Development and validation of the collective psychological ownership scale in organizational contexts

Abstract

Collective psychological ownership (CPO) refers to the sense shared by group mates that they jointly own their organization. CPO is an important emerging concept but its operationalization is still at an early stage. The study aimed to develop and evaluate the CPO scale among social service workers. The item pool together with a battery of validation scales formed the basis for an Internet-based survey. Through convenience and snowball sampling strategies, social service workers in Guangdong Province, China were invited to take part in the survey, resulting in 444 completed questionnaires. Bi-factor analyses were conducted. Both exploratory and confirmatory analyses of bi-factor analyses supported the one-general-two-specific structure of CPO. Internal consistency, assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, was satisfactory for the bi-factor structure. Convergent and divergent validity were supported by the correlations with validation scales in the expected directions. The general factor was named shared possessiveness, and the two specific factors were shared decision-making and shared hardship endurance. With good preliminary psychometric properties, the newly developed CPO scale will trigger a series of studies related to workplace behaviors and well-being.

Keywords

Bi-factor analyses collective psychological ownership scale validation social service workers

Introduction

Collective psychological ownership (CPO) is an emerging concept proposed by Pierce and Jussila in 2010 based on their research on psychological ownership (PO) (Pierce and Jussila, 2010, 2011). PO emphasizes an individual’s feeling of possessiveness toward the target (Brown et al., 2014; Pierce et al., 2001; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004), whereas CPO exists as a group-level phenomenon and focuses on the collective sense of ownership shared by group members (Pierce and Jussila, 2011).

Both CPO and PO were introduced in the psychology of possession. It is widely recognized that human beings start to claim their belongings or territories since early childhood, for example we often see that a little boy fights for a toy with other boys or a little girl argues with her sisters for a dress. Normally they call out ‘This is mine! Not yours!’, to make a firm claim of ownership. It is also common to hear people claiming that ‘This is our toy, our family, our publication, or our honor’ when they feel that they share something, material or immaterial, with others, such as with their friends, siblings, or co-authors.

In a society with more collective-oriented values, for example China, the collective sense of ownership is more prominent and has stronger impacts on the stakeholders. The government often declares in formal statements that the state sovereignty of China belongs to the people of the country, on which foreigners are not allowed to impinge. When Chinese children start to learn about the relationship between an individual and the state, they are told that they are the future owners of the state, which translates as ‘Guojia Zhuren’ in Chinese. The sense to be ‘Zhuren’, or the owners of the states, implies the responsibilities they should take up, whatever the challenges may be in the future. As the old saying goes, ‘Guojia Xingwang, Pifu Youze’, which means that everyone in the country should undertake all responsibilities for the rise and fall of the country. When things become worse, the collective sense of ownership can motivate the members to fight for the rejuvenation of their group. The power of CPO can be incredible. Great sacrifice from an individual for the country is taken as reasonable since the people are co-owners of the state.

In individual-oriented societies, for example in the United States, the collective sense of ownership also plays an important role in consolidating various groups. The famous ethnography Street Corner Society described the development of various groups and communities within the district. The concept of insiders and outsiders was widely used in a gang on the street to distinguish people who share a collective interest in the group and those who do not (Foote Whyte, 2012). Members in the same gang have certain shared interests. The perceived co-owners of the group are supposed to be responsible for the group, including its shared honor and shared hardship. In summary, the sense of ownership and the collective sense of ownership are widespread, and the expressions of and acts predicated upon these feelings toward a variety of targets are commonplace in our life (Pierce and Jussila, 2011) and in different societies.

PO and CPO are both attracting increasing research interest in their implications in work and organizational context. Conceptualizaton of PO started in early 2000, and some empirical studies have supported the implications of PO in organizational contexts (Au and Chen, 2012; Avey et al., 2009; Bernhard and O’Driscoll, 2011; Chiu et al., 2007; Mayhew et al., 2007; Pierce and Jussila, 2011; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004; Zhu et al., 2013). However, the conceptualization of CPO is still at an early stage.

Pierce and Jussila defined CPO as the collective sense or feeling held by group mates that this target of ownership is collectively ours. The group/team context is indicated to be an important premise for the formation of CPO (Pierce and Jussila, 2010, 2011). In other words, only when members share the group mind-set and identify themselves with the group can they possibly hold the collective sense of ownership toward the group. Work and organizational environment offer the group or team conditions for the emergence of CPO. In contrast other hand, CPO may affect job attitude and organizational behaviors at group level. More rigorous studies on the dynamic interactions among individuals and the group are awaited.

A preliminary instrument measuring CPO has been proposed by Pierce and Jussila (2011), but no published work has been reported on any empirical validation studies of CPO so far. This study aimed to develop and validate a CPO scale in organizational contexts. In particular, the objectives of the study included (1) to propose our conceptual definition, targets, co-owners, domains, roots of CPO, and the routes to formulate CPO in organizational contexts, (2) to propose the item pool of our CPO scale and evaluate the factorial validity, in which we compared the model fit index of different models of CPO by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), (3) to inspect the scale reliability through Cronbach’s alpha and inter-item correlations, and (4) to investigate the construct validity through examining the correlations between CPO and variables related to staff’s well-being, namely job resources, burnout, and work engagement.

Definition, targets, and co-owners of CPO in organizational contexts

In this study, CPO refers to the sense shared by co-workers that they jointly own the organization. The conceptual core of CPO in the present research is the shared sense of possessiveness toward the organization. The core question is ‘How much do we feel that we jointly own the organization?’. In other words, ‘How much do we feel that the organization is collectively ours?’.

The target of the collective sense of ownership in organizational contexts focused on the entity of the organization. Co-workers are identified as co-owners of the organization. Adopting the organization entity as the target of CPO distinguishes our definition of CPO from the CPO defined by Pierce. The target of CPO in the proposed definition by Pierce can be identified from their proposed instrument to measure CPO, which can be ‘the house, automobile, or some other item that you own or co-own with someone else’. We know that an organization offers different levels of work units, including the whole organization, a specific department, or a certain working group/team. So CPO should be a concept with multiple foci, in other words, the targets of CPO at work could be the entity of the organization or the work-group level. We believe that the CPO scale developed with the target of the organization can be applied to the CPO with other foci.

Proposed domains of CPO

How can people in an organization identify that they co-own the organization with their co-workers? Answering this question requires in-depth thinking on the core domains of CPO. In this study, CPO in organizational contexts is perceived to comprise four parts: shared possessiveness, shared identity, shared impacts, and shared future.

The shared possessiveness, claiming that the target is ours, is the only domain in the existing conceptualization of CPO by Pierce and Jussila. Inspired by the psychology of possession, it is believed that to claim that something is ours is the main content of the collective sense of ownership (Pierce and Jussila, 2011). However, a CPO scale with this single domain offers no clarification on the meaning of possession. It may also lead to the problem of entitlement mentality. Entitlement mentality refers to an attitude of believing that I do not need to earn what I get, and I can get what I want because of who I am, not because of what I do. Entitlement may destroy motivation, lower productivity, and crush self-esteem in the long term since people fail to identify the responsibilities and rights of their ownership (Hams, 2011). Therefore, in our conceptualization of CPO, we included three other domains: shared identity, shared impacts, and shared future.

Shared identity refers to the feeling of identifying oneself and one’s co-workers as members of the organization based on their consensus on some elements of the organization. The identity of the organization is a significant integral part of the identity of individuals. Since the group/team context is the premise for CPO, co-owners of the organization should identify themselves and their co-workers as members of the organization. For example, a person should recognize his or her own nationality when claiming that he or she is ‘Zhuren’ or ‘co-owner’ of a state.

Shared impacts emphasize the feeling that co-owners have influence over the management of the organization. Such feelings are realized through involvement in the daily operation of and the decision-making process in the organization. Every member in the organization takes part in the daily operation of the organization, but a ‘Zhuren’ or ‘co-owner’ identity implies more than this. Perceived co-owners of an organization are like people sharing the same boat and they are supposed to decide where to go together in that boat. They are also assumed to take responsibility for their collective decisions, no matter what happens on the way. Being excluded from the decision-making process impedes the formation of CPO. For example, if the people of a state feel that the government offers no channels for them to be involved in the policy-making process, how could they identify themselves as ‘Zhuren’ or ‘co-owners’ of the state?

The domain of shared future highlights the strong bonding between the organization and its members. A commitment to a shared future can be vividly described by the old Chinese saying ‘tonggangongku’, which means staying close together no matter what in good or bad times. Sharing the collective success and going through hardship with the organization would be part of the process in CPO. In particular, to share hardship, which in Chinese is called ‘Tongzhougongji’ or ‘Fengyutongzhou’ (to stay together regardless of the situation), may be the real test of the strength of bonding between individuals and the organization.

It is said in old Chinese that ‘Gongfugui buru gonghuannan’, which means that sharing hardship is more important than sharing success since sharing hardship represents stronger commitment. In Western societies, this spirit can be demonstrated by the marriage vows:

we take each other as wedded husband or wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better and for worse, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance.

The relationship of marriage is a type of collective ownership. We often call our partner ‘the other half’. We form our own family through engaging in a marriage. If we take an organization as ours, we naturally feel that it is our right and responsibility to share any collective success, as well as help the organization get through hardship.

Roots of CPO

The formulation of CPO in the first place requires some motives among co-workers. The motives that drive people to develop CPO are the roots of CPO. Roots are basic foundations. Pierce has discussed the roots for CPO (Pierce and Jussila, 2010). We postulate that the underpinning roots of CPO are as follows. First, possessions are part of an extended self (Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992). Territorial behaviors, such as marking their possessions and guarding against external intrusions, are virtually intrinsic to human beings from a young age (Avey et al., 2009; Brown et al., 2005). Pierce (Pierce, Kostova and Dirks, 2001) emphasized that people have the need to possess. The sense of possessiveness is manifested, for example, by employees’ ‘our’ expressions, such as ‘our organization’, ‘our future’, ‘our challenges’, and ‘our opportunities’.

Second, people have an inherent need to belong to a collective entity (Baumeister and Sommer, 1997), for example belonging to an organization. Shared hardship endurance is proposed as a dimension of the shared future domain of CPO, which strongly reflects employees’ bonding and commitment to the organization. Third, people have an inherent need to control. Pierce considered this need as central to a sense of ‘efficacy and effectance’. People need to feel their control over their possession (Pierce et al., 2001). In an organizational context, a sense of control is very much about a feeling of shared decision-making, which is a dimension of the shared impacts domain of CPO. Finally, pursuit of well-being is inherent in people. Pursuing well-being through one’s job is an important means (Pates, 2011; Ryff and Heidrich, 1997). If the workplace has strong connections with the employees’ pursuit of well-being, and if the employees have a strong sense of CPO, they are willing to invest themselves in the organization and even endure hardship with it. When the current job becomes harmful to the staff’s well-being, their CPO will decrease and more staff will develop the intention to leave.

Routes to formulate CPO

Routes are the path through which CPO exists. We agree with Pierce and Jussila about the routes to CPO in general, which are shared control over the target of ownership, collective recognition of shared intimate knowing of the target, and the collective recognition of the shared investment of different group members’ selves in the target of ownership (Pierce and Jussila, 2011). In organizational contexts, through sharing knowledge and control of the organization, staff feel more connected to the organization and feel ready to claim the organization as theirs. Through facing uncertainty with the organization together, the CPO among staff will be strengthened.

Development of a CPO scale

An expert panel approach was adopted for scrutinizing the construct, identifying essential dimensions, and item generation for our CPO scale. The panel comprised experts in mental health social work, industrial and organizational psychology, and business management. Rounds of face-to-face and email discussions were conducted for critically deliberating the construct. Eventually the expert panel proposed four domains of CPO, namely, shared possessiveness, shared identity, shared impacts, and shared future. The expert panel further proposed eight dimensions under the four domains. It was believed that shared possessiveness comprised a single dimension. The domain of shared identity comprised two dimensions: shared image and membership identification. The domain of shared impacts consisted of two dimensions: shared influences and shared decision-making. Shared future comprised three dimensions: shared future, shared success, and shared hardship endurance.

After several rounds of discussions, the expert panel agreed to measure CPO from three angles: the participants, the participants’ co-workers, and the organization that the participants are working for. Items were designed to assess one’s own feelings, one’s perceptions of their co-workers’ feelings, and one’s perceptions of the attitude of the organization. For example, three items assessed shared possessiveness, including ‘I feel like we are co-owners of the organization’, ‘My colleagues feel like they are co-owners of the organization’, and ‘The organization encourages staff members to develop a collective sense of ownership’. To measure the shared hardship endurance, three items were proposed, including ‘I will choose to stay with the organization even in tough times’, ‘My colleagues will choose to stay with the organization even in tough times’, and ‘The organization is keen to keep staff even in tough times’. Similar strategies were also used to design items for other dimensions.

Research methods

Participants and procedures

This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee for Non-Clinical Faculties (HRECNCF) of The University of Hong Kong.

It was conducted from January 2016 to March 2016 using a snowball and convenience sampling method. The questionnaire was posted on a popular Chinese online survey website, named Wenjuanxing. Social service organizations in the Guangdong Province of China were asked to forward the online questionnaire to their employees. Full-time social service workers from these organizations were invited to take part in the survey, resulting in 444 valid completed questionnaires.

Since Shenzhen is significantly more resourceful in social services than other cities in this region, the data set was further separated into two sub-samples according to their geographical location, namely, the Shenzhen sample (N = 152) and the non-Shenzhen sample (N = 292). The non-Shenzhen sample (N = 292) was collected in other cities of Guangdong Province, including Guangzhou, Dongguan, and Foshan. The Shenzhen sample (N = 152) was used for EFA with Mplus to test the proposed new structure of CPO, and the non-Shenzhen sample (N = 292) was used for CFA with Mplus.

Table 1 summarizes the social-demographic information of the participants, including gender, age group, educational level, religion, marital status, family economic status, hours of sleep per day, and times of exercise per week, as well as and job-related information, such as job position, organization size, monthly salary, the length of time in the organization, turnover intention, professional qualification, service users, and hours of work per week.

Table 1.

Demographic information of the samples for CPO scale validation.

Variables	Shenzhen sample (N = 152)	Guangdong (non-Shenzhen sample, N = 292)	Combined sample (N = 444)
	M (SD) or N (%)
Gender
Male	37 (24.3)	97 (33.2)	134 (30.2)
Female	115 (75.7)	195 (66.8)	310 (69.8)
Age group (years)
24 or below	34 (22.4)	79 (27.1)	113 (25.5)
25–29	81 (53.3)	146 (50.0)	227 (51.1)
30–34	24 (15.8)	58 (19.9)	82 (18.5)
35–39	6 (3.9)	6 (2.1)	12 (2.7)
40–44	3 (2)	2 (.7)	6 (1.4)
45–49	3 (2)	1 (.3)	4 (.9)
50 or above	1 (.7)	0	0
Education level
Secondary school or below	5 (3.3)	8 (2.7)	13 (2.9)
Associate degree	36 (23.7)	98 (33.6)	134 (30.2)
Bachelor’s degree	96 (63.2)	163 (55.8)	259 (58.3)
Master’s degree or above	12 (7.9)	18 (6.2)	30 (6.8)
Others	3 (2.0)	5 (1.7)	8 (1.8)
Religion
None	141 (92.8)	255 (87.3)	396 (89.2)
Catholic	1 (.7)	2 (.7)	3 (.7)
Christian	2 (1.3)	11 (3.8)	13 (2.9)
Buddhist	6 (3.9)	16 (5.5)	22 (5.0)
Others	2 (1.3)	8 (2.7)	10 (2.3)
Marital status
Single or unmarried	100 (65.8)	170 (58.2)	270 (60.8)
Married or cohabiting	51 (33.6)	122 (41.8)	173 (39.0)
Separated or widowed	1 (.7)	0	1 (.2)
Chronic disease
Yes	18 (11.8)	28 (9.6)	46 (10.4)
No	138 (88.2)	264 (90.4)	398 (89.6)
Turnover intention
Yes	75 (49.3)	147 (50.3)	222 (50)
No	77 (50.7)	145 (49.7)	222 (50)
Seeking new jobs
Yes	29 (19.1)	72 (24.7)	101 (22.7)
No	123 (80.9)	220 (75.3)	343 (77.3)
Professional qualification
Social work	98 (64.5)	167 (57.2)	265 (59.7)
Occupational therapy	0	1 (.3)	1 (.2)
Physiotherapy	0	1 (.3)	1 (.2)
Business management	4 (2.6)	16 (5.5)	20 (4.5)
Others	50 (32.9)	107 (36.6)	157 (35.4)
Service users
Teenagers or children	35 (23)	50 (17.1)	85 (19.1)
The elderly	23 (15.1)	89 (30.5)	112 (25.2)
People with a disability	2 (1.3)	19 (6.5)	21 (4.7)
Ex-mentally ill persons	5 (3.3)	7 (2.4)	12 (2.7)
Families	30 (19.7)	52 (17.8)	82 (18.5)
Students	2 (1.3)	2 (.7)	4 (.9)
Others	55 (36.2)	73 (25)	128 (28.8)
Organizational size
Fewer than 20	4 (2.6)	21 (7.2)	25 (5.6)
20–49	13 (8.6)	43 (14.7)	56 (12.6)
50–99	11 (7.2)	29 (9.9)	40 (9.0)
100 or above	124 (81.6)	199 (68.2)	323 (72.7)
Job position
Admin assistant	7 (4.6)	21 (7.2)	28 (6.3)
Frontline worker	100 (65.8)	201 (68.8)	301 (67.8)
Middle manager	38 (25)	56 (19.2)	94 (21.2)
Senior manager	7 (4.6)	14 (4.8)	21 (4.7)
Monthly salary (RMB)
4000 or below	95 (62.5)	175 (59.9)	270 (60.8)
4001–5000	33 (21.7)	78 (26.7)	111 (25)
5001–6000	12 (7.9)	20 (6.8)	32 (7.2)
6001–7000	4 (2.6)	3 (1.0)	7 (1.6)
7001–8000	1 (.7)	9 (3.1)	10 (2.3)
8001–9000	5 (3.3)	4 (1.4)	9 (2.0)
9001 and above	2 (1.3)	3 (1.0)	5 (1.1)
Family economic status	3.61 (1.01)	3.53 (1.15)	3.56 (1.10)
Length of time in the organization	2.21 (2.00)	2.04 (1.93)	2.10 (1.95)
Hours of work per week	40.85 (8.05)	41.14 (9.02)	41.04 (8.69)
Hours of sleep per day	7.21 (.840)	7.26 (.92)	7.24 (.89)
Times of exercise per week	1.39 (1.38)	1.65 (1.57)	1.56 (1.51)
Times late per week	.54 (.99)	.56 (.98)	.56 (.98)
Days of annual leave	5.61 (6.91)	4.31 (5.73)	4.75 (6.18)

SD: standard deviation.

All participants were full-time social service workers from various non-profit organizations in Guangdong, China. More than half of the participants were from large organizations with employees of 100 or above (81.6%, 68.2%, and 72.7% in the combined sample, Shenzhen sample, and non-Shenzhen sample, respectively). Shenzhen is a pioneer city in Guangdong Province which has developed the social work profession since 2006 (Luo, 2014). Compared with other cities, the social work profession in Shenzhen is famous for its embedded model, also called the Shenzhen model, which emphasizes the professional and non-governmental characteristics of organizational management (Bin, 2011; Luo, 2014; Xu, 2010). Thus, it is suggested to distinguish the Shenzhen sample from the non-Shenzhen sample for data analyses.

Around 70 percent of the participants in the samples (69.8%, 75.7%, and 66.8% in the combined sample, Shenzhen sample, and non-Shenzhen sample, respectively) were female social service workers. Around 90 percent of the participants in the samples (95.1%, 91.5%, 88%, respectively) were under 35 years of age. Over half of the participants held a Bachelor’s degree (58.3%, 63.2%, 55.8%, respectively). More than half of the participants had a professional social work training background (59.7%, 64.5%, 57.2%, respectively) and were working as frontline social service workers (67.8%, 65.8%, 68.8%, respectively). Over half of the participants were single (60.8%, 65.8%, 58.2%, respectively). Around half of the participants expressed their turnover intention (50%, 49.3%, 50.3%, respectively) and around 20 percent of participants had taken turnover action of seeking new jobs (22.7%, 19.1%, 24.7%, respectively). More than half of the participants earned less than RMB4000 (US$1 is about RMB7) per month (60.8%, 62.5%, 59.9%, respectively). The mean of the participants’ job tenure was around 2 years. The mean for the family economic status of our participants was between neutral and quite well-off (around 3.5 on a scale of 1–7).

Measures

The item pool for the CPO scale formed a core part of the questionnaire. The questionnaire also included some demographic data and a battery of validation scales, namely, the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (Schaufeli and Leiter, 1996), the Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Ng et al., 2009), and a multi-item scale we developed to measure job resources. Job resources comprised 10 items. Sample items are ‘supervisors’ support I receive’, ‘staff training I receive’, ‘financial resources of the organization’, and ‘social network of the organization (including relationships with other organizations; relationships with service users)’. Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale from −3 (very inadequate) to 3 (very adequate) about the job resources of their current job.

CPO

An item pool measuring CPO was developed by our expert panel in both English and Chinese. The Chinese version was subjected to rigorous validation in this study. The original item pool consisted of 27 items (e.g. I feel I am a co-owner of the organization; I am involved in decision-making) in four domains (shared possessiveness, shared identity, shared impact, and shared future). Responses were collected on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = I hardly feel this way, 2 = I slightly feel this way, 3 = I feel this way, 4 = I strongly feel this way.

Data analyses and results

In this study, evaluation of the dimensionality of the CPO scale was performed by bi-factor analyses with Mplus 7.0, including EFA and CFA (Muthén and Muthén, 1998). Bi-factor analysis was introduced over 70 years ago, but only recently has been rediscovered as an effective approach to modeling construct-relevant multidimensionality in a set of ordered categorical item responses (Reise, 2012; Reise et al., 2007). A series of bi-factor analyses were specified with a single general factor and up to three specific factors. The Shenzhen sample was used for EFA and the non-Shenzhen sample was used for CFA.

Bi-factor models proposed

According to the conceptual definition of CPO, the domain of shared possessiveness should be the conceptual core of CPO. The item ‘I feel like we are co-owners of the organization’ encompasses the core content of the shared possessiveness and the other two items in the same domain (‘I feel like we are co-owners of the organization’ and ‘my colleagues feel like they are co-owners of the organization’) seemed to duplicate the first item. Thus, the first item was hypothesized as the general factor of CPO and the other two items were deleted. In Table 2, we propose five bi-factor structures, including a one-general-three-specific-factor model and four one-general-two-specific-factor models. Different structures of CPO with shared possessiveness as the general factor and other dimensions as the specific factors were examined. During the analyses process, those items with low factor loadings (<.4) or exhibiting a double-loading problem were deleted.

Table 2.

Results of the bi-factor EFA and CFA models for the CPO scale.

	χ²	df	χ²/df	p	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Bi-factor EFA (152 Shenzhen sample)
(a) 1 general + 3 specific (3 items for membership identification, 6 items for shared impacts, 9 for shared future)	482.86	135	3.58	.000	.80	.75	.13	.14
(b) 1 general + 2 specific (6 item for shared impacts and 9 items for shared future)	439.17	89	4.93	.000	.74	.64	.16	.10
(c) 1 general + 2 specific (6 items for shared impacts and 6 items for shared commitment)	265.58	53	53.11	.000	.76	.65	.16	.11
(d) 1 general + 2 specific (6 items for shared impacts and 3 items for shared hardship endurance)	159.19	26	6.12	.000	.78	.63	.18	.19
(e) 1 general + 2 specific (3 items for shared decision-making and 3 items for shared hardship endurance)	15.41	8	1.92	.052	.98	.96	.08	.03
Bi-factor CFA (292 non-Shenzhen sample)
(f) 1 general + 2 specific (3 items for shared decision-making and shared hardship endurance)	11.65	8	1.45	.168	.99	.98	.04	.04

df: degree of freedom; CPO: collective psychological ownership; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; EFA: exploratory factor analysis; CFA: confirmatory factor analysis.

‘Shared membership’ contains items of membership_I membership_C membership_O; ‘shared impacts’ contains items of decision_I decision_C decision_O &impact_I impact_C impact_O; ‘shared future’ contains items of future_I, future_C, future_O& hardtime_I hardtime_C hardtime_O& Success_I Success_C Success_O.

‘Shared impacts’ contains items of decision_I decision_C decision_O &impact_I impact_C impact_O; ‘shared future’ contains items of future_I future_C future_O& hardtime_I hardtime_C hardtime_O& Success_I Success_C Success_O.

‘Shared impacts’ contains items of decision_I decision_C decision_O &impact_I impact_C impact_O; ‘shared commitment’ contains items of &Hardtime_I hardtime_C hardtime_O& Success_I Success_C Success_O.

‘Shared impacts’ contains items of decision_I decision_C decision_O &impact_I impact_C impact_O; ‘shared hardship endurance’ contains items of Hardtime_I hardtime_C hardtime_O.

‘Shared decision-making’ contains items of decision_I decision_C decision_O; ‘shared hardship endurance’ contains items of Hardtime_I hardtime_C hardtime_O.

All results from the model testing with Mplus were evaluated using the following criteria on goodness-of-fit indices: comparative fit index (CFI) > .90, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) > .90, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .08, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < .06 (Hu and Bentler, 1998; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Fit indices for all other models did not show good model fit except the last model – the one-general-two-specific-factor structure. This model contained three items that measured shared decision-making, and three items that measured shared hardship endurance. The EFA results of this model showed good model fit (EFA, χ² = 15.41, p > .01, χ²/df < 2, CFI = .98, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .08) and the CFA results of this model with Mplus also provided evidence of good model fit (CFA, χ² = 11.65, p > .01, χ²/df < 2, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .04). The two dimensions – shared decision-making and shared hardship endurance – are thus recommended to be two specific factors of the CPO scale. Table 3 summarizes the factor loadings of the remaining items in the corresponding specific factors and their correlations with CPO and the general factor.

Table 3.

The factor loading of the remaining items in the two specific factors and their correlations with CPO and the general factor.

Items	Factor loading		Correlation
Items	Shared decision-making	Shared hardship endurance	CPO	Shared possessiveness
1. I feel like we are co-owners of the organization.	.89		.84**	.53**
2. My colleagues feel like they are co-owners of the organization.	.87		.83**	.47**
3. The organization encourages staff members to develop a collective sense of ownership.	.84		.86**	.57**
4. I will choose to stay with the organization even in tough times.		.86	.81**	.55**
5. My colleagues will choose to stay with the organization even in tough times.		.88	.79**	.48**
6. The organization is keen to keep staff even in tough times.		.74	.79**	.53**

CPO: collective psychological ownership.

Extraction method: principal axis factoring, fixed number of factors to extract = 2; rotation method: varimax; suppresion of small coefficients – absolute value below: .4.

p < .01.

Reliability and construct validity

The bi-factor structure of CPO with two specific factors (three items measuring shared decision-making and three items measuring shared hardship endurance) was suggested for our CPO scale. The total scores of the six items measuring the two specific factors will be the values of CPO. Internal consistency of the CPO scale, assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, was satisfactory for the bi-factor structure (Cronbach’s Alpha = .90). Convergent and divergent validity of the CPO scale was supported by correlation with validation scales in the expected directions. The correlations of CPO scores with job resources, burnout, and work engagement were .46, −.22, and .45 respectively (all p < .01).

Discussion and conclusion

CPO is an emerging concept, and to the best of our knowledge it has not been empirically studied for its measurement or application. The study reports a rigorous attempt of operationalizing CPO through scale development. Rigorous bi-factor analyses were conducted to explore and confirm the factor structure of CPO. Empirical support for a bi-factor model as a realistic representation of the underlying structure of CPO was demonstrated after trying a series of EFA and CFA.

Different structures of CPO combined by shared possessiveness as the general factor with other dimensions as the specific factors were examined. Both EFA and CFA for a series of models were performed. The results from both EFA and CFA supported the bi-factor structure of CPO with one general factor (shared possessiveness), and two specific factors (shared decision-making and shared hardship endurance) fitted well with the data set. The core content of CPO should be shared possessiveness, which is consistent with previous conceptualizations of CPO by Pierce and Jussila. Shared decision-making is a core right and responsibility of co-owners of an organization. Shared hardship endurance signifies members’ commitment and emotional bonding to the organization. Both factors elaborated the core intention of CPO, similar to the old Chinese saying ‘fengyutongzhou’, which means that co-owners hold on to the same boat on windy and rainy days. In the same boat, co-owners share decision-making and endure hardship together. The six items measuring shared decision-making and shared hardship endurance are recommended to be used as observable aspects of CPO in organizational contexts. The significant correlations with validation scales suggested that the CPO scale showed satisfactory convergent and divergent validity. CPO exhibited a positive relationship with job resources and work engagement, and a negative relationship with burnout.

There were some limitations involved in the study. First, the targets of CPO in the work and organizational context may be blurred, because organizational structure can be rather complicated, with multiple levels and operational units. In this study, we only assessed the CPO level of the participants in regard to the organization as an entity. The target of ‘the organization’ may be modified to the ‘organization, or the department, or any working team that you think you share with your co-workers’ in future studies to validate the CPO scale. Second, we assessed CPO from three angles – myself, my colleagues, and the organization – by different items in the same dimension. However, it is highly recommended to validate the scale by using working group/team as the analysis unit instead of individuals. Future validation of the CPO scale with working group/team as the analysis unit is suggested.

Third, CPO was only validated in a collectivism-dominated culture: China. It is suggested that future studies validate the scale in individual-oriented countries as well. Fourth, social work is a new profession in Mainland China, and thus most of the workers are young. It is understandable that most of the participants in the study were under 35 years old. However, one’s CPO of the organization may be more related to the length of the time they spent in the organization irrespective of whether they are young or old. In this study, CPO was positively correlated with the length of time in the organization (r = .17, p < .01), whereas CPO and age group were not significantly correlated in this sample. Further studies to validate the CPO scale in different occupations and among different populations are warranted, as well as further exploring the correlates of CPO in the organizational context.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr Yiwen Zhang and Mr Henry Chamberlain for their contributions as members in our expert panel to develop the collective psychological ownership (CPO) scale. We had discussions on the study by meetings and emails and they gave helpful suggestions. Dr Zhang is an Assistant Professor at the School of Economics and Finance, The University of Hong Kong, and he is an expert in the management academic area. Mr Chamberlain is an internationally experienced industrial psychologist and executive coach, as well as former President of the Hong Kong Psychological Society and current chair of the Division of I/O Psychology. Xuebing Su designed and implemented the study, and drafted the article. Siuman Ng supervised the study and edited the article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Xuebing Su is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Social Work, Hong Kong Baptist University. Her research interests include workplace well-being, organizational behaviors, and career and life development. Her current research focuses on collective psychological ownership in organizational contexts and career and life development for the disadvantaged youth.

Siu-man Ng is an Associate Professor at the Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong. His research interests include mental health and Chinese medicine psychology, family expressed emotions and schizophrenia, and mindfulness and spirituality.

References

K.Y.

Chen

Z.H.

(2012) ‘Shen zhen she hui gong zuo ren yuan liu dong xian xiang yan jiu ji qi qi shi’ [Research on the Phenomenon of Mobility of Social Workers in Shenzhen and Its Inspiration], in The Shenzhen Association of Social Workers (ed.) The Development Report of Social Work in Shenzhen, pp. 77–88. Shenzhen: The Shenzhen Association of Social Workers.

Avey

J.B.

Avolio

B.J.

Crossley

C.D.

Luthans

(2009) ‘Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Extensions, Measurement and Relation to Work Outcomes’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(2): 173–91.

Baumeister

R.F.

Sommer

K.L.

(1997) ‘What Do Men Want? Gender Differences and Two Spheres of Belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997)’, Psychological Bulletin 122(1): 38–44.

Belk

R.W.

(1988) ‘Possessions and the Extended Self’, Journal of Consumer Research 15(2) 139–68.

Bernhard

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): 345–84.

Bin

L-P.

(2011) ‘Social Work in China “Embedded” Development Model: Based on a Survey of Shenzhen City’, Social Work 4: 35–7.

Brown

Lawrence

T.B.

Robinson

S.L.

(2005) ‘Territoriality in Organizations’, Academy of Management Review 30(3): 577–94.

Brown

Pierce

J.L.

Crossley

(2014) ‘Toward an Understanding of the Development of Ownership Feelings’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(3): 318–38.

Chiu

W.C.K.

Hui

C.H.

Lai

G.W.F.

(2007) ‘Psychological Ownership and Organizational Optimism Amid China’s Corporate Transformation: Effects of an Employee Ownership Scheme and a Management-Dominated Board’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(2): 303–20.

10.

Dittmar

(1992) The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To Have Is to Be. London: Wheatsheaf Books.

11.

Foote Whyte

(2012) Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

12.

Hams

(2011) Ownership Thinking: How to End Entitlement and Create a Culture of Accountability, Purpose, and Profit. London: McGraw-Hill Education.

13.

Bentler

P.M.

(1998) ‘Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Under Parameterized Model Misspecification’, Psychological Methods 3(4): 424–53.

14.

Luo

(2014) Annual Report on Social Work Development in Guangdong. Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxuan chubanshe.

15.

Mayhew

M.G.

Ashkanasy

N.M.

Bramble

Gardner

(2007) ‘A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings’, The Journal of Social Psychology 147(5): 477–500.

16.

Muthén

(1998) Mplus Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

17.

S.M.

Fong

T.C.T.

Tsui

E.Y.L.

Au-Yeung

F.S.W.

Law

S.K.W.

(2009) ‘Validation of the Chinese Version of Underwood’s Daily Spiritual Experience Scale – Transcending Cultural Boundaries?’ International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 16(2): 91–7.

18.

Pates

(2011) ‘Wellbeing and Work’, in Walker

John

(eds) From Public Health to Wellbeing: The New Driver for Policy and Action, pp. 115–27. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.

19.

Pierce

J.L.

Jussila

(2010) ‘Collective Psychological Ownership within the Work and Organizational Context: Construct Introduction and Elaboration’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(6): 810–34.

20.

Pierce

J.L.

Jussila

(2011) Psychological Ownership and the Organizational Context: Theory, Research Evidence, and Application. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

21.

Pierce

J.L.

Kostova

Dirks

K.T.

(2001) ‘Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations’, Academy of Management Review 26(2): 298–310.

22.

Reise

S.P.

(2012) ‘The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models’, Multivariate Behavioral Research 47(5): 667–96.

23.

Reise

S.P.

Morizot

Hays

R.D.

(2007) ‘The Role of the Bifactor Model in Resolving Dimensionality Issues in Health Outcomes Measures’, Quality of Life Research 16(1): 19–31.

24.

Ryff

C.D.

Heidrich

S.M.

(1997) ‘Experience and Well-Being: Explorations on Domains of Life and How They Matter’, International Journal of Behavioral Development 20(2): 193–206.

25.

Schaufeli

W.B.

Leiter

M.P.

(1996) ‘Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey’, in Maslach

Jackson

Leiter

(eds) The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Test Manual, pp. 19–26. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

26.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003) ‘Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures’, Methods of Psychological Research Online 8(2): 23–74.

27.

Van Dyne

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): 439–59.

28.

D.W.

(2010) ‘Developmental Models of Social Work in China: Based on the Investigation in Shenzhen and Changsha’, Journal of East China University of Science and Technology. Available online at: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-HDLS201001003.htm

29.

Zhu

Chen

C.C.

Zhou

(2013) ‘From Personal Relationship to Psychological Ownership: The Importance of Manager–Owner Relationship Closeness in Family Businesses’, Management and Organization Review 9(2): 295–318.