从离职到回馈:揭示前员工建言的心理所有权机制*

曾恺, 徐凯麒, 徐瑀婧, 段锦云

心理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (5) : 1146-1156.

PDF(1162 KB)
中文  |  English
PDF(1162 KB)
心理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (5) : 1146-1156. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260511
社会、人格与管理

从离职到回馈:揭示前员工建言的心理所有权机制*

作者信息 +

From Exit to Echo: Unveiling the Psychological Ownership Mechanism of Alumni Voice

Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

通过将建言主体明确扩展至已脱离组织雇佣关系的前员工,打破了建言研究根植于组织内部和基于雇佣关系的现状。此外,借鉴心理所有权理论,揭示了跨组织背景下前员工向原组织建言的发生机制。研究1采用线上两阶段追踪调查的方法收集633名创始人和高管的数据,研究2采用情景实验的方法获取267名员工的数据。分析结果显示:(1)前员工的原组织职级越高越可能向原组织建言;(2)前员工对原组织的心理所有权在上述关系中起到中介作用;(3)前员工的权力感正向调节原组织职级和心理所有权之间的关系;(4)前员工的权力感正向调节心理所有权的中介作用。研究结果揭示了建言行为与心理所有权在跨组织情境下的适用性,为企业的前员工管理提供启发和参考。

Abstract

The increase in employee mobility across organizational boundaries presents challenges and opportunities for knowledge acquisition beyond formal employment frameworks. In this context, this study advances the concept of alumni voice—defined as former employees’ promotive behavior involving the expression of constructive challenges intended to improve their former employers—to investigate two pivotal questions: whether and how former organizational position influences alumni voice, and how personal sense of power moderates this relationship. Building on psychological ownership theory, we explore how employees' organizational positions in the former employer foster alumni voice. Senior employees accumulate valuable skills and knowledge at the former employer, forming a foundation for alumni voice. Psychological ownership mediates this relationship by reflecting continued feelings of control, knowing and investment toward the former organization, while sense of power amplifies this link, further enhancing alumni voice. Thus, this study develops a moderated mediation model that examines how former organizational positions foster alumni voice via enhanced psychological ownership, with personal sense of power amplifying this relationship.

A two-wave online survey involved 633 participants, all of whom were former employees now working as entrepreneurs or in top executive roles. The first wave assessed former organizational position, psychological ownership, and sense of power. The second wave, conducted one month later, measured alumni voice. This study controlled demographic data, including gender, age, education, and tenure. Moreover, unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC) was used to test the potential common method bias (CMB), and the moderated mediation hypothesis was tested using hierarchical regression and PROCESS macro. Additionally, this study employed a 2 (former organizational position: high/low) × 2 (sense of power: high/low) between-subjects experimental design with 267 participants. Using role-playing scenarios to simulate employees transitioning into founding team members post-departure, we successfully validated and confirmed the robustness of our initial survey findings.

The data analysis revealed that a higher former organizational position is associated with a greater willingness to engage in alumni voice, and this link is explained by psychological ownership: individuals in more senior roles reported stronger feelings of “ownership” toward their former organization, which in turn fueled their willingness to engage in alumni voice. Importantly, personal sense of power moderated this relationship: those with a stronger personal sense of power showed a steeper increase in psychological ownership as former organizational position rose, and consequently exhibited a stronger indirect effect of position on alumni voice through ownership. The results of data analysis demonstrated significant direct and indirect pathways, and the indirect effect of former organizational position on alumni voice via psychological ownership was significantly greater at higher levels of sense of power. Together, these results illustrate a moderated-mediation process by which former organizational position drives alumni voice through psychological ownership, with personal power amplifying this indirect effect through psychological ownership.

The theoretical contributions of this study are threefold. First, this study defines and introduces the concept of alumni voice. It positions such voice as a cross-organizational knowledge backflow from former employees, thereby transcending the traditional organizational boundaries that have limited the voice literature to current employees. Second, this study challenges the employment constraint in traditional voice literature that roots voice in employment relationships as an insider obligation. In doing so, it reveals that alumni voice is primarily motivated by affective bonds, representing voluntary knowledge feedback rather than role-based duty. Finally, this study deepens the understanding of psychological ownership by validating its dynamic continuity after employment ends, challenging static perspectives. Practically, organizations can leverage this mechanism through three strategies: (1) Establish formal channels for alumni to contribute insights via dedicated platforms (e.g., alumni forums) to maximize their value; actively solicit feedback through structured initiatives. (2) Nurture alumni networks to access external resources and collaboration opportunities; foster an alumni-friendly culture and implement connection-focused recruitment; and host open days and visits to strengthen ties and enable relationship spillover. (3) Cultivate psychological ownership among employees to deepen their organizational attachment; prompt alumni to serve as external advocates who promote organizational interests and generate tangible benefits.

关键词

前员工建言 / 心理所有权 / 原组织职级 / 权力感

Key words

alumni voice / psychological ownership / former organizational position / sense of power

引用本文

导出引用
曾恺, 徐凯麒, 徐瑀婧, 等. 从离职到回馈:揭示前员工建言的心理所有权机制*[J]. 心理科学. 2026, 49(5): 1146-1156 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260511
Zeng Kai, Xu Kaiqi, Xu Yujing, et al. From Exit to Echo: Unveiling the Psychological Ownership Mechanism of Alumni Voice[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(5): 1146-1156 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260511

参考文献

[1]
段锦云, 黄彩云. (2013). 个人权力感对进谏行为的影响机制: 权力认知的视角. 心理学报, 45(2), 217-230.
[2]
段锦云, 吴珏彧, 徐婷婷, 梁凤华. (2024). 建议者的权力和地位对决策者建议采纳的影响. 心理科学, 47(4), 910-917.
[3]
江程铭, 陈李娜, 马家涛, 王蕾, 何铨, 孙庆洲, 孙红月. (2023). 金钱和消费结果的序列偏好比较: 目标凸显性的中介作用. 心理科学, 46(6), 1368-1374.
[4]
李斌, 张凯迪, 陈汉聪, 李方君, 李爱梅. (2023). 建言类型对领导者建言采纳的影响: 面子与幽默的作用. 心理科学, 46(1), 145-153.
[5]
李晨麟, 潘盈朵, 王新野, 李苑, 游旭群. (2023). 包容型氛围感知对员工建言的影响: 心理安全感与惰性感知的双重路径. 心理科学, 46(1), 105-112.
[6]
林丽雪. (2020). 心理所有权对员工建言行为的影响: 一个自我维持模型. 心理科学, 43(6), 1463-1469.
[7]
孙庆洲, 黄靖茹, 虞晓芬, 高倾德. (2023). 授人以鱼还是授人以渔? 高、低社会阶层的捐助行为差异. 心理学报, 55(10), 1677-1695.
[8]
汤丹丹, 温忠麟. (2020). 共同方法偏差检验:问题与建议. 心理科学, 43(1), 215-223.
[9]
王晓莉. (2007). 延续管理你的离职员工. 中国人力资源开发, 7, 57-60.
[10]
汪祚军, 叶妍, 程雪岩, 徐四华. (2025). “人情”与公平的抉择? 恩惠对不公平规避行为的影响. 心理学报, 57(8), 1452-1467.
[11]
韦庆旺, 俞国良. (2009). 权力的社会认知研究述评. 心理科学进展, 17(6), 1336-1343.
[12]
卫旭华, 焦文颖. (2025). 权力接近-抑制行为理论: 基于元分析的理论拓展. 心理科学进展, 33(2), 274-290.
[13]
温忠麟, 黄彬彬, 汤丹丹. (2018). 问卷数据建模前传. 心理科学, 41(1), 204-210.
[14]
徐世勇, 杨春梦, 李超平, 李海蓉. (2025). “摸鱼”如何带来创新? 恢复体验曲线中介效应的情景实验与调查证据. 心理学报, 57(1), 135-151.
[15]
许文涛, 张凯丽, 汪凤炎. (2024). “亲亲相隐”中道德认知的视角差异. 心理科学, 47(2), 375-383.
[16]
于璟婷, 卫旭华, 马艺恩. (2024). 管理心理研究中情景实验材料的使用现状与设计策略. 心理科学进展, 32(3), 543-556.
[17]
周浩, 龙立荣. (2012). 变革型领导对下属进谏行为的影响: 组织心理所有权与传统性的作用. 心理学报, 44(3), 388-399.
[18]
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351-371.
[19]
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362-1377.
[20]
Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 67-97.
[21]
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313-344.
[22]
Ang, J., De Jong, A., & van Der Poel, M. (2014). Does familiarity with business segments affect CEOs' divestment decisions? Journal of Corporate Finance, 29, 58-74.
[23]
Bartunek, J. M., Huang, Z., & Walsh, I. J. (2008). The development of a process model of collective turnover. Human Relations, 61(1), 5-38.
[24]
Becker, L., Ertz, E., & Büttgen, M. (2023). A relational perspective on supervisor-initiated turnover: Implications for human resource management based on a multi-method investigation of leader-member exchange relationships. Human Resource Management, 62(4), 547-564.
[25]
Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 497-509.
[26]
Brundin, E., McClatchey, I. S., & Melin, L. (2023). Leaving the family business: The dynamics of psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 14(2), Article 100555.
[27]
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875.
[28]
Carnahan, S., & Somaya, D. (2013). Alumni effects and relational advantage: The impact on outsourcing when a buyer hires employees from a supplier' s competitors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1578-1600.
[29]
Carpenter, M. A., Li, M. X., & Jiang, H. (2012). Social network research in organizational contexts: A systematic review of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1328-1361.
[30]
Chen, S. L., Cumming, D., Liu, X. L., Ma, H., & Yan, C. (2025). Alumni network centrality and competitive aggressiveness. British Journal of Management, 36(1), 255-283.
[31]
Corredoira, R. A., & Rosenkopf, L. (2010). Should auld acquaintance be forgot? The reverse transfer of knowledge through mobility ties. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 159-181.
[32]
Coyne, I., Gopaul, A. M., Campbell, M., Pankász, A., Garland, R., & Cousans, F. (2019). Bystander responses to bullying at work: The role of mode, type and relationship to target. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(3), 813-827.
[33]
Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163-183.
[34]
Del Ponte, A., Li, L., Ang, L., Lim, N., & Seow, W. J. (2024). Evaluating SoJump.com as a tool for online behavioral research in China. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 41, Article 100905.
[35]
Eury, J. L., Kreiner, G. E., Treviño, L. K., & Gioia, D. A. (2018). The past is not dead: Legacy identification and alumni ambivalence in the wake of the Sandusky scandal at Penn State. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 826-856.
[36]
Fulmer, I. S., Call, M. L., Conlon, D. E., & Klotz, A. C. (2024). You can check out any time you like, but can you ever leave? A theory of firm value capture from alumni. Organization Science, 35(4), 1427-1442.
[37]
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453-466.
[38]
Godart, F. C., Shipilov, A. V., & Claes, K. (2014). Making the most of the revolving door: The impact of outward personnel mobility networks on organizational creativity. Organization Science, 25(2), 377-400.
[39]
Huo, M. L. (2025). Work autonomy and exit-voice choice: The role of skill utilization, learning from colleagues and future time orientation. Personnel Review, 54(1), 20-40.
[40]
Iskhakova, L., Hoffmann, S., & Hilbert, A. (2017). Alumni loyalty: Systematic literature review. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 29(3), 274-316.
[41]
Kehoe, R. R., Brymer, R. A., Keller, J. R., & Kim, J. (2024). Hiring by professional affiliation: The benefits and challenges of leveraging prospective hires' prior employment ties to improve matching and access to resources. Personnel Psychology, 77(2), 497-526.
[42]
Keller, J. R., Kehoe, R. R., Bidwell, M., Collings, D., & Myer, A. (2021). In with the old? Examining when boomerang employees outperform new hires. Academy of Management Journal, 64(6), 1654-1684.
[43]
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
[44]
Kim, J. Y., & Steensma, H. K. (2017). Employee mobility, spin-outs, and knowledge spill-in: How incumbent firms can learn from new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 38(8), 1626-1645.
[45]
Lebel, R. D. (2016). Overcoming the fear factor: How perceptions of supervisor openness lead employees to speak up when fearing external threat. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 10-21.
[46]
Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological ownership: How having control matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 869-895.
[47]
Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2022). SOLOMON: A method for splitting a sample into equivalent subsamples in factor analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 54(6), 2665-2677.
[48]
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
[49]
Makarius, E. E., Dachner, A. M., & Brymer, R. A. (2025). You say goodbye, and I say hello: The alumni-organization relationship and post-separation value. Academy of Management Review, 50(2), 251-271.
[50]
Man, T. W. Y., & Farquharson, M. (2015). Psychological ownership in team-based entrepreneurship education activities. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 21(4), 600-621.
[51]
Maulana, A. E., Patterson, P. G., Satria, A., & Pradipta, I. A. (2024). Alumni connectedness and its role in intention to contribute to higher education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 34(2), 1124-1145.
[52]
McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). When does voice lead to exit? It depends on leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 525-548.
[53]
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.
[54]
Munduate, L., & Gravenhorst, K. M. B. (2003). Power dynamics and organisational change: An introduction. Applied Psychology, 52(1), 1-13.
[55]
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The effects of organizational embeddedness on development of social capital and human capital. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 696-712.
[56]
Nielsen, J. D., & Gish, J. J. (2024). When old and new selves collide: Identity conflict and entrepreneurial nostalgia among ex-entrepreneurs. Personnel Psychology, 77(1), 165-195.
[57]
Paluch, R. M., Zatzick, C., & Nishii, L. H. (2025). A cross-level theory of alumni-organization relationships. Academy of Management Review, 50(3), 519-536.
[58]
Peng, X. Q., Tian, X. Z., Peng, X. P., & Xie, J. Y. (2024). Age-inclusive HR practices and older workers' voice behavior: The role of job crafting toward strengths and negative age-based metastereotypes. Personnel Review, 53(9), 2273-2292.
[59]
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298-310.
[60]
Raghuram, S., Gajendran, R. S., Liu, X. M., & Somaya, D. (2017). Boundaryless LMX: Examining LMX' s impact on external career outcomes and alumni goodwill. Personnel Psychology, 70(2), 399-428.
[61]
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762-800.
[62]
Rucker, D. D., Hu, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The experience versus the expectations of power: A recipe for altering the effects of power on behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 381-396.
[63]
See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272-285.
[64]
Tian, Z. H., Yuan, Q. H., Qian, S. S., & Guo, Y. H. (2022). How ex-employee citizenship behavior is generated: From the perspective of legacy identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 947142.
[65]
Tost, L. P. (2015). When, why, and how do powerholders "feel the power"? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 29-56.
[66]
van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., Langendijk, G., & Anderson, C. (2018). Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 164-181.
[67]
van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119.
[68]
van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439-459.
[69]
Wang, Q., Weng, Q. X., McElroy, J. C., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Lievens, F. (2014). Organizational career growth and subsequent voice behavior: The role of affective commitment and gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(3), 431-441.
[70]
Young, C. S. (2005). Top management teams' social capital in Taiwan: The impact on firm value in an emerging economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 177-190.
[71]
Zhang, Y. C., Liu, G. J., Zhang, L., Xu, S., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2021). Psychological ownership: A meta-analysis and comparison of multiple forms of attachment in the workplace. Journal of Management, 47(3), 745-770.
[72]
Zhong, M., Wayne, S. J., & Michel, E. J. (2023). When the past and the present collide: Contrast effect of sequential psychological contract breaches on employee outcomes. Journal of Management, 49(3), 913-943.

基金

*国家社会科学基金项目(22FGLB101)
国家社会科学基金项目(24CGL143)
浙江省自然科学基金探索项目(LMS25G020003)
浙江省属高校基本科研业务费专项资金(GB202502004)

PDF(1162 KB)

评审附件

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/

〈 〉