|
|
|
| How did the Behavior of Sci-tech Talent Territory Affect Subsequent Citizen Behavior：An Intermediary Perspective of Psychological Ownership |
| Zhang Zishen,Jin Mingwei |
| (School of Business Administration，Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430000, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Various territorial behaviors occur in daily life. The theory on territorial behavior has shown its potential advantage in explaining organizational behaviors from a different view. Despite more and more scholars participating in this field, many issues still exist in the research of territorial behaviors in organizations. Territoriality in organizations, basing on the sense of psychological ownership, reflects individuals′ subjective control of tangible or intangible objects including workplace, personal tools and interpersonal relationships. Territorial behaviors in organizations containing marking, defensing and territorial infringement, are exclusive and inviolable in nature. With the economic globalization and the flourishing development of Asian countries, the inherent collectivism culture continually merges with western individualism, and the sense of personal ownership in eastern countries has risen. Under the influence of co-existed ideology, employees try to integrate into the collective, while the desire of the ownership and protection of their own territorial resources is awaken. In this circumstance, as the animal′s nature instincts, the territorial behavior theory in Chinese enterprise has shown its great explanatory ability in organizations, figuring out a certain number of rational behaviors in a unique view. There is huge potential value in this area.#br#So far the existing researches in territorial behavior contain many aspects, such as the cause of the behavior, the influence on enterprise management and the expansion of the theory itself. The innate selfish character of territorial behaviors normally draws concern of the negative outcome of the collective, but the present empirical researches have shown outstanding dual character in organizational management. In the information transmission process, scholars found employees′ territorial behaviors will promote team knowledge hiding, having negative influence on the task performance and positive influence on interpersonal and organizational deviance. The task performance is also negatively effected when team is taken as the territorial boundary. On the opposite, Li found that employees′ territorial behaviors would inspire more team information exchange, benefiting from implementing the team′s idea. Moreover, territorial behaviors have positive effect on leader-member exchange and can decrease the employees′ turnover intention. Because these results often positively connect to the task performance, it shows that there is a potential contradiction in the researches of territorial behaviors, which means the territorial behaviors have pro and cons at the same time in organizational management.#br#Compared to the territorial behavior, the organizational citizenship is advantageous to the organizations in most situation, which help creating a productive and harmonious atmosphere because it acts as a lubricant for organizational operation to promote overall performance. Few empirical researches have been conducted on the relationship between organizational territorial behaviors and organizational citizenship. Some scholars have speculated that the presence of territorial behaviors hinder the communication inside the organization, causing difficulties and obstacles in cooperation, which may reduce the expression of organizational citizenship, and it has a potential indirect positive correlation with organizational citizenship. Through the multi-dimensional dismantling of territorial behavior, this study takes the corresponding latent variables and find that the relationship between territorial behavior and organizational citizenship does have two contradictions, and the main reason is that the different dimensions of territorial behaviors affect on organizational citizenship in different way, and the intermediary role of psychological ownership is the main cause of the positive effects. The result of this study reveals the relationship between organization territorial behavior and organizational citizenship, especially provides a feasible method of explaining the contradiction of territorial behaviors, providing some reference for how to reasonably take the advantage of the positive influence and weaken the negative influence in organization management practice.#br#With the deepening reform of China′s market economy, the inherent collectivism culture is gradually integrating with the individualist culture, and the awareness of possession has been risen greatly, which makes the territorial theory show a strong interpretation ability in organizational management in China. Based on the theory of psychological ownership theory, an empirical research is conducted to explore the relation between scientific researchers′ territorial behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. The results show that there exist both positive and negative influence. The control oriented marking and reactionary defense behaviors have direct negative impact on OCB, while identity-oriented marking and anticipatory behaviors have direct positive impact on OCB, and psychological ownership plays a key intermediary role between anticipatory defense and OCB. The diversity influence of territorial behavior is mainly derived from the difference of its connotation dimensions and the intermediary effect of psychological ownership.#br#
|
|
Received: 15 October 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] ALTMAN I.Environment and social behavior: privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding[M].Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.,1975.[2] 彭贺．领地行为研究综述：组织行为学的新兴领域[J]．经济管理，2012,34(1)：182-189.[3] BROWN G, LAWRENCE T B, ROBINSON S L. Territoriality in organizations[J]. The Academy of Management Review，2005, 30(3):577-594.[4] 张佳良,王琦琦,刘军. 员工领地侵占行为的概念界定与前因探索——基于对某零售企业员工行为的扎根研究[J].外国经济与管理,2020,42(4)：107-122.[5] ARDREY R. The territorial imperative[M]. New York: Atheneum,1966.[6] 魏峰,马玉洁.领导领地行为与下属知识隐藏的影响机制研究[J].工业工程与管理,2018，23(4):179-185.[7] SANJAY KUMAR SINGH.Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: empirical evidence on role of knowledge hiding [J].Journal of Business Research,2019,97(5):10-19.[8] 刘军，陈星汶，肖宁,等．当协作要求遇上“山头主义”：领地行为与任务相依性对团队绩效的影响研究[J]．华南师范大学学报（社会科学版），2016，61(5)：99-109，191．[9] LI X M, XU Z, MEN C H.The transmission mechanism of idea generation on idea implementation: team knowledge territoriality perspective [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2021, 25(6): 1508-1525.[10] 程龙,于海波,张璐,等.科技人才组织领地行为如何影响其离职意向——婚姻状况与心理所有权被调节的中介模型[J]. 科技进步与对策， 2019，36(13):131-137.[11] 于海波,程龙,张璐,等.员工组织领地行为如何影响团队成员交换——基于心理所有权的中介作用研究[J].山东财经大学学报，2019，34(4):99-110.[12] BORMAN W C,MOTOWIDLO S J.Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance personnel selection in organizations[C].San Francisco:Jossey Bass,1993.[13] 聂琦,张捷,彭坚,等.基于体验取样法的工间微休息对组织公民行为的影响研究[J].管理学报，2021，18(2):223-223.[14] 张佳良,袁艺玮,刘军. 组织中的领地性研究: 文献评述与研究展望[J]. 科技进步与对策，2017,34(24): 154-160.[15] ALTMAN I. Territorial behavior in humans: an analysis of the concept[M]//L A PASTALAN & D A CARSON.Spatial behavior of older people. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press，1970.[16] ALTMAN I, TAYLOR D A, WHEELER L. Ecological aspects of group behavior in social isolation [J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1971, 1(1): 76-100.[17] BROWN G. Claiming a corner at work: measuring employee territoriality in their workspaces [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2009,29:44-52.[18] BROWN G, CROSSLEY C, ROBINSON S L. Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: the critical role of trust in the work environment [J]. Personnel Psychology, 2014,67(2):463-485.[19] PENG H. Why and when do people hide knowledge[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,2013,17(3):398-415.[20] HUO W, YI H, MEN C, et al.Territoriality, motivational climate, and idea implementation: we reap what we sow[J]. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,2017,45(11):1919-1932.[21] FARH J L, EARLEY P C, LIN S C. Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42: 421-444.[22] 张小林,戚振江.组织公民行为理论及其应用研究[J].心理学动态,2001,22(4):352-360.[23] HOBFOLL S E,HALBESLEBEN J,NEVEU J P,et al.Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences[J]. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior，2018,5(1):103-128.[24] KOOPMAN J, LANA J K, SCOTT B A. Integrating the bright and dark side of OCB: a daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59(2):414-435.[25] BROWN G, ZHU H.My workspace, not yours: the impact of psychological ownership and territoriality in organizations [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2016,48:54-64.[26] SUNDSTROM E.Work environments: office and factories[J]. Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 1987(2): 733-782.[27] RIOUX S M, PENNER L A. The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: a motivational analysis [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86(6): 1306-1314.[28] BROWN G, ROBINSON S L. Reactions to territorial infringement[J]. Organization Science, 2011,22(1)：210-224.[29] GIFFORD R.Environmental psychology [J]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon，1997（5）. [30] TAYLOR R B, BROOKS D K.Temporary territories:responses to intrusions in a public setting [J]. Population and Environment, 1980, 3(2): 135-145.[31] 陈浩.心理所有权如何影响员工组织公民行为——组织认同与组织承诺作用的比较[J].商业经济与管理,2011,31(7):24-30.[32] PIERCE J L, KOSTOVA T, DIRKS K T. The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research[J]. Review of General Psychology,2003, 7(1): 84-107.[33] 刘善仕,张兰,冯镜铭,等.我创新因为我是主人翁:心理所有权对创新行为影响机制的被调节中介研究[J].科技进步与对策，2016，33(20):128-133.[34] SUNDSTROM E. Work places: the psychology of the physical environment in offifices and factories[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1986.[35] HU L, BENTLER P M. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives [J]. Structural Equation Modeling,1999, 6(1): 1-55. |
|
|
|
