Cognitive aspects of participation: Evidence from 3 studies more

Cognitive aspects of participation Page 1 Cognitive aspects of participation: Evidence from 3 studies1 Running head: Cognitive aspects of participation Ryszard Stocki2 Andrzej Bielecki Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland Cracow, June 2006 1 The authors would like to thank the group of students from Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, from the Acting Person Center (www.theactingperson.org) , for assistance in carrying the laborious analyses for this research paper. 2 Please send comments to stocki@apple.phils.uj.edu.pl or Ryszard Stocki, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Al. Mickiewicza 3 room 313, PL 31-120 Kraków, Poland. Cognitive aspects of participation Page 2 Abstract Participation always has two aspects: physical (legal) and cognitive - related to the cognitive structures of persons involved in participative behavior. The trouble of proving the effects of participation lies in the mismatch between the two aspects. In econo mic studies we usually rely on the physical (legal) aspects and real participation's consequences can hardly be measured, as they do not necessarily coincide with the declarations. In our studies, we decided to construct a formal model of ownership, assuming that the relation „A owns B” is only one of 10 similar relations on a spectrum from „A is a part of B” - greatest involvement to „A does not know about B” - the least involvement. Participation in management may be described by means of this model as various instances of „ownership spectrum” where „A” and „B” take different values of: a person, an institution, a community, a group, an object (material, energetic, informational, purchasing). Once formalized we can view the studies in participation from one, system theory point of view, and formulate the hypotheses related to both aspects of ownership as it it is revealed in a variety of participation forms. In our studies we have applied multiple measures of both participation and effectiveness. We measured various aspects of organization functioning, we also asked employees to fill in questionnaires related to their perception of various forms of participation. In a couple of firms we went even further and studied cognitive maps of employees as regards concepts related to participation and effectiveness. Cognitive maps turned out to be a powerful tool for measuring the cognition of employees regarding their thinking about the organization, particularly - participation. In some instances the cognitions of employees differ substantially in late state firms in contrast to private enterprises. The possible consequences of this approach to participation for future research and managerial practice will be presented. Cognitive aspects of participation Page 3 Introduction Ownership and participation are often considered a crucial way to effectiveness. Yet as demonstrated by a Polish historian of economic history Kwiatkowski (1947) we should also seriously consider cognitive aspects of ownership. Kwiatkowski has proven that the greater percentage of a society understood the rules of economy, the better were the chances of economic development. The literate communities in the history had the greatest chances to prosper economically. One of such communities were Paraguay Reductions which prospered for over 150 years. To own something and to know to own something seem to be two different things. Though this general truth seems so obvious, it is not quite clear how, in detail, the ownership influences the effectiveness. Why when I am an owner I care more than if someone else is an owner. Is there a limit of this rule? We propose the thesis that ownership gives time, space and motivation to acquire knowledge of an object. The effectiveness is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, which assumes that “problems are best solved in the subsystem where they arise” (Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems, 2006). This is true because in that very system there is sufficient knowledge to respond adequately to the problems. Knowledge is simply a cognitive representation of the system. The more complex the system, the more knowledge it requires. In complex systems, of interrelated components, where it is not a triviality to delineate subsystems the knowledge should ideally encompass the whole complex system. This means our ancestors who lived and worked in relatively simple systems were in much better situation than we are now. In the next part of the paper we shall present psychological research regarding cognitive aspect of ownership and some orga nizational studies which have relevance to psychology. Than we shall present the formal model of participation spectrum, and finally present the results of research in several organizations showing the relationship between the cognition, effectiveness and participation. Developmental studies Let us start with the differentiation between ownership and possession. Possession is related more with the actual control of the object, while ownership is related to the legal aspect. In other words I may possess (have) something which is not mine. Polish economist living in Belgium - Leon Litwinski (after Górnik-Durose & Zaleski, 2004) formulated the “ownership paradox” according to him, the more we own in the legal sense the less we possess. In extreme cases the owners of great wealth may completely neglect the objects they have right to. The ownership relationship is noticed in children who according to the studies of Newson and Newson (1968, 1976) at the age of four have strongly developed feeling of ownership and collect different objects. This preoccupation with ownership and quarrels about who owns what may be, according to Lea, Tarpy and Webley (1987) attributed to fundamental basis of power, resulting from the cognitive control of the environment. For instance Marshall and Margruder (1960) found out that children who save, have more knowledge about money. Berti, Bombi and Lis (1982) have identified several levels of development of ownership concept. At level 1 - the youngest children identify the owner as someone in spatial contact with an object, at level 2, the owner is someone who exercises direct control of the object, only in level 5 the children are capapble of differentiating legal ownership from possessing (controlling) an object. In my unpublished studies Stocki (1990) J found out that children generated more ideas about an object if they imagined it was theirs than when they were told it is someone else's. The theoretical explanation given by Sigel and Cocking (1970) is that cognitive developme nt enables distancing to the object. The object in a way becomes depersonalized (Goody, p. 234). Lea, Tarpy and Webley (p. 379) comment these trend in the following way: “literacy encourages a Cognitive aspects of participation Page 4 person to attend to the non present; therefore it is a form of distancing. Since it externalizes the thought process, the use of literacy enables the individual to transcend the limitations of personal experience and of cognitive storage capacity.” It seems that the developmental studies give good evidence of associa ting ownership with cognitive control. The Self-concept studies Belk (1988, 1991) following James (1982/2002) speaks about broadened self. Our possessions, in psychological sense, are an important part of “material self” They may become so important that it is difficult to delineate between me (self) and mine (what I possess). The time and effort sacrificed to objects are proportionate to the extent in which an object is part of the broadened self. According to Belk various objects are placed at various distances from self. This relationship is exercised by three intentional processes of incorporation or to put it in Piagetian terms (assimilation): control, creation, and cognition, particularly enriched with emotions. Self may also be broadened by unintentional and passive process of contamination. By intrusive or symbolic invasion of self. According to Belk this broadened self allows a person to have the feeling of competency, mastership, individuation, relationship with other people, as well as relationship with the future and the past (Belk, 1991). This material broadening may be risky for self in case of loss of the objects. The same process may be viewed from the social constructionist perspective (Semin & Gergen, 1990) if the objects are defined as social objects, may be perceived as self - being owned, or possessed by an object, because individual identity is intertwined with the social context. The attitude of an individual to the material property may be viewd on a scale of materialism. But authors (Fournier & Richins, 1991; Friedman, 2000; Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Fromm, 1995) differentiate character materialism - with material objects in the center of one's life and at the core of self, and instrumental materialism where object are treated as means (instruments) to other goals. Górnik-Dorose (2002) proposes three layer model of materialism between the instrumental and character materialism the level on which possession is treated as a value. There are many studies relating the materialism to well-being and feeling of happiness (Dittmar, 1992; Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Richard & Dawson, 1990, 1992) they agree that possession does make happy only relatively poor people, when they become rich the money is less and less important. So the relationship between possession and the feeling of happiness is curvilinear. If we broaden the object into the immaterial ones - like love, happiness, etc. the extensive possession does not translate into effectiveness. For materialists who assimilate the owned object into their self, the results of research show that it is even worse, they are never happy (Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Richins & Dawson, 1990; 1992; after Górnik-Durose, 2002). From our perspective, the materialists are not effective, as they do not control the immaterial objects (values). Cognitive conclusions from other studies The studies enumerated above relate mainly to individuals and their private lives. Yet, there is a broad research tradition in management relating different forms of ownership with the effectiveness of enterprises. One of the most spectacular examples is the study by Erdal (2000) who compared three small Italian cities. One with employee owned cooperatives where most of the population were employed and the other with ordinary ownership forms. The town with every 4th person employed in a employee owned company had (1) better mental and physical health, and longer lives, with much less cardiovascular disease, (2) better education - staying longer at school after the legal leaving age, playing less truant, getting better training after leaving school etc., (3) less crime, including less domestic violence, (4) higher social participation (joining clubs and charities; giving blood; voting), (5) and perceiving their social environment as more attractive. When they need help their personal networks are more supportive; they see the political authorities as more on their side; and (hugely) they see less difference between rich and poor in their town. The main reason is Cognitive aspects of participation Page 5 probably again in executing or not cognitive control of the environment. The unknown causes anxiety, which causes further pathological behaviors. Perotin and Robinson (2003) in their report for the European Commission state that the growing body of evidence suggests that profit sharing and employee share ownership have greater productivity effects when employees are well informed of the affairs of the firm, there is a good communication with management, and employees participate in governance and decisions. Coupling employee- ownership with managerial literacy, participation in decisions and profit sharing is sometimes called “open book management” this coupling of ownership with management style has been found extremely effective in many studies and analyses (Stack & Burlingham, 2003; Case, 1998; Maaloe, 1998; Blasi, Kruse, & Bernstein, 2003) support this. The evidence concerning the results of ownership on effectiveness both individual and collective makes us search for a systematic explanation of the phenomena and constructing such a model of participation which would not only explain the existing data, but also allow to predict effectiveness results when different parameters related with the company are known. General model of ownership By creating this model we want to offer a handy mechanism for formulating and testing hypotheses related to ownership and participation. Only very clear and testable model may be convincing to decision makers and reveal real value of participation in its different aspects. The stud ies quoted above give us the answer why we care more for what we own. By this care we care for ourselves as the possessions are either sources of our comfort, or are even elements of our self. Ownership relation We view ownership from the personal point of view. In this sense ownership may be defined as a relationship between a person A and and a being B. The object B may take different ontological statuses. It may be: (1) a person (including A, as we may certainly speak of possessing oneself or not); (2) an institution, a group of people, community; (3) object: material, energetic, purchasing. The object of ownership is an important variable of the model. If it is a simple small object like palmtop, the ownership has different nature from this when the object is an international corporation. It is also important to what extent the ownership is shared with others. We would speak of co-ownership. A cooperative company is a very good example of limitation of ownership by the ownership of others. Two main aspects of ownership relation The ownership relation may have three aspects. The first aspect is physical – which reflects the real physical possession and control of the object, the second legal aspect reflects the legal right to an object. We may say that the first two aspects have objective character, as they may be objectively tested and observed) and the third is the cognitive aspect of ownership. In its cognitive aspect the relation has the form of cognitive construct. We may say this relation is subjective as we can investigate it only indirectly, e.g. through introspection. For the purposes of this paper we shall reduce the legal and physical aspects int one. So we shall These two aspects give us in the most simple form four possibilities. The first, when I am really not an owner and I do not think I am. The second when I am not an owner, but I think I am – not very frequent situation, but if appeared in processes of nationalization, in deceived contracts, and in inheritance, when the whole family learns from the last will of their relative that they were disinherited. The third situation is when a person legally is an owner, but does not consider him/herself an owner. This was the case in the processes Cognitive aspects of participation Page 6 of privatization of Polish companies through so called employees' leasing.. Although the employees legally were owners, they were easily giving their property to others (e.g. managers or outsiders) as they did not feel as real owners. Probably in many ESOPs the situation was similar. The fourth situation when both legally and cognitively someone is an owner is most frequent one, and does not require explanation. For the purposes of simplification, I do not differentiate the situation when someone is legally and mentally an owner, but cannot physically execute its ownership rights. Such situation appears when employees go on strike. This however is a marginal to our main theme here. Ownership scale Although for the matter of simplification, we call it ownership scale, “ownership” is only one level on this scale. The scale was inspired by the psychological studies of ownership. It is based on the psychological logic of being in greater or lesser distance from an object. Level 1. A is a part of B. In other words B is made of such elements as A. What is important A does not differ significantly from other elements making B. In everyday language we say that be the object has A. For instance we may say that “Liverpool has Dudek” or “Poland has a new president”. This is then an extreme case of ownership relation scale. Level 2. A and B make a whole together. (e.g. Company A and company B make a joint-venture) The situation is similar to the previous one, except that the object is less complex because it consists of only two elements. We can imagine of course a whole scale between level 1 and level 2, as the complexity of the objects grows and thus immersion of the person is greater and greater. In management . If A is a person, this relation will be possible only at the moment whan a company is being created, later A is part of B. Level 3. A has B as its part. An extreme case of a physical object that may be considered part of ourselves is an implanted heart stimulator. This level lays much greater role in possession that are considered parts of the self. It was described in more detail in previous part. To put it shortly the situation may be described as “I am what I owe.” In management this might be the case with companies. Historically Henry Ford was known to treat the company as a part of himself. Level 4. A owns B. This situation appears when the object of ownership is outside our self. It is an object outside, which is treated instrumentally. I, with whatever constitutes me, have an object, an institution, etc. Similarly to one I may be not the only owner, than I would own only a part of a larger object. Between Level 3 and 4 there is the important border of change of object to a subject. Employee ownership in the variety of its forms would fall under this level. Level 5. A does not own B, but uses B. Here physical usage of an object is not associated with the legal ownership. A bus driver uses the vehicle, and may even say “This is my bus”, but the bus bolongs to the company, or even to a leasing company. Any employee who uses production tools is in this situation. The legal owner of the tools may not even know how to operate them. If at the same time B does not own, but uses A, we may say that A and B cooperate. Using something or someone and cooperating with something or someone are two distinct situations. This relation in many cases may describe the attitude of managers or union leaders to their companies. Level 6. A influences B. When someone cooperates with someone or something else there is higher control over the object. When the control is significantly lower, we may speak rather about influence than cooperation or using. In the case of influence the control is limited not only in time, but also in its extent. The extent of influence may be very limited, e.g. when a voter influences the government in the election process. Less and less frequently will we hear voters saying “this is my Cognitive aspects of participation Page 7 government”. Level 7. A is interested in B. Influencing is preceded by mere interest in the object. From cognitive point of view an interest in an object has fundamental significance for all other relations to be initiated. Level 8. A is used by B. But B is not used by A. This is the situation when we speak of human resource management or treating people instrumentally. Level 9. A notices B, but perceives it as indifferent to oneself. This relation will probably be quite frequent but as the weakest form of “ownership” scale has important role to play, particularly with ownership skeptics. Level 10. A does not know about the existence of B. Of course from the meta level we know that the object is important and relevant, yet the person does not know about its existence. It should be remembered that the levels although they form a theoretical continuum, do not form an interval or ratio scale as there is not the same interval between the consecutive levels. It should be also born in mind that one everyday ownership relation may consists of many different “ownerships”. If one “owns a house”. It usually means to own the lot, the limited access to the electricity, gas, water, but not the right to rebuild it as one wishes, etc. With the ownership of the company the limitations are even greater. Many regulations limit what we can do with our property. There is no unlimited ownership. Of course once you own something, you influence, you are interested etc. so the upper level may include some of the lower levels. For the dynamic character of the ownership model, we might also name some processes that enable us to become owners. On the lower levels these are elementary processes of perception and attention, then on higher levels they are more and more complex until the processes of self identity formation. On economic (physical) level we become owners in by taking, buying, stealing, earning by work, speculating, conquering, etc... The model should also take into account creation and destruction of the object of the relation, all these development of the model are not relevant to what we plan to hypothesize. Hypotheses The main purpose of constructing the model was testing the cognitive aspects of ownership. On the basis of the psychological research we postulate the following hypotheses: Study 1. Hotel managers' cognitive maps H1. The higher developed the company (and its market) the more complex the cognitive structures of the employees Study 2. Production company comparison H2. In employee owned production company people feel most secure and happy, in participative German subsidy less and in Polish medium sized company least. H3. Employee owned company has better achievements in other fields. Cognitive aspects of participation Page 8 Study 3. VoxPopuli questionnaires in 11 Polish companies. H4. The greater feeling of ownership is associated with greater reflectiveness in answering the questionnaires. H5. The greater feeling of ownership is associated with informing and other (OBM) practices of the company. H6. Well being is associated with the feeling of ownership, and other forms of participation. H7. The employees with longer tenure feel more secure in their companies. (take participation as the second variable. Method Hypothesis H1 was tested in two hotels of different origin. One was a late state owned hotel belonging to the oldest and greatest network of hotels and travel offices. The second was a newly built hotel built in the same city by an international network of hotels. The subjects were asked to draw causal maps regarding responsibility. Hypotheses H2 was tested on the data gathered from three production companies. And hypothesis H3 on two of them as there was no data available about other aspects of functioning of the company. The employees of the companies filled the VoxPopuli questionnaire which tested the management culture of the companies. Additionally the companies were asked to send other information regarding their effectiveness and social responsibility. These aspects were tested in two of the companies. panies of various sizes. The employees filled the VoxPopuli questionnaire. The hypotheses H4, H5, H6 and H7 were tested on a group of 1428 employees from 11 Polish companies The research tools VoxPopuli Questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 85 questions. Each of the questions is a reflection of the situation of the company from different points of view. So the employee is asked to view the situation as someone who is the object of the question, e.g. Do you have a good day today? Or from the perspective of others – generalized view of the firm, e.g. Do managers communicate with their subordinates with the respect of their dignity as persons? There are also some questions formulated as general statements such as: Does job satisfaction influence work quality of the employees? The questionnaire is a diagnostic tool which tests how employees perceive their companies and themselves in them. Apart from 12 aspects of the organization, there are also two questions about well being of the employee and 11 questions about private theories of the firm its systems and participation. A short description of the dimensions of the questionnair e follows. Cognitive aspects of participation Page 9 Well being. Work and management conditions are not the only factors that influence one's life. Security, family life, health and many other elements influence this aspect. Yet we decided to calculate job and life satisfaction as a crucial factor and the dependent variable which should be correlated with all others. Employee dissatisfaction may be the first aspect that may make employees to decide to make change in their life. This may have important consequences for the performance of the job. Together with other aspects this one may give concrete guidelines regarding the development of employees and changing work conditions. Superiors. This aspect refers particularly to relations with superiors, how much employees are satisfied with what they do. All the leadership studies tradition points to the leaders on all levels of management as the key to building the climate for great achievements. If something is wrong in this aspect immediate action regarding the managers' competency is required. Work environment. When we analyze different aspects of an organization we should not forget about different conditions people work in not only in different companies but also within the same company. Some other answers may be better understood and interpreted then. Work environment is usually the aspect of any organization that can be most easily changed. Information received. The flow of information is one of the crucial aspects of organization functioning. This is why several aspects directly or indirectly refer to it. What employee knows is the starting point. We assume that everyone should receive every information required to perform properly one's job. Many a time the whole process may be improved if everyone receives information. Rewards and costs. Compensation systems are a key source of feedback for any employee. If an employee does not know how value is created in the company, and how compensation is a cost, he or she will never be aware how to improve and work better. Very often this aspect is referred to as motivational one. We think human beings are reasonable enough that when they receive informative feedback are more than happy to change their behavior. Customer relationship management. This aspect shows how important are customers in the company. Its is natural that those who have direct contact with customers should be particularly interested whether they are satisfied or not. We assume more. To be prosperous nowday any company has tobe driven by customer needs. This aspects checks if this is the case in the company. Business as a game. Business is a game as Jack Stack put it. This is why it should not only be played outside but also inside a company. The employees should have a possibility to experience the thrill behind decisions and hard work. It should not be reserved only to the executive boards. This aspects checks what is the situation in diagnosed company. Information sent. Every employee is not only a receiver of information, but also one who generates it. Again if an employee who sees unnecessary losses losses and does not report it for some reasons, it may influence competitiveness and financial prosperity of the company. Development. The more competitive factor is knowledge for the company, the more important is planned development of the employees. This aspect checks how employees perceive their development and development of their co-workers and managers. The level of required development depends highly on the strategy of the company. What the company considers it key success factor. Change management. Business environment in most industries changes so dynamically that there is little chance that a company may remain the same for many years. Not all employees are aware of it. Many a time they are frustrated by continuous change. This aspect check their readiness for change. Strategic dialog. If a strategy is to be executed by all employees, they all should have a say in its Cognitive aspects of participation Page 10 content. Any strategy or at least some parts of it should be consulted with the employees. Then they are more willing to realize the strategy and be involved in implementing it. For the dialog the employees should be equipped not only with relevant information but also have a say in the creation of strategy. Ownership. This aspect shows how employees treat their company. Is it only an instrument to earn money or is it something more. The questions refer to the ownership scale from the utmost ownership when an employees perceives him or herself in the company as a member of a family having the feeling of working on his/her own. Being proud of the company's achievements and having good relationships with the people in the company. Apart from these aspects the questionnaire has two sets of general questions regarding the Theory of company and Theory of participation the employees have. The appropriate number of questionnaire was sent to companies with an instruction how to conduct the research. The organizers were to select a random group of employees on the basis of payroll list. Then in each company there was to be separated a room where the selected employee would come mark his or her name on the list and fill in the questionnaire and put it to a closed box. The procedure was very similar and probably evoked the script of election voting. The organizer of the study was asked to send the box without opening it. During the visit to the company several employees were asked whether the procedure was followed. The items of the questionnaire translated to English are enclosed in Appendix 1. Internal entrepreneurship questionnaire. This questionnaire was delivered after the causal mapping session. It consists of 20 questions consisting of different forms of participation. Instead of asking the employees about their opinions they were asked to judge what percentage of the company's employees is active in the different forms of participation. It is enclosed in Appendix 2. Participation questionnaire. This questionnaire was formed out of a selected questions from the VoxPopuli Questionnaire and was delivered after the causal mapping session. Causal mapping session about participation This session was conducted individually in separate rooms of the company. The employees were first asked to enumerate all they associate with the concept of responsibilirty. The experimenter was writing each statement on a post- it card and placing it in front of the employees on a flip-chart paper. Then the experimenter would asked how could the cards be ordered and what lines couldbe drawn between the. If the employee would allow, the session would be recorded to make coding of the answers easier. The maps were later coded and analyzed by calculating appropriate coefficients. Causal mapping session about responsibility This session looked exactly the same way the previous session the difference was that there was no diagram drawn on the flip-chart and the employees were asked first to enumerate what causes responsibility and then what are consequences of responsibility. After the session the subjects filled the full version of the VoxPopuli questionnaire. Cognitive aspects of participation Page 11 Subjects and procedure Study 1 The subjects were employees in two hotels. One - an old late state owned hotel, the second belongs to an international network of hotels. The subjects were all available at that time managers of the hotels. Study 2 For more detailed comparison we have selected 3 production companies. One of them was 75 employee owned. It was privatized by employee leasing. The second company was a Polish subsidiary of a German producer. The company has just moved into new location. The third company was a Polish company producing simple household goods. Study 3. In the questionnaire studies there participated 1430 employees from 12 companies. As they might be afraid that their results are not treated as secret the were given the choice “I'd prefer not to define it.” The companies were the so called SMEs from various industries: 3 production companies, 4 service companies and 4 trading companies. They employed from 400 to 50 employees. Results Study 1 – Responsib ility maps of hotel managers According to the H1, the higher developed the company (and its market) the more complex the cognitive structures of the employees. The table below presents the comparison of formal parameters of cognitive maps. We calculated the number of nodes (concepts) in each map and number of links between the nodes. The map complexity is generally considered to be the evidence of expertise. Table 1. Mean values of formal parameters of cognitive maps Hotel State (N=8) International (N=10) Mean number of nodes 7,75 16,7 Mean number of links between nodes 8,85 27,4 Table 2. Mirroring with organizational and personal perspective in mind while speaking about responsibility. Hotel State (N=8) Concepts with organizational perspective 61 % Concepts with personal perspective 39 % Cognitive aspects of participation Page 12 International (N=10) 45 % 55 % The differences are significant statistically. There is enough empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. Study 2. Production company comparison In this study we tested the hypothesis H2 that in employee owned production company people feel most satisfied with their life and job, in less participative but better organized German subsidy and least satisfied in a Polish medium sized company which is neither well organized nor participative. To test the hypothesis we conducted simple ANOVA analysis. Figure 1shows the difference between companies selected for comparison. Figure 1. Well being and form of ownership of a company Simple ANOVA (df=2 F=38,47, p<0,000) To test the hypothesis 3 that employee owned company has better achievements in other fields. We have compared two of the companies on criteria such as: finance, strategic management, operations management, innovation, CRM,etc (Table 3). The detailed benchmarking table is in Appendix 2. The data concerning the Polish company were not available. Below is the simplified table of points for the companies. Table 3. Comparison of two Polish companies. Criteria 1. Financial results 2. Operations management 3. Innovation 4. Strategy/Mission.Vision 5. Corporate Responsibility Maximum 100 80 20 100 50 Employee owned 72 71 12 75 30 German subsidy 57 58 13 65 18 Cognitive aspects of participation Page 13 Criteria 6. Environmental protection 7. Local community 8. Customer relations 9. Relationship with suppliers 10. Employee perception Total Maximum 50 50 100 50 200 800 Employee owned 40 38 68 35 164 605 German subsidy 33 22 67 40 158 531 Study 3. 11 Polish companies from various industries To test hypotheses 4, 5 and 6 we have correlated the interesting measures of the VoxPopuli Questionnaire. We were particularly interesting in all measures related to participation, i.e.: Well being, Input information, Business as a game, Strategic dialogue and Ownership. We have also created a dummy variable which was calculated as a sum of all missing data. Table 4 presents the correlation results. Table 4. Coorelation coefitients of missing data variable and some VoxPopuls subscales related to participation. Variables 1. Missing data 2. Well being 3. Input information 4. Business game 5. Strategic dialog 6. Ownership All correlations in boldface were statistically significant *** - p<0.001, ** - p<0.01 2 -0.12*** x 3 -0.08** 0,39** x 4 -0.16*** 0,42** 0,71** x 5 -0.06 0,38** 0,57** 0,59** x 6 -0.21*** 0,51** 0,68** 0,70** 0,62** x The hypothesis that the greater feeling of ownership should be associated with greater reflectiveness (operationalized as missing data) in answering the questionnaire was not supported by our data. The correlations are in accordance with common sense – missing data are rather related with lack of knowledge. Although the correlations are not very high. They contradict my previous research results. (Stocki, in preparation). The hypotheses that the greater feeling of ownership is associated with informing and other open book management practices of the company and the one that well being is associated with the feeling of ownership, and other forms of participation both have strong support in the results the values of correlations are quite high. Input information, understanding business game and Finally the last hypothesis that the employees with longer tenure feel feel better in their companies. And are more participative was tested by ANOVA with the tenure as a grouping variable (Table 5). The results are shown in Figure 2. Table 5. Simple ANOVA for Well being and Ownership x tenure. Variable SS df MS SS Error df Error MS Error F Cognitive aspects of participation Page 14 Variable Well being Ownership SS 9.85 349 df 3 3 MS 3.28 1.16 SS Error 334.07 144.22 df Error 1069 747 MS Error 0.31 0.19 F 10.51 6.02 Figure 2. Tenure and well being and ownership. It is interesting that the dynamics of changes in “well being” and “ownership feeling” is similar. The first years of work for a company give some hopes, then there is a drop in both aspects, and a small rise from the 5th year. Discussion In this paper, I tried to solve the mystery of ownership. Although great evidence of literature shows that when we own shares in our companies and we participate in decision making we are better employees, yet employee ownership does not play the role it should. After Polish economist Kwiatkowski I claimed that there is a cognitive aspect of ownership. This aspect unlike legal ownership has its own dynamics. Becoming an owner psychologically takes time. If we treat ownership as just an instance of a wider spectrum of psychological phenomena, we may explain more data. In accordance with this model of spectrum of ownership relations, we may explain why employees in a late state owned company have narrower cognitive maps related to responsibility. These results explain also why Polish employees so easily gave up their rights to their places of work. Using the spectrum would place them as “users” of their company, and not ones who feel personally responsible for it. This probably is not the case with managers from a hotel who selects and educates their employees to be responsible personally for what they do. In the second study, we compared three companies. One which is an example of good privatization, with 100% of shares owned by 75% of the employees. It turns out that people feel owners of it and identify with it. Neither foreign or Polish private capital turned so effective. In 9 out of 10 criteria EO company was better than the benchmarked company. Of course these were just selected examples. We should check the results with other kind of companies, not only production companies. In trading or service companies where employees are spread in many locations the ownership feeling may not be so important. Cognitive aspects of participation Page 15 In the third study we first analyzed questionnaire results from 11 companies. The participation practices highly correlate with feeling of well being and ownership. What supports our model the tenure turns out an important factor in building the feeling of ownership and well-being. The recently practiced flexibility of work force may not turn out to be good for effectiveness of companies. This introductory research is certainly not conclusive, but shows some paths in participation research. References Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,139-168. Belk, R. (1991). The ineluctable mysteries of possessions. In F. Rudmin (Ed). To have possessions. A handbook of ownership and property. 17-56. Berti, A.E., Bombi, A.S., Lis, A. (1982). The Child’s Conceptions about Means of Production and Their Owners .European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 221-239. Case, J. (1998). The Open - Book Experience. Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus Books. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rochberg-Halton E. (1981). The meaning of things. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: to have is to be. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Erdal, D. (2000). Employee ownership and retail co-operative performance and the wider social effects of worker co-operatives: Submission to The Co-operative Commission. London: Job Ownership Limited. Fournier, S. & Richins, M. L. (1991). Some Theoretical and Popular Notions Concerning Materialism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 403-414. Friedman, M. (2000, 12-16 July). A New Look at the Materialism Concept in Consumer Research Practice. In: Conference Proceedings: Fairness & Cooperation. XXV Annual Colloquium on Research in Economic Psychlogy and SABE 2000 Conference. Baden, Vienna/Austria. Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or to Be. London: Abacus. Górnik-Durose, M. (2002). Psychologiczne aspekty posiadania – miedzy instrumentalnoscia a spoleczna uzytecznoscia dóbr materialnych. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Slaskiego. Górnik-Durose, M. & Zaleski, Z. (2004). Wlasnosc i posiadanie. (Ownership and possession) In. Tyszka, T. (ed) Psychologia ekonomiczna. Gdansk: Gdanskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne. James, W. (1892/1989). Psychology. The briefer course. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press. Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M. (1993). A Dark Side of the American Dream: Correlates of Financial Success as a Central Life Aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422. Kwiatkowski, E. (1947). Zarys dziejów gospodarczychswiata Tom 1 (An outline of economic history of the world, vol1). Warszawa: PIW. Lea, S., Tarpy, M.R., Webley, P. (1987). The Individual in the Economy. A Survey of Economic Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maaloe, E. (1998). The Employee Owner. Copenhagen: Academic Press. Marshall, H.,& Magruder, L. (1960). Relations between parent money education practices and children’s knowledge and use of money. Child Development, 31, 253-84. Newson, J. & Newson, E. (1968). Four Years Old in an Urban Commmmunity. London: Allen and Unwin. Newson, J.& Newson, E. (1976). Seven years old in the home environment. London: Allen Cognitive aspects of participation Page 16 and Unwin. Perotin, V. & Robinson, A. (2003). Employee participation of profit and ownership. A review of issues and evidence. Luxemburg: European Parliament. Richins, M. L., Dawson, S. (1990). Measuring Material Values: A Preliminary Report of Scale Development. In: Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, G., Pollay, R. W., (Eds). Advances in Consumer Research, 17. Provo. UT: Association of for Consumer Research. Richins, M. L.& Dawson, S. (1992). A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316. Semin, G. R., & Gergen,K. J. (1990). Everyday understanding: Social scientific implications. London: SAGE. Stack, J. & Burlingham, B. (2003). A Stake in the Outcome. Building a Culture of Ownership for the Long- Term Success of Your Business. New York: Currency Doubleday. Stocki, R. (1992) Cognitive aspects of participation Page 17 Appendix 1. The VoxPopuli Questionnaire Measures Well being 85 8 64 Do you have a good day today? Are you generally satisfied with life? Are you generally satisfied with the work in this company? Suberiors 11 20 25 36 54 58 65 70 33 50 67 68 76 Could you hold a more responsible position? Are you satisfied with the quality of information needed for proper performance of your tasks? Are you satisfied with the way you are treated by your immediate superior? Does the immediate superior respect you as a human? Do superiors in yoyr firm remember about employees’ dignity when speaking to them? Can some employees take decisions without referring to their superiors? Do you trust your immediate superior? Were it possible, wuold you change your place of work? Work environment Does the firm try to secure safe and healthy work conditions? Is your work particularly arduous? Are you satisfied with the working conditions granted by the company? Is the participation in the present survey a big nuisance for you? Does the work in the company negatively influence your frame of mind and health? Information received 29 work? 44 it? 53 56 59 Are you satisfied with the means of supplying you with the feedback information regarding the quality of your Do you know where to gather information indispensable for achieving professional goals and where to transfer Do you respect all people working in your company equally high? Is the management caorageous to tell the difficult truth, which may not be accepted? Do all employees receive required information on time? Compensation and costs 15 Are working conditions the easiest place to save money on? 19 40 49 57 82 Is compensation fairly calculated? Does your compensation reflect the competence, arduousness, and responsibility, your job requires? Do you know the cost and profits of your work place for the firm? Are you satisfied with the way your compensation is calulated? Is the pay high enough to cover the everyday needs and save or buy on instalments? Customer relationship management 24 34 52 74 77 Does the firm do its best to recognize the needs of its customers? Are you regularly informed about the influence of your work on customer satisfaction? Are you satisfied with the quality of products and services offerd to the customers? Should companies prepare employees to understand the business they are in? Would you recommend your firms's products or services to your friend? Business as a game 16 17 32 39 60 61 Are outstanding employees duly appreciated (promotions, rewards, incentives)? Do you willingly participate in the work evaluation of your colleagues? Are you satisfied with your performance evaluation? Are you reliably informed about the quality of your work? Do you know what you should do for the firm to execute the plan for the next couple of years? Is the effort of particular persons honestly appraised? Information sent 6 13 27 38 Are willing to tell others what they do well and what not too well? Do you manage to transfer quickly the information only you have access to? Are you satisfied with the way your ideas are treated in the company? Do you come out with innovations in your job? Cognitive aspects of participation Page 18 55 72 Do all employees have an opportunity to express their opinions about what is happening in the company? Do you willingly share yoyr knowledge and experience with others in the firm? Development 23 26 41 45 63 84 Does the company support employees in education? Is management in your firm sufficiently prepared to fulfill their tasks? Are you satisfied with professional competences of your immediate superior? Do you know what qualifications you should possess to secure further employment? Are you satisfied with your professional development in the company? Are constant learning and professional development fundamental obligations in your work? Change management 21 31 48 62 80 Are there many changes introduced recently? Should companies introduce less changes? Are you willing to make changes to your work routine? Are you satisfied with the changes which have recently come about in your work? Do changes in the company refer to your job as well? Strategic dialog 18 22 28 37 66 Was the future of the company discussed by the management and the employees representatives? Do you know what are the firm's development plans for the next couple of years? Are you satisfied with the firm's development plans? Is your company a good enterprise? In comparison to other firms, does your firm have a strong market position? Ownership 2 4 5 7 30 35 42 43 46 47 51 69 79 Are you satisfied with how you treat others in the firm? Is the work community the second family? Do you feel as if the company were your property? Is the firm's competitiveness important for you? Are you satisfied with the scope of independence in your job? Are you satisfied with the market position of your company? Are you proud to work in this company? Does your superior consult you about the task entrusted to you? Does the exterior of the work place positively influence your effectiveness? Do you regularly achieve feedback about what you should improve? Do you feel well in your job? Do you like your colleagues? When dismissed, would you find a job in your profession? Private theories of the firm 1 9 12 71 83 Does the employee satisfaction influence the work quality? Should the compensation depend on the situation on labor market? Is customer satisfaction the fundamental goal of any enterprise? Are employees merely an instrument of production for contemporary firms? Is profit the fundamental goal of any enterprise? Private participation theories 3 Can companies manage their employees' knowledge? 10 Should employees participate in forming their personal development plans? 14 Should all employees, regardless their position, pronounce on the future of their firms? 73 Is it important for the employees to take partial responsibility for the company similarly to the owners and management? 75 Should only the managers take the decisions, while the employees should merely implement them? 78 Should every company have a reliable performance evaluation system? 81 Is information system a basis for firm's competitive position? Cognitive aspects of participation Page 19 Appendix 2 The comparison of 10 aspects of the company functioning (detailed). Criteria 1. Financial results Financial stability Capital activity Productivity 2. Operations management Resources assurance Production management Quality assurance Cost management Operational strategies 3. Innovation Definite style or policy Managing innovation Results 4. Strategy/Mission.Vision Development strategy Mission, values, org. Culture Strategic process Environment recognition 5. Corporate Responsibility Policy Transparency Praktice 6. Environmental protection Policy Implementation Measurement Communication 7. Local community Policy Implementation Measuremnt Communication 8. Customer relations Customer Satisfaction Audit results Quality-cost-supply 9. Relationship with suppliers 10. Employee perception Dignity General picture Ideal 100 30 40 30 80 25 15 15 15 20 5 5 10 100 25 25 25 25 50 15 15 20 50 10 20 10 10 50 10 20 10 10 100 50 45 5 50 200 40 40 Employee owned 72 25 32 15 71 21 13 14 13 10 12 2 2 8 75 17 22 17 19 30 5 10 15 40 10 15 10 5 38 8 17 5 8 68 33 30 5 35 164 24 38 German subsidy 57 18 25 14 58 18 12 9 9 10 13 3 2 8 65 17 17 15 16 18 3 5 10 33 5 15 8 5 22 5 12 0 5 67 32 30 5 40 158 32 34 Cognitive aspects of participation Page 20 Criteria Participation Employee satisfaction Management systems Ideal 40 40 40 Employee owned 36 36 30 German subsidy 32 32 28 Total 800 605 531 Cognitive aspects of participation Page 21