desire for Organization-Based Control; DIKOrg = Desire for Organization-Based Intimate Knowledge; DISOrg = Desire for Organization-Based Investment of Self

In order to examine the absolute fit of the job- and organization-based revised model, a nested model analysis was conducted (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). For this purpose, a chi-square difference test was performed to compare the revised models with an alternative model. The alternative models were less constrained and included paths from every intrapersonal factor that remained in the model to each desire for psychological ownership. The chi-square difference test was non-significant for both models (job-based model comparison: ∆χ2 = 8.42, ∆df = 7, p > .30; organization-based model comparison: ∆χ2 = 9.13, ∆df = 6, p > .17). Thus, there is proof of a good absolute fit of the revised models. The results of the revised models show that only six out of twelve intrapersonal factors were found to affect the desires for psychological ownership. Figure 3-2 illustrates these results by showing those intrapersonal factors that influenced at least one of the desires for psychological ownership.

41

Figure 3-2: Intrapersonal Factors Affecting Psychological Ownership

Note: Org. = Organization

3.2.5 Discussion The results of Study 1 led to the identification of several intrapersonal factors affecting psychological ownership. Out of twelve intrapersonal factors that were considered to be relevant with regard to psychological ownership (see Section 2.2.4), the following six intrapersonal factors were found to affect the desires for psychological ownership: (1) need for uniqueness; (2) desire for authenticity; (3) self-efficacy; (4) intrinsic motivation; (5) extrinsic motivation; and (6) importance of work. The findings provide evidence that each intrapersonal factor influences job- and organization-based psychological ownership in a particular way. Moreover, the findings provide evidence that the desires for psychological ownership are positively and highly correlated (correlations between 0.3 and 0.6). The fact that they point in the same direction implies that the different desires are complementary. The revised job-based model shows that the following intrapersonal factors affected at least one of the desires for job-based psychological ownership: need for uniqueness,

42

desire for authenticity, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and importance of work. Furthermore, the revised organization-based model reveals that the following intrapersonal factors were found to affect at least one of the desires for organization-based psychological ownership: need for uniqueness, desire for authenticity, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation. The findings of this study are of particular importance, as they lay the groundwork for the following two studies. The next section provides an overview of Study 2.

43

3.3 Study 2: Psychological Ownership in the Existing Job 3.3.1 Overview The objective of Study 2 was to examine the influence of intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership and employee performance in the existing job. This study addressed the second research question of this dissertation (see Section 1.2). It was mainly designed to analyze how the intrapersonal factors identified in Study 1 influence the different routes to psychological ownership, which in turn are expected to influence work-related outcomes. In order to find empirical evidence for the conceptual model in organizational settings, a leading German SME company was chosen for this study. The company distributes its products and services to clients through a network of more than 700 branches in Germany and foreign markets such as Switzerland, Austria, Spain, Poland, Russia, and Singapore. Today the company employs approximately 3,000 people worldwide and belongs to one of the fastest-growing enterprises in its industry. A number of studies have suggested that cultural differences are likely to affect intrapersonal factors (Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Parry & Urwin, 2011; Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2012) and psychological ownership (Mayhew et al., 2007; Pierce et al., 2003). Thus, only employees of the headquarters and branches located in Germany were included in this study in order to eliminate possible distortions caused by cultural differences. The study was conducted online for three reasons: First, online data collection facilitated reaching every employee of the company; second, the online questionnaires allowed for the inclusion of a vast number of questions in the study; and third, the online setting enabled employees to participate in an anonymous setting at any point in time. 3.3.2 Participants and Procedure From a total of 2,378 employees, 849 respondents participated in this study, with 26 excluded from the analysis due to invalid answers (see Section 3.3.4 for further information). This led to a final sample size of 823 participants, which corresponds to a response rate of 34.6 percent. Demographically, the final sample consisted of 35 percent males. The average age of the participants was 33.8 years. Thirty-two percent of the respondents were employees

44

with management responsibility, whereas 42 percent were employees without management responsibility. Twenty percent of the respondents were apprentices, and 6 percent worked at the headquarters. The average length of employment was 9.6 years. Figure 3-3 provides a descriptive overview of the participants in Study 2.

Figure 3-3: Descriptive Sample Statistics of Study 2

The procedure of the study involved several steps. The head of the human resources department informed all employees (across all hierarchical levels) located in Germany about the study via the intranet portal and encouraged them to participate. Employees were told that the survey was being conducted for academic purposes and that all personal information would be kept confidential. The information on the intranet included a link that directed the participants to the survey. After a few weeks, a reminder was published on the intranet. Finally, all employees were contacted again via email and asked to participate in the online survey. The employees did not get any incentive for participation in this study. The online survey was divided into four sections. The first section included several questions regarding psychological ownership of the job and organization. The second section covered questions relating to intrapersonal factors. The third section consisted

45

of questions relating to employee performance. The final section included several control variables relating to personal details of the participants. 3.3.3 Measures Each measure used in this study was published in the German language. Measures that were originally developed in English were subjected to a translation and backtranslation process (Brislin, 1970). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Given the large number of measures in this study and the limited time of the employees, some measures had to be shortened. To this end, items with the lowest factor loadings reported in the original measurement paper were removed. Appendix 3 reports all final measures used in the survey. Psychological Ownership Psychological ownership of the job was measured by employing the Brown, Crossley, et al. (2014) scale, which was developed on the basis of the Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) scale: This is my job / I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for this job / I sense that this is my job / I sense that the work I do as part of my job is mine / I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for the work that I do. Psychological ownership of the organization was assessed with the following items of the Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) scale: This is my organization / I sense that this organization is our company / I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for this organization / Most of the people that work for this organization feel as though they own the company / It is easy for me to think about this organization as mine.

46

Routes to Psychological Ownership The routes to job-based psychological ownership were measured by employing a scale developed and validated by Brown, Crossley, et al. (2014). To measure the routes to organization-based psychological ownership, these items were reworded by changing the target from the job to the organization. Job-based control items were adapted to match a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. I have influence over the things that affect me on the job / I have influence over the tasks or parts of tasks that I do / I have influence over job-related decisions that affect me / I set my own work deadlines / I control the pace and scheduling of the work that I do / In general, I have control over my job. Organization-based control was assessed with the following items: I have influence over the things that affect the organization / I have influence over the organization or parts of the organization / I have influence over organization-related decisions / In general, I have control over my organization. Job-based intimate knowledge was measured using the following items: I have a depth of knowledge as it relates to the job / I have a comprehensive understanding of the work that I am asked to do / I have a broad understanding of this job. Organizationbased intimate knowledge was measured by employing the following items: I have a depth of knowledge as it relates to the organization / I have a comprehensive understanding of the activities of the organization / I have a broad understanding of this organization. Job-based investment of self was measured with the following items: I have invested a major part of “myself” into this job / I have invested many of my ideas into this job / I have invested a number of my talents into this job / I have invested a significant amount of my life into this job / In general, I have invested a lot in my job. Organization-based investment of self was measured using the following items: I have invested a major part of “myself” into this organization / I have invested many of my ideas into this organization / I have invested a number of my talents into this organization / I have invested a significant amount of my life into this organization / In general, I have invested a lot in my organization. Intrapersonal Factors Need for uniqueness was measured by employing the Ruvio et al. (2008) scale. The items corresponded to the items of Study 1 (see Section 3.2.3).

47

Desire for authenticity was assessed with the Wood et al. (2008) scale. The items used were the same as in Study 1 (see Section 3.2.3). Self-efficacy was measured by employing the Beierlein et al. (2012) scale, which was developed on the basis of the Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1999) measure. The items used were the same as in Study 1 (see Section 3.2.3). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were measured with items from the Amabile et al. (1994) scale. All items corresponded to the items in Study 1 (see Section 3.2.3). Importance of work was measured on a scale developed by Kanungo (1982). The items were the same as in Study 1 (see Section 3.2.3). Employee Performance Job satisfaction was measured by employing a German scale of Fischer and Lück (2014) using the following items: I find real enjoyment in my work / Overall, my work is really interesting and satisfying / I can use my skills in my work / I’m satisfied with my career opportunities / I am satisfied with the pace of work / If I had the choice, I would choose the same profession again. Intention to stay was measured on the Armstrong-Stassen and Ursel (2009) scale, which contained the following items: Barring unforeseen circumstances, I would remain in this organization indefinitely / If I were completely free to choose, I would prefer to continue working in this organization / I expect to continue working as long as possible in this organization. Affective commitment was assessed with the following items of the Allen and Meyer (1990) scale: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization / I do feel like “part of the family” at my organization / I do feel “emotionally attached” to this organization / This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me / I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. Organization-based self-esteem was measured using the following items of the Pierce et al. (1989) scale: I count around here / I am taken seriously around here / I am important around here / I am trusted around here / I can make a difference around here / I am valuable around here / I am helpful around here. Extra-role behavior was measured on the Dalal et al. (2009) scale, which included the following items: During the last day, I volunteered for additional work tasks / During the last day, I went above and beyond what was required for the work task / During the last day, I defended organizational policies / During the last day, I chose to work rather

48

than to take a break / During the last day, I persisted enthusiastically in completing a task / During the last day, I spoke highly about my organization to others. Work overtime was measured according to company-specific conventions. The question asked whether the respondent typically works more than contractually agreed. The following response choices were given: No / Yes, up to one hour per week / Yes, between one and three hours per week / Yes, more than three hours per week. Controls This study controlled for several individual demographics that might be associated with the emergence of psychological ownership in organizations. For this purpose, participants were asked to indicate their gender, their age (year of birth), the existence of children, the length of employment (in years), and the employment relationship (in percent). Job position was measured based on company-specific classification. Education and marital status were measured according to the German system. Each measure included six different levels (see Appendix 3 for further information). Social desirability was measured on a German scale developed by Lück and Timaeus (2014) and included the following items: I always say what I think / I am always willing to admit a mistake that I have done / Sometimes I get angry if I do not get what I want / Occasionally I have said things in order to hurt others’ feelings. Besides, honesty was measured by asking the participants to indicate whether they had answered the survey honestly on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) seldom honestly to (7) always honestly. 3.3.4 Results This section presents the findings of Study 2. The first section evaluates the measurement model by running a confirmatory factor analysis. The subsequent section shows the modification processes that led to the development of a revised job- and organization-based model. All analyses were run in the lavaan package (Version 0.520) for R (Version 3.1.2). Evaluation of Measurement Model Data cleansing was performed before data analysis. Twenty-six responses were excluded from the data set, leading to a final sample size of 823 respondents. Three responses were excluded due to short response time (below seven minutes). Seven responses were excluded due to wrong or missing birth year data. Five responses were excluded due to social desirability concerns, as all the answers on the short scale of

49

Lück and Timaeus (2014) were socially desirable. Another 11 responses were excluded because the respondents indicated having answered the survey with a low level of honesty (answers < 4) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) seldom honestly to (7) always honestly. The final sample size consisted of 823 responses. To assess measurement reliability for each construct, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. Overall, the results indicate acceptable psychometric properties. Specifically, the squared multiple correlation of each item is higher than the threshold value of 0.4 (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994). Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha (CA) of each construct exceeds a value of 0.6, which is required for exploratory research (Robinson et al., 1991). The majority of constructs even have alpha values above 0.8 (Rossiter, 2002). The composite reliability (CR) scores for each construct exceed the threshold value of 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Also, average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct is larger than the value of 0.5, which is required for convergent validity. The AVE estimates the amount of variance captured by a construct’s measure relative to random measurement error (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Thus, as all values are greater than these stipulated criteria, they provide evidence for a high degree of internal consistency of all measures. Appendix 4 summarizes these results by showing the AVE, CR, and CA of each measure, as well as the standardized loadings and squared correlations of the items that were included in the final measurement model. To assess discriminant validity, each pair of constructs was assessed on the basis of Fornell and Larcker (1981). For this purpose, the average variance extracted of each construct had to be higher than its squared correlation with each of the other constructs. As each average variance extracted was higher than the squared correlations between the associated constructs, there is no evidence for problems relating to discriminant validity. Table 3-5 provides an overview of the average variance extracted and correlations of each construct. Multicollinearity can cause problems in structural equation models. This is the case if the latent exogenous constructs are highly correlated (for further information, please refer to Section 3.2.4). In order to assess whether multicollinearity causes problems in this measurement model, the rules of Grewal et al. (2004) were applied. According to them, the correlations between exogenous constructs should be lower than 0.9 (see Table 3-5). Further, composite reliability scores should exceed the value of 0.7 (see Appendix 4). As the highest correlation between exogenous constructs is 0.5 (correlation between desire for authenticity and self-efficacy), and the lowest

50

composite reliability is 0.7 (measure of intrinsic motivation), there is no evidence for multicollinearity in this measurement model. Estimation of Structural Model In order to examine the underlying process of intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership and employee performance, a series of structural equation models was estimated. Wald tests of free parameters (Bentler & Dijkstra, 1985; Chou & Bentler, 1990) were used to identify paths with small t-statistics that should be dropped from the model. Similarly, Lagrange multiplier tests were used to identify parameters that should be added to the model (Bentler & Dijkstra, 1985; Chou & Bentler, 1990). According to the overall conceptual model (see Section 2.3.4), the base model estimated a path from every intrapersonal factor on each of the three routes to psychological ownership. Furthermore, the influence of each route on psychological ownership and employee performance was estimated. A number of revisions were performed to this base model using the Wald and Lagrange multiplier tests. Table 3-6 and Table 3-7 summarize the modification process that led to the revised job-based and organization-based model. To account for non-normal distribution that was identified in the data, fit indices were estimated on the basis of the Satorra-Bentler corrections (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Satorra & Bentler, 1994).

(.71)

(.72)

(.54)

(.58)

(.80)

(.58)

(.72)

(.71)

(.72)

(.66)

(.69)

(.69)

(.72)

(.64)

(.83)

(.84)

(.65)

(.69)

2. Desire for Authenticity

3. Self-Efficacy

4. Intrinsic Motivation

5. Extrinsic Motivation

6. Importance of Work

7. Control (Job)

8. Control (Org.)

9. Intimate Knowledge (Job)

10. Intimate Knowledge (Org.)

11. Investment of Self (Job)

12. Investment of Self (Org.)

13. Psych. Ownership (Job)

14. Psych. Ownership (Org.)

15. Job Satisfaction

16. Intention to Stay

17. Affective Commitment

18. Extra-Role Behavior

19. Org.-Based Self-Esteem

1.

.15

.16

.18

.10

.13

.25

.09

.15

.08

.10

.05

.19

.15

.12

.22

.13

.18

.20

-

(.65)

2.

.09

.21

.10

.16

.22

.11

.21

.15

.16

.15

.27

.09

.22

.07

.35

.24

.45

(.71)

3.

.02

.31

.11

.13

.24

.14

.24

.25

.29

.22

.45

.07

.24

.11

.40

.38

-

(.72)

4.

.13

.22

.15

.06

.26

.16

.21

.23

.28

.25

.30

.08

.15

.23

.40

-

(.54)

5.

-.07

.21

-.01

.03

.02

.01

.10

.22

.24

.12

.22

.06

.15

.03

-

(.58)

6.

.27

.24

.44

.30

.37

.38

.32

.37

.36

.23

.15

.32

.24

-

(.80)

7.

.46

.23

.41

.38

.44

.44

.48

.33

.29

.37

.36

.55

-

(.58)

8.

.51

.20

.49

.40

.33

.51

.32

.37

.24

.44

.16

-

(.72)

9.

.14

.25

.24

.19

.31

.22

.35

.30

.41

.47

-

(.71)

10.

.40

.20

.47

.38

.31

.47

.32

.41

.30

-

(.72)

Note: AVE = Average Variance Extracted; Psych. Ownership = Psychological Ownership; Org. = Organization

(.65)

1. Need for Uniqueness

AVE

.21

.46

.41

.37

.41

.36

.51

.76

-

(.66)

11.

Squared Correlations

Table 3-5: Average Variances Extracted and Squared Correlations of Constructs 12.

.36

.42

.57

.48

.41

.53

.51

-

(.69)

13.

.40

.35

.56

.59

.77

.59

-

(.69)

14.

.59

.32

.79

.67

.54

-

(.72)

15.

.50

.38

.56

.64

-

(.64)

16.

.59

.34

.76

-

(.83)

17.

.66

.31

-

(.84)

18.

.19

-

(.65)

19.

-

(.69)

51

52

The revised models of job-based and organization-based psychological ownership provided a good fit with the data after controlling for gender, age, marital status, education, length of employment, job position, and employment relationship (revised job-based model: CFI = .936, TLI = .924, RMSEA = .037, SRMR = .062; revised organization-based model: CFI = .940, TLI = .929, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .073). In both models, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) exceed the recommended threshold value of 0.9 (Bentler, 1990; Homburg & Baumgartner, 1995). Further, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is below the recommended threshold value of 0.6 in both models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Similarly, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is below the threshold value of 0.08 in both models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The following tables report the successive model changes leading from the base models to the revised models. Table 3-6 outlines the modification process relating to the job-based model. The succeeding Table 3-7 presents the series of modifications relating to the organization-based model.

Table 3-6: Modification Process of Job-Based Model Model

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

Base Model

.921

.908

.041

.079

Step 1

.921

.908

.041

.079

Step 2

.920

.910

.042

.088

Step 3

.923

.911

.041

.081

Revised Model

.936

.924

.037

.062

Modifications (none – base model) Drop: EM → COJob Drop: EM → IKJob Drop: NfU → ISJob Drop: IM → COJob Drop: NfU → IKJob Drop: DfA → ISJob Drop: NfU → COJob Drop: IoW → IKJob Drop: EM → ISJob Add: Covariances between independent constructs

Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; DfA = Desire for Authenticity; EM = Extrinsic Motivation; IM = Intrinsic Motivation; IoW = Importance of Work; NfU = Need for Uniqueness; COJob = Job-Based Control; IKJob = Job-Based Intimate Knowledge; ISJob = Job-Based Investment of Self

53

Table 3-7: Modification Process of Organization-Based Model Model

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

Base Model

.924

.911

.042

.088

Step 1

.924

.911

.042

.088

Step 2

.924

.911

.042

.089

Step 3

.929

.917

.041

.088

Revised Model

.940

.929

.038

.073

Modifications (none – base model) Drop: EM → COOrg Drop: EM → IKOrg Drop: DfA → ISOrg Drop: IM → COOrg Drop: SE → IKOrg Drop: SE → ISOrg Drop: DfA → COOrg Drop: SE → COOrg Drop: NfU → IKOrg Drop: EM → ISOrg Add: Covariances between independent constructs

Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; DfA = Desire for Authenticity; EM = Extrinsic Motivation; IM = Intrinsic Motivation; NfU = Need for Uniqueness; SE = Self-Efficacy; COOrg = Organization-Based Control; IKOrg = Organization-Based Intimate Knowledge; ISOrg = Organization-Based Investment of Self

To assess the absolute fit of these revised models, a nested model analysis on the basis of a chi-square difference test was conducted (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Specifically, each revised model was compared with an alternative model that was less constrained. In these alternative models with fewer constraints, paths were added from each intrapersonal factor to each route to psychological ownership. For both models, the chi-square difference between the revised model and the alternative model was non-significant (job-based model comparison: ∆χ2 = 4.74, ∆df = 3, p > .19; organization-based model comparison: ∆χ2 = 3.81, ∆df = 4, p > .43). This test shows that both revised models have a better fit with the data than the alternative models. Thus, there is evidence for a good absolute fit of both revised models. Revised Conceptual Model The results of the job-based structural model analysis are depicted in Figure 3-4. The subsequent Figure 3-5 outlines the results of the organization-based model. Both figures report the standardized path coefficients of each effect. Control variables are omitted in these figures due to space constraints.

54

Figure 3-4: Job-Based Structural Model

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 823

Figure 3-5: Organization-Based Structural Model

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 823

55

According to Chin (1998), a standardized path should be at least 0.2 in order to be considered meaningful. Thus, in conformity with this rule, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and importance of work play important roles in the emergence of psychological ownership. By contrast, need for uniqueness and desire for authenticity play minor roles in the development of employees’ sense of ownership. Total Effect of Intrapersonal Factors on Psychological Ownership The path analysis of these two revised models enabled calculation of the total effect of a particular intrapersonal factor on psychological ownership. For this purpose, the direct effect of an intrapersonal factor on a certain route was multiplied by the direct effect of this route on psychological ownership. The total effect was calculated by summing up each of these indirect paths to psychological ownership. For instance, the total effect of need for uniqueness on organization-based psychological ownership was calculated by summing up each indirect effect (.16 × .33 + .11 × .39 = .09). The following section depicts the total effect of each intrapersonal factor on job- and organization-based psychological ownership. In this manner, it was possible to determine the overall impact of a certain intrapersonal factor on psychological ownership. Figure 3-6 shows that the total effect of need for uniqueness on organization-based psychological ownership was found to be rather low (effect size: 0.09). Also, there is no evidence for an influence of need for uniqueness on job-based psychological ownership.

Figure 3-6: Total Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Psychological Ownership

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 823

56

Figure 3-7 reveals that the total effect of desire for authenticity on job-based (effect size: .06) and organization-based (effect size: .02) psychological ownership is rather low.

Figure 3-7: Total Effect of Desire for Authenticity on Psychological Ownership

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 823

Figure 3-8 provides evidence for a moderate total effect of self-efficacy on job-based psychological ownership (effect size: .14). Self-efficacy did not influence organization-based psychological ownership.

Figure 3-8: Total Effect of Self-Efficacy on Psychological Ownership

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 823

57

Figure 3-9 shows that intrinsic motivation has a rather weak total effect on job-based psychological ownership (effect size: .09) and a moderate total effect on organizationbased psychological ownership (effect size: .13).

Figure 3-9: Total Effect of Intrinsic Motivation on Psychological Ownership

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 823

Figure 3-10 provides evidence that extrinsic motivation does not affect job- and organization-based psychological ownership.

Figure 3-10: Total Effect of Extrinsic Motivation on Psychological Ownership

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 823

58

Figure 3-11 reveals that importance of work has a strong total effect on job-based (effect size: 0.18) and organization-based psychological ownership (effect size: 0.26).

Figure 3-11: Total Effect of Importance of Work on Psychological Ownership

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 823

To conclude, the r-square statistics for structural equations were calculated in order to determine how well the variance of each endogenous construct is predicted by the model. Because the models explain between 12 and 65 percent of the variance of the constructs, the explanatory power of the models is considered to be moderate to high.

Table 3-8: R-Square Statistics of Job- and Organization-Based Models Endogenous Constructs

Job-Based Model

Organization-Based Model

Route 1: Control

.14

.15

Route 2: Intimate Knowledge

.31

.15

Route 3: Investment of Self

.27

.25

Psychological Ownership

.39

.42

Job Satisfaction

.62

.29

Intention to Stay

.36

.45

Affective Commitment

.35

.65

Organization-Based Self-Esteem

.18

.36

Extra-Role Behavior

.15

.12

Work Overtime

.19

.18

59

3.3.5 Discussion The results of Study 2 reveal that the intrapersonal factors identified in Study 1 affect the emergence of psychological ownership in organizational settings. Furthermore, the results provide empirical evidence for the theorized emergence of psychological ownership through different routes. In this regard, the findings show that the routes to psychological ownership are positively and highly correlated (correlations between 0.3 and 0.8). The fact that they point in the same direction implies that the different routes are complementary. Furthermore, job- and organization-based psychological ownership was found to have a considerable influence on various employee performance measures. The model relating to job-based psychological ownership shows that four different intrapersonal factors (desire for authenticity, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and importance of work) were found to affect job-based psychological ownership. It is noteworthy that each intrapersonal factor influences psychological ownership in a particular way. Specifically, desire for authenticity affected job-based control (β = .15, z = 3.10, p < .01) and job-based intimate knowledge (β = .10, z = 2.14, p < .04). Selfefficacy was found to affect all three routes to psychological ownership (control: β = .14, z = 2.84, p < .01; intimate knowledge: β = .27, z = 4.36, p < .001; investment of self: β = .15, z = 3.13, p < .01). Also, intrinsic motivation affected job-based intimate knowledge (β = .18, z = 3.26, p < .01) and job-based investment of self (β = .18, z = 3.07, p < .01). Finally, importance of work was found to affect job-based control (β = .20, z = 5.19, p < .001) and job-based investment of self (β = .27, z = 6.22, p < .001). Meanwhile, need for uniqueness and extrinsic motivation were not found to affect any job-based route to psychological ownership. In addition, the results demonstrate that each of the three routes affects job-based psychological ownership (job-based control: β = .36, z = 6.77, p < .001; job-based intimate knowledge: β = .12, z = 2.76, p < .01; job-based investment of self: β = .40, z = 9.40, p < .001). These results provide evidence that the influence of control and investment of self are stronger than the influence of intimate knowledge on job-based psychological ownership. Finally, jobbased psychological ownership was found to affect various performance measures, such as job satisfaction (β = .79, z = 20.18, p < .001), intention to stay (β = .58, z = 16.50, p < .001), affective commitment (β = .53, z = 15.24, p < .001), organizationbased self-esteem (β = .41, z = 10.28, p < .001), extra-role behavior (β = .37, z = 5.72, p < .001), and work overtime (β = .12, z = 3.34, p < .01).

60

The model relating to organization-based psychological ownership indicates that four different intrapersonal factors (need for uniqueness, desire for authenticity, intrinsic motivation, importance of work) affect the routes to organization-based psychological ownership. Specifically, need for uniqueness was found to affect organization-based control (β = .16, z = 3.97, p < .001) and investment of self (β = .11, z = 2.59, p < .02). Desire for authenticity affected organization-based intimate knowledge (β = .09, z = 2.17, p < .03). Likewise, intrinsic motivation was found to affect organization-based intimate knowledge (β = .22, z = 3.31, p < .01) and organization-based investment of self (β = .20, z = 3.57, p < .001). Importance of work affected each route to organization-based psychological ownership (control: β = .31, z = 7.40, p < .001; intimate knowledge: β = .18, z = 4.14, p < .001; investment of self: β = .29, z = 6.34, p < .001). However, self-efficacy and extrinsic motivation did not affect any organization-based routes to psychological ownership. The results additionally reveal that each of the three routes affected organization-based psychological ownership (organization-based control: β = .33, z = 8.92, p < .001; organization-based intimate knowledge: β = .24, z = 5.68, p < .001; organization-based investment of self: β = .39, z = 9.62, p < .001). The influence of control and investment of self were found to be stronger than the influence of intimate knowledge on organization-based psychological ownership. Finally, organization-based psychological ownership was found to have an influence on the same work-related outcomes as job-based psychological ownership, which are job satisfaction (β = .52, z = 12.13, p < .001), intention to stay (β = .65, z = 17.63, p < .001), affective commitment (β = .77, z = 24.16, p < .001), organizationbased self-esteem (β = .60, z = 16.21, p < .001), extra-role behavior (β = .33, z = 6.10, p < .001), and work overtime (β = .09, z = 2.51, p < .02). Overall, the findings of Study 2 show that the emergence of psychological ownership considerably depends on intrapersonal factors that vary among employees. In this regard, intrinsically motivated employees, and employees who consider work important or have a strong desire for authenticity, were found to feel ownership for the job and organization. Likewise, employees with a high level of self-efficacy turned out to feel ownership for the job. By contrast, employees with a high need for uniqueness are likely to feel ownership for the organization. Furthermore, the results provide conclusive evidence that job- and organization-based psychological ownership emerges through three routes in organizations (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). In addition, the results highlight the fact that psychological ownership is an important driver of various work-related outcomes. In this light, job-based psychological ownership was

61

found to have a comparatively strong effect on job satisfaction, extra-role behavior, and work overtime, whereas organization-based psychological ownership was found to have a comparatively strong effect on intention to stay, affective commitment, and organization-based self-esteem.

62

3.4 Study 3: Psychological Ownership in the Ideal Job 3.4.1 Overview The objective of Study 3 was to examine the desires for psychological ownership relating to the ideal job setting. This study addressed the third research question of this dissertation (see Section 1.2). It is noteworthy that this study focused on the overall population, making it possible to examine potential differences between the routes to psychological ownership among participants in existing jobs of the SME company (Study 2) and the desires for psychological ownership relating to the ideal job setting in the general population (Study 3). In addition to the previously mentioned advantages of online studies (see Section 3.2.1), the online data collection permitted continuous tracking of the participants in this survey. In this manner, it was possible to create a representative sample of the German and Swiss overall population in terms of gender, age, income, and education. The survey was sent to individuals residing in Germany and in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Because this study aimed to detect desires for psychological ownership in the overall population, it was conducted with individuals irrespective of whether they were employed, self-employed or unemployed at that point in time. The participants belonged to a high-quality panel of a leading online data-collection company. 3.4.2 Participants and Procedure Overall, 681 respondents participated in this study, with 472 participants residing in Germany, and 209 participants residing in Switzerland. Fifty-five participants were excluded from the analysis due to invalid responses (see Section 3.4.4 for further information). This led to a final sample size of 626 participants. All participants belonged to a German and Swiss research panel. Participation in the study was voluntary. The average response time was 18 minutes. Demographically, the final sample consisted of 48 percent males. The average age of the participants was 44.1 years, and the proportion of levels of education was relatively balanced. Furthermore, the majority of respondents were employed or selfemployed. Household income was broadly spread over various categories. Figure 3-12 outlines the descriptive statistics of the participants.

63

Figure 3-12: Descriptive Sample Statistics of Study 3

The procedure of the study involved several steps. Individuals were contacted via email and asked to participate in a study of job- and organization-related aspects of their work that are important to them. The email contained a link that directed the participants to the study. Participants were told that the survey was being conducted for academic purposes and that all personal information would be kept confidential. The online survey was divided into three sections. The first section included several questions relating to the desires for job- and organization-based psychological ownership. The next section contained questions relating to intrapersonal factors. The last section included several questions concerning personal details of the participants.

64

3.4.3 Measures Each measure used in this study was published in German. Measures that were originally developed in English were subject to a translation and back-translation process (Brislin, 1970). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale extending from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Given the large number of measures in this study, some had to be shortened. For this purpose, items with the lowest factor loadings reported in the original measurement paper were removed if necessary. Appendix 5 lists all measures used in the German language. Desires for Psychological Ownership The desires for job-based and organization-based psychological ownership were measured by adapting the scale of Brown, Crossley, et al. (2014) pertaining to the routes to psychological ownership. For this purpose, the items had to be rephrased to relate to the different desires for psychological ownership. The rephrased items corresponded to the items in Study 1 (see Section 3.2.3). Intrapersonal Factors Need for uniqueness was measured using the scale of Ruvio, Shoham, and Brencic (2008). All items corresponded to the items in Studies 1 and 2 (see Section 3.2.3). Desire for authenticity was measured on the Wood et al. (2008) scale that contained the same items as in Studies 1 and 2 (see Section 3.2.3). Self-efficacy was measured with a short-form measure of Beierlein et al. (2012), which was developed on the basis of the Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1999) scale. The items corresponded to the items in Studies 1 and 2 (see Section 3.2.3). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were measured by employing the short-form scale of Amabile et al. (1994). All items corresponded to the items in Studies 1 and 2 (see Section 3.2.3). Importance of work was measured on the Kanungo (1982) scale using the same items as in Studies 1 and 2 (see Section 3.2.3). Controls This study controlled for individual characteristics that are likely to affect the desires for psychological ownership. Participants were asked to indicate their gender, their age (year of birth), and their employment relationship. Employment relationship was measured using the following response choices: Employed / Unemployed / In

65

education / Housewife or househusband / Retired. Moreover, education, marital status, and the monthly household income were measured with respect to the German and Swiss customs (see Appendix 5 for further information). In addition, social desirability was measured using the scale of Kemper et al. (2014), which is available in English and German. All items corresponded to the items in Study 1 (see Section 3.2.3). Honesty was measured by requesting participants to indicate whether they had answered the survey honestly on a 7-point Likert scale extending from (1) seldom honestly to (7) always honestly. 3.4.4 Results This section outlines the findings of Study 3. The first section conducts a confirmatory factor analysis to assess the measurement model. The next section depicts the estimation process of the structural equation model. All analyses were run in the lavaan package (Version 0.5-20) for R (Version 3.1.2). Estimation of Measurement Model Data cleansing was carried out prior to data analysis. Fifty-five responses were excluded from the data set, leading to a final sample size of 626 responses. Of those 55 exclusions, 27 responses were excluded based on their response time, as only the 5‒95 percentile range was included in the analysis in order to adjust for outliers; then 17 responses were excluded due to social desirability concerns, as all their answers on the short scale of Kemper et al. (2014) were socially desirable; and an additional 11 responses were excluded because the respondents indicated having answered the survey with a low level of honesty (answers < 4) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) seldom honestly to (7) always honestly. This resulted in a final sample size of 626 responses. The measurement reliability was assessed by running a confirmatory factor analysis. Overall, the results provide evidence for good psychometric properties. More specifically, squared multiple correlations are higher than the suggested minimum value of 0.4 (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994). Further, Cronbach’s alpha (CA) values are equal to or higher than the value of 0.8 (Rossiter, 2002). Likewise, the composite reliability (CR) of each construct is higher than the threshold value of 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct exceeds the value of 0.5, which indicates convergent validity of the constructs. Appendix 6 reports the standardized loadings and squared correlations of the items that were

66

included in the final measurement model. Further, it reports the AVE, CR, and CA of each construct. To evaluate discriminant validity, each pair of constructs was examined on the basis of Fornell and Larcker (1981). For this purpose, the average variance extracted of each construct was derived to determine if it was higher than the squared correlation with each of the other constructs. Table 3-9 provides evidence that there is no problem with regard to discriminant validity. Of particular note is the rather high correlation between intrinsic motivation and desire for job-based intimate knowledge. Moreover, the different desires for psychological ownership appear to be highly correlated. The fact that they point in the same direction implies that the different desires are complementary.

Table 3-9: Average Variances Extracted and Squared Correlations of Constructs Squared Correlations 1. Need for 1. Uniqueness Desire for 2. Authenticity Self3. Efficacy Intrinsic 4. Motivation Extrinsic 5. Motivation Importance 6. of Work Desire for 7. Control (Job) Desire for 8. Control (Org.) Desire for 9. Int. Know. (Job) Desire for 10. Int. Know. (Org.) Desire for 11. Inv. of Self (Job) Desire for 12. Inv. of Self (Org.)

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

AVE (.71) (.77) (.75) (.66) (.64) (.75) (.74) (.84) (.86) (.87) (.70) (.88) (.71)

-

(.77) .25

-

(.75) .13

-.46

-

(.66) .08

-.39

.64

-

(.64) .21

-.11

.43

.64

(.75) .34

.36

-.01 -.08

.10

-

(.74) .13

-.22

.53

.60

.60

.11

-

(.84) .33

.01

.29

.28

.32

.32

.52

-

(.86) -.07 -.37

.55

.70

.56

-.05

.72

.28

-

(.87) .17

-.17

.44

.53

.44

.15

.67

.61

.71

-

(.70) .09

-.21

.56

.63

.47

.17

.65

.45

.67

.66

-

(.88) .24

-.10

.45

.49

.37

.26

.59

.55

.56

.73

.82

-

Note: AVE = Average Variance Extracted; Int. Know. = Intimate Knowing; Inv. of Self = Investment of Self

-

67

Multicollinearity can cause problems in structural equation models. This is the case when the latent exogenous constructs are highly correlated (for further information, please refer to Section 3.2.4). In order to examine whether multicollinearity affects the estimation of the structural equation model, the rules suggested by Grewal et al. (2004) were applied. As the correlations between exogenous constructs were lower than 0.9 (see Table 3-9) and the composite reliabilities were higher than 0.7 (see Appendix 6), there is no evidence for multicollinearity in this measurement model. Estimation of Structural Model In order to analyze the association between intrapersonal factors and desires for psychological ownership, a number of structural equation models were estimated. Wald tests of free parameters (Bentler & Dijkstra, 1985; Chou & Bentler, 1990) were used to detect paths that should be dropped because of their small t-statistics. Further, Lagrange multiplier tests were applied to detect parameters that should be added to the model (Bentler & Dijkstra, 1985; Chou & Bentler, 1990). The base model contained a path from each intrapersonal factor to each desire for psychological ownership. Later, this base model was modified using the Wald and Lagrange multiplier test. Table 3-10 and Table 3-11 summarize the modification process that led to the revised job-based and organization-based models. Fit indices were estimated on the basis of the SatorraBentler corrections in order to account for non-normal distribution, which was found in the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Satorra & Bentler, 1994). Both revised models had a good fit with the data after controlling for age, gender, education, marital status, household income, and employment relationship (revised job-based model: CFI = .968, TLI = .959, RMSEA = .035, SRMR = .037; revised organization-based model: CFI = .963, TLI = .954, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .047). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) of both revised models exceed the recommended thresholds of 0.9 (Bentler, 1990; Homburg & Baumgartner, 1995). In addition, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is far below the critical value of 0.6 in both models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is below the critical value of 0.08 in both models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The subsequent tables summarize these modification processes of the job-based and organization-based models, which led to the revised models. Table 3-10 shows the modification process of the job-based model, whereas Table 3-11 shows the organization-based model.

68

Table 3-10: Modification Process of Job-Based Model Model

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

Base Model

.912

.892

.057

.139

Modifications (none – base model) Drop: DfA → DCOJob Drop: IoW → DIKJob Drop: DfA → DISJob Drop: NfU → DCOJob Drop: DfA → DIKJob Drop: NfU → DISJob

Step 1

.912

.892

.057

.140

Step 2

.912

.892

.057

.139

Step 3

.913

.894

.057

.137

Drop: NfU → DIKJob Drop: EM → DISJob

Revised Model

.968

.959

.035

.037

Add: Covariances between independent constructs

Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; DfA = Desire for Authenticity; EM = Extrinsic Motivation; IoW = Importance of Work; NfU = Need for Uniqueness; DCOJob = Desire for Job-Based Control; DIKJob = Desire for Job-Based Intimate Knowledge; DISJob = Desire for Job-Based Investment of Self

Table 3-11: Modification Process of Organization-Based Model Model

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

Base Model

.911

.891

.059

.126

Step 1

.912

.892

.058

.126

Step 2

.911

.892

.059

.129

Step 3

.917

.899

.057

.125

Revised Model

.963

.954

.038

.047

Modifications (none – base model) Drop: DfA → DCOOrg Drop: DfA → DIKOrg Drop: EM → DISOrg Drop: IM → DCOOrg Drop: NfU → DIKOrg Drop: DfA → DISOrg Drop: SE → DCOOrg Drop: SE → DIKOrg Drop: EM → DIKOrg Drop: NfU → DISOrg Drop: SE → DISOrg Add: Covariances between independent constructs

Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; DfA = Desire for Authenticity; EM = Extrinsic Motivation; IM = Intrinsic Motivation; NfU = Need for Uniqueness; SE = Self-Efficacy; DCOOrg = Desire for Organization-Based Control; DIKOrg = Desire for Organization-Based Intimate Knowledge; DISOrg = Desire for Organization-Based Investment of Self

69

In order to evaluate the absolute fit of these revised models, a nested model analysis with a chi-square difference test was conducted (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). For this purpose, each model was compared with an alternative model that was less constrained. In these models with fewer constraints, paths were added from every intrapersonal factor that remained in the model to each desire for psychological ownership. The chi-square difference test was non-significant for both models (jobbased model comparison: ∆χ2 = 1.12, ∆df = 2, p > .57; organization-based model comparison: ∆χ2 = 5.56, ∆df = 2, p > .06). As this test was non-significant, it indicates that the revised models have a better fit with the data than the alternative models. Accordingly, there is evidence for a good absolute fit of the revised models. The results of the job-based and organization-based models are illustrated in Figure 3-13. The images include the standardized loadings of each path. Control variables are omitted in this figure due to space constraints.

Figure 3-13: Intrapersonal Factors Affecting Desires for Psychological Ownership

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 626

70

The r-square statistics in Table 3-12 illustrate how well the variance of the endogenous constructs is predicted by their preceding constructs. Overall, the intrapersonal factors can explain between 50 percent and 54 percent of the variance of the job-based desires. By contrast, the intrapersonal factors are able to explain between 22 and 33 percent of the variance of the organization-based desires. Accordingly, the job-based model has a higher power to predict the desires for psychological ownership than the organization-based model.

Table 3-12: R-Square Statistics of Job- and Organization-Based Models Endogenous Constructs

Job-Based Model

Organization-Based Model

Route 1: Desire for Control

.50

.22

Route 2: Desire for Intimate Knowledge

.54

.32

Route 3: Desire for Investment of Self

.51

.33

Age Effect A body of literature has found evidence for age-related differences in several intrapersonal factors (e.g., Cherrington, Conde, & England, 1979; Kooij et al., 2011; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Ng & Feldman, 2010; Parry & Urwin, 2011). For this reason, age was used as a control variable in this study. The results provide evidence for a negative effect of age on need for uniqueness (β = ˗.11, z = ˗2.74, p < .01) and desire for authenticity (β = ˗.25, z = ˗5.83, p < .001). Furthermore, age was found to have a positive effect on self-efficacy (β = .22, z = 4.49, p < .001). In contrast, age does not appear to affect intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and importance of work. These findings are of particular importance, as this study was conducted in a representative sample of the German and Swiss overall population. Figure 3-14 illustrates the effect of age on the different intrapersonal factors.

71

Figure 3-14: Influence of Age on Intrapersonal Factors

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; red = negative effect; green = positive effect; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; n = 626

3.4.5 Discussion The results of Study 3 indicate that the intrapersonal factors identified in Study 1, cause different desires for psychological ownership. These desires relate to the personal importance of psychological ownership in the ideal job setting as opposed to the existing job. The job-based model shows that self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and importance of work give rise to at least one desire for job-based psychological ownership. By contrast, need for uniqueness and desire for authenticity did not cause any desire for job-based psychological ownership. More specifically, self-efficacy was found to stimulate all three desires for job-based psychological ownership (control: β = .19, z = 3.29, p < .01; intimate knowledge: β = .14, z = 2.40, p < .02; investment of self: β = .22, z = 4.00, p < .001). Correspondingly, intrinsic motivation gave rise to all three desires for job-based psychological ownership (control: β = .27, z = 3.24, p < .01; intimate knowledge: β = .50, z = 7.06, p < .001; investment of self: β = .51, z = 7.66, p < .001). Further, extrinsic motivation caused a

72

desire for job-based control (β = .33, z = 4.16, p < .001) and a desire for job-based intimate knowledge (β = .15, z = 2.69, p < .01). Also, importance of work was found to stimulate a desire for job-based control (β = .10, z = 3.03, p < .01) and job-based investment of self (β = .21, z = 5.35, p < .001). The organization-based model reveals that need for uniqueness, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and importance of work trigger desires for organization-based psychological ownership. More specifically, need for uniqueness appears to give rise to a desire for organization-based control (β = .18, z = 3.67, p < .001). Intrinsic motivation was found to stimulate a desire for organization-based intimate knowledge (β = .50, z = 10.19, p < .001) and a desire for organization-based investment of self (β = .48, z = 9.61, p < .001). Further, extrinsic motivation was found to facilitate a desire for organization-based control (β = .25, z = 4.70, p < .001). Finally, importance of work gave rise to each desire for organization-based psychological ownership (control: β = .24, z = 4.84, p < .001; intimate knowledge: β = .20, z = 4.88, p < .001; investment of self: β = .29, z = 5.97, p < .001). Meanwhile, desire for authenticity and selfefficacy did not cause any desire for psychological ownership. Age was used as a control variable in this study, as a great deal of research has found evidence for age-related differences in intrapersonal factors. The findings of this study show that age had a negative effect on need for uniqueness (β = ˗.11, z = ˗2.74, p < .01) and desire for authenticity (β = ˗.25, z = ˗5.83, p < .001), while age was found to have a positive effect on self-efficacy (β = .22, z = 4.49, p < .001). In other words, younger individuals of the overall population have, on average, a higher need for uniqueness and a stronger desire for authenticity. Older individuals of the overall population have, on average, a higher level of self-efficacy. These are the age-related differences of particular relevance for the emergence of psychological ownership. Thus, in order to give rise to felt ownership among different age groups, these intrapersonal factors have to be considered. Overall, the findings of Study 3 show that intrapersonal factors stimulate different desires for psychological ownership. These desires were found to be positively and highly correlated (correlations between 0.3 and 0.8). The fact that they point in the same direction implies that the different desires are complementary. Moreover, these intrapersonal factors were able to explain a high proportion of the variance (between 22 and 55 percent) of the desires for psychological ownership (see Table 3-12). In this regard, the intrapersonal factors were able to better explain the job-related desires than the organization-related desires for psychological ownership. The findings provide

73

evidence that intrinsically and extrinsically motivated employees and employees who consider work important are likely to desire ownership of the job and organization. In contrast, employees with a high level of self-efficacy tend to desire ownership of the job, whereas individuals with a need for uniqueness tend to desire ownership for the organization.

74

4 General Discussion The general research question of this dissertation concerns how intrapersonal factors affect psychological ownership in the existing and ideal job setting. Based on this general research question, the following specific research questions (RQ) were defined in the introductory chapter: Which intrapersonal factors affect the routes to psychological ownership? (RQ1) To what extent does psychological ownership establish a link between intrapersonal factors and employee performance in the existing job setting? (RQ2) How do intrapersonal factors affect the desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting? (RQ3) These research questions focused on two major objectives: (1) the development of a theoretical understanding and conceptual model of how intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership in the existing job and lead to different workrelated outcomes; and (2) the elaboration of insights relating to the ideal job setting that enable managers to create the best possible working conditions for the emergence of feelings of ownership. Overall, realization of these objectives contributes to theory and practice by providing an in-depth understanding of how stable intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership in the existing job, which in turn influences employee performance. Moreover, these objectives lead to the detection of different desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting and facilitate the creation of better working conditions. This chapter discusses the overall findings of this research in order to answer the research questions of this dissertation. The first section summarizes the main findings of each study and puts them in relationship to each other. The subsequent sections outline the theoretical and managerial contributions. The third section reports the limitations of the studies conducted. That section is followed by an outline of future research directions.

75

4.1 Summary of Findings Based on the research questions and objectives, the theoretical chapter of this dissertation introduced psychological ownership as a mental state that is rooted in possessive feelings (see Section 2.1.1). Psychological ownership was defined as a state of mind in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is “theirs.” This sense of ownership is known to emerge toward various material and immaterial targets. In organizations, feelings of ownership can be directed at the organization as a whole or specific aspects of the organization. As a result, feelings of ownership are likely to lead to possessive pronouns such as “my job” and “our organization.” Moreover, psychological ownership was found to affect various workrelated outcomes (see Section 2.1.2). A comparison of related constructs showed that psychological ownership differentiates itself from other constructs through feelings of possession (see Section 2.1.3). Building upon this understanding of psychological ownership, several human motives were introduced that explain why this mental state exists (see Section 2.1.4). Most importantly, three major routes were identified that give rise to feelings of ownership: (1) controlling the target, (2) intimate knowledge of the target, and (3) investment of self into the target (see Section 2.1.5). These routes constitute a fundamental part of this research. Next, intrapersonal factors were introduced as antecedents of psychological ownership. Several perspectives on intrapersonal factors were presented that explain individual differences from various theoretical points of view (see Section 2.2.1). It was then shown that intrapersonal factors play a crucial role in the management of employees. This is because the individual consideration of employees is a major aspect of effective leadership behavior that positively affects and motivates employees (see Section 2.2.2). Furthermore, several reasons for the influence of intrapersonal factors on the emergence of psychological ownership were presented (see Section 2.2.3). A subsequent literature review aided in identifying a set of intrapersonal factors that are considered to be relevant for the emergence of feelings of ownership (see Section 2.2.4). Based on these theoretical foundations, an overall conceptual model was developed (see Section 2.3.4) to examine the influence of twelve intrapersonal factors on the routes to psychological ownership (see Section 2.3.3), which in turn lead to job- and organization-based psychological ownership (see Section 2.3.2). Furthermore, the

76

model analyzed the work-related outcomes of psychological ownership (see Section 2.3.1). The third chapter outlined three empirical studies that investigated the conceptual model. Each of these studies addressed one of the three research questions. The comparison of the findings allows for the deduction of implications for theory and practice, which are discussed in this chapter. Findings of Each Study Study 1 was an exploratory study that addressed the first research question of this dissertation: Which intrapersonal factors affect the routes to psychological ownership? It was based on a cross-sectional online survey with 370 participants residing in the United States. This study led to the identification of intrapersonal factors that influence feelings of ownership. The results of Study 1 revealed that the following intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership: (1) need for uniqueness; (2) desire for authenticity; (3) self-efficacy; (4) intrinsic motivation; (5) extrinsic motivation; and (6) importance of work. Study 2 focused on the existing job and addressed the second research question: To what extent does psychological ownership establish a link between intrapersonal factors and employee performance in the existing job setting? It was based on a crosssectional online survey in a German SME company with approximately 3,000 employees worldwide. In total, 823 employees located in Germany participated in this study. The results revealed that each of the intrapersonal factors identified in Study 1 affected the routes to psychological ownership in a particular way. Furthermore, each route to psychological ownership was found to affect job- and organization-based psychological ownership. Finally, there is evidence for a considerable impact of psychological ownership of the job and organization on the following work-related outcomes: (1) job satisfaction; (2) intention to stay; (3) affective commitment; (4) organization-based self-esteem; (5) extra-role behavior; and (6) work overtime. Study 3 addressed the third research question: How do intrapersonal factors affect the desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting? These desires refer to the personal importance of psychological ownership in the ideal job. The study was based on a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample (in terms of gender, age, income, and education) of the general population in Germany and Switzerland. In total, 626 individuals participated in this study. The results of this study revealed that each intrapersonal factor stimulates different desires for job- and

77

organization-based psychological ownership. Figure 4-1 outlines how the different intrapersonal factors relate to the desires for psychological ownership. In this figure, each desire for psychological ownership corresponds to one of the routes to psychological ownership. Comparison of Findings Figure 4-1 summarizes the major findings of the studies conducted. Moreover, it allows for a comparison of the different studies that build upon one another. The dotted lines in the figure refer to the desires for psychological ownership in the overall population of Study 3 that are not fulfilled in the employees’ existing job of the SME company of Study 2.

Figure 4-1: Comparison of Studies Study 2

Study 1 Identification of Intrapersonal Factors

Study 3

Job-Based Psychological Ownership Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Desire for Control

Desire for Intimate Knowledge

Desire for Investment of Self

Control

Intimate Knowledge

Desire for Authenticity

.15**

.10*

Self-Efficacy

.14**

.27***

.15**

.19**

.14*

.22***

0.18**

.18**

.27**

.50***

.51***

.33***

.15**

Intrapersonal Factors

Investment of Self

Job-Based Desires for Psychological Ownership

Need for Uniqueness

-.11**

Intrinsic Motivation

-.25***

Extrinsic Motivation Importance of Work

.20***

Psychological Ownership

.36***

Identification of Intrapersonal Factors

Route 1

Intrapersonal Factors Need for Uniqueness

Age

.12**

.27***

.10**

.40***

n/a

Organization-Based Psychological Ownership

Control

Route 2 Intimate Knowledge

.16***

Desire for Authenticity

Route 3

.22***

.21*** n/a

n/a

Organization-Based Desires for Psychological Ownership Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Investment of Self

Desire for Control

Desire for Intimate Knowledge

Desire for Investment of Self

.11*

.18***

Age -.11**

.09*

-.25***

Self-Efficacy

.22***

Intrinsic Motivation

.22**

.20***

Extrinsic Motivation

.50***

.48***

.25***

Importance of Work

.31***

.18***

.29***

.24***

.20***

.29***

Psychological Ownership

.33***

.24***

.39***

n/a

n/a

n/a

Note: Numbers represent standardized path coefficients; dotted line = desires that are not fulfilled in the job; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001

Figure 4-1 shows that the effect of need for uniqueness and desire for authenticity on the routes and desires seems to be rather low, as the standardized effect size is below the value of 0.2 (Chin, 1998). Apart from that, self-efficacy was found to have an influence on each route and each desire relating to job-based psychological ownership.

78

Accordingly, employees with a high level of self-efficacy have a great probability to feel ownership for their job through each of the routes. Furthermore, intrinsically motivated individuals were found to develop ownership for the job and organization to the same extent. In this regard, intrinsically motivated employees tend to develop feelings of ownership through intimate knowledge and investment of self. Extrinsically motivated individuals were found to have desires for job- and organization-based control and job-based intimate knowledge. Finally, the results show that individuals who consider work important are likely to feel ownership for the job and organization, as importance of work affected almost every route and desire relating to job- and organization-based psychological ownership. The following sections on the theoretical and managerial contributions of this research (see Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.3.2) provide more details on the particular effects of intrapersonal factors on these routes and desires. Comparison of the studies reveals that there are several desires in the overall population (Study 3) that are not fulfilled in the existing job of the SME company’s employees (Study 2). Intrinsically motivated individuals of the overall population, for instance, were found to have a desire for job-based control that was not fulfilled among participants in the existing jobs of the SME company. Similarly, extrinsically motivated individuals of the overall population were found to have a desire for jobbased control, a desire for job-based intimate knowledge, and a desire for organization-based control that was not fulfilled among participants in the existing job of the SME company. Accordingly, the findings provide the first evidence that there are certain desires for psychological ownership in the overall population that may not necessarily be fulfilled among those in existing jobs. The fulfillment of these unfulfilled desires is likely to increase employees’ sense of ownership. Importance of Each Intrapersonal Factor for Psychological Ownership To determine the importance of the different intrapersonal factors for the emergence of psychological ownership, the total effect of each intrapersonal factor on psychological ownership was calculated based on the findings of Study 2 and reported in the subsequent Table 4-1. The relative importance of intrapersonal factors for job-based psychological ownership is as follows according to their total effect: (1) importance of work; (2) self-efficacy; (3) intrinsic motivation; and (4) desire for authenticity. Need for uniqueness and extrinsic motivation did not affect job-based psychological ownership. By contrast, the relative importance of these intrapersonal factors for organization-based psychological

79

ownership is as follows according to their total effect: (1) importance of work; (2) intrinsic motivation; (3) need for uniqueness; and (4) desire for authenticity. Selfefficacy and extrinsic motivation did not affect organization-based psychological ownership.

Table 4-1: Total Effect of Intrapersonal Factors on Psychological Ownership Intrapersonal Factors

Job-Based PO

Organization-Based PO

-

.09

Desire for Authenticity

.06

.02

Self-Efficacy

.14

-

Intrinsic Motivation

.09

.13

Extrinsic Motivation

-

-

Importance of Work

.18

.26

Need for Uniqueness

Note: PO = Psychological Ownership

Overall, importance of work and intrinsic motivation were found to have the largest impact on the emergence of job- and organization-based psychological ownership. Self-efficacy seems of additional importance for job-based psychological ownership, whereas need for uniqueness was found to be important for organization-based psychological ownership.

80

4.2 Theoretical Contributions 4.2.1 Contribution to Research on Psychological Ownership This dissertation constitutes the first known attempt to identify several intrapersonal factors as antecedents of the routes to psychological ownership. The empirical findings reveal that the extent to which employees develop a sense of ownership depends considerably on intrapersonal factors that are stable over time and vary among employees. To the author’s best knowledge, previous research on psychological ownership has not considered this aspect. Furthermore, the empirical findings provide conclusive evidence for the existence of the theorized routes to job- and organization-based psychological ownership in practice. The routes relating to investment of self and control were found to be the two major routes that lead to job- and organization-based psychological ownership, and intimate knowledge was found to be a third and slightly less important route. These findings contribute to a more precise conceptualization of how feelings of ownership emerge in organizations. Furthermore, the results provide a basis for the application of psychological ownership to adjacent fields of study such as research in nonorganizational contexts. This research is the first known study to identify different desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting. The detection of such desires contributes to a better understanding of how to create the best possible working conditions for the emergence of feelings of ownership. The literature on psychological ownership has focused on the emergence of psychological ownership in the current job. However, the existing literature lacks a basis for understanding how important feelings of ownership are for different employees in the ideal job setting. This dissertation explored the consequences of psychological ownership of the job and organization on work-related outcomes. The findings provide evidence for an influence of job- and organization-based psychological ownership on job satisfaction (Avey et al., 2009; Mayhew et al., 2007; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), intention to stay (Avey et al., 2009; Peng & Pierce, 2015), affective commitment (Avey et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2012; Mayhew et al., 2007; O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), organization-based self-esteem (Liu et al., 2012; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), and extrarole behavior (O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004;

81

Vandewalle et al., 1995). In addition, this research is considered the first study to identify a positive impact of job- and organization-based psychological ownership on work overtime. 4.2.2 Contribution to Research on Intrapersonal Factors This research showed that intrapersonal factors considerably affect the emergence of psychological ownership. In this regard, intrapersonal factors were found to have a stronger effect on the emergence of job-based psychological ownership than on organization-based psychological ownership (see Table 3-8 and Table 3-12). Moreover, the empirical findings of this research were found to correspond with the existing research on intrapersonal factors. The subsequent section outlines and explains the conceptual linkage between intrapersonal factors and psychological ownership. Need for uniqueness affected the route and desire relating to organization-based control. Moreover, it influenced the route relating to organization-based investment of self (see Figure 4-1). These findings correspond to research on need for uniqueness, which is operationalized as avoidance of similarities by controlling one’s behavior in order to avoid similarities with others (Tian et al., 2001). Consequently, control of one’s own behavior is theoretically linked with the route relating to control. Need for uniqueness is also operationalized as creative choice counter-conformity, which refers to the development of an individual style by purchasing and displaying original, novel, or unique goods (Ruvio et al., 2008; Tian et al., 2001). This aspect is theoretically linked with the route relating to investment of self, as it involves the investment of individual ideas and energy into different factors. In organizational settings, these findings suggest that employees with a high level of need for uniqueness focus on organization-related aspects of their work. They appear to strive for uniqueness by having control over organizational factors that allow them to enhance their social image in the organization. Moreover, the investment of their abilities and skills into organizational factors enables them to reduce similarities with other employees. Desire for authenticity affected the route relating to job-based control. Furthermore, it had an impact on the route relating to job- and organization-based intimate knowledge (see Figure 4-1). This observed impact is in line with prior research. In particular, desire for authenticity is operationalized as resistance to external influence and control (Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Wood et al., 2008). Accordingly, there is theoretical linkage between this aspect of desire for authenticity and the route relating to control. Desire

82

for authenticity is also operationalized as the in-depth knowledge of one’s own mental state (Wood et al., 2008). Thus, this aspect is theoretically linked with the route relating to intimate knowledge. In organizational settings, these findings suggest that employees with a strong desire for authenticity tend to strive for job-related control. This enables them to perform tasks that are in line with their own values and beliefs. Moreover, the findings suggest that employees with a desire for authenticity would like to get to know and understand job- and organization-related factors in order to understand the true substance of their work. Self-efficacy affected each route and each desire for psychological ownership of the job (see Figure 4-1). This observed impact is in accord with previous research. First, self-efficacy is operationalized as the ability to perform a specific task and to control external influences (Bandura et al., 1982; Bandura, 1977). Accordingly, this aspect is theoretically connected with the route relating to control. Second, self-efficacy is theorized to develop through the cumulative acquisition of knowledge (Bandura, 1977). Thus, this aspect is theoretically linked with the route relating to intimate knowledge. Finally, self-efficacy is rooted in mastery experiences that emerge when an individual can successfully invest the self into a task (Bandura, 1977; Beierlein et al., 2012). Therefore, this aspect is theoretically connected with the route relating to investment of self. In organizational settings, these findings suggest that employees with a high level of self-efficacy are likely to focus on job-related aspects of their work. As these employees are expected to perceive difficult tasks as challenges that can be mastered, they seem to prefer job-related control and want to get to know jobrelated aspects of their work. This enables them to perform and to invest themselves into their tasks. Intrinsic motivation affected the routes and desires relating to job- and organizationbased intimate knowledge and investment of self. Similarly, intrinsic motivation caused a desire for job-based control (see Figure 4-1). These findings correspond to existing research. In the first place, intrinsic motivation is operationalized as interest for tasks that provide opportunities for increasing one’s knowledge (Amabile et al., 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Accordingly, intrinsic motivation is theoretically associated with the route relating to intimate knowledge. In the second place, intrinsic motivation relates to the creative self-expression of personality (Amabile et al., 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). For this reason, intrinsic motivation is theoretically linked with the routed relating to investment of self. In the third place, intrinsic motivation is operationalized as the preference for setting one’s own goals and controlling one’s

83

own behavior (Amabile et al., 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Thus, intrinsic motivation is also theoretically connected with the route relating to control. In organizational settings, these findings imply that intrinsically motivated employees focus on job- and organization-related aspects of their work in order to get to know their work intimately. Likewise, they are inclined to invest themselves into job and organizational targets, as this enables them to contribute to organizational goals. Furthermore, intrinsically motivated employees seem to have a desire for job-related control in order to perform the tasks that lead to the inherent satisfaction of their work. Extrinsic motivation was found to give rise to a desire for job- and organization-based control and job-based intimate knowledge (see Figure 4-1). These findings correspond to research on extrinsic motivation. On the one hand, extrinsic motivation refers to a desire for receiving and having control over outcomes that are not part of the work itself (Amabile et al., 1994; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Therefore, this aspect of extrinsic motivation is related to the desire for control. On the other hand, extrinsically motivated individuals strive for an in-depth knowledge of their goals in order to receive their rewards (Amabile et al., 1994; Deci, 1972). Thus, extrinsic motivation is conceptually linked with a desire for intimate knowledge. In organizations, these findings suggest that extrinsically motivated employees favor job- and organizationbased control, since this enables them to attain goals that lead to external rewards. Moreover, the intimate knowledge of job-related aspects of their work serves as a basis to achieve their goals. Importance of work affected the job- and organization-based routes and desires relating to control and investment of self. Furthermore, it affected the routes and desires relating to organization-based intimate knowledge (see Figure 4-1). These findings are consistent with the existing literature. Importance of work refers to the extent to which individuals put their work at the center of their life (Kanungo, 1982; Sturges & Guest, 2004). The findings of this research suggest that employees who consider work important are likely to strive for control, intimate knowledge, and investment of self, as this permits them to invest a major part of their life into their work. In this manner, they become deeply attached to their work. 4.2.3 Contribution to Research on Age-Related Differences Over the last decades, a body of literature has examined age-related differences in intrapersonal factors with the aim of better understanding and predicting the behavior of individuals (Krahn & Galambos, 2014; Noble & Schewe, 2003). In spite of the

84

large number of studies, the existing research is confronted with several challenges (Parry & Urwin, 2011; Rhodes, 1983). Among these are a lack of theoretical grounding in the personality literature (Rhodes, 1983), the tendency to overlook the impact of national culture (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Woodward et al., 2015), and an inconsistency of birth-year boundaries when it comes to the examination of different age groups (Parry & Urwin, 2011; Woodward et al., 2015). This makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about age-related differences in intrapersonal factors. Given these challenges, this dissertation adds to the literature on personality by identifying age-related differences in the overall German and Swiss population. In particular, age was found to have a negative effect on need for uniqueness. This finding corresponds to previous research. For instance, Smola and Sutton (2002) concluded that younger individuals are increasingly me-oriented. Likewise, Twenge, Campbell, and Freeman (2012) found evidence that younger individuals are more selffocused than their older counterparts and strive to distinguish themselves from others by being unique. Accordingly, young employees are likely to search for a job that allows them to enhance both their self-image and social image (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977; Tian et al., 2001). Furthermore, age was found to have a negative effect on desire for authenticity. This finding corresponds to previous research. For example, Archer (2008) found evidence that younger individuals have a strong desire for authenticity. Likewise, young individuals were shown to have a desire for authentic products (Kovács, Carroll, & Lehman, 2014) and to prefer authentic leaders (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). For that reason, young employees are likely to search for a job that corresponds to their own values and beliefs. In this manner, the job may support them in achieving their personal goals (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). Finally, age was found to have a positive effect on self-efficacy, which corresponds to earlier findings. For instance, Renner, Spivak, Kwon, and Schwarzer (2007) and Reed, Mikels, and Löckenhoff (2013) concluded that older individuals have higher levels of self-efficacy than their younger counterparts. Similarly, Woodward and Wallston (1987) found evidence that older individuals have a higher self-efficacy with regard to the desire for controlling their health. Thus, aging and maturity can help employees to have greater confidence in their ability to perform challenging tasks.

85

4.3 Managerial Contributions 4.3.1 Role of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings The managerial relevance of psychological ownership becomes clear from the considerable influence of job- and organization-based psychological ownership on various work-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, intention to stay, affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, extra-role behavior, work overtime). Overall, psychological ownership explained between 12 and 65 percent of the employee performance (see Table 3-8). While job-based psychological ownership was found to have a stronger impact on job satisfaction, extra-role behavior, and work overtime, organization-based psychological ownership was found to have a stronger impact on intention to stay, affective commitment, and organization-based self-esteem. Thus, the findings indicate that psychological ownership of both the job and organization is relevant in organizational settings. However, since job- and organization-based psychological ownership were both found to have a substantial effect on the same work-related outcomes, managers can stimulate either job- or organization-based psychological ownership in order to achieve these positive outcomes. Given that psychological ownership was found to be an important driver of workrelated outcomes, it is important to understand the emergence of feelings of ownership in the existing job. The findings show that job- and organization-based psychological ownership emerge through three routes: controlling the target, coming to intimately know the target, and investment of self into the target of ownership (Pierce et al., 2009). Accordingly, employees should have the possibility of accessing each of these routes in order to give rise to feelings of ownership. The findings revealed that investment of self into the target and controlling the target of ownership are the two major routes that lead to job- and organization-based psychological ownership, with intimate knowledge of the target found to be a third and slightly less important route. This research is the first known study to identify different desires for psychological ownership relating to the ideal job. Because these desires pertain to the personal importance of psychological ownership in the ideal job setting, they provide insight into how managers can create the best possible working conditions for the emergence of feelings of ownership. In this regard, a comparison of the desires for psychological ownership of the workforce with the routes to psychological ownership in the existing

86

job enables managers to detect unfulfilled desires in the current job. Accordingly, the addressing of these desires is likely to create jobs that tap the full potential of psychological ownership. This research focused on job- and organization-based psychological ownership, because the job and the organization are considered to be the two major targets of ownership in organizations (Mayhew et al., 2007; Peng & Pierce, 2015). Apart from that, the existing literature on psychological ownership has proposed that feelings of ownership are likely to emerge toward various material or immaterial targets (see Section 2.1.2), such as personal work space, projects, or work groups (Parker et al., 1997; Rudmin & Berry, 1987; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). For that reason, managers should consider that different organizational factors serve as a source for feelings of ownership, which in turn affects employee performance. 4.3.2 Managing Psychological Ownership Based on Intrapersonal Factors This dissertation reveals that several intrapersonal factors act as important antecedents of job- and organization-based psychological ownership in the existing job. Moreover, they were found to stimulate different desires for psychological ownership, which provides a basis for the creation of better working conditions. For this reason, the understanding of how intrapersonal factors affect the emergence of psychological ownership is of high importance for managerial practice. In order to manage psychological ownership in organizations, several management tools were developed based on the findings of this dissertation. The subsequent Figure 4-2 supports managers in the identification of the relevant routes to psychological ownership based on the intrapersonal factors of their workforce.

87

Figure 4-2: Management Tool to Identify the Relevant Routes

Intrapersonal Factors

Job-Based Psychological Ownership

Organization-Based Psychological Ownership

Relevant Routes

Relevant Routes

Control

Intimate Knowledge

Investment of Self

Need for Uniqueness

Control

Intimate Knowledge

x

Desire for Authenticity

x

x

Self-Efficacy

x

x

x

Intrinsic Motivation

x

x

x

Extrinsic Motivation

x

x

Importance of Work

x

Investment of Self

Age

x

-

x

+

x

x

x

x

x x

x

Note: x = Route to and / or desire for psychological ownership (see Figure 4-1)

Given that intrapersonal factors are stable over time, there appear to be two ways to increase psychological ownership in practice. One approach is to recruit employees for jobs or specific tasks according to intrapersonal factors that have been found to promote psychological ownership (per the above figure). For this purpose, a survey could be conducted in order to detect the relevant intrapersonal factors among different employees or prospective employees. The items of these measures are reported in the appendix (see Appendix 3). Another approach is to enable the three routes to psychological ownership, depending on the intrapersonal factors of the employees. Therefore, several management tools were developed based on the original measurement items of the routes (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014). These potential measures aim at enabling the different routes to psychological ownership. Figure 4-3 presents measures that can promote job- and organization-based control. For instance, managers could foster job-based psychological ownership by allowing ownership of ideas, products, or a team. Likewise, managers could increase organization-based psychological ownership by permitting greater access to senior and top management.

88

Figure 4-3: Management Tool to Enable Control in Organizations Route 1: Enabling Control Job-Related Aspects of Measurement Scale

Job-Related Measures

Influence over things that affect the individual person

Considering individual needs, such as choosing of own work title

Influence over tasks or parts of tasks

Giving ownership of ideas, a product, or a team

Influence over job-related decisions

Encouraging employees to take risks when appropriate

Influence over one's own work deadline

Considering individual requirements when setting work deadlines

Control over pace and scheduling of the work

Allowing employees to schedule their own work

General control over one's own job

Allowing access to resources required to accomplish one's tasks

Organization-Related Aspects of Measurement Scale

Organization-Related Measures

Influence over things that affect the organization

Promoting access to organization-wide information and resources

Influence over organization or parts of organization

Allowing access to cross-functional projects

Influence over organization-related decisions

Promoting transparency on decisions affecting the organization

Control over the organization

Enabling access to senior and top management

Figure 4-4 outlines measures that can enable job- and organization-based intimate knowledge. For example, job-based intimate knowledge could be increased by fostering a sense of purpose of the work and by linking an individual’s job with the goals of the organization. Managers could also enable organization-based intimate knowledge by promoting a clear vision, mission, and strategy of the organization.

Figure 4-4: Management Tool to Enable Intimate Knowledge in Organizations Route 2: Enabling Intimate Knowledge Job-Related Aspects of Measurement Scale

Job-Related Measures

Familiarity with what is going on with regard to one's own job

Access to relevant information concerning one's own job

Depth of knowledge relating to one's own job

Encouraging professional development and on-the-job trainings

Comprehensive understanding of one's own work

Fostering a sense of purpose of one's own work

Broad understanding of one's own job

Linking individual's job with organizational goals

Organization-Related Aspects of Measurement Scale

Organization-Related Measures

Familiarity with what is going on in the organization

Explaining how organization will change over time

Depth of knowledge relating to the organization

Promoting organization-wide cooperation and sharing of information

Comprehensive understanding of the organization

Highlighting priorities of the organization

Broad understanding of the organization

Promoting a clear vision, mission, and strategy

89

Finally, Figure 4-5 presents different measures that intend to enable job- and organization-based investment of self. For instance, managers could increase jobbased investment of self by inspiring their employees to contribute their own ideas and to make use of their talents. Also, organization-based investment of self could be facilitated by encouraging employees to challenge organizational processes and by fostering a positive organizational culture.

Figure 4-5: Management Tool to Enable Investment of Self in Organizations Route 3: Enabling Investment of Self Job-Related Aspects of Measurement Scale

Job-Related Measures

Investment of a major part of "oneself" into their job

Inspiring employees to contribute their own ideas

Investment of many own ideas into the job

Encouraging creativity of employees

Investment of a number of talents into the job

Providing individual coaching in order to encourage personal growth

Investment of a significant amount of life into the job

Encouraging a strong commitment to work

Organization-Related Aspects of Measurement Scale

Organization-Related Measures

Investment of a major part of "oneself" into the organization

Inspiring employees to challenge organizational processes

Investment of many own ideas into the organization

Aiming for continuous innovation of products and services

Investment of a number of talents into the organization

Enabling organization-wide career paths

Investment of a significant amount of life into the organization

Fostering a positive organizational culture

Compared to employee stock ownership, which has been suggested in order to increase employees’ sense of ownership, many of the proposed measures can be implemented without large expenditures (Pierce et al., 1991; Vandewalle et al., 1995). As previously outlined, in practice even minor interventions can increase psychological ownership in organizations, such as giving employees ownership of ideas and fostering a sense of purpose of their work. These interventions are likely to make employees feel like owners and inspire them to behave in the best interest of the company. 4.3.3 Managing Age-Related Differences in Intrapersonal Factors The literature on generational differences has emphasized that managers face many challenges in the coming years. One of the most important is said to be hiring, retaining, and motivating young employees (Jenewein, Heidbrink, & Heuschele, 2014; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge, 2010). In view of that, extensive research has tried to detect age-related differences in intrapersonal factors that are relevant for managers.

90

This dissertation found evidence for an effect of age on three intrapersonal factors. The findings indicate that age appears to have a negative effect on need for uniqueness and desire for authenticity and a positive effect on self-efficacy. From a practical point of view, these age-related differences are of particular importance, as they were found to exist in the overall German and Swiss population. Thus, at present, younger individuals appear to have a higher need for uniqueness and a stronger desire for authenticity than older individuals. Further, younger individuals seem to have a lower level of self-efficacy than their older counterparts. As these age-related differences were identified in a representative sample of the overall German and Swiss population, managers should pay special interest to them in order to manage and motivate different age groups of their workforce. The findings of this dissertation can be compared with the literature on generational differences. This literature usually defines a generation as a group of people, who experienced the same events during their formative years (Ryder, 1965). As a result, members of a generation are assumed to develop unifying values, attitudes, and characteristics (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Mannheim, 1952; Pilcher, 1994). The generations in today’s workforce are commonly labeled Baby Boomers (typically born between 1943 and 1960), Generation X (typically born between 1961 and 1981), and Generation Y (typically born after 1982). As the members of Generation Y were born just before the turn of the millennium and came of age at that time, they are often referred to as Millennials (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Of particular note is the fact that the labels of these generational groups and the birth-year boundaries are often inconsistent. In addition, generational studies are often conducted in different countries and industries, refer to different points in time, and use inconsistent measures, which makes comparison of findings on generational differences a difficult task (Dries, Pepermans, & De Kerpel, 2008; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011). The recent generational and popular literature has focused on examining intrapersonal factors of the Generation Y, as this generation represents the workforce of the future. According to the popular literature on generational differences, members of Generation Y are said to be the most wanted generation, as they were born at a time when birth control was broadly available (Howe & Strauss, 1991, 2007). The Generation Y is the first to be “digital native,” as its members grew up in a wired world (Glass, 2007; Smola & Sutton, 2002). Since many families had fewer children and more resources, the parents of this generation had time to oversee all activities of

91

their children. This is why the term “helicopter parents” was coined (Glass, 2007). The popular literature assumes that this attentive parenting tended to make members of Generation Y somewhat narcissistic and overconfident (Howe & Strauss, 1991; Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). Moreover, they are expected to seek meaning in life and in their work (Glass, 2007). For this reason, Generation Y is commonly labeled as generation “why,” since members of this generation appear to question everything they are required to do (Jenewein et al., 2014; Smola & Sutton, 2002). According to academic research on generational differences, there is empirical evidence that members of Generation Y are self-centered and narcissistic (Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2012; Twenge et al., 2008), have a high desire for individualfocused leadership (Lyons & Kuron, 2014), and see themselves in an increasingly positive manner (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge, 2010). In addition, members of Generation Y were found to be independent (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge et al., 2010; Twenge, 2010) and to seek authenticity in their work (Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Furthermore, there is evidence for a shift of intrinsic values toward more extrinsic values among more recent generations (Twenge et al., 2010; Twenge, Campbell, & Freeman, 2012). Generation Y was found to perceive work as less important and to place higher emphasis on leisure values compared to older generations (Meriac, Woehr, & Banister, 2010; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Twenge et al., 2010). To a large extent, the findings of this dissertation correspond to the existing research on Generation Y. On the one hand, younger individuals in Germany and Switzerland were found to have a high need for uniqueness, which is in line with the perception of members of Generation Y as self-centered and self-loving. This might explain why today numerous young individuals use social media such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat in order to promote a positive view of themselves. The slogan “broadcast yourself” of YouTube reflects this desire for self-promotion of the Generation Y (Twenge et al., 2008). On the other hand, young individuals in Germany and Switzerland were found to have a strong desire for authenticity, which corresponds to the literature of the Generation Y. For instance, members of Generation Y are assumed to appreciate authentic leaders who are deeply aware of how they think and behave. In the same way, they are said to search for something that is genuine and real in order to find meaning in life (Avolio et al., 2004; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). However, the findings of this dissertation do not provide evidence for a shift toward more extrinsic

92

values and a decrease in importance of work among young individuals, as proposed by the generational literature. Overall, the findings of this dissertation help to bring clarity to the perception of generational differences that appear to exist in practice, even if those differences are not always supported empirically (Foster, 2013; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Moreover, the identified age-related differences provide a basis to manage and motivate employees of different age groups in practice. In this regard, psychological ownership is likely to turn different organizational factors into part of the employee’s identity. In this manner, psychological ownership may help to address the high need for uniqueness and desire for authenticity of today’s young employees.

93

4.4 Limitations The conceptual arguments and empirical research of this dissertation include several limitations that are outlined in this section. This dissertation determined a relevant set of intrapersonal factors in order to examine the effect of intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership. The most frequently reported intrapersonal factors were identified in a number of major literature reviews. This relevant set of intrapersonal factors formed the basis for the empirical research of this dissertation. In this manner, it was possible to examine the influence of intrapersonal factors on the emergence of psychological ownership. However, since the relevant set of intrapersonal factors was determined by theoretical and practical considerations, it is possible that there are other intrapersonal factors that affect the emergence of psychological ownership. Given that intrapersonal factors do often correlate to some extent with each other, the findings of this dissertation are likely to provide a largely complete picture of the effect of intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership, and determining any additional factors would be of value to this effort. Another limitation of this research refers to the organizational targets of ownership for which individuals develop feelings of ownership. According to the theory of psychological ownership, feelings of ownership can occur toward numerous material and immaterial targets (Pierce et al., 2001). For this reason, various organizational factors such as work tasks, work tools, or even team members may serve as a source for feelings of ownership (Parker et al., 1997; Rudmin & Berry, 1987; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). This research focused on felt ownership for the job and organization, although further organizational factors are likely to exist toward which employees develop feelings of ownership (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Pierce et al., 2009; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). An additional limitation refers to the consequences of psychological ownership. The findings of this dissertation provided evidence for several positive consequences of psychological ownership (i.e., job satisfaction, intention to stay, affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, extra-role behavior, and work overtime). However, scholars have suggested that in addition to these positive consequences, it’s likely that negative consequences also exist. For instance, psychological ownership is expected to increase the resistance to organizational change, encourage protective behavior, and create feelings of excessive responsibility (Avey et al., 2009; Brown, Pierce, et al.,

94

2014; Pierce & Jussila, 2010; Pierce et al., 2003, 2004). For this reason, Pierce et al. (2004) suggested uncovering the causes and conditions that lead to negative consequences of psychological ownership. This dissertation conducted a study in rapidly growing German SME company that belongs to a leading enterprise in its industry. This representative company operates through a dense network of branches in foreign markets. In this light, the findings of this research seem to provide a solid basis to answer the research questions. However, an examination of other companies and industries would provide further evidence for the conceptual model of this dissertation. One might wonder whether another limitation relates to the cross-sectional research design of the studies. Cross-sectional studies provide a “snapshot” of the situation at a particular point in time. This approach allowed the examination of the association between different concepts of the conceptual model. From a theoretical perspective, cross-sectional studies have a temporal constraint. For example, they cannot explain whether age-related differences are caused by cohort effects (which will endure as the cohort grows older) or by age or period effects (which will be less enduring) (Parry & Urwin, 2011). However, from a managerial perspective, it is not important what caused the observed age-related differences in intrapersonal factors in the present study. Therefore, conducting cross-sectional studies was considered appropriate to answer the research questions of this dissertation, and the potential limitations of the cross-sectional approach did not constrain this study. Finally, culture appears to be a limiting factor of this research. Although possessive feelings are considered to be universal qualities, it is possible that culture has a considerable influence on the emergence of psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). For this reason, it should be noted that the major studies of this dissertation were conducted with participants residing in Germany and Switzerland.

95

4.5 Future Research The findings of this research lead to a deeper understanding of the antecedents and evolving processes of psychological ownership in organizational settings. The subsequent section presents potential directions for future research. 4.5.1 Future Research on Psychological Ownership Future Research on the Routes to Psychological Ownership This research provides empirical evidence for the existence of the theorized routes to psychological ownership in organizational settings. In this regard, future research could examine whether these routes also exist in a non-organizational setting. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the interplay between these routes has a separate influence on psychological ownership. Thus, future research could investigate the joint influence of the routes on the emergence of job- and organization-based psychological ownership. Future Research on the Desires for Psychological Ownership This research is the first known study to detect different desires for job- and organization-based psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting. In this regard, future research could examine the emergence of these desires in different organizations and industries and investigate how these desires might be related to other organizational factors. Moreover, future studies could compare the performance of employees who have unfulfilled desires for psychological ownership with that of employees who can fulfill their desires for psychological ownership in their job. This would permit an assessment of the impact of unfulfilled desires on work-related outcomes. Future Research on Psychological Ownership This dissertation has examined the emergence of psychological ownership toward the job and the organization. These two organizational targets were selected because they are considered the two major targets of ownership in organizations. Future research could identify other organizational targets and determine their relevance for the emergence of psychological ownership. Moreover, future studies could focus on psychological ownership in a non-organizational context.

96

Future Research on Consequences of Psychological Ownership As outlined in the limitations of this dissertation, existing research has mostly examined the positive consequences of psychological ownership. Future research could identify negative consequences of job- and organization-based psychological ownership and determine the specific conditions that give rise to these negative effects. 4.5.2 Future Research on Intrapersonal Factors Future Research on Factors Affecting Routes to Psychological Ownership The research of this dissertation examined the influence of a relevant set of intrapersonal factors on psychological ownership. This set of intrapersonal factors was determined on the basis of several major literature reviews. However, it is likely that there are other intrapersonal factors that may affect feelings of ownership, which future research could identify. A comparison of their effect sizes would help to determine their relative importance for the emergence of feelings of ownership. Future research could also investigate whether the identified intrapersonal factors affect feelings of ownership toward non-organizational targets. Future Research on Factors Affecting Desires for Psychological Ownership This research compared the actual routes to psychological ownership in a SME company with the desires for psychological ownership in the overall population. A promising field for future research could be the examination of how the actual emergence of psychological ownership through different routes diverges from the desires for psychological ownership in different organizations and industries. This could identify desires that are not fulfilled in the existing job in order to increase an employee’s sense of ownership. 4.5.3 Future Research on Age-Related Differences Age-Related Differences in Other Intrapersonal Factors The examination of a relevant set of intrapersonal factors affecting psychological ownership led to the identification of age-related differences in intrapersonal factors. As previously outlined, it is likely that further intrapersonal factors with age-related differences exist that are relevant to increase employees’ sense of ownership.

97

Age-Related Differences over Time This research was based on cross-sectional studies, which allowed the identification of several age-related differences. From a managerial perspective, the findings provide a basis for decision-making that is relevant at a particular point in time. However, from a theoretical perspective, cross-sectional studies cannot explain whether age, period, or cohort effects caused the observed age-related differences in intrapersonal factors. This question is better addressed by longitudinal studies, which future research could conduct. Age-Related Differences in the Context of Generational Research As outlined, the conduction of longitudinal studies would enable identification of the causes for the observed age-related differences in intrapersonal factors. In this manner it would be possible to determine if members of a particular generation share unifying values, attitudes, and characteristics, as proposed by the generational literature (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Mannheim, 1952; Pilcher, 1994). Accordingly, the conduction of longitudinal studies would provide empirical evidence for the existence of generational differences over time.

98

5 Conclusion The objective of this research was to examine the influence of temporally stable intrapersonal factors on the emergence of psychological ownership in the existing and ideal job setting. In this manner, it advances our understanding of the best possible working conditions that lead to feelings of ownership when these intrapersonal factors are taken into consideration. The findings strengthen the important role of psychological ownership as a core feeling in the experience of work due to its favorable effects on work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction, affective commitment, and extra-role behavior. They further illustrate that felt ownership for the job and the organization are two distinct, albeit related, dimensions of this mental state. These two dimensions of psychological ownership were found to emerge along three routes. Exerting control and investment of self turned out to be the two major routes that lead to feelings of ownership, with intimate knowledge found to be a third and slightly less important route to this mental state. In this light, managers can empower their employees to feel like owners of their job and organization by enabling them to exercise control, to come to intimately know, and to invest themselves into various organizational factors. This research made a first attempt to identify several intrapersonal factors as individual antecedents of the emergence of feelings of ownership for the job and organization in the existing job. Moreover, these intrapersonal factors were found to stimulate particular desires for psychological ownership that relate to the ideal job setting. The findings imply that managers should consider the temporally stable intrapersonal factors of their employees in order to give rise to feelings of ownership. Employees who consider work to be important and who are intrinsically motivated were found to have a high probability of feeling ownership for the job and organization. Similarly, employees with a high level of self-efficacy are likely to feel ownership for the job, whereas employees with a strong need for uniqueness tend to feel ownership for the organization. Thus, consideration of intrapersonal factors offers insight into how employees relate to organizations. The results provide significant evidence that young individuals, who represent the future workforce, have a high need for uniqueness and a strong desire for authenticity, which is in line with the literature on Generation Y. In this respect, psychological ownership is proposed to support individuals in distinguishing themselves from others by providing a sense of belonging to one’s job and organization. Moreover,

99

psychological ownership is expected to align employees’ values and beliefs with the interests of the organization and therefore fulfill employees’ desire for finding a job that is true and authentic to them. Overall, this research highlights the critical role of temporally stable intrapersonal factors in the development of feelings of ownership. The findings have great practical relevance, as they indicate that managers can take an active role in turning employees into owners of their job and organization by focusing on employees’ relevant intrapersonal factors. The management tools developed in this dissertation illustrate that, in practice, even minor interventions can increase an employee’s sense of ownership, such as giving employees ownership of ideas and fostering a sense of purpose of their work. This empowers managers to link the particular characteristics of the job and organization with the individual predisposition of employees. As a result, employees are likely to develop a close connection with their organization and to perceive their job as part of their identity, in the same way as they may naturally think about their work as “Me, My Job, and I.” Managerial recognition of the important roles of psychological ownership can lead to many opportunities to engage and motivate employees in various organizational settings.

100

References Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13–17. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Holt. Amabile, T. M., Hil, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950–967. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Archer, L. (2008). Younger academics’ constructions of “authenticity”, “success” and professional identity. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 385–403. Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Ursel, N. D. (2009). Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction, and the retention of older workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 201–220. 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, 30(2), 173–191. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership: Cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823. Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1977). Self-esteem in young men: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of educational and occupational attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(6), 365–380. Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). Evaluation of structural equation models and hypotheses testing. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research (pp. 386–422). Oxford: Blackwell. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Baird, L. S., & Beccia, P. J. (1980). The potential misuse of overtime. Personnel Psychology, 33(3), 557–565.

101

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 5–21. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helping system journey and substance. London: SAGE Publications. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9– 32. Beaglehole, E. (1931). Property: A study in social psychology. London: Allen & Unwin. Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 229–237. Beierlein, C., Kovaleva, A., Kemper, C. J., & Rammstedt, B. (2012). Ein Messinstrument zur Erfassung subjektiver Kompetenzerwartung. GESIS-Working Papers, 17, 1–24. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2). Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. Bentler, P. M., & Dijkstra, T. (1985). Efficient estimation via linearization in structural models. In R. Krishnaiah (Ed.), Multivariate Analysis - VI (pp. 9–42). Amsterdam: Elesevier S.P. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. J. (2010). The quest for authenticity in consumption: Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 838–856. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. Brown, G., Crossley, C. D., & 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. D. (2014). Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 318–338. Buchanan, K., & Bardi, A. (2015). The roles of values, behavior, and value-behavior

102

fit in the relation of agency and communion to well-being. Journal of Personality, 83(3), 320–333. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348–370. Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in everyday life. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 179–215. Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1254–1270. Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 358–368. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2004). Perspectives on personality (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 453–484. Cherrington, D. J., Conde, S. J., & England, J. L. (1979). Age work values. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 617–623. Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16. Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P. M. (1990). Model modification in covariance structure modeling: A comparison among likelihood ratio, Lagrange multiplier, and Wald tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 115–136. Cooley, E., Payne, B. K., Loersch, C., & Lei, R. (2015). Who owns implicit attitudes? Testing a metacognitive perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 103–115. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality, 55(2), 299–316. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A withinperson approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051–1066. Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 113–120. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be.

103

St. Martin’s Press. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Dreyfus, H. L. (1990). Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s being and time. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring four generations’ beliefs about career: Is “satisfied” the new “successful”? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 907–928. Durkheim, E. (1957). Professional ethics and civic morals. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Ellis, L. (1985). On the rudiments of possessions and property. Social Science Information, 24(1), 113–143. Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 465–468. Eysenck, S. B., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(1), 21–29. Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influences of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135–1151. Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 81–94. Fischer, L., & Lück, H. E. (1972). Entwicklung einer Skala zur Messung von Arbeitszufriedenheit. Psychologie und Praxis, 16(2), 64–76. Fischer, L., & Lück, H. E. (2014). Allgemeine Arbeitszufriedenheit. Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen, 1–11. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 469–486. Foster, K. (2013). Generation and discourse in working life stories. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 195–215. Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., & Philipchalk, R. (1992). The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A): Its use among students in England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(4), 443–449.

104

Furby, L. (1978a). Possession in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 6(1), 49–64. Furby, L. (1978b). Possessions: Toward a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life cycle. In P. B. Baltes (Ed.), Life-Span Development and Behavior (pp. 297–336). New York, NY: Academic Press. Furby, L. (1980). The origins and early development of possessive behavior. Political Psychology, 2(1), 30–42. Gallup. (2016). Employee engagement in U.S. stagnant in 2015. Washington, DC. Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472–485. Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98–103. Grapentine, T. (2000). Path analysis vs. structural equation modeling. Marketing Research, 12(3), 12–20. Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23(4), 519–529. Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit. Erste Hälfte. In M. Heidegger, O. Becker, & E. Husserl (Eds.), Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung. Halle a. d. S.: Max Niemeyer. Hirschfeld, R. R., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 789–800. Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 389–398. Homburg, C., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Beurteilung von Kausalmodellen. Marketing ZFP, 17(3), 162–176. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitudebehavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638– 646. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: Morrow. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next 20 years: How customer and workforce attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 41–52. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Insead, Head Foundation, & Universum. (2014). Our greatest fears: Examining Millennials’ concerns about career, retirement, and quality of life – and the steps

105

you should take to address them. In Millennials: A Six Part Series. Fontainebleau. Isaacs, S. (1933). Social development in young children. London: Routledge & Sons. Jagpal, H. S. (1982). Multicollinearity in structural equation models with unobservable variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 431–439. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Holt. Jenewein, W., Heidbrink, M., & Heuschele, F. (2014). Begeisterte Mitarbeiter: Wie Unternehmen ihre Mitarbeiter zu Fans machen. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag. Jenewein, W., & Morhart, F. (2008). Navigating toward team success. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 102–108. Kamptner, N. L. (1991). Personal possessions and their meanings: A life-span perspective. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 209–228. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 341–349. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410–422. Kemper, C. J., Beierlein, C., Bensch, D., Kovaleva, A., & Rammstedt, B. (2012). Soziale Erwünschtheit-Gamma (KSE-G). Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen, 25, 1–17. Kline, L., & France, C. J. (1899). The psychology of mine. Pedagogical Seminary, 6(4), 421–470. Kooij, D. T., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G. W., Kanfer, R., & Dikkers, J. S. E. (2011). Age and work-related motives: Results of a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 197–225. Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., & Lehman, D. W. (2014). Authenticity and consumer value ratings: Empirical tests from the restaurant domain. Organization Science, 25(2), 458–478. Krahn, H. J., & Galambos, N. L. (2014). Work values and beliefs of “Generation X” and “Generation Y.” Journal of Youth Studies, 17(1), 92–112. Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are, why they clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117–124. Litwinski, L. (1942). Is there an instinct of possession? British Journal of Psychology, 33(1), 28–39. Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological ownership: How having control matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 869–895. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297–1394).

106

Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 288–299. Locke, J. (1690). The treatise of government (2nd ed.). London: Awnsham and John Churchill. Lück, H. E., & Timaeus, E. (2014). Soziale Erwünschtheit (SDS-CM). Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen, 15, 1–6. Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1861–1883. Lyons, S. T., Higgins, C. A., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Work values: Development of a new three-dimensional structure based on confirmatory smallest space analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 969–1002. Lyons, S. T., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 139–157. Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813–824. Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: From constructs to theory. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 407–425. Malhotra, N. K., Peterson, M., & Kleiser, S. B. (1999). Marketing research: A state-ofthe-art review and directions for the twenty-first century. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 160–183. Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (pp. 276–322). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. Marx, K. (1976). The Marx-Engels Reader. (R. C. Tucker, Ed.). New York, NY: Norton. Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). A Study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(5), 477–500. McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2016). Are traits useful? Explaining trait manifestations as tools in the pursuit of goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 287–301. McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20(5), 321–333.

107

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press. Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 315–324. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268. Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 486–500. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677–718. Noble, S. M., & Schewe, C. D. (2003). Cohort segmentation: An exploration of its validity. Journal of Business Research, 56(12), 979–987. O’Driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A.-M. (2006). The psychology of ownership: Work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 388–416. O’Reilly, C. (2002). The wrong kind of ownership. Across the Board, 39(5), 19–20. O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499. Olver, J., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(1), 109–125. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 899–929. Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(7), 675–684. Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79– 96.

108

Peck, J., Barger, V. A., & Webb, A. (2013). In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 189–196. Peltokorpi, V., Allen, D. G., & Froese, F. (2015). Organizational embeddedness, turnover intentions, and voluntary turnover: The moderating effects of employee demographic characteristics and value orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 292–312. Peng, H., & Pierce, J. L. (2015). Job- and organization-based psychological ownership: Relationship and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(2), 151–168. Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622–648. Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 810–834. Pierce, J. L., Jussila, I., & Cummings, A. (2009). Psychological ownership within the job design context: Revision of the job characteristics model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 477–496. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310. 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(1), 84–107. Pierce, J. L., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Coghlan, A.-M. (2004). Work environment structure and psychological ownership: The mediating effects of control. Journal of Social Psychology, 144(5), 507–534. Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: A conceptual model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 121–144. Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 481–495. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Porteous, J. D. (1976). Home: The territorial core. Geographical Review, 66(4), 383– 390. Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be?: Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Prelinger, E. (1959). Extension and structure of the self. Journal of Psychology, 47, 13–23.

109

Prentice, D. A. (1987). Psychological correspondence of possessions, attitudes, and values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 993–1003. Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Curasi, C. F. (2000). Older consumers’ disposition of special possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 179–201. Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 37–61. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 666–673. Reed, A. E., Mikels, J. A., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2013). Preferences for choice across adulthood: Age trajectories and potential mechanisms. Psychology and Aging, 28(3), 625–632. Renner, B., Spivak, Y., Kwon, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2007). Does age make a difference? Predicting physical activity of South Koreans. Psychology and Aging, 22(3), 482–493. Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328–367. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measure of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 1–15). San Diego, CA: Gulf Professional Publishing. Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 789–801. Rochberg-Halton, E. (1979). Cultural signs and urban adaptation: The meaning of cherished household possessions. University of Chicago. Rochberg-Halton, E. (1984). Object relations, role models, and cultivation of the self. Environment and Behavior, 16(3), 335–368. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global selfesteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60(1), 141–156. Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335. Rousseau, D. M., & Shperling, Z. (2003). Pieces of the action: Ownership and the

110

changing employment relationship. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 553– 570. Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of property. The Psychological Record, 37(2), 257–268. Ruvio, A., Shoham, A., & Brencic, M. M. (2008). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. International Marketing Review, 25(1), 33–53. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30(6), 843–861. Salili, F. (1994). Age, sex, and cultural differences in the meaning and dimensions of achievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 635–648. Sartre, J. P. (1943). L’Être et le néant: Essai d'ontologie phénoménologique. Paris: Librarie Gallimard. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent Variables Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. Schneider, B., Ashworth, S. D., Higgs, A. C., & Carr, L. (1996). Design, validity, and use of strategically focused employee attitude surveys. Personnel Psychology, 49(3), 695–705. Schütz, A., Marcus, B., & Sellin, I. (2004). Die Messung von Narzissmus als Persönlichkeitskonstrukt: Psychometrische Eigenschaften einer Lang- und einer Kurzform des Deutschen NPI (Narcissistic Personality Inventory). Diagnostica, 50(4), 202–218. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–891.

111

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen: Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. Sears, D. O., & Kinder, D. R. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 659– 741). New York, NY: Random House. Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693–703. Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49–68. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275. Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518–527. Solomon, M. R. (2015). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Boston, MA: Pearson. Sturges, J., & Guest, D. (2004). Working to live or living to work? Work/life balance early in the career. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(4), 5–20. Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B. (1995). Self-linking and self-competence as dimensions of global self-esteem: Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(2), 322–342. Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323–338. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128. Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201–210. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 862–877.

112

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1045–1062. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2012). Generational increases in agentic self-evaluations among American college students, 1966–2009. Self and Identity, 11(4), 409–427. Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875–902. Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459. Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group & Organization Management, 20(2), 210–226. Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Sales call anxiety: Exploring what it means when fear rules a sales encounter. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 88–101. Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E., & Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 44–50. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(3), 177–186. Weil, S. (1952). The need for roots: Prelude to a declaration of duties towards mankind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297–333. Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105(2), 240–250. Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399. Woodward, I. C., Vongswasdi, P., & More, E. A. (2015). Generational diversity at work: A systematic review of the research. INSEAD Working Papers Collection, 48, 1–71. Woodward, N. J., & Wallston, B. S. (1987). Age and health care beliefs: Self-efficacy as a mediator of low desire for control. Psychology and Aging, 2(1), 3–8.

113

Appendices Appendix 1: Measures of Study 1 Route 1: Desire for Control (Job) DCOJob_1

I would like to have influence over the things that affect me on the job.

DCOJob_2

I would like to have influence over the tasks or parts of tasks that I do.

DCOJob_3

I would like to have influence over job-related decisions that affect me.

DCOJob_4

I would like to set my own work deadlines.

DCOJob_5

I would like to control the pace and scheduling of the work that I do.

DCOJob_6

In general, I would like to have control over my job.

Route 1: Desire for Control (Organization) DCOOrg_1

I would like to have influence over the things that affect the organization.

DCOOrg_2

I would like to have influence over the organization or parts of the organization.

DCOOrg_3

I would like to have influence over organization-related decisions.

DCOOrg_4

In general, I would like to have control over my organization.

Route 2: Desire for Intimate Knowledge (Job) DIKJob_1

I would like to have a depth of knowledge as it relates to the job.

DIKJob_2

I would like to have a comprehensive understanding of the work that I am asked to do. I would like to have a broad understanding of my job.

DIKJob_3

Route 2: Desire for Intimate Knowledge (Organization) DIKOrg_1

I would like to have a depth of knowledge as it relates to the organization.

DIKOrg_2

I would like to have a comprehensive understanding of the activities of the organization. I would like to have a broad understanding of my organization.

DIKOrg_3

Route 3: Desire for Investment of Self (Job) DISJob_1

I would like to invest a major part of “myself” into my job.

DISJob_2

I would like to invest many of my ideas into my job.

DISJob_3

I would like to invest a number of my talents into my job.

DISJob_4

I would like to invest a significant amount of my life into my job.

DISJob_5

In general, I would like to invest a lot in my job.

114

Route 3: Desire for Investment of Self (Organization) DISOrg_1

I would like to invest a major part of “myself” into my organization.

DISOrg_2

I would like to invest many of my ideas into my organization.

DISOrg_3

I would like to invest a number of my talents into my organization.

DISOrg_4

I would like to invest a significant amount of my life into my organization.

DISOrg_5

In general, I would like to invest a lot in my organization.

Self-Esteem SEst_1

At times I think I am no good at all.

SEst_2

I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

SEst_3

I am able to do things as well as most other people.

SEst_4

I feel I do not have much to be proud of.

SEst_5

I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.

SEst_6

I take a positive attitude toward myself.

Narcissism Narc_1

I wish somebody would someday write my biography.

Narc_2

I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so.

Narc_3

I am an extraordinary person.

Narc_4

I am going to be a great person.

Narc_5

I think I am a special person.

Need for Uniqueness NfU_1 NfU_2 NfU_3 NfU_4 NfU_5 NfU_6

I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I enjoy being original. I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness by buying special products or brands. I have often violated the understood rules of my social group regarding what to buy or own. I have often gone against the understood rules of my social group regarding when and how certain products are properly used. I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population. The more commonplace a product or brand is among the general population, the less interested I am in buying it.

115

Individualism Ind_1

I’d rather depend on myself than others.

Ind_2

I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.

Ind_3

I often do “my own thing.”

Ind_4

My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me.

Ind_5

It is important that I do my job better than others.

Ind_6

Winning is everything.

Ind_7

Competition is the law of nature.

Ind_8

When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused.

Neuroticism Neur_1

Does your mood often go up and down?

Neur_2

Do you often feel “fed-up”?

Neur_3

Would you call yourself a nervous person?

Neur_4

Are you a worrier?

Neur_5

Do you suffer from “nerves”?

Neur_6

Do you often feel lonely?

Desire for Authenticity DfA_1

I am true to myself in most situations.

DfA_2

I live in accordance with my values and beliefs.

DfA_3

I am not influenced by the opinions of others.

DfA_4

I usually do what I want to do.

DfA_5

I feel as if I know myself very well.

DfA_6

I feel in touch with the “real me.”

Self-Efficacy SE_1

I can rely on my own abilities in difficult situations.

SE_2

I am able to solve most problems on my own.

SE_3

I can usually solve even challenging and complex tasks well.

Achievement Importance AI_1

Successful (achieving goals)

AI_2

Capable (competent, effective, efficient)

AI_3

Ambitious (hardworking, aspiring)

AI_4

Influential (having an impact on people and events)

AI_5

Intelligent (logical, thinking)

116

Intrinsic Motivation IM_1 IM_2

I want my work to provide me with opportunities for increasing my knowledge and skills. It is important for me to have an outlet for self-expression.

IM_3

What matters most to me is enjoying what I do.

IM_4

I enjoy trying to solve complex problems.

Extrinsic Motivation EM_1

I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people.

EM_2

I have to feel that I’m earning something for what I do.

EM_3

I am keenly aware of the income goals I have for myself.

EM_4

I am strongly motivated by the money I can earn.

Power Importance PI_1

Social Power (control over others, dominance)

PI_2

Authority (the right to lead or command)

PI_3

Wealth (material possessions, money)

PI_4

Preserving my public image (protecting my “face”)

PI_5

Social recognition (respect, approval by others)

Importance of Work IoW_1

Work is something people should get involved in most of the time.

IoW_2

Work should be considered central to life.

IoW_3

In my view, an individual’s personal life goals should be work-oriented.

Social Desirability SD_1

It has happened that I have taken advantage of someone in the past.

SD_2

Even if I am feeling stressed, I am always friendly and polite to others.

SD_3

Sometimes I only help people if I expect to get something in return.

SD_4

In an argument, I always remain objective and stick to the facts.

SD_5

I have occasionally thrown litter away in the countryside or onto the road.

SD_6

When talking to someone I always listen carefully to what the other person says.

Honesty Overall, please indicate how honestly you have answered the question in this survey. (1) seldom honestly - (7) always honestly

117

Age What year were you born?

Gender I am… Gen_1

male

Gen_2

female

Marital Status Please indicate your marital status. MS_1

Single

MS_2

Married

MS_3

Divorced

MS_4

Registered Partnership

MS_5

Dissolved Partnership

MS_6

Widowed

Job Position Please indicate your current job position. Emp_1

Management (e.g., Director, Managing Director)

Emp_2

Specialist / Advisor / Project Manager

Emp_3

Officer (Report to a Specialist, Advisor, or Project Manager)

Emp_4

Trainee / Intern / Student

Emp_5

I’m self-employed

Emp_6

I’m unemployed

Emp_7

Others

118

Income What is your annual income range? (in USD) In_1

Below 10,000

In_2

10,000 – 19,999

In_3

20,000 – 29,999

In_4

30,000 – 39,999

In_5

40,000 – 49,999

In_6

50,000 – 59,999

In_7

60,000 – 69,999

In_8

70,000 – 79,999

In_9

80,000 – 89,999

In_10

90,000 – 99,999

In_11

100,000 or more

119

Appendix 2: Validity and Reliability Assessment of Study 1 Intrapersonal Factors Self-Esteem

Narcissism Need for Uniqueness

Individualism

Neuroticism Desire for Authenticity Self-Efficacy Achievement Importance

Motivation

Power Importance

Importance of Work

SEst_2 SEst_3 SEst_5 SEst_6 Narc_1 Narc_2 NfU_2 NfU_3 NfU_4 Ind_1 Horizontal Ind_2 Ind_3 Ind_5 Vertical Ind_6 Neur_3 Neur_4 Neur_5 Auth_2 Auth_3 Auth_4 SE_1 SE_2 SE_3 AI_1 AI_2 AI_3 IM_1 Intrinsic IM_3 EM_2 Extrinsic EM_3 PI_3 PI_4 PI_5 IoW_1 IoW_2 IoW_3

Std. Loading

R2

.90 .75 .86 .74 .73 .73 .74 .80 .89 .69 .71 .72 .72 .77 .92 .89 .92 .89 .85 .83 .78 .86 .82 .70 .72 .68 .83 .89 .71 .70 .67 .76 .76 .75 .82 .79

.81 .56 .73 .55 .54 .54 .54 .63 .79 .48 .51 .52 .51 .60 .84 .79 .85 .79 .73 .69 .61 .74 .67 .49 .52 .46 .69 .80 .51 .49 .45 .58 .58 .57 .68 .62

AVE

CR

CA

.66

.89

.88

.54

.70

.70

.65

.85

.85

.50

.75

.75

.55

.71

.71

.83

.93

.93

.73

.89

.89

.67

.86

.86

.49

.74

.75

.75

.85

.85

.50

.67

.66

.53

.77

.76

.62

.83

.83

120

Psychological Ownership Route 1: Desire for Control

Job Org.

Route 2: Desire for Intimate Knowledge

Job

Org.

Route 2: Desire for Investment of Self

Job Org.

DCOJob_1 DCOJob_2 DCOJob_3 DCOOrg_1 DCOOrg_2 DIKJob_1 DIKJob_2 DIKJob_3 DIKOrg_1 DIKOrg_2 DIKOrg_3 DISJob_1

.85 .78 .78 .92 .89 .76 .89 .88 .83 .95 .85 .74

.73 .61 .60 .85 .80 .58 .80 .77 .70 .91 .73 .55

DISJob_4

.85

.71

DISJob_5

.87

.76

DISOrg_1 DISOrg_2

.88 .88

.78 .77

.65

.85

.84

.82

.90

.90

.71

.88

.88

.78

.91

.91

.68

.86

.86

.77

.87

.87

Note: Std. Loadings = Standardized Loadings; R2 = Squared Correlation; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR = Composite Reliability; CA = Cronbach’s Alpha

121

Appendix 3: Measures of Study 2 Psychological Ownership (Job) POJob_1

Das ist mein Job.

POJob_2

Ich habe ein sehr hohes persönliches Besitzempfinden gegenüber diesem Job.

POJob_3

Ich habe das Gefühl, dass dies mein Job ist.

POJob_4

Die Arbeit, die ich in diesem Job erledige, ist Teil von mir.

POJob_5

Ich habe ein sehr grosses Verantwortungsbewusstsein gegenüber der Arbeit, die ich erledige.

Psychological Ownership (Organization) POOrg_1

Das ist mein Unternehmen.

POOrg_2

Ich habe das Gefühl, dass diese Organisation unser Unternehmen ist.

POOrg_3

Ich habe ein sehr hohes persönliches Besitzempfinden gegenüber diesem Unternehmen. Die meisten Mitarbeiter in diesem Unternehmen haben das Gefühl, zu diesem Unternehmen zu gehören. Es fällt mir leicht von diesem Unternehmen als mein Unternehmen zu denken.

POOrg_4 POOrg_5

Route 1: Control (Job) COJob_1

Ich habe Kontrolle über Dinge, die meine Arbeit betreffen.

COJob_2

Ich habe Kontrolle über Aufgaben oder Teilaufgaben, die ich erledigen muss.

COJob_3

Ich habe Kontrolle über Entscheidungen, die meine Arbeit betreffen.

COJob_4

Ich habe Kontrolle über meine Arbeitstermine.

COJob_5

Ich habe Kontrolle über das Tempo meiner Arbeit.

COJob_6

Ich habe Kontrolle über meine Arbeit im Allgemeinen.

Route 1: Control (Organization) COOrg_1

Ich habe Kontrolle über Dinge, die das Unternehmen betreffen.

COOrg_2

Ich habe Kontrolle über Bereiche oder Teilbereiche des Unternehmens.

COOrg_3

Ich habe Kontrolle über Entscheidungen, die das Unternehmen betreffen.

COOrg_4

Ich habe Kontrolle über das Unternehmen im Allgemeinen.

Route 2: Intimate Knowledge (Job) IKJob_1

Ich habe ein breites Wissen über meine Arbeit.

IKJob_2

Ich habe ein umfassendes Verständnis über die Tätigkeiten, die ich erledigen soll.

IKJob_3

Ich habe ein breites Verständnis über meine Arbeit.

122

Route 2: Intimate Knowledge (Organization) IKOrg_1

Ich habe ein breites Wissen über das Unternehmen.

IKOrg_2

Ich habe ein breites Verständnis über die Tätigkeiten des Unternehmens.

IKOrg_3

Ich habe ein breites Verständnis über mein Unternehmen.

Route 3: Investment of Self (Job) ISJob_1

Ich investiere einen großen Teil "meines Selbst" in meine Arbeit.

ISJob_2

Ich bringe viele meiner Ideen in meine Arbeit ein.

ISJob_3

Ich bring eine Vielzahl meiner Fähigkeiten in meine Arbeit ein.

ISJob_4

Ich investiere einen wesentlichen Teil meines Lebens in meine Arbeit.

ISJob_5

Im Allgemeinen investiere ich viel in meine Arbeit.

Route 3: Investment of Self (Organization) ISOrg_1

Ich investiere einen großen Teil "meines Selbst" in das Unternehmen.

ISOrg_2

Ich bringe viele meiner Ideen in das Unternehmen ein.

ISOrg_3

Ich bringe eine Vielzahl meiner Fähigkeiten in das Unternehmen ein.

ISOrg_4

Ich investiere einen wesentlichen Teil meines Lebens in das Unternehmen.

ISOrg_5

Im Allgemeinen investiere ich viel in das Unternehmen.

Need for Uniqueness NfU_1

Ich mag aussergewöhnliche Produkte, weil ich gerne speziell bin.

NfU_2

Ich versuche einzigartig zu sein, indem ich spezielle Produkte oder Marken kaufe.

NfU_3

Ich kaufe oder benutze oft ungewöhnliche Produkte.

NfU_4

Ich habe schon oft Produkte verwendet, die gegen die Gewohnheiten meiner sozialen Gruppe verstossen. Ich vermeide Produkte oder Marken, die in der Allgemeinbevölkerung populär sind. Grundsätzlich mag ich Produkte oder Marken nicht, die von allen gekauft werden.

NfU_5 NfU_6

Desire for Authenticity DfA_1

In den meisten Fällen bin ich ehrlich zu mir.

DfA_2

Ich lebe in Übereinstimmung mit meinen Werten und Glauben.

DfA_3

Ich lasse mich nicht durch andere Meinungen beeinflussen.

DfA_4

Ich mache oft das, was ich will.

DfA_5

Ich glaube, dass ich mich selbst wirklich gut kenne.

DfA_6

Ich habe einen Bezug zu meinem "realen ich".

123

Self-Efficacy SE_1

In schwierigen Situationen kann ich mich auf meine Fähigkeiten verlassen.

SE_2

Die meisten Probleme kann ich aus eigener Kraft gut meistern.

SE_3

Auch anstrengende und komplizierte Aufgaben kann ich in der Regel gut lösen.

Intrinsic Motivation IM_1 IM_2

Ich möchte eine Arbeit, die es mir ermöglicht, mein Wissen und meine Fähigkeiten zu steigern. Es ist mir wichtig, eine Möglichkeit zur Selbstverwirklichung zu haben.

IM_3

Das Wichtigste ist, dass ich Freude daran habe, was ich mache.

IM_4

Mir gefällt es, komplexe Probleme zu lösen.

Extrinsic Motivation EM_1 EM_2

Ich bin sehr motiviert durch die Anerkennung, die ich durch andere Personen gewinnen kann. Ich brauche das Gefühl, dass ich für meine Arbeit fair bezahlt werde.

EM_3

Ich bin mir meiner Einkommensziele genau bewusst.

EM_4

Ich bin stark motiviert durch das Geld, das ich verdienen kann.

Importance of Work IoW_1

Menschen sollten viel Zeit mit ihrer Arbeit verbringen.

IoW_2

Arbeit sollte ein großer Teil des Lebens sein.

IoW_3

Arbeit sollte eine zentrale Bedeutung im Leben haben.

Job Satisfaction JS_1

Ich habe richtige Freude an meiner Arbeit.

JS_2

Meine Arbeit ist insgesamt wirklich interessant und befriedigend.

JS_3

Meine Fähigkeiten kann ich in meine Arbeit einbringen.

JS_4

Mit meinen Aufstiegsmöglichkeiten bin ich zufrieden.

JS_5

Mit dem Arbeitstempo bin ich zufrieden.

JS_6

Wenn ich nochmals entscheiden könnte, würde ich wieder den gleichen Beruf wählen.

124

Intention to Stay ItS_1

Wenn möglich, möchte ich in diesem Unternehmen auf unbestimmte Zeit bleiben.

ItS_2

Wenn ich völlig freie Wahl hätte, würde ich es bevorzugen, in diesem Unternehmen weiterzuarbeiten. Ich glaube, dass ich in diesem Unternehmen so lange wie möglich weiterarbeiten werde.

ItS_3

Affective Commitment AC_1 AC_2

Ich wäre sehr froh, mein weiteres Arbeitsleben in diesem Unternehmen verbringen zu können. Ich fühle mich als "Teil der Familie" in diesem Unternehmen.

AC_3

Ich fühle mich emotional mit diesem Unternehmen verbunden.

AC_4

Dieses Unternehmen hat eine grosse persönliche Bedeutung für mich.

AC_5

Ich empfinde ein starkes Gefühl der Zugehörigkeit zu diesem Unternehmen.

Organization-Based Self-Esteem OBSE_1

Hier zähle ich.

OBSE_2

Hier werde ich ernst genommen.

OBSE_3

Hier bin ich wichtig.

OBSE_4

Hier vertraut man mir.

OBSE_5

Hier kann ich etwas bewegen.

OBSE_6

Hier werde ich wertgeschätzt.

OBSE_7

Hier bin ich hilfreich.

Extra-Role Behavior Während meines gestrigen Arbeitstages habe… ERB_1

... freiwillig zusätzliche Aufgaben angenommen.

ERB_2

... mehr geliefert, als für die Arbeit erforderlich wäre.

ERB_3

... unternehmerische Vorgaben verteidigt.

ERB_4

... es bevorzugt zu arbeiten, als eine Pause zu machen.

ERB_5

... mit Begeisterung auf der Vollendung einer Arbeit beharrt.

ERB_6

... gerne mit anderen über das Unternehmen gesprochen.

125

Work Overtime Arbeiten Sie in der Regel pro Woche mehr als vertraglich geregelt? WO_1

Nein

WO_2

Ja, bis zu 1 Stunde

WO_3

Ja, 1 bis 3 Stunden

WO_4

Ja, mehr als 3 Stunden

Social Desirability SD_1

Ich sage immer, was ich denke.

SD_2

Ich bin immer gewillt, einen Fehler, den ich mache, auch zuzugeben.

SD_3

Ich bin manchmal ärgerlich, wenn ich meinen Willen nicht bekomme.

SD_4

Ich habe gelegentlich mit Absicht etwas gesagt, was die Gefühle des anderen verletzen könnte.

Honesty Bitte geben Sie uns rückblickend an, wie ehrlich Sie insgesamt die Fragen beantwortet haben. (1) selten wahrheitsgemäß - (7) immer wahrheitsgemäß

Age In welchem Jahr wurden Sie geboren?

Gender Ich bin… Gen_1

männlich

Gen_2

weiblich

Marital Status Bitte geben Sie Ihren Zivilstand an. MS_1

Ledig

MS_2

Verheiratet

MS_3

Geschieden

MS_4

In eingetragener Partnerschaft

MS_5

Aufgelöste Partnerschaft

MS_6

Verwitwet

126

Children Haben Sie Kinder? Ch_1

Ja

Ch_2

Nein

Education Was ist Ihre höchste abgeschlossene Ausbildung? ED_1

Haupt- / Volksschule

ED_2

Mittlere Reife / Realschule

ED_3

Abitur / Fachabitur

ED_4

Fachoberschule / Fachschule / Berufsschule

ED_5

Fachhochschule / Berufsakademie

ED_6

Universität

Job Position Bitte geben Sie Ihre aktuelle Job Position an. JP_1

Betriebsleitung

JP_2

Meister/in ohne Betriebsleitung

JP_3

Geselle/in

JP_4

Angelernte/r Mitarbeiter/in

JP_5

Auszubildene/r

JP_6

Mitarbeiter/in Zentrale

Length of Employment Seit welchem Jahr arbeiten Sie in diesem Unternehmen?

127

Employment Relationship Bitte geben Sie Ihr aktuelles Anstellungsverhältnis an. ER_1

100%

ER_2

90%

ER_3

80%

ER_4

70%

ER_5

60%

ER_6

50%

ER_7

40%

ER_8

30%

ER_9

20%

ER_10

10%

ER_11

0%

128

Appendix 4: Validity and Reliability Assessment of Study 2 Intrapersonal Factors Need for Uniqueness Desire for Authenticity Self-Efficacy

Motivation

Importance of Work

Std. Loadings NfU_1 NfU_2 NfU_3 DfA_5 DfA_6 SE_1 SE_2 SE_3 IM_1 Intrinsic IM_2 EM_2 Extrinsic EM_3 IoW_1 IoW_3

R2

.81 .77 .84 .83 .85 .78 .88 .88 .80 .67 .72 .79 .92 .86

.65 .60 .70 .69 .72 .61 .78 .77 .64 .45 .52 .63 .85 .75

.90 .83 .92 .80 .71 .89 .78 .84 .88 .85 .76 .74 .69 .82 .79 .92 .87 .71 .88 .91 .75 .86 .92

.81 .69 .84 .63 .50 .79 .61 .70 .77 .73 .57 .55 .48 .68 .62 .84 .75 .51 .78 .83 .56 .74 .84

AVE

CR

CA

.65

.85

.85

.71

.83

.83

.72

.88

.88

.54

.70

.69

.58

.73

.85

.80

.89

.89

.69

.92

.89

.72

.91

.91

.58

.85

.84

.72

.91

.91

.71

.88

.87

.72

.88

.88

Psychological Ownership

Job Psychological Ownership Org.

Job Route 1: Control Org.

Job Route 2: Intimate Knowledge Org

POJob_1 POJob_2 POJob_3 POJob_4 POJob_5 POOrg_1 POOrg_2 POOrg_3 POOrg_5 COJob_1 COJob_2 COJob_3 COJob_6 COOrg_1 COOrg_2 COOrg_3 COOrg_4 IKJob_1 IKJob_2 IKJob_3 IKOrg_1 IKOrg_2 IKOrg_3

129

Job Route 3: Investment of Self Org.

ISJob_1 ISJob_4 ISJob_5 ISOrg_1 ISOrg_4 ISOrg_5

.71 .82 .89 .72 .89 .88

.51 .67 .79 .51 .79 .77

JS_1 JS_2 JS_6 ItS_1 ItS_2 ItS_3 AC_2 AC_3 AC_4 AC_5 OBSE_1 OBSE_2 OBSE_3 OBSE_4 OBSE_5 OBSE_6 EB_1 EB_2

.86 .86 .66 .95 .88 .90 .87 .94 .91 .93 .83 .90 .86 .73 .78 .88 .83 .78

.73 .74 .44 .90 .77 .81 .76 .88 .84 .87 .69 .81 .74 .53 .61 .77 .69 .60

.66

.85

.84

.69

.87

.86

.64

.84

.80

.83

.93

.93

.84

.95

.95

.69

.93

.93

.65

.79

.79

Employee Performance Job Satisfaction

Intention to Stay

Affective Commitment

Organization-Based Self-Esteem

Extra-Role Behavior

Note: Std. Loadings = Standardized Loadings; R2 = Squared Correlation; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR = Composite Reliability; CA = Cronbach’s Alpha

130

Appendix 5: Measures of Study 3 Route 1: Desire for Control (Job) DCOJob_1

Ich möchte Kontrolle über Dinge haben, die meine Arbeit betreffen.

DCOJob_2 DCOJob_3

Ich möchte Kontrolle über Aufgaben oder Teilaufgaben haben, die ich erledigen muss. Ich möchte Kontrolle über Entscheidungen haben, die meine Arbeit betreffen.

DCOJob_4

Ich möchte Kontrolle über meine Arbeitstermine haben.

DCOJob_5

Ich möchte Kontrolle über das Tempo meiner Arbeit haben.

DCOJob_6

Ich möchte Kontrolle über meine Arbeit im Allgemeinen haben.

Route 1: Desire for Control (Organization) DCOOrg_1

Ich möchte Kontrolle über Dinge haben, die mein Unternehmen betreffen.

DCOOrg_2

Ich möchte Kontrolle über Bereiche oder Teilbereiche meines Unternehmens haben. Ich möchte Kontrolle über Entscheidungen haben, die mein Unternehmen betreffen. Ich möchte Kontrolle über mein Unternehmen im Allgemeinen haben.

DCOOrg_3 DCOOrg_4

Route 2: Desire for Intimate Knowledge (Job) DIKJob_1

Ich möchte ein breites Wissen über meine Arbeit haben.

DIKJob_2

Ich möchte ein umfassendes Verständnis über die Tätigkeiten haben, die ich erledigen soll. Ich möchte ein breites Verständnis über meine Arbeit haben.

DIKJob_3

Route 2: Desire for Intimate Knowledge (Organization) DIKOrg_1

Ich möchte ein breites Wissen über mein Unternehmen haben.

DIKOrg_2

Ich möchte ein breites Verständnis über die Tätigkeiten meines Unternehmens haben. Ich möchte ein breites Verständnis über mein Unternehmen haben.

DIKOrg_3

Route 3: Desire for Investment of Self (Job) DISJob_1

Ich möchte einen großen Teil "meines Selbst" in meine Arbeit investieren.

DISJob_2

Ich möchte viele meiner Ideen in meine Arbeit einbringen.

DISJob_3

Ich möchte eine Vielzahl meiner Fähigkeiten in meine Arbeit einbringen.

DISJob_4

Ich möchte einen wesentlichen Teil meines Lebens in meine Arbeit investieren.

DISJob_5

Im Allgemeinen möchte ich viel in meine Arbeit investieren.

131

Route 3: Desire for Investment of Self (Organization) DISOrg_1

Ich möchte einen großen Teil "meines Selbst" in mein Unternehmen investieren.

DISOrg_2

Ich möchte viele meiner Ideen in mein Unternehmen einbringen.

DISOrg_3

Ich möchte eine Vielzahl meiner Fähigkeiten in mein Unternehmen einbringen.

DISOrg_4

Ich möchte einen wesentlichen Teil meines Lebens in mein Unternehmen investieren. Im Allgemeinen möchte ich viel in mein Unternehmen investieren.

DISOrg_5

Need for Uniqueness NfU_1

Ich mag aussergewöhnliche Produkte, weil ich gerne speziell bin.

NfU_2

Ich versuche einzigartig zu sein, indem ich spezielle Produkte oder Marken kaufe.

NfU_3

Ich kaufe oder benutze oft ungewöhnliche Produkte.

NfU_4 NfU_5

Ich habe schon oft Produkte verwendet, die gegen die Gewohnheiten meiner sozialen Gruppe verstossen. Ich vermeide Produkte oder Marken, die in der Allgemeinbevölkerung populär sind.

NfU_6

Grundsätzlich mag ich Produkte oder Marken nicht, die von allen gekauft werden.

Desire for Authenticity DfA_1

In den meisten Fällen bin ich ehrlich zu mir.

DfA_2

Ich lebe in Übereinstimmung mit meinen Werten und Glauben.

DfA_3

Ich lasse mich nicht durch andere Meinungen beeinflussen.

DfA_4

Ich mache oft das, was ich will.

DfA_5

Ich glaube, dass ich mich selbst wirklich gut kenne.

DfA_6

Ich habe einen Bezug zu meinem "realen ich".

Self-Efficacy SE_1

In schwierigen Situationen kann ich mich auf meine Fähigkeiten verlassen.

SE_2

Die meisten Probleme kann ich aus eigener Kraft gut meistern.

SE_3

Auch anstrengende und komplizierte Aufgaben kann ich in der Regel gut lösen.

Intrinsic Motivation IM_1 IM_2

Ich möchte eine Arbeit, die es mir ermöglicht, mein Wissen und meine Fähigkeiten zu steigern. Es ist mir wichtig, eine Möglichkeit zur Selbstverwirklichung zu haben.

IM_3

Das Wichtigste ist, dass ich Freude daran habe, was ich mache.

IM_4

Mir gefällt es, komplexe Probleme zu lösen.

132

Extrinsic Motivation EM_1 EM_2

Ich bin sehr motiviert durch die Anerkennung, die ich durch andere Personen gewinnen kann. Ich brauche das Gefühl, dass ich für meine Arbeit fair bezahlt werde.

EM_3

Ich bin mir meiner Einkommensziele genau bewusst.

EM_4

Ich bin stark motiviert durch das Geld, das ich verdienen kann.

Importance of Work IoW_1

Menschen sollten viel Zeit mit ihrer Arbeit verbringen.

IoW_2

Arbeit sollte ein großer Teil des Lebens sein.

IoW_3

Arbeit sollte eine zentrale Bedeutung im Leben haben.

Social Desirability SD_1

Es ist schon mal vorgekommen, dass ich jemanden ausgenutzt habe.

SD_2 SD_3

Auch wenn ich selbst gestresst bin, behandle ich andere immer freundlich und zuvorkommend. Manchmal helfe ich jemandem nur, wenn ich eine Gegenleistung erwarten kann.

SD_4

Im Streit bleibe ich stets sachlich und objektiv.

SD_5

Ich habe schon mal Müll einfach in die Landschaft oder auf die Straße geworfen.

SD_6

Wenn ich mich mit jemandem unterhalte, höre ich ihm immer aufmerksam zu.

Honesty Bitte geben Sie uns rückblickend an, wie ehrlich Sie insgesamt die Fragen beantwortet haben. (1) selten wahrheitsgemäß - (7) immer wahrheitsgemäß

Age In welchem Jahr wurden Sie geboren?

Gender Ich bin… Gen_1

männlich

Gen_2

weiblich

133

Marital Status Bitte geben Sie Ihren Zivilstand an. MS_1

Ledig

MS_2

Verheiratet

MS_3

Geschieden

MS_4

In eingetragener Partnerschaft

MS_5

Aufgelöste Partnerschaft

MS_6

Verwitwet

Education Was ist Ihre höchste abgeschlossene Ausbildung? ED_1

Haupt- / Volksschule

ED_2

Mittlere Reife / Realschule

ED_3

Abitur / Fachabitur

ED_4

Fachoberschule / Fachschule / Berufsschule

ED_5

Fachhochschule / Berufsakademie

ED_6

Universität

Employment Relationship Sind Sie gegenwärtig erwerbstätig? ER_1

Ja, erwerbstätig

ER_2

Nein, nicht erwerbstätig

ER_3

In Ausbildung

ER_4

Hausmann / Hausfrau

ER_5

Pensioniert

Household Income (Germany) Wie hoch ist das monatliche Haushalts-Nettoeinkommen aller Mitglieder Ihres Haushalts zusammen (nach Steuern)? HI_G_1 Unter 1’299 EUR HI_G_2

1’300 – 2’599 EUR

HI_G_3

2’600 – 3’599 EUR

HI_G_4

3’600 – 4’999 EUR

HI_G_5

5’000 EUR oder mehr

134

Household Income (Switzerland) Wie hoch ist das monatliche Haushalts-Nettoeinkommen aller Mitglieder Ihres Haushalts zusammen (nach Steuern)? HI_S_1 Unter 1’999 CHF HI_S_2

2’000 – 3’999 CHF

HI_S_3

4’000 – 5’999 CHF

HI_S_4

6’000 – 7’999 CHF

HI_S_5

8’000 – 9’999 CHF

HI_S_6

10’000 – 14’999 CHF

HI_S_7

15’000 CHF oder mehr

135

Appendix 6: Validity and Reliability Assessment of Study 3 Intrapersonal Factors NfU_1 NfU_2 Need for Uniqueness NfU_3 NfU_4 DfA_3 DfA_4 Desire for Authenticity DfA_5 DfA_6 SE_1 Self-Efficacy SE_2 SE_3 IM_2 Motivation Intrinsic IM_3 IM_4 EM_2 Extrinsic EM_4 IoW_1 Importance of Work IoW_2 IoW_3

Std. Loading

R2

.90 .94 .84 .68 .77 .84 .97 .92 .87 .78 .94 .77 .81 .85 .79 .82 .87 .78 .94

.81 .88 .71 .46 .59 .70 .93 .85 .77 .60 .88 .59 .66 .71 .62 .66 .77 .60 .88

.90 .91 .86 .74 .91 .94 .92 .90 .92 .94 .92 .91 .96 .93

.81 .83 .74 .55 .83 .88 .84 .80 .84 .88 .85 .82 .93 .87

AVE

CR

CA

.71

.91

.91

.77

.93

.93

.75

.90

.90

.66

.85

.85

.64

.78

.78

.75

.90

.90

.74

.92

.92

.84

.95

.95

.86

.95

.95

.87

.95

.95

Psychological Ownership Job Route 1: Desire for Control Org.

Route 2: Desire for Intimate Knowledge

Job

Org.

DCOJob_1 DCOJob_2 DCOJob_3 DCOJob_6 DCOOrg_1 DCOOrg_2 DCOOrg_3 DCOOrg_4 DIKJob_1 DIKJob_2 DIKJob_3 DIKOrg_1 DIKOrg_2 DIKOrg_3

136

Route 3: Desire for Investment of Self

Job

Org.

DISJob_1 DISJob_2 DISJob_3 DISOrg_1 DISOrg_2 DISOrg_3

.70 .93 .87 .69 .93 .88

.49 .86 .76 .47 .87 .78

.70

.87

.86

.71

.88

.85

Note: Std. Loadings = Standardized Loadings; R2 = Squared Correlation; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR = Composite Reliability; CA = Cronbach’s Alpha

137

Curriculum Vitae Andreas Hess Date of Birth: April 30, 1982 Place of Birth: Moshi, Tanzania Work Experience Since 07/2013

Research Associate and Project Leader Institute for Customer Insight, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen

03/2011 – 06/2013 Business Manager (Rank: Associate Director) Investment Products and Services, UBS AG, Zurich 10/2008 – 02/2011 Project Manager in Marketing Private and Business Banking, Credit Suisse AG, Zurich 12/2007 – 09/2008 Graduate Trainee in Market Research Client Insight Management, Credit Suisse AG, Zurich 11/2006 – 04/2007 Project Manager in Reservation Systems Flight Operations, Coastal Aviation Ltd, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 03/2005 – 09/2006 Junior Research Assistant Institute of Marketing and Management, University of Bern, Bern 08/2002 – 12/2004 Marketing Intern Sales and Marketing, GlaxoSmithKline AG, Bern Education Since 07/2013

Ph.D. Programme in Management (Dr. oec. HSG) University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen

10/2004 – 11/2006 Master of Science in Business Administration (M.Sc.) University of Bern, Bern 10/2001 – 07/2004 Bachelor of Business Administration (B.B.A.) University of Bern, Bern 08/1998 – 08/2001 Matura Type E Commercial High School Bern-Neufeld, Bern

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.