Ảnh hưởng của đặc điểm công việc lên quyền sở hữu tâm lý và tác động của quyền sở hữu tâm lý lên hiệu suất làm việc của nhân viên tại các doanh nghiệp ở Việt Nam - Tóm tắt luận án Tiến sĩ Quản trị Kinh doanh

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Research motivation Finnaly, this research contributes to literature of psychological ownership by investigating in an Asian country – Vietnam. In prior studies, samples were in Western countries such as the US (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014), New Zealand (O’driscoll et al., 2006), or Australia (Mayhew et al., 2007). In each sample, the results are different.

Because of above reasons, the author studies “ The effects work characteristics on psychological ownership and the influence of psychological ownership on employee performance in businesses in Vietnam”

Objectives and research questions

In business sector in Vietnam, 88% of Vietnamese businesses are using under midium level technology ( Asia Productivity Oragnization, 2014). Additionally, productivity per worker in Vietnam in 2019 is approximately 11.1 thousand USD dolars, which is equal to one eleventh of that in Singapore, is about one fifth of Malaysian counterparts, and is equal to 1/ 2.2 of that of Indonesian workers on average (Asian Productivity Organization, 2019). Noticiably,

The research objectives of the desertation is to study the relationship between work characteristics, job-based psychological ownership and employee performance from which to propose

Vietnamses worker productivity is less than one half of that of ASEAN on average. Vietnamses productivity is in the lowest group of Asia that includes Bangladesh, Nepal and Campuchia (

recommendations for enterprises in Vietnam.

Asia Productivity Organization, 2019). Those data reveal that it is crucial to improve productivity in Vietnam.

With the objectives mentioned above, the research questions that this desertation aims to answer the following questions: 1. What is the effect of work characteristics on job – based psychological ownership?

a. What is the impact of the skill variety to job – based psychological ownership? b. What is the effect of task identity to job – based psychological ownership? c. What is the impact on the task significance to job – based psychological ownership? d. What does the effect of job autonomy on job – based psychological ownership? e. What is the effect of job feedback on job – based psychological ownership?

Psychological ownership is concerned by scholars because it creates responsibility to the organization and the work (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001) and has positive relationship with employee performance O’driscoll, Pierce, & Coghlan, 2006; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Pierce & Rodgers, 2004; Pierce, Cummings, et al., 2009; Pierce, Dirks, & Kostova, 2003; Pierce, Jussila, & Cummings, 2009; Pierce et al., 2001; Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003; Pierce, O'driscoll, & Coghlan, 2004; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Wagner, Christiansen, & Parker, 2003). Moreover, psychological ownership predicts employee productivity (Jon L Pierce & Rodgers, 2004.

2. What are the impacts of job – based psychological ownership to in – role performance and voice behavior? Psychological ownership is defined as the state in which an individual feel that an object or a part of the object is his/her or their (Pierce et al., 2001). Meanwhile, the objects of psychological ownership can be tangibles such as: tools, machine,.. or intangibles such as ideals (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). a. What is the impact of job – based psychological ownership to in-role performance? b. What is the impact of job – based psychological ownership on voice behavior? Subject and research scope Research subjects Research subjects of the dessertation are the impact of work characteristics on job – based psychological ownership and influence of job – based psychological ownership on in-role performance and voice behavior. In studies on psychological ownership, scholars have been focusing on 2 objects: organization and work. The reasions why the relationship of work charactoristics and psychological ownersip is concerned in the context of Vietnam because majority of Vietnamses businesses are applying speccification – a method that devides work in to smaller and repeatable tasks. However, the more specialization is, the lower the productivity is. Hackman and Oldham (1975) contend that motivated work is complex work. This argument is based on 2 factors motivation theory. In this dessertation, the author agree with Hackman and Oldham (1975) and will prove above argument in the context of Vietnam. Scope of research Scope in terms of content. While the work characteristics have many characteristics, however, the author studies the core characteristics of the work led by Hackman and Oldham (1975) including skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedbacks. Besides, the objects of psychological ownership are varied, includes both tangible and invisible elements, however, in this dissertation the author only mentions job – based psychological ownership. Finally, job performance This study will contribute to the liturature of Psychological ownership and work characteristics in the 3 following aspects. First, privious studies investigated the relationship between work charateristics and psychological ownership, considered work characteristics as a composed factor or examined a part of work characteristics. In this research, the author studies work characteristics as 5 separate factors. This way provides insight understanding of how each work characteristics affects job- based psychological ownership. involve in-role performance and extra-role performance, besides extra – role performance includes many behaviors but in this dissertation the author is interested only in voicebehavior . Scope in terms of space. The dessertation is expected to study in enterprises in Vietnam consisting Secondly, in this study, the author has proved that with data of Vietnam, work characteristics are compatible with 5 different variables: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and job feedback. of 3 areas: the north, central and the South. However, the sample group is mainly concentrated in the

northern region.

1

2

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND THEORY OF The scope in terms of time. This dessertation researched the relationship between work PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP characteristics, job – based psychological ownership and employee performance during the period from Dec. 2018 to Mar. 2019. 2.1. Psychological ownership Basics 2.1.1. Psychological ownership definition Research Methodology The author ultilise survey introducted by De Vaus (2013) for investigating questionnaires in sociology studies. Where De Vaus (2013) suggests there are 4 stages of research including: Psychological ownership –ownership in the mind, completely different from the legal ownership (Pierce et al., 2004) and may appears even if legal ownership does not appear (Mayhew et al., 2007). Psychological ownership is partly feeling and partly cognitive (Pierce et al., 2003; Pierce et al., 2001). Acknowledging the psychological ownership is both talented and able to learn, while considering

• Phase 1: Literature review • Phase 2: Collecting data; • Stage 3: Set the data for analysis; • Phase 4: Data analysis and report writing. psychological ownership is a part of the mind, psychological ownership is defined as the state in which the individual feels the object of his/her or their or a part of the object is theirs (e.g. "This is my company") or theirs (e.g. "This is our company") (Pierce et al., 2001). The dessertation structure The dessertation will be structured into five chapters as follows: 2.1.2. Distinguish psychophysical ownership from related concepts. 2.1.2.1. Distinguish psychophysical ownership from organizational commitment Chapter 1: Introduction to the ressearch Theoretically, organizational commitment is different from psychological ownership on the Chapter 2: Literature review and background theory of psychological ownership following four aspects. Firstly, organization commitment is defined as emotional or/and belief in relation Chapter 3: Research Methodology to the reason an individual wishes to maintain membership in an organization (Meyer & Alien, 1991). Chapter 4: Results of research Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations Secondly, the core point of Organizational commitment is the desire to maintain contact, while psychological ownership has the core point of ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). Besides, individuals must answer the question: "What do I feel is mine?" when deciding on psychological ownrship with 1

specific object; meanwhile, to decide whether the individual is committed to the organization, the individual needs to answer the question "Should I maintain membership?" (Pierce et al., 2003; Pierce et al., 2001). Ultimately, organizational commitment and psychological ownership is differnent in the

motivation of formation. The motivation for formation of psychological ownerhsip is effective, personal identification and need to have 1 place (Pierce et al., 2001) while committing to the organization that is starting from the safety needs, belongs somewhere and come from trust and value (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In experimental studies, the separation of these 2 concepts has been demonstrated through the Explorative Factor analysis (Mayhew et al., 2007; O'Driscoll et al., 2006). 2.1.2.2. Distinguish psychophysical ownership from organizational identity Organizational identity differs from psychological ownership through four aspects: the core of

the term, the question answered by the individual, the motivation of formation and the state (Pierce et al., 2001). In experimental studies, the two terms were distinguished through research by Knapp et al. (2014). 2.1.2.3. Distinguish Psychophysical ownership from internalization The internalization differs from psychological ownership based on four aspects of the core characteristics of the term, personal questions, status, and motivation of formation. The discrimination of internalization and psychological ownership is still not proven on empirical studies. Therefore, there is a need for a study that proves the distinguish of these 2 terms. 2.1.2.4. Distinguish psychophysical ownership from job satisfaction

3

4

2.2. The theoretical foundations and models related to psychological ownership The discrimination of psychological ownership and job satisfaction is explained in theory and is 2.2.1. Employee ownership model. demonstrated in practical studies. Theoretically, the job satisfaction and psychological ownership differ on the following aspects: The bottom line of the terms, personal questions, and motivation formation The employee's ownership model was proposed by Pierce et al. (1991). Specifically, the official ownership will impact the psychological ownership, then psychological ownership will create the integration between the object (the company) and the owner (staff), for example of this integration is (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014). The separation of job satisfaction is psychological ownership is also demonstrated through experimental studies (Mayhew et al., 2007). According to Mayhew et al. (2007), job satisfaction is different from organization – based psychological ownership and job – based organization commitment. When there is a combination between the owner and the subject, the team's psychological ownership output and the individual are promoted. 2.1.2.5. Distinguish psychophysical ownership and territority Psychological ownership is different from territority based on the following aspects: the core of the term, the question asked by the individual, the motivation of formation and the state. The model of Pierce et al. (1991) is demonstrated through experimental studies. Pendleton et al. (1998) when research on formal ownership in the British bus industry has shown formal ownership (the number of ownership stocks) positive impact on feeling of ownership (psychological ownership). Then, the psychological ownership positively impacts the integration, organizational commitment and

Territorial behavior and psychological ownership are huge identical terminology. Avey et al. (2009) when developing the multi-dimensional scale of psychological ownership has put the emotion into the scale of psychological onwrship. However, the main Avey et al. (2009) also proposed to verify the separation of psychological ownrship and territorial behavior (Cf dawkins et al., 2017). Currently, there are studies that demonstrate the separation of psychological ownership and territorial behavior on experimental studies. negative impact on the intention to leave. Besides, the psychological ownership positively impacts the job satisfaction and behaviour in the work. Buchko (1992) has tested that employees who receive more financial value from their employee ownership program will commit more to the company and intend to leave lower. Coyle-Shapiro, Morrow, Richardson, and Dunn (2002) in the long-term research shows (longitudinal research) officially positively impacts organizational commitment. 2.2.2. Psychological ownership theory 2.1.3. Psychophysical ownership Objects Pierce et al. (2001) proposed psychological ownership theory and proposed 3 characteristics of The term "object" in studies of psychological ownership is quite extensive and involves any psychological ownership include: firstly, the psychological ownership is 1 part of the human; Secondly, object (Avey et al., 2009). For example, in an organization, the technician's target may be a computer the object of ownership can be many different objects including physical and non-material and program, or a tool box, for design engineers, the object of ownership can be the product design, a senior ultimately psychological ownership has a positive impact on the behaviors, attitude and human emotions. In addition, the authors also pointed out the root cause and the mechanism that led to

administrator can see the strategy proposal for the organization, the mission statement is owned by them, and the new employee can regard the entire organization as being owned by them (Avey et al., 2009). In addition, the object of psychological onwrship in the organizational context can be organization, work, tasks in work, workplace/work area, tools, work tools, ideas or suggestions, group membership,... (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). psychological ownership. The root causes that lead to psychological ownership include: the need for efficiency and potency, the need for personal identification and the need for a place. At the same time Pierce et al. (2001) pointed out that psychological ownership appeared in the following 3 roads: first, when individuals control the goal then they will feel the goal is their. Second, when individuals know 2.1.4. The motivation of formation of psychological ownership deeply about goals, they will feel the goal is theirs. Thirdly, when the individual endeavours and public To answer to the question: Why does psychophysical ownership exist?, based on both two dedication to the goal, the psychophysical ownership towards the goal appears. Studies aimed at proving this theory showed different outcomes. The psychological ownership

approaches including: psychological ownership comes from the innate need of human beings and psychological ownership can be learned and nurtured, Pierce et al. (2001) pointed out the root causes of psychological ownership including the need for effiecty and efficacy, original awareness and the need for 1 place to be considered as home. The demand for effectiancy (achieving results, goals) and efficiency is due to the pleasure of creating results that have resulted in psychological ownership. has a positive impact on organizational commitment (Mayhew et al., 2007), a positive impact on extral role behavior (Han et al., 2010; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004b; Vandewalle et al., 1995). Dislike the above result, Mayhew et al. (2007) shows that psychological ownership does not impact employee performance. However, other studies have shown, psychological ownership positive impacts on In addition, when people own objects, targets, objects, that goal is not just a senseless object, it employee performance becomes an extension of themselves. And the need to be present and communicate that particular 2.2.3. Adjusted Work Characteristics Model identity to others who create psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). 2.2.3.1. Diagnostic model of the work charateristics of Hackman and Oldham (1975) Ultimately, people have the need to have 1 place as their home, so people dedicate the power and resources to turn the object (e.g. workplace, organization) into their home. In this model two authors on only put 5 main characeristics of work include: skill diversity, task 2.1.5. The mechanism of formation of psychological ownership Psychological ownership appears in 3 paths: one is, when individuals control the goal then they will feel that goal is their. The two is, when individuals know deeply about goals, they will feel the goal identification, task significance, autonomy and feedback. In the job characteristics model, Hackman and Oldham (1975) believe that the outputs of work and individuals are manipulators by the key psychological states. In turn, key psychological statuses will be influenced by the core characteristics of

is theirs. Thirdly, when the individual endeavours and public dedication to the goal, the psychological ownership towards the target appears (Pierce et al., 2001) .

5

the work including 5 characteristics: skill diversity, task identification, task significance, autonomy and feedback. Finally, 2 authors Hackman and Oldham (1975) claim that the power of employee 6

development needs coordinates the relationship between the impact of group elements of work on the psychological elements group, while simultaneously governing the relationship between the group of Knapp et al. (2014) show that psychological ownership of the organization reduces the intention of taking a job. In addition, the study of Peng and Pierce (2015) possesses psychological for work to reduce the intention to leave, however, the relation of psychological ownership to the organization and factors belonging to the psychological outcome of work and personal. the job engagement is not statistically significant. 2.4.2. The impact of psychological ownership on behavior Experimental studies show a psychological impact on the manner of work-related behaviors The model of Hackman & Oldham (1975) has been tested and demonstrated in practice through research (Fried & Ferris, 1987; J Richard Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Saavedra & Kwun, 2000). For example, in meta -analysis ( Fried & Ferris, 1987) shows the elements of the work positively impact the key psychological factors, in turn, key psychological factors affect the outputs of the human. 2.2.3.2. Diagnostic Work characteristic model (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2012; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995). These studies demonstrate psychological ownership that positively impacts acts in addition to duty (Fabian Bernhard & Michael P O'Driscoll, 2011; Park et al., 2013; Ramos et al., 2014; Van Dyne & Pierce, In the diagnostic model work revision,Pierce, Cummings, et al. (2009) has argued that work characteristics also impact the mechanisms leading to psychological ownership. This mechanism includes: controlling, deeply understanding, and investing for yourself. In the model after the factors belonging to the work characteristics impact job - based psychological ownership, job - based 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995; Zhu et al., 2013). Finally, researchers also began to study on the negative side of psychological ownership. Brown, Crossley, et al. (2014) shows that psychological ownership leads to territorial behaviour towards important subjects, territorial behaviour will result in coworkers underestimate the teamwork (Baer & Brown, 2012) 2.5. Research gaps. psychological ownership impacts the outputs include: internal motivation, work satisfaction, self- Firstly, studies on the factors that predict psychophysical ownership for very little work include esteem, sense of responsibility, burden of responsibility, performance of work (in role and extra role),

only factors such as self-employment in the work (Mayhew, Gardner, Bramble, & Ashkanasy, 2007), the complexity of the work (variable synthesis of 5 core characteristics of the work) (Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2014), working environment structure (O'Driscoll, Pierce, & Coghlan, 2006), leader (Bernhard & O'Driscoll, 2011), and intelligent culture and intelligence of religion (Kaur, Sambasivan, & Kumar, 2013). It is necessary to have a deeper study of how the child factors of the work promoting change, resisting change, personal risk and sacrifice, and territorial behavior. After the model is launched, Brown, Pierce, et al. (2014) indicates the complexity of the work of positive impact on job - based psychological ownership, then job - based psychological ownership positively impacts th employee performance. Besides, Brown, Pierce, et al. (2014) also proves that the revised model is better than the original model in anticipation of doing the job. characteristics or cultural structure affect the psychological ownership of the work. 2.3. Factors affecting psychological ownership Secondly, the results of the impact of psychological ownership for the execution of non-uniform 2.3.1. Factors that impact organization – based psychological ownership work in the study. Therefore, for different sample groups, this impact should be reappreciated. Studies of organization – based psychological ownership accounted for largely in studies of Finally, the study of psychological ownership on work is concentrated in Western countries with psychological ownership (Dawkins et al., 2017). These studies focus on the factors that act on little research in Asia, and there are no studies of psychological ownership in Vietnam. Therefore, a psychological ownership such as leadership, participation in decision-making processes, participating study in Vietnam would be to fill this gap. in stock ownership or dividing profits, autonomy, and work environment structure. 2.6. Theories and research models 2.3.2. The factors that impact job – based psychological ownership 2.6.1. The hypothesis. Of the few studies of job - based psychological ownership, these studies focus on the factors that 2.6.1.1. Characteristics of the impact on the psychological ownership of the work impact psychological ownership towards work such as: job characteristics (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014; H 1a hypothesis: diversity of positive tasks for psychological ownership of work Mayhew et al., 2007) (The complexity of work, autonomy), leadership and (Fabian Bernhard & Michael P O'Driscoll, 2011), working environment structure(O'Driscoll et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2004) and emotional intelligence and spritual intelligence of employees (Kaur et al., 2013). Hypothesis H1b: getting to know the work of positive impact on the psychological ownership of the work 2.4. The impact of psychological ownership 2.4.1. The impact of psychological ownership on attitude, feeling Hypothesis of H1c: The importance of the task of positive impact on psychological ownership of the work A series of studies have shown the connection between psychological ownership and attitudes and feelings of individuals including: commitment to the Organization (Han et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2012; Hypothesis H 1d: Self-employment in positive impact to psychological ownership of work Mayhew et al., 2007; Sieger et al., 2011; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995); Satisfying Hypothesis H1e: A positive impact on the psychological ownership of the work in work (Fabian Bernhard & Michael P O'Driscoll, 2011; James et al., 2012; Knapp et al., 2014; Mayhew 2.6.2.2. A psychological ownership of work that impacts on tasks et al., 2007; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Sieger et al., 2011); Self-esteem(Liu et al., 2012; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004); Commitment to work (Ramos et al., 2014) and intention to stay (Zhu et al., 2013). Hypothesis H2: The psychological ownership of impact work to perform work in the task. 2.6.1.3. To have a psychological ownership of the work and conduct of the Besides the positive attitudes, researchers also verify the effects of psychological ownership on negative attitudes at work. The two studies of Fabian Bernhard and Michael P O'Driscoll (2011) and

Hypothesis H3: Psychological ownership of a positive impact on the voiced behavior.

7

8

2.6.2. Research model. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY From the above arguments and the above hypotheses, the proposed research model is as follows 3.1. Research Sample The official questionnaire is submitted in both forms online and sent directly. The total number of people filling the form online is 70. For direct questionnaire, author to 10 companies in the north and broadcast 402 votes, collected on 385 votes. The response rate for the questionnaire directly is 95.77%. Thus, the author collects about 455 who responded to the questionnaire. However, out of 455 respondents the questionnaire has 26 people filling missing information in the questionnaire. In 26 people lack this information, there are 23 people who lack the answer to important questions about turning work traits and doing the job. Thus, the author decides to quit 23 observations. With 3 remaining information, missing information is a non-important information including missing name and email address. After consideration, the author decides to retain these three observations for later analyses. As such, total observations included in the analysis include 432 observations Table 3.1: Demographic information Norminal and ordinal variables No Variable name, number of Criteria Frequency Percent observations missing 1 Sex Male 224 51,9 % Number of observations Female 208 48.1 % missing: 0 Total 432 100% 2 Work position Employees 296 68.5 % Number of observations Base level 79 18.3 % missing: 0 Management Middle management 49 11,3 % Senior Management 8 1,9 % Total 432 100% 3 Work area Northern 369 85.4 % Number of observations Central 28 6.5 % missing: 0 Central 35 8.1 % Total 432 100% 1 0,1 % Under high school 4 Education level Number of observations high school 8 1,9 % missing: 0 Intermediate 2 0,5 % College 11 2,5 % University 314 72,7 % Graduate 96 22,2 % 432 100% Total Scale variable

9

10

removing the 6 and 7 scales, continuing the author of the number 5 scale out from the scale and the No Variable Min Max Range Mean Standard reliability of the scale is 0, 803. name deviation Age 1 22 56 34 31,556 6.88 Seniority 2 01 35 34 7.713 6.34 3.2.8. Voice bahvior The behavior voiced by Van Dyne And LePine (1998) includes 6 variables. The reliability of the performance scale performs the improvement activities are: 0.636. If the type only turns IP5 out of the Note: The seniority variable is measured by years IP variable then the reliability of the scale increases. Therefore, the author decides to leave only IP5 out 3.2. Measure of the analysis later. After the reliability analysis of the measured behavior measurement scale, the voice 3.2.1. Job based psychological ownership of Cronbach's Alpha is 0.752 and the only variables that are retained include IP1, IP2, IP3, IP4, IP6. 3.2.9. Variables of personal information There are also questions about personal information in the questionnaire. Respondents questionnaire asked about the name, email address, gender, age, seniority of work by year, position, and education level. 3.3. Research procedure Psychological ownership of the original scale use of Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) proposed. Initially, this scale was designed for psychological ownership for the organization, then, when switching to a psychological ownership for work, Mayhew et al. (2007) edited to suit for work. In this study, the author used the scale of Mayhew et al. (2007) edit and translate to Vietnamese. The Conbach Alpha Index of the psychological-owning scale for the work is: 0.447. At the same time the author noticed the Question No. 2 , 5, 6, 7 if removed from the model, there is a Cronbach's Alpha index of psychological ownership variables for the work of 0.816. The author decides to type the last question out of the analysis later. So, Cronbach's Alpha index after variable type 2, 5, 6.7 is 0.816. The author conducts research on the suggestion of De Vaus (2013) for investigating questionnaires in sociology studies. In which De Vaus (2013) suggests there are 4 phases of the questionnaire study including: Phase 1: Research overview; Phase 2: Data collection; Phase 3: Set up 3.2.2. Skill variety data for analysis; and Phase 4: Data analysis and report writing. The skill variety was adapted to a scale by the Sims Jr, Szilagyi, and Keller (1976) . The number of variables only in this scale is 5 variables. The internal linking index for the working scale is: 0.863. The author conducts learn the scales used in the model, questionnaire design, conducting Pilot test and editing questionnaire; and formal investigation. Initially, when translating the questionnaire from English to Vietnamese, then the questionnaire, which includes English next to Vietnamese, was 3.2.3. Task identity Task identity is made by the Sims Jr et al. (1976) measured in 3 variables. The reliability of the scale is: 0.876. sent to the first 10 people to be rated as good English skills for comments on questionnaires. After the reception of the opinion of 10 people, the author proceeds to edit the first question sheet. The author then sends the first edited questionnaire that only includes Vietnamese for 30 people and continues to 3.2.4. Task significance The importance of the mission led by Hackman and Oldham (1975) is measured in 3 variables. The reliability of the scale of the task is: 0.826. receive feedback on the questionnaire. At the end of this period, the author had a formal questionnaire. The author conducts online questionnaire on Google form and prints the questionnaire directly. The 3.2.5. Autonomy author then sends the questionnaire link to the workers in the business that the author knows and asks Sims Jr et al. (1976) measures autonomy in 5 variables. The Crobach Alpha index for the autonomy them to send to the people in the agency. In addition, the author also has seven businesses in the north scale at work is: 0,801. However, if it is JA3, the credibility of the JA scale increases significantly from to play the questionnaire directly. 0.801 to 0.865. The author after reviewing the content of JA3 shows that in the context of Vietnam it is possible to regularly receive feedback from the direct management of uncertainty concerning the self- employment and decide to quit JA3 out of the scale of JA. 3.2.6. Job feedback Feedback in work is Sims Jr et al. (1976) measured in 3 variables only. The reliability of the work feedback scale is 0.816. 3.2.7. In-role performance

Performing work in a mission was measured by Larry J. Williams and Anderson (1991) with 7 variables. The reliability of the performance scale in the task is: 0.578. With the above result, the scale of the work done in the task does not reach acceptable reliability of 0.7. Besides, if the 6.7 scales are abandoned, the reliability of the scale increases. The author decides to abandon the 6.7 measuring scale and analyzes the reliability of its performance scale in the task and conducts the reliability analysis after

11

12

4 . 1 .

4 . 1 . 1 .

d i v i d e d

4 . 1 . 1 . 2 .

4 . 1 . 1 . 1 .

v a r i a b l e .

a t i n d e x

∆

i n t o

t u r n M o d e l 1 :

S c a l r e l i a b i l i t y

m o d e l i s 3 4 2 , 6 2 3 / 4 ;

a n d

T a b l e 4 . 1 .

T I 1

T I 2

T I 3

J F 2

J F 1

J F 3

J A 2

J A 1

J A 4

J A 5

T S 3

T S 2

T S 1

S V 5

S V 4

S V 3

S V 2

S V 1

∆ D F

v a r i a b l e s ,

C o d e

W h e n t h e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s c o n f i r

v a r i a b l e s b u t a g a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y

M o d e l

0 , 8 4 1

0 , 7 6 1

0 , 8 1 1

0 , 7 8 1

0 , 7 8 0

3 :

F a c t o r 1

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s o f

C H A P T E R 4 :

W o r k

χ r e d u c e d 2

0 , 8 5 8

0 , 7 8 4

0 , 8 1 9

0 , 7 9 2

W h e n c o m p a r i n g M o d e l 3 ,

F a c t o r 2

1 3

∆ χ 2

0 , 8 5 2

0 , 8 5 5

0 , 8 6 5

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

F a c t o r 3

H a i r e t a l . ( 2 0 0 6 )

S p e c i f i c a l l y ,

T h e v a r i a b l e s

W h e n c o m p a r i n g 5 m o d e l s s h o w e d ,

A n a l y s i s o f t h e f a c t o r s o f t h e w o r k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s v a r i a b l e

0 , 8 1 5

0 , 8 8 5

0 , 8 0 0

d i v i d e d

N o t e : T h e l o a d f a c t o r l a r g e r t h a n 0 , 3 i s p r e s e n t i n t h e t a b l e .

F a c t o r 4

E x p l o r a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e w o r k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s v a r i a b l e

W o r k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i v i d e d i n t o 5 i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s ,

R E S U L T S O F R E S E A R C H

i n t o

T h e c o n f i r m a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r j o b c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s v a r i a b l e s

∆ D F i s 7 9 1 , 5 5 1 / 7 ;

0 , 8 3 4

0 , 8 8 9

0 , 8 1 2

m s t h e a u t h o r p r o c e e d s t o c o m p a r e t h e c o n f o r m

F a c t o r 5

M o d e l 2 :

w h e n c o m p a r i n g t h e t

v a r i a b l e s o f t h e c h i l d v a r i a b l e s o f t h e j o b c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a r e l o a d e d o n 5 e l e m e n t s .

M o d e l 1 r e d u c e d t h e s

v a r i a b l e s ,

w h e n c o m p a r e d t o t h e 2 ,

E x p l o r a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e w o r k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s v a r i a b l e

∆

M o d e l

2 /

4 :

T h e l o a d f a c t o r r e s u l t s s h o w v a r i a b l e s i n t h e j o b c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a r e q u i t e s e p a r a t e f r o m

T h e i s l a n d e l e m e n t s h a v e b e e n r e c a l c u l t e d b y t h e f o r m u l a e q u a l t o 8 m i n u s t h e i s l a n d v a l u e .

∆ D F

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e d i v i d e d i n t o 2 v a r i a b l e s a n d m o d e l 5 : J o b c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e d i v i d e d i n t o 1 g r o s s

J o b

W o r k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

i t y o f t h e 5 m o d e l s i n

w o m o d e l s c a n l o o k

t h e

m a l l a m o u n t o f

W h e n c o m p a r i n g M o d e l 4 ,

∆

4 . 1 . 2 . 1 .

2 /

v a r i a b l e s .

T h u s ,

∆ D F

m o d e l 1 b e t t e r t h a n t h e

i s 1 2 5 8 , 5 7 1 / 9 ;

T a b l e 4 . 7 .

I P 3

I P 2

I P 1

R P 4

R P 3

R P 2

R P 1

C o d e

M o d e l 2 , 3 , 4 . 5 .

0 , 7 8 1

0 , 7 3 0

0 , 8 0 3

0 , 8 1 0

F a c t o r 1

1 4

W h e n c o m p a r i n g M o d e l 5 ,

F a c t o r

∆

E x p l o r a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s

2 /

0 , 7 3 4

0 , 7 2 4

0 , 7 6 7

F a c t o r 2

∆ D F

N o t e : L o a d f a c t o r l a r g e r t h a n 0 , 3 i s p r e s e n t i n t h e t a b l e .

R e s u l t s o f t h e e x p l o r a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s a s f o l l o w s

T h e l o a d f a c t o r o f t h e 2 n d d e p e n d e n t f a c t o r

i t h t h e V i e t n a m e s e m o d e l g r o u p , t h e w o r k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e d i v i d e d i n t o 5 i n d e p e n d e n t

i s 1 9 8 7 , 9 3 0 / 1 0 d e m o n s t r a t e s

d e t

l e v e l

8 0 , 0 ≤

8 0 , 0 ≤≤≤≤

8 0 , 0 ≤

p e c c A

4.1.2.2. The confirmatory factor analysis for dependent variables.

R M R S

The author in turn conducts an audit factor analysis for the dependent variable. Only the mid-

t l u s e R

0 6 6 1 , 0

1 6 3 0 , 0

9 0 7 0 , 0

0 4 3 1 , 0

2 8 0 1 , 0

f o e u l a v t a h t s u n i m

variables are included in the CFA analysis with two models respectively. Base model 6, the variables that perform the work are separated into 2 factors and a base model 7, the variables that do the work are grouped into 1 factor. The result compares 2 models that show the 6 base model better than the base

l e v e l

8 0 , 0 ≤

8 0 , 0 ≤≤≤≤

8 0 , 0 ≤

model 7.

d e t p e c c A

Table 4.8. Compare 2 base models of dependent variables

A E S M R

7 8 1 , 0

4 3 0 , 0

5 8 0 , 0

1 5 1 , 0

2 2 1 , 0

t l u s e R

l e d o m e h t f o e u l a v F D

Model Df GFI CFI RMSEA SRMR χχχχ2/df χχχχ2 25.044 Base model 6: Doing the 13 1,926 0,984 0,986 0,046 0,0290

d e t

9 , 0 ≥≥≥≥

l e v e l

9 , 0 ≥

p e c c A

job in the task and the

I F C

f o r e b m u n d e x i f n o d e s a b d o h t e m n o i t c a r t x e e h t h t i

7 7 3 , 0

behavior of the language

1 8 9 , 0

7 7 8 , 0

0 0 6 , 0

1 4 7 , 0

is two independent

t l u s e R

2 l a u t c a e h t χ

9 , 0 ≥

variables The model 7:2 depends 119.302 14 8,522 0,922 0,873 0,132 0,0816

9 , 0 ≥≥≥≥

9 , 0 ≥

l e v e l d

e t p e c c A

on the 1 variable

I F G

7 8 5 , 0

0 7 8 , 0

7 1 7 , 0

8 8 7 , 0

≤ 3* ≥0,9* ≥0,9* ≤ 0,08* ≤0,08* 94, 258/1 Acceptance level ∆∆∆∆χχχχ2 / ∆∆∆∆df

5 5 9 , 0

t l u s e R

5 1

Note: * Taken from the study of Hair et al. (2006) Thus, with existing data, the dependent variables separated into two independent variables are

n o d e s a b d e t a l u c l a c s i

0 1

f d ∆∆∆∆

F D ∆

aligned with the research data.

f d ∆∆∆∆

s e l b a i r a v s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c k r o w e h t e d i v i d o t s n o i t p o 5 h t i

à v

4.2. The relationship between job characteristics, psychological ownership for work and work

2 χχχχ ∆∆∆∆

χ ∆

executionThe relationship between job characteristics, psychological ownership for work and

2 χχχχ ∆∆∆∆

3 2 6 , 2 4 3

1 5 5 , 1 9 7

0 3 9 , 7 8 9 1

1 7 5 , 8 5 2 1

work execution.

w s l e d o m

3 ≤

To analyze the relationship between the work characteristics variables, the psychological ownership of the work, and the implementation of the author's work using the structural model

3 ≤≤≤≤

l e v e l d

(Structural Equation Model) to inspect simultaneously correlated between variables.

e t p e c c A

Table 4.10. Results regression model

f d / 2 χχχχ

f o n o s i r a p m o C

e h t , ) b 6 0 0 2 , . l a t e r i a H

2 1 1 , 4

6 1 4 , 7

9 4 4 , 1

t l u s e R

3 1 1 , 6 1

1 9 7 , 0 1

Relationship Se P Conclusion β

. 5 . 4 e l b a T

s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c k r o W

s e l b a i r a v

0,092 0,056 0,104 Rejecte H1a 0,228 0,068 *** Accept H1b 0,161 0,053 0,02 Accept H1b 0,652 0,084 *** Accept H1b 0,509 0,065 *** Accept H1b 0,488 0,043 *** Accept H1b

l e d o m e s a B

s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c b o J : 3 l e d o M

, 2 , 3 , 4 y l e v i t c e p s e r s e l b a i r a v

w s i s y l a n a r o t c a f y r e v o c s i d e h t n o d e s a b s i s p u o r g t n e r e f f i d n o s e l b a i r a v t n e d n e p e d n i f o n o i s i v i d e h T

s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c b o J : 2 l e d o M

s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c b o J : 4 l e d o M

t n e d n e p e d n i 4 o t n i d e d i v i d

t n e d n e p e d n i 2 o t n i d e d i v i d

t n e d n e p e d n i 3 o t n i d e d i v i d

s e l b a i r a v t n e d n e p e d n i 5 o t n i

( n o d e s a b e r a s l e v e l e l b a t p e c c A : e t o N

, 1 l e d o m e s a b

•

e s a B

s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c b o J : 1 l e d o m e s a B

e s a B

e l b a i r a v t n e d n e p e d n i 1 o t n i d e d i v i d

: 5 l e d o m e s a B

0,524 0,054 *** Accept H1b 1,992 SV (cid:1) JPO TI (cid:1) JPO TS (cid:1) JPO JA (cid:1) JPO JF (cid:1) JPO JPO (cid:1) IRP JPO (cid:1) IP χχχχ2/df

16

0,905 GFI CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSING RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 0,938 CFI BUSINESSES 0,048 RMSEA 0,0516 SRMR 5.1. Discussing the results of research NOTE: * * * is a level that is less than 0.01 The author conducts a regression at model 1 to produce 4 out of 5 business characteristics variables that have a positive impact on the psychological ownership of the work but the intensity of the impact is different. The biggest impact is that the host variable in the work variable has the second major From the relevance indicator the model shows that the total model is appropriate. Specifically, χ 2/df = 1.992 is less than 3, GFI = 0.905 is greater than 0.9; CFI = 0.938 greater than 0.9; RMSEA = impact as the response in the job. The remaining variables have similar impacts. Private with variable 0.048 less than 0.08; and SRMR = 0.0516 less than 0.08. impact diversity tasks are not statistically significant. To increase psychological ownership of work, the The word in the above table shows that there are 4 out of 5 work characteristics that positively most optimal way is to increase all 4 work characteristics variables including mission recognition, the impact the psychological ownership of the work including mission recognition, mission importance, importance of tasks, self-employment, and job feedback. However, if a question is asked: what is the self-employment, and job feedback. The relationship between the task diversity and psychological focus of improvement? The answer will focus on two main variables that are self-centered in work and ownership is not statistically significant. work feedback are two of the biggest impact variables. In 4 variables that act on psychological ownership of the work of these 4 variables are positive, The above results are largely consistent with the results of previous research (Brown, Pierce, et i.e., if the increase in mission identification variables, the importance of tasks, self-work, and feedback al., 2014; Mayhew et al., 2007; O'Driscoll et al., 2006). Research by Brown, Pierce, et al. (2014) When

aggregating 5 variables into a complex variable in work, the result is the complexity of the work of positive impact on the psychological ownership of the work ( β = 0.46, p < 0.01). The study of Mayhew et al. (2007) showed that self-sovereignty in work positively impacts the psychological ownership of the work ( β = 0.37, p < 0.01). The results of the study also found that psychological ownership of the work has a positive impact on the performance of the job in the task and the behavior of voice. The intensity of impact on these two in work will increase the psychological ownership of the work. Besides, the greatest impact on the psychological ownership of the work is self-employment in the work with β = 0.652 (se = 0.084, p < 0.01), the second largest impact is feedback in work β = 0.509 (se = 0.065, p < 0.01). Two variables remaining the same level of impact are almost identical with the task β 's identity variable = 0.228 (se = 0.068, p < 0.01) and turn the importance of task β = 0.161 (se = 0.053, p = 0.02). Assuch, the H1a hypothesis was rejected, the H1b, H1c,h1d, h1e hypothesis was accepted. The above table also shows the psychological variables of the positive impact on the variables is nearly equal and at medium. The impact of psychological ownership on the implementation of the work in more and more the impact of the psychological ownership of the implementation of improvement. performance of the task and the behavior of however, the impact of psychological ownership on work- up behavior is more powerful than performing tasks in tasks with β = 0.524 (se = 0.054, p < 0.01), β = 0.488 (se = 0.043, p < 0.01). This results in the hypothesis that H2a, h2b is acceptable. Results on consensus with the results of a few previous studies (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014; Kaur et al., 2013; O'Driscoll et al., 2006) and was not consistent with the study of Mayhew et al. (2007). The results of this study are agreed with previous research studies (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and of (O'Driscoll et al., 2006), however opposed to the study of Mayhew et al. (2007). 5.2. Research contributions Dissertation contributes to general reasoning on psychological ownership on the following aspects Firstly, the topic provides a deeper insight into the impact of job characteristics to the psychological ownership of the work. In this study, work characteristics variables separated into smaller variables provide a clearer view of the relationship between work characteristics and psychological ownership of work. Secondly, in this research the author has proven to be with the data of Vietnam, the work characteristics variables consistent with the structure 5 variables members include: Task diversity, job recognition, mission importance , self-employment, and reflexes at work.

17

18

Finally, this study contributed to research on psychological ownership when studying in an Asian addition, to decide the issues related to his or her work, the individual should be the information needed country is Vietnam. In previous studies, the sample group was largely in western countries such as to make decisions (McShane & Glinow, 2017). research in the United States (Brown, Pierce, et al., 2014), of New Zealand (O'Driscoll et al., 2006), or One way to get rich in work is to incorporate interdependent tasks into one job. in Australia (Mayhew et al., 2007). 5.4.2. Recommendations for performance evaluation work 5.3. Limitations of research The second impact factor to the psychological ownership of the work then possesses a Although the thesis has contributed to reasoning and practicality as presented in the upper part, psychological effect on the work of doing the job in the task and the behavior of the voice is feedback however, when using the thesis study results or when infering from the thesis study, the reader needs to at work. One of the solutions that increases feedback in the job is to implement a 360 degrees (360 pay attention to the following restrictions : degree feedback) response. Besides, exposure to customers also and receiving customer reviews is the Firstly, the work characteristics variables, the psychological ownership of the work, the execution solution to increase the level of feedback in the job. of the work in the task and the implementation of the improvement are all rated from the individual 5.4.3. Recommendations for training activities. viewpoint in the same survey. This can make the correlation between variables increased due to the impact of common variance method causing virtual correlation, inflating correlation, or similar variables Self-interest is the largest impact on the job and has the impact on the task and the conduct of the only for similar results (Williams & Brown , 1994). Secondly, variables that perform work in the task work in the mission and behavior. One of the measures aimed at raising self-awareness in work is and perform improvements are rated by individuals for self-assessment, which can make the self- empowering. But to be empowered, employees need to have the capacity and have enough information assessment perform the job higher than the actual implementation of that individual's work. Thirdly, the to make decisions. This includes the capacity of planning, coordinating, and evaluation of your work. template group that the author uses is acceptable to scale (N = 432), however the template group In order to achieve these capacities, employees should be trained in planning skills, teamwork skills, structure is not guaranteed. Fourth, the sample group used in the study is the convenient group. The problem solving skills and assessment skills. following studies using random sample groups will be more valuable in generalizing research outcomes. The work characteristics built in the scale above are these work characteristics measured under Despite these limitations, the author argues that the thesis has made certain contributions to the the perception of the person who answered the questionnaire (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). The study of psychological ownership in Vietnam. importance of the task is determined by the level of importance of that task and the perception of the employee himself on the importance of the task he is doing. To raise awareness of the mission of need 5.4. Recommendations to Managers to communicate, emphasize the importance of tasks for employees, employees ' rights. 5.4.1. Recommendations for job design Identify tasks that led to the expansion of employee duties. To expand this task, the training should The results of research that have been presented in Chapter 4 show that an extensive and enriching be focused. Instead of employees only have to do 1 repetitive task, employees are doing a group of work approach to work (job enlargement and job enrichment) is more suited to the approach of scientific related to each other and creating the whole product or 1 piece of results of the product. This requires governance. As such, with the results of the study found that business should design complex work workers to grasp the skills knowledge of many tasks and set the urgent need of training for the workers. challenged, allowing employees to participate in the decision-making process and take responsibility for their decision. However, after rereviewing the structure of his sample group with the majority of 5.5. Next Research direction highly-advanced people, the author would note that the extended approach to work would be better For research on psychological ownership in general, about the research gaps in terminology and suited to those positions that require highly-level workers in business Business. The results of the study show that the approach to Vietnamese enterprises is to expand vertically rather than extending horizontally. Due to their self-employment, they actively work in tasks through psychological-ownership variables. scale, there have been no studies which demonstrate the separation of psychological ownership with the localization and the need for research to demonstrate this separation (Dawkins et al., 2017). In addition, there are two measuring scales for psychological ownership including the scale of Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) and by Brown, crossley, et al. (2014) and researchers using alternating twoscales. There is a study that indicates in which case the scale is used. One of the recommendations given in order to improve self-employment is to empower. In addition, studies on psychological ownership are largely based on the approach of Empowerment is a psychological concept represented by four aspects: agency, meaning, capacity and psychological ownership theory which suggests that psychological ownership originates from internal impact of individual role in the Organization (Forrester, 2000). However, this empowerment needs to motivation. However, psychological ownership is based on two major platforms, which are the internal be put on the platform as employee capacity and access to information (McShane & Glinow, 2017). An motivation platform and the jointly beneficial platform (Wagner et al., 2003). Therefore, there is a need individual who has the capacity to make decisions related to his or her work should be investigated. In for approaches other than the psychological-owning approach.

19

20

The object of ownership in psychological studies is quite limited, focus only on two subjects: the

psychological ownership of the organization and the psychological ownership of the work (Dawkins et al., 2017) although the subject of psychological ownership is quite extensive including tangible and invisible objects (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Thus, later research can study on a more diverse audience of psychological ownership such as: Work area, Idea, workgroup,... The method used in the study of psychological ownership reveals certain limitations. Therefore, the approach to collecting data from various sources is necessary to minimize this consistent variance. In addition, the following research can study psychological ownership over a long period of time (longitudinal study) in order to better understand how psychophysical ownership takes place over time For research on psychological ownership for work, the following research can focus on the following directions Firstly, this study has a type of bias in terms of level and region of the domain. The following studies need to focus on lower-level sample groups such as high school, intermediate, and tertiary levels to study how the characteristics of work traits affect the psychological ownership of the work. In addition, this study was largely the north, requiring a study with a sample group in central and south to complement the results of this study Secondly, the sample group used in the post is a convenient sample group, the following study uses random sample groups that will be more complete for this study.

21