According to Pierce et. al. (2001), theory has relate the sense of ownership with the feeling of responsibility to invest time and energy to develop the cause of the organization. This has bring to the assumption that psychological ownership influences employee performance. It can be explained based on the three human needs of having a sense of place, efficacy and effectance, and self-identity. Dyne & Pierce (2004) proposed that employees will be active in protecting their target of ownership if these three human needs fulfilled in an organization context. Employees will be motivated to respond when the organization provide them with sense of belongings, sense of efficacy and effectance and self-identity (Gouldner, 1960). So, this psychology of the word “mine” should contribute to meticulous role-behaviors and increases job performance.
Many researchers has been conducted research on the link between psychological ownership and affective commitment which shows a positive result (Vandewalle et al., 1995; Van Dyne &Pierce, 2004). The studies on the relation between job commitment and job performance have claimed on the difference result. For instance, studies by Hackett, Bycio and Hausdorf (1994) and Mathieu and Zajac (1990) have shown insignificant relations whereas Meyer et.al (1989) and Suliman and Iles (2000) stated the result as significant positive relation. The theoretical relationship between psychological ownership and job satisfaction is well recognized (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995). However, the study conducted on the relations between job satisfaction and job performance have shown unsatisfying result. For an instance, study by Watt, Schleicher and Greguras (2004) have revealed insignificant relations whereas Judge, Thoresen, Bono , and Patton (2001) claimed significant positive relation.