Impact of Psychological Ownership on the Extra Role Behavior of Employees: A Research in Private Sector

Öz

The main purpose of the study is to determine the effect of psychological ownership on the extra role behavior of the employees. For this purpose, a research was carried out on 170 people working in Arkas Holding Operation Center in İzmir. In the research, the psychological ownership scale developed by Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) and the extra role behavior scale developed by Vandewalle vd. (1995) were used. According to the findings, it was found that there was a significant and moderate positive relationship (r=0,580, p<0,01) between psychological ownership and helping behavior dimension of extra role behavior, while there was a significant and low positive relationship (r=0,343, p<0,01) between psychological ownership and voice behavior dimension of extra role behavior. Again, according to the findings, psychological ownership has been found to be effective on the extra role behavior of the employees. In addition, the findings show that there is no statistically significant difference between the demographic variables and the psychological ownership and extra role behavior dimensions. It is thought that addressing the relationship between variables in the research will contribute to both the management and organization literature and the sector, and the suggestions for the enterprises as a result of the research will have an effect on the outputs of the enterprises.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psychological Ownership
• Ownership
• Possession
• Extra Role Behavior

Psikolojik Sahiplenmenin Çalışanların Ekstra Rol Davranışı Üzerine Etkisi: Özel Sektörde Bir Araştırma

Öz

Çalışmanın temel amacı, psikolojik sahiplenmenin çalışanların ekstra rol davranışı üzerine etkisinin belirlenmesidir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, çalışma kapsamında İzmir Arkas Holding Operasyon Merkezi’nde çalışan 170 kişi ile bir araştırma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada, Van Dyne ve Pierce (2004) tarafından geliştirilen psikolojik sahiplenme ölçeği ile Vandewalle vd. (1995) tarafından geliştirilen ekstra rol davranışı ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, psikolojik sahiplenme ve ekstra rol davranışı boyutlarından yardım etme davranışı arasında anlamlı ve orta düzeyde pozitif bir ilişki (r=0,580, p<0,01), psikolojik sahiplenme ve ekstra rol davranışı boyutlarından ses davranışı arasında ise anlamlı ve düşük düzeyde pozitif bir ilişki (r=0,343, p<0,01) bulgulanmıştır. Yine elde edilen bulgulara göre, psikolojik sahiplenmenin çalışanların ekstra rol davranışı üzerinde etkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca bulgular, psikolojik sahiplenme ve ekstra rol davranışı boyutları ile demografik değişkenler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmadığını göstermektedir. Araştırmada değişkenler arasındaki ilişkilerin ele alınmasının hem yönetim ve organizasyon yazınına hem de sektöre katkı sağlayacağı, araştırma sonucunda işletmelere yönelik sunulan önerilerin ise işletmelerin çıktılarına etkisinin olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psikolojik Sahiplenme
• Sahiplik
• Sahiplenme
• Ekstra Rol Davranışı

Kaynakça

1. ANDERSON, C. M. ve MARTIN, M. (1995). ‘‘Why Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses: Motives, Gender, and Organizational Satisfaction’’, Journal of Business Communication, 32: 249-265.
2. AVEY, J. B., AVOLIO, B. J., CROSSLEY, C. D., ve LUTHANS, F. (2009), ‘‘Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Extensions, Measurement and Relation to Work Outcomes’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30 (2), 173-191.
3. BERNHARD, F. ve 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.
4. BİÇKES, D. M. (2016), ‘‘Psikolojik Sahiplenme ve Rol Ötesi Davranışlar Arasındaki İlişki: Örgüt Temelli Özsaygının Aracılık Etkisi’’, IV. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi, Adana, 520-526.
5. BIHM, E., GAUDET, I. ve SALE, O. (1979), ‘‘Altruistic Responses under Conditions of Anonymity’’, The Journal of Social Psychology, 109 (1): 25-30.
6. BURRIS, E.R., DETERT, J.R. ve CHIABURU, D.S. (2008), “Quitting Before Leaving: Themediating Effects of Psychological Attachment and Detachment on Voice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 912-922.
7. BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Ş. (2011), Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı: İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni, SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
8. ÇOKLUK, Ö., ŞEKERCİOĞLU, G., BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK Ş. (2010), Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

9. DEMİR, T. G. (2015). Öğretmenlerin Sergiledikleri Rol Fazlası Davranışlar ve Bireysel Değerler ile İlişkisi. Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
10. DETERT, J. ve BURRIS, E. R. (2007). ‘‘Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is The Door Really Open? ’’, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4): 869-884.
11. DITTMAR, H. (1989). ‘‘Gender Identity-Related Meanings of Personal Possessions’’, Bristish Journal of Social Psychology, 28: 159-171.
12. DUNFORD, B. B., SCHLEICHER, D. J. ve ZHU, L. (2009), ‘‘The Relative Importance of Psychological Versus Pecuniary Approaches to Establisshing an Ownership Culture’’, Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, 16, 1-21.
13. EAGLEY, A. H. ve CROWLEY, M. (1986). ‘‘Gender and Helping Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature’’, Psychological Bulletin, 100 (3): 283-308.
14. FEINMAN, S. (1978). ‘‘When Does Sex Affect Altruistic Response?.’’, Psychological Reports, 43 (3): 1218.
15. HALL, A. T. ve FERRIS, G. R. (2011), ‘‘Accountability and Extra-Role Behavior’’, Employ Respons Rights Journal, 23 (2), 131-144.
16. KIM, M., KNUTSON, B. J. ve CHOI, L. (2015). ‘‘The Effects of Employee Voice and Delight on Job Satisfaction and Behaviors: Comparison Between Employess Generations’’, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 00: 1-26.
17. LEPINE, J. A. ve VAN DYNE, L. (1998). ‘‘Predicting Voice Behavior in Work Groups’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (6): 853-868.
18. LIU, J., WANG, H., HUI, C. ve LEE, C. (2012), ‘‘Psychological Ownership: How Having Control Matters’’, Journal of Management Studies, 49 (5), 869-895.
19. 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.
20. MORRISON, E. W. (2011). ‘‘Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research’’, The Academy of Management Annals, 5: 373-412.
21. MUSTAFA, M., RAMOS, H. M. ve YAN MAN, T. W. (2015), ‘‘Linking Psychological Ownership to Employee Extra-Role Behaviours In Small Overseas Chinese Family Businesses: Does Family Status Matter?’’, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economics, 7 (2), 129-147.
22. O'DRISCOLL, M., PIERCE, J. ve COGHLAN, A. (2006), The Psychology of Ownership: Work Environment Structure, Organizational Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors, Group & Organization Management, 31 (3): 388-416.
23. OLCKERS, C. ve DU PLESSIS, Y. (2012), ‘‘Psychological Ownership: A Managerial Construct for Talent Retention and Organizational Effectiveness’’, African Journal of Business Management, 6 (7), 2585-2596.
24. ÖTKEN, A. B. (2015), ‘‘Algılanan Örgütsel Destek ve Psikolojik Sahiplenme Arasındaki İlişki ve Bu İlişkide Örgütsel Adaletin Rolü’’, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33 (2), 113-140.
25. ÖZ, E. (2015), ‘‘Çalışma Yaşamında Davranış: Güncel Yaklaşımlar’’, Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı, (Ed. A. Keser, G. Yılmaz, S.Yürür), Umuttepe Yayınları, İstanbul, 67-107.
26. ÖZDAMAR, K. (2004), Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi, Kaan Kitabevi, Eskişehir.
27. ÖZGEN, I. ve SÜRGEVİL, O . (2009), ‘‘Örgütsel Sessizlik Olgusu ve Turizm İşletmeleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi’’, Turizm İşletmelerinde Örgütsel Davranış, (Ed. Z. Sabuncuoğlu), MKM Yayıncılık, Bursa, 303-328.
28. PENG, H. ve PIERCE, J. (2015), ‘‘Job- and Organization-Based Psychological Ownership: Relationship and Outcomes’’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30 (2), 151-168.
29. PIERCE, J. L. ve JUSSILA, I. (2010), ‘‘Collective Psychological Ownership Within the Work and Organizational Context: Construct Introduction and Elaboration’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31 (6), 810-834.
30. PIERCE, J. L. ve JUSSILA, I. (2011), Psychological Ownership and the Organizational Context: Theory Research Evidence and Application. Edward Elgar Publishing, USA.
31. PIERCE, J. L., KOSTOVA, T. ve DIRKS, K. T. (2001), ‘‘Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations’’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 298-310.
32. PIERCE, J. L., KOSTOVA, T. ve DIRKS, K. T. (2003), ‘‘The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research’’, www.researchgate.net, (23.11.2017).
33. PIERCE, J. L., RUBENFELD, S. A. ve MORGAN, S. (1991), ‘‘Employee Ownership: A Conceptual Model of Process and Effects’’, The Academy of Management Review,16 (1), 121-144.
34. RAMOS, H. M., YAN MAN, T. W., MUSTAFA, M. ve NG, Z. Z. (2014), ‘‘Psychological Ownership in Small Family Firms: Family and Non-Family Employees’ Work Attitudes and Behaviors’’, Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5 (3), 300-311.
35. SABUNCUOĞLU, Z. (2009), Turizm İşletmelerinde Örgütsel Davranış, Bursa: MKM Yayıncılık.
36. SALMINEN, S. ve GLAD, T. (1992). “The Role of Gender in Helping Behavior”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 132 (1): 131-133.
37. SHUMAKER, S. A. ve HILL, D. R. (1991). ‘‘Gender Differences in Social Suppot and Pyhsical Health’’, Health Psychology, 10 (2): 102-111.
38. SIEGER, P., BERNHARD, F., ve FRET, U. (2011), ‘‘Affective Commitment and Job Satisfaction among Non-Family Employees: Investigating the Roles of Justice Perceptions and Psychological Oenership’’, Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2, 78-79.
39. STONER, J., PERREWÉ, P. ve MUNYON, T. (2011), ‘‘The Role of Identity in Extra-Role Behaviours: Development of a Conceptual Model’’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26 (2), 94-107.
40. TANGIRALA, S. ve RAMANUJAM, R. (2008), Exploring Nonlinearity in Employee Voice: The Effects of Personal Control and Organizational Idenfication, Academy ofManagement Journal, 51: 1189-1203.
41. TAVŞANCIL, E. (2014), Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi, Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
42. TIERNEY, P., BAUER, T. N. ve POTTER, R. E. (2002), ‘‘Extra Role Behavior Among Mexican Employees: The Impact of LMX, Group Acceptance, and Job Attitudes’’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10 (4), 292-303.
43. UÇAR, Z. (2015). İşgören Sessizliğinin Kavramsal Yapısına Yönelik Keşifsel Bir İnceleme. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
44. UÇAR, Z. (2017), ‘‘Psikolojik Sahiplenme: Örgütsel Alana İlişkin Bir Model Önerisi’’, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32 (1), 167-200.
45. VAN DYNE, L., CUMMINGS, L.L. ve MCLEAN PARKS, J. (1995), ‘‘Extra-Role Behaviors: In Pursuit of Construct and Definitional Clarity. A Bridge over Muddied Waters’’, Research in Organizational Behavior. 17, 215-285.
46. VAN DYNE, L., GRAHAM, J. W. ve DIENESCH, R. M. (1994), ‘‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct Redefinion Measurement, and Validation’’. The Academy of Management Journal, 37 (4): 765-802.
47. VAN DYNE, L. ve LEPINE, J. A. (1998), ‘‘Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity’’, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
48. VAN DYNE, L., PIERCE, J. L. (2004), ‘‘Psychological Ownership and Feelings of Possession: Three Field Studies Predicting Employee Attitudes and Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (4), 439-459.
49. VANDEWALLE, D., VAN DYNE, L. ve KOSTOVA, T. (1995), ‘‘Psychological Ownership: An Empirical Examination of Its Consequences’’, Group and Organization Management, 20, 210-226.
50. VEY, M. A. ve CAMPBELL, J. P. (2004), ‘‘In-Role or ExtraRole Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Which Are We Measuring?’’, Human Performance, 17 (1), 119-135.
51. YEŞİL, Ü., BANCAR, A. ve BUDAK, G. (2015). ‘‘Psikolojik Sahiplik Kavramına İlişkin Bir Literatür İncelemesi’’, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16 (2), 59-82.
52. ZHANG, Y. ve XIE, Y-H. (2017), ‘‘Authoritarian Leadership and Extra-Role Behaviors: A Role-Perception Perspective’’, Management and Organization Review, 13 (1), 147-166.