organizational change cynicism: the role of employee involvement

Introduction

Employees have become more cynicalabout their organizations (Feldman,2000). There are many potential tar-gets for such cynicism, such as one’soccupation, top managers, and orga-

nizational change efforts (Dean, Brandes, &Dharwadkar, 1998). This article addresses or-

ganizational change cynicism (OCC), whichhas the potential to undermine change pro-grams (Reicher, Wanous, & Austin, 1997),and focuses on the role of information shar-ing with employees and the involvement ofemployees in decision making to manageOCC. Managers can choose how they man-age their employees. Our focus is on the par-ticipative climate managers create by the

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

CYNICISM: THE ROLE OF

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT

M I C H E L L E B R O W N A N D C H R I S T I N A C R E G A N

Organizational change efforts can bring about a range of outcomes: some in-tended, such as organizational survival and profitability, and some unin-tended, such as heightened levels of organizational change cynicism (OCC)among employees. This article focuses on processes for managing OCC: weexamine the role of information sharing and involvement in decision makingas ways to lessen employee reports of OCC. While both of these strategieshave the potential to be effective, they rest on a significant assumption—namely, that employees will enthusiastically embrace any opportunities to be-come involved. In this research, we investigate this assumption through ananalysis of the relationship between an employee’s willingness to become in-volved (“active orientation”) on employee reports of their OCC. We find, usingdata from 1,214 public-sector employees, that an active orientation toward in-volvement plays a significant role as a moderator in reducing employee re-ports of OCC. The findings suggest that HR practitioners concerned aboutOCC should encourage their line managers to adopt a participatory style ofmanagement (information sharing, involvement in decision making), espe-cially in those workplaces where employees are more likely to embrace theopportunities for involvement. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Michelle Brown, Associate Professor, Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty ofEconomics and Commerce, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia, Phone: 03 8344 7872, Fax: 0393494293, E-mail: [email protected].

Human Resource Management, Winter 2008, Vol. 47, No. 4, Pp. 667–686

© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20239

668 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2008

way they share information with employeesor involve them in decision making (Tesluck,Vance, & Mathieu, 1999; Wanous, Reichers,& Austin, 2000).

We compared the two broad approachesto employee involvement, information shar-ing and involvement in decision making, be-cause their theoretical rationale and opera-

tional features are distinct (Leana,1987). Is one approach morelikely to be effective than theother? Much of the academic andprofessional debates about in-volvement imply that all employ-ees want to be active participantsin their employing organizations.If this is indeed the case, the onlyreal challenge for HR managers isto decide on the mechanisms tofacilitate employee involvement.But not all involvement mecha-nisms are successful. One possibleexplanation is the absence of em-ployee support for involvement.

Employees’ enthusiasm for in-formation sharing or involve-ment in decision-making pro-

cesses will vary, and this variation may bebased on their assessment of the impact oftheir involvement. Is the effectiveness of aninvolvement strategy to deal with OCC ex-aggerated or attenuated by employees’ atti-tudes toward involvement (from now on re-ferred to as “active orientation”)?

Previous studies of involvement andOCC typically have been conducted inNorth American private-sector organiza-tions. For these findings to be of value inguiding HR decisions, however, they must beapplicable to other places and types of or-ganizations. Can the findings of previousstudies be replicated in a large public-sectororganization in Australia?

The following section reviews the litera-ture, with a particular emphasis on clarifyingthe meaning of cynicism and the conse-quences of cynicism for employees and or-ganizations. Research into OCC is compara-tively new and has been informed by theorganizational cynicism literature, a practicecontinued in the following sections of this

article. This is appropriate, as OCC is part ofa wider construct of organizational cynicism(Dean et al., 1998).

Understanding OrganizationalCynicism

Organizational cynicism refers to “a negativeattitude toward one’s employing organiza-tion. . . . The core belief is that principles ofhonesty, fairness and sincerity are sacrificedto further the self-interests of the leadership,leading to actions based on hidden motivesand deception” (Abraham, 2000, p. 269).More recently, Cole, Bruch, and Vogel (2006)have defined cynicism as “an evaluativejudgment that stems from an individual’semployment experiences” (p. 463). Further-more, “irrespective of the accuracy or valid-ity of the individual’s perceptions on whichthe employee cynicism construct is based, itis real in its consequences” (p. 464).

There are many targets for cynicism; ourinterest is in cynicism about organizationalchange efforts. Cynicism toward organiza-tional change consists of two elements: aview that change is futile (Reicher et al.,1997) and placement of blame for the failureof change programs on the facilitators ofchange—usually management. In such cir-cumstances, management is regarded as“being unmotivated, incompetent or both”(Wanous et al., 2000). Others go further andsuggest that OCC can be viewed as resistanceto change (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005).

Research on organizational cynicism iscomparatively new (Cole et al., 2006) andneeds to be distinguished from skepticism.Skeptics “doubt the likelihood of success butare still reasonably hopeful that positivechange will occur” (Reicher et al., 1997, p.48). Skepticism deals with doubt about theviability of change in achieving its stated ob-jective, and the skeptic’s views are not influ-enced by the stated or implied motives forchange (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky,2005). On the other hand, cynics are muchless optimistic about the success of changebecause of a history of repeated failure. Cyn-icism is likely “if management has a trackrecord of making promises it cannot keep or

…“irrespective of

the accuracy or

validity of the

individual’s

perceptions on

which the employee

cynicism construct

is based, it is real in

its consequences”

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Organizational Change Cynicism: The Role of Employee Involvement 669

if the hype is simply unbelievable” (Fleming,2005, p. 290). Cynicism involves frustration,disillusionment, and negative feelings to-ward an organization (Dean et al., 1998).While both cynics and skeptics have con-cerns about the success of change, the differ-ence between them lies in their attitudes to-ward management’s motives for change.

Organizational cynicism is a learned re-sponse rather than a personality-based pre-disposition (Wanous et al., 2000, p. 147). Inother words, organizational cynicism is “notsimply the feelings that ‘negative’ peoplebring into the organization, but that theseattitudes are shaped by experiences in thework context” (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly,2003, p. 640–641). People do not decide tobecome cynical. Organizational cynicism de-velops from experience because it is “selec-tively validated by the organization’s mixedrecord of successful change and by otherpeople in the organization who hold and ex-press similar views” (Reicher et al., 1997, p.50). Others (Abraham, 2000; Kalimo & Taris,2003) have suggested that cynicism is a de-fensive response, because it can shield em-ployees against feeling strong emotions andprepare them for the next “inevitable fail-ure” (Abraham, 2000, p. 129). The implica-tion is that “the world is not divided intocynics and non-cynics:” people have “widelyvarying degrees of cynicism” (Dean et al.,1998, p. 346). Dean et al. suggest that cyni-cism can be expressed both overtly, such asthrough direct statements questioning theintegrity of the organization, and covertlythrough the use of sarcastic humor and non-verbal behaviors, such as “knowing looks,”“rolling eyes,” and “smirks” (p. 346).

The theoretical antecedents for cynicismcan be found in psychological contracts the-ory and affective events theory. Using a psy-chological contracts approach, Andersson(1996) argued that there are three contribut-ing elements to cynicism: first, the “formula-tion of unrealistically high expectations, sec-ond, the experience of disappointment atfailing to meet these expectations and third,subsequent disillusionment” (p. 1404). Em-ployees develop their expectations of theiremployer based on general beliefs about how

organizations should behave or what theyhave experienced in the past (Johnson &O’Leary-Kelly, 2003, p. 630). In an empiricalstudy that considered Andersson’s concep-tual model, Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly(2003) argued that cynicism was a reactionto employment-related social exchange vio-lations. They reported that perceived psy-chological contract violations were associ-ated with increased levels of cynicism amongbank employees.

A second theoretical approach to under-standing how cynicism develops in theworkplace is provided by Affective EventsTheory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).This theory suggests that work events canhave an impact on “affective states” (such asfrustration), which then has an impact onwork attitudes. Relying on AET, Cole et al.(2006) found that the level of supervisorysupport and psychological hardiness weresignificant antecedents of cynicism.

Does OrganizationalCynicism Matter?

Whether human resource man-agers should be concerned aboutcynicism or attempt to respond tocynicism will depend partly onwhether cynicism has any ad-verse effects on employees ortheir organization.

Cynicism has been associatedwith negative consequences foremployees. Employees experiencea variety of negative emotions, including“distress, disgust and even shame when theythink about their organizations” (Dean et al.,1998). Some researchers have suggested thatthese negative emotions can take a “personaltoll” (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003, p. 633)and result in emotional fatigue and burnout(Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003, p. 643). Onthe other hand, cynicism may be good foremployees, as cynical workers are less likelyto be taken advantage of by others who lackintegrity (Dean et al., 1998).

There is debate about the consequencesof cynicism for organizations. One stream ofresearch has found negative associations be-

Cynicism involves

frustration,

disillusionment, and

negative feelings

toward an

organization.



tween organizational cynicism and organiza-tional commitment, organizational citizen-ship behavior, and job satisfaction (Abra-ham, 2000; Andersson & Bateman, 1997).OCC also has been associated with lower or-ganizational commitment, increased griev-ance filing, and a weakened perception ofpay for performance among employees

(Wanous et al., 2000). Bedeian(2007) found that university fac-ulties with higher levels of cyni-cism were less likely to experiencea sense of oneness with their em-ploying organization and to be“less psychologically intertwinedwith its fate.” He also reportedhigher turnover among cynics.

Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly(2003) compiled an alternative setof findings. They reported that“employees’ cynical attitudes to-ward the employer did not influ-ence their work performance,their organizational citizenshipbehaviors or their absence levels”(p. 641). The interpretation placedon these alternative findings isthat cynicism is an “apathy-basedreaction.” Although cynical em-ployees feel disillusioned and re-port less positive feelings towardtheir organization, “they do notact out this displeasure in behav-iors that influence organizationalperformance directly” (Johnson &O’Leary-Kelly, 2003, p. 643). Cyn-icism also can be good for organi-zations. Andersson (1997) foundthat cynics report less intention to

comply with requests to engage in unethicalbehavior, while Dean et al. (1998) have sug-gested that cynics provide a check on the“temptation to assume that self-interested orunderhanded behavior will go undetected”(p. 347).

Cynicism and Participative WorkClimates

The foregoing discussion suggests that orga-nizational cynicism can have negative con-

sequences for employees and/or organiza-tions. Therefore, the organization that effec-tively manages cynicism is more likely to de-rive benefits from an organizational changeprogram. As Bommer et al. (2005) pointedout, “the overcoming of cynicism towardchange is particularly important becausewhen employees’ cynicism toward a pro-posed change leads to failed implementa-tion, the failure reinforces the cynical be-liefs. Consequently, subsequent changeinitiatives are even less likely to succeed,and thus CAOC [cynicism about organiza-tional change] becomes a self-fulfillingprophecy” (p. 737).

Abraham (2000) argues that feelings ofinequity distinguish employee cynics fromothers and that open organizational com-munications and involvement may helpgenerate perceptions of equity. Moreover,employees’ experience of the organizationwill be heavily affected by their supervisor.Treadway et al. (2004) have suggested thatsupervisors are “likely to have an impor-tant role in facilitating or impeding cyni-cism” (p. 499). Therefore, encouraging su-pervisors to adopt a participatorymanagement style has the potential to af-fect levels of cynicism.

A participative work climate is created bythe attitudes and behaviors of managers,who can choose how to manage their em-ployees—for example, through the way theyrun meetings or involve employees in deci-sion making (Tesluck et al., 1999; Wanous etal., 2000). There is some research that sug-gests that employee perceptions of a partici-pative climate are effective predictors of jobsatisfaction and performance (Miller &Monge, 1986).

Managers also have a choice about thetype of participative climate they establish:an information-sharing climate or a deci-sion-making climate. An information-shar-ing climate refers “to practices where man-agement encourages employees to sharetheir opinions regarding work-related con-cerns yet retains the right to make all finaldecisions” (Cabrera, Ortega, & Cabrera,2003, p. 44). A decision-making climate“gives employees increased responsibility

The foregoing

discussion suggests

that organizational

cynicism can have

negative

consequences for

employees and/or

organizations.

Therefore, the

organization that

effectively manages

cynicism is more

likely to derive

benefits from an

organizational

change program.



and autonomy to organize and perform theirjobs as they see fit” (Cabrera et al., 2003, p.44). In the context of organizational change,both approaches share a common objective:to reduce resistance to change by generatingtrust in management, reducing anxiety, andcreating a greater sense of personal control(Wagner, Leana, Locke, & Schweiger, 1997, p.52). Information sharing and involvementin decision making differ, however, in termsof their theoretical origins and operationalform (Leana, 1987).

The theoretical rationale for informationsharing derives from a unitarist perspectiveof the organization, which assumes “onesource of authority and one focus of loyalty”(Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development [OECD], 1975, p. 38). In-formation sharing reflects a hierarchical di-vision of labor in the organization (Locke &Schweiger, 1979, p. 274). Management is thecustodian of the information and decideswhether it is passed onto employees andwhen. Management has argued that it hasgreater expertise, knowledge, and informa-tion than employees and, therefore, is betterable to make decisions (OECD, 1975, p. 40).Management is seen to have a preference forinformation sharing, as it does not threatenmanagers’ right to manage (Poole, 1986)and can encourage employees to identifywith the organization (Naughton, 1996;OECD, 1975). Further, the preference for in-formation sharing is sometimes fueled by amanagement belief that power is finite and“that an increase in employee power mustbe accompanied by a requisite decrease inmanagerial power” (Parnell, Bell, & Taylor,1992, p. 33).

Operationally, information sharing is alow-level, passive, and unidirectionalprocess: employees receive information,without any right to respond. It is about en-suring employee compliance with manage-ment decisions. Management controls thetype of information made available to em-ployees and has a tendency to be cautious—that is, management is unlikely to providefull and comprehensive information to em-ployees for fear that it will fall into competi-tors’ hands (OECD, 1975).

Organizational change can generate un-certainties as well as have adverse effects onemployees. This can result in an increase inemployees’ need for information (Rousseau,1996). According to Reicher et al. (1997),“people need to be fully informed and edu-cated about the necessity forchange, the progress and prob-lems associated with ongoingchange processes and the resultsof change programs” (p. 53). Thesharing of information will helpemployees understand the rea-sons for management decisionsand see things from a manage-ment perspective (Wanous et al.,2000). When organizations shareinformation in a timely manner,employees are less likely to betaken by surprise by organiza-tional changes (Dean et al., 1998),for they have the opportunity toreflect on management decisionsthat are signaled in advance andcome to terms with their implica-tions. When organizations fail tocommunicate important infor-mation to employees, the result isunmet expectations, a determi-nant of cynicism (Andersson,1996). Further, inadequate infor-mation encourages employees to“fill in the blanks” (Reicher et al.,1997, p. 53) to reduce uncer-tainty, which can lead them torely on informal channels ofcommunication, such as rumors(Andersson, 1996). Informationsharing is valued by employeesand is often supported by managers, as itdoes not reduce the level of managerialpower (Parnell et al., 1992).

H1: A work environment characterized by infor-mation sharing will be associated with lowerlevels of organizational change cynicism.

An alternative to an information-sharingclimate is one that involves employees in de-cision making. The theoretical rationale forthis approach is based on a pluralistic view of

When organizations

share information in

a timely manner,

employees are less

likely to be taken by

surprise by

organizational

changes (Dean et

al., 1998), for they

have the opportunity

to reflect on

management

decisions that are

signaled in advance

and come to terms

with their

implications.



the organization. It suggests that there are atleast two distinct groups within an organiza-tion—employees and managers—who havedivergent but legitimate views, interests, andgoals. In contrast with unitarists, pluralists

do not believe that managementshould be the sole source of au-thority and decision making inthe organization (McCabe &Lewin, 1992, p. 112). Accordingto pluralists, the livelihood ofmost employees usually dependson the successful operation of theorganization; therefore, theyhave a right to participate in or-ganizational decision-makingprocesses. Further, “many em-ployees know more about theirjobs than their supervisors do and[if involved] could contribute to ahigher quality of decision makingthan their supervisors wouldachieve on their own” (Wagner etal., 1997, p. 50). The theoreticalrationale for employee involve-ment in decision making, there-fore, emphasizes the equalizationof power in the workplace (Locke& Schweiger, 1979, p. 274) andincludes an assumption that em-ployees “can be trusted to makeimportant decisions about workactivities [and] can develop theknowledge to make important de-

cisions about the management of their workactivities” (Lawler, 1991, p. 193).

Operationally, employee involvement indecision making represents a fundamentalchange in the way decisions are made in or-ganizations. Unlike information sharing, it isa two-way, proactive process. This meansmanagement needs to relinquish some of itscontrol over decision making to provide em-ployees with an opportunity to provideinput and help determine the outcome(Strauss, 1998). It means the involvement ofemployees in decisions that are ordinarilythe prerogative of management (Parnell etal., 1992). Besides relinquishing some con-trol, management needs to allocate moretime for decision-making processes. Partici-

pative decision-making processes are moretime-consuming, since the opinions of all in-terested employees need to be taken into ac-count. Further, not all employees will be ofthe same opinion, so time is needed to rec-oncile the variety of perspectives to arrive ata decision that reflects the majority opinion.

Having the opportunity to express anopinion is important to employees, regard-less of its actual impact, since it satisfies thedesire to have one’s opinions considered (Ko-rsgaard & Roberson, 1995). This can translateinto greater acceptance of and commitmentto the final decision. Studies of employeepreferences for involvement regularlydemonstrate that employees rate this attrib-ute of employment highly (Wiley, 1997) andexpress concern when there are insufficientopportunities to participate (Freeman &Rogers, 1999).

According to Sagie and Koslowsky(1994), during times of organizationalchange employees need to believe that theirviews are being considered. A lack of “mean-ingful opportunities to participate in deci-sion making” was identified by Reicher et al.(1997, p. 52) and Wanous et al. (2000) as pro-moting OCC. This cynicism is the result oftwo factors: the lack of control that workershave over their work activities and the oper-ation of their workplace (Abraham, 2000, p.276). Cynics believe that fairness has been“sacrificed to further the self-interests of theleadership” (Abraham, 2000, p. 269). In-volvement in decision making enhances em-ployee perceptions of fairness (Korsgaard &Roberson, 1995), especially when employeeshave expressed a preference for participatingin decisions (Tjosvold, 1985), particularlythose that affect their own positions(Gardell, 1977). An inability to influence de-cisions provides employees with an opportu-nity to blame managers for adverse out-comes of change, an element of OCC(Wanous et al., 2000). When employees areinvolved in making decisions, they not onlyhave a greater say in them but also better un-derstand the rationale for them, thereby re-sulting in greater motivation and effort(Wagner et al., 1997). Involving employeescan also result in a better-quality decision,

When employees are

involved in making

decisions, they not

only have a greater

say in them but also

better understand

the rationale for

them, thereby

resulting in greater

motivation and effort

(Wagner et al., 1997).

Involving employees

can also result in a

better-quality

decision…



which Parnell et al. described as “one inwhich more of the relevant information wasattained and utilized and one which is morelikely to result in positive organizational andpersonal outcomes” (1992, p. 2). Better-qual-ity decisions can enhance the reputation ofmanagement and reduce OCC (Andersson,1996, p. 1411).

H2: A work environment characterized by em-ployee involvement in decision making willbe associated with lower levels of organiza-tional change cynicism.

The effectiveness of information sharingor involvement in decision-making strategiesmay be influenced by employees’ attitude to-ward involvement. Although there is a verylarge body of research on involvement froma range of disciplinary perspectives (for ex-ample, psychology, sociology, economics,and industrial relations), it has tended tofocus on identifying the consequences of in-volvement and has largely overlooked therole of employee attitudes. It is, however, im-plicit in much of this research (see Wilkin-son, Ackers, & Goodman, 1994, for an ex-ception) that employees want to participate.As Conger and Kanungo (1988) have argued,management practices are only one set ofconditions for effective involvement, andSpreitzer (1995) has pointed out that a greatdeal of research has focused on managementpractices and paid insufficient attention tothe preferences of employees.

Moreover, Knocke (1991) noted that em-ployees differ in the amount of participatoryeffort they are prepared to expend. An Aus-tralian study found that employees’ views ofinvolvement vary from a high level of inter-est to disinterest (Savery & Soutar, 1991).This variation may be based on individualpreferences for involvement and on an as-sessment of the likely impact of their in-volvement. Employees who feel that their in-volvement is likely to have some impact aremore likely to become actively involved.There is some previous research on impact asa component of empowerment (Spreitzer,1995). Following Spreitzer, impact can beseen as “the degree to which an individual

can influence strategic, administrative or op-erating outcomes at work” (p. 1443). This isimportant in defining an active orientationto involvement, which refers to the extent towhich employees feel willing and able to in-fluence their working arrangements. In linewith Spreitzer, an active orientation isshaped by the work environment and is acontinuous variable, meaning that employ-ees can be viewed as having a more or less ac-tive orientation, rather than active or inac-tive orientation.

The importance of an active orientationlies in its relationship with thetwo involvement climates. Theeffect of information sharing orinvolvement in decision makingon OCC will be exaggerated whenemployees have a high active ori-entation. When managementprovides information to employ-ees with a high active orientation,they may be more likely to read itand/or attend management-spon-sored meetings to discuss changeinitiatives. Greater knowledge isseen to prevent employee specu-lation (Reicher et al., 1997), gen-erate higher trust in manage-ment’s motives, and, hence, lower OCC.

H3a: Active orientation will moderate the rela-tionship between an information-sharing cli-mate and organizational change cynicism.The mitigating effects of information shar-ing on OCC will be stronger under conditionsof high active orientation compared to lowactive orientation.

When employees have opportunities tobecome involved in decision making and arehigh in active orientation, they are morelikely to state their views and cross-examinemanagement initiatives. Having influencedthe process, they will take some responsibil-ity for the decision and be less likely to criti-cize management motives and decisions.The key, according to Bommer et al. (2005),is to convince employees not to be cynical,and involvement in decision making is oneway to reduce cynicism. Further, the em-

Employees who feel

that their

involvement is likely

to have some

impact are more

likely to become

actively involved.



ployees who are most receptive to involve-ment in decision making are those who havea high active orientation.

H3b: Active orientation will moderate the relation-ship between a decision-making climate andorganizational change cynicism. The mitigat-ing effects of decision making on OCC will bestronger under conditions of high active orien-tation compared to low active orientation.

Sample, Measures, and Analysis

The data for the study came from a sample ofemployees working in a large public-sectordepartment in Melbourne, Australia. Thestate government in Victoria was keen to pro-mote the use of involvement mechanisms

throughout the public sector, sothe managers in this study wereencouraged to think about theirapproach to the management oftheir subordinates. Formal partici-pative mechanisms (consultativecommittees) were in place in oneregion. A survey on attitudes to-ward involvement was sent to4,605 employees, along with a let-ter of support from the depart-ment. The department’s directorof resources sent a reminder e-mail to all staff two weeks afterthe survey was delivered, and1,456 employees responded, gen-erating a response rate of 32%. Weinvestigated nonresponse bias by

comparing the characteristics of respondentsand nonrespondents (Rogelberg & Stanton,2007) and were able to find out the gender ofthe nonrespondents from the departments’human resource records. We examined thenull hypothesis that there was no significantdifference between the percentage of gendersin each group. The null hypothesis was re-jected (chi-square = 6.97, p < .01). Conse-quently, some nonresponse bias may be pres-ent, and its impact on the substantive resultsis unknown. After accounting for missingdata, the effective sample size was 1,214. Anoverview of the respondents’ characteristicscan be found in Table I. The average age was

39.78 years, 72% of the sample was female,and the average length of tenure in the cur-rent position was 4.39 years.

Table I also provides the definitions,items, and descriptive statistics for the vari-ables used in the analysis. A reliability analy-sis was undertaken for all multi-item scales,and the Cronbach’s alphas are also reportedin Table I. In all cases, the reliability coeffi-cients were within the recommended range(Nunnally, 1978). Table II contains the corre-lation matrix. It is evident that there are noproblems with multicollinearity.

The dependent variable in this study isorganizational change cynicism, so the unitof analysis is the individual employee, whichis consistent with previous studies (Dean etal., 1998, p. 348). OCC is measured using ascale developed by Brooks and Vance (1991).It has six items, and a representative item onthis scale is “I have pretty much given up try-ing to make suggestions for improvementaround here.” It is a five-point scale, andhigher values on this scale represent a higherlevel of OCC.

There are three independent variables in-cluded in the analysis: information-sharingclimate, decision-making climate, and activeorientation. The items for the two involve-ment climate scales are from Tesluck et al.(1999, p. 281). Information-sharing climatecomprises five items that measure the extentto which information is shared but does notinclude an opportunity for employees to in-fluence decisions. A representative item onthis scale is “I get enough information aboutmy organization.” Decision-making climate ismeasured by five items from Tesluck et al.(1999). A representative item on this scale is“Staff have much say or influence aboutwhat goes on.” Active orientation is measuredby five items derived from an extensive re-view of the literature (Collom, 2003; Drago& Heywood, 1989; Fenwick & Olson, 1986;Haas, 1980; Knocke, 1991; Leana, Ahlbrandt,& Murrell, 1992; Spreitzer, 1995). Two repre-sentative items are “Matters of importance tome were being discussed” and “I had or havegained the skills to participate.”

The items were analyzed using factoranalysis. We used principal components fac-

The effect of

information sharing

or involvement in

decision making on

OCC will be

exaggerated when

employees have a

high active

orientation.



tor analysis with varimax rotation (Eigenval-ues > 1). The items were loaded on a singlefactor (with factor loadings ranging from.527 to .777) and reported an alpha of .75. Asummary of all the items in this scale andtheir factor loadings is provided in Table III.A five on this scale represents a high level ofactive orientation.

Ten control variables were included inthe model: six demographic controls andfour situational controls. The demographicvariables were age, dependents, education,employment status, gender, and union sta-tus. The situational controls were currenttenure, region, resource inadequacy, andwork-overload perceptions. The details on


Name Description Mean SD

Dependent variable

Organizational cynicism Six-item scale from Brooks and Vance (1991) that

measures a sense of disbelief that efforts of staff

and/or management can truly bring about change

in the workplace, alpha = .70

2.90 .70

Demographic control variables

Age Age in years 39.78 10.4

Dependents Any dependents = 1, otherwise = 0

Current tenure Years in current position 4.39 4.56

Education Highest educational level attained is a university

degree = 1, otherwise = 0

.39 .49

Employment status Permanent employee = 1, otherwise = 0 .73 .44

Gender Female = 1 male = 0 .72 .45

Union Union member = 1, nonmembers = 0 .48 .50

Situational control variables

Region Employed in a region with formal consultation

arrangements in place = 1, otherwise = 0

.28 .45

Resource inadequacy Two-item scale from Iverson (1992) that measures

the extent of resource inadequacy, alpha = .81

3.12 1.06

Work overload Three-item scale from Iverson and Maguire (2000)

that measures the extent to which performance

expectations in the job are excessive, alpha = .79

3.30 .90

Independent variables

Decision-making climate Five-item scale from Tesluck et al. (1999) that mea-

sures the extent to which employees believe that

they are involved in decision making, alpha = .78

2.75 .77

Information-sharing climate Five-item scale from Tesluck et al. (1999) that mea-

sures the extent to which the organization shares

information with employees, alpha = .84

2.82 .70

Active orientation Five-item scale that measures the extent to which

employees are actively committed to involve-

ment, alpha = .75

4.06 .57

Interaction terms

Active orientation *informa-

tion sharing

Descriptions provided above

Active orientation * decision

making climate

Descriptions provided above

T A B L E I Variable Definitions and Descriptive Statistics



12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1.

Org

aniz

atio

nal

cyn

icis

m1.

00

2.

Ag

e–0

.03

1.00

3.

Dep

end

ents

0.01

0.18

1.00

4.

Ed

uca

tio

n–0

.06

–0.0

8–0

.10

1.00

5.

Em

plo

ymen

tst

atu

s0.

000.

150.

050.

061.

006.

G

end

er–0

.03

–0.1

9–0

.16

0.09

–0.0

41.

007.

U

nio

n0.

140.

050.

03–0

.03

0.06

–0.0

51.

008.

C

urr

ent

ten

ure

0.21

0.29

0.11

–0.1

80.

23–0

.13

0.15

1.00

9.

Reg

ion

0.00

0.06

–0.0

20.

110.

090.

10–0

.10

–0.0

31.

0010

. R

eso

urc

ein

adeq

uac

y0.

35–0

.09

0.00

0.08

0.03

–0.0

10.

190.

050.

001.

0011

. W

ork

over

load

0.16

–0.0

7–0

.01

0.20

0.09

0.05

0.05

–0.0

30.

060.

331.

0012

. A

ctiv

eo

rien

tati

on

–0.0

1–0

.04

0.03

0.11

0.01

0.07

0.04

–0.0

60.

000.

070.

151.

0013

. In

form

atio

nsh

arin

g–0

.57

–0.0

3–0

.02

0.09

–0.0

40.

05–0

.15

–0.1

8–0

.02

–0.3

4–0

.17

–0.0

21.

0014

. D

ecis

ion

mak

ing

–0.5

5–0

.07

–0.0

4–0

.06

–0.0

60.

04–0

.09

–0.1

3–0

.08

–0.2

9–0

.13

–0.0

20.

561.

00

TA

BL

E

II

Corr

elat

ion

Mat

rix


each of these control variables can be foundin Table I.

Hierarchical regression (Tabachnick & Fi-dell, 1989) was used to analyze the surveydata. Demographic and situation controlvariables were entered in Step 1. The controlsplus two independent variables were enteredas Step 2, and one interaction term was en-tered as Step 3. The results of these analysesare reported in Tables IV (information-shar-ing climate) and V (decision-making climate).

Results

The level of OCC reported by respondents inthis study was 2.90 (mean), but comparisonwith other OCC studies is complicated bythe absence of comparable measures (partic-ularly the number and wording of items). Forexample, Wanous et al. (2000) reported amean of 2.91 using an eight-item measurethat focused on pessimism about changebeing successful and attributions about thelikely failure of change efforts (five-pointscale: 1= strongly disagree to 5 = stronglyagree). Using a self-developed eight-itemmeasure of OCC (five-point scale: 1=strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), Re-icher et al. (1997) classified 43% of theirhourly employee respondents as cynical and23% of managers as cynical.

Our first hypothesis postulated that awork environment characterized by informa-tion sharing would be associated with lowerlevels of OCC. The results in Table IV (Step 2)support this hypothesis, as the coefficient oninformation sharing is significant and nega-tive (β = –.490, p < .01). It would appear thatemployees feel less cynical when the man-ager provides information. Involvement indecision making is also associated with lowerlevels of OCC, as anticipated by Hypothesis2 and supported in Table V, Step 2 (β = –.498,p < .01).

Hypothesis 3a examined the interactionbetween an active orientation and an infor-mation-sharing climate (Table IV). The inter-action term (active orientation * informationsharing) was entered in Step 3. This term wassignificant, suggesting that the relationshipbetween OCC and an information-sharingclimate was moderated by an employee’slevel of active orientation. The change in theR square resulting from the inclusion of theinteraction term was .002 and significant (Fchange (13, 1195) = 3.872, p < .05).

To better understand the effect on OCCof the significant interaction between an in-formation-sharing climate and active orien-tation, split group regression analysis wasundertaken (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen &Cohen, 1983), and a plot of the results is pre-


Item Communality Factor Loadings1. Matters of importance to me were being discussed# .277 .527

2. I had or have gained the skills to participate .472 .687

3. Information on which to make decisions was freely available .673 .820

4. Meetings were held during my work hours .515 .717

5. The meeting had the power to make important decisions .604 .777

Eigen value 2.541

Percentage of variance explained 50.820

Alpha .75

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Factor loadings .50 or greater are “practically significant” (Hair, Anderson,Tatham,

& Black, 1999, p. 111).The response anchors for the original items was 5 = strongly agree to 1= strongly disagree. Responses to these five

items were averaged to create the active orientation variable. High values on this variable represent a high level of active orientation.

# The communality for this item is below the recommended threshold but represents an important element of our definition of active

orientation, so it was retained for the analysis (Hair et al., 1999, pp. 113–114).

T A B L E I I I Items and Factor Loadings for the Moderator Variable (Active Orientation)



Step 1 Step 2 Step 3Demographic controlsAge –.058** –.062** –.060**Dependents –.011 –.007 –.008Education –.066** –.010 –.011Employment status –.063** –.056** –.057**Gender –.010 .004 .005Union .058** .028 .030

Situational controlsCurrent tenure .200*** .133*** .133***Region .020 .001 .002Resource inadequacy .301*** .153*** .153***Work overload .086** .041* .042*

Independent variablesActive orientation –.023 .147Information sharing –.490*** –.179

Interaction effect –.354**Active orientation *

information sharing Adj

Adj R2 .175 .375 .377 in Adj R2 .200 .002

Overall Model F 25.380 (10, 1198) 59.784 (12, 1196) 55.616 (13, 1195)Adj R2 F 191.431*** 3.872**

Note: n = 1,208. Table entries are standardized regression coefficients; ***p < .01, **p < .05, *p < .10.

T A B L E I V Organizational Change Cynicism and Information-Sharing Climate

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Demographic controlsAge –.062** –.093*** –.092***Dependents –.005 –.015 –.016Education –.061** –.087*** –.089***Employment status –.057** –.062*** –.062***Gender –.010 .000 .000Union .068** .054** .054**

Situational controlsCurrent tenure .205*** .153*** .153***Region .017 –.017 –.017Resource inadequacy .294*** .161*** .159***Work overload .079*** .065*** .071***

Independent variablesActive orientation –.031 .134*Decision making –.498*** –.145

Interaction effectActive orientation *

decision making climate

–.390**

Adj R2 .172 .392 .395Adj R2 .220 .002

Overall Model F 25.025 (10, 1204) 64.624 (12, 1202) 60.228 (13, 1201)Adj R2 F 217.567*** 4.939**

Note: n = 1,214. Table entries are standardized regression coefficients; ***p <. 01; **p < .05; *p < .10.

T A B L E V Organizational Change Cynicism and Decision-Making Climate


sented in Figure 1. First the sample was splitinto low and high active orientation. Thenregression equations of OCC on informa-tion-sharing climate for low active orienta-tion and high active orientation were gen-erated. Regression coefficients indicatedthat the OCC–information sharing climatewas negative and significant for high activeorientation (β = –.6085, p < .01) and also forlow active orientation (β = –.5299, p > .01)(see Figure 1). In other words, the results in-dicate that active orientation moderatedthe relationship between information-shar-ing climate and OCC such that the rela-tionship was stronger at higher levels of ac-tive orientation.

Hypothesis 3b focused on the interactionbetween an active orientation and a deci-sion-making climate (Table V). The interac-tion term (active orientation * decision mak-ing) was entered in Step 3. This term wassignificant, suggesting that the relationshipbetween OCC and a decision-making climate

was moderated by an employee’s level of ac-tive orientation. The change in the R squareresulting from the inclusion of the interac-tion term was .002 and significant (F change[13, 1201] = 4.939, p < .05).

This significant interaction effect alsowas investigated using the process outlinedabove. The resultant regression coefficientsindicated that the OCC decision-making cli-mate was negative and significant for highactive orientation (β = –.5240, p < .01) andalso for low active orientation (β = –.4675, p> .01) (see Figure 2). The results indicate thatactive orientation moderated the relation-ship between a decision-making climate andOCC, with the relationship stronger whenthere were higher levels of active orientation.

Discussion and Conclusions

Understanding OCC is important for bothpractitioners and researchers. Cynicism isabout employees’ view of their organiza-


FIGURE 1. Organizational Change Cynicism, Information Sharing, and Active Orientation


tions’ management, which does not need tobe grounded in facts. As cynicism derivesfrom employee experiences in the work-place, it can take substantial efforts by man-agement to reduce it.

We had three research objectives for ourarticle. The first was to investigate ap-proaches to employee involvement as a wayof managing OCC. An information-sharingclimate is a passive, top-down form of em-ployee involvement, which managementusually prefers because it does not under-mine the managerial prerogative. Informa-tion sharing, as hypothesized, had a signifi-cant and negative relationship with OCC.Information provided by management ap-pears to be associated with a greater em-ployee understanding of management deci-sions and, hence, lower levels of OCC.

Involvement in decision making ac-knowledges that employees and employershave different but legitimate interests in theemployment relationship. Sharing responsi-bility for decision making represents a fun-damental shift in the nature of the employ-ment relationship. Managers are no longerseen as the sole custodians of authority, andemployees are able to bring their workplaceexperiences to the decision-making table.Involvement in decision making was alsosignificantly associated with lower levels ofOCC. Involvement in decision making pro-vides employees with an opportunity to ex-amine management’s motives and the con-sequences of various options before settlingon a binding decision. Under these circum-stances, there is less potential for cynicismto develop.


FIGURE 2. Organizational Change Cynicism, Decision-Making Climate, and Active Orientation


The results of this study suggest thatboth information sharing and involvementin decision making are associated with lowerlevels of OCC. Researchers should now turntheir attention to understanding the durabil-ity of these two forms of involvement. Weanticipate that information sharing will beless durable in reducing OCC, especiallywhen employees perceive a gap between theinformation provided and their experienceof change. Involvement in decision makingcan create a virtuous cycle, as it provides op-portunities to interact with management, ex-amine management motives, and develop agreater understanding of the issues that con-tribute to lower OCC over the longer term.

Our second research objective was to in-vestigate the impact of employee involve-ment attitudes on the effectiveness of in-volvement as a tool to manage OCC. Wefound that employees with a high active ori-entation were more likely to respond to theopportunities offered by both types of in-volvement climates and report lower levels ofOCC. This suggests that it is important for HRmanagers to consider not only the type ofmanagement style to promote, but also theattitudes of employees. Further, as Spreitzer(1995) noted, employees’ attitudes will be, inpart, a function of their previous experienceswith involvement. So an HR manager in anorganization with positive past experiencesmay find involvement a more effective toolfor managing OCC than an HR manager inan organization with negative past experi-ences. Initiatives that may help foster an ac-tive orientation among employees includeproviding employees with the opportunitiesto learn the skills necessary for effective in-volvement. More broadly, an examination ofthe organizational context will be of value.Employees working for low wages with mini-mal job security (transactional psychologicalcontract) are unlikely to want to become in-volved. Employees with a relational psycho-logical contract are more likely to perceiveadvantages from being actively involved,since they are likely to be with the organiza-tion long enough to make involvementworthwhile. So an examination of the rangeof HR practices (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999)

implemented and the message they conveyto employees can have an impact on the will-ingness of employees to become involved.

Critics of involvement have suggestedthat opportunities for involvement can cre-ate OCC. Teicher (1992) has argued that in-volvement has been used to generate legiti-macy for decisions already made bymanagement, while O’Brien et al. (2004)have argued that opportunities for involve-ment are “fundamentally contingent onconcern for the bottom line and manage-ment prerogative . . . while the methods oforganizations may have changed,they are still oriented toward thesame goals and these goals are setexclusively by managers ratherthan inclusively by employeethemselves” (p. 30). According tothis perspective, employees areaware of management’s true in-tent in promoting involvement,leading to OCC.

The difference between in-volvement that creates OCC andinvolvement that manages OCCmay lie in the quality of involve-ment. High-quality involvement,which incorporates a genuinelong-term management commit-ment combined with adequate re-sources, facilities, and training(Bertone et al., 1998), is morelikely to be effective in creatingpositive “learnings” about man-agement. Invoking involvementwhen an organization is going through achange and then reverting back to a moretraditional approach is likely to promoteOCC. Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) suggestthat a grace period between change effortsmight be useful in reducing OCC: “not onlywill such respites permit organizationalmembers to develop requisite skills but alsoserve as a stress reducing tactic” (p. 312). Itwill also provide an opportunity to developinvolvement as a way of organizational liferather than as a tool each time the organiza-tion is undergoing change.

Our third objective was to test the general-izability of existing research findings. We

So an HR manager

in an organization

with positive past

experiences may

find involvement a

more effective tool

for managing OCC

than an HR manager

in an organization

with negative past

experiences.



found that results of previous empirical studieson involvement and OCC can be replicated inan Australian public-sector organization.

Policy and Practice Implications

The findings of this study suggest that organi-zations benefit when managers share their de-cision-making responsibilities. Tesluck et al.(1999) suggested that the “judicious selectionand promotion” (p. 295) of managers withconsonant values is important, as is the sup-port of managers at all levels in the organiza-

tion in encouraging managers toshare their decision- making re-sponsibilities. Parnell et al. (1992)suggested that managers will bemore likely to adopt a participativedecision-making approach whenthe prevailing organizational cul-ture supports such an approachand managers believe that a partic-ipative approach will generate animprovement in performance.

These results may encourageHR managers to single out em-ployees who are especially cynicalor seek to eliminate OCC all to-gether. A number of writers, how-ever, have suggested that somecynicism is good for organiza-tions, for it can provide a mecha-nism to monitor potentially baddecisions (Ferres & Connell,

2004). Wanous et al. (2000) have argued thattoo high a level of OCC can stymie attemptsat change, while too low a level may result inpoor decision making. Furthermore, Bommeret al. (2005) pointed out that “any perceptionthat management is attempting to ‘smokeout’ the cynics may only serve to reinforcecynicism” (p. 748). ‘Smoking out’ the cynicsalso rests on assumptions about how cyni-cism spreads. What remains unclear iswhether cynicism spreads through each em-ployee coming to the same view of manage-ment’s motives or whether it comes from oneindividual forming an opinion and spreadingit around. Davis and Gardner (2004) arguedthat cynicism will vary from one organiza-tion to another, but for HR practitioners the

issue is the extent to which cynical experi-ences learned in one organization will be car-ried over to another. Cynicism that is carriedinto a new organization has the potential toundermine the effectiveness of involvementas a management strategy, especially in or-ganizations with a high level of turnover.

A number of threats to the effectiveness ofinvolvement as a tool for managing OCChave been identified. Clark, Ellett, Bateman,and Rugutt (1996) pointed out that the levelof OCC is higher when individuals’ self-inter-est is threatened and is lower when there is nothreat to self-interest. Therefore, the nature ofthe change appears to be significant. O’Brienet al. (2004) have suggested that the status ofthe employees affected by change is impor-tant. They argued that organizations have dif-ficulty getting low-status employees to iden-tify with the organization and exert effort onbehalf of it. This, they said, has rational foun-dations. Since low-status employees are lesslikely to share in any material dividends, theysense that key decisions are not under theircontrol and, as a result, they are suspicious ofmanagement and its motives (p. 40). Eitherapproach to managing OCC could be under-mined by the type of change program. Arme-nakis and Bedeian (1999) reported that organ-izations are more likely to repeat previouschange experiences, but if these experienceswere bad for employees they may develop“immunity” to involvement practices in-tended to manage their OCC.

It is important to recognize an alternativeview of the relationship between informationsharing and employee involvement in deci-sion making. Some writers have argued thatthese two approaches are different points ona continuum (Cressey, Eldridge, & MacInnes,1985). Although this is theoretically plausi-ble, this view fails to take into account themotives behind the choice of approach—thatis, they differ in their ideological perspective(Marchington, Goodman, Wilkinson, & Ack-ers, 1992). Information sharing has been seenas a system to increase management controlby creating the impression that control hasbeen devolved to employees (Teicher, 1992),while involvement in decision making in-volves a shift in the balance of power in the

A number of writers,

however, have

suggested that

some cynicism is

good for

organizations, for it

can provide a

mechanism to

monitor potentially

bad decisions.



employment relationship and implies thatmanagement trusts its employees. Employeesand their representatives have traditionallyfavored involvement in decision making,while management has typically expressed apreference for the retention of managerialcontrol through information-sharing ap-proaches (Collom, 2003).

Limitations and Future Research

The context and the methodology may belimitations of our study. The public-sectorcontext might be seen as a limitation of thestudy, as it has traditionally reported a higherlevel of intrinsic motivation than its private-sector counterparts (Crewson, 1997). Higherintrinsic motivation could potentially trans-late into greater employee interest in allforms of involvement than in a private-sectororganization. On the other hand, the wide-spread introduction of private-sector man-agement techniques into the public sector(Bray, Deery, Walsh, & Waring, 2005) mayhave reduced these differences in motivation.

Unionization is typically higher in thepublic sector than in the private sector, andthis could have some bearing on our find-ings. (In our study, 48% of respondents wereunion members.) OCC derives from em-ployee experiences in the workplace, andunion membership provides expanded op-portunities to learn more about manage-ment and past change initiatives. Unionmembers have access to a broader informa-tion base (for example, outcomes of changeprograms in comparable workplaces) thannon-union employees do and may providealternative interpretations of management’s

motives. In our study, the descriptive statis-tics suggest that union members are morecynical (Table II). In the multivariate analy-sis, the union variable is nonsignificant inTable IV (information sharing, Steps 2 and 3)but is positive and significant in Table V (de-cision making, Steps 2 and 3). Therefore, thepresence of an opposition group may con-tribute to OCC, an issue that should be takenup by future researchers.

Our methodology may have understatedthe extent of OCC. Eaton and Struthers(2002) compared employee reports of cyni-cism collected through an Internet surveywith those from a paper-and-pencil survey.They found that an Internet sample pro-vided more severe or harsh responses on cyn-icism than the paper-and-pencil test: “It ispossible that those in the Internet samplefelt that they had more anonymity, andhence felt that they could be more candid intheir responses” (p. 311). Future researchersmight need to consider a variety of ways tocollect data on negative employee attitudes.

Cynicism is now a feature of organiza-tional life, and the present study finds thatemployee involvement can be a useful tool formanaging levels of OCC. This is particularlythe case in workplaces where employees arewilling to actively participate in the process.The challenge for organizations is to designand maintain high-quality involvement.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the helpand suggestions received from Peter O’-Donoghue, Carol Kulik, Richard Mitchell, GlenPatmore, and Lea Waters.


MICHELLE BROWN is an associate professor in the Department of Management andMarketing at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She holds a PhD in industrial rela-tions from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Her research interests focus on the un-intended consequences of human resource management practices, particularly in theareas of employee participation and performance management systems. Recent work inthese areas has appeared in Industrial and Labor Relations Review, the Journal of Man-agement Studies, Group and Organization Management, Work, Employment and Soci-ety, and the British Journal of Industrial Relations.


REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Basesand consequences. Genetic, Social and GeneralPsychology Monographs, 126, 269–292.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An ex-amination using a contract violation framework.Human Relations, 49, 1395–1418.

Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism inthe workplace: Some causes and effects. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 18, 449–469.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organiza-tional change: A review of theory and research inthe 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293–315.

Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory,” itisn’t “white”: Understanding the consequences offaculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learn-ing and Education, 6(1), 9–32.

Bertone, S., Brown, M., Cressey, P., Fritzell, J., Keating,C., Morris, A., et al. (1998). Developing effective con-sultation practices: Case studies of consultation atwork. Melbourne, Australia: South Pacific Publishing.

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005).Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal ef-fects of transformational leader behavior on em-ployee cynicism about organizational change.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753.

Bray, M., Deery, S., Walsh, J., & Waring, P. (2005). In-dustrial relations: A contemporary approach. Syd-ney, Australia: McGraw Hill.

Brooks, S. M., & Vance, R. J. (1991). Organizationalcynicism: Initial investigation of a construct. Un-published manuscript, Ohio State University.

Cabrera, E. F., Ortega, J., & Cabrera, A. (2003). An ex-ploration of the factors that influence employeeparticipation in Europe. Journal of World Business,38(1), 43–54.

Clark, J., Ellett, C., Bateman, J., & Rugutt, J. (1996, Oc-tober 31). Faculty receptivity/resistance to change,personal and organizational efficacy, decision dep-rivation and effectiveness in research 1 universi-ties. Paper presented at the Twenty-First AnnualMeeting of the Association for the Study of HigherEducation, Memphis, TN.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regres-sion/correlation analysis for the behavioral sci-ences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion asmediators of the relations between perceived su-pervisor support and psychological hardiness onemployee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 27, 463–484.

Collom, E. (2003). Two classes and one vision? Man-agers’ and workers’ attitudes toward workplacedemocracy. Work and Occupations, 30(1), 62–96.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empower-ment process: Integrating theory and practice.Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.

Cressey, P., Eldridge, J., & MacInnes, J. (1985). ‘Justmanaging’: Authority and democracy in industry.Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Build-ing empirical evidence of incidence and effect.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499–518.

Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions ofpolitics and organizational cynicism: An attribu-tional and leader-member exchange perspective.The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 439–465.

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Or-ganizational cynicism. Academy of ManagementReview, 23, 341–352.

Drago, R., & Heywood, J. S. (1989). Support forworker participation. Journal of Post-KeynesianEconomics, 11, 522–530.

Eaton, M. A., & Struthers, W. C. (2002). Using the In-ternet for organizational research: A study of cyni-


CHRISTINA CREGAN is an associate professor in the Department of Management andMarketing at the University of Melbourne. She holds a PhD in industrial relations from theLondon School of Economics. Her research has focused on issues of employee participa-tion, the disadvantaged in the labor market, trade union membership, and young peoplein the workplace. She has had her work published in the Academy of Management Re-view, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, and the Journal of Applied Psychology.


cism in the workplace. Cyber Psychology and Be-havior, 5, 305–313.

Feldman, D. C. (2000). The Dilbert syndrome: Howemployee cynicism about ineffective managementis changing the nature of careers in organizations.American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 1286–1300.

Fenwick, R., & Olson, J. (1986). Support for workerparticipation: Attitudes among union and non-union workers. American Sociological Review, 51,505–526.

Ferres, N., & Connell, J. (2004). Emotional intelligencein leaders: An antidote for cynicism towardschange? Strategic Change, 13, 61–71.

Fleming, P. (2005). Workers’ playtime? Boundaries andcynicism in a ‘culture of fun’ program. The Journalof Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 285–303.

Freeman, R. B., & Rogers, J. (1999). What workerswant. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Gardell, B. (1977). Autonomy and participation atwork. Human Relations, 30, 515–533.

Haas, A. (1980). Workers’ views on self-management:A comparative study of the United States andSweden. In M. Zeitlin (Ed.), Classes, class conflictand the state: Empirical studies in class analysis(pp. 276–295). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publish-ers.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1999).Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

Iverson, R. D. (1992). Employee intent to stay: An em-pirical test of a revision of the Price Mueller Model.Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa.

Iverson, R. D., & Maguire, C. (2000). The relationshipbetween job and life satisfaction: Evidence from aremote mining community. Human Relations, 53,807–839.

Johnson, J. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (2003). The effect ofpsychological contract breach and organizationalcynicism: Not all social exchange violations arecreated equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior,24, 627–647.

Kalimo, R., & Taris, T. W. (2003). The effects of past andanticipated downsizing on survivor well-being: Anequity perspective. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 8(2), 91–109.

Knocke, W. (1991). Women immigrants: What is theproblem? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 12,469–486.

Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Proceduraljustice in performance evaluation—The role of in-strumental and non-instrumental voice in perform-

ance appraisal discussions. Journal of Manage-ment, 21, 657–669.

Lawler, E. E. (1991). High involvement management.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leana, C. R. (1987). Power relinquishment versuspower sharing: Theoretical clarification and empiri-cal comparison of delegation and participation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 228–233.

Leana, C. R., Ahlbrandt, R. S., & Murrell, A. J. (1992).The effects of employee involvement programs onunionized workers’ attitudes, perceptions and pref-erences in decision-making. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 35, 861–873.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participationin decision making: One more look. In B. M. Staw(Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1,pp. 265–340). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Marchington, M., Goodman, J., Wilkinson, A., & Ack-ers, P. (1992). New developments in employee in-volvement. London: Department of Employment.

McCabe, D. M., & Lewin, D. (1992). Employee voice: Ahuman resource management perspective. Califor-nia Management Review, 34(3), 112–122.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satis-faction and productivity: A meta analytic review.Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727–753.

Naughton, R. (1996) Employee involvement at theworkplace: Does the law provide sufficientincentive for change? (Working Paper No. 11).Melbourne, Australia: The University of Mel-bourne, Centre for Employment and LabourRelations Law.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Brien, A. T., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Humphrey, L.,O’Sullivan, L., & Postmes, T. (2004). Cynicism anddisengagement among devalued employeegroups: The need to ASPIRe. Career DevelopmentInternational, 9(1), 28–44.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment (OECD). (1975). Workers’ participation:Final report of an international managementseminar convened by the OECD. Versailles,France: Author.

Parnell, J. A., Bell, E. D., & Taylor, R. (1992). Thepropensity for participative management: A con-ceptual and empirical analysis. Mid-Atlantic Jour-nal of Business, 28(1), 31.

Poole, M. (1986). Towards a new industrial democracy:Workers participation in industry. London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul.



Reicher, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Un-derstanding and managing cynicism about organi-zational change. Academy of Management Execu-tive, 11(1), 48–59.

Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduc-tion: Understanding and dealing with organiza-tional survey nonresponse. Organizational Re-search Methods, 10(2), 195–209.

Rousseau, D. (1996). Changing the deal while keepingthe people. Academy of Management Executive,10, 50–61.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizational atti-tudes and behaviors as a function of participationin strategic and tactical change decisions: An appli-cation of path-goal theory. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 15(1), 37–47.

Savery, L. K., & Soutar, G. N. (1991). Desired work-place decision making: Some community views.Australian Bulletin of Labour, 17(3), 227–239.

Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment inthe workplace: Dimensions, measurement and val-idation. Academy of Management Journal, 38,1442–1464.

Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005).Employee cynicism and resistance to organiza-tional change. Journal of Business and Psychology,19, 429–459.

Strauss, G. (1998). An overview. In F. Heller (Ed.), Or-ganisational participation: Myth and reality (pp.8–39). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multi-variate statistics. New York: HarperCollins.

Teicher, J. (1992). Theories of employee participationand industrial democracy: Towards an analytical

framework. In B. Dabscheck, G. Griffin, & J. Teicher(Eds.), Contemporary Australian industrial relations(pp. 476–494). Melbourne, Australia: LongmanCheshire.

Tesluck, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Ex-amining employee involvement in the context ofparticipative work environments. Group and Orga-nization Management, 24, 271–299.

Tjosvold, D. (1985). Dynamics within participation: Anexperimental investigation. Group and Organiza-tion Studies, 10, 260–277.

Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kac-mar, C. J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A. P., et al. (2004).Leader political skill and employee reactions. TheLeadership Quarterly, 15, 493–513.

Wagner, J. A., Leana, C. R., Locke, E. A., & Schweiger,D. M. (1997). Cognitive and motivational frame-works in U.S. research on participation: A meta-analysis of primary effects. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 18(7), 49–65.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000).Cynicism about organizational change. Group andOrganization Management, 25(2), 132–153.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affectiveevents theory: A theoretical discussion of thestructure, causes and consequences of affectiveexperiences at work. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 18, 1–74.

Wiley, C. (1997). What motivates employees accordingto over 40 years of motivation surveys. Interna-tional Journal of Manpower, 18, 263–280.

Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P., & Goodman, J. (1994). Un-derstanding the meaning of participation: Viewsfrom the workplace. Human Relations, 47, 867–895.


organizational change cynicism: the role of employee involvement

Documents