top management credibility and employee cynicism

http://hum.sagepub.com

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726709340822 2009; 62; 1435 originally published online Aug 28, 2009; Human Relations

Tae-Yeol Kim, Thomas S. Bateman, Brad Gilbreath and Lynne M. Andersson model

Top management credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/10/1435 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human Relations Additional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/62/10/1435 Citations

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 1, 2009 http://hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.php

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/62/10/1435


Top management credibility andemployee cynicism: A comprehensivemodelTae-Yeol Kim, Thomas S. Bateman, Brad Gilbreath and Lynne M. Andersson

A B S T R AC T By combining quantitative and qualitative methods of study, we

develop a comprehensive model of top management behaviors,

perceived management credibility, and employee cynicism and

outcomes. Specifically, we identify managerial behaviors that affect

employees’ perceptions of two components of top management’s

credibility – trustworthiness and competence – and examine how

each of those components relates to employee cynicism. Top

management competence and trustworthiness relate to different

components of employee cynicism (cognitive, affective, and behav-

ioral cynicism), and these dimensions of cynicism differentially relate

to organizational commitment and self-assessed job performance.

Content analysis of critical incidents revealed that different sets of

managerial behaviors generate attributions of competence, incom-

petence, trustworthiness, and non-trustworthiness. This study and

the resulting model open the door to more finely distilled research

on management credibility and employee cynicism.

K E Y WO R D S competence � employee cynicism � job performance �

management credibility � organizational commitment �

trustworthiness

1 4 3 5

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726709340822

Volume 62(10): 1435–1458

© The Author(s), 2009

Reprints and Permissions:

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/

journalsPermissions.nav

The Tavistock Institute ®




The credibility of business executives always seems to be in question, just ascynical employees appear to be a perpetual managerial challenge (Kanter &Mirvis, 1989; Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Simons, 2002). Many observers havedocumented and decried the lack of credible leadership in different spheres,from business and politics to civil society and disaster management (e.g.Iacocca, 2007; Schwab, 2007). Credibility is an essential attribute formanagers as they seek support and commitment from the public, theirorganizations, and their teams (Hovland et al., 1953; Kouzes & Posner,2003, 2005; Simons, 2002), but this managerial characteristic is apparentlyin short supply. Cynicism among followers is high, and is seemingly gettinghigher (Brush, 2006; Schwab, 2007). Some observers depict a current leader-ship crisis (Sarkar, 2007), although this problem and cynicism toward leadershas been evident for decades (Gardner, 1990) and undoubtedly for centuries.

Our research was conducted with the primary purpose of gaining abetter understanding of the complex relationships between top managementcredibility and employee cynicism, and identifying some of the managerialbehaviors that predict employees’ perceptions of (high and low) top manage-ment credibility. We used two samples for the study and employed bothdeductive and inductive techniques to develop and validate a comprehensivebehavioral model. The model links employee cynicism and outcomes toperceptions of top management credibility, as driven by specific top manage-ment behaviors and broad, actionable behavioral dimensions.

Cynicism might be widespread among employees (Kanter & Mirvis,1989), but as a construct it is inadequately understood. Traditionally studiedwith a personality, societal, or occupational focus, cynicism more recently hasbeen investigated as an attitude with specific targets including organizationalchange and employing organizations (e.g. Dean et al., 1998; Stanley et al.,2005; Wanous et al., 2000, 2004). Cynicism appears to take different formswhen focused on different targets (Wanous et al., 2004). Andersson andBateman (1997), for example, found that employees’ intention to comply withunethical requests was positively related to cynicism toward human nature,but negatively related to cynicism toward the requesting company. As thisexample demonstrates, studying specific targets is important because of thepotential for unique causes and effects that do not necessarily generalize toother targets. Our focus is on the top management of one’s employing organiz-ation, in part because it is an understudied target, but also because of themanagement implications of perceptions of top management. As Fralicx andMcCauley (2003) noted, employees have seen in the media how top manage-ment can destroy a company and, consequently, they ‘not only want to know“who’s running the ship?” and “where are they taking us?”, but also “do theyknow what they’re doing?” and “whose interests do they have at heart?”’

Human Relations 62(10)1 4 3 6



In an effort to provide a more complete conceptualization of cynicismas an attitude, Dean and colleagues (1998) employed a tripartite frameworkdepicting its cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. More specifi-cally, they conceptualized organizational cynicism is an attitude comprisedof three primary components: a belief that the organization lacks integrity;a negative affect toward the organization; and a tendency to disparage andcriticize the organization (Dean et al., 1998). As an attitudinal state, organiz-ational cynicism is affected by workplace experiences (Naus et al., 2007a,2007b; Wanous et al., 2000, 2004). In our research, we assume the import-ant and central role of employee cynicism as an attitudinal consequence oftop management behavior and as a potential (negative) predictor of employeecommitment and job performance (Andersson & Bateman, 1997).

Employee cynicism and outcomes

It is known that employees who hold generally negative attitudes towardtheir managers and jobs tend to exhibit more negative behavioral workintentions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Investigating a specific behavior,Wanous et al. (2000) found that employees cynical about change and changeagents are more prone to file labor grievances in unionized organizations.More broadly, Dean et al. (1998) argued that cynicism often fosters disparag-ing remarks about the organization and its members, as well as other behav-iors that are consistent with negative beliefs and affect. For example, cynicalemployees are likely to be less emotionally attached to their organizations,as their discontent leads them to believe (or hope) that they will not be therefor the long haul. Empirically, employee cynicism has been shown to benegatively related to work motivation (Wanous et al., 2000); in addition,cynical employees are less likely to perform extra-role behaviors on behalfof their organization (Andersson & Bateman, 1997). But although we knowgenerally that employee cynicism toward management can affect employees’attitudes and behaviors in the workplace (Andersson, 1996; Andersson &Bateman, 1997; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Pugh et al., 2003; Wanouset al., 2000), we know little about how its three dimensions predict, inparticular, organizational commitment and job performance.

Each of the three dimensions of employee cynicism is likely to affectorganizational commitment and job performance. Affective cynicisminvolves emotional reactions such as irritation, aggravation, tension, andanxiety (Dean et al., 1998). The management of these emotions might drainthe cognitive resources of employees (Ashkanasy et al., 2002; Greenglass et al., 2003; Kahn et al., 2006). Emotions such as aggravation and irritation,

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism 1 4 3 7



including when they originate from the behavior of top management, are alsolikely to reduce work motivation and commitment to the organization(Greenglass et al., 2003; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003).

Employees experiencing cognitive cynicism believe that principles areoften sacrificed to expediency, and that duplicity and self-interest arecommon in their organization (Dean et al., 1998). Given our focus on topmanagement, this would manifest itself in a belief that the organization’s top managers lack fairness, honesty, and sincerity (Dean et al., 1998; Stanleyet al., 2005). These beliefs also are likely to have negative effects on jobperformance and organizational commitment. For example, cognitivecynicism exists when employees believe that their organization doesn’t valuetheir contributions or care about them, and accordingly they might be lesslikely to put forth their best efforts on behalf of their organization. Bernerthet al. (2007) found that employee perceptions of injustice interact withcynicism to predict commitment to organizational change efforts. Similarly,Abraham (2000) found that employee cynicism is negatively associated withorganizational commitment in ways that also could reduce performance(sample item: ‘I am willing to put in great effort beyond what normally isexpected to keep this organization successful’).

Behavioral cynicism can likewise influence both job performance andorganizational commitment. Behavioral cynicism will manifest itself innegative, disparaging behavior such as criticism of the organization, sar-castic humor, negative non-verbal behavior, cynical interpretations oforganizational events, and pessimistic predictions about the organization’sfuture courses of action (Dean et al., 1998). Such disparaging behaviorswould be associated with less emotional attachment to the organization andless feeling that the organization has any personal meaning (Naus et al.,2007b). In addition, employees who disparage their organization and its topmanagement are less likely to devote discretionary efforts to their jobs andare more likely to withhold effort (Kidwell & Robie, 2003). When employeesbelieve that their organization exploits them in an exchange relationship andfails to provide support, they exhibit poor job performance (Lynch et al.,1999). Guided by this literature and logic, we predicted that:

Hypothesis 1a: Affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions ofemployee cynicism are negatively associated with job performance.

Hypothesis 1b: Affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions ofemployee cynicism are negatively associated with organizationalcommitment.




Top management credibility and employee cynicism

Managers’ credibility has been shown to relate positively to their relation-ships with subordinates (Mayer et al., 1995), employees’ task performance(Podsakoff & Farh, 1989), and general attitudes toward the organization(Orpen & King, 1989). These studies support the conclusions of Kouzes andPosner (2003, 2005) that a leader’s credibility is central to the developmentof employee loyalty and commitment, while a lack of credibility impedes aleader’s effectiveness.

We adopted the original definition of credibility developed by Hovlandet al. (1953): the extent to which a person is perceived as being trustworthyand competent. This suggests that credibility is an ascribed characteristic that it is multidimensional and subject to the perception of the observer.Trustworthiness and competence have been identified as central facets ofcredibility among researchers in different literatures, including psychology(Hovland et al., 1953; McGinnies & Ward, 1980), management (Kouzes &Posner, 2003, 2005; Simons, 2002), and communication (Leathers, 1992).While trustworthiness includes being reliable and dependable, competencemight be defined as others’ assessments of a person’s skills and abilities infulfilling a particular role. The perception of competence, formed throughthe observation of an individual’s job performance (experienced, witnessed,or heard second-hand), requires the observer to make an internal rather thanan external attribution (Kouzes & Posner, 2003).

One purpose of this study was to confirm the specific constructscomprising the broader variables of interest – top management credibility andemployee cynicism – as well as to discern how these constructs interrelate. Inthe recent management literature, studies predominantly view cynicism asresulting from circumstances in the work environment that cause employeeexpectations to be unmet (e.g. Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman,1997; Bernerth et al., 2007; Cole et al., 2006; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly,2003; Naus et al., 2007a, 2007b; Pugh et al., 2003; Wanous et al., 2000).When employees’ expectations are not met, they make attributions about thecause of the unmet expectations. If management is the target of blame, per-ceptions of management’s competence or trustworthiness suffer (Wanous et al., 2004). In other words, employees might decide that management iseither unable – owing to lack of ability – to deliver what they expect, or thatmanagement chooses not to deliver and therefore cannot be trusted to do soin the future (Cole et al., 2006; Stanley et al., 2005; Wanous et al., 2004).

Consistent with this perspective, employee cynicism toward organiz-ational change efforts often stems from employee attributions that manage-ment was not competent in implementing past changes (Stanley et al., 2005;




Wanous et al., 2000). Likewise, more generalized employee cynicism towardmanagement has been shown to increase when management was perceivedas contributing to the loss of market share (Andersson & Bateman, 1997),which employees might regard as an indicator of managerial incompetence(Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2005).

Employees also become cynical toward management when managersare not trustworthy. Bateman et al. (1992) found that as a result of watchingthe apparent untrustworthy (and incompetent) behavior of General MotorsCEO Roger Smith in the film Roger and Me, residents of both the UnitedStates and Japan were found to be more cynical toward Roger Smith andGeneral Motors. This example also suggests that perceptions of trustwor-thiness and competence might co-vary, and that one might influence theother. But they are clearly different constructs, no doubt with at least somedifferent antecedents and perhaps with differing consequences.

To restate, our general premise was that employees hold cynical atti-tudes when top management lacks credibility, driven by perceptions of bothuntrustworthiness and incompetence. One or both perceptions will take atoll on employee cynicism in terms of cognition (thinking, for example, ‘youcan’t depend on them’), affect (for example, feeling furious), and behavior(e.g. making derogatory comments). Hence, we predicted direct effects suchthat:

Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of top management trustworthiness arenegatively associated with employees’ levels of cognitive, affective, andbehavioral dimensions of employee cynicism.

Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of top management competence arenegatively associated with employees’ levels of cognitive, affective, andbehavioral dimensions of employee cynicism.

Summarizing, we predicted that employee cynicism would be associ-ated with employee outcomes in the form of organizational commitmentand job performance, and that top management credibility (both trust-worthiness and competence) would be associated with employee cynicism.As noted, credibility (our hypothesized predictor of cynicism) has beenfound to predict commitment and job performance (our hypothesizedoutcomes of cynicism) (Orpen & King, 1989; Podsakoff & Farh, 1989).Based on the earlier discussion and this summary, employee cynicism thusbecomes a likely but untested path from top management credibility toemployee outcomes. In other words, we expected employee cynicism tomediate those relationships. The resultant mediation hypothesis is:




Hypothesis 3: The cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions ofemployee cynicism mediate the negative relationships between topmanagement credibility and employees’ organizational commitmentand job performance.

Thus, although the aforementioned studies have established theimportance of management credibility and employee cynicism, severalimportant questions have yet to be addressed empirically. First, the researchhas generally given more attention to targets other than top management asa potential cause of employee cynicism. Second, the interrelationships amongthe two factors comprising credibility and the three factors comprisingemployee cynicism have not been assessed. Third, the specific managerialbehaviors that make employees perceive their top management as credible(or not) have yet to be identified. While it is understood that credibility isderived from trustworthiness and competence, the array of specific behav-iors that contribute to the perception of credibility is undoubtedly broad(Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2005) and remains underspecified. Given itsimportant consequences, a better understanding of the behaviors that affectcredibility is needed. We therefore not only tested the hypothesized inter-relationships, but also analyzed additional qualitative data to develop acomprehensive model linking top management behaviors and credibility withemployee cynicism and outcomes.

Method

With the dual goals of 1) testing our hypotheses empirically, and 2) ident-ifying top management behaviors that predict perceptions of credibility, wecollected and analyzed two data sets. The first used a traditional question-naire method to measure the constructs of interest, assess their dimension-ality, ensure construct validity, and empirically test the hypothesizedrelationships via structural equation modeling. The second data set wasqualitative in nature, and was used to inductively determine the dimensionsof top management behavior that drive employee perceptions of (un)trust-worthiness and (in)competence. For this data set, we asked the first sample,which supplied the questionnaire data for multivariate analysis, to alsogenerate behavioral indicators of (high and low) top management credibility.We then used a panel of judges to identify, using content analysis, the broader behavioral dimensions comprising top management credibility, anda large independent sample of employed adults (Sample 2) to validate the items.




Data set I and results

The first data set included 144 questionnaires from two sources: a) employeesof an organization within the transportation industry (n = 42, 72% responserate), and b) evening MBA students currently employed in a variety oforganizations (n = 102, 64% response rate). For the transportation industryemployees, participants convened in a conference room where the study wasdescribed to them and the questionnaires were distributed and completed.For the MBA student participants, data were collected during class time. Allparticipants were told that they would not be asked to place their namesanywhere on the survey, and that their individual results would not beanalyzed or reported to their employers.

Although some managers and professionals from the transportationindustry participated, most respondents in this group were blue-collaremployees. In contrast, most of the MBA student respondents wereprofessional or technical employees. In both samples, respondents wereasked to consider specifically the top management of their employingorganization.

When the two samples were combined for further analyses, wecompared them with regard to age, gender, race, job level, work status (i.e. part-time versus full-time), and education level. We found significantdifferences between the two subsamples in age and gender. Additionally, wefound that age was significantly correlated with organizational commitment(r = .19, p < .05), and that gender was significantly associated with self-assessed job performance (r = .18, p < .05), with women reporting higherjob performance. Therefore, we controlled for age and gender in the sub-sequent analyses. Of the respondents, 43 percent were female, 83 percentwere full-time employees, 89 percent had at least a college education, and54 percent were in non-managerial positions. Their average age was 34 years(SD = 10.12).

All of the questionnaire variables were assessed, unless otherwise indi-cated, using seven-point Likert-type scales (where 1 = ‘Strongly disagree’ and7 = ‘Strongly agree’).

Top management trustworthiness and competence

We measured the two dimensions of top management credibility, trust-worthiness and competence, using semantic differential scales with eightadjective pairs (four addressing trustworthiness and four representingcompetence) developed by Leathers (1992). We asked the respondents toindicate their opinions of their top managers along the continuum betweeneach pair of adjectives. The items for competence were ‘Competent vs




Incompetent’, ‘Informed vs Uninformed’, ‘Qualified vs Unqualified’, and‘Intelligent vs Unintelligent’. The items for trustworthiness were ‘Honest vsDishonest’, ‘Straightforward vs Shifty’, ‘Trustworthy vs Untrustworthy’, and‘Sincere vs Insincere’.

Employee cynicism

To measure employee cynicism, we used the 11 items developed by Brandeset al. (1999). The cognitive component is defined as the belief that topmanagement lacks integrity. The items were ‘I believe top management saysone thing and does another’, ‘Top management’s policies, goals, and prac-tices, seem to have little in common’, ‘When top management says it is goingto do something, I wonder if it will really happen’, and ‘Top managementexpects one thing of its employees, but rewards another.’ The affectivecomponent is the emotional reactions associated with cynical attitudestoward top management. The items were ‘When I think about top manage-ment, I feel irritation’, ‘When I think about top management, I feel aggra-vation’, ‘When I think about top management, I feel tension’, and ‘When Ithink about top management, I experience anxiety.’ The behavioralcomponent has to do with the practice of making harmful statements abouttop management. The items were ‘I criticize top management’s practices andpolicies with others’, ‘I often talk to others about the way things are run attop management’, and ‘I complain about how things happen at top manage-ment to friends outside the organization.’

Organizational commitment

We measured organizational commitment using Allen and Meyer’s (1990)five-item scale of affective organizational commitment. Examples are ‘I donot feel emotionally attached to this organization (R)’ and ‘This organizationhas a great deal of personal meaning for me.’

Job performance

To measure self-assessed job performance, respondents were asked to assesshow other people generally would rate their performance on the job. Weemployed four items from Welbourne et al.’s (1998) role-based performancescale assessing ‘quantity of work output’ and ‘quality of work output’.

To assess the discriminant validities, we conducted confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) for all the seven variables using LISREL 8.30 (Jöreskog &Sörbom, 1996). We used three-item parcels for each construct to reduce thenumber of indicators (Hui et al., 1999; Ilies & Scott, 2006). The results show




that the seven-factor model fits the data well (χ2 (168, N = 144) = 223.26,root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05, comparative fitindex (CFI) = .97, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .96, and StandardizedRoot Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .06). In addition, we conductedmulti-group CFA to test whether the two subsamples in our study can belegitimately combined to examine structural relationships among theconstructs studied (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Specifically, we testedmetric invariance by constraining the factor loadings to be the same acrosssubsamples. According to Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998: 80), ‘metricinvariance provides a stronger test of invariance by introducing the conceptof equal metrics or scale intervals across samples’. The result show that theseven-factor model was metrically equivalent across the two subsamples (χ2 (336, G = 2) = 482, 94, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .92, TLI = 90, and SRMR= .10). Thus, the data from the two subsamples can be combined legitimatelyto test structural relationships among the constructs.

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and cor-relations for all measures. All reliability estimates exceeded .70; the averagewas .85.

To test the hypotheses, we conducted structural equation analysis ofthe relationships among top management trustworthiness and competence,the three dimensions of cynicism, job performance, and organizationalcommitment, as shown in Table 2 (Model 1) using LISREL 8. As recom-mended by Preacher and Hayes (in press), the residuals associated with thethree types of cynicism were permitted to co-vary. As shown in Table 2,Model 1 represented a good fit to the data, indicating that the observedcovariance matrix reasonably fit the hypothesized model (χ2 (206, N = 144)= 324.56, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .07).

Our first set of hypotheses proposed that the constructs comprisingemployee cynicism would be negatively related both to self-assessed perform-ance (H1a) and organizational commitment (H1b). As seen in Figure 1,affective cynicism was negatively and significantly associated with self-assessed job performance (γ = –.40, p < .01, respectively), and cognitivecynicism was negatively and significantly associated with organizationalcommitment (γ = –.42, p < .01). Behavioral cynicism was positively andsignificantly associated with self-assessed job performance (γ = .33, p < .05).Other relationships were not statistically significant. Thus, Hypothesis 1aand 1b received partial support.

Our second set of hypotheses postulated that the factors comprisingtop management credibility would be negatively related to the multipleconstructs comprising employee cynicism. As shown in Figure 1, trust-worthiness was negatively and significantly associated with the cognitive,





Tabl

e 1

Mea

ns,s

tand

ard

devi

atio

ns,c

orre

latio

ns,a

nd r

elia

bilit

ies

for

stud

y va

riab

les

MSD

12

34

56

78

9

1.A

ge33

.85

10.1

22.

Gen

dera

.43

.50

–.14

3.C

ompe

tenc

e5.

101.

23–.

13.1

1(.8

8)4.

Trus

twor

thin

ess

4.21

1.56

.03

.06

.63

(.95)

5.C

ogni

tive

cyni

cism

4.00

1.40

–.02

–.05

–.49

–.65

(.82)

6.A

ffect

ive

cyni

cism

3.61

1.73

.07

–.01

–.57

–.67

.64

(.95)

7.Be

havi

oral

cyn

icis

m3.

561.

59–.

19–.

10–.

36–.

45.4

0.4

8(.7

7)8.

Job

perf

orm

ance

4.20

.56

–.13

.18

.02

.05

–.02

–.07

.16

(.78)

9.O

rgan

izat

iona

l com

mitm

ent

3.76

1.31

.19

–.14

.28

.45

–.39

–.36

–.19

.02

(.76)

Not

e.(N

= 1

46).

Rel

iabi

litie

s ar

e in

par

enth

eses

.For

all

corr

elat

ions

abo

ve .1

6,p

≤.0

5;an

d ab

ove

.21,

p≤

.01.

aM

ales

wer

e co

ded

as 0

and

fem

ales

wer

e co

ded

as 1

.




Tabl

e 2

Com

pari

son

of s

truc

tura

l equ

atio

n m

odel

s

Mod

el a

nd s

truc

ture

χ2df

Δχ2

RMSE

ASR

MR

CFI

TLI

Mod

el 1

a :C

ompe

tenc

e +

tru

stw

orth

ines

s �

cogn

itive

,affe

ctiv

e,an

d be

havi

oral

32

4.56

**20

9.0

6.0

7.9

3.9

2cy

nici

sm �

job

perf

orm

ance

+ o

rgan

izat

iona

l com

mitm

ent

Mod

el 2

:Com

pete

nce

+ t

rust

wor

thin

ess

�co

gniti

ve,a

ffect

ive,

and

beha

vior

al

320.

69**

205

3.87

.06

.07

.93

.92

cyni

cism

�jo

b pe

rfor

man

ce +

org

aniz

atio

nal c

omm

itmen

t(D

irec

t ef

fect

s:C

ompe

tenc

e +

tru

stw

orth

ines

s �

job

perf

orm

ance

+

orga

niza

tiona

l com

mitm

ent)

a Ba

selin

e m

odel

.*

p <

.05;

** p

< .0

1




Com

pete

nce

Affe

ctiv

ecy

nici

sm

Trus

twor

thin

ess

Beha

vior

alcy

nici

sm

Cog

nitiv

ecy

nici

smO

rgan

izat

iona

lco

mm

itmen

t

Job

perf

orm

ance

Beha

vior

s in

dica

ting

com

pete

nce

Beha

vior

s in

dica

ting

inco

mpe

tenc

e

Beha

vior

s in

dica

ting

trus

twor

thin

ess

Beha

vior

s in

dica

ting

untr

ustw

orth

ines

s

Top

man

agem

ent

beha

vior

sTo

p m

anag

emen

t cr

edib

ility

Empl

oyee

cyn

icis

mEm

ploy

ee o

utco

mes

–.42

**

–.28

**

–.46

**

–.71

**

–– ++

–.41

**

–.40

**

–.06

–.10

–.01

.01 .1

3

.33*

* p

< .0

5; *

* p

< .0

1

Fig

ure

1Fr

amew

ork

for

top

man

agem

ent

cred

ibili

ty a

nd e

mpl

oyee

cyn

icis

m



affective, and behavioral dimensions of employee cynicism (γ = –.71, p < .01;γ = –.46, p < .01; and γ = –.41, p < .01, respectively). Competence wasnegatively and significantly associated with the affective component ofcynicism, but not with the cognitive and behavioral components (γ = –.28, p < .01; γ = –.06, ns; and γ = –.10, ns, respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 2a,concerning perceptions of top management trustworthiness, was fullysupported. Hypothesis 2b, regarding top management competence, wassupported by only cognitive cynicism.

We next tested whether employee cynicism mediated the effects ofmanagement competence and trustworthiness on organizational commit-ment and self-assessed job performance using a chi-square difference test(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hui et al., 1999). Specifically, we compared themediated model (Model 1) to a full model that included the direct effects(Model 2) in Table 2. Then we tested whether or not the χ2 differencebetween the two models was significant. A non-significant χ2 difference indi-cates a full mediation effect (Hui et al., 1999). As shown in Table 2, thedifference in chi-square between Model 1 and Model 2 was not significant(i.e. Δ χ2 = 4.36, Δ d.f. = 4, ns), and the other fit indices were unaffected byincluding the additional four paths in the model (RMSEA = .05, CFI = .97,TLI = .96, and SRMR = .07). In addition, we investigated the specific indirecteffect associated with each putative mediator using Sobel’s (1982) test. Theresults show that affective cynicism significantly mediated the relationshipsbetween competence and job performance (i.e. αβ = .11, p < .05) andbetween trustworthiness and job performance (αβ = .18, p < .01). Cognitivecynicism also significantly mediated the relationship between trustworthinessand organizational commitment (αβ = .30, p < .01). In addition, behavioralcynicism significantly mediated the relationship between trustworthiness andjob performance (αβ =.14, p < .01). However, cynicism did not significantlymediate the other relationships.1 Thus, the results provided support for fourof the 12 possible mediation effects.

To this point, we had examined the relationships among the twodimensions of top management credibility, the three dimensions of employeecynicism, and self-assessed job performance and organizational commitment.Now that we had established the dimensionalities and predictive validities ina limited nomological network, we moved on to the second goal of ourresearch, which was to gain a better understanding of the types of behaviorthat lead employees to view managers as credible or non-credible (com-petent or incompetent, and trustworthy or untrustworthy). These constitutevariables that are exogenous to the Figure 1 model and essential for creatingfuller understanding and for offering specific managerial prescriptions.




Data set II and results

In addition to asking the first sample to respond to the questionnairemeasures, we also asked them – using the critical incident technique – toidentify behaviors that caused them to attribute to their top management thefollowing four characteristics: trustworthiness, untrustworthiness,competence, and incompetence. We asked not only about competence andtrustworthiness, but also about incompetence and untrustworthiness, forseveral reasons. First, there is still no agreement regarding the domain ofmanagerial behaviors that promote and detract from perceptions ofcompetence and trustworthiness. Second, the absence of competence mightnot be equivalent to incompetence, and the lack of trustworthiness might notbe equivalent to untrustworthiness. Some authors have argued that distrustand trust are distinct entities, rather than at opposite ends of a continuum,and that they have different causes and effects (Lewicki et al., 1998; Sitkin& Roth, 1993). As Clarke and Watson (1995) noted,

no existing data-analytic technique can remedy serious deficiencies inan item pool . . . Subsequent psychometric analysis can identify weak,unrelated items that should be dropped from the emerging scale, butare powerless to detect content that should have been included but was not.

(p. 311)

Therefore, seeking to minimize the risk of item-pool deficiency, we asked forincidents provoking perceptions of trustworthiness, untrustworthiness,competence, and incompetence.

We then extracted the managerial behaviors embedded in those inci-dents. This process resulted in the documentation of 173 behaviors: 43 forcompetence, 43 for incompetence, 43 for trustworthiness, and 44 for untrust-worthiness. Next we employed initial and confirmatory sorting processes inwhich eight sorters viewed and categorized the 173 items. Three of oursorters were organizational behavior professors, one was a universityadministrator with a PhD in management, one was an experienced humanresources manager, one was a management professor, and two were manage-ment doctoral students. The sorting process used well-established proceduresfor organizing behavioral items into manageable and useful dimensions,allowed us to better understand the categories of behavior that employeessee as relevant to top management trustworthiness and competence, andprovided a structure for measuring, evaluating, and improving managerialcredibility (Anderson & Wilson, 1997).




The sorting analysis resulted in 34 behavioral dimensions: eightdimensions of behaviors indicating that a manager is competent (36 items),eight dimensions indicating that a manager is incompetent (37 items), ninedimensions indicating that a manager is trustworthy (36 items), and nine dimensions indicating that a manager is untrustworthy (34 items). Wedeleted 30 items due to disagreement among the sorters, resulting in 143behavioral items.

Next, in order to cross-validate items generated in the open-endedresponses provided by the first sample, to establish the broader dimensions,and to further develop a more comprehensive model, we created a secondquestionnaire to administer to a second sample (Sample 2). A total of 145respondents from various organizations, different from Sample 1, partici-pated in this survey. Half of the data were collected from employed MBAstudents, while the other half were collected during a management trainingsession in a service-industry organization. All of the respondents were full-time employees; their average age was 37 years old (SD = 7.72) and averagework experience was 15 years (SD = 7.74). Of the respondents, 40 percentwere female, and 42 percent were in non-managerial positions.

The Sample 2 respondents were asked to assess each item generated bySample 1 describing top management’s competence, incompetence, trust-worthiness, and untrustworthiness. For instance, for the behaviors identifiedas indicative of competence, the respondents were asked to assess the extentto which the items would make them think of their top management ascompetent, using a nine-point scale (1 = ‘Not at all competent’ and 9 = ‘Verycompetent’). This approach has been used to assess how well specific itemsrepresent broader constructs (Edwards & O’Neill, 1998). We also used thesedata to examine internal reliabilities and to determine which general dimen-sions are most strongly associated with specific behaviors indicating thatmanagers are (in)competent and (un)trustworthy.

Next, we used the data collected from Sample 2 to calculate the internalreliabilities to assess each dimension’s unidimensionality. On the basis of thoseanalyses, 19 of the 143 original items were deleted because they reduced adimension’s reliability. Six dimensions of behaviors indicate that a manager iscompetent (31 items): outcome emphasis (eight items), future emphasis (fouritems), employee emphasis (five items), go-getter (five items), effectivecommunication (five items), and education and experience (five items). Sevendimensions indicate that a manager is incompetent (34 items): lack of jobknowledge (six items), failing to take action (six items), ego-driven (threeitems), failing to appreciate employees (four items), creating confusion (six items), poor communication (five items), and close-mindedness (fouritems). Seven dimensions indicate that a manager is trustworthy (29 items):




consistent communication and behavior (three items), protecting employees(three items), embodying organization’s mission (three items), consultativebehavior (seven items), open communication (five items), valuing employees(five items), and supportive behavior (three items).

Seven dimensions indicate that a manager is untrustworthy (30 items):promoting unethical climate (three items), dishonest communication (fouritems), self-serving behavior (seven items), behavioral inconsistency (fiveitems), guarded communication (three items), insufficient employee input(five items), and treating employees as expendable (three items).2

Discussion

Overall, our results extend recent research on employee cynicism (e.g.Bernerth et al., 2007; Cole et al., 2006; Kahn et al., 2006; Naus et al., 2007a,2007b; Stanley et al., 2005). Whereas much research investigates cynicismas an attitude toward organizational change and employing organizations(e.g. Naus et al., 2007a; Stanley et al., 2005; Wanous et al., 2000, 2004), wefocus on understanding how employee perceptions of top management relateto employee cynicism, and on how cynicism relates to employees’ organiz-ational commitment and self-assessed job performance. The data yield 1) themodel shown in Figure 1, depicting the interrelationships among topmanagement credibility, the subdimensions of employee cynicism, and twoemployee outcomes, and 2) top management behaviors and top managementcredibility.

Several specific conclusions emerge. First, the findings that affectivecynicism was negatively associated with self-assessed job performance andorganizational commitment, cognitive cynicism was negatively associatedwith organizational commitment but not self-assessed performance, andbehavioral cynicism was positively associated with self-assessed perform-ance, provide support for Dean et al.’s (1998) argument for the value ofdistinguishing among the three dimensions of employee cynicism. Second,low top management trustworthiness was significantly associated with allthree dimensions of employee cynicism. Top management incompetence wasalso significantly associated with affective cynicism, but not with cognitiveand behavioral cynicism. Perhaps perceived top management incompetence– as opposed to low trustworthiness or the perceived incompetence of one’simmediate manager – has little to do with an employee’s daily work life andtherefore is less likely to create significant vulnerability, except when theconsequences of incompetence are extreme such that people lose employmentor other financial stakes.




Although some of the cynicism dimensions were associated withoutcomes as expected, one result was not predicted: behavioral cynicism hada positive association with self-assessed performance. This relationship hasseveral possible explanations. One is that high job performance might givepeople freedom to say things that low performers are not willing or able tosay. A second is the operation of a third variable causing the positive relation-ship; for example, behavioral cynicism and self-rated performance might co-vary with self-esteem, with self-esteem driving the other two variables (Nauset al., 2007b). Future research needs to confirm this possibility.

Regarding the behavioral indicators of management trustworthinessand competence, some are identifiable in previous theories and models (forexample, outcome-focused vs employee-focused in the leadership literature,and consultative behavior in decision-making models). On the other hand,other indicators constitute understudied behaviors that are worthy of investi-gation in their own right. As examples, future emphasis, failing to take action,‘go-getter’, creating confusion, close-mindedness, protecting employees, andsome forms of self-serving behavior have been studied minimally or not atall. Any of these behaviors, alone or in combination with others, can haveimportant repercussions and are therefore worthy of further inquiry.

Some of the behavioral indicators are mirror images: for example,effective communication and education as indicators of competence, andpoor communication and lack of education as indicators of incompetence.But more often, the behaviors employees identified as contributing to theirattributions of competence differed qualitatively from those conveyingincompetence; this was likewise the case with trustworthiness and non-trustworthiness. These results suggest that the constructs, which often arepresumed to anchor opposite ends of the same continuum, might rather beasymmetric or discontinuous. Just as positive and negative affect have beendemonstrated to be orthogonal dimensions (Watson et al., 1999), and trustand distrust have been argued to be asymmetric (Kramer, 1999; Lewicki et al., 1998), the perceived attributes of trustworthiness and competence alsomight not be unidimensional. Perhaps other constructs in our field thattraditionally and intuitively are presumed to be unidimensional should beexplored for potential asymmetries, and for the accompanying theoretical,empirical, and prescriptive ramifications.

Limitations and implications for future research

Despite the use of CFA to show the distinctiveness of the measures, commonmethod variance (CMV) is a potential limitation. We assessed CMV’s




potential impact using Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker-variable partialcorrelation technique. A measure of creativity (Welbourne et al., 1998)served as the marker variable, which met all criteria proposed by Lindell andWhitney, such that r ranged from .02 to .46. All of the original significantcorrelations remained after removing the CMV, and the differences betweenthe corrected correlations and the original ones were not significant, suggest-ing that the CMV effects did not explain the relationships. In addition, theprimary variables of interest in this study are perceptual and attitudinal; assuch, they (excluding job performance) are best measured via employeeassessments (Spector, 2006). Nonetheless, studies using alternative means ofassessing management trustworthiness and competence, such as contentanalysis of corporate documents, field observation, and in-depth interviews,would provide additional perspectives (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Definite conclusions regarding causality cannot be drawn, as the studywas not longitudinal and the open-ended questions were retrospective. Theimplied causal links remain merely suggestive until verified with longitudinaldata. In two separate longitudinal studies, both Wanous et al. (2000) andBommer et al. (2005) found that supervisory role effectiveness (e.g. caringabout employees) and transformational leadership significantly influencesemployee cynicism with regard to organizational change. Longitudinal datacollection would allow testing of the causal directionalities among thevariables studied here.

Additional limitations arise from characteristics of the data used in thisstudy. Job performance would of course be measured more validly withobjective data or assessments from knowledgeable observers. We did notcollect data on the possible situational factors that might influence employeecynicism and, as a result, we cannot rule out the operation of attributionerrors (blaming other people such as top management, rather than them-selves or situational factors not the fault of top management). In addition,the respondents might have differed significantly from non-respondents, andthe anonymous nature of our surveys made it impossible to conduct aresponse–non-response analysis. However, given that our response rate wasreasonably high (i.e. 72% in the transportation industry organization and64% in the MBA sample are consistent with or higher than response rates in other studies of employee cynicism), the data should not be asproblematic as if the response rates had been lower.

Finally, the managerial behaviors that lead to a worker’s perceptionsof managerial (un)trustworthiness and (in)competence might not be uni-versally applicable across individuals and contexts. For example, the samebehaviors might not be interpreted in the same ways by core workers,temporary and contract workers, customers, investors, analysts, and other




stakeholders. Future studies should examine how these different audiencesdifferentially interpret managerial behaviors. In addition, differences ingeneral societal values or norms regulate the relationships between subordi-nates and supervisors across countries (Kim et al., 2007). Thus the samesupervisor behaviors can be interpreted differently across countries and havedifferent consequences. For example, attributions of trustworthiness tounfamiliar trustees were found to differ depending on the trustor’s nationalculture (Branzei et al., 2007).

Managerial implications and conclusion

For individual managers, the practical implications begin with the recog-nition that employee cynicism is an important attitude with significant conse-quences (for a thorough discussion, see Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). It is anattitudinal state, not just a stable trait, and therefore can change over timeand with changing circumstances, rendering it manageable for better orworse. Moreover, it is of practical importance that both management trust-worthiness and competence (or lack thereof) exhibit paths to importantemployee outcomes. Both dimensions of credibility relate to self-assessed jobperformance through affective cynicism, and trustworthiness relates toorganizational commitment via cognitive cynicism.

However, it is one thing to acknowledge these relationships in theabstract; it is another to identify the attributes and behaviors that have animpact, and yet another to apply this knowledge to personal change.Managers can benefit from knowing the types of behavior that generateperceptions of competence and trustworthiness. To these ends, we identifiedthe behavioral indicators of top management credibility in this study.

Exhibiting credibility-enhancing behaviors and refraining fromcredibility-detracting behaviors can help generate individual and collectiveprogress toward mitigating employee cynicism and its negative effects. Butit must also be recognized that cynicism, at least to a point and properlyexpressed, can be functional (Dean et al., 1998). It can help people ensurethat others don’t take advantage of them, and potentially help managers andorganizations benefit from constructive voice and from appropriate resist-ance to inappropriate directives (Naus et al., 2007b). In one experiment,participants cynical toward the employing organization were less likely tocomply with unethical requests than those who were less cynical (Andersson& Bateman, 1997). Such useful consequences of cynicism will be more likelywith supportive cultures and constructive management behaviors, includingthose that convey competence and trustworthiness.




Acknowledgement

The work described in this article was fully supported by a grant from CityUniversity of Hong Kong (Project No. 9360108). The authors would like tothank Associate Editor Rob Briner and the three anonymous reviewers for theirhelpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Notes

1 As a supplementary analysis, we tested separate simple mediation models becausespecific indirect effects might be attenuated to the extent that the mediators arecorrelated. The results show that affective and behavioral cynicism significantlymediated the relationships between trustworthiness and organizational commitment(αβ = .15, p < .01; αβ = .08, p < .05, respectively) in addition to the significantmediation effects found in the multiple mediation models.

2 All behavioral items for each dimension can be obtained from the first author.

References

Abraham, R. Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genetic, Social & GeneralPsychology Monographs, 2000, 126, 269–92.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review ofempirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 888–918.

Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, andnormative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1990,63, 1–18.

Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review andrecommended tow-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103, 411–23.

Anderson, L. & Wilson, S. Critical incident technique. In D.L. Whetzel & G.R. Wheaton(Eds), Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black, 1997, pp. 89–112.

Andersson, L.M. Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violationframework. Human Relations, 1996, 49, 1395–418.

Andersson, L.M. & Bateman, T.S. Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1997, 18, 449–69.

Ashkanasy, N.M., Zerbe, W.J. & Härtel, C.E.J. Managing emotions in a changingworkplace. In N.M. Ashkanasy, W. Zerbe, & C.E.J. Härtel (Eds), Managing emotionsin the workplace. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 2002, pp. 3–24.

Bateman, T.S., Sakano, T. & Fujita, M. Roger, me, and my attitude: Film propaganda andcynicism toward corporate leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1992, 77, 768–71.

Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S. & Walker, H.J. Justice, cynicism, and commit-ment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2007, 43, 303–26.

Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A. & Rubin, R.S. Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinaleffects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizationalchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005, 26, 733–53.

Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R. & Dean, J. Does employee cynicism matter? Employee andsupervisor perspectives on work outcomes. Paper presented at the Eastern Academy ofManagement, Philadelphia, PA, 1999.

Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I. & Camp, R.D. Culture-specific signs of trust in emergent relation-ships. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2007, 104, 61–82.




Brush, S. A vote of no confidence in the nation’s leaders. U.S. News & World Report, 30October 2006, p. 56.

Clarke, L.A. & Watson, D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale develop-ment. Psychological Assessment, 1995, 7, 309–19.

Cole, M.S., Bruch, H. & Vogel, B. Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceivedsupervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 2006, 27, 463–84.

Dean Jr, J.W., Brandes, P. & Dharwadkar, R. Organizational cynicism. Academy ofManagement Review, 1998, 23, 341–52.

Edwards, J.R. & O’Neill, M.R. The construct validity of scores on the ways of copingquestionnaire: Confirmatory analysis of alternative factor structures. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 1998, 58, 955–83.

Fralicx, R. & McCauley, D. U.S. workers feel pride in jobs, organizations, but don’t trustmanagers. Journal of Compensation and Benefits, May/June 2003, pp. 42–5.

Gardner, J.W. On leadership. New York: Free Press, 1990.Greenglass, E.R., Burke, R.J. & Moore, K.A. Reactions to increased workload: Effects on

professional efficacy of nurses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2003, 52,580–97.

Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L. & Kelly, H.H. Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT:Yale University, 1953.

Hui, C., Law, K.S. & Chen, Z.X. A structural equation model of the effects of negativeaffectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 1999, 77, 3–21.

Iacocca, L. Where have all the leaders gone? New York: Simon & Shuster, 2007.Ilies, R. & Scott, B.A. The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on

intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal,2006, 49, 561–75.

Johnson, J.L. & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. The effects of psychological contract breach andorganizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 2003, 24, 627–47.

Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: ScientificSoftware International, Inc., 1996.

Kahn, J.H., Schneider, K.T., Jenkins-Henkelman, T.M. & Moyle, L.L. Emotional socialsupport and job burnout among high-school teachers: Is it all due to dispositionalaffectivity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2006, 27, 793–807.

Kanter, D.L. & Mirvis, P.H. The cynical Americans. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1989.Kidwell, R.E., Jr & Robie, C. Withholding effort in organizations: Toward development

and validation of a measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2003, 17, 537–61.

Kim, T.-Y., Wang, C., Kondo, M. & Kim, T.-H. Conflict management styles: East Asiadifferences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2007, 18, 23–41.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demandit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. Leading in cynical times. Journal of Management Inquiry,2005, 14, 357–64.

Kramer, R.M. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduringquestions. Annual Review Psychology, 1999, 50, 569–98.

Leathers, D.G. Successful nonverbal communication: Principle and applications. NewYork: Macmillan, 1992.

Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. & Bies, R.J. Trust and distrust: New relationships andrealities. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 438–59.

Lindell, M.K. & Whitney, D.J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectionalresearch designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86, 114–21.




Lynch, P.D., Eisenberger, R. & Armeli, S. Perceived organizational support: Inferior versussuperior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84,467–83.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust.Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20, 709–34.

McGinnies, E. & Ward, C.D. Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and competence asfactors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6, 467–72.

Naus, F., van Iterson, A. & Roe, R. Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice,loyalty, and neglect model of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in theworkplace. Human Relations, 2007a, 60, 683–718.

Naus, F., van Iterson, A. & Roe, R. Value incongruence, job autonomy, and organization-based self-esteem: A self-based perspective on organizational cynicism. EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2007b, 16, 195–219.

Orpen, C. & King, G. Effects of superiors’ feedback, credibility, and competence on sub-ordinates’ reactions: An experimental study. Psychological Reports, 1989, 64, 645–6.

Podsakoff, P.M. & Farh, L. Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and taskperformance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1989, 44,45–67.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. & Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases inbehavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 879–903.

Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing andcomparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, inpress.

Pugh, D.S., Skarlicki, D.P. & Passell, B.S. After the fall: Layoff victims’ trust and cynicismin re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2003, 76,201–12.

Sarkar, C. Will the leadership crisis continue? Strategy World.org, 1 January 2007.Schwab, N. A national crisis of confidence. U.S. News & World Report, 19 November

2007, p. 46.Simons, T. Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and

deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 2002, 13, 18–35.Sitkin, S.B. & Roth, N.L. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic ‘remedies’ for

trust/distrust. Organization Science, 1993, 4, 367–92.Sobel, M.E. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation

models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: AmericanSociological Association, 1982, pp. 290–312.

Spector, P.E. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organiz-ational Research Methods, 2006, 9, 221–32.

Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P. & Topolnytsky, L. Employee cynicism and resistance to organiz-ational change. Journal of Business & Psychology, 2005, 19. 429–59.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. & Baumgartner, H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 1998, 25, 78–90.

Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. & Austin, J.T. Cynicism about organizational change:Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and Organization Management,2000, 25, 132–53.

Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. & Austin, J.T. Cynicism about organizational change: An attri-bution process perspective. Psychological Reports, 2004, 93, 1421–34.

Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J. & Tellegen, A. The two general activation systems ofaffect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, 76, 820–38.

Welbourne, T.M., Johnson, D.E. & Erez, A. The role-based performance scale: Validityanalysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 1998, 41,540–55.




Tae-Yeol Kim is an Assistant Professor in Management Department,CityUniversity of Hong Kong. He received his PhD in Organizational Behaviorin Management from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Hiscurrent interests include organizational justice, cross-cultural psychology,creativity, leadership, and proactivity. His articles have appeared in theJournal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses and Journal of Organizational Behavior, among others.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Thomas S. Bateman is Bank of America Professor and ManagementArea Coordinator in the McIntire School of Commerce, University ofVirginia. His current work includes projects on leaders as problem-solversand motivators of problem-solving by followers, the pursuit of long-termgoals, and personal agency as it affects workplace relationships and psycho-logical well-being. His articles have covered a range of topics includingorganizational citizenship behavior, proactive behavior, and the goal hier-archies of top executives. He is co-author (with Scott Snell) of Manage-ment: Leading and Collaborating in a Competitive World (McGraw-Hill/Irwin),has worked with many organizations around the world, and is director ofhis school’s undergraduate minor in leadership.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Brad Gilbreath is an Assistant Professor at the Hasan School ofBusiness at Colorado State University – Pueblo. His research interestsinclude the effects of supervisor behavior and performance-based pay,and factors affecting university student well-being. His work has beenpublished in Journal of Applied Psychology, Work & Stress, InternationalReview of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Journal of ManagementEducation, and other journals.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Lynne M. Andersson is an Associate Professor of Human ResourceManagement at Temple University’s Fox School of Business. She receivedher PhD in Organizational Behavior/Social Issues in Management from theUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research, published inoutlets such as Academy of Management Journal, Academy of ManagementReview, and Human Relations, focuses on the dark side of business organiz-ations. In particular, she’s been examining some social maladies that arearguably associated with late capitalism (cynicism and incivility) as well asthe role of social activism in countering capitalist barriers to sustainability.[E-mail: [email protected]]




top management credibility and employee cynicism

Documents