Content uploaded by Gunnar Magne Økland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gunnar Magne Økland on Jun 26, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Does Employee Ownership Affect Organizational Commitment?
Abstract
In this paper, we present a study of the relationship between collective and individual ownership, and organizational commitment. Employees in an employee-owned shipyard are compared with employees in a conventionally owned one. Organizational commitment is treated as including identification with, involvement in and attachment to the firm. The results indicate that collective employee ownership is positively related to all these dimensions, whereas owning shares in the company individually is only weakly related. The strongest determinant of employees’ commitment was their feeling of being a co-owner.
... Alle ansatte i Solheimsviken overtok kollektivt cirka 90 prosent av aksjene ved inngangen til 1985. De empiriske undersøkelsene tyder på at de ansatte kollektive eierne i Solheimsviken AS hadde signifikant sterkere organisasjonstilknytning, involvering og lojalitet (Økland 1987;Økland og Nordhaug 2005) og organisasjonsidentifikasjon (Økland og Kvitastein 2015) enn de ansatte ved BMV Laksevåg. ...
Medarbeidereide bedrifter betyr at ansatte som arbeider i en bedrift, har ervervet og besitter en del av egenkapitalen. Artikkelen gir oversikt over tre former for medarbeidereide bedrifter, geografisk utbredelse, motiver for etablering samt støtte i ulike land. To modeller som kan bidra til å forklare økonomiske effekter i foretak der ansatte er eiere, presenteres med oversikt over empiriske undersøkelser som tester deler av modellene. Til tross for at bare vel to prosent av foretakene i privat sektor i Norge var helt eller delvis eid av medarbeiderne i 2013 (Lowitzsch og Hashi 2014), er medarbeidereide bedrifter (MB) på fremmarsj i en rekke land som Italia, Frankrike, Spania, USA (Mygind 2012) og Argentina (Ozarow og Croucher 2014). I USA anslås det at cirka 15 prosent av arbeids-takerne i privat sektor er medeiere i egen bedrift gjennom såkalte Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). I EU var over fem prosent av foretakene MB i 2013 (Lowitzsch og Hashi 2014). Medarbeidere som eier sin egen bedrift, er ikke et nytt fenomen. Det antas at de første kollektive MB, såkalte arbeider-kooperativer, ble etablert i England ved oppstarten av den industrielle revolusjon. Formålet med denne artikkelen er å formidle kunnskap om MB. Mer spesifikt vil jeg komme inn på hva MB er, og motivene bak etablering av MB. Dette følges opp med å kaste lys over forhold som stimulerer etablering av slike foretak, ved å se på hva ulike land gjør på dette området. I siste delen av denne artikkelen kommer jeg inn på konsekvenser av MB for medarbeidereierne og foretakets lønnsomhet.
Denne utredningen er gjennomført som et ledd i siviløkonomutdanningen ved Norges Handelshøyskole og godkjent som sådan. Godkjenningen innebaerer ikke at høyskolen innestår for de metoder som er anvendt, de resultater som fremkommer eller de konklusjoner som er trukket i arbeidet.
Previous research on organizational commitment has typically not focused on the underlying dimensions of psychological attachment to the organization. Results of two studies using university employees (N = 82) and students (N = 162) suggest that psychological attachment may be predicated on compliance, identification, and internalization (e.g., Kelman, 1958). Identification and internalization are positively related to prosocial behaviors and negatively related to turnover. Internalization is predictive of financial donations to a fund-raising campaign. Overall, the results suggest the importance of clearly specifying the underlying dimensions of commitment using notions of psychological attachment and the various forms such attachment can take.
In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators. (46 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Much organizational identity research has grappled with the question of identity emergence or change. Yet the question of identity endurance is equally puzzling. Relying primarily on an analysis of 309 internal bulletins produced at a French aeronautics firm over almost 50 years, we theorize a link between collective memory and organizational identity endurance. More specifically, we show how forgetting in a firm's ongoing rhetorical history—here, the bulletins' repeated omission of contradictory elements in the firm's past (i.e., structural omission) or attempts to neutralize them with valued identity cues (i.e., preemptive neutralization)—sustains its identity. Thus, knowing “who we are” might depend in part on repeatedly remembering to forget “who we were not.”
In the field of organizational identity, theory development has far outpaced theory testing. Specifically, several researchers have proposed identity-based models of organizational identification but few have operationalized and tested them. Furthermore, virtually no research has explored how members identify with multiple-identity organizations. This study addresses these gaps and makes three specific contributions to identity theory. First, we operationalize and test a model in which a member's organizational identification is conceptualized in terms of an identity comparison process, i.e., a cognitive comparison between what a member perceives the identity to be and what they think it should be. Second, we extend current thinking by operationalizing organizational identification in terms of multiple and competing identities. Third, as a theory-building exercise, we explore the possibility that a similar identity comparison process operates at the organizational form level of analysis, affecting members' identification with the encompassing form or social institution. We test our model via a survey of members of rural cooperatives--a prototypical "hybrid" identity organizational form, embodying elements of both "business" and "family" identities. Results of the analyses show that organizational identity congruence has a significant effect on member commitment, and form-level identity congruence has significant effects on both cognitive and pragmatic legitimacy, lending support for the use of identity as a multilevel construct. These results provide empirical support for current identity-based models of organizational identification and expand their generalizability to include multiple-identity organizations.
A model is developed that explicates one process through which employee ownership operates, leading to a set of social-psychological and behavioral effects. Where the formal ownership system is operationalized such that it leads to psychological ownership, a bonding or integration of the employee-owner with the organization occurs. It is through these processes that employee ownership exercises an influence upon group and individual outcomes. A set of antecedent and moderating variables to the operation of the formal ownership system is identified.
This article presents a cognitive theory of why planned organizational change efforts, such as total quality initiatives, often fail. The theory suggests that employees resist total quality because their beliefs about the organization's identity constrain understanding and create cognitive opposition to radical change. We propose a dynamic model in which successful implementation of fundamental organizational transformation is partly dependent on management's ability to re-frame the change over time. Implementation may best be accomplished through a series of middle-range changes that are large enough to overcome cognitive inertia and relieve organizational stress, but not so large that members believe the proposed change is unobtainable or undesirable.
