http://jlo.sagepub.com/Organizational StudiesJournal of Leadership &

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/10/1548051814529826The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1548051814529826

published online 11 April 2014Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesJoshua R. Knapp, Brett R. Smith and Therese A. Sprinkle

Status, Psychological Ownership, and Organizational IdentificationClarifying the Relational Ties of Organizational Belonging: Understanding the Roles of Perceived Insider

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Midwest Academy of Management

can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAdditional services and information for    

  http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Apr 11, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies 1 –13© The Authors 2014Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1548051814529826jlo.sagepub.com

Article

The employee–organization relationship (EOR; Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007) is complex because it is composed of a variety of theoretically distinct relational ties, each of which potentially influence important job-related outcomes. In response to this complexity, Masterson and Stamper (2003) developed a multidimensional theoretical model of perceived organizational membership (POM) designed to organize relational tie concepts under the dimensions of belonging, need fulfillment, and mattering. To date, this model has moti-vated theoretical advances (e.g., Stamper, Masterson, & Knapp, 2009) and empirical examinations of individual con-cepts (e.g., Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2011; Epitropaki, 2013). However, the aggregate nature of the POM model has yet to be fully leveraged in empirical research, leaving us with an incomplete understanding of how multiple relational-tie concepts subsumed under the same POM dimension influ-ence job-related attitudes and behaviors.

We focus on the belonging dimension of POM to make two important contributions. First, we seek to empirically distinguish between all three concepts (i.e., perceived insider status: Stamper & Masterson, 2002; psychological owner-ship: Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001; and organizational identification: Mael & Ashforth, 1992) subsumed under this dimension. Research has yet to establish that there are

measurable differences between the three concepts, and it is currently unknown whether or not these concepts exhibit discriminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). While each of these constructs has undergone separate rigorous measure development procedures, we pro-vide simultaneous consideration of these variables, which is important for the ongoing empirical testing of the theoretical model. Second, we seek to empirically test the entire belong-ing dimension of the POM as it relates to job satisfaction and turnover intentions. These variables were chosen because they both have well-documented pragmatic value for organi-zations and because they both have reliable and valid rela-tionships with a variety of organizational behavior concepts (Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001; Spector, 1997). Thus, empirically testing relationships with these variables provides an important benchmark for validating

529826 JLOXXX10.1177/1548051814529826Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesKnapp et al.research-article2014

1University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada2Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA3University of Dallas, Irving, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:Joshua R. Knapp, Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4. Email: joshua.knapp@uleth.ca

Clarifying the Relational Ties of Organizational Belonging: Understanding the Roles of Perceived Insider Status, Psychological Ownership, and Organizational Identification

Joshua R. Knapp1, Brett R. Smith2, and Therese A. Sprinkle3

AbstractIn order to clarify the roles of relational ties within the perceived organizational membership theoretical framework, we test the discriminant validity and concurrent predictive validity of perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identification. Hypotheses were tested using confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical multiple regression for a sample of 347 workers across two industry segments. Results indicate that the constructs of interest each explain unique variance. Perceived insider status and psychological ownership were significant predictors of job satisfaction and turnover intentions, whereas organizational identification was only found to predict job satisfaction. Post hoc analyses indicate that relationship between organizational identification and turnover intentions is fully mediated by perceived insiders status and psychological ownership.

Keywordsperceived organizational membership, belonging, psychological ownership, perceived insider status, organizational identification, job satisfaction, turnover intentions

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

the POM model of the EOR. In this way, we extend prior findings by clarifying the nature of each predictor’s relation-ship with outcomes, including relative importance.

Theory and Hypotheses Development

EORs influence job-related outcomes through a number of complex and multifaceted mechanisms (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007; Shore et al., 2004), many of which occur at the individual level and involve employees’ perceptions of the organizational context. The POM framework (Masterson & Stamper, 2003) is one such micro-level mechanism that has gained increased attention in recent academic research. According to Masterson and Stamper (2003), employees’ association with their organization can be represented along three different dimensions, each representing a different kind of perception. The need fulfillment dimension repre-sents the perception that the organization is providing important benefits as demonstrated by organizational fit (Kristof, 1996) and psychological contract fulfillment (Rousseau, 1989, 1995). The mattering dimension repre-sents the perception that the organization values the individual employee as demonstrated by perceived organi-zational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). The belonging dimension represents the per-ception of intimate association as demonstrated by insider status (Stamper & Masterson, 2002), organizational identi-fication (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), and psychological own-ership (Pierce et al., 2001).

Our goal is to clarify the theoretical and empirical simi-larities of the three concepts included in the belonging dimension (see Figure 1). Through a review of relevant research we explain why, despite significant similarities, each variable represents a fundamentally different facet of the employee–organization relationship, and we develop hypotheses based on our rationale.

Similar but Distinct Employee Relationship Concepts

Perceived Insider Status. Perceived insider status represents employees’ sense of inclusion within their organizations (Stamper & Masterson, 2002). This perception develops when a combination of organizational socialization prac-tices and benefits signal to employees that they have achieved the status of in-group member. The perception of insider status is a separate phenomenon from objective organizational inclusion in that individuals working long hours and holding important titles and positions can still feel as if they are not really members. Conversely, someone may work relatively few hours or be an external contract employee (Lapalme, Stamper, Simard, & Tremblay, 2009) and still have a sense of acceptance.

Employees who have come to feel a strong sense of insider status perceive that they are a central and important part of the organization, and this sense fills human needs for inclusion, agency, and control. Consequently, high insider status employees are also more likely to accept

Perceived Organizational Membership (Masterson & Stamper, 2003): A model of the EOR that organizes relational tie concepts into three dimensions. Our research focus is on the belonging dimension.g g

Belonging: The perception of an intimate association with the organization as demonstrated by a sense of:• Perceived Insider Status (Stamper & Masterson, 2002): Personal space and acceptance that is potentially independent from

objective inclusion.

• Psychological Ownership (Vandewalle et al 1995): Possessiveness that is potentially independent from objective legal claim• Psychological Ownership (Vandewalle et al., 1995): Possessiveness that is potentially independent from objective legal claim.

• Organizational Identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989): Self-definition in terms of the work organization.

Mattering: The perception that the organization values the employee as demonstrated by a sense of:• Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986): The organization cares for individual well-being.

Need Fulfillment: The perception that the organization is providing important benefits as demonstrated by a sense of:• Psychological Contract Fulfillment (Rousseau, 1989; 1995): The organization is providing promised benefits as part of a y g ( , ; ) g p g p p

perceived exchange.

• Person-Organization Fit (Kristof, 1996): The individual is compatible with the organization.

Figure 1. Theoretical domain and research focus.

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Knapp et al. 3

responsibilities as an organizational citizen (Stamper & Masterson, 2002; Wang, Chu, & Ni, 2010), more likely to have positive organizational attitudes (e.g., job satisfac-tion: Chen & Aryee, 2007; affective commitment: Lapalme et al., 2009; intention to stay: Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2011), and more likely to behave in ways sup-porting organizational functions (e.g., task performance and innovative behavior: Chen & Aryee, 2007).

Psychological Ownership. Psychological ownership is a feel-ing of possessiveness over some target object (Pierce et al., 2001; Vandewalle, Van Dyne, & Kostova, 1995). This ownership develops when people become possessive over things that they control, know intimately, and invest them-selves in (Pierce et al., 2001). Psychological ownership can occur even if a legal claim of ownership does not exist, and it can be felt toward a wide variety of material (e.g., houses) and immaterial (e.g., ideas) objects (Pierce et al., 2001).

People who have come to feel a strong sense of owner-ship over their employment organizations have come to perceive that it is “MY organization” (Vandewalle et al., 1995). This possessiveness satisfies common human needs for efficacy and sense of place (Pierce et al., 2001). Employees with a stronger sense of ownership over their organizations have higher expectations of organization-related rights (e.g., right to information and voice in deci-sion making: Pierce et al., 2001) and responsibilities (e.g., responsibility to contribute to organizational functioning: Pierce et al., 2001; accountability: Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009) resulting in more positive organizational attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organization-based self-esteem: Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), fewer turnover intentions (Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2011), and organization-related behaviors (e.g., citizenship: O’Driscoll, Pierce, & Coghlan, 2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).

Organizational Identification. Organizational identification represents employees’ perception of oneness with their organization such that these individuals define themselves in terms of their organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Organizational identification can develop when individuals perceive an organization as being distinctive and presti-gious, when the awareness of out-groups makes group membership more relevant, or when there is a sense of shared goals and history. Furthermore, individuals can experience identification even if they are not a current member of the organization. For example, non-member identification with sports teams (e.g., Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Wann & Branscombe, 1990) and consumer product companies (e.g., Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) is well documented.

Employees who strongly identify with their organiza-tions perceive similarity between their own identities and

those of their organizations’ thereby satisfying a need for self-worth (Abrams & Hogg, 1988) and a need for under-standing who they are (Hogg, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). A strong sense of identification can result in a number of positive employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, job involvement, in-role performance, extra-role performance, and fewer turnover intentions (Riketta, 2005).

Similarities and Distinctions. The descriptions of psychologi-cal ownership, perceived insider status, and organizational identification provided above draw attention to a number of similarities between these concepts. First, all are self-refer-ential evaluations of the EOR. In effect, psychological own-ership represents employees’ determination that “I own my organization,” perceived insider status represents employ-ees’ determination that “I am an important part of my orga-nization,” and organizational identification represents employees’ determination that “I am defined by my organi-zation.” Collectively, these three concepts have been char-acterized as representing a sense of belonging (Masterson & Stamper, 2003) in that individuals have invested them-selves in the organization and consider it to be a personal-ized space.

Second, these three concepts are perceptions and not necessarily grounded in objective criteria. Individuals can perceive ownership even though they may not have a real legal claim, whereas other individuals with objective own-ership rights may still not perceive the organization as really being theirs. Also, individuals can perceive that they are organizational insiders even though they may not actually be employees (e.g., contract workers), whereas long-time employees in management positions may feel as if they are “out of the loop” and not a central part of organization func-tions. Finally, valued positive organizational characteristics can cause individuals to identify with an organization even though they are not actually members, and conversely, members may believe that the organization is irrelevant to their self-definition.

Despite similarities, there are important distinctions between these three concepts. First, each of these concepts has different theoretical grounding. Psychological owner-ship is rooted in theories of possession and emphasizes employees’ responsibility for and control over their organi-zation (Pierce et al., 2001). Perceived insider status is rooted in the perception of inclusion and emphasizes employees’ belief that they are important and central within their organization (Stamper & Masterson, 2002). And, organizational identification is rooted in social iden-tity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1985) and emphasizes employee self-worth in conjunction with self-definition (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Second, no one concept is either a suffi-cient or necessary condition for the other. For example, part-time administrative assistants at a large university

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

with a successful sports team may identify with their orga-nization (as demonstrated by wearing branded clothing), but they may not perceive ownership or insider status because they have little authority or limited access to resources. Alternately, middle managers may perceive that they are an important and central part of an organization with considerable access to information and resources (i.e., high in perceived insider status) without necessarily believ-ing that they are owners and without linking their defini-tion of self to the organization.

Given these similarities and distinctions, we hypothesize that, when examined simultaneously, psychological owner-ship, perceived insider status, and organizational identifica-tion are related but distinct concepts. In other words, even though these concepts are likely to exhibit statistically sig-nificant correlations, they will still exhibit discriminant validity.

Hypothesis 1: Perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identification will exhibit statistically significant correlations.Hypothesis 2: Perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identification will exhibit discriminant validity.

Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions as Common Outcomes

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a feeling of contentment generated by employees who have had their work expecta-tions met (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991). Job satisfaction is considered important due to its well-docu-mented negative relationship with undesirable outcomes such as turnover (e.g., Tett & Meyer, 1993) and positive relationships with desirable outcomes such as citizenship behavior (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983) and employee well-being (e.g., Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, 2005).

In our study, each variable of interest represents a dif-ferent reason why employees might perceive their work expectations are met leading to satisfaction. The sense of control, knowing, and investment associated with psycho-logical ownership, and the feelings of affiliation and belonging associated with perceived insider status as well as the sensation of oneness associated with organizational identification should each simultaneously contribute to employees’ belief that their work is providing the benefits they expect. Building on research that separately demon-strates that each concept has a positive relationship with job satisfaction (e.g., perceived insider status: Chen & Aryee, 2007; psychological ownership: Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; organizational identification: Van Dick et al., 2004), we predict that these concepts will exhibit concur-rent predictive validity and have simultaneous relation-ships with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identification will have simultaneously positive relationships with job satisfaction.

Turnover Intentions. Turnover intentions represent employ-ees’ conscious desire to leave their organizations (Steel & Ovalle, 1984). These kinds of intentions are important because they are some of the most consistent predictors of actual turnover (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Similar to our rea-soning for predicting job satisfaction, we believe that high levels of each belonging variable represent a different rea-son why employees may want to stay at their organization whereas lower levels of each variable represent separate reasons to leave. We again build on research that separately demonstrates that each concept has a negative relationship with turnover intentions (e.g., psychological ownership: Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; perceived insider status: Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2011; organizational iden-tification: Riketta, 2005) to predict that these concepts will exhibit concurrent predictive validity and have simultane-ous negative relationships with turnover intentions.

Hypothesis 4: Perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identification will have simultaneously negative relationships with turnover intentions.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Recruitment of participants and data collection was done online using Zoomerang online data collection services (www.zoomerang.com). Zoomerang provides access to high-quality online survey panels that can be segmented based on characteristics such as employment status, indus-try, geographic location, consumer preferences, and demo-graphics. These survey panels also have appropriate research checks applied, including verification of panel member attributes, ensuring that panel members do not complete multiple surveys for the same study, and removal of panel members who provide inappropriate responses. Participants completing a survey received non-cash “points” as an incentive. These points can be accumulated and redeemed for an assortment of premiums (e.g., entry into a sweepstakes, gift cards to retailers, charitable donations). Actual value of points given for participating in this study was less than $5.

Given that work context is known to influence employee attitudes and intentions (Johns, 2006), we purposefully col-lected data from respondents who worked in two contrast-ing industries. Our rationale was that it would improve the

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Knapp et al. 5

generalizability of our findings and the breadth of our understanding if we could find similar results in two differ-ent environments. More specifically, we chose to collect data from employees of nonprofit organizations because the social goals and service-oriented environment of these kinds of organizations can cause familiar management con-cepts to manifest in unique ways (Hull & Lio, 2006), and we chose to collect data from employees of manufacturing organizations because the economic goals and production-oriented environment of these kinds of organizations pro-vides a strong contrast.

Potential respondents were residents of the United States of America who received an emailed invitation to partici-pate in an academic study examining work attitudes. This invitation contained a link to a web page explaining the pur-pose of the study and issues related to informed consent. Participants who acknowledged reading and understanding this disclosure were allowed access to our questionnaire. The link to the survey was disabled when 180 respondents from each context had completed the survey.

As a check to ensure that respondents were part of the desired populations, our email invitations were sent to indi-viduals prescreened to be working in either nonprofit orga-nizations or for-profit manufacturing organizations. However, respondents were not informed that they were contacted based on their membership in these kinds of orga-nizations, nor were they told that participation in this study was dependent on being currently employed in these kinds of environments. The first two questions in the survey asked respondents to identify their employment status and the industry that they were currently working in. Respondents whose responses did not match the intention of this study were automatically thanked for their time, informed that they did not qualify for participation, and blocked from completing the survey. These procedures helped neutralize the potential for participants to inaccurately represent them-selves in order to receive incentives because it was not pos-sible to know beforehand why they were invited to participate or what the requirements for participations were.

After screening the data for inappropriate responses (e.g., responses that were completed in unrealistically short periods of time and/or contained nonsensical response pat-terns), we were left with 174 completed surveys from work-ers in nonprofit contexts and 173 completed surveys from workers in manufacturing contexts. The average age of respondents was 50.57 years with a range from 21 to 92 and a median age of 52 years. The average organizational tenure was 7.97 years with a range from 1 to 12. This sample was also 89% Caucasian and 42% female. Respondents worked in a wide variety of jobs with varying degrees of authority. Eighty-five percent were full-time workers. Incomes also varied widely and fell into the following ranges: 16% mak-ing less than $25,000, 29% making between $25,001 and $40,000, 20% making between $40,001 and $55,000, 14%

making between $55,001 and $70,000, and 21% making more than $70,000.

Measures

All measures were well-established self-report scales exhib-iting strong construct validity characteristics in previous studies and using a 7-point Likert-type scale.

Perceived insider status was measured using Stamper and Masterson’s (2003) 6-item measure. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as “This work organization makes me believe that I am included in it” and “I feel I am an insider in this work orga-nization” (Cronbach’s α = .93).

Psychological ownership was measured using Van Dyne and Pierce’s (2004) scale. Respondents were asked to indi-cate their level of agreement with statements such as “This is MY organization.” Due to an administrative error, Item 4 (“I sense that this is my company”) was not included in our survey. The 6 remaining items adequately represent the theoretical domain of the psychological ownership concept (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Organizational identification was measured using Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) 6-item scale. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as “When I talk about my organization, I usually say ‘we’ instead of ‘they’” (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Job satisfaction was measured using Bacharach et al.’s (1991) 5-item measure. This measure asks respondents to indicate the degree to which they are satisfied with vari-ous aspects of their job, including “your present job when you compare it to jobs in other organizations” (Cronbach’s α = .96).

Turnover intentions were measured using 4 items reflect-ing employees’ intention to leave their current employer (e.g., Bluedorn, 1982). Respondents indicated their level of agreement with statements such as “I will still be working for this organization 6 months from now” (Cronbach’s α = .88).

Analyses and Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations are reported in Table 1. Significant correlations between perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identi-fication fully support Hypothesis 1.

We used the AMOS v.19 computer program to assess the validity of our measurement model through confirmatory factor analysis using a combination of statistics, including chi-square goodness of fit as a descriptive, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) using a standard of ≤.08, comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) using a standard of ≥.90, and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMSR, Hu & Bentler, 1999) using a standard of ≤.10. Error terms for within-measure

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

reverse-coded items were allowed to co-vary a priori. Two separate measurement models were examined so as to determine which one was the best fit to our data. The first model assumed that all constructs were distinct by allowing measure items for each construct to load on their own sepa-rate factor. All items loaded on the intended factor, and the model met our criteria for good fit, χ2(310, N = 347) = 1288.39, p < .001, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .94, and SRMR =.07. The results of this confirmatory factor analysis, including factor loadings, are reported in Figure 2. Noting the poten-tial similarities between psychological ownership, per-ceived insider status, and organizational identification (Masterson & Stamper, 2003), the second model combined the items from these three measures into a single overarch-ing factor representing belonging. This model did not meet the criteria for good fit, χ2(317, N = 347) = 3232.312, p < .001, RMSEA = .13, CFI = .808, and SRMR = .081. A chi-square difference test confirmed that the first measurement model representing variables of interest as distinct concepts was a better description of the data Δχ2(12, N = 542) = 1980.207, p <.001. These results fully support Hypothesis 2.

We tested Hypotheses 3 and 4 using hierarchical multi-ple regression. We controlled for age, gender, organiza-tional tenure, part-time versus full-time status, salary level, and whether respondents worked in a nonprofit or for-profit manufacturing industry. Control variables were entered into the equation in Step one, and measures of perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identi-fication were simultaneously entered in Step two. Results for these regressions appear in Table 2. When job satisfac-tion was included as the outcome variable, all three inde-pendent variables exhibited significant beta weights, and

there was a total R2 of .59. These results fully support Hypothesis 3. When turnover intentions was included as the outcome variable, only perceived insider status and psycho-logical ownership exhibited significant beta weights, and there was a total R2 of .37. Organizational identification was not a significant predictor. These results only partially sup-port Hypothesis 4.

Discussion

Relational ties between employees and their organizations represent an important domain of research given their influ-ence on job-related attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. To better understand the influence of different types of per-ceived relational ties within the POM framework, our study provides an important first test of the aggregate validity of the belonging dimension. This was done by differentiating between similar relational constructs and by empirically testing relationships so as to account for unique variance explained by each. We were able to demonstrate discrimi-nant validity of psychological ownership, perceived insider status, and organizational identification through confirma-tory factor analysis. Our results provide evidence of differ-ences in the predictive validity of these relational ties for job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Specifically, we found that all three concepts predicted job satisfaction, but only perceived insider status and psychological ownership predicted turnover intentions. Thus, our data suggests that these concepts are not redundant and may be useful in fur-ther understanding the influence of different types of rela-tional ties on job-related variables. However, these findings also suggest that organizational identification may not be as

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 50.57 10.70 — 2. Gendera 0.42 .49 −.01 — 3. Organizational tenureb 7.97 4.01 .22** −.07 — 4. Part-time vs. full-timec .14 .34 .15** .10 −.17* — 5. Salaryd 3.15 1.79 .00 −.17** .12* −.29** — 6. Industrye 0.50 .50 −.04 −.05 .16** −.30** .20** — 7. Perceived insider status 5.27 1.53 .16** .02 .05 .05 −.02 −.24** — 8. Psychological ownership 3.99 1.69 .15** .00 .09 .05 .05 −.20** .60** — 9. Organizational identification 4.88 1.44 .08 .02 .02 .09 −.01 −.25** .57** .64** — 10. Job satisfaction 5.10 1.61 .12* .08 .07 .05 −.02 −.18** .68** .67** .60** —11. Turnover intentions 2.77 1.73 −.08 .04 −.09 .03 −.01 .08 −.55** −.52** −.43** −.63**

Note. Total N = 347.a. Gender coded 0 = male; 1 = female.b. Tenure reported in years.c. Job status coded 0 = full-time; 1 = part time.d. Income coded 1 = <$25,000; 2 = $25,001-$40,000; 3 = $40,001-$55,000; 4 = $55,001-70,000; 5 = $70,001-$85,000; 6 = $85,001-100,000; 7 > $100,000.e. Industry coded 0 = nonprofit; 1 = manufacturing.* p < .05. **p < .01.

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Knapp et al. 7

TurnoverInten�ons

PerceivedInsider Status

JobSa�sfac�on

Organiza�onalIden�fica�on

PsychologicalOwnership

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X10

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

X17

X18

X19

X20

X21

X22

X23

X24

X25

X26

X27

.03 .96

.02

.10

.10

.09

.10

.98

.70

.70

.77

.75

.05 .92

.08

.05

.04

.12

.17

.84

.91

.95

.69

.64

.11 .76

.08

.10

.06

.05

.15

.80

.78

.87

.90

.60

.05 .89

.03

.04

.04

.04

.93

.91

.90

.90

.11 .61

.12

.09

.11

.73

.93

.90

Figure 2. Hypothesized structural equation model with standardized factor loadings.

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Table 3. Exploratory Hierarchical Regression of the Relationship Between Organizational Identification and Turnover Intentions.

Dependent variable: Turnover intentions

Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 (OID and PIS IVs) Step 3 (OID and PSYOWN IVs)

Age −.07 −.04 .01 .01Gender .03 .04 .05 .04Tenure −.09 −.06 −.05 −.04Part-time vs. full-time .05 .06 .04 .06Salary .01 .03 .02 .05Industry .10 −.02 −.07 −.04Organizational identification (OID) −.43** −.18** −.18**Perceived insider status (PIS) −.47** NAPsychological ownership (PsyOwn) NA −.41**Change in R2 .17** .15** .10**Total R2 .02 .19 .34 .29

Note. Standardized regression coefficients shown.*p < .05. **p < .01.

similar to perceived insider status and psychological owner-ship as the POM model implies. A number of issues related to our findings warrant further discussion.

Exploration of Organizational Identification Nonfinding

Given that we found that organizational identification was not a simultaneous and significant predictor of turnover intentions in our study and given that our results stand in contrast to prior findings on organizational identification and turnover intentions (e.g., Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Riketta, 2005), we conducted post hoc exploratory analyses to achieve our goal of clarifying the theoretical and

empirical similarities and distinctions between the three dif-ferent facets of belonging.

Toward this end, we performed two supplementary 3-step hierarchical regressions. In the first, variables were entered in the sequence: control variables, organi-zational identification, and perceived insider status. In the second, variables were entered in the sequence: con-trol variables, organizational identification, and psycho-logical ownership (see Table 3). Results indicated that organizational identification is a significant predictor when it is considered on its own and when it is consid-ered with either perceived insider status or psychological ownership. The fact that organizational identification did not predict turnover intentions only when the effects of

Table 2. Regression Results for Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions.

Dependent variable: Job satisfaction Turnover intentions

Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Age .10 −.01 −.07 .03Gender .09 .07 .03 .05Tenure .09 .03 −.09 −.03Part or full-time −.01 .00 .05 .04Salary .01 −.03 .01 .04Industry −.18** .04 .10 −.08Perceived insider status .40** −.38**Psychological ownership .33** −.26**Organizational identification

.17** −.06

Change in R2 .53** .35**Total R2 .06 .59 .02 .37

Note. Standardized regression coefficients shown.*p < .05. **p < .01.

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Knapp et al. 9

both perceived insider status and psychological owner-ship are simultaneously controlled for (as in our initial analyses) raised the possibility that these two variables serve as multiple mediators between identification and turnover intentions. Testing mediation using 5,000 boot-strapping samples according to the techniques outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2008) confirmed the suspected mediation effect. Bias corrected estimate of indirect effects operating through perceived insider status were −.25, with the 95% confidence interval lower boundary being −.36 and the upper boundary being −.15. Bias cor-rected estimate of indirect effects operating through psy-chological ownership were −.21, with the 95% confidence interval, lower boundary being −.32 and the upper bound-ary being −.11.

These post hoc findings suggest that the nature of the relationship between organizational identification and outcomes operate through a different mechanism than the other two aspects of belonging. One potential expla-nation for this pattern of results is that perceived insider status and psychological ownership are the most proxi-mal predictors of turnover intentions because they reflect employees’ more immediate and pragmatic interests and needs. In effect, because “I own” and because “I’m part of,” I have control over and access to resources and am less likely to leave. In contrast, organizational identifica-tion may reflect more distal idealistic interest that benefit the individual and influence attitudes but are not neces-sarily directly and immediately related to behavioral intentions. Future researchers may want to clarify this issue with longitudinal research designs that hypothesize multiple mediation effects a priori while utilizing struc-tural equation modeling for data analysis (Chung & Lau, 2008; MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon, Coxe, & Baraldi, 2012).

Exploration of Interaction Effects

Even though we did not hypothesize that interaction effects would be present in our data, we did conduct two groups of post hoc exploratory analyses to determine if they were present. The first group of analyses was done to determine if there were any significant interaction effects between our perceived insider status, psychological own-ership, and organizational identification. Variables were centered, all possible combinations of interactions between these variables were calculated, and hierarchical regressions was performed to determine if any of the interaction terms were predictors of job satisfaction and turnover intentions. No significant relationships were found. The second group analyses followed similar pro-cedures and was done to determine if there were any sig-nificant interaction effects involving any of our control variables (i.e., age, gender, tenure, part-time vs. full-time

status, salary, and industry). Again, no significant effects were found.

Exploration of Age Effects

Even though there were no significant interaction effects found involving respondents’ age, we felt that this variable deserved some additional exploratory analyses because the mean age was high (50.57 years), the age range was large (between 21 and 92 years), and 6 of our respondents were 70 years old or older. Analyses revealed that excluding employees older than 70 lowered the mean age to 50.09 years, but did not alter our results in any meaningful way. Also, there were no significant age differences between industries. While not having an apparent influence in our data, we believe that these demographics reflect the realities of an aging workforce in the United States (Sommers & Franklin, 2012).

Limitations

Employees were the best source of data for the concepts of interest in this study as each represented employees’ per-sonal perceptions, attitudes, and intentions (e.g., employ-ees’ evaluation of their relationship with their organization, employees’ intention to quit, and job satisfaction). Thus, a self-report questionnaire-based methodology was appropri-ate. However, because our data is single source and self-report, there is the possibility of methodological issues related to common method variance, an inability to deter-mine causality, and the exclusion of measures relating to actual behavior.

Given that our data are cross-sectional and self-report, we examined the data for evidence of common method bias (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006). When common method variance becomes a problem, the measurement method (rather the concepts of interest) strongly influences the observed relationships between variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector, 2006). However, common method variance is not necessarily an issue in cross-sectional research designs (Conway & Lance, 2010). To determine whether or not com-mon method bias was an issue in our data, we used the com-mon latent factor method whereby an additional common factor was added to our measurement model. This method determined that the total variance attributable to a common latent factor was less than .03. As an added check, we exam-ined the effect of a common latent factor on the standardized regression weights of observed variables, and we found that the variance attributable to common method variance was less than .01 for each observed variable. These analyses indi-cate that common method bias is not an issue in our data.

Because our data are cross-sectional, we are unable to determine causality among our variables. We recognize that

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

this limits the conclusions that we can make from our data. Thus, we acknowledge that our research is only a first step. Future researchers should study these variables over time so that the evolution of, and the causal relationships between, these concepts can be determined.

Another limitation of this study is that we focused on only two subjective outcomes: job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Researchers may want to examine how addi-tional subjective attitudinal outcomes such as affective commitment or fairness perceptions relate to perceptions of belonging. Or, researchers might choose to examine more objective outcomes. For example, future researchers may want to examine job performance, organizational citizen-ship behavior, and actual turnover. Variables such as these are considered important because they represent actual behaviors (rather than attitudes or intentions) with a more direct impact on organizational performance.

Future Research

The results of our analyses emphasize the importance of perceived insider status and psychological ownership for predicting outcomes. However, this work is only an initial examination that sets the stage for future empirical clarify-ing the nature of complex EORs.

In particular, we believe that it is important for future researchers to systematically consider each of the concepts associated with mattering (i.e., POS) and need fulfillment (i.e., P-O fit and psychological contract fulfillment) sepa-rately and in conjunction with the belonging concepts examined in this study. We can expect some degree of theo-retical and empirical overlap among all the dimensions and each of the individual constructs because they each repre-sent different facets of the EOR as represented in the POM model. As such, each variable potentially suffers from the same two issues brought up in our introduction. That is, to the extent that these concepts and their theorized outcomes have not received simultaneous empirical consideration, it is not yet known whether or not these concepts exhibit dis-criminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000), or whether they are useful as simultaneous pre-dictors of outcomes. Granted, a number of previous studies have separately established linkages between each variable and a variety of outcomes, but these efforts have not con-verged to the point of simultaneous consideration. This lack of convergence is unfortunate because omitting a variable relevant to the outcome being predicted can cause regres-sion coefficients to be artificially inflated or inaccurately significant (i.e., omitted variable bias), and we do not yet know if each variable remains a useful predictor after the influence of the other POM concepts have been accounted for. Addressing these concerns is important because they are key aspects of determining overall construct validity (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991; Campbell & Fiske, 1959).

We also think that it would be interesting for future researchers to assess the relative importance of each POM-related concept for predicting different kinds of outcomes. While not anticipated, our results demonstrated a rather interesting pattern when considered in the context of previ-ous research. In our data, perceived insider status explained the greatest amount of variance in job satisfaction (stan-dardized beta = .40, p < .01) and turnover intentions (stan-dardized beta = −.38, p < .01). Yet of the three belonging concepts, perceived insider status has received the least amount of attention in previous research. These observa-tions suggest a potential disconnect between the relative utility of each concept and the amount of research employ-ing these variables. We believe that it should be a research priority for future researchers to determine if this is the case.

Finally, future researchers should continue to assess issues of validity and relative importance of POM concepts in a variety of contrasting contexts. As Johns (2006) points out, the same phenomenon can manifest in fundamentally different ways dependent on the nature of work environ-ment. Base rates, ranges, nature of relationship, and causal directions can vary widely across organizations, and it would be interesting to identify such cases as they relate to the EOR.

Practical Implications

Perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and orga-nizational identification all had a positive relationship with job satisfaction and a negative relationship with turnover intentions, albeit the relationship between organizational identification and turnover intentions was indirect and revealed through post hoc analysis. These findings suggest that it is important for managers to cultivate all three kinds of perceptions such that employees believe that they belong within the organization, and we recommend that organiza-tions with high turnover and low job satisfaction take a three pronged belonging-based approach to managing these issues. The perception of personal space and inclusion asso-ciated with perceived insider status might be strengthened through positive socialization practices (Stamper & Masterson, 2002) designed to communicate to employees that they are important part of an intimate group. The per-ception of personal space and inclusion associated with per-ceived insider status can be fostered by granting employees adequate autonomy (Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner, 2007). The self-definition associated with organi-zational identification can be encouraged by making sure that employees are aware of admirable and prestigious orga-nizational characteristics (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). If such an approach is not possible (perhaps because of limited resources), we believe that managers should focus on devel-oping those belonging perceptions that appear to have the

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Knapp et al. 11

most direct relationship with outcomes (i.e., perceived insider status and psychological ownership).

Conclusion

In this article, we examined how three similar, yet distinct, relational ties related to workplace outcomes. Our research used a highly diverse sample of employees, and our results suggest that managers and researchers would benefit from a more holistic approach to EORs. We found that perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identification exhibited discriminant validity and concur-rently predicted job satisfaction: thus, we can conclude that these concepts are not redundant. We also found that psy-chological ownership and perceived insider have the most direct relationship with turnover intentions whereas organi-zational identification did not directly explain significant variance in this outcome. As a whole, our analyses and dis-cussion represent an important first step toward assessing the construct validity of the belonging dimension of the POM theoretical framework. We hope our results encour-age researchers to systematically consider each of the indi-vidual POM concepts in a way that helps determine their relative importance and minimizes the possibility of omit-ted variable bias.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported in this article was funded by the University of Lethbridge Faculty of Management’s Start-up Fund and by the University of Lethbridge Research Fund.

References

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motiva-tional status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317-334. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180403

Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Schlosser, F. (2011). Perceived organiza-tional membership and the retention of older workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 319-344. doi:10.1002/job.647

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fun-damental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374. doi:10.1177/0149206308316059

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. doi:10.2307/258189

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions,

measurement, and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 173-191. doi:10.1002/job.583

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39-53. doi:10.1002/job.4030120104

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing con-struct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421-458.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. doi:10.2307/255908

Bernhard, F., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2011). Psychological own-ership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style and nonfamily employees’ work attitudes and behav-iors. Group & Organization Management, 36, 345-384. doi:10.1177/1059601111402684

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company iden-tification: A framework for understanding consumers’ rela-tionships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609

Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and meaning. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, 75-128.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and dis-criminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. doi:10.1037/h0046016

Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediat-ing processes in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 226-238. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24162389

Chung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and sup-pression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with struc-tural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296-325. doi:10.1177/1094428107300343

Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in orga-nizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325-334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee-orga-nization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17, 166-179. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.03.008

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

Epitropaki, O. (2013). A multi-level investigation of psychologi-cal contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: Testing a moderated-mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 65-86. doi:10.1002/job.1793

Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relation-ship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 62, 105-112. doi:10.1136/oem.2002.006734

Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.),

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 57-85). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria ver-sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Hull, C. E., & Lio, B. H. (2006). Innovation in non-profit and for-profit organizations: Visionary, strategic, and financial considerations. Journal of Change Management, 6, 69-74. doi:10.1080/14697010500523418

Johns, J. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687

Judge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction: A cross-cultural review. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psy-chology (pp. 25-52). London, England: Sage.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behav-ioral research (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Nelson Thomson Learning.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

Lapalme, M., Stamper, C. L., Simard, G., & Tremblay, M. (2009). Bringing the outside in: Can “external” workers experience insider status. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 919-940. doi:10.1002/job.597

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum.

MacKinnon, D. P, Coxe, S., & Baraldi, A. N. (2012). Guidelines for the investigation of mediating variables in business research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 1-14. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9248-z

Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organiza-tional identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202

Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organi-zational membership: An aggregate framework represent-ing the employee-organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 473-490. doi:10.1002/job.203

Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 477-500. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.5.477-500

O’Driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A. (2006). The psychology of ownership: Work environment struc-ture, organizational commitment, and citizenship behav-iors. Group & Organization Management, 31, 388-416. doi:10.1177/1059601104273066

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298-310. doi:10.2307/259124

Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003).Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resam-pling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 2, 121-139. doi:10.1007/BF01384942

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organiza-tions: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Smith, R. H., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Liden, R. C., McLean-Parks, J., . . . Van Dyne, L. (2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in per-sonnel and human resource management (Vol. 23, pp. 291-370). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955

Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 875-894. doi:10.1002/job.175

Stamper, C. L., Masterson, S. S., & Knapp, J. R. (2009). A typology of organizational membership: Understanding dif-ferent membership relationships through the lens of social exchange. Management and Organization Review, 5, 303-328. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00147.x

Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673-686. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.673

Sommers, D., & Franklin, J. C. (2012). Employment outlook: 2010-2020. Monthly Labor Review, 135, 3-20.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 33-47). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259-293. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x

Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group & Organization Management, 20, 210-226. doi:10.1177/1059601195202008

Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., . . . Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15, 351-360. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00424.x

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Knapp et al. 13

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, 439-459. doi:10.1002/job.249

Wang, L., Chu, X., & Ni, J. (2010). Leader-member exchange and orga-nizational citizenship behavior: A new perspective from perceived insider status and Chinese traditionality. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 4, 148-169. doi:10.1007/s11782-010-0007-1

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14, 103-117. doi:10.1177/019372359001400203

Author Biographies

Joshua R. Knapp is an associate professor of human resources and organizational behavior at the University of Lethbridge. His

PhD was granted by the University of Cincinnati. His primary research interests relate to understanding how employees navi-gate the organizational environment, including topics related to social exchange, social cognition, and employee-organization relationships.

Brett R. Smith is an associate professor of entrepreneurship and director of the Institute for Entrepreneurship in the Farmer School of Business at Miami University. He received his PhD from the University of Cincinnati. His research interests are social entrepre-neurship and identity-related issues.

Therese A. Sprinkle is an assistant professor of Managemetn in the Satish & Yasmin Gupta School of Business at the University of Dallas. She received her PhD from the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests concern roles and role behaviors, as well as organizational justice.

at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from