Organizational citizenship
behaviour within organisations:
A theoretical research about the relation between
task interdependency and organizational
citizenship behaviour with psychological
ownership as a mediator.
Renko Schurer S2174588, R.R.Schurer@student.rug.nl Date: 21-06-2013
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business
Supervisor/ university Dr. W.M.C. van Wezel
Co-assessor/ university MSc. N. Ziengs
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. W.M.C. van Wezel and my
2
Abstract
Within this paper a theoretical research is conducted that is about the influence of
psychological ownership on the relation between task interdependency and organisational citizenship behaviour. Based on theory the expectation is that psychological ownership mediates this relation. Besides this a short questionnaire is developed that can be used to test the suggested relations. The reason for this is that the current questionnaires are relatively long. Based on the findings, it is not possible to measure the sub-dimensions of OCB and OCB as a whole within one short questionnaire. If the goal is to optimally measure OCB as a whole the cronbach’s alpha for the sub-dimensions of OCB reduces, and if the goal is to measure the sub dimensions of OCB as optimal as possible the cronbach’s alpha for OCB as a whole reduces. This because in both situations other questions are eliminated from the
3
1. Introduction
While employee performance has been drawing the interest of researchers since the early formative years of the organizational behaviour discipline, cooperative and pro-social employee behaviours seem to be a relatively newer focus and involve/demands a wider approach to employee performance (Kabasakal et al., 2011). The importance of human behaviours is also recognised by Bentefouet & Nembhard (2013). They state that the
influence of human behaviour on production systems has been underestimated. This indicates that human behaviour can play an important role within organizations. One cooperative and pro-social human behaviour that can influence performance is Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Kabasakal et al. (2011) mentioned that the concept of OCB is perhaps one of the most interesting constructs in organizational studies and human resource management. OCB is characterized by discretionary efforts of the employees for the benefit of an
organization without any expected rewards (Shweta Jha & Jha, 2009).
Scholars have studied various factors contributing towards OCB over the last three decades (Shweta Jha & Jha, 2009). One factor that is analysed in multiple OCB studies is task
interdependency (Smith et al., 1983), (Pearce & Gregersen, 1991), (Van der Vegt et al., 2003) and (Bachrach et al., 2006). A second factor that is investigated within the current OCB literature is psychological ownership. Pierce et al. (2003) define psychological ownership as the state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is “theirs” (i.e., “It is mine!”). Within the research of Van Dyne & Pierce (2004) a positive relation is found between psychological ownership for the organization and the amount of organisational citizenship behaviour. This indicates that people show more OCB when they have a psychological ownership that is directed to the organization.
4
It is important to know if psychological ownership influences the relation between task interdependency and OCB. The reason for this is that many different studies have shown that OCB may increase the performance of an organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Besides this Mohamed & Anisa (2012) mentioned that organisations require employees that are prepared to work beyond their job description. Malodia (2013) state that in today's world of
globalization and liberalization, OCB can be extremely valuable to organizations and can contribute to the performance and to a competitive advantage.
For the reasons that are mentioned above it is important to investigate if psychological ownership influences the relation between task interdependency and OCB. This is investigated with the following research question:
What is the influence of psychological ownership on the relation between task interdependency and organizational citizenship behaviour?
The last part of this research will be focused on making a short questionnaire that can be used to determine the constructs that are mentioned above. The reason for the development of a questionnaire is that the current questionnaires (especially the questionnaires of OCB) are relatively long. This means that executing a questionnaire will take a lot of time of the employees. For this reason a short questionnaire is developed that can be used to empirically test the suggested hypothesises.
5
2. Methodology
The research question that is mentioned within the introduction (What is the influence of psychological ownership on the relation between task interdependency and organizational citizenship behaviour?) is investigated by a theoretical research. The reason for this is that within the time that was available to execute this research no company was found that was willing to participate within this study.
To investigate the influence of psychological ownership on the relation between task interdependency and OCB three other relations need to be determined. These relations are a direct relation between task interdependency and OCB, a direct relation between task interdependency and psychological ownership and a direct relation between psychological ownership and OCB. These relations are displayed within figure 1.
As mentioned this research is based on a theoretical research. Different methods are used to obtain information from the literature. Most papers are obtained with the use of business source premier (BSP). Besides this, papers are also found with google scholar and the RUG network. Within this network journals can be found with the following link
http://www.rug.nl/bibliotheek/catalogiBestanden/elekTijdschr/index. The RUG network is
6
used when an interesting paper that is found as a reference within another paper couldn’t be found with the use of BSP or google scholar.
7
3. Theoretical background
3.1. Literature about task interdependence, psychological ownership and OCB Task interdependence
Task interdependence is the manner and the extent that group members need to exchange information and resources or work together to complete their job (Brass, 1985; Van der Vegt et al., 2000). Typicallythe degree of task interdependence increases when work becomes more difficult and if persons require greater assistance from others to perform their job(s) (Van der Vegt et al., 2001). However initiated task interdependence does not have to be constant. Differences may exist between members in the same team or between members of different teams that complete identical tasks under similar conditions (Taggar & Haines III, 2006).
Within some jobs the degree of task interdependency is fixed and stable while in other jobs the degree of task interdependency changes over time (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005). Gully et al. (2002) also mentioned the possibility of a varying task interdependency. They mentioned that team interdependence can vary, even in identical technological environments. This means that although task interdependence typically increases with more difficult jobs the dependence don’t need to be constant between different members of the organisation even though identical jobs are executed.
Within the literature two types of task interdependence are mentioned. These are received task interdependence and initiated task interdependence (Ayupp & Kong, 2010), (Van Der Vegt et al., 1998), (Pearce & Gregersen, 1991) and (Kiggundu, 1983). Received task interdependency is the extent that a person in a particular job is effected by the workflow from one or more other jobs (Kiggundu, 1983). Initiated task interdependency is the extent to which work flows from one particular job to one or more other jobs, such that the successful performance of the latter depends on the initiating job (Kiggundu, 1983). Within this research the focus in one both types of task interdependency. The reason for this is that both may have an influence on the amount of OCB.
Psychological ownership
8
“theirs” (i.e., “It is mine!”). Key characteristics are a strong feeling of possessiveness for and a high degree of psychological attachment to the target (Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011). In essence psychological ownership provides the answer to the question “what do I feel is mine?”(Baer & Brown, 2012).
Pierce et al. (2001) state that the roots of psychological ownership can be found in three main motives; efficacy and effectance (having control over his/her environment), self-identity (possessions are connected with self-identity and individuality) and having a place (motive of people to have their own space). The feeling of ownership can be directed at an organization, a group, or a job (Chi & Han, 2008).
Within the research of Pierce & Jussila (2010) collective psychological ownership is
mentioned. They indicate that psychological ownership can also exist within a group. This is also mentioned within the research of (Druskat & Pescosolido, 2002). They indicate that a shared model of psychological ownership involve the collective belief that all members are part owners and that team actions and outcomes are under the teams authority and
responsibility. Collective psychological ownership is the collectively held sense (feeling) that a target of ownership (or a piece of that target) is collectively ‘‘ours.’’ (Pierce & Jussila 2010). One example that is mentioned within the research of Pierce & Jussila (2010) is that within formula 1, champions often say that their victory is ours, indicating that everybody within the team is responsible for the victory.
Although two forms of ownership are mentioned above the two forms don’t need to exclude each other. It is possible that people have a collective and an individual psychological
ownership. For example if people have to work together to make a report someone can have a strong individual psychological ownership for his own part of the report while at the same time having a collective psychological ownership for the entire report.
Organizational citizenship behaviour
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is defined as:
individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
9
Podsakoff et al. (1990) mentioned that Organ (1988) divided organisational citizenship behaviour in 5 major dimensions. The dimensions and the explanations that Podsakoff et al. (1990) uses are:
Altruism (discretionary behaviours that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an organisationally relevant task or problem)
Conscientiousness (discretionary behaviours on the part of the employees that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization, in the area of attendance, obeying rules and regulations, taking breaks and so forth)
Civic virtue (behaviour on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company)
Courtesy (discretionary behaviour on the part of an individual aimed at preventing work related problems with others from occurring)
Sportsmanship (willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining)
Later in this report, these 5 dimensions are elaborated in more detail.
Williams & Anderson (1991) differentiate between two forms of OCB. These are organisational citizenship behaviours that are directed to the individual (OCBI) and
organisational citizenship behaviours that are directed to the organization (OCBO). Altruism and courtesy are part of OCBI and sportsmanship, civic virtue and conscientiousness are part of OCBO (LePine et al., 2002).
Some examples of OCBs are providing support to a colleague, helping a new recruited employee to settle within the organization, demonstrating a degree of flexibility and defending the image of the organization (Paillé, 2013). Malodia (2013) mentioned that examples of citizenship behaviour range from helping co-workers with job related problems even when such help is not required to wearing the logo of the company on a shirt while attending a charity event.
Altruism
10
dimension (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997), (Lievens & Anseel, 2004), (Paillé, 2009) and (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Within this report the focus is on the 5 dimensions of OCB that are mentioned above and helping behaviour as a whole. Therefore the OCB forms of cheerleading and peacekeeping are not elaborated within this research. For more information about these forms of OCB I refer to the paper of Podsakoff et al. (2000).
As mentioned altruism is defined as discretionary behaviours that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an organisationally relevant task or problem (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Love & Forret (2008) state that altruism represents voluntary individual actions to help co-workers with work related problems. Besides co-workers, altruism can also be directed to people outside the organization. As Kidder & Parks (2001) mentioned, altruism includes behaviours that are directed towards others inside or outside the company. Some example of people inside the company are co-workers and supervisors while examples of people outside the company are suppliers and customers of the company.
As mentioned above courtesy and altruism are often combined to form helping behaviour. Besides this combined effect these two factors also exist as separate factors. Within the research of Wang et al. (2010) a difference is mentioned between courtesy and altruism. The difference between courtesy and altruism is that altruism is about helping someone that has a problem while courtesy tries to prevent problems before they occur (Organ, 1988).
Conscientiousness
Within the literature two types of conscientiousness are mentioned. These are within the literature about OCB and within the personality literature. The conscientiousness dimension of OCB should be distinguished from the personality construct to prevent confusion
(Barksdale & Werner, 2001). Within this research the focus is on the conscientiousness of the OCB literature.
11
the examples above, conscientiousness is a factor that not necessarily benefits specific people, but is enacted to benefit the larger organization (Ilies et al., 2009).
Conscientiousness is very similar to the concept of generalized compliance (Wang et al., 2010). As mentioned by Barksdale & Werner (2001) the label for conscientiousness was original generalized compliance. Generalized compliance is a more impersonal type of behaviour that does not provide immediate aid to any particular individual but is indirectly helpful to other people in the organization (Becker & Randall, 1994). This is also mentioned by Smith et al. (1983). They mention that general compliance is more of a good soldier or good citizenship syndrome of doing things that are right and proper for the sake of the system instead of a specific person.
Civic virtue
Civic virtue was introduced as a factor of OCB in the mid-1980s (Graham, 2000). Civic virtue represents a macro level interest in, or commitment to, the organization as a whole. This is shown by a willingness to participate actively in its governance, to monitor the environment for threats and opportunities and to look out for its best interest even at high personal costs (Podsakoff et al., 2000). This definition is in line with the shorter definition that Jimmieson et al. (2010) uses. They define civic virtue as taking on extra responsibilities and being involved in the professional life of the organization.
As mentioned OCB can be directed to individuals or teams/organizations. Civic virtue is considered to be an extra-role performance behaviour that is directed to larger entities as organizations and teams (Ganesh & Gupta, 2010), (Paillé, 2013), (Jimmieson et al., 2010) and (LePine et al., 2002). Of the 5 dimensions of OCB (altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy and sportsmanship), civic virtue is the one that is most clearly directed to the organization (Robinson & Morrison, 1995).
12
They state that civic virtue refers to behaviours such as speaking up, keeping abreast of organizational change, attending meetings, exercising voting rights, and viewing intranet news.
Courtesy
Within the literature about OCB not much information is available about courtesy. As mentioned above courtesy if often combined to one helping dimension with altruism, peacekeeping and some aspects of cheerleading. For this reason not much has been written about courtesy as a single construct.
Courtesy is discretionary behaviour on the part of an individual aimed at preventing work related problems with others from occurring (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Courtesy involves thinking about the welfare of others and how one’s behaviour might impact the work of colleagues (Love & Forret, 2008). Lin (2008) mentioned that courtesy includes behaviours such as trying to avoid problems for co-workers and being mindful of how one’s behaviour influences others.
Jimmieson et al. (2010) mentioned protective and promotive OCBs. Protective OCBs are OCBs that protect the existing organizational processes and maintain the status quo. Promotive OCBs involve OCBs that are actively trying to improve the functioning and effectiveness of individuals or organizations. They mentioned that courtesy is a protective OCB. Wang et al. (2010) mentioned that courtesy tries to prevent chaos or conflicts among the employees and it service to maintain social order and group harmony. This is in line with the protective OCB that is mentioned by Jimmieson et al. (2010).
Sportsmanship
13
other hand people that have a low sportsmanship tend to be overly negative, complainers and fault-finders.
Sportsmanship is an OCB that is directed towards the organization (Paillé, 2013) and is aimed at maintaining the status quo and promoting social harmony (Wang et al., 2010). Paillé (2013) state that sportsmanship is the most important OCB for explaining intention to leave the organization. If the level of sportsmanship is low and if the employment prospects outside the current organization are good, employees plan to quit before seeking a new job or they seek a new job before they quit. Paillé & Grima (2011) found that with a low level of sportsmanship people will first look to find an opportunity outside the organization before looking for alternative employment within the current organization. This means that employees are more likely to leave the organization than to stay within the organization if the level of
sportsmanship is low.
Dagenais-Cooper & Paillé (2012) found that within their study in 10 hotels, sportsmanship was related to commitment to the organization and commitment to the supervisor. Hotel employees may tolerate excessive demands at work and demonstrate a high level of
sportsmanship if they respect and appreciate their supervisor. On the other hand if employees are treated with too much care and politeness by their supervisors they are becoming too dependent on their bosses and they expect that things are always good and pleasant. If in that case non ideal situations occur they may start to complain which has a negative impact on sportsmanship (Gupta & Singh, 2013).
Within companies a high sportsmanship don’t need to be positive. A downside of a high level of sportsmanship may be that a good sport may fail to detect opportunities and may not speak up if he/she finds suggestions to improve because of the tendency not to complain (Marinova et al., 2010). If this is the case than sportsmanship has an negative influence on the
performance of a company.
Helping
14
Work within organisation has increasingly shifted from working individual to working in teams (Devine et al., 1999). This is also mentioned within the research of Flynn (2006), he states that cooperation is a fundamental aspect of organizational life that has become
increasingly important. This indicates that helping behaviour is becoming more important and common within organisations. As Flynn (2006) states for most members of an organisation cooperation is a routine exercise.
Within the literature helping behaviour is defined as providing assistance to other team members with an organizationally relevant problem or task (Van der Vegt et al., 2003); (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005). Helping behaviour is a form of discretionary behaviour that has potential benefits for the organisation (Yee Ng & Van Dyne, 2005) and it involves actions by which individuals positively affect others (Mossholder et al., 2011). As Lin (2006)
mentioned, positive helping intentions can assist with increasing the competitiveness of an organisation within the market.
Helping behaviour can be proactive (helping before a request for help) or reactive (helping after a request for help)(Grant et al., 2009). Frenkel & Yu, (2011) mentioned different types of recipients of helping behaviour. For example a difference exists in helping someone with the same power or helping a supervisor that has more power within the organisation.
A drawback of helping behaviour is that for some persons helping behaviour is a mandatory behaviour. This because within some tasks/companies helping another person in a mandatory task. Therefore helping another person may not be an OCB. But in some companies helping another person is not mandatory. In these companies helping behaviour can be seen as an OCB. To investigate the OCB form of helping behaviour it is important to use a company or a part of a company where helping behaviour is not a mandatory task.
3.2. Relationship between task interdependence and OCB
15
sub-dimensions of OCB that are mentioned above (altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy and sportsmanship) and helping behaviour.
As mentioned within the introduction several researchers have investigated the relationship between task interdependence and OCB. Smith et al. (1983) studied the relationship between task interdependency and OCB with the use of 422 employees and supervisors of multiple departments of two banks. They measured OCB with altruism and general compliance. They described general compliance as a more impersonal form of conscientious citizenship which is indirectly helpful to others within the system. Within their study no direct relation was found between task interdependency and the two forms of OCB.
Pearce & Gregersen (1991) investigated if task interdependency affects supervisor reported extra role behaviour indirectly through employee felt responsibility. This is tested with 290 health-care and administrative employees of two hospitals. Within this study 10 questions are used to measure extra role behaviour. A part of these questions had similarities with questions of conscientiousness, altruism and civic virtue. The other questions had no direct link with the 5 dimensions that are covered within this report. The result of this study is that task
interdependency is associated with extra role behaviour but only indirectly through felt responsibility.
Within the research of Van der Vegt et al. (2003) a distinction is made between task and goal interdependence. During this research a questionnaire is held with 129 members of 20
multidisciplinary project teams. Results showed that under low task and low goal
interdependence and high task and high goal interdependence informational dissimilarities is unrelated to OCB. Within this paper information dissimilarities refers to the difference between a focal employee and his or her fellow team members in education and functional specialization, because these variables index diversity of information and perspective. For more information about this topic I refer to the paper of Van der Vegt et al. (2003). With low task and high goal interdependence and high task and low goal interdependence informational dissimilarities is negatively related to OCB. Within this study OCB is measured based on helping and loyal behaviour.
16
high task interdependence situation was significantly higher than the level of OCB within the low task interdependence situation.
Ganesh & Gupta (2010) also investigated the relation between task interdependency and OCB. Within their study data was collected from 192 software professionals of 33 software development teams. Within this research a relation is found between task interdependency and altruism, task interdependency and courtesy, task interdependency and civic virtue and task interdependency and generalized compliance. Within this study sportsmanship was the only factor of OCB that was not related to task interdependency.
When looking to the papers that are mentioned above two outcomes are visible. These are a relation between task interdependency and OCB and no relation between task
interdependency and OCB. Multiple reasons can play a role in why no relation was found within the paper of Smith et al. (1983). Within their paper they mentioned that the effect of task interdependency may be attenuated within the work setting (or within the setting that was studied). Besides this they mentioned that it is possible that task interdependency has an influence on other factors of OCB that are not examined within their study. It is also possible that other factors that are not investigated within the papers that are mentioned above
influence the relation between task interdependency and OCB. Therefore this paper investigates one of these possible factors (psychological ownership) later on in this report. Within this research the expectation is that a positive relation occur between task
interdependency and OCB. This because the expectation is that task interdependency results in more social behaviour because you are more dependent on other persons. This makes social behaviour more important which will increase OCB. This leads to the following hypothesis.
Task interdependence is positively related to OCB.
Besides OCB as a whole and the 5 dimensions that are mentioned above (altruism,
conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy and sportsmanship) this paragraph also investigates the effects of task interdependency on helping behaviour. This because this is needed to investigate the influence of psychological ownership on the relation between task
interdependency and helping behaviour. The relationship between task interdependency and helping behaviour has been studied extensively. Some of these papers are Anderson &
17
behaviour. This means that a person is more willing to help when he/she is dependent on another person.
Some other researches indicate that the relation between task interdependency and altruism/helping behaviour doesn’t need to be positive. Flynn (2006) states that peer employees are often unwilling to help each other. Besides this Johnson & Johnson (2005) mention two types of social interdependence positive (when actions of individual promote the achievement of joint goals, cooperative efforts) and negative (when individual actions hinder the achievement of each other goals, competitive efforts). This can indicate that
interdependence doesn’t need to be positive related to helping behaviour.
The relations that are covered within this paragraph are visible within figure 2. The
expectation is that these relations are all positive. This means that someone with a high task interdependence situation scores higher on OCB as a whole, the 5 sub-dimensions of OCB and helping behaviour.
3.3. Relationship between psychological ownership and OCB
To investigate the influence of psychological ownership on the relation between task interdependency and OCB it is necessary to investigate a direct relation between psychological ownership and OCB.
Within the current literature not much information is available about the relation between psychological ownership and OCB. One study that investigates this relation is the study of
18
Van Dyne & Pierce (2004). Within their study a positive relation is found between
psychological ownership for the company and OCB (OCB is measured based on a helping dimension).
The expectation is that a collective psychological ownership results in more OCB. This because if people are more collectively oriented they see a target of interest as our target instead of their own target. This indicates that not only you are responsible for the
performance of that target but also other persons are responsible for the performance of that target. Therefore the performance of others will influence your own performance. This would probably increase a factor as OCB. This because showing social behaviour as OCB can have a positive effect on the performance of the entire team, which is important if someone has the feeling that the target of interest is our piece.
If someone has a strong individual psychological ownership the expectation is that the amount of OCB will decrease. The reason for this is that they feel that a target is theirs. This means that they feel personal responsibility for a target which may reduce OCB. This because in this case the performance of the entire team is less important to you, because you have the feeling that the target of interest is your own target. The information mentioned above leads to the following hypothesis.
A collective psychological ownership has a positive effect on OCB.
Besides OCB as a whole this relation is also investigated for the 5 sub-dimensions of OCB that are covered within this report (altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy and sportsmanship) and helping behaviour. These relations are displayed within figure 3.
19
3.4. Relation between task interdependency and psychological ownership
To investigate the influence of psychological ownership on the relation between task interdependency and OCB it is necessary to investigate the direct relation between task interdependency and psychological ownership. Within the literature, psychological ownership and especially a collective psychological ownership is relatively new. For this reason not much research has been conducted that is about the relation between task interdependency and psychological ownership. Pierce et al. (2009) mentioned that preventing the negative
influence of individual psychological ownership may in part rest in creating opportunities where feelings of ownership are shared (collective psychological ownership) among groups or individuals. This is especially important for people that are closely working together and people that have an independent working relation. The second research that mentioned the relation between task interdependency and psychological ownership is the research of Pierce & Jussila (2010). They state that unlike the development of psychological ownership at the individual level, it is proposed that the development of a collective psychological ownership is influenced by interdependence. They also state that task, feedback, goal and outcome interdependence are expected to influence the emergence of a collective psychological ownership. It is more likely that a collective psychological ownership is developed under highly independent conditions. With high task interdependence situations the final results can’t be accomplished without intensive cooperation and collaborating between group members. Under these conditions the expectation is that a sense of collective ownership emerges (Pierce & Jussila, 2010). Pierce & Jussila (2010) also state that they believe that increasing the amount of task interdependency has a positive effect on the collective
recognition of shared control, the collective recognition of shared intimate knowing and the collective recognition of shared investment in the target of ownership as team members are simultaneously and reciprocally blending their time, effort, skills and abilities in work that has been assigned to them.
Within this research the expectation is in line with the literature that is mentioned above. This means that task interdependency has a positive influence on a collective psychological
ownership. This means that someone shows more collective psychological ownership when this person is highly task interdependent compared to tasks where the interdependency is low. This leads to the following hypothesis.
20
This relation is visible within figure 4.
3.5. Relation between task interdependency, psychological ownership and OCB
In addition to the direct relations that are mentioned above the expectation is that also an indirect relation exists between task interdependency and OCB. The expectation is that psychological ownership influences the relation between task interdependency and OCB. If for example two people are equally dependent but one has a high collective psychological ownership and the other a lower collective psychological ownership the expectation is that this will influence the amount of OCB. The reason for this is that someone with a high collective psychological ownership is more collectively oriented and sees a target of ownership as their target. This would increase the amount of social behaviour because the target is of you and your colleagues. This will have a positive effect on the amount of OCB. Therefore this research investigates the influence of psychological ownership on the relation between task interdependency and OCB.
As mentioned above the expectation is that psychological ownership is not a third separated factor but it is influenced by task interdependency (task interdependency leads to a higher collective psychological ownership). Therefore this research investigates if psychological ownership mediates the relation between task interdependency and OCB. This is investigated with the following hypothesis.
Psychological ownership mediates the relation between task interdependency and OCB.
Besides OCB as a whole this relation is also tested for the 5 sub-dimensions of OCB that are covered within this report and helping behaviour. The conceptual model is displayed within figure 5.
21
22
4. Development of a questionnaire
Within the current literature many papers can be found that are related to the concepts that are measured within this research (psychological ownership, task interdependency, helping behaviour and OCB). Therefore many questionnaires are already available about these concepts. A problem with the existing questionnaires is that combined, a relatively large questionnaire is needed to execute this research. For this reason companies are less willing to participate within this study. The goal of this chapter is to develop a short questionnaire (a questionnaire that can be completed in approximately 5 minutes) that can be used to empirically test the hypothesises that are mentioned above.
4.1. Method
To form a short questionnaire that can be used to test the hypothesis a few steps need to be taken. The first step is to find questionnaires within the current literature that measure the concepts of this research (task interdependency, psychological ownership, helping behaviour and OCB). These questionnaires are elaborated within 4,2. The questionnaires that are found are combined to one large questionnaire that is filled in by multiple random participants. Based on the answers that these participants gave on the questions the cronbach's alpha of the different concepts and the cronbach's alpha if a question is deleted can be determined. With this knowledge questions can be deleted with the goal of minimizing the amount of questions butt still measuring the concepts that they attend to measure. Besides the answers of the questions a second factor that is measured is the time that the participants need to fill in the original questionnaire. Based on this time an average time per question can be calculated. With this knowledge the maximum amount of question that can be used within the final questionnaire can be determined.
4.2. Measures
Within the questionnaire 4 constructs are measured. These are task interdependency, OCB, psychological ownership and helping behaviour. All questions are answered on a 5 points scale. The scale to measure task interdependency is as follow. 1 very low degree, 2 low degree, 3 neutral, 4 high degree and 5 very high degree. The other questions are also
23
Task interdependency
Within the existing literature many researchers have used a questionnaire to measure task interdependency. Some examples are (Sharma & Yetton, 2007), (Staples & Webster, 2008), (Ayupp & Kong, 2010) (Aubé et al., 2009), (Van Der Vegt et al., 1998) and (Somech et al., 2009). Within this research the questionnaire of Ayupp & Kong (2010) and Van Der Vegt et al. (1998) is used to measure task interdependency. The main reason for this is that within these two researches a clear distinction is made between questions that can be used to measure received and initiated task interdependency. Besides this, this questionnaire is relatively short because 4 questions are used to measure each type of task interdependence. The questions that are used can be found in appendix A1.
Organizational citizenship behaviour
As mentioned within the report most papers only investigate one or a couple of the factors that form OCB. Within the literature one paper is found that has a questionnaire that can be used to determine OCB as a whole and the 5 dimensions that are measured within this research. This is the paper of Podsakoff et al. (1990). For this reason this paper is used to measure OCB as a whole and the 5 dimensions of OCB. The questions that are used can be found within appendix A1.
Psychological ownership
As mentioned psychological ownership and especially collective psychological ownership is relatively new. For this reason not much questionnaires are available that measure this
concept. Of the questionnaires that are available, multiple researchers have used the questions of Van Dyne & Pierce (2004) and/or Pierce et al. (2004) to measure psychological ownership. Some of these papers are Sieger et al. (2013), Chang et al. (2012), Liu et al. (2012), Han et al. (2010), Chi & Han (2008), Mcintyre et al. (2009) and Mayhew et al. (2007). Within these papers Van Dyne & Pierce (2004) is the paper that is most often used for making the questionnaire to measure psychological ownership. Therefore this research also uses the questionnaire of Van Dyne & Pierce (2004) to measure the amount of psychological ownership. The questions that are used can be found within appendix A1.
Of the questions that measure psychological ownership two questions are used to measure a collective psychological ownership. These questions are; “I sense that this organization is
24
individual psychological ownership. These questions are; “This is My organization”, “I feel a
very high degree of personal ownership for this organization”, “I sense that this is MY
company” and “Most of the people that work for this organization feel as though they own the company”. The last question that is used within the paper of Van Dyne & Pierce (2004) is the
question “It is hard for me to think about this organization as MINE”. This question is placed within both categories. The reason for this is that it can measure a collective and an individual ownership. If someone scores high on this question it can mean that someone has a low individual ownership but it can also mean that this person has a high collective psychological ownership. Therefore this question is placed within both categories. During the analysis of the questionnaire there will be determined if this question can be used to measure one of the concepts (individual or collective ownership).
Helping behaviour
Helping behaviour is measured based on the questionnaire of Posdakoff & Mackenzie (1994). The reason that this questionnaire is used is because this questionnaire measures helping behaviour based on the 4 dimensions that form the helping dimension of OCB. These dimensions are as mentioned altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping and some aspects of
cheerleading. The questions that are used to measure helping behaviour within the original questionnaire can be found within appendix A1. These questions are converted to a personal form such as “I encourages other agents when they are down”. Of these question, the questions that are used to measure altruism and courtesy are replaced by questions that are derived from the OCB questionnaire to measure altruism and courtesy. The reason for this is that in this way the questionnaire is kept as small as possible. The questions that are replaced are as follow;
1. Willingly gives of his or her time to help other agents who have work-related problems.
2. Is willing to take time out of his or her own busy schedule to help with recruiting or training new agents.
3. "Touches base" with others before initiating actions that might affect them.
25
The questions that are mentioned above are replaced by the following questions; 1. I willingly help others who have work related problems.
2. I help orient new people even though it is not required. 3. I consider the impact of my actions on co-workers.
4. I take steps to try to prevent problems with other workers. Total questionnaire
The original questionnaire that is used within this study can be found within appendix A2. Within this appendix the questions of appendix A1 are translated and placed within a random sequence.
4.3. Respondents
The total amount of participants within this study is 22. Of the 22 participants 4 are excluded from this research. This because these questionnaires are incompletely answered or multiple answers are given for one question.
4.4. Maximum amount of questions that can be used
26
4.5. Analysing the questionnaire
To reduce the amount of questions of the questionnaire the first step is to determine which questions can be eliminated that measure task interdependency and psychological ownership.
Eliminating questions of task interdependency and psychological ownership Initiated task interdependency
The cronbach’s alpha of the 4 questions that are mentioned within appendix A1 to measure initiated task interdependency is 0,855. With SPSS a cronbach’s alpha can be determined if one of the items is deleted. SPSS indicates that the cronbach’s alpha will increase to 0,877 if the question “To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for information and advice?” is deleted. Therefore this question is deleted in the questionnaire that is developed within this chapter. After deleting this question a new cronbach’s alpha analysis is executed. This
analyses indicated that the cronbach’s alpha can be increased to 0,878 if the question “To
what extent do your colleagues depend on you for doing their job well?” is deleted from the
questionnaire. Therefore this question is also eliminated. The remaining questions that are used to measure initiated task interdependency are displayed within appendix A3.
Received task interdependence
The cronbach’s alpha of the 4 questions that are mentioned within appendix A1 to measure received task interdependency is 0,71. This value can be increased to 0,733 if the question “To what extent do you depend on your colleagues for doing your job well?” Is deleted. Therefore this question is eliminated from the questionnaire. The second question that can be eliminated is, “To what extent do you depend on your colleagues’ presence, help, and
support?”. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,746. The remaining questions that are
used to measure received task interdependency are displayed within appendix A3.
Individual ownership
The cronbach’s alpha value of the questions that are used to measure an individual
psychological ownership is 0,839. Of these questions (that are displayed within appendix A1) one questions is eliminated within this research. This is the question “Most of the people that
work for this organization feel as though they own the company”. By deleting this question
27
Collective ownership
The cronbach’s alpha that is related to the three questions that measure a collective
psychological ownership is -0,878. By deleting the question “It is hard for me to think about
this organization as MINE” the cronbach’s alpha increases to 0,825. This indicates that this
question is not suitable to measure a collective psychological ownership. Beside this question, no additional questions are eliminated that measure a collective psychological ownership. The questions that are used to measure a collective psychological ownership are displayed within appendix A3.
Questions of task interdependency and psychological ownership that are deleted
Based on the analysis above the following questions are eliminated from the questionnaire 1. To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for information and advice? 2. To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for doing their job well? 3. To what extent do you depend on your colleagues for doing your job well? 4. To what extent do you depend on your colleagues’ presence, help, and support? 5. Most of the people that work for this organization feel as though they own the
company.
Question 1 and 2 are deleted from the questions that measure initiated task interdependency. Question 3 and 4 are deleted from the questions that measure received task interdependency. Question 5 is deleted from the questions that measure an individual psychological ownership.
Eliminating questions that are related to OCB
28
The first method that is mentioned above can be used to make a questionnaire that measures the sub-dimensions of OCB while the second method can be used to make a questionnaire that can be used to measure OCB as a whole. Because this research is focused on the
sub-dimensions of OCB and OCB as a whole both methods are applied within this research.
Eliminating questions based on optimizing the cronbach’s alpha for the sub-dimensions of OCB
Within this part the questions that are used to measure OCB are deleted based on the optimal cronbach’s alpha for the 5 sub-dimensions of OCB.
Altruism
The cronbach’s alpha of the 5 questions that are used to measure altruism is -0.11. To increase this value a couple of questions are eliminated. The first question that is eliminated is the question “I help orient new people even though it is not required”. Deleting this question increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,242. To further increase the cronbach’s alpha the question “I willingly help others who have work related problems” is also deleted. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,374. The last question that is deleted is the question “I help others who
have been absent”. This results in a maximum cronbach’s alpha of 0,422. The questions that
can be used to measure altruism are displayed within appendix A4.
Courtesy
The cronbach’s alpha of the original questions that measure courtesy is 0,492. To increase this value the question “I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers” is deleted. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,571. To further increase the cronbach’s alpha the question “I do not
abuse the rights of others” is also deleted. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,601. The
last question that is deleted is the question “I am mindful of how my behaviour affects other
people’s jobs”. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,658. The questions that can be used to
measure courtesy are displayed within appendix A4.
Civic virtue
The cronbach’s alpha of the original questions that measure civic virtue is 0,767. This value can be increased if “I keep abreast of changes in the organization” is deleted from the
29
Sportsmanship
The cronbach’s alpha value for the questions that are used to measure sportsmanship is 0,807. If the question “I am the classic ‘squeaky wheel’ that always needs greasing” is deleted from this questionnaire the cronbach’s alpha will increase to 0,851. The questions that can be used to measure sportsmanship are displayed within appendix A4.
Conscientiousness
The cronbach’s alpha of the original questions that measure conscientiousness is 0,397. If the question “I do not take extra breaks” is deleted from the questionnaire the cronbach’s alpha increases to 0,529. The second question that can be deleted is the question “I believe in giving
an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay”. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,594.
The questions that can be used to measure conscientiousness are displayed within appendix A4.
Deleted questions
Based on the optimal cronbach’s alpha score for the different dimensions of OCB the following questions are deleted from the questionnaire.
1. I help orient new people even though it is not required. 2. I willingly help others who have work related problems. 3. I help others who have been absent.
4. I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers. 5. I do not abuse the rights of others is also deleted.
6. I am mindful of how my behaviour affects other people’s jobs. 7. I keep abreast of changes in the organization.
8. I am the classic ‘squeaky wheel’ that always needs greasing. 9. I do not take extra breaks.
10. I believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.
Questions 1, 2 and 3 are used to measure altruism within the original questionnaire. Questions 4, 5 and 6 are used to measure courtesy within the original questionnaire. Question 7 is used to measure civic virtue within the original questionnaire.
Question 8 is used to measure sportsmanship within the original questionnaire.
Questions 9 and 10 are used to measure conscientiousness within the original questionnaire.
Helping behaviour
30
to 0,548. The second question that can be deleted to increase the cronbach’s alpha is the question “I am a stabilizing influence in the agency when dissention occurs”. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,577. The questions that can be used to measure helping behaviour are displayed within appendix A4.
Combination of helping behaviour and OCB
Because some of the questions that are used to measure altruism and courtesy are also used to measure helping behaviour it is important to check if no questions are deleted of altruism and courtesy that are used to measure helping behaviour. Besides this it is also important to check if no questions of helping behaviour are deleted that are used to measure altruism or courtesy. For example the question “I consider the impact of my actions on co-workers” can be
eliminated from the questionnaire that is used to measure helping behaviour but it is needed within the questionnaire that is used to measure courtesy. Therefore the only question that can be eliminated from the total questionnaire that is related to helping behaviour is the question “I am a stabilizing influence in the agency when dissention occurs”. For the same reason two questions can’t be eliminated from the total questionnaire because they are needed within the questionnaire about helping behaviour. These questions are;
1. I help orient new people even though it is not required. 2. I willingly help others who have work related problems.
This means that the question that can be eliminated from the questionnaire that measure OCB and helping behaviour are;
1. I help others who have been absent.
2. I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers. 3. I do not abuse the rights of others is also deleted.
4. I am mindful of how my behaviour affects other people’s jobs. 5. I keep abreast of changes in the organization.
6. I am the classic ‘squeaky wheel’ that always needs greasing. 7. I do not take extra breaks.
8. I believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. 9. I am a stabilizing influence in the agency when dissention occurs.
OCB as a whole after focusing on 5 sub-dimensions of OCB
Besides the 5 sub-dimensions of OCB this research is also focussed on developing a questionnaire that can be used to measure OCB as a whole. After the questions that are mentioned above are eliminated a cronbach’s alpha analysis is done to measure the
31
this analysis the questions I help orient new people even though it is not required and I willingly help others who have work related problems are included. Although these questions are not used to measure altruism as a sub-dimension these questions are used to measure helping behaviour. Therefore the questions are needed within the final questionnaire and therefore they can be included within the analysis of OCB as a whole. The cronbach’s alpha to measure OCB as a whole can be increased by eliminating “I help orient new people even
though it is not required”. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,629. Besides this the
question “My attendance at work is above the norm” can also be deleted. This increases the cronbach’s alpha to 0,644. After this only small improvements of the cronbach’s alpha are possible (+0,004). Therefore no other questions are eliminated from the questionnaire. The questions that are used to measure OCB are displayed within appendix A4.
Eliminating questions based on OCB as a whole
The second method that is used to minimize the existing questionnaire is to focus on OCB as a whole. This means that the focus during this part is on eliminating questions that have an influence on OCB as a whole. As mentioned a drawback of this method is that the cronbach’s alpha for the sub-dimensions of OCB may not be optimal.
When analysing the data of the questionnaire the cronbach’s alpha for OCB as a whole is 0,690. To develop a short questionnaire at least 8 questions need to eliminated from the original questionnaire. Below, questions are displayed that had an positive effect on the cronbach’s alpha if this question was deleted. Between the brackets the cronbach’s alpha when a question is deleted is displayed. This means that if the question “I try to avoid
creating problems for co-workers” is deleted the cronbach’s alpha increases to 0,703. If after
this question also the question “My attendance at work is above the norm” is deleted the cronbach’s alpha increases to 0,718.
1. I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers. (0,703) 2. My attendance at work is above the norm. (0,718)
3. I am the classic ‘squeaky wheel’ that always needs greasing. (0,728) 4. I help orient new people even though it is not required. (0,738) 5. I willingly help others who have work related problems. (0,744) 6. I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. (0,75) 7. I always focus on what’s wrong, rather than the positive side.(0,76) 8. I consider the impact of my actions on co-workers. (0,763)
32
The total questionnaire that is used to measure OCB as a whole is displayed within appendix A5.
If the questions that are mentioned above are deleted the cronbach’s alpha value for the remaining questions that measure:
Altruism is 0,374 Conscientiousness is 0,285 Sportsmanship is 0,758 Civic virtue is 0,767 Courtesy is 0,555 Helping behaviour is 0,474
To further increase helping behaviour the question “I Act as a "peacemaker" when others in
the agency have disagreements” can be deleted. This question can be deleted because it is not
used to measure OCB as a whole. After deleting this question the cronbach’s alpha of helping behaviour increases to 0,71.
4.6. Discussing the questionnaire
The first result that is visible is that the current questionnaire is reduced with 14 questions for both situations (if the focus is on measuring the 5 dimensions of OCB and if the focus in one measuring OCB as a whole). This means that the questionnaires that are developed within this research both have a length of 28 questions. Based on the average time to complete a question the expectation is that completing one of these questionnaire takes approximately 4,5 minutes. This means that some time is available to ask additional questions as age and gender.
Another result that is visible is that a trade of needs to be made between measuring the sub-dimensions of OCB or measuring OCB as a whole if a short questionnaire needs to be
developed. If the goal is to develop a short questionnaire that is optimal to measure OCB as a whole than the 5 sub-dimensions that are mentioned within this report are less accurate measured. At the other side if the goal is to develop a questionnaire that can be used to measure the 5 sub-dimensions of OCB the measurement of OCB as a whole will be
influenced. Therefore if a short questionnaire is needed, a trade of need to be made between these two possibilities;
1. Focus on measuring OCB as a whole.
33
Questions when the focus is on the sub-dimensions of OCB
When looking to the part where the sub-dimensions of OCB are optimized varying results are visible. Some of the dimensions have a high cronbach’s alpha (sportsmanship and civic virtue), some have a cronbach’s alpha that is in-between (courtesy) while others have a low cronbach’s alpha (conscientiousness, helping behaviour and altruism).
To increase the cronbach’s alpha for courtesy, conscientiousness, altruism and helping behaviour multiple questions are deleted. A drawback of this method is that it is possible that the questions that are left to measure the construct only measure a part of the construct. This because multiple questions that measure the original construct are eliminated. Although multiple questions are deleted that measure courtesy, conscientiousness, altruism and helping behaviour the cronbach’s alpha remain far under the 0,7 that is often used to accept the cronbach’s alpha.
The reason why the cronbach’s alphas for courtesy, conscientiousness, helping behaviour and altruism are so low is because the answers of the questions have a strong variation. When for example the data of the questions that measure altruism is analysed a lot of variation is found in the answers. For example a couple persons scored higher on the question “I help orient new
people even though it is not required” compared to the other questions that measure altruism,
while other persons scored lower on this question compared to the other questions that measure altruism. This leads to a high variation in the scores on this question while the variation of all the questions that measure altruism per person is relatively stable. The reason for this is that persons that scored lower on this question scored higher on another question that measures altruism. This leads to a lowe cronbach’s alpha. When looking to the results of the questionnaire it is visible that not only this question has this pattern but also some of the other questions that measure courtesy, conscientiousness, helping behaviour and altruism. This explains the lower cronbach’s alpha for these items.
34
question. A second example of this is the question “I do not take extra breaks”. Take for example a person that works on an assembly line. It is possible that this person can’t take additional breaks because of the work situation. This results in a high score on this question. At the opposite side a person that works in a hotel may take an additional break because no costumers are present at that moment. If for example two person are working together in a hotel and they both have nothing to do, one of the two may be sent to an additional break. This results in a lower score for this question.
Based on the results the expectation is that the questions that are related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness and helping behaviour are higher company specific than the questions that measure sportsmanship and civic virtue. This results in a high variation in the answers of these questions which results in low cronbach’s alpha scores for these questions. The expectation is that the questions that are used to measure sportsmanship and civic virtue can be used within further research because these questions have a high cronbach’s alpha. The expectation is that the questionnaires that are developed within this paper to measure altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness and helping behaviour are not suitable to measure these concepts. This because the expectation is that eliminating questions from the original questionnaire is company specific. This because as mentioned above some questions may be relevant at one company while others may be relevant at another company. Therefore it may be impossible to further reduce the existing questionnaires that measure these 4 concepts. Therefore if the goal is to measure these construct the advice is to use all the questions that measure altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness and helping behaviour that are displayed in appendix A1. The drawback of this is that the questionnaire may take more time than the maximum 5 minutes, but otherwise a questionnaire may be developed that can’t be used.
Questions when the focus is on OCB as a whole
35
Another remarkable outcome is that the cronbach’s alpha for helping behaviour is higher in the situation where the focus is on developing a questionnaire to measure OCB as a whole. This is not as expected because within the other situation the focus was on eliminating questions based on the highest cronbach’s alpha score for the sub-dimensions of OCB and helping behaviour. One possible explanation for this is that within the situation where the focus was on developing a questionnaire for OCB as a whole to many questions are deleted that measure helping behaviour. This means that although the remaining questions have a high cronbach’s alpha it is likely that these questions don’t measure helping behaviour any more but only a part of this construct.
Based on the analysis, the questions that measure OCB as a whole have a cronbach’s alpha of 0,763. Therefore the expectation is that the developed questionnaire that is placed within appendix A5 can be used to determine OCB as a whole. But further research within one company is advised because using multiple companies may have an influence on the results.
Questions of task interdependency and psychological ownership
When looking to the questions that are used to measure task interdependency and
36
5. Conclusion
The main goal of this research is to theoretical investigate the influence of psychological ownership on the relation between task interdependency and OCB as a whole, the sub-dimensions of OCB (altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness and sportsmanship) and helping behaviour. Besides this, this research also investigates a direct relation between task interdependency and OCB, a direct relation between task interdependency and
psychological ownership and a direct relation between psychological ownership and OCB. The last goal of this research is to develop a short questionnaire that can be used to test the theoretical relations that are mentioned within this report.
This theoretical research contributes to the existing knowledge because it expands existing knowledge of the relation between task interdependency and OCB by adding a third factor that may influence this relation (psychological ownership). Based on the theoretical research the expectation is that Psychological ownership influences the relation between task
interdependency and OCB. The expectation is that the influence is in the form of a mediator. The reason for this is that psychological ownership influences OCB, but psychological ownership is also influenced by task interdependency. This leads to the expectation that psychological ownership mediates the relation between task interdependency and OCB. After an appropriate questionnaire is developed that is validated this expectation should be tested with data from a company. This is a topic that can be used during further research.
Within the second part of this research a short questionnaire is developed that can be used to test the suggested relations. One of the main findings of this part of the research is that it is not possible to develop a short questionnaire that is optimal to measure the sub-dimensions of OCB and OCB as a whole. This means that a trade of needs to made between these two options. Therefore two questionnaires are developed within this research. One that is optimal for measuring OCB as a whole and one that is optimal for measuring the sub-dimensions of OCB.
Based on the analysis of the original questionnaire 14 questions are deleted. This means that the questionnaire is reduced from 42 questions to 28 questions. Findings show that the
37
courtesy, conscientiousness and helping behaviour. The expectation is that it is not possible to measure these constructs with a reduced questionnaire. The reason for this is that different questions are important within different companies. Therefore if the amount of questions to measure these constructs is reduced at one company the questionnaire may be useless at another company. This because the eliminated items may be important within that company. Further research is advised to validate the questions that measure OCB as a whole,
sportsmanship and civic virtue with data from one or multiple companies. Besides this a second direction may be to test the original questions of appendix A1 that measure altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness and helping behaviour with data from multiple companies. This can indicate if the questions that measure these concepts are company specific as is expected within this research. This information can indicate if it is possible to reduce the questionnaires that measure these constructs. If the outcome is that these questions are company specific than the existing questionnaires that measure these constructs can’t be reduced.
38
Reference
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 282-296.
Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., Mama, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Counterproductive Behaviors and Psychological Well-being: The Moderating Effect of Task Interdependence. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 24(3), 351-361.
Ayupp, K., & Kong, W. (2010). The impact of task and outcome interdependence and self-efficacy on employees’ work motivation: an analysis of the Malaysian retail industry.
Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(1/2), 123-142.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Bendoly, E., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluations: exploring the impact of task interdependence. The Journal of applied psychology, 91(1), 193-201.
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(1), 60-71.
Barksdale, K., & Werner, J. M. (2001). Managerial ratings of in-role behaviors,
organizational citizenship behaviors, and overall performance: testing different models of their relationship. Journal of Business Research, 51(2), 145-155.
Becker, T. E., & Randall, D. M. (1994). Validation of a Measure of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Against an Objective Behavioral Criterion. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 54(1), 160-167.
Bentefouet, F., & Nembhard, D. a. (2013). Optimal flow-line conditions with worker variability. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(2), 675-684.
Bernhard, F., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2011). Psychological Ownership in Small Family-Owned Businesses: Leadership Style and Nonfamily-Employees’ Work Attitudes and Behaviors.
Group & Organization Management, 36(3), 345-384.
Brass, D. J. (1985). Technology and the Structuring of jobs: Employee Satisfaction,
Performance, and Influence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
35(2), 216-240.
Chang, A., Chiang, H.-H., & Han, T.-S. (2012). A multilevel investigation of relationships among brand-centered HRM, brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behaviors, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 46(5), 626-662. Chi, N.-W., & Han, T.-S. (2008). Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and
