ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR ISSN: 2394-0409;DOI:10.16962/EAPJHRMOB/ISSN.2394-0409;Volume 2 Issue 1 (2015) 1 A RESEARCH SYNTHESIS AND META-ANALYSIS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB SATISFACTION Abdul Hafiz Jones, PMP DBA in Management (USA), MBA in Management (USA), BBA in Finance (USA) Assistant Professor in College of Business Administration, University of Ha’il, Saudi Arabia, a.jones@uoh.edu.sa ; alshams@msn.com Aslam Mohammed Wali PhD in Public Administration (India), Masters in Public Administration, (India), BA in English / Political Science (India) Assistant Professor in College of Business Administration, University of Ha’il, Saudi Arabia, aslamwali21@gmail.com Ajay Singh PhD in Management (India), MBA in Human Resources, LLB (Labor & Industrial) BSc. (Mathematics) Assistant Professor in College of Business Administration, University of Ha’il, Saudi Arabia, a.singh@uoh.edu.sa ; drajaysingh9@gmail.com Muhammad Abdul Saboor MA in English (UK), BSc. in Psychology (USA), Lecturer in English at College of Medicine University of Ha’il, Saudi Arabia, msaboor@gmail.com ; ryanemcdonald@yahoo.com ABSTRACT Keywords: Psychological Ownership, Job Satisfaction, Meta-Analysis, Research Synthesis 1. Introduction What makes an employee exert efforts above and beyond for an organization? How does an employee reconcile knowing they have no ownership in the organization, but still exert efforts above and beyond for that organization? Some studies have identified this psychological ownership state as the key to achieving organizational competitiveness (e.g., Brown, 1989). Past studies on this psychological state focused on possession as understood by an employee’s psychological ownership state (e.g., Isaacs, 1933) and (e.g., Dittmar, 1992). These studies provided the much-needed evidence that people can achieve high levels of productivity in this mind state. In fact, recent studies began to focus on several work-related attributes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, autonomy, and profit sharing in relation to psychological ownership (e.g., Chui, Hui, & Lai, 2007; Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner, 2007; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001). One study in particular, Pierce et al. (2001) provides a framework for future research on psychological This paper analyzes the impact of effect size or the coefficient correlation of psychological ownership and job satisfaction. Twenty-three studies were selected based on the characteristics of the knowledge worker and six psychological ownership dimensions of distinctiveness. Average organizational tenure and education level were used to assess the significant dispersion between the studies that existed. Average organizational tenure accounted for none of the dispersion between studies variance. Studies that used degree holders for sampling accounted for 77% of real heterogeneity representing 13 out of the 23 studies. 15 out of the 23 studies that conducted regressions, and reported the coefficient determination or R 2 results explained 58% of the 95% proportion of real observed dispersion between the 15 studies with a p-value of .000. These results indicate significant gaps in the existing literature pertaining to the relationship between psychological ownership and job satisfaction. The gaps in the existing literature show the need to reset the study of the relationship between psychological ownership and job satisfaction towards the area of organizational effectiveness as oppose to the psychology of possession from the perspective of the human mind.