antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: a meta-analysis

��

Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Organizational Cynicism: AMeta-Analysis

Dan S. Chiaburu, Ann Chunyan Peng, In-Sue Oh, George C. Banks,Laura C. Lomeli

PII: S0001-8791(13)00097-3DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007Reference: YJVBE 2709

To appear in: Journal of Vocational Behavior

Received date: 18 January 2013

Please cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., Peng, A.C., Oh, I.-S., Banks, G.C. & Lomeli,L.C., Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Organizational Cynicism: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofbefore it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production processerrors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers thatapply to the journal pertain.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Organizational Cynicism 1

RUNNING HEAD: Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Organizational Cynicism

Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Organizational Cynicism:

A Meta-Analysis

DAN S. CHIABURU

Department of Management

Mays Business School

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX, 77843-4113

Phone: 979.845.0348

E-mail: [email protected]

ANN CHUNYAN PENG


Eli Broad College of Business

Michigan State University

N452 North Business Complex

East Lansing, MI 48824-1122


IN-SUE OH

Department of Human Resource Management

Fox School of Business

Temple University

1801 Liacouras Walk

Philadelphia, PA 19122


GEORGE C. BANKS


College of Business and Economics

Longwood University

201 High Street

Farmville, VA 23909


LAURA C. LOMELI

Department of Psychology

Texas A&M University

4235 TAMU

College Station, TX 77843


Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Dan S. Chiaburu, Texas A&M

University, Mays Business School, College Station, TX, 77843-4113. E-mail:

[email protected]

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Abstract

We propose an integrative framework to investigate the extent to which employees’

organizational cynicism is predicted by individual differences (positive and negative affect, trait

cynicism) and positive (e.g., organizational support) and negative (e.g. psychological contract

violation) aspects of the work environment. We also examine the extent to which organizational

cynicism predicts employee attitudes and performance. We investigate these relationships based

on 9,186 individuals across 34 statistically independent samples from 32 primary studies. Using

both new meta-analytic effect sizes from the current study and effect sizes from prior meta-

analyses, we test whether a negative antecedent, organizational cynicism, has a predictive

advantage over a positive one, organizational trust, in predicting employees’ attitudes and

behaviors. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the nomological network of

organizational cynicism and its relationship with organizational trust.

Keywords: employee cynicism, employee trust, meta-analysis

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Organizational Cynicism:

A Meta-Analysis

Studies in the 1990s have pointed out the presence of cynicism in the workplace (e.g.,

Kanter & Mirvis, 1989; Mirvis & Kanter, 1991; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). Employees

seem to be increasingly cynical in the new millennium, especially in corporate environments rife

with mistrust, scandals, and opportunistic behaviors (Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004). Employee

cynicism has been theorized to have a number of negative consequences, including reduced

levels of performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, and increased levels of

intention to quit (Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998). Despite the fact that a number of studies

have linked employee cynicism to various antecedents and outcomes, we lack a comprehensive

understanding of cynicism based on the integration of the cumulative findings. To some extent,

this knowledge gap may reflect insufficient attention to organizational cynicism in applied

management research. For instance, Andersson (1996) lamented that “cynicism is generally

viewed as negative and is therefore a sensitive topic to managers and organizations. Because of

this sensitivity, negative attitudes as well as the organizational practices that foster them have

been relatively neglected in management research” (p. 1401).

To address this issue, the objectives of our current meta-analysis are to empirically test

the non-redundancy between cynicism and trust and determine whether they can differentially

predict a variety of outcomes. Further, we aim to relate organizational cynicism with a number of

theoretically important predictors and outcomes. We discuss these objectives starting with the

more conventional ones – establishing a connection with antecedents and outcomes. First, as

with most meta-analyses, we strive to connect organizational cynicism with a number of

theoretically important predictors for which a sufficient number of primary studies exist. As

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


outlined in our Figure 1, our predictors include individual differences (e.g., positive and negative

affect), positive features of the work environment (represented by organizational support and

organizational fairness), and negative aspects of the work setting (including psychological

contract violation and psychological strain). A second objective is to establish, across study

settings, a relationship between organizational cynicism and important attitudinal and behavioral

consequences. For attitudes, we examine the extent to which organizational cynicism is related to

employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to quit. We also examine

its connections with employee job performance.

Such an investigation using meta-analysis is necessary because primary studies report

inconsistent findings. For example, while it has been reported that positive affect is negatively

related to organizational cynicism (e.g., Treadway et al., 2004), others have found positive affect

to be positively associated with organizational cynicism (e.g., Hochwarter, James, Johnson, &

Ferris, 2004). From another direction, despite theorizing and evidence suggesting that

organizational cynicism negatively influences job performance (e.g., Byrne & Hochwarter,

2008), researchers have also proposed that cynicism can improve performance, especially when

there is a need to challenge and change ineffective procedures (Brandes & Das, 2006). Other

inconsistencies in the literature include the relationship between employee tenure and

organizational cynicism (Brandes et al., 2007; Brown & Cregan, 2008; Naus, van Iterson, & Roe,

2007). Typically, inconsistencies and mixed findings can receive some clarification by

cumulating data across primary studies, which we begin to do in the current meta-analysis.

----- Insert Figure 1 about here -----

More important than these clarifications, responding to previous calls for the examination

of competing perspectives (Leavitt, Mitchell, & Peterson, 2010), we aim to empirically test the

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


non-redundancy between cynicism and trust and to establish the extent to which employee

organizational cynicism and trust can differentially predict attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

Concerning this aspect, it is particularly valuable to understand to what extent organizational

cynicism and trust can differentially predict employee outcomes. Such knowledge can further

guide the choice of constructs to include in research models for optimal predictive power. From a

conceptual standpoint, organizational cynicism and trust in the organization can be seen as a pair

of opposite attitudes and anticipations employees have about the credibility of their organizations

and work settings in general. Given (a) the possibility of a conceptual overlap between the two

constructs and (b) the abundant existing research on trust, it is important to provide information

about both their distinctiveness and any differential predictive pattern before more research is

directed toward organizational cynicism. If cynicism is redundant with trust, the constructs can

be used as substitutes. If however the constructs are distinct in both content and predictive

patterns, additional research is needed to specify the unique contribution of each construct. To

address these issues, we investigate – supplementing data on organizational cynicism from the

current meta-analysis with meta-analytic data connecting organizational trust with employee

outcomes (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) – the extent to which a negative (cynicism) attitude

presents an advantage over a positive (trust) one in predicting work attitudes and behaviors.

Expected Relationships

We present several definitions of organizational cynicism in the existing literature and

clarify the focus of our study before delineating the scope of our study. Reichers and Wanous

(1997) defined organizational cynicism as a negative attitude that develops as a result of

perceived malfeasance of the agent or entity. Such a negative attitude can be directed at the

organization as a whole and/or the individuals in the organization. In what follows, we rely on

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


the definition provided by Dean et al. (1998) who define organizational cynicism as “a negative

attitude toward one’s employing organization, comprising three dimensions: (1) a belief that the

organization lacks integrity; (2) negative affect toward the organization; and (3) tendencies to

disparaging and critical behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with these beliefs

and affect” (p. 345). In fact, this definition of organizational cynicism was adopted later by other

researchers such as Wilkerson (2002) who broadened the target of organizational cynicism by

including “[organizational] procedures, processes, and management” (p. 533).

Organizational Cynicism and Organizational Trust

The central part of our model contrasts organizational cynicism and trust as a pair of

negative and positive perceptions individuals have related to their organization. Mayer, Davis,

and Schoorman (1995) define trust as the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another

party, regardless of whether one can monitor or control the other party, and is based on the

expectation that another party will perform the action for the sake of the trustor. It has been

suggested that an individual’s propensity to trust others is relatively stable, such that some

individuals will be more likely to trust than others. Despite this dispositional propensity to trust,

there are external factors that can influence one’s level of trust. Thus, individuals’ levels of trust

in the organization may be influenced by their dispositional tendency to trust others and by

situational characteristics that convey the trustworthiness of the organization (e.g., positive

leadership styles and organizational justice; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Similarly, given that

“organizational cynicism is generally conceptualized as a state variable, distinct from trait-based

dispositions such as negativity and trait cynicism” (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005, p. 736), we

propose that the extent individuals are cynical about the organization is determined by their

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


dispositional cynical beliefs and by organizational factors that imply its lack of integrity,

competence, and benevolence (Dean et al., 1998; Reichers & Wanous, 1997).

While organizational trust emphasizes the presence of trustworthiness, organizational

cynicism would imply lack or low levels of it (Davis & Gardner, 2004; Mayer et al., 1995). Both

trust and cynicism have cognitive aspects, however cynicism differs in that it includes the

individual’s affective state and corresponding behavioral tendencies toward the organization.

Overall, based on both similarities and differences, we aim to explore to what extent trust (a

positive aspect) and cynicism (a negative one) are differentially related to work attitudes and

behaviors. Although we expect organizational trust and cynicism to be negatively related, we do

not see them as completely redundant. For example, Dean et al. (1998) argued that a lack of trust

is possibly due to a lack of positive experience with the other party, whereas cynicism is “almost

certainly based on [negative] experience” (p. 348, bracket added). Further, because cynicism is

conceptualized as including affective states and behavioral tendencies, there is a possibility for

cynicism to be more impactful for work attitudes than trust. Overall, because cynicism and trust

are related yet non-redundant, we expect them to differentially predict employee outcomes.

Individual Differences as Predictors of Organizational Cynicism

Positive and negative affectivity. Affectivity refers to the dispositional tendency to

experience certain affective states over time, where affective states are experiences of emotion

(Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & Chermont, 2003). Positive affectivity (PA) is the extent to

which a person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert. High PA is characterized by a typical state of

high energy and pleasure whereas low PA is characterized by a more lethargic state (Watson,

Clark, & Tellegan, 1988). Conversely, negative affectivity (NA) is the chronic experience of

distress and unpleasant engagement, with high NA including states of anger, guilt, and disgust

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


whereas low NA involves a state of calmness (Watson et al., 1988). Affect represents a precursor

to work attitudes (Brief & Weiss, 2002), thus providing a basis to investigate the relationship

between PA/NA and organizational cynicism. Specifically, employees predisposed toward

positive affect will be more inclined to see and focus on positive aspects in their immediate work

environment, engage in positive interactions at work, and have a more positive outlook toward

their organization (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Brandes et al., 2007; Thoresen et al.,

2003). Conversely, employees with high negative affectivity tend to engender and experience

more negative aspects in their work environment, and are thus more distrustful of and cynical

toward their organization (Royle, Hall, Hockwarter, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2005).

Trait cynicism. Researchers have conceptualized trait cynicism as a general belief about

human nature that other individuals are not to be trusted (Costa, Zonderman, McCrae, &

Williams, 1986). Individuals with high trait cynicism tend to believe that humans are selfish,

dishonest, and take advantage of others whenever possible (Kanter & Marvis, 1989). They are

also pessimistic about what will be gained by being honest, kind-hearted, and complying with

rules (Singelis, Hubbard, Her, & An, 2003). These individuals’ negative beliefs about human

nature and the world thus provide a cognitive framework to guide their observations and thinking

about their organization. Individuals with high trait cynicism may readily attribute an unmet

expectation (e.g., not being promoted, lack of pay raise) as resulting from a malicious intention

or unfair procedures originating in the organization. Based on such arguments, we predict that

trait cynicism will positively relate to organizational cynicism, such that a general cynical

attitude toward others will be likely to also transfer into a cynical attitude toward the

organization.

Positive Workplace Experiences as Predictors of Organizational Cynicism

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Positive organizational support and cynicism. Positive organizational support (POS)

refers to employees’ “beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their

contribution and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa,

1986, p. 501). It also implies that an employee will receive assistance from the organization to

effectively carry out one’s job and handle stressful situations. Employees may use POS as an

indicator of the organization’s malevolent or benevolent intention to reward and recognize

employee effort (Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999). Employees who feel their contributions

are not valued by the organization (i.e., low POS) are likely to develop feelings of betrayal.

Thus, if employees have low POS, then they are likely to have higher levels of cynicism toward

the organization. Research has indicated that POS influences organizational cynicism, such that

employees who perceive less support from their organization are more cynical toward it (Byrne

& Hochwater, 2008; Treadway et al., 2004). In line with these findings, we posit a negative

relationship between POS and organizational cynicism.

Organizational justice and cynicism. Organizational justice refers to employees’

perceptions of the extent to which they are fairly treated in the organization (Greenberg, 1988).

There are several types of justice commonly researched: distributive, procedural, and

interactional. Distributive justice refers to an individual’s perceptions of the fairness of rewards

or resources received (Greenberg & Cropanzano, 2001). Procedural justice refers to the fairness

of the “means by which an allocation decision is made” (Greenberg & Cropanzano, 2001, p.

123). Leventhal (1980) suggested that in order for employees to believe procedures are fair, they

must be consistent, free from bias, accurate, correctable, representative of the interest of all

parties involved, and uphold basic ethical values. Lastly, interactional justice refers to the

fairness people perceive in regard to the interpersonal treatment they receive (Greenberg &

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Cropanzano, 2001). People who perceive interactional justice feel that they have been treated

with dignity and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986). All three forms of justice perceptions are related

to a host of positive outcomes including higher job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

organizational trust (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Because justice perceptions

enhance individuals’ commitment to and trust in the organization, they should also reduce

individuals’ cynicism toward the organization, given the connection between trust and cynicism

(Dean et al., 1998; Reichers & Wanous, 1997). In their meta-analysis, Colquitt and co-authors

(2001) provided evidence that low levels of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice are

related to negative reactions to the organization. By extension, we expect that an absence (or low

levels) of justice should lead employees to develop a cynical, negative, attitude toward the

organization. In sum, we posit that perceptions of justice will be negatively related to

organizational cynicism.

Negative Workplace Experiences as Predictors of Organizational Cynicism

Psychological contract violation and cynicism. Psychological contracts are “an

individual’s beliefs regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement

between the focal person and another party” (Rousseau, 1989, p. 123). These contracts are not

always fulfilled; when breached, the emotional or affective response an employee has to the

breach is referred to as contract violation (Rousseau, 1995). When employees feel that their

contracts have been violated, they will likely believe that the organization lacks integrity. The

perceived psychological contract violation should also produce negative affective states (e.g.,

anger, frustration) which can in turn fuel organizational cynicism. Thus, we expect that feelings

of contract violation may lead people to become cynical toward their organizations.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Perceived organizational politics and cynicism. Harrell-Cook, Ferris, and Dulebohn

(1999) described the perceptions of organizational politics as involving individual subjective

evaluations of observed situations or behaviors as political. Perceptions of organizational politics

also include an individual’s interpretations of the extent to which co-workers and supervisors

engage in political behaviors and create an environment characterized by such behaviors.

Moreover, political behavior has been described as inherently self-serving (Ferris & Hochwarter,

2010). Employees who perceive the organization to be acting in its own best interest, rather than

in the employees’ best interest, will deem the organization as less trustworthy due to its lack of

benevolence (Mayer et al., 1995). Perceptions of a lack of trustworthiness can subsequently lead

employees to develop suspicious and cynical attitudes toward the organization. Thus, we posit

that employees’ perceptions of organizational politics will be positively related to organizational

cynicism.

Psychological strain and cynicism. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined psychological

stress as an individual’s appraisal of the environmental demands as taxing or exceeding his or

her resources to cope with the demands. This definition focuses on the interaction between the

person and the environment and suggests that stress results from individuals’ appraisals of the

environment and attempts to cope with issues that arise. In this study, we focus on strain, which

refers to the individual responses to stress (Beehr & Franz, 1987). A significant amount of strain,

such as being overloaded, can lead employees to feel that their social exchange with the

organization is inequitable or unfavorable; that is, they feel that they are being exploited by their

organization (Banks, Whelpley, Oh, & Shin, 2012). Research has also reported a positive

correlation between emotional exhaustion and organizational cynicism (e.g., Johnson &

O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). Employees with high psychological strain that arises from role ambiguity

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


or being unable to fulfill family responsibilities may question the efficiency and fairness of the

organizational procedures. They may be irritated by the unspecified job descriptions and

perceive that the organization cares little about their family life. Based on the rationale above, we

posit that experienced psychological strain at work will result in negative attitudes toward the

organization, leading to feelings of organizational cynicism.

Organizational Cynicism and Attitudinal and Behavioral Outcomes

Cynicism and job satisfaction. Originally defined as a “pleasurable or positive

emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p.

1300), job satisfaction is now conceptualized as an attitude consisting of cognitive, affective, and

behavioral components. Hulin and Judge (2003) defined job satisfaction as the evaluations of

one’s job, emotional responses to events that occur on the job, and prior behavior. Research has

explored a number of antecedents for job satisfaction, including job complexity, organizational

climate, and justice perceptions (Schleicher, Hansen, & Fox, 2010). We propose that individuals

who have higher levels of cynicism toward the organization will have lower levels of job

satisfaction. This is because their cynical attitude toward the organization can extend to their

attitudes to their job through mechanisms such as affect infusion; the negative feeling resulting

from cynical attitudes toward the organization may dampen evaluations of their job experiences

(Forgas, 1995). As we noted earlier, cynicism may result from the perceptions such as a lack of

organizational support and justice, which have demonstrated to be strong predictors of job

satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009). Consistent with this,

researchers have found a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and job

satisfaction (Eaton, 2000; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 1994).

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Cynicism and organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is a force that

binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to the goals of the organization (Meyer &

Herscovitch, 2001). It reflects the psychological attachment an individual feels toward the

organization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986), and is experienced through three mindsets: affective

commitment, normative commitment, and continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The

commitment mindset that is most relevant to organizational cynicism is affective commitment,

which is the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the

organization. Individuals with high organizational cynicism are characterized by a distrustful

attitude and negative affect toward the organization. Because a certain level of trust, or a belief

that the organization will have employees’ interest in mind, is critical for organizational

members to establish deep emotional bond with the organization, organizational cynicism should

be associated with low levels of commitment to the organization. This proposition is consistent

with research demonstrating a negative relationship between cynicism and organizational

commitment (e.g., Eaton, 2000; Tesluk, Vance, & Mathieu, 1999).

Cynicism and intention to quit. Turnover has severe consequences for organizations in

terms of financial costs (90% to 200% of annual pay; Cascio, 2006; Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee,

2001), which accumulate mostly due to separation costs (e.g., temporary coverage, loss of

clients, loss of seasoned mentors) and replacement costs (e.g., recruitment, selection, training;

Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). As turnover intentions have been found to be among the

strongest predictors of turnover, it is critical to understand the factors that influence an

individual’s intention to quit (Allen et al., 2010). Mobley (1977) proposed that the turnover

process starts when people evaluate their jobs and working conditions. A negative evaluation of

their work environment can lead employees to feel dissatisfied about their job and elicit turnover

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


intentions. Individuals who have overly cynical attitudes toward the organization will, in general,

also espouse negative attitudes toward their job (e.g., low job satisfaction) and organization (e.g.,

low organizational commitment), leading to withdrawal cognition or turnover intentions. Thus,

we posit a positive relationship between organizational cynicism and intention to quit.

Cynicism and job performance. From a theoretical standpoint, organizational cynicism

has been proposed to negatively influence job performance. At the same time, researchers have

noted that cynical employees can be a positive force of change and thus influence work

effectiveness positively, especially in situations where employees need to play “devil’s

advocate” and challenge ineffective routines or policies (Brandes & Das, 2006, pp. 253-254).

Overall, however, our prediction is consistent with most of the existing arguments, and we

expect for cynicism to be a negative predictor of job performance. In particular, cynical

employees, given their frustration and disappointment with the organization, may perceive an

absence of close connection between performance and reward, or lower levels of instrumentality

(Wilkerson, 2002). Such low levels of perceived instrumentality can lead to reduced effort and

performance (see Sims & Szilagyi, 1975, for a review).

Relative Importance: Is Cynicism (“Bad”) Stronger than Trust (“Good”)?

A sizeable literature exists on asymmetric effects based on the valence or interpretation

of “bad” versus “good” events, or perceptions of them. Baumeister, Bratslavsky, and Finkenauer

(2001), for example, proposed that negative events have a greater impact on an individual than

positive events. They suggest that there are many good events which can help overcome the

psychological effects of bad events, however, if there were equally bad and good events, the bad

events would have had a greater psychological effect. A similar stronger effect of the negative

have been suggested in both social psychology (Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Skowronski &

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Carlston, 1989; Taylor, 1991) and management (Pereira Lopes, Cunha, & Rego, 2011; Labianca

& Brass, 2006). In line with these propositions positing a stronger influence of the negative, we

empirically examine the relative importance of organizational cynicism (negative) compared to

organizational trust (positive). Organizational trust has been shown to increase job satisfaction

and commitment and reduce employees’ intentions to quit, while having little impact on their job

performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Based on the aforementioned positioning of negative

aspects as more influential, we expect organizational cynicism to influence attitudinal and

behavioral outcomes to a greater extent than organizational trust would. To be able to compare

with prior meta-analytic results based on Dirks and Ferrin (2002), we focus on four outcomes:

job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to quit, and job performance.

Method

Literature Search

We conducted an extensive literature search to identify both published and unpublished

articles that examined the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational cynicism

to minimize potential availability bias. The articles were identified through multiple electronic

databases and multiple methods, including electronic searches of the PsychINFO (1887–2010),

ABI/Inform (1971-2010), Web of Science, and Google Scholar using “cynicism” as a keyword.

We also supplemented the electronic search with a manual search of reference lists of key

articles on the topic (e.g., Dean et al., 1998). As a result of these comprehensive search efforts,

we retrieved 187 published articles and book chapters and unpublished reports.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To be included in the current meta-analysis, primary studies had to meet the following

criteria. First, we included only primary studies that empirically examined organizational

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


cynicism in typical organizational settings. In terms of construct operationalization,

representative measures of organizational cynicism are the ones provided by Brandes,

Dharwadkar, and Dean (1999), Brooks and Vance (1991), and Tesluk, Farr, and Mathieu (1995).

Because their construct domain presented insufficient overlap with our constitutive definition of

cynicism, we excluded primary studies examining burnout cynicism (also known as

depersonalization; e.g., Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996), police cynicism (Regoli &

Poole, 1979) and change cynicism (cynicism about organizational changes such as new

intervention programs; e.g., Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). In

contrast to organizational cynicism (a negative attitude toward the organization), burnout

cynicism presents a negative attitude toward and an attempt to disengage from one’s job.

Although both organizational cynicism and change cynicism target at the organization, the latter

is narrower and more specific in its domain.

Second, to be included in the current meta-analysis, primary studies had to measure one

of the variables (antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of organizational cynicism) included in

Figure 1. In particular, consistent with other related meta-analyses (Dirks & Ferrin, 2000), job

performance (e.g., overall, task, contextual/organizational citizenship behavior; OCB, or

counterproductive work behavior; CWB; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002) had to be measured at the

individual level using non-self-reported measures; among the four studies included, three studies

were based on supervisor ratings and one study was based on company records. Third, we

included only primary studies based on samples of employees in organizations to generalize our

findings to general employees. Fourth, we included only primary studies that reported sufficient

data necessary to calculate an effect size (correlation coefficient). We contacted authors for zero-

order correlations if not provided in the original articles. As a result of this search, 32 primary

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


studies (34 independent samples) are included. In Appendix, we provide the main codes and

input values of each primary study/sample included in the meta-analysis.

Coding Procedures

The second and fourth authors were involved in coding, with each author coding a subset

of the primary studies. They coded the correlations between organizational cynicism and the

proposed correlates. Information such as scale reliability, sample size, response rate, sample

characteristics (e.g., job/organizational type) and study design features (e.g., longitudinal vs.

cross-sectional design) were also coded. To verify coding accuracy, the two authors

independently coded the same subset of primary studies (23%), achieving a high inter-rater

agreement rate (97%). All the remaining discrepancies were resolved through double-checking

the primary studies in question and a series of discussions with other authors. The third author

not involved in initial data coding randomly checked 50 correlations and found one common

error (i.e., failing to adjust the sign of correlations for the same dummy code for gender). All the

related correlations were thoroughly re-checked for the sign of correlations, without revealing

other errors. Finally, the lead author randomly examined 20% of the primary studies and found

no other issues.

Meta-Analytic Procedures

Consistent with most meta-analyses in management, organizational sciences, and applied

psychology, we used the Schmidt-Hunter’s psychometric random-effects meta-analysis method

to synthesize effect size estimates across primary studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt, Oh,

& Hayes, 2009). Because most primary studies reported reliability estimates, we used individual

correction methods (VG6 Module; Schmidt & Le, 2004). Observed correlation coefficients

reported were corrected for measurement error in both the independent and dependent variables

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


using local reliability estimates available from the primary studies. Frequency-weighted mean

reliabilities (coefficients alpha in all cases) are .85 (SD = .06, k = 34). We imputed the

frequency-weighted mean reliability for a small number of primary studies that did not report

reliability. In synthesizing corrected correlations across samples, we maintained statistical

independence in each meta-analysis (relationship). Each sample was used only once for each

meta-analytic relationship, such that only one data point per sample was retained. If necessary, a

composite correlation or an average correlation was used.

We examined the variability of the corrected correlations across samples by calculating

80% credibility intervals and the standard error of (error band around) the mean true-score

correlations by computing their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). If credibility intervals are wide

and include zero, this suggests possible moderating effects (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Similarly,

we also reported the percentage of the variability (% Var) in correlations across samples that

were accounted for by both sampling error and measurement error. This provides additional

information to aid the interpretation of potential moderating effects; a lower percentage indicates

potential moderating effects. If the 95% CIs are wide and include zero, this suggests that the

effect size does not differ from zero or not statistically significant.

Publication Bias Check

Publication bias represents a threat to the robustness of meta-analytic results and

evidence-based practice (Banks & McDaniel, 2011; Banks, Kepes, & McDaniel, 2012; Kepes,

Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012). Three publication bias tests were completed to evaluate the

potential presence and degree of potential publication bias: (a) Egger’s test of the intercept

(Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997); (b) the moderate and severe a priori weight-function

model technique (Vevea & Woods, 2005); (c) the trim and fill test (Duval, 2005) supplemented

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


with the contour-enhanced funnel plot (Palmer, Peters, Sutton, & Moreno 2008). Analyses were

conducted in distributions with at least k = 10 in order to not confound potential publication bias

and second order sampling error (Sterne et al., 2011).

Results

Table 1 shows meta-analytic evidence for the relationships of organizational cynicism

with its hypothesized correlate (organizational trust), antecedents, and consequences. Starting

with demographic variables, even though we do not posit any specific a priori direction for them,

for completeness, we report information on their relationships with organizational cynicism. As

Spector and Brannick (2011) argue, “controls should not be entered blindly in analyses under the

belief that they will purify results” (p. 296). Below, we provide specific effect sizes for the

relationship between respondents’ age, education, gender, and work tenure and organizational

cynicism. If there are theoretical reasons to include such controls, and if effect sizes are

significant, researchers may opt for their inclusion. As our data indicates, the relationships

between all demographic variables and organizational cynicism are weak and non-significant,

with the lowest effect size (true-score correlation, ̂ ) exhibited by age (-.02) and the highest by

work tenure (.11) (mean ̂ = .00). Based on our results, researchers need strong theoretical

reasons to include demographic variables as controls in models predicting organizational

cynicism.

----- Insert Table 1 about here -----

Concerning expected effect sizes, first, Table 1 shows that the true-score correlation

between organizational trust and cynicism is strong at ̂ = -.63 (k = 6, N = 1,063), but it does

not reach unity; its 95% CI does not include one, which suggests that it is unlikely that

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


organizational trust and cynicism are completely redundant with each other. That is, they are

related yet distinct as stand-alone constructs.

As distal hypothesized antecedents of organizational cynicism, positive affectivity is

negatively related with organizational cynicism and negative affectivity is positively related to

organizational cynicism. Negative affectivity ( ̂ = .33, k = 12, N = 2,337) and trait cynicism ( ̂

= .27, k = 6, N = 1,042) have a somewhat higher true-score correlation with organizational

cynicism than does positive affectivity ( ̂ = -.23, k = 7, N = 1,574).

As proximal hypothesized antecedents of organizational trust, perceived organizational

support ( ̂ = -.63, k = 4, N = 957) and organizational justice ( ̂ = -.55, k = 5, N = 1,500) are

found to have strong, negative true-score correlations with organizational cynicism. Three

different forms of organizational justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional justice)

have similar true-score correlations with organizational cynicism ( ̂ = -.50, -.51, and -.58 for

interactional, distributive, and procedural justice, respectively). Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found a

similar pattern of results for organizational trust; true-score correlations between organizational

trust and three forms of organizational justice ( ̂ ) range from .51 to .63 assuming that the

reliability for both the measures is .85. [Dirks and Ferrin (2002, Table 3) only reported sample-

size weighted mean observed correlations ( r ) of .43, .52, and .53 for interactional, distributive,

and procedural justice, respectively.] Psychological contract violation ( ̂ = .51, k = 6, N =

1,037) and perceived organizational politics ( ̂ = .55, k = 3, N = 820) are also strongly,

positively related to organizational cynicism. However, psychological strain (e.g., role overload,

role conflict) is only moderately, positively related to organizational cynicism ( ̂ = .30, k = 6, N

= 2,150).

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


The bottom part of Table 1 shows that organizational cynicism has strong true-score

correlations with hypothesized attitudinal outcomes (job satisfaction at ( ̂ = -.58 [k = 10, N =

2,200], organizational commitment at -.52 [k = 12, N = 3,929], and intent to quit at ( ̂ =. 39 [k =

5, N = 1,392]), but only a modest true-score correlation with non-self-reported job performance

( ̂ = -.10, k = 4, N = 737).1

Relative Importance of Organizational Trust and Cynicism

One of the purposes of this study is to determine the relative importance of organizational

trust and cynicism in relation to attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (see Table 2). In

determining the relative importance of organizational trust and cynicism, we decided to

supplement regression analyses with relative weights analyses (Johnson, 2000) given the strong

true-score correlation between organizational trust and cynicism ( ̂ = -.63 as shown in Table 1).

Similar to general dominance, relative weight (RW) also broadly represents the average

contribution of a predictor to the total R2, net of the other predictors (Budescu, 1993; Johnson,

2000). Particularly, percentages of relative weights calculated by dividing individual relative

weights by their sum (total R2) and multiplying by 100 that sum up to 100% are useful and

intuitive indices of relative importance among predictors.

Organizational cynicism is slightly more important than trust in predicting job

performance (%RW = 86% vs. 14%; β = -.13 vs. -.07; Table 2); organizational trust is more

important in predicting commitment (%RW = 70% vs. 30%; β = .48 vs. -.18) and intent to quit

1 Three primary studies were based on overall performance or the composite of task and contextual performance

whereas one study was based on only contextual performance. The results did not differ by performance type; note

that the percent variance explained is almost 100%, suggesting that moderators are unlikely. In addition, the true-

score correlation based on self-reports of job performance is estimated at -.18 (k = 9, N = 2,139). We provide this

value for informational purposes only; the detailed results are available from the authors upon request.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


(%RW = 75% vs. 25%; β = -.42 vs. .11). Organizational cynicism and organizational trust are

equally important in predicting job satisfaction (%RW = 47% vs. 53%; β = -.34 vs. .30).

Publication bias

Egger’s test of the intercept suggested potential publication bias for the cynicism-work

tenure and the cynicism-negative affect relationships. The severe a priori weight-function model

technique suggested potential publication bias for the cynicism-age relationship. Little to no

adjustments were made with the trim and fill method. Overall, the findings largely indicated that

most of our results are robust to the threat of publication bias.

Discussion

The objective of this meta-analysis was to shed light on the antecedents and

consequences of organizational cynicism (Figure 1), and examine the extent to which its

prediction is similar to or different from organizational trust, a conceptually relevant construct.

Cynicism represents an employee’s negative attitude toward their organization as a whole and

belief that the organization lacks integrity, whereas trust refers to a positive attitude toward the

organization and willingness to be vulnerable to the other party. Cynicism and trust constructs

can be situated at the low and high ends on one continuum, although some researchers

highlighted their distinctiveness (Dean et al., 1998). We estimated the relationship between these

constructs and illustrated that cynicism and trust are strongly related, but still distinct constructs.

As expected, results indicate that positive affectivity negatively is related to

organizational cynicism, whereas negative affectivity and trait cynicism positively is associated

with this outcome. Contextual antecedents of cynicism were also explored. Perceived

organizational support and organizational justice present negative relationships with cynicism;

distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were separately examined and had similar true-

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


score correlations with organizational cynicism. Further, psychological contract violation and

perceived organizational politics were found to be strongly related, and psychological strain

moderately related to cynicism.

Being able to determine the magnitude of effect sizes concerning both individual

difference and contextual factors can provide additional insight on this matter. Organizational

cynicism is enhanced by individual negative affectivity and trait cynicism, and diminished by

positive affectivity. Maximum effect sizes for such individual characteristics are .33 (for

negative affectivity), revolving more typically around .25 (Table 1). Interestingly, the effect size

increases to roughly double when contextual factors come into play. Perceived organizational

support, for example, has a negative association with organizational cynicism, displaying an

effect size of .63. Additionally, effect sizes are over .50 for other contextual predictors, such as

positive (fairness) or negative (organizational politics). A preliminary finding, then, is that

contextual aspects may matter more for organizational cynicism than individual differences do.

Our evidence provides preliminary support for the argument of Dean and colleagues (1998) that

organizational cynicism is “almost certainly based on [negative] experience” (p. 348). These

findings need to be corroborated through different designs (e.g., longitudinal), as we elaborate in

the future research section, or with a relative importance test, possible when the meta-analytic

correlation among the predictors is known.

Concerning attitudes and intentions, cynicism was found to be negatively related to job

satisfaction and organizational commitment, and positively related to turnover intentions. We

observed larger effect sizes for job satisfaction and organizational commitment than for turnover

intentions. This finding is consistent with what has been found in other meta-analyses in which

other organizational attitudes or perceptions were involved. For example, when support is

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


provided by the organization, supervisor or coworkers, it influences intention to quit to a lesser

extent than it impacts satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Ng &

Sorensen, 2008; Riggle et al., 2009). This is possibly due to the broader scope of factors that may

impact employees’ intentions to leave the organization.

Lastly, organizational cynicism was found to have a modest negative relationship with

job performance. Given that we used non-self-reported measures of job performance, the

estimation is rather conservative. This negative cynicism-performance relationship also seems to

be quite consistent across studies, although we should be cautious in drawing the conclusion due

to the relatively small number of primarily studies analyzed (k = 4). Nevertheless, this result

suggests that cynicism impairs productivity (as shown by a small but significant negative effect

size). As productivity issues are a concern of all organizations, more scholarly and practical work

on organizational cynicism is necessary. Because few primary studies have examined the

relationship between cynicism and contextual performance, such as OCBs (, Organ, 1988) or

CWBs (Spector & Fox, 2002), we are not able to meta-analyze these effect sizes. The Byrne and

Hochwarter’s (2008) study, however, found that the correlation between cynicism and OCBs is

approximately twice in magnitude compared to the one with task performance. Thus, cynicism

might be more strongly associated with contextual performance which is typically considered

volitional or discretionary in nature.

An important objective of this meta-analysis was to examine the extent to which

organizational trust and cynicism exhibit similarities and differences in relation to outcomes. As

expected, we found a fairly strong negative correlation between cynicism and trust. To further

illuminate the potential differential impact of cynicism and trust on employee outcomes, we

examined their relative importance in influencing job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


turnover intentions, and job performance. Based on Baumeister et al.’s (2001) “bad is stronger

than good” theory, we predicted that organizational cynicism – the “bad” side – would have a

greater impact on employee outcomes than organizational trust – the “good” counterpart.

However, the results did not show an overall greater association of cynicism with employee

outcomes. Cynicism was more important for job performance as an outcome; however, trust was

more important for organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Both organizational

cynicism and trust demonstrate equal importance in their relationship with job satisfaction.

We speculate that a certain level of trust may be required to develop high commitment.

Thus, the extent that individuals lack trust (i.e., more cynical) in the organization may matter less

because even a moderate level of organizational cynicism falls short of the minimum

requirement of trust in developing commitment. The weak (zero) relationship between trust and

performance may be due to the fact that there are many more important factors (e.g., ability, job

skills, experience) that determine performance levels. Having a high level of trust in the

organization alone may not improve job performance. In contrast to those constraints of

improving performance, it can be much easier for individuals to intentionally reduce their

performance. Having a negative, cynical attitude toward the organization may be sufficient to

motivate individuals to withdraw effort from work, resulting in lower levels of performance

given lack of perceived instrumentality of high performance among cynical employees

(Wilkerson, 2002).

Practical Implications

Our findings have practical implications. From an organizational standpoint, to decrease

employee cynicism, supportive environments, fairness, low levels of psychological contract

violation, and of organizational politics can help achieve this goal. In addition to designing such

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


features through organizational policies or culture, they are also more likely to be present when

specific organizational interventions (e.g., leadership training, emphasizing fairness) are used.

From a micro, individual perspective, when organizations attempt to diminish the number of

cynical employees in their ranks, selection strategies can target applicants high in positive and

low in negative affect. In the light of the effect sizes we obtained, this latter strategy may be less

impactful. Most likely, combining the macro (“O”) side through organizational policies and

interventions and the micro (“I”) side using personnel selection to recruit the right people, will

achieve higher rates of success.

Limitations

As any meta-analysis, our study has a number of limitations. First, we cannot determine

cause and effect because we meta-analyzed (mostly cross-sectional) field studies rather than

experiments. Thus, it is worth entertaining the possibility of reverse relationships. Cynical

employees may be biased to report lower levels of support from their organizations, or more

violations of their psychological contracts. With future research in mind, it is still to be

determined “whether Dilbert fuels workplace cynicism or whether cynical people seek out

Dilbert” (Rogelberg, cited in Jones, 1998, p. 16). Since an insufficient number of longitudinal

studies were in our dataset, future research is necessary to establish with more clarity the

causality of the relationships. Lack of information from primary studies also precluded testing

more complex models, involving mediating and moderating mechanisms, or models with a

longer causal chain (e.g., cynicism to commitment to intention to quit; Meyer, Stanley,

Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). These can be examined in future work alongside boundary

conditions not examined in this study due to the shortage of primary studies.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Finally, we used a definition of cynicism that reflects a more conventional stance in

organizational sciences. Alternative definitions, through a radical humanistic lens, present

cynicism as resistance: a defensive mechanism for employees (e.g., Fleming & Spicer, 2003).

Even finer conceptual distinctions can be made (e.g., between kynics and cynics; see Karfakis &

Kokkinidis, 2011; Sloterdijk, 2008). Evidently, such nuanced conceptual differences are not

readily discernible in existing cynicism operationalizations, and were glossed over in this study.

The meta-analysis has specific strengths. First, we present a relatively comprehensive

nomological network of organizational cynicism. Second, we integrate organizational cynicism

and organizational trust-related literatures by using relative importance (Johnson, 2000;

Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011) to determine the strength of relationships across the two

seemingly opposite predictors: organizational trust and cynicism. Lastly, this study helps clarify

inconsistent findings in the literature (e.g., Hochwarter et al., 2004; Treadway et al., 2004).

Future Research

In this study, organizational cynicism was not explored as a mediator, due to the absence

of data based on primary or cumulative studies. To test mediation patterns, it is necessary to

construct meta-analytic matrices connecting the predictors, mediator, and outcomes. As more

data becomes available, future research can explore organizational cynicism as mediator,

examined simultaneously with organizational trust. Additionally, the literature posits other –

more specific – forms of cynicism. Change-specific cynicism involves “disbelief of management

stated implied motives for a specific organizational change” (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky,

2005, p. 436). This form of cynicism posits negative attitudes specifically toward change-

oriented initiatives. In future studies, it may be easier to establish cause-and-effect relationships

if change-oriented cynicism is assessed. For example, employees who have been through

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


unsuccessful change initiatives may display subsequent increase in this context-based form of

cynicism. Organizational cynicism, however, may accumulate in a more chronic fashion and

results from the on-going interaction between the individual and his/her context (organization).

It is also possible for positive and negative work environment aspects to differentially

influence organizational cynicism depending on characteristics of the individual. Lack of support

may lead to more cynicism among employees who construe their relationships with their

organization in relational rather than transactional terms. Individuals also differ in their tendency

to engage in more (or less) social exchanges (e.g., based on their weak or strong levels of

employee exchange ideology; Eisenberger, Cotterell, & Marvel, 1987). Employees with weak

exchange ideologies may be less sensitive to a lack of a supportive social climate, which may

lead to a diminished influence of the organizational climate factors on cynicism. Similarly,

employees may react to equity or its absence as a function of their equity sensitivity which refers

to individual differences in their preferences of or sensitivity to output/input ratios (as classified

by Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987; Scott & Colquitt, 2007). Persons who are less sensitive to

equity may respond to a lack of organizational justice less strongly, resulting in a weaker

relationship between justice and cynicism. Future research can examine these possibilities and

the importance of context in relation to individual differences.

Sources and targets of trust and cynicism can be examined, by including the extent to

which these attitudes are directed toward the other employees, the direct manager, upper

management, or the organization. Dispositionally cynical (or trustful) employees may be so

toward any target, while a differential pattern may be present for employees whose trust or

cynicism has a source other than their own inclinations. From an outcomes standpoint, except for

Naus et al. (2007) who related organizational cynicism to self-reports of voice, no other primary

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


study has linked organizational cynicism to challenging or change-oriented OCBs (e.g., voice,

taking charge; Chiaburu, Lorinkova, & Van Dyne, 2013; Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner,

2011). Yet boundary conditions may be present: employees cynical of their organization could

initially engage in challenging forms of OCB as long as they feel psychological safety or they

feel coworkers or supervisors support them (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Future research can

examine the potential positive effect of cynicism on job performance through challenging OCB,

as some innovative ideas originate from challenging, rather than maintaining, the status quo.

Finally, it is also possible that social support (e.g., coworkers’ support, supervisory

support) and supportive resources (e.g., positive job characteristics, emotional stability, and

psychological capital) may interact with organizational cynicism in determining employee

outcomes. In particular, in line with the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1998), social

support and positive resources may alleviate the negative influence of organizational cynicism on

employee outcomes. That is, employees with greater personal or job resources (e.g., more hardy

and resilient or with high job control) are less vulnerable to negative attitudes or poor

performance that arise from organizational cynicism.

Conclusion

With around half of the workforce described as displaying cynical attitudes and behaviors

(Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), employee cynicism cannot be dismissed as inconsequential. Dilbert

comic strips (Feldman, 2000) and organizational artifacts and practices that mean to capture

organizational cynicism (Costello, 1998; Kersten, 2005) are also indicative of a lasting, and

possibly ascending trend. As we confirm across studies and settings, organizational cynicism is

driven by both employees’ dispositions and context, with the latter exerting a stronger influence.

Organizational cynicism is related to negative attitudes (such as a lack of commitment and

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


turnover intentions). It is also associated with decreased performance, to a greater extent than

organizational trust. We suggest more studies investigate organizational practices that can reduce

employee cynicism, or factors that diminish its negative consequences.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


References

*Abad, K. (2010). The influence of disposition, organizational cynicism, and equity sensitivity on

workplace deviance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University,

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

*Adams, J. E. (2008). Development and validation of the corporate distrust scale (Unpublished

thesis). Graduate College of Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing

misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspective,

49, 48-64.

Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation

framework. Human Relations, 49, 1395-1418. doi: 10.1177/001872679604901102

*Arabaci, B. (2010). The effects of depersonalization and organizational cynicism levels on the

job satisfaction of educational inspectors. African Journal of Business Management, 4,

2802-2811. Retrieved from www.academicjournals.org/AJBM

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help organizational

change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and

behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70. doi:

10.1177/0021886307311470

Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). Publication bias: A call for improved meta-

analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 20, 182-196. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00591.x

Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidence-based I-O psychology.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 40-

44. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01292.x

Banks, G. C., Whelpley, C. E., Oh, I.-S., & Shin, K. (2012). (How) are emotionally exhausted

employees harmful? International Journal of Stress Management, 19(3), 198-216. doi:

10.1037/a0029249

*Barnes, L. L. (2010). The effects of organizational cynicism on community colleges: Exploring

concepts from positive psychology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Claremont

Graduate University, Claremont, California.

*Bashir, S., Nasir, Z. M., Saeed, S., & Ahmed, M. (2011). Breach of psychological contract,

perception of politics and organizational cynicism: Evidence from Pakistan. African

Journal of Business, 5, 844-888. Retrieved from www.academicjournals.org/AJBM

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than

good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. doi: 10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323

*Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “Ivory,” it isn’t “White:” Understanding the

consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6,

9-32. Retrieved from www.bus.lsu.edu/management/faculty/abedeian/articles

Beehr, T. A., & Franz, T. (1987). The current debate about the meaning of job stress. In J. M.

Ivancevich & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Job stress: From theory to suggestion (pp. 5-18).

New York: Haworth Press.

*Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Justice, cynicism, and

commitment: A study of important organizational change variables. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 303-326. doi: 10.1177/0021886306296602

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Bies R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.

J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Baszerma (Eds.), Research on negotiations in

organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change:

Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about

organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733-753. doi:

10.1002/job.342Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005).

Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.

*Brandes, P., Castro, S. L., James, M. S. L., Martinez, A. D., Matherly, T. A., Ferris, G. R., &

Hochwarter, W. A. (2007). The interactive effects of job insecurity and organizational

cynicism on work effort following a layoff. Journal of Leadership and Organizational

Studies, 14, 233-247. doi: 10.1177/1071791907311967

Brandes, P., & Das, D. (2006). Locating behavioral cynicism at work: Construct issues and

performance implications. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, 5, 233-266.

*Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., & Dean, J. W. (1999). Does organizational cynicism matter?

Employee and supervisor perspectives on work outcomes. Paper presented at the 36th

annual EAM meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual

Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156

*Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee

involvement. Human Resource Management, 47, 667-686. doi: 10.1002/hrm

Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative

importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542-551.

doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.542

*Byrne, Z., & Hochwarter, W.A. (2008). Perceived organizational support and performance:

Relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 23, 54-72. doi: 10.1108/02683940810849666

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and

meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082-1103.

Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardener, R. G. (2011). The Five-Factor

Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.


Chiaburu, D.S., Lorinkova, N., & Van Dyne, L. (2013). Employees’ social context and change-

oriented citizenship: A meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and organizational influences.

Group & Organization Management. In press.

Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (7th

ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice in

the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-455. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425

Costa, P., Zonderman, A., McCrae, R., & Williams, R. (1986). Cynicism and paranoid alienation

in the Cook and Medley Ho scale. Psychosomatic Medicine, 48, 283-285.

Costello, J. (1998). If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style... Wall Street Journal

(Eastern edition), p. B1.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An

attributional and leader-member exchange perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15,

439-465. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.002

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of

Management Review 23, 341-352.

*Delken, M. (2004). Organizational cynicism: A study among call centers (Unpublished

master’s thesis). University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications

for research and practice, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628. doi:

10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611

Duval, S. J. (2005). The ‘‘trim and fill’’ method. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M.

Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and

adjustments (pp. 127-144). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

*Eaton, J. A. (2000). A social motivation approach to organizational cynicism (Unpublished

master’s thesis). York University, Toronto, Ontario.

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by

a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629-634.

Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 743-750.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

*English, B., & Chalon, C. (2011). Strengthening affective organizational commitment: The

influence of fairness perceptions of management practices and underlying employee

cynicism. The Health Care Manager, 30, 29-35. doi: 10.1097/HCM.0b013e3182078ae2

*Evans, W. R., Goodman, J. M., & Davis, W. D. (2011). The impact of perceived corporate

citizenship on organizational cynicism, OCB, and employee deviance. Human

Performance, 24, 79-97. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2010.530632

Feldman, D. C. (2000). The Dilbert syndrome: How employee cynicism about ineffective

management is changing the nature of careers in organizations. American Behavioral

Scientist, 43, 1286-1300. doi: 10.1177/00027640021955865

Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2010). Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (pp. 435-459). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

*Fitzgerald, M. R. (2002). Organizational Cynicism: Its relationship to perceived organizational

injustice and explanatory style (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of

Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power,

subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10, 157-179.

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological

Bulletin, 117, 39-66. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39

Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an image of justices: Looking fair on the job. Academy of

Management Executive, 11, 155-158.

Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Advances in organization justice. Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University Press.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Harrell-Cook, G., Ferris, G. R., & Dulebohn, J. H. (1999). Political behaviors as moderators of

the perceptions of organizational politics—work outcomes relationships. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 20, 1093-1105.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY:

Academic Press.

*Hochwarter, W. A., James, M., Johnson, D., & Ferris, G. R. (2004). The interactive effects of

politics perceptions and trait cynicism on work outcomes. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 10 (4), 44-57. doi: 10.1177/107179190401000404

Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of

Psychology, 12 (pp. 255-276). New Jersey: Wiley.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in

research findings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Sage.

Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: the

equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234.

*James, M. S. L. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of cynicism in organization: An

examination of the potential positive and negative effects on school systems (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.

Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor

variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1-19.

*Johnson, J. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach

and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 24, 627-647. doi: 10.1002/job.207

Jones, M. (1998). Dissecting Dilbert. Psychology Today, 31, 16.

Kanter, D. L. & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of

discontent and disillusionment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the

organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 624-662.

Kersten, E. L. (2005). The art of demotivation. Despair, Inc., Austin, TX.

*Kim, T.-Y., Bateman, T. S., Gilbreath, B., & Andersson, L. M. (2009). Top management

credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive model. Human Relations, 62, 1435-

1458. doi: 10.1177/001872670934082.

Karfakis, N., & Kokkinidis, G. (2011). Rethinking cynicism: Parrhesiastic practices in

contemporary workplaces. Culture and Organization, 17(4), 329-345.

Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and

negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management

Review, 31, 596-614. doi: 10.2307/20159231

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T.R., & Peterson, J. (2010). Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense

theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 644-667. doi:

10.1177/1094428109345156

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory: New approaches to the study

of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social

exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Chicago: Rand

McNally.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


*Luczywek, D. R. (2007). Can personality buffer cynicism? Moderating effects of extraversion

and neuroticism in response to workplace hassles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Alliant International University, Los Angeles, California.

Lynch, P. D., Eisenbeger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior

versus superior by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 467-483. doi:

10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.467

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 2, 99-113. doi:10. 1002/job.4030020205

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734. doi:

10.2307/258792

*McCarthy, A. M., & Garavan, T. N. (2007). Understanding acceptance of multisource feedback

for management development. Personnel Review, 36, 903-917. doi:

10.1108/00483480710822427

*McClough, A. (1998). Cynicism and the quality of an individual’s contribution to an

organizational diagnostic survey. Organization Development Journal, 16 (2), 31-41.

Retrieved from https://orgscience.uncc.edu

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,

and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents,

correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model.

Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

*Mino, C. E. (2002). Organizational trust, organizational cynicism and organizational

commitment during a change initiative. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Alliant

International University, Los Angeles, California.

Mirvis, P. H., & Kanter, D. L. (1991). Beyond demography: A psychographic profile of the

workforce. Human Resource Management, 30, 45-68. doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930300104

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2001). How to keep your best employees:

Developing an effective retention policy. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 96-

108.

Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and

employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.

*Naus, F., van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. (2007). Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice,

loyalty, and neglect model of employees' responses to adverse conditions in the

workplace. Human Relations, 60, 683-718. doi: 10.1177/0018726707079198

Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships

between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group &

Organization Management, 33, 243-268.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:

The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.


ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Palmer, T. M., Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., & Moreno, S. G. (2008). Contour-enhanced funnel

plots for meta-analysis. Stata Journal, 8, 242-254.

Pereira Lopes, M., Cunha, M. P. E., & Rego, A. (2011). Integrating positivity and negativity in

management research: The case of paradoxical optimists. Management Research: The

Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 9, 97-117.

*Pugh, S. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Passell, B. S. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims’ trust and

cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

76, 201-212. doi: 10.1348/096317903765913704

Regoli, R. M., & Poole, E. D. (1979). Measurement of police cynicism: A factor scaling

approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 37-51.

Reichers A. E., Wanous J. P., & Austin J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynism about

organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 48-59. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/stable/4165371

Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship

between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research.

Journal of Business Research, 62 (10), 1027-1030.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Royle, M. T., Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). The

interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship

behavior and political behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13, 53-72.

Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.

Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout

Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS). In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter

(Eds.), Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (pp. 19-26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Schleicher, D. J., Hansen, D., & Fox, K. E. (2010). Job attitudes and work values. In S. Zedeck

(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-189).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual

differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the big five.

Group & Organization Management, 32, 290-325.

Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Iowa

City: Department of Management and Organizations, University of Iowa.

Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Hayes, T. (2009). Fixed versus random effects models in meta-

analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British

Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97-128.

*Seo, Y., Park, S. E., & Kim, C. (2011). An empirical study on the effects of organizational

cynicism and EVLN responses on organizational commitment and Pro-union behavioral

intentions. International Journal of Contents, 7, 36-41. doi: 10.5392/IJoC.2011.7.2.036

Sims, H. E, & Szilagyi, A. D. (1975). Leader reward behavior and subordinate satisfaction and

performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 426-438.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Singelis, T. M., Hubbard, C., Her, P., & An, S. (2003). Convergent validation of the Social

Axioms Survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 269-282.

Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression

formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131-142. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131

Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of

statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287-305.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some

parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship

behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269-292.

*Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee Cynicism and Resistance to

Organizational Change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429-459. doi:

10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2

Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Loannidis, et al. (2011). Recommendations for examining and

interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

British Medical Journal, 343, 1-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4002

Sloterdijk, P. (2008). Critique of cynical reason (original 1983). Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.

Swider, B. W., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2010). Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of

personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 487-

506. doi: 10.1037/a0021676

Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-

minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin 110, 67-85. doi: 10.1037/0033-

2909.110.1.67

*Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Examining employee involvement in the

context of participative work environments. Group & Organization Management, 24,

271-299. doi: 10.1177/1059601199243003

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The

affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and

integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914

Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to

regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1-9.

*Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A.

P., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Leader political skill and employee reactions. The

Leadership Quarterly, 15, 493-513. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.004

*Turner, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2001). Cynicism as a fundamental dimension of moral

decision-making: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 123-136. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.004

Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-

analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 8, 308-319.

Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis

using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428-443. doi: 10.1037/1082-

989X.10.4.428

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (1994). Organizational cynicism: An initial study.

Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 269-273.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change:

Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and Organization Management, 25,

132-153. doi: 10.1177/1059601100252003

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Wilkerson, J. M. (2002). Organizational cynicism and its impact on human resource

management. In G. R. Ferris, M. R. Buckley, & D. B. Fedor (Eds.), Human resources

management: Perspectives, context, functions, and outcomes (pp. 532-546). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

*Wilkerson, J. M., Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2008). A test of coworkers' influence on

organizational cynicism, badmouthing, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2273-2292. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00391.x

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Organizational Cynicism 39

Table 1

Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Cynicism

Variable k N r rSD ̂ SD CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL %Var

Organizational trust Cynicism 6 1,063 -.53 .15 -.63 .15 [-.82 -.43] [-.76 -.50] 15%

Demographics Cynicism

Age 16 4,759 -.02 .07 -.02 .03 [-.06 .03] [-.05 .02] 78%

Work tenure 16 5,050 .10 .10 .11 .09 [.00 .23] [.06 .15] 32%

Education level 5 2,878 -.06 .05 -.06 .02 [-.09 -.03] [-.10 -.02] 78%

Gender (m > f) 14 4,016 -.02 .05 -.03 .00 [-.03 -.03] [-.06 .01] 100%

Employee Disposition Cynicism

Positive affectivity 7 1,574 -.21 .18 -.23 .19 [-.48 .01] [-.38 -.08] 12%

Negative affectivity 12 2,337 .29 .13 .33 .13 [.16 .50] [.25 .42] 25%

Trait cynicism 6 1,042 .23 .11 .27 .10 [.14 .40] [.17 .37] 41%

Positive Workplace Experience Cynicism

Perceived organizational support 4 957 -.56 .09 -.63 .09 [-.74 -.52] [-.73 -.54] 26%

Perceived justice 5 1,560 -.47 .06 -.55 .07 [-.64 -.47] [-.62 -.48] 37%

Distributive justice 2 433 -.44 .05 -.51 .00 [-.51 -.51] [-.59 -.43] 100%

Procedural justice 4 1,200 -.47 .05 -.58 .03 [-.62 -.54] [-.63 -.52] 76%

Interactional justice 2 433 -.43 .00 -.50 .00 [-.50 -.50] [-.58 -.43] 100%

Negative Workplace Experience Cynicism

Psychological contract violation 6 1,037 .45 .19 .51 .19 [.26 .76] [.35 .67] 11%

Perceived organizational politics 3 820 .49 .11 .55 .09 [.44 .67] [.44 .67] 24%

Psychological strain 6 2,150 .23 .09 .30 .07 [.20 .39] [.23 .37] 43%

Cynicism Attitudinal and Behavioral Outcomes

Job satisfaction 10 2,200 -.50 .13 -.58 .15 [-.77 -.39] [-.68 -.48] 14%

Organizational commitment 12 3,929 -.43 .13 -.52 .13 [-.69 -.35] [-.60 -.44] 14%

Intention to quit 5 1,392 .33 .07 .39 .03 [.36 .43] [.34 .44] 86%

Job performance (non-self-reported) 4 737 -.09 .07 -.10 .01 [-.11 -.08] [-.17 -.02] 97%

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Note. k = number of independent samples; N = total sample size; r = sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation; rSD =

sample-size-weighted observed standard deviation of correlations; ̂ = mean true-score correlation (corrected for unreliability for

both variables); SD = standard deviation of corrected correlations; CVLL and CVUL = lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the

80% credibility interval; CILL and CIUL = lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% confidence interval around the mean true-

score correlation; %Var = percentage of variance attributable to statistical artifacts. Job performance is based on non-self-reported

data.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Table 2

Relative Importance of Organization Trust and Organizational Cynicism in Predicting Attitudinal and Behavioral Outcomes

Variable Job satisfaction

Organizational

commitment Intention to quit Job performance

r β %RW r β %RW r β %RW r β %RW

Organizational trust .48a .30 47 .57

a .48 70 -.48

a -.42 75 .00

a -.07 14

Organizational cynicism -.50 -.34 53 -.43 -.18 30 .33 .11 25 -.09 -.13 86

Overall R .56 .59 .49 .11

Overall R2 .31 .35 .24 .01

Note. r = sample-size-weighted mean correlation; β = standardized regression weights; %RW = percentage of relative weight;

Overall R = multiple correlation of organizational trust and organizational cynicism. a Values from Dirks and Ferrin (2002); Dirks and Ferrin reported only sample-size-weighted mean correlations for organizational trust,

so the above regression and relative weights analyses were conducted using sample-size-weighted mean correlations for both

organizational trust (reported in Dirks & Ferrin, 2002, Table 3) and organizational cynicism (reported Table 1 of the current study).

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Figure 1

Theoretical Model

PREDICTORS

Demographics

• Age

• Education level

• Gender

• Work tenure

Employee

Dispositions

• Positive affectivity

• Negative affectivity

• Trait cynicism

Positive Work

Experiences

• Perceived organizational support

• Perceived justice

Negative Work

Experiences

• Psychological contract violation

• Perceived organizational politics

• Psychological strain

Organizational

Cynicism

• Job satisfaction

• Organizational commitment

• Intention to quit

ATTITUDINAL

OUTCOMES

BEHAVIORAL

OUTCOMES

Organizational

Trust

RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

• Job Performance

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Appendix

Main Codes and Input Values of Each Primary Study/Sample Included in the Meta-analysis

Author Year Pub Status n r rxx ryy Variable

Abad 2010 Unpublished 106 .20 .89 .90 Negative Affect

Arabaci 2010 Published 217 -.21 .92 .77 Job satisfaction

Arabaci 2010 Published 217 .36 .92 .71 Stress

Adams 2008 Unpublished 161 -.02 .88 .95 Negative Affect

Adams 2008 Unpublished 161 -.41 .88 .95 Org. Trust

Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 -.09 .84 1.00 Age

Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 -.54 .84 .88 OC

Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 -.13 .84 1.00 Education level

Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 -.05 .84 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .28 .84 .84 Intent to quit

Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .09 .84 1.00 Tenure

Bashir et al. 2011 Published 149 .26 .79 .88 POP

Bashir et al. 2011 Published 149 .23 .79 .77 PCV

Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .08 .94 1.00 Age

Bedeian 2007 Published 356 -.49 .94 .88 OC

Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .04 .94 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .36 .94 .89 Intent to quit

Bedeian 2007 Published 356 -.50 .94 .94 Job satisfaction

Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .10 .94 1.00 Tenure

Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 -.36 .81 .82 Distributive justice

Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 -.44 .81 .74 Interactional justice

Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 -.34 .81 .85 Procedural justice

Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 -.38 .81 .80 Overall justice

Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .03 .81 1.00 Age

Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .14 .81 1.00 Tenure

Brandes et al. 1999 Unpublished 129 -.57 .87 .89 OC

Brandes et al. 1999 Unpublished 129 -.09 .87 .92 Job performance

Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 -.03 .87 1.00 Age

Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 -.06 .87 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .13 .87 .79 Negative Affect

Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 -.18 .87 .83 Positive Affect

Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 -.13 .87 1.00 Tenure

Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 -.03 .70 1.00 Age

Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 -.06 .70 1.00 Education level

Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 -.03 .70 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .16 .70 .79 Stress

Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .21 .70 1.00 Tenure

Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 -.07 .86 1.00 Age

Byrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 -.03 .87 1.00 Age

Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .37 .86 .83 Negative Affect

Byrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .30 .87 .90 Negative Affect

Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 -.39 .86 .93 POS

Byrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 -.50 .87 .86 POS

Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 -.05 .86 1.00 Tenure

Byrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .07 .87 1.00 Tenure

Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 -.23 .86 .78 Job performance

Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .09 .89 1.00 Age

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 -.25 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .62 .89 .86 PCV

Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .09 .89 1.00 Tenure

Eaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 -.60 .86 .85 OC

Eaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 124 .39 .87 .72 Negative Affect

Eaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 -.21 .86 .86 Positive Affect

Eaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 130 -.61 .86 .90 Job satisfaction

Eaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 124 -.72 .87 .89 Job satisfaction

Eaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 124 .21 .87 .82 Trait cynicism

Eaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 .27 .86 .80 Trait cynicism

English & Chalon 2011 Published 1104 -.34 .80 .85 OC

Evans et al. 2011 Published 188 -.02 .87 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Evans et al. 2011 Published 188 -.44 .87 .86 Job satisfaction

Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 -.47 .85 .92 Distributive justice

Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 -.43 .85 .93 Interactional justice

Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 -.53 .85 .87 Procedural justice

Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 -.58 .85 .93 Overall justice

Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .11 .85 .82 Trait cynicism

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 -.07 .89 1.00 Age

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 -.06 .89 1.00 Education level

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .04 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .40 .89 .82 Negative Affect

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .53 .89 .85 POP

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .11 .89 .90 Positive Affect

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 -.47 .89 .86 Job satisfaction

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .03 .89 1.00 Tenure

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .11 .89 1.00 Tenure

Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .38 .89 .82 Trait cynicism

James 2005 Unpublished 360 -.41 .94 .93 Overall justice

James 2005 Unpublished 360 .07 .94 1.00 Age

James 2005 Unpublished 360 .04 .94 1.00 Education level

James 2005 Unpublished 360 -.11 .94 1.00 Gender (m > f)

James 2005 Unpublished 360 .35 .94 .86 Negative Affect

James 2005 Unpublished 360 .55 .94 .92 POP

James 2005 Unpublished 360 -.05 .94 .98 Job performance

James 2005 Unpublished 360 -.65 .94 .87 POS

James 2005 Unpublished 360 -.18 .94 .88 Positive Affect

James 2005 Unpublished 360 .40 .94 .86 PCV

James 2005 Unpublished 360 .27 .94 .87 Stress

Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 -.50 .89 .87 OC

Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 -.01 .89 .75 Negative Affect

Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .62 .89 .94 PCV

Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 -.57 .89 .89 Job satisfaction

Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .33 .89 .86 Stress

Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .10 .89 .82 Trait cynicism

Kim et al. 2009 Published 146 -.02 .82 1.00 Age

Kim et al. 2009 Published 146 -.39 .82 .76 OC

Kim et al. 2009 Published 146 .05 .82 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 -.45 .85 .81 Procedural justice

Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .25 .85 .87 Negative Affect

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 -.40 .85 .92 Positive Affect

Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .69 .85 .91 PCV

McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 -.47 .83 .71 Procedural justice

McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .07 .83 1.00 Age

McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 -.04 .83 1.00 Education level

McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .21 .83 1.00 Tenure

McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 -.05 .83 1.00 Tenure

McClough et al. 1998 Published 97 -.52 .85 .80 OC

McClough et al. 1998 Published 97 .41 .85 .92 Intent to quit

McClough et al. 1998 Published 97 -.66 .85 .75 Job satisfaction

McClough et al. 1998 Published 97 .32 .85 .80 Stress

McClough et al. 1998 Published 97 -.65 .85 .86 Org. Trust

Mino 2002 Unpublished 410 -.23 .69 .85 OC

Mino 2002 Unpublished 410 -.39 .69 .93 Org. Trust

Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .05 .75 1.00 Age

Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .05 .75 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .46 .75 .90 Intent to quit

Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .40 .75 .87 Stress

Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .16 .75 1.00 Tenure

Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 -.02 .92 1.00 Age

Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 -.01 .92 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .20 .92 .91 PCV

Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 -.78 .92 .93 Org. Trust

Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 -.13 .89 1.00 Age

Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 -.02 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 .39 .89 .88 Negative Affect

Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 -.37 .89 .89 Positive Affect

Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 .04 .89 1.00 Tenure

Seo et al. 2011 Published 307 -.25 .84 .73 OC

Seo et al. 2011 Published 307 .26 .84 .60 Intent to quit

Stanley et al. 2005 Published 58 .24 .83 .78 Trait cynicism

Stanley et al. 2005 Published 58 -.66 .83 .81 Org. Trust

Tesluk et al. 1999 Published 476 -.62 .85 .80 OC

Tesluk et al. 1999 Published 476 -.60 .85 .74 Job satisfaction

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 -.13 .82 1.00 Age

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 -.52 .82 .87 OC

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 -.02 .82 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .38 .82 .88 Negative Affect

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 -.58 .82 .90 POS

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 -.37 .82 .89 Positive Affect

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 -.39 .82 .91 Job satisfaction

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .05 .82 1.00 Tenure

Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 -.65 .82 .87 Org. Trust

Wilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 -.04 .86 1.00 Gender (m > f)

Wilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 -.04 .86 .76 Job performance

Wilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 .11 .86 1.00 Tenure

Note. OC = Organizational commitment; PCV = Psychological contract violation; POS =

Perceived organizational support; POP = Perceived organizational politics; S1 = Sample 1; S2 =

Sample 2

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Highlights

We meta-analytically examine the nomological network of organizational cynicism.

Both employees’ dispositions and contextual aspects predict organizational cynicism.

We determine the relative importance of organizational cynicism and trust.

Organizational cynicism relates more positively to attitudes than trust.

Organizational cynicism relates more negatively to performance than trust.

antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: a meta-analysis

Documents