Employee ownership and promotive voice: the roles of psychological ownership and perceived alignment of interests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose We compare two prominent explanations of employee ownership’s influence on pro-organizational behaviors—psychological ownership and alignment of financial interests—by testing the effects of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) and current profit sharing on promotive voice. ESOPs give employees an ownership stake through granting shares to a trust. Current profit sharing gives employees a portion of profits as a cash payment. To differentiate between the mechanisms, we propose that employee decision influence moderates only the relationship between ESOPs and psychological ownership. Design/methodology/approach Using a National Bureau of Economic Research dataset of employees of 14 USA companies with shared capitalism practices, we conducted a path-analysis of a moderated multiple-mediation regression model using the PROCESS macro. Our sample included 16,557 participants. Findings Psychological ownership partially transmits the effects of ESOP participation and current profit sharing on promotive voice. Employee decision influence strengthens the relationship between ESOP participation and psychological ownership. Perceived alignment of interests does not mediate the relationships between employee ownership and promotive voice. Practical implications Employee ownership increases promotive voice. ESOPs must be combined with employee decision influence to produce psychological ownership. Offering current profit sharing with ESOPs is related to additional psychological ownership and voice. Originality/value In a single model, we test the most prominent explanations for the effects of employee ownership on pro-organizational behavior, in the context of two of the most common forms of employee ownership.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".