Targets and organizational outcomes of collective
psychological ownership in IT-Context, an
explorative study
By:
JEROEN BAL
University of Groningen and Newcastle
Faculty of Economics & Business
2 Preface
Time goes fast. The day I started my DDM Technology and Operations Management in Newcastle, feels like yesterday. The experience to leave Groningen and build a new life in another country, is one I will always remember. Since my comeback in Groningen (February 2019), I’m working on my thesis in collaboration with Total Specific Solutions (TSS). This company has provided me the huge opportunity, to do a research in three of their companies. In retrospect, the experience to work in a business environment has contributed to growth on both academic and personal level. This provides a foundation for my professional career, where I can benefit from my whole life.
3 Abstract
This study conducted explorative research in the field of collective psychological ownership (CPO), which is currently lacking. By means of qualitative research, data is gathered in four different areas including targets, factors which strengthen CPO, organizational outcomes and conflicts between individual PO and CPO. Based on this, an empirical tested model is derived with found hierarchies and underlying relations. By having an understanding of the presented model, business leaders can establish a plan which is focused on the creation and preservation of CPO over the desired targets, to gain presented positive outcomes such as increased responsibility behavior. The CPO model also includes pitfalls in conflicting situations and negative outcomes, which can hold back an organization from growth.
Keywords: Collective psychology ownership, ownership, explorative research, targets, organizational outcomes.
Table of content
1. INTRODUCTION ... 5
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 6
2.1 Psychological Ownership ... 6
2.2 Collective Psychological Ownership ... 7
2.3 research question ... 9
3. METHODOLOGY ... 10
3.1 Research Approach... 10
3.2 Interview protocol and respondents ... 11
3.3 Data Analysis ... 12
3.4 Codes and quotes ... 14
4. RESULTS ... 14
4.1 Targets ... 15
4.1.1 Team-level ... 15
4.1.2 Organizational-level ... 16
4
4.2 Factors of strength ... 21
4.2.1 FOS Team Connection ... 21
4.2.2 FOS Task overlap ... 22
4.2.3 FOS Visibility of group work ... 22
4.2.4 FOS context dependency ... 23
4.3 Organizational outcomes ... 23
4.3.1 Positive outcomes: motivated to work harder ... 23
4.3.2 Negative outcomes: resistance to change ... 24
4.4 Cross-conflict situations ... 25
Cross-conflict situation 2... 26
5. DISCUSSION ... 26
6. CONCLUSION ... 28
6.1 Conclusion and practical implications ... 28
6.2 Limitations and future research ... 30
7. REFERENCES ... 31
8. APPENDICES ... 35
Appendix 1: Semi structured interview 1 ... 35
Appendix 2: Semi structured interview 2 ... 36
5
1. Introduction
Over the past few decades more organizations are using teams to undertake routine and completed work (Mathieu et al., 2015). Innovation seems to be the driving force in these organizations resulting in a rapidly changing environment. Furthermore, many companies enter international markets which requires even more change, but also team collaboration between individuals from different cultural backgrounds. In this perspective of fundamentally change and collaboration, situations could be challenging when individuals are not willing to change their point of view or stick to old procedures. This kind of ownership claims could be seen everywhere and in all different contexts, such as institutions, organizations and countries (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005), and could hold back an organization of achieving their goals (Brown et al., 2005). Dealing with these challenges requires a deeper understanding of human nature. A key construct in this area is psychological ownership. Psychological ownership (PO) is defined as “that state where an individual feels as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is ‘theirs’, (i.e., it is MINE!)” (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks 2003, P86). The possessions (targets or objects) are felt as extensions of the self and that what is mine becomes in feelings an unconscious part of me (Dittmar, 1992; Furby, 1978 Isaacs, 1933). The target of ownership includes tangible and intangible targets such as “the organization”, “the job”, or a specific aspect of work such as a novel idea, a strategic initiative, or a specific project, and its implementation (Avey, Wernsing, & Palanski, 2012; Baer & Brown, 2012; Isaacs, 1933; Rochberg-Halton, 1980). The origin of PO is found in the psychology of “mine”, possession and property (Dittmar, 1992; Furby, 1978). Later, this theory was adapted to an organizational context. And, as the number of teams are increasing within organizations, it is crucial to understand how ownership works on collective or group level, this construct is called Collective Psychological Ownership (CPO) - “This is OURS!”. The experience of CPO within a team can have several benefits for an organization, such as increased motivation or responsibility behavior, but could also slow down the achievement of
organizational goals due to collective resistance to change (Pierce & Jussila, 2009).
6 background on the academic research of psychological ownership and collective psychological ownership is given. Second, the methodology of the research will be outlined. Third, the results and main findings will be presented. Finally, this paper will provide a discussion, conclusion including practical implications and limitations with possible future research.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Psychological Ownership
Psychological ownership (PO) is defined as “that state where an individual feels as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is ‘theirs’, (i.e., it is MINE!)” (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks 2003, P86). Psychological ownership is characterized by the feeling of possessiveness and being psychologically connected to an object (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks 2001). The self is therefore an expression of the total sum all an individual can call his (James, 1890). This could be on either material as non-material objects, such as vehicles, houses, persons, thoughts, decisions, solutions, ideas, prototypes (Baer and Brown 2012). Psychological ownership is distinct from legal ownership although there might be some overlap, for example one can feel that a desk at work is theirs (PO), but from legal point of view it is conferred to the organization (Dawkins, 2017). The foundation of psychological ownership is shaped around three main concepts (1) the roots, why individuals naturally feel ownership (2) the routes, how ownership is emerged over time and (3) objects or targets, the tangible or intangible objects where ownership is felt over.
In the initial PO theory of Pierce et al (2001), three roots of psychological were described as result of genetic and social causes. The roots can be seen as motives why individuals are naturally inclined to feel psychological ownership. First, people need to feel control, humans tend to have the desire to experience causal efficacy by controlling their environment. Second, individuals want to express their identity via ownership over an object. In this situation, the object is utilized for defining the self, expressing their identity to others and ensuring the continuity of the self over time. Third, people need a sense of belongingness in a place or “home in which to dwell”. Via ownership of an object, individuals try to create a feeling of comfort where they feel safe, as coming home.
7 ownership feelings when they put time and energy into an object. The third route is "intimate knowledge”, which represents the deepening of the understanding between an individual and an object. For instance, an individual with more expert knowledge about a certain object is more likely to develop ownership feelings through this route. This is also the reason why an individual develops ownership feelings, when he has been involved with this object more often (Beggan & Brown, 1994).
Previous research shows different benefits, such as, commitment and effort devoted to the object of ownership including organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), stewardship behaviour, voice behaviour, and helping behaviour (O’Driscoll, Pierce, & Coghlan, 2006). Negative consequences of PO are the need to mark and defend the object, which ultimately results in resistance to change (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005). According to a research from Bear and Brown (2012) individuals feel less resistance to change if they also feel PO over another object. An awareness in the understanding and creation of PO seems therefore crucial for a business leader, and could serve as one of the key factors that determines success of an organization (Pierce et al., 2001).
2.2 Collective Psychological Ownership
8 emerges and the construct is transformed from an individual to a group level. CPO is most powerful if all members of the group recognize one another as member, and thus collectively recognize “us” (Pierce & Jussila, 2009). Important to notice is how CPO differentiates from group-identity theories. Where group-identity theories describe the characteristics that members employ to describe the group, CPO is all about the psychology of possession (Pierce & Jussila, 2009). Also, CPO is shaped around the aforementioned three main concepts (roots, routes, targets), but these are utilized on a collective scale.
The reason why we experience CPO can be explained by the same roots as individual
ownership: control, expressing of identity, and a feeling of “home”. However, in CPO there is necessity to integrate research from Pierce et al. (2003), which proposed that the individual value of individualism or collectivism is influencing the development and expression of “my” and “ours”. This means that individuals who have more collective values are more inclined to experience objects from a shared context. This highlights the important role of social identity theories (e.g. social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel 1978) and self-categorization theory (SCT) (Turner 1999)). Identity theories describe how part of the self-identity is categorized based on the groups where the individual belongs to (e.g. profession, fanbase, family etc). These theories clarify how an individual reference could shift from “self” to a “group”. However, these theories alone do not facilitate the development of CPO as the theories are more focused on “who are we” instead of “what do we feel is ours”.
Consistent with PO (e.g. Pierce et al., 2001), three routes describe how CPO emerges over time. But, important here is the shared perception of group members. Activities are recognized as an input of individuals and team members. Following this, the routes of CPO are (1) collective recognition of shared control over the target (2) collective recognition of shared intimate knowing of the target and (3) the recognition of the shared investment of the different group members into the target (Pierce & Jussila, 2009). These three routes were confirmed in a recent
study from Giordano et al. (2019), where they provided evidence for the relation between each
route and the feeling of CPO towards a teamwork product.
Concerning organizational outcomes, Pierce, Jussila, & Li (2017) stated a positive relationship between CPO and different group-level variables: team potency, psychological safety, group learning and team performance effectiveness, and a negative relationship with
social loafing. The study from Giordano et al (2019) provided evidence that CPO has also a
positive effect on the perceived effectiveness and a negative one on turnover intentions.
9 et al., 2009). But, also negative effects of PO are expected in a CPO situation, such as collective resistance to organizational change which was confirmed by studies in PO (Brown et al., 2005 & Dirks et al., 1996)
But, studies available in organizational PO make no distinction between individual PO
and CPO, that was proposed by Pierce & Jussila (2009). This lack of clarity raises the question whether individual-based experience (“this is mine”) as well multi-level ownership (“this is ours”) are in the same dimension, or rather represent related but two independent constructs in the field of PO (Dawkins et al., 2017). Until now, no empirical work into collective psychological ownership is conducted, which asks for empirical research that can clarify this distinction.
2.3 research question
10
Figure 1. Building blocks with relations CPO (Dawkins et al., 2017)
For an organization it is essential to clarify the distinction between PO and CPO, to
better understand individual, team performances and effects on organization level. In order to attain a model which can help organization understand this dynamic nature and provide clarity on the aforementioned four building blocks (figure 1), the research question is defined as: “What are collective psychological ownership targets and organizational outcomes, and what are factors that influence these organizational outcomes, in an organization?”.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Approach
As no empirical research is undertaken in the field of CPO, this study is aimed to explore and gain first insights in this area and therefore providing the first building blocks for future investigation. Furthermore, the purpose of the research is to refine the distinction between individual PO and CPO.
11 possessive formulated questions, because of the confusion between the legal form of ownership and psychological ownership. To tackle this problem, this research will use a qualitative approach which provides more and deeper information about reasons, thoughts and feelings of individuals (Hammarberg et al., 2016)
This research makes use of a non-sampling approach, which means that individuals are selected, if they have the necessary knowledge and experience to answer questions about CPO. The company of investigation is Total Specific Solutions (TSS). TSS is an international company that acquires software companies with a solution for specific markets, also called vertical market software (VMS). TSS is headquartered in the Netherlands and has over more
than 50 companies in Europe, deploying work for 2,100 people. The key component of the
business strategy is decentralization, which means that TSS strives to sustain the current strategy and culture of the acquired company. However, TSS tries to further improve the acquired company performance by providing the company's management with best practices. These best practices are based on insights obtained from previous experiences and rational benchmarking within the portfolio of TSS, and its holding company CSI. For example, TSS can indicate that route "a" has 80% more chance of success compared to route "b". Hereafter, the management of the acquired company could decide to use this input to improve their performance.
3.2 Interview protocol and respondents
This research is using a qualitative approach for the explorative nature of this study and, as mentioned, for the difficulty for respondents to answer possessive formulated questions. A qualitative research allows to reveal deeper thoughts and feelings compared to surveys that study (collective) psychological ownership, and will therefore yield necessary data about the four blocks presented in figure 1.
12 et al. 1999). CPO feelings only arise in situations where individuals recognize that they are part of a larger entity (e.g. team or group). Therefore, the questions about group theories provide necessary data about group dynamics, which can reveal potential CPO feelings.
The general questions try to get a first impression how the interviewee experiences change. For example (1): “How do you deal with the change of best practices?” “Is it easy to implement these?” Next, the consequences questions are focused on the comparison between the current organization, and the organization without influence of TSS. For example: (2) “If you look at your organization before the acquisition and after, do you see much difference in the company?” “What things have changed?” “How do you experience this change?” The next category is specified to the feeling of CPO. For example (3): “Before the acquisition of TSS, was there an object that felt as something from your team members and you?” “Has the implementation of best practices changed this?” “If so, could you elaborate on this?” The antecedents questions are measuring if respondents are utilizing routes for the development of CPO. For example (4): “Are there tasks, outcomes or projects where you did invest time and energy together (my team and I)?” “How was this after the acquisition of TSS?” The final questions were inspired on group based theories such as identification theory. These question are trying to get a better image of the group dynamics. For example (5): “Do you feel that people need to work together to achieve a certain goal?”
A total of 10 interviews were conducted across 3 different teams, service/consultancy, finance and IT-development respectively, at 3 different IT-companies. The respondents were selected based on the team they are part of, to have the ability to evaluate the data from a group perspective. The script of the first six interviews can be found in appendix 2, and the script of the last four interviews can be found in appendix 3.
3.3 Data Analysis
13 The first step is open coding, which starts with categorizing individual phenomena and giving them “codes”. Different categorized codes are clustered around an overarching theme to structure more abstract categories (Brown et al., 2002). The second step is axial coding. By comparing and systematic analysis of the codes within these blocks, the axial coding is aimed to reduce the number of codes and collect them together to uncover the core phenomenon and the categories around it (Goulding, 1999). For example, different codes were connected to the category “CPO customer” or how within the block “factors of strength”, different factors can be listed under the category “team connection” . The last step is selective coding, which refers to the process by which all categories are built around a core category. During this step, the obtained codes and categories are linked and connected. For example, within the building block targets, values can be categorized under “team level” targets. To provide a clear overview of the axial and selective coding, a hierarchy can be found in appendix 2. This appendix shows how codes were connected to build the model presented in the results. An example of how categories are developed through the prescribed method can be found below in table 1.
Category Subcategory Quotes example
CPO customer Customer feels ours
Shared customer No PO customer
Customer is from everyone Feeling of shared customer
“These are our customers.” (Employee 1)
FOS* Connection
(*Factors Of Strength)
Team connection Informal meetings
“This evaluation connect us, so to speak. Therefore it feels like something of us together.” (Employee 4)
Organizational outcome positive
CPO motivates team Extra work
Motivation through CPO Responsibility
“I really notice that they work a little harder, to achieve their goal
14
Table 1. Grounded theory codes example
3.4 Codes and quotes
In total 308 quotes have been analyzed and these quotes were divided in 16 categories. Table 2 below shows the main categories along with the number of times a code is observed (NTO) in the dataset. This table also summarizes the model presented in appendix 1. The CPO model (figure 2), which is gained from these table, is explained later in the results.
Category NTO* Category NTO* Category NTO*
CPO Customer #12 CPO Company #2 Organization outcome + #9
CPO Project #5 CPO Team value #6 Organization outcome - #7
CPO Work or tasks #14 FOS Connection #5 Cross-conflict + #3
CPO Product or outcome #7 FOS Task overlap #7 Cross-conflict - #4
CPO Goals #3 FOS Visibility #4
*NTO= Number of Times Observed
CPO Work process #8 FOS Context dependency #1
Table 2. Quotes and codes grounded theory
4. Results
After applying grounded theory, the data and the developed categories resulted in the model shown in figure 2, which gives a complete overview of the results. This model consists of (1) the targets, these are the objects where collective ownership can be felt over (2) the factors of strength, these are factors which strengthen the collective ownership feelings within a team. (3) organizational outcomes, these are the outcomes of CPO on organizations which can be either positive or negative (4) cross-conflicts, these are conflicts which occur between PO and CPO and can contribute or slow down organizational goals. In the next sections, these blocks will be discussed more deeply with found results.
Crossconflict negative
POCPO individual goal “No longer helping each other, only
15
Figure 2. Complete model results
4.1 Targets
The first building block of the presented model is “targets”. This block consists of eight different targets where CPO could be felt over. These targets are divided in three main categories depending on the impact level: team level, job level and organizational level. For example, a customer could be allocated to a specific team but ultimately all teams of an organization are needed to fulfill the needs of the customer, therefore this target has an impact on organization level. The targets are an important aspect of the research as it is gives some first practical evidence of the existence of CPO, and shows the diversity of CPO in an organization.
4.1.1 Team-level
16
Team Value
All teams have their own culture with inherent values and beliefs. These values are playing an important role by thinking or talking about the team, this includes team qualities which are internalized as value over time. The quotes from employees 7 and 10 make clear how values could be felt as something from the team.
Quote employee 7
“As I just mentioned, you could see it as something I share with others. We both share the same value, to prioritize number 1 the help of the customer. Everyone is doing this, so you
can say this is our value.” Quote employee 10
“Are there certain things in your team where you have the feeling something is from your team members and you?
I think to be open for criticism, it's not personal. It is about the work and the application, that is an important team value we share.”
4.1.2 Organizational-level
On the organizational-level, four targets for CPO were found: customer, product or outcome, goals, and company. These four targets can be partly related to the job or team, but ultimately all teams are needed to produce a specific product. These targets are recognized by the employee as making an impact on the whole organization, and therefore assigned to the category “organizational level”.
Customer
The customer is an important target, as almost every employee recognized that a customer is a shared aspect of the organization, and the main reason an organization exists. If an employee does not recognize this as shared target it can undermine organizational goals and team performances by taking a more individual perspective. Quotes from employees 1,2 and 4 are providing evidence of the feeling of CPO over the customer.
Quote Employee 1
17 Quote Employee 2
“In a hypothetical situation when a customer quits your company, do you feel you have collectively lost a customer or is it more you as an individual has lost a customer. Does a
customer feels as part of your team members and you?”
I think that if I can speak for the group that this feeling is felt collectively. I would say, we have lost a customer.”
Quote Employee 4
“What are things you and your team members put your time and energy in? We spend a lot of time in our customer, to take care of them and satisfy them as much as possible, this is one of the reasons our customers are staying with us instead of leaving for a
cheaper competitor.”
Product or outcome
The product or outcome is felt for almost every employee as a team effort as each individual can easily recognize how their contribution lead to a shared team product or outcome. Quotes from employees 1, 9 and 10 are showing CPO feelings over a product or outcome.
Quote employee 1
“Does the end product feel more like something which is made individual or collectively? It feels rather ours than mine product. I think so. Yes. Not specific as mine product, we all
have to work on the product and sell them.” Quote Employee 9
“Do you have the idea that being together, stimulates the feelings that what you are making is from your team members and you?
Yes, if we work together on something then you have the feeling that everyone is helping, and that the work is done collectively. Thus yes, something which is ours”
Quote employee 10
18
Goals
A team works together towards their own goal, or one which is given from top-down. A team will experience a higher feeling of CPO if the goal is established by the team itself (through the three different routes). Quotes from employees 1,3 and 6 make clear how the feeling of CPO can be felt over goals.
Quote employee 1
“We are talking about profit, percentage of growth etc. In that sense the goals are felt collectively, if you see the company as one big team.”
Quote employee 3
“Yes sure, for a while you see that people are addressing each other. They are saying things like: we have to reach our goal together and everyone has to contribute to this. You are seeing more interaction because people like a common goal which is within our reach.”
Quote employee 6
“Does your task feel something as from your team members and you?
No mine task, is just mine task. If we collectively execute my task it won’t work. But, the goal of a company is something which is felt collectively. Where we all want to go, is felt
collectively.”
Company
The company is a broad term for everything from significance within the walls of the organization. Intuitively a company feels like something which is shared with others, quotes from employees 2 and 6 are providing evidence how the feeling of CPO is felt over this construct. Employee 2 has worked in different companies with both an individual, and collective character. Therefore, employee 2 is able to make a good comparison, before the actual response on the question if the company is felt collectively.
Quote employee 2
I think that everyone within this organization feels responsible for the ins and outs of the company. Everyone can feel comfortable when they get home, but I think whoever you speak
19 Quote employee 6
“Do you have the feeling before TSS that the company is “ours”.
Yes, it was certainly collective. In the past it was our company including all shareholders, because we had a very close relationship with them. So there were 4 or 5 shareholders, including some external parties and commissioners. But it was our company, certainly with
those shareholders.”
4.1.3 Job-level
On job-level, three CPO targets are found: project, work or task and work process respectively. These three targets directly relate to the job of an employee. For example, work processes or tasks are daily used individually by the employee. Although this seemingly individual character, an employee was still able to feel a shared feeling when other employees made a contribution to their project, work or process.
Project
During a project, there is intense collaboration between team members and the outcome is, therefore, directly related to all team members. Quotes from employee 9 and 5 are making this feeling of CPO clear.
Employee 9
“In the past your worked on your own project. Now, there are more and more people working on the same project. Does the project feel different, in the sense that the feeling of “your” has
changed to a collectively “our” project?
Yes, in the beginning it was more my project. But, we are now working with more people on the same project, and therefore the product/project feels more of me and the project team.”
Employee 5
“I said something like: this process is not working, I need your help. Let’s do something and change this together, then we could measure our output in a weekly meeting. Thus, the
20
Work or tasks
Daily activities are seen as the work or tasks of an employee. Quote from employee 7 and 9 are providing evidence how work or tasks could be felt as something shared. Employee 7 emphasizes CPO over the task of making questionnaires, and employee 9 felt CPO over the execution of sprints.
Quote employee 7
“Did you have the feeling that something was from your team members and you? Yes, the making of questionnaires is something that we do together, everyone has to work with these. Thus, the questionnaires are not feeling as my “own child” or from me, but more
from the whole team. I think if you work on something like this together you are more likely to give this response, than if you are working alone for example.”
Quote employee 9
“Do you have something else that feels like from your team members and you, so something that feels like collectively yours?
I think the sprints, that feels really as something which is part of the development team while other teams are also working on these. But, because we are more active in this area, it is
really something from the development team.” Work process
Most of the employees have a fixed work process or procedure which is documented (explicit) or just in the head of employee (tacit). These work processes are mostly established and changed on a collective level within an organization resulting in feelings of CPO. Quotes from employee 4 and 5 are making the CPO feeling over work processes clear.
Quote employee 4
“In particular the process, I think, you should look together at how you can optimize the process. Every change has an impact on her, and her change has an impact on me. Therefore I would say this process is felt as something of us together, rather than as
21 Quote employee 5
“Oke, did you have the feeling that it was something from you together, so from the TSS team and you?
“Yes, I had a shared feeling about that. Those practices also came from TSS, I quickly realized the benefits of the system and mastered it. Everyone on the team was already familiar with these practices, and in this way you can make such a change as something
familiar in a short period. This resulted in a work procedure that belongs to us.”
4.2 Factors of strength
The factors of strength (FOS) are factors which stimulate the developing of CPO over a specific target. Figure 3 presents the positive relation between targets and organizational outcomes where FOS, act as moderator. For example, if employees experience CPO feelings over their work (Target 4.1.3), this will lead to more motivation or resistance during change (Organizational outcome 4.3.2), but when individuals also experience team connection (FOS 4.2.1), this relation will be reinforced.
Figure 3. Relation between blocks 1,2,3
4.2.1 FOS Team Connection
Team connection can be built through formal and especially informal meetings (“Informal relation is an important aspect for the ability to put yourself in the other shoes and to recognize why another person behaves the way he does, employee 6”). Quotes from employees 4 and 10 are providing evidence how team connection stimulates CPO feelings over the target “product”.
Quote employee 4
22 to speak. Therefore, the product feels like something of us together, and that is why I think we
are a team together.”
Quote employee 10
“Yes we have a good team and that's why I just said, it's not critique on the person but how the application functions. I think, it’s never personal and that's the most important thing. This
team connection contributes to the feeling of our product.”
4.2.2 FOS Task overlap
Task overlap increase the interdependence of employee in teams and is therefore an important factor that determines the strength of CPO. Quotes from employee 2,5 and 9 are providing evidence how task overlap increases strength of CPO over targets.
Quote employee 2
“Certainly with such a small company you will have it anyway when one is sick or on vacation, then you have to take over each other's tasks, then things (or targets) feels more like common shared”
Quote employee 5
“Speaking about the telephone, I share this task also with *name *. Regarding this, picking up the telephone, is also a task that we share with each other. We alternate each other, sometimes I do the work, another moment she does. Because we share this task, it feels more
like a common task” Quote employee 9
“And yes, if you are all working on certain part then you have the feeling that everyone is helping, and that it feels like a joint piece of work with the corresponding results.”
4.2.3 FOS Visibility of group work
23 Quote employee 8
“If you talk to each other about this and discuss what needs to be done, what needs to be improved and you see this all summarized on a blackboard, then everyone has the idea that
the contribution is not only personal but especially on group level, and that you work together towards a common end result. The blackboard is crucial for showing this.”
4.2.4 FOS context dependency
The strength of CPO is context dependent, when there is positive outcome or sphere among team members it is easier to feel a sense of CPO, rather than when situations are negative, for example a product failure. In such a situation, it is more likely that the team will blame one person. Quote of employee 8 provide evidence for this factor of strength.
Quote employee 8
“we always blame someone else if a mistake is made. In a negative situation, we never say “we have made a big mistake” or “it is our fault, we are the cause of the instability”. But, if it goes well, if a customer is very happy when the product is delivered, then it is easier to feel
the group feeling and recognize the shared effort of the product.”
4.3 Organizational outcomes
Organization outcomes of CPO could be positive or negative. When people feel CPO over a target, the quotes show that people tend to work harder for that specific target. But, when targets change, group resistance against the change target can be expected.
4.3.1 Positive outcomes: motivated to work harder
Quotes from employee 5 and 8 show positive organizational outcomes when employees experience CPO on a specific target. Quote from employee 5 emphasizes the increase in motivation, and employee 8 the change in responsible behavior.
Positive outcomes (1): CPO target result in working harder Quote employee 5
“The sales team has to reach certain targets, for example. I really notice that they work a little harder to achieve their goal together. They have a common target anyway and perhaps
24
Positive outcomes (2): Responsibility behavior Quote employee 8
“Does this have a positive effect? Can you describe the result of this collective feeling? Yes, the advantages are that we work more together, hold each other accountable and are therefore more focused on what we have to achieve. We have achieved a sprint for the first
time in ages since using this methodology.”
4.3.2 Negative outcomes: resistance to change
Quotes from employees 4, 5 and 9 show negative organizational outcomes when employees experience CPO on a specific target. The quote from employee 9 shows a small conversation, the first question which is asked emphasizes the feeling of CPO.
Quote employee 4
“If a change is made which involves all team members, then you are more likely to go along with that resistance.”
Quote employee 5
“Do you feel that a change in this tradition will create resistance from the team "the entire company?
Yes, that tradition is something that all of us do every Friday. Like I just said, I also see the numbers, so I can agree with this new regulation. However, I think others will see this tradition as something common (shared) that is taken away from them, and that will lead to a
common resistance.”
Quote employee 9
“Does that described method feel as something from your team members and you? Ehm, yes that feels like from me and my team together, especially the part that we can divide
our own work, is something that everyone likes. And what if this method changed?
25
4.4 Cross-conflict situations
Cross-conflict situations occur when different levels of ownership interacts, this can lead to a conflict. The most obvious scenario is when an employee experience individual PO which eventually contradicts a group target. In this situation the employee will decide which target is more important, the individual or group target. If individual PO is dominant, this can dissipate the ability from individuals to evaluate higher team or organization goals. The quotes that have been found, provide evidence how cross-conflict situations can contribute or slow down organization goals.
Figure 4 presents the positive relation between targets and organizational outcomes where cross-conflicts, act as moderator. For example, if employees experience CPO feelings over their goal (Target 4.1.2), this will lead to more motivation or resistance during change (Organizational outcome 4.3.2), but when individuals experience a cross-conflict (4.4) between task PO and the CPO over this goal, this relation will be reinforced. To clarify this reinforcement, conflicts with PO will result in less or more CPO feelings thus reinforcing organization outcomes.
Figure 4. Relation between blocks 1,3,4
Cross conflict situation 1:
26 Quote employee 5 (Accountant)
“Look my reaction is from my position (accountant), I think it is appropriate and correct to skip the Friday lunch on cost of the company. Because yes, my personal opinion, it is nice
every Friday to go for a lunch. But that is my personal opinion. The perspective of my finance position is eventually leading for me. That is the reason I am not surprised. But, a lot
of people will be disappointed because you take away something that we have been doing here for years.”
Cross-conflict situation 2
The next quote from employee 2 is providing evidence how feelings of PO could deplete one’s ability to contribute to organization goals. The quote clearly illustrates how a conflict between PO and CPO regarding goals, resulted in negative outcome on organization level.
Quote employee 2
“Years ago, we had our application where we worked on as a team. However, slowly we were split apart. Then the “we” diminished slowly and changed to more “I”. Then, it really
became only “me”, and each person started to focus on their own goals. No longer helping each other, only working on your own targets, because otherwise you will get a bad assessment. This ensured in a situation where the whole overarching organizational goal was
totally missed.”
5. Discussion
27 showed how targets could be experienced on individual, collective level or both experienced simultaneously. This is in line with expectations made in the literature by Dawkins et al. (2017), Pierce & Jussila (2009) and Pierce, Jussila, & Li (2017). In the cross-conflict section this cohesion is further elaborated.
The results also showed four factors of strengths (task overlap, team connection, visibility of group work and context dependency), which can increase the likelihood of the experience of CPO. First, high levels of task overlap or interdependence requires team members to have a close interaction. Thereby, the team will create the opportunity for chemistry, social-emotional and task-cohesiveness to develop (Bernthal & Insko, 1993). Also, Pierce & Jussila (2009) argued that task overlap can contribute to the development of CPO. Subsequently, the results showed how team members are more willing to help each other if there is task interdependence or overlap. Next, group members who have bonded interpersonally have an deep understanding and acceptance of a team member's role, skills or abilities. A team member is then willing to make personal sacrifices to achieve the overarching team goal (Pierce & Jussila, 2009). Furthermore, the study from Gray, Knight & Baer (2019) showed a negative relationship between team conflict (disagreements within team) and CPO. Negative emotions that accompany ownership conflicts prevent members from investing in mutual effort, resulting in lower team connection. Therefore, team connection or chemistry is another important aspect for the development of CPO, confirmed in this study. Another factor of strength is the visibility of the group work. The visibility of the group work and progress on the blackboard creates an awareness that people are moving together to a mutual goal. This can be explained by a study from Lynn & Chinn (2018), whereby the results suggested that high visible process interdependence is more likely to remind people of their mutually shared dependence. Also, Pierce & Jussila (2009) suggested that the work environment structure is seen as a major cause of the ability to control work-related activities. This collective feeling of control, one of the routes of CPO, will ultimately results in feelings of CPO. Finally, the factor context dependency, can be explained by the loss or increase in team connection. In positive situations team members are more likely to feel team connection, while negative situations lowers team connection.
28 Robinson, 2005). This led to the expectation, that these consequences will also take place in situations on group level. This study has provided evidence for this expectation, employees tend to work harder as group and show more responsible behavior, if they are feeling CPO. This result is in line with a recent study from Gray, Knight & Baer (2019) which showed a positive relation between CPO and team performance. On the other hand, negative consequences were found such as resistance to change and territorial behavior, which are slowing down organization change processes, necessary for growth.
Dawkins et al. (2017) argued when individuals engage in fulfilling one or more of the motives that underpin feelings of PO, one has less capacity or energy to engage in activities which contribute to organizational goals. This was also an similar argument for Brown et al. (2005), territorial behaviors may decrease the likelihood that an individual can focus on priorities at organizational level. Then, positive outcomes such as motivation or responsibility could dissipate by this conflict, this study showed evidence for these negative impacts of cross-conflicts. In addition, this study provided cross-conflicts situations with a positive outcome regarding organizational goals. On first sight, CPO seems to contribute more to organization goals than PO, but this counterintuitive outcome (4.4 situation 1) showed that this is not necessarily true. This was in the results illustrated by an example where job related PO contributed more to organization goals (save cost on short-term) than CPO over a team value (a luxe lunch every Friday).
Since the start of this study, no empirical research was conducted within the field of CPO. However, it is important to note that during the writing process, two articles from
Giordano et al. (2019) and Gray, Knight & Baer (2019) were published. These studies are using surveys to determine different constructs, most of them in the area of organizational outcomes. This research distinguish itself from these studies because of the qualitative nature, which is focused on gathering data to build new theory or model, instead of confirming hypothesizes through surveys. Furthermore, the scope of this study differentiates on many aspects (e.g. the focus on targets).
6. Conclusion
6.1 Conclusion and practical implications
29 organizational outcomes and cross-conflicts) with current literature about CPO, led to a framework presented in figure 1. The actual research, was focused to gain data about those blocks in the framework. This resulted in an empirical tested model with important exploratory factors and insights (figure 2), and this is also the contribution of this study to the current literature.
To achieve this model, a research question was formulated defined as: “What are collective psychological ownership targets and organizational outcomes, and what are factors that influence these organizational outcomes, in an organization?”. To answer this question, this study provided evidence for the existence of CPO and elaborated the area of “targets (1)” with eight different targets and three different categories. Subsequently, the results are showing four factors which strengthen CPO: team connection, task overlap, visibility of group work and context dependency. Furthermore, this study found both positive and negative organizational outcomes. Positive CPO outcomes, such as increased motivation or responsibility behavior, and negative CPO outcomes, such as resistance to change or territorial behavior. Also, cross-conflict situations were discussed, which could contribute to organizational goals, or obstruct organizational goals. Hopefully, the current research has taken an important step forward by investigating in four building blocks, and providing an empirical tested model that clarifies different aspects of CPO.
30
6.2 Limitations and future research
31
7. References
Baer, M., & Brown, G. (2012). Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 60–71.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. 1994. Association as a psychological justification for ownership. Journal of Psychology, 128: 365-380.
Bernthal, P. R., & Insko, C. A. (1993). Cohesiveness without groupthink. Group & Organization Management, 18, 66–87
Brown, S. C., Stevenson, R. A., Troiano, P. F. & Schneider, M. K. (2002). Exploring complex phenomena: Grounded theory in students affairs research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(2), 173-183.
Brown, G., Lawrence, T.B., Robinson, S.L., 2005. Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review 30, 577–594.
Brown, G., & Crossley, C. (2008). What about psychological ownership and territoriality? Questions we are starting to ask. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Los Angeles, CA.
Charmaz, K. and Belgrave, L. (2018). Thinking About Data With Grounded Theory. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(8), pp.743-753.
32 Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1996). Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. In R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 1–23). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298-310.
Dittmar, H. 1992. The social psychology of material posses- sions: To have is to be. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Furby, L. 1978. Possessions: Toward a theory of their mean- ing and function throughout the life cycle. In P. B. Baltes (Ed.), Life span development and behavior, vol. 1: 297- 336. New York: Academic Press.
Giordano, AP, Patient, D, Passos, AM, Sguera, F. Antecedents and Consequences of Collective Psychological Ownership: The Validation of a Conceptual Model. J Organ Behav. 2019.
Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded theory: Some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions. Working paper series, WP006/99, Wolverhampton: University of Wolverhampton
Gray, S., Knight, A., & Baer, M. (2019). On the Emergence of Collective Psychological Ownership in New Creative Teams. Organization Science. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2019.1307
Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M. and de Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), pp.498-501.
Isaacs, S. 1933. Sociai deveiopmenf in young children. Lon- don: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
33 Jussila, I., & Tuominen, P. (2008). Collective feelings of possession: Territorial group behaviors in organizations. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Los Angeles, CA
Lynn G. Chin (2018) How Interdependence in Team Task Structure Impacts Evaluations of Members’ Work Contributions: Examining Resource versus Process Interdependence, The Sociological Quarterly, 59:2, 250-278, DOI: 10.1080/00380253.2017.1413603
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experiences and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group and Organization Management, 40, 6–34
Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. The Journal of social psychology, 147(5), 477-500.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A. M. (2006). The psychology of ownership: Work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior. Group & Organization Management, 31, 388–416
Pierce, J. L., T. Kostova, and K. Dirks. 2001. Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 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)
34 Pierce, J., Jussila, I. and Li, D. (2017). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(6), pp.776-792.
Rochberg-Halton, E. W. (1980). Cultural signs and urban adaptation: the meaning of cherished possessions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(8A), 4754–4755.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Dossje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. Studies in the social psychology of inter- group relations. London, UK: Academic Press.
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (1993). Employee ownership: Empirical support for mediated relationships. Presented at the Eigth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439–460.
35
8. Appendices
Appendix 1: Semi structured interview 1
Collective psychological ownership focused on changing working methods (= best practice) Introduction
What do you do / what do you mean within the company? What is your formal / informal role?
Best practices in general
1. How do you deal with the best practices? Did you experience a successful implementation of these?
2. Do you have an example of a best practice that you have implemented? (think about contract, price change etc)
3. How did this implementation go? What could you do better? 4. How was this change experienced by you and the group?
5. How did you get everyone involved in the change of the company through the best practices?
General consequences
6. If you look at the company before the acquisition by TSS and at your current company, do you see much difference in the company? What things have changed? How do you experience this change?
7. Are there issues that have drastically changed in working methods? How do you experience this and how do your team members and you deal with it?
8. Does it ever happen that your team members and you do not want to implement one of the best practices in the company? Do you have an example of this? Why don't you implement this?
9 Are there best practices that were implemented very easily by you or your team? Why do you think it is easily implemented?
10. Have you been more motivated since the acquisition?
Consequences change culture / collaboration / customers (according to CEO important change)
36
Feeling of collective ownership (According to Pierce et al., 2018)
12. Before the acquisition of TSS, was there something you say this is from the team and me ("us")? Have the best practices changed this? If so, how did you deal with that?
13. Do the best practices feel like something that you and your team need to change?
14. Do you currently feel that the best practices belong to you and the team? Which do belong, and why? which do not belong, and why?
15. Are there specific outcomes or tasks, over which there is a sense of collective ownership, that is really from "you" (your team members and you)? For example: certain processes, software products, customers.
16. (Could you say that the way you collaborated / dealt with the customer prior to the acquisition is something that was yours? How do you view this now?) - Ask if applicable
Antecedents (Pierce and Jussila, 2009)
17. Are there tasks, outcomes or projects that you say we (your team members and you)) have control over? How was this before the acquisition of TSS? Do the best practices leave room for you to choose your own path?
18. Are there tasks, outcomes or projects, in which you are investing time and energy together (your team members and you)? How was this before the acquisition of TSS?
19. Are there tasks, outcomes or projects, your team members and you really understand? How was this before the acquisition of TSS?
Inspiration from group identification (Henry et al., 1999)
20. Do you feel that people need to work together to achieve a certain goal? 21. Do you feel that people like to work together in the organization?
22. Do you feel that this group achieves things together that they would not achieve on their own? If so, could you give an example?
Appendix 2: Semi structured interview 2
The interview is based on data which is missing: New targets
What does CPO strengthen?
37
Introduction
1. What do you do / what do you mean within the company? 2. What is your formal / informal role?
Teams
3. Which teams are you in?
4. Do you often work with these teams?
5. In which topics do you invest time and energy with your team?
Change
6. What has changed in the company lately? 7. What did you think of that change?
8. Positive: Are you currently experiencing target x as yours and your team? -> Has a new target of ownership been formed?
9. Negative: Did you experience target x in the old situation as yours and your team?
- > what was the target of ownership?
Collective ownership feeling (Targets) + outcome
10. You just mentioned that you put time and energy into x and x, do you feel that something belongs to your team members and you
11. Do you feel that your work / job is from your team members and you
-> If so, how does that affect you and your team (positive / negative)?
12. Do you have the idea that the project belongs to you and your team (positive / negative)? -> If so, how does that affect you and your team (positive / negative) ??
13. Do you have the idea that the software you are creating is something that belongs to your team members and you
-> If so, how does that affect you and your team (positive / negative) ??
14. Do you have anything else that you say, this is from your team members and you
What does CPO strengthen?
38
Po vs CPO, Cross conflicts.
16. Is there something in the organization that really feels like your thing? In which part of you do you put a lot of time and energy in?
-> Try making a connection with CPO, is there anything that could be contradictory? And ask below
Last question (Beware of socially desirable answers)
17. Have you ever experienced that the team went against your own interests? -> what did you do then, what did you experience?
Appendix 3: Coding hierarchies
39 Appendix 3. Coding hierarchy “factors of strength”
Appendix 3. Coding hierarchy targets “organizational outcomes”
