Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism ...

Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) 181–197

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: A meta-analysis Dan S. Chiaburu a,⁎, Ann Chunyan Peng b, In-Sue Oh c, George C. Banks d, Laura C. Lomeli e a b c d e

Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4113, USA Department of Management, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, N452 North Business Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824-1122, USA Department of Human Resource Management, Fox School of Business, Temple University, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, Longwood University, 201 High Street, Farmville, VA 23909, USA Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 January 2013 Available online 4 April 2013 Keywords: Employee cynicism Employee trust Meta-analysis

a b s t r a c t We propose an integrative framework to investigate the extent to which employees' organizational cynicism is predicted by individual differences (positive and negative affect, trait cynicism) and positive (e.g., organizational support) and negative (e.g. psychological contract violation) aspects of the work environment. We also examine the extent to which organizational cynicism predicts employee attitudes and performance. We investigate these relationships based on 9186 individuals across 34 statistically independent samples from 32 primary studies. Using both new meta-analytic effect sizes from the current study and effect sizes from prior meta-analyses, we test whether a negative antecedent, organizational cynicism, has a predictive advantage over a positive one, organizational trust, in predicting employees' attitudes and behaviors. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the nomological network of organizational cynicism and its relationship with organizational trust. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Studies in the 1990s have pointed out the presence of cynicism in the workplace (e.g., Kanter & Mirvis, 1989; Mirvis & Kanter, 1991; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). Employees seem to be increasingly cynical in the new millennium, especially in corporate environments rife with mistrust, scandals, and opportunistic behaviors (Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004). Employee cynicism has been theorized to have a number of negative consequences, including reduced levels of performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, and increased levels of intention to quit (Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998). Despite the fact that a number of studies have linked employee cynicism to various antecedents and outcomes, we lack a comprehensive understanding of cynicism based on the integration of the cumulative findings. To some extent, this knowledge gap may reflect insufficient attention to organizational cynicism in applied management research. For instance, Andersson (1996) lamented that “cynicism is generally viewed as negative and is therefore a sensitive topic to managers and organizations. Because of this sensitivity, negative attitudes as well as the organizational practices that foster them have been relatively neglected in management research” (p. 1401). To address this issue, the objectives of our current meta-analysis are to empirically test the non-redundancy between cynicism and trust and determine whether they can differentially predict a variety of outcomes. Further, we aim to relate organizational cynicism with a number of theoretically important predictors and outcomes. We discuss these objectives starting with the more conventional ones — establishing a connection with antecedents and outcomes. First, as with most meta-analyses, we strive to

⁎ Corresponding author at: Texas A&M University, Mays Business School, College Station, TX 77843-4113, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.S. Chiaburu), [email protected] (A.C. Peng), [email protected] (I.-S. Oh), [email protected] (G.C. Banks), [email protected] (L.C. Lomeli). 0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

182

D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) 181–197

connect organizational cynicism with a number of theoretically important predictors for which a sufficient number of primary studies exist. As outlined in our Fig. 1, our predictors include individual differences (e.g., positive and negative affect), positive features of the work environment (represented by organizational support and organizational fairness), and negative aspects of the work setting (including psychological contract violation and psychological strain). A second objective is to establish, across study settings, a relationship between organizational cynicism and important attitudinal and behavioral consequences. For attitudes, we examine the extent to which organizational cynicism is related to employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to quit. We also examine its connections with employee job performance. Such an investigation using meta-analysis is necessary because primary studies report inconsistent findings. For example, while it has been reported that positive affect is negatively related to organizational cynicism (e.g., Treadway et al., 2004), others have found positive affect to be positively associated with organizational cynicism (e.g., Hochwarter, James, Johnson, & Ferris, 2004). From another direction, despite theorizing and evidence suggesting that organizational cynicism negatively influences job performance (e.g., Byrne & Hochwarter, 2008), researchers have also proposed that cynicism can improve performance, especially when there is a need to challenge and change ineffective procedures (Brandes & Das, 2006). Other inconsistencies in the literature include the relationship between employee tenure and organizational cynicism (Brandes et al., 2007; Brown & Cregan, 2008; Naus, van Iterson, & Roe, 2007). Typically, inconsistencies and mixed findings can receive some clarification by cumulating data across primary studies, which we begin to do in the current meta-analysis. More important than these clarifications, responding to previous calls for the examination of competing perspectives (Leavitt, Mitchell, & Peterson, 2010), we aim to empirically test the non-redundancy between cynicism and trust and to establish the extent to which employee organizational cynicism and trust can differentially predict attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Concerning this aspect, it is particularly valuable to understand to what extent organizational cynicism and trust can differentially predict employee outcomes. Such knowledge can further guide the choice of constructs to include in research models for optimal predictive power. From a conceptual standpoint, organizational cynicism and trust in the organization can be seen as a pair of opposite attitudes and anticipations employees have about the credibility of their organizations and work settings in general. Given (a) the possibility of a conceptual overlap between the two constructs and (b) the abundant existing research on trust, it is important to provide information about both their distinctiveness and any differential predictive pattern before more research is directed toward organizational cynicism. If cynicism is redundant with trust, the constructs can be used as substitutes. If however the constructs are distinct in both content and predictive patterns, additional research is needed to specify the unique contribution of each construct. To address these issues, we investigate – supplementing data on organizational cynicism from the

Theoretical Model

Demographics • Age • Education level • Gender • Work tenure

Employee Dispositions • Positive affectivity • Negative affectivity • Trait cynicism

Organizational Cynicism

ATTITUDINAL OUTCOMES

Positive Work Experiences • Perceived organizational support • Perceived justice

Negative Work Experiences • Psychological contract violation • Perceived organizational politics • Psychological strain

• Job satisfaction • Organizational commitment • Intention to quit

Organizational Trust

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

PREDICTORS

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

• Job Performance

BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES


183

current meta-analysis with meta-analytic data connecting organizational trust with employee outcomes (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) – the extent to which a negative (cynicism) attitude presents an advantage over a positive (trust) one in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. 2. Expected relationships We present several definitions of organizational cynicism in the existing literature and clarify the focus of our study before delineating the scope of our study. Reichers et al. (1997) defined organizational cynicism as a negative attitude that develops as a result of perceived malfeasance of the agent or entity. Such a negative attitude can be directed at the organization as a whole and/ or the individuals in the organization. In what follows, we rely on the definition provided by Dean et al. (1998) who define organizational cynicism as “a negative attitude toward one's employing organization, comprising three dimensions: (1) a belief that the organization lacks integrity; (2) negative affect toward the organization; and (3) tendencies to disparaging and critical behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with these beliefs and affect” (p. 345). In fact, this definition of organizational cynicism was adopted later by other researchers such as Wilkerson (2002) who broadened the target of organizational cynicism by including “[organizational] procedures, processes, and management” (p. 533). 2.1. Organizational cynicism and organizational trust The central part of our model contrasts organizational cynicism and trust as a pair of negative and positive perceptions individuals have related to their organization. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) define trust as the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, regardless of whether one can monitor or control the other party, and is based on the expectation that another party will perform the action for the sake of the trustor. It has been suggested that an individual's propensity to trust others is relatively stable, such that some individuals will be more likely to trust than others. Despite this dispositional propensity to trust, there are external factors that can influence one's level of trust. Thus, individuals' levels of trust in the organization may be influenced by their dispositional tendency to trust others and by situational characteristics that convey the trustworthiness of the organization (e.g., positive leadership styles and organizational justice; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Similarly, given that “organizational cynicism is generally conceptualized as a state variable, distinct from trait-based dispositions such as negativity and trait cynicism” (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005, p. 736), we propose that the extent individuals are cynical about the organization is determined by their dispositional cynical beliefs and by organizational factors that imply its lack of integrity, competence, and benevolence (Dean et al., 1998; Reichers et al., 1997). While organizational trust emphasizes the presence of trustworthiness, organizational cynicism would imply lack or low levels of it (Davis & Gardner, 2004; Mayer et al., 1995). Both trust and cynicism have cognitive aspects, however cynicism differs in that it includes the individual's affective state and corresponding behavioral tendencies toward the organization. Overall, based on both similarities and differences, we aim to explore to what extent trust (a positive aspect) and cynicism (a negative one) are differentially related to work attitudes and behaviors. Although we expect organizational trust and cynicism to be negatively related, we do not see them as completely redundant. For example, Dean et al. (1998) argued that a lack of trust is possibly due to a lack of positive experience with the other party, whereas cynicism is “almost certainly based on [negative] experience” (p. 348, bracket added). Further, because cynicism is conceptualized as including affective states and behavioral tendencies, there is a possibility for cynicism to be more impactful for work attitudes than trust. Overall, because cynicism and trust are related yet non-redundant, we expect them to differentially predict employee outcomes. 2.2. Individual differences as predictors of organizational cynicism 2.2.1. Positive and negative affectivity Affectivity refers to the dispositional tendency to experience certain affective states over time, where affective states are experiences of emotion (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). Positive affectivity (PA) is the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert. High PA is characterized by a typical state of high energy and pleasure whereas low PA is characterized by a more lethargic state (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Conversely, negative affectivity (NA) is the chronic experience of distress and unpleasant engagement, with high NA including states of anger, guilt, and disgust whereas low NA involves a state of calmness (Watson et al., 1988). Affect represents a precursor to work attitudes (Brief & Weiss, 2002), thus providing a basis to investigate the relationship between PA/NA and organizational cynicism. Specifically, employees predisposed toward positive affect will be more inclined to see and focus on positive aspects in their immediate work environment, engage in positive interactions at work, and have a more positive outlook toward their organization (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Brandes et al., 2007; Thoresen et al., 2003). Conversely, employees with high negative affectivity tend to engender and experience more negative aspects in their work environment, and are thus more distrustful of and cynical toward their organization (Royle, Hall, Hochwarter, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2005). 2.2.2. Trait cynicism Researchers have conceptualized trait cynicism as a general belief about human nature that other individuals are not to be trusted (Costa, Zonderman, McCrae, & Williams, 1986). Individuals with high trait cynicism tend to believe that humans are selfish, dishonest, and take advantage of others whenever possible (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). They are also pessimistic about what

184


will be gained by being honest, kind-hearted, and complying with rules (Singelis, Hubbard, Her, & An, 2003). These individuals' negative beliefs about human nature and the world thus provide a cognitive framework to guide their observations and thinking about their organization. Individuals with high trait cynicism may readily attribute an unmet expectation (e.g., not being promoted, lack of pay raise) as resulting from a malicious intention or unfair procedures originating in the organization. Based on such arguments, we predict that trait cynicism will positively relate to organizational cynicism, such that a general cynical attitude toward others will be likely to also transfer into a cynical attitude toward the organization.

2.3. Positive workplace experiences as predictors of organizational cynicism 2.3.1. Positive organizational support and cynicism Positive organizational support (POS) refers to employees' “beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501). It also implies that an employee will receive assistance from the organization to effectively carry out one's job and handle stressful situations. Employees may use POS as an indicator of the organization's malevolent or benevolent intention to reward and recognize employee effort (Lynch, Eisenbeger, & Armeli, 1999). Employees who feel that their contributions are not valued by the organization (i.e., low POS) are likely to develop feelings of betrayal. Thus, if employees have low POS, then they are likely to have higher levels of cynicism toward the organization. Research has indicated that POS influences organizational cynicism, such that employees who perceive less support from their organization are more cynical toward it (Byrne & Hochwarter, 2008; Treadway et al., 2004). In line with these findings, we posit a negative relationship between POS and organizational cynicism.

2.3.2. Organizational justice and cynicism Organizational justice refers to employees' perceptions of the extent to which they are fairly treated in the organization (Greenberg, 1988). There are several types of justice commonly researched: distributive, procedural, and interactional. Distributive justice refers to an individual's perceptions of the fairness of rewards or resources received (Greenberg & Cropanzano, 2001). Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the “means by which an allocation decision is made” (Greenberg & Cropanzano, 2001, p. 123). Leventhal (1980) suggested that in order for employees to believe procedures are fair, they must be consistent, free from bias, accurate, correctable, representative of the interest of all parties involved, and uphold basic ethical values. Lastly, interactional justice refers to the fairness people perceive in regard to the interpersonal treatment they receive (Greenberg & Cropanzano, 2001). People who perceive interactional justice feel that they have been treated with dignity and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986). All three forms of justice perceptions are related to a host of positive outcomes including higher job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational trust (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Because justice perceptions enhance individuals' commitment to and trust in the organization, they should also reduce individuals' cynicism toward the organization, given the connection between trust and cynicism (Dean et al., 1998; Reichers et al., 1997). In their meta-analysis, Colquitt et al. (2001) provided evidence that low levels of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice are related to negative reactions to the organization. By extension, we expect that an absence (or low levels) of justice should lead employees to develop a cynical, negative, attitude toward the organization. In sum, we posit that perceptions of justice will be negatively related to organizational cynicism.

2.4. Negative workplace experiences as predictors of organizational cynicism 2.4.1. Psychological contract violation and cynicism Psychological contracts are “an individual's beliefs regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between the focal person and another party” (Rousseau, 1989, p. 123). These contracts are not always fulfilled; when breached, the emotional or affective response an employee has to the breach is referred to as contract violation (Rousseau, 1995). When employees feel that their contracts have been violated, they will likely believe that the organization lacks integrity. The perceived psychological contract violation should also produce negative affective states (e.g., anger, frustration) which can in turn fuel organizational cynicism. Thus, we expect that feelings of contract violation may lead people to become cynical toward their organizations.

2.4.2. Perceived organizational politics and cynicism Harrell-Cook, Ferris, and Dulebohn (1999) described the perceptions of organizational politics as involving individual subjective evaluations of observed situations or behaviors as political. Perceptions of organizational politics also include an individual's interpretations of the extent to which co-workers and supervisors engage in political behaviors and create an environment characterized by such behaviors. Moreover, political behavior has been described as inherently self-serving (Ferris & Hochwarter, 2010). Employees who perceive the organization to be acting in its own best interest, rather than in the employees' best interest, will deem the organization as less trustworthy due to its lack of benevolence (Mayer et al., 1995). Perceptions of a lack of trustworthiness can subsequently lead employees to develop suspicious and cynical attitudes toward the organization. Thus, we posit that employees' perceptions of organizational politics will be positively related to organizational cynicism.


185

2.4.3. Psychological strain and cynicism Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined psychological stress as an individual's appraisal of the environmental demands as taxing or exceeding his or her resources to cope with the demands. This definition focuses on the interaction between the person and the environment and suggests that stress results from individuals' appraisals of the environment and attempts to cope with issues that arise. In this study, we focus on strain, which refers to the individual responses to stress (Beehr & Franz, 1987). A significant amount of strain, such as being overloaded, can lead employees to feel that their social exchange with the organization is inequitable or unfavorable; that is, they feel that they are being exploited by their organization (Banks, Whelpley, Oh, & Shin, 2012). Research has also reported a positive correlation between emotional exhaustion and organizational cynicism (e.g., Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003). Employees with high psychological strain that arises from role ambiguity or being unable to fulfill family responsibilities may question the efficiency and fairness of the organizational procedures. They may be irritated by the unspecified job descriptions and perceive that the organization cares little about their family life. Based on the rationale above, we posit that experienced psychological strain at work will result in negative attitudes toward the organization, leading to feelings of organizational cynicism. 2.5. Organizational cynicism and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes 2.5.1. Cynicism and job satisfaction Originally defined as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300), job satisfaction is now conceptualized as an attitude consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Hulin and Judge (2003) defined job satisfaction as the evaluations of one's job, emotional responses to events that occur on the job, and prior behavior. Research has explored a number of antecedents for job satisfaction, including job complexity, organizational climate, and justice perceptions (Schleicher, Hansen, & Fox, 2010). We propose that individuals who have higher levels of cynicism toward the organization will have lower levels of job satisfaction. This is because their cynical attitude toward the organization can extend to their attitudes to their job through mechanisms such as affect infusion; the negative feeling resulting from cynical attitudes toward the organization may dampen evaluations of their job experiences (Forgas, 1995). As we noted earlier, cynicism may result from the perceptions such as a lack of organizational support and justice, which have demonstrated to be strong predictors of job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009). Consistent with this, researchers have found a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and job satisfaction (Eaton, 2000; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 1994). 2.5.2. Cynicism and organizational commitment Organizational commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to the goals of the organization (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). It reflects the psychological attachment an individual feels toward the organization (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), and is experienced through three mindsets: affective commitment, normative commitment, and continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The commitment mindset that is most relevant to organizational cynicism is affective commitment, which is the employee's emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. Individuals with high organizational cynicism are characterized by a distrustful attitude and negative affect toward the organization. Because a certain level of trust, or a belief that the organization will have employees' interest in mind, is critical for organizational members to establish deep emotional bond with the organization, organizational cynicism should be associated with low levels of commitment to the organization. This proposition is consistent with research demonstrating a negative relationship between cynicism and organizational commitment (e.g., Eaton, 2000; Tesluk, Vance, & Mathieu, 1999). 2.5.3. Cynicism and intention to quit Turnover has severe consequences for organizations in terms of financial costs (90% to 200% of annual pay; Cascio, 2006; Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee, 2001), which accumulate mostly due to separation costs (e.g., temporary coverage, loss of clients, loss of seasoned mentors) and replacement costs (e.g., recruitment, selection, training; Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). As turnover intentions have been found to be among the strongest predictors of turnover, it is critical to understand the factors that influence an individual's intention to quit (Allen et al., 2010). Mobley (1977) proposed that the turnover process starts when people evaluate their jobs and working conditions. A negative evaluation of their work environment can lead employees to feel dissatisfied about their job and elicit turnover intentions. Individuals who have overly cynical attitudes toward the organization will, in general, also espouse negative attitudes toward their job (e.g., low job satisfaction) and organization (e.g., low organizational commitment), leading to withdrawal cognition or turnover intentions. Thus, we posit a positive relationship between organizational cynicism and intention to quit. 2.5.4. Cynicism and job performance From a theoretical standpoint, organizational cynicism has been proposed to negatively influence job performance. At the same time, researchers have noted that cynical employees can be a positive force of change and thus influence work effectiveness positively, especially in situations where employees need to play “devil's advocate” and challenge ineffective routines or policies (Brandes & Das, 2006, pp. 253–254). Overall, however, our prediction is consistent with most of the existing arguments, and we expect cynicism to be a negative predictor of job performance. In particular, cynical employees, given their frustration and disappointment with the organization, may perceive an absence of close connection between performance and reward, or lower

186


levels of instrumentality (Wilkerson, 2002). Such low levels of perceived instrumentality can lead to reduced effort and performance (see Sims & Szilagyi, 1975, for a review). 2.6. Relative importance: is cynicism (“bad”) stronger than trust (“good”)? A sizeable literature exists on asymmetric effects based on the valence or interpretation of “bad” versus “good” events, or perceptions of them. Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001), for example, proposed that negative events have a greater impact on an individual than positive events. They suggest that there are many good events which can help overcome the psychological effects of bad events, however, if there were equally bad and good events, the bad events would have had a greater psychological effect. A similar stronger effect of the negative have been suggested in both social psychology (Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989; Taylor, 1991) and management (Labianca & Brass, 2006; Pereira Lopes, Cunha, & Rego, 2011). In line with these propositions positing a stronger influence of the negative, we empirically examine the relative importance of organizational cynicism (negative) compared with organizational trust (positive). Organizational trust has been shown to increase job satisfaction and commitment and reduce employees' intentions to quit, while having little impact on their job performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Based on the aforementioned positioning of negative aspects as more influential, we expect organizational cynicism to influence attitudinal and behavioral outcomes to a greater extent than organizational trust would. To be able to compare with prior meta-analytic results based on Dirks and Ferrin (2002), we focus on four outcomes: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to quit, and job performance. 3. Method 3.1. Literature search We conducted an extensive literature search to identify both published and unpublished articles that examined the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational cynicism to minimize potential availability bias. The articles were identified through multiple electronic databases and multiple methods, including electronic searches of the PsychINFO (1887–2010), ABI/Inform (1971– 2010), Web of Science, and Google Scholar using “cynicism” as a keyword. We also supplemented the electronic search with a manual search of reference lists of key articles on the topic (e.g., Dean et al., 1998). As a result of these comprehensive search efforts, we retrieved 187 published articles and book chapters and unpublished reports. 3.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria To be included in the current meta-analysis, primary studies had to meet the following criteria. First, we included only primary studies that empirically examined organizational cynicism in typical organizational settings. In terms of construct operationalization, representative measures of organizational cynicism are the ones provided by Brandes, Dharwadkar, and Dean (1999), Brooks and Vance (1991), and Tesluk et al. (1999). Because their construct domain presented insufficient overlap with our constitutive definition of cynicism, we excluded primary studies examining burnout cynicism (also known as depersonalization; e.g., Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996), police cynicism (Regoli & Poole, 1979) and change cynicism (cynicism about organizational changes such as new intervention programs; e.g., Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). In contrast to organizational cynicism (a negative attitude toward the organization), burnout cynicism presents a negative attitude toward and an attempt to disengage from one's job. Although both organizational cynicism and change cynicism target at the organization, the latter is narrower and more specific in its domain. Second, to be included in the current meta-analysis, primary studies had to measure one of the variables (antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of organizational cynicism) included in Fig. 1. In particular, consistent with other related meta-analyses (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), job performance (e.g., overall, task, contextual/organizational citizenship behavior; OCB, or counterproductive work behavior; CWB) had to be measured at the individual level using non-self-reported measures; among the four studies included, three studies were based on supervisor ratings and one study was based on company records. Third, we included only primary studies based on samples of employees in organizations to generalize our findings to general employees. Fourth, we included only primary studies that reported sufficient data necessary to calculate an effect size (correlation coefficient). We contacted authors for zero-order correlations if not provided in the original articles. As a result of this search, 32 primary studies (34 independent samples) are included. In Appendix A, we provide the main codes and input values of each primary study/sample included in the meta-analysis. 3.3. Coding procedures The second and fourth authors were involved in coding, with each author coding a subset of the primary studies. They coded the correlations between organizational cynicism and the proposed correlates. Information such as scale reliability, sample size, response rate, sample characteristics (e.g., job/organizational type) and study design features (e.g., longitudinal vs. cross-sectional design) were also coded. To verify coding accuracy, the two authors independently coded the same subset of primary studies (23%), achieving a high inter-rater agreement rate (97%). All the remaining discrepancies were resolved


187

through double-checking the primary studies in question and a series of discussions with other authors. The third author not involved in initial data coding randomly checked 50 correlations and found one common error (i.e., failing to adjust the sign of correlations for the same dummy code for gender). All the related correlations were thoroughly re-checked for the sign of correlations, without revealing other errors. Finally, the lead author randomly examined 20% of the primary studies and found no other issues. 3.4. Meta-analytic procedures Consistent with most meta-analyses in management, organizational sciences, and applied psychology, we used the Schmidt–Hunter's psychometric random-effects meta-analysis method to synthesize effect size estimates across primary studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes, 2009). Because most primary studies reported reliability estimates, we used individual correction methods (VG6 Module; Schmidt & Le, 2004). Observed correlation coefficients reported were corrected for measurement error in both the independent and dependent variables using local reliability estimates available from the primary studies. Frequency-weighted mean reliabilities (coefficients alpha in all cases) are .85 (SD = .06, k = 34). We imputed the frequency-weighted mean reliability for a small number of primary studies that did not report reliability. In synthesizing corrected correlations across samples, we maintained statistical independence in each meta-analysis (relationship). Each sample was used only once for each meta-analytic relationship, such that only one data point per sample was retained. If necessary, a composite correlation or an average correlation was used. We examined the variability of the corrected correlations across samples by calculating 80% credibility intervals and the standard error of (error band around) the mean true-score correlations by computing their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). If credibility intervals are wide and include zero, this suggests possible moderating effects (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Similarly, we also reported the percentage of the variability (%Var) in correlations across samples that were accounted for by both sampling error and measurement error. This provides additional information to aid the interpretation of potential moderating effects; a lower percentage indicates potential moderating effects. If the 95% CIs are wide and include zero, this suggests that the effect size does not differ from zero or is not statistically significant. 3.5. Publication bias check Publication bias represents a threat to the robustness of meta-analytic results and evidence-based practice (Banks, Kepes, & McDaniel, 2012; Banks & McDaniel, 2011; Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012). Three publication bias tests were completed to evaluate the potential presence and degree of potential publication bias: (a) Egger's test of the intercept (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997); (b) the moderate and severe a priori weight-function model technique (Vevea & Woods, 2005); (c) the trim and fill test (Duval, 2005) supplemented with the contour-enhanced funnel plot (Palmer, Peters, Sutton, & Moreno, 2008). Analyses were conducted in distributions with at least k = 10 in order to not confound potential publication bias and second order sampling error (Sterne, Sutton, Loannidis, et al., 2011). 4. Results Table 1 shows meta-analytic evidence for the relationships of organizational cynicism with its hypothesized correlate (organizational trust), antecedents, and consequences. Starting with demographic variables, even though we do not posit any specific a priori direction for them, for completeness, we report information on their relationships with organizational cynicism. As Spector and Brannick (2011) argue, “controls should not be entered blindly in analyses under the belief that they will purify results” (p. 296). Below, we provide specific effect sizes for the relationship between respondents' age, education, gender, and work tenure and organizational cynicism. If there are theoretical reasons to include such controls, and if effect sizes are significant, researchers may opt for their inclusion. As our data indicates, the relationships between all demographic variables and organizational cynicism are weak and non-significant, with the lowest effect size (true-score correlation, ρ^ ) exhibited by age (−.02) and the highest by work tenure (.11) (mean ρ^ = .00). Based on our results, researchers need strong theoretical reasons to include demographic variables as controls in models predicting organizational cynicism. Concerning expected effect sizes, first, Table 1 shows that the true-score correlation between organizational trust and cynicism is strong at ρ^ = − .63 (k = 6, N = 1063), but it does not reach unity; its 95% CI does not include one, which suggests that it is unlikely that organizational trust and cynicism are completely redundant with each other. That is, they are related yet distinct as stand-alone constructs. As distal hypothesized antecedents of organizational cynicism, positive affectivity is negatively related with organizational cynicism and negative affectivity is positively related to organizational cynicism. Negative affectivity (ρ^ = .33, k = 12, N = 2337) and trait cynicism ( ρ^ = .27, k = 6, N = 1042) have a somewhat higher true-score correlation with organizational cynicism than does positive affectivity (ρ^ = −.23, k = 7, N = 1574). As proximal hypothesized antecedents of organizational trust, perceived organizational support (ρ^ = − .63, k = 4, N = 957) and organizational justice ( ρ^ = − .55, k = 5, N = 1500) are found to have strong, negative true-score correlations with organizational cynicism. Three different forms of organizational justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) have similar true-score correlations with organizational cynicism (ρ^ = − .50, − .51, and − .58 for interactional, distributive, and

188


Table 1 Antecedents and consequences of organizational cynicism. Variable Organizational trust ← →cynicism Demographics → cynicism Age Work tenure Education level Gender (m > f) Employee disposition → cynicism Positive affectivity Negative affectivity Trait cynicism Positive workplace experience → cynicism Perceived organizational support Perceived justice Distributive justice Procedural justice Interactional justice Negative workplace experience → cynicism Psychological contract violation Perceived organizational politics Psychological strain Cynicism → attitudinal and behavioral outcomes Job satisfaction Organizational commitment Intention to quit Job performance (non-self-reported)

N

r

SDr

ρ^

SDp

CVLL

CVUL

CILL

CIUL

%Var

6

1063

−.53

.15

−.63

.15

[−.82

−.43]

[−.76

−.50]

15%

16 16 5 14

4759 5050 2878 4016

−.02 .10 −.06 −.02

.07 .10 .05 .05

−.02 .11 −.06 −.03

.03 .09 .02 .00

[−.06 [.00 [−.09 [−.03

.03] .23] −.03] −.03]

[−.05 [.06 [−.10 [−.06

.02] .15] −.02] .01]

78% 32% 78% 100%

7 12 6

1574 2337 1042

−.21 .29 .23

.18 .13 .11

−.23 .33 .27

.19 .13 .10

[−.48 [.16 [.14

.01] .50] .40]

[−.38 [.25 [.17

−.08] .42] .37]

12% 25% 41%

4 5 2 4 2

957 1560 433 1200 433

−.56 −.47 −.44 −.47 −.43

.09 .06 .05 .05 .00

−.63 −.55 −.51 −.58 −.50

.09 .07 .00 .03 .00

[−.74 [−.64 [−.51 [−.62 [−.50

−.52] −.47] −.51] −.54] −.50]

[−.73 [−.62 [−.59 [−.63 [−.58

−.54] −.48] −.43] −.52] −.43]

26% 37% 100% 76% 100%

6 3 6

1037 820 2150

.45 .49 .23

.19 .11 .09

.51 .55 .30

.19 .09 .07

[.26 [.44 [.20

10 12 5 4

2200 3929 1392 737

−.50 −.43 .33 −.09

.13 .13 .07 .07

−.58 −.52 .39 −.10

.15 .13 .03 .01

[−.77 [−.69 [.36 [−.11

k

.76] .67] .39] −.39] −.35] .43] −.08]

[.35 [.44 [.23 [−.68 [−.60 [.34 [−.17

.67] .67] .37]

11% 24% 43%

−.48] −.44] .44] −.02]

14% 14% 86% 97%

Note. k = number of independent samples; N = total sample size; r = sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation; SDr = sample-size-weighted observed standard deviation of correlations; ρ^ = mean true-score correlation (corrected for unreliability for both variables); SDρ = standard deviation of corrected correlations; CVLL and CVUL = lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 80% credibility interval; CILL and CIUL = lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% confidence interval around the mean true-score correlation; %Var = percentage of variance attributable to statistical artifacts. Job performance is based on non-self-reported data.

procedural justice, respectively). Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found a similar pattern of for organizational trust; true-score results correlations between organizational trust and three forms of organizational justice ρ^ range from .51 to .63 assuming that the reliability forboth the measures is .85. [Dirks and Ferrin (2002, Table 3) reported only sample-size weighted mean observed correlations ρ^ of .43, .52, and .53 for interactional, distributive, and procedural justice, respectively.] Psychological contract violation ( ρ^ = .51, k = 6, N = 1037) and perceived organizational politics ( ρ^ = .55, k = 3, N = 820) are also strongly, positively related to organizational cynicism. However, psychological strain (e.g., role overload, role conflict) is only moderately, positively related to organizational cynicism (ρ^ = .30, k = 6, N = 2150). The bottom part of Table 1 shows that organizational cynicism has strong true-score correlations with hypothesized attitudinal outcomes (job satisfaction at (ρ^ = −.58 [k = 10, N = 2200], organizational commitment at −.52 [k = 12, N = 3929], and intent to quit at (ρ^ = 39 [k = 5, N = 1392]), but only a modest true-score correlation with non-self-reported job performance (ρ^ = −.10, k = 4, N = 737).1

4.1. Relative importance of organizational trust and cynicism One of the purposes of this study is to determine the relative importance of organizational trust and cynicism in relation to attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (see Table 2). In determining the relative importance of organizational trust and cynicism, we decided to supplement regression analyses with relative weights analyses (Johnson, 2000) given the strong true-score correlation between organizational trust and cynicism (ρ^ = − .63 as shown in Table 1). Similar to general dominance, relative weight (RW) also broadly represents the average contribution of a predictor to the total R 2, net of the other predictors (Budescu,

1 Three primary studies were based on overall performance or the composite of task and contextual performance whereas one study was based only on contextual performance. The results did not differ by performance type; note that the percent variance explained is almost 100%, suggesting that moderators are unlikely. In addition, the true-score correlation based on self-reports of job performance is estimated at −.18 (k = 9, N = 2139). We provide this value for informational purposes only; the detailed results are available from the authors upon request.


189

Table 2 Relative importance of organization trust and organizational cynicism in predicting attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Variable

Organizational trust Organizational cynicism Overall R Overall R2

Job satisfaction

Organizational commitment

Intention to quit

Job performance

r

β

%RW

r

β

%RW

r

β

%RW

r

β

%RW

.48a −.50 .56 .31

.30 −.34

47 53

.57a −.43 .59 .35

.48 −.18

70 30

−.48a .33 .49 .24

−.42 .11

75 25

.00a −.09 .11 .01

−.07 −.13

14 86

Note. r = Sample-size-weighted mean correlation; β = standardized regression weights; %RW = percentage of relative weight; Overall R = multiple correlation of organizational trust and organizational cynicism. a Values from Dirks and Ferrin (2002); Dirks and Ferrin reported only sample-size-weighted mean correlations for organizational trust, so the above regression and relative weights analyses were conducted using sample-size-weighted mean correlations for both organizational trust (reported in Dirks & Ferrin, 2002, Table 3) and organizational cynicism (reported in Table 1 of the current study).

1993; Johnson, 2000). Particularly, percentages of relative weights calculated by dividing individual relative weights by their sum (total R 2) and multiplying by 100 that sum up to 100% are useful and intuitive indices of relative importance among predictors. Organizational cynicism is slightly more important than trust in predicting job performance (%RW = 86% vs. 14%; β = −.13 vs. − .07; Table 2); organizational trust is more important in predicting commitment (%RW = 70% vs. 30%; β = .48 vs. − .18) and intent to quit (%RW = 75% vs. 25%; β = − .42 vs. .11). Organizational cynicism and organizational trust are equally important in predicting job satisfaction (%RW = 47% vs. 53%; β = −.34 vs. .30).

4.2. Publication bias Egger's test of the intercept suggested potential publication bias for the cynicism–work tenure and the cynicism–negative affect relationships. The severe a priori weight-function model technique suggested potential publication bias for the cynicism– age relationship. Little to no adjustments were made with the trim and fill method. Overall, the findings largely indicated that most of our results are robust to the threat of publication bias.

5. Discussion The objective of this meta-analysis was to shed light on the antecedents and consequences of organizational cynicism (Fig. 1), and examine the extent to which its prediction is similar to or different from organizational trust, a conceptually relevant construct. Cynicism represents an employee's negative attitude toward their organization as a whole and belief that the organization lacks integrity, whereas trust refers to a positive attitude toward the organization and willingness to be vulnerable to the other party. Cynicism and trust constructs can be situated at the low and high ends on one continuum, although some researchers highlighted their distinctiveness (Dean et al., 1998). We estimated the relationship between these constructs and illustrated that cynicism and trust are strongly related, but still distinct constructs. As expected, results indicate that positive affectivity is negatively related to organizational cynicism, whereas negative affectivity and trait cynicism are positively associated with this outcome. Contextual antecedents of cynicism were also explored. Perceived organizational support and organizational justice present negative relationships with cynicism; distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were separately examined and had similar true-score correlations with organizational cynicism. Further, psychological contract violation and perceived organizational politics were found to be strongly related, and psychological strain moderately related to cynicism. Being able to determine the magnitude of effect sizes concerning both individual difference and contextual factors can provide additional insight on this matter. Organizational cynicism is enhanced by individual negative affectivity and trait cynicism, and diminished by positive affectivity. Maximum effect sizes for such individual characteristics are .33 (for negative affectivity), revolving more typically around .25 (Table 1). Interestingly, the effect size increases to roughly double when contextual factors come into play. Perceived organizational support, for example, has a negative association with organizational cynicism, displaying an effect size of .63. Additionally, effect sizes are over .50 for other contextual predictors, such as positive (fairness) or negative (organizational politics). A preliminary finding, then, is that contextual aspects may matter more for organizational cynicism than individual differences do. Our evidence provides preliminary support for the argument of Dean et al. (1998) that organizational cynicism is “almost certainly based on [negative] experience” (p. 348). These findings need to be corroborated through different designs (e.g., longitudinal), as we elaborate in the future research section, or with a relative importance test, possible when the meta-analytic correlation among the predictors is known.

190


Concerning attitudes and intentions, cynicism was found to be negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and positively related to turnover intentions. We observed larger effect sizes for job satisfaction and organizational commitment than for turnover intentions. This finding is consistent with what has been found in other meta-analyses in which other organizational attitudes or perceptions were involved. For example, when support is provided by the organization, supervisor or coworkers, it influences intention to quit to a lesser extent than it impacts satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Ng & Sorensen, 2008; Riggle et al., 2009). This is possibly due to the broader scope of factors that may impact employees' intentions to leave the organization. Lastly, organizational cynicism was found to have a modest negative relationship with job performance. Given that we used non-self-reported measures of job performance, the estimation is rather conservative. This negative cynicism–performance relationship also seems to be quite consistent across studies, although we should be cautious in drawing the conclusion due to the relatively small number of primary studies analyzed (k = 4). Nevertheless, this result suggests that cynicism impairs productivity (as shown by a small but significant negative effect size). As productivity issues are a concern of all organizations, more scholarly and practical work on organizational cynicism is necessary. Because few primary studies have examined the relationship between cynicism and contextual performance, such as OCBs (Organ, 1988) or CWBs (Spector & Fox, 2002), we are not able to meta-analyze these effect sizes. The Byrne and Hochwarter (2008) study, however, found that the correlation between cynicism and OCBs is approximately twice in magnitude compared with the one with task performance. Thus, cynicism might be more strongly associated with contextual performance which is typically considered volitional or discretionary in nature. An important objective of this meta-analysis was to examine the extent to which organizational trust and cynicism exhibit similarities and differences in relation to outcomes. As expected, we found a fairly strong negative correlation between cynicism and trust. To further illuminate the potential differential impact of cynicism and trust on employee outcomes, we examined their relative importance in influencing job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and job performance. Based on Baumeister et al.'s (2001) “bad is stronger than good” theory, we predicted that organizational cynicism – the “bad” side – would have a greater impact on employee outcomes than organizational trust — the “good” counterpart. However, the results did not show an overall greater association of cynicism with employee outcomes. Cynicism was more important for job performance as an outcome; however, trust was more important for organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Both organizational cynicism and trust demonstrate equal importance in their relationship with job satisfaction. We speculate that a certain level of trust may be required to develop high commitment. Thus, the extent that individuals lack trust (i.e., more cynical) in the organization may matter less because even a moderate level of organizational cynicism falls short of the minimum requirement of trust in developing commitment. The weak (zero) relationship between trust and performance may be due to the fact that there are many more important factors (e.g., ability, job skills, experience) that determine performance levels. Having a high level of trust in the organization alone may not improve job performance. In contrast to those constraints of improving performance, it can be much easier for individuals to intentionally reduce their performance. Having a negative, cynical attitude toward the organization may be sufficient to motivate individuals to withdraw effort from work, resulting in lower levels of performance given lack of perceived instrumentality of high performance among cynical employees (Wilkerson, 2002). 5.1. Practical implications Our findings have practical implications. From an organizational standpoint, to decrease employee cynicism, supportive environments, fairness, low levels of psychological contract violation, and of organizational politics can help achieve this goal. In addition to designing such features through organizational policies or culture, they are also more likely to be present when specific organizational interventions (e.g., leadership training, emphasizing fairness) are used. From a micro, individual perspective, when organizations attempt to diminish the number of cynical employees in their ranks, selection strategies can target applicants high in positive and low in negative affect. In the light of the effect sizes we obtained, this latter strategy may be less impactful. Most likely, combining the macro (“O”) side through organizational policies and interventions and the micro (“I”) side using personnel selection to recruit the right people, will achieve higher rates of success. 5.2. Limitations As any meta-analysis, our study has a number of limitations. First, we cannot determine cause and effect because we meta-analyzed (mostly cross-sectional) field studies rather than experiments. Thus, it is worth entertaining the possibility of reverse relationships. Cynical employees may be biased to report lower levels of support from their organizations, or more violations of their psychological contracts. With future research in mind, it is still to be determined “whether Dilbert fuels workplace cynicism or whether cynical people seek out Dilbert” (Rogelberg, cited in Jones, 1998, p. 16). Since an insufficient number of longitudinal studies were in our dataset, future research is necessary to establish with more clarity the causality of the relationships. Lack of information from primary studies also precluded testing more complex models, involving mediating and moderating mechanisms, or models with a longer causal chain (e.g., cynicism to commitment to intention to quit; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).


191

These can be examined in future work alongside boundary conditions not examined in this study due to the shortage of primary studies. Finally, we used a definition of cynicism that reflects a more conventional stance in organizational sciences. Alternative definitions, through a radical humanistic lens, present cynicism as resistance: a defensive mechanism for employees (e.g., Fleming & Spicer, 2003). Even finer conceptual distinctions can be made (e.g., between kynics and cynics; see Karfakis & Kokkinidis, 2011; Sloterdijk, 2008). Evidently, such nuanced conceptual differences are not readily discernible in existing cynicism operationalizations, and were glossed over in this study. The meta-analysis has specific strengths. First, we present a relatively comprehensive nomological network of organizational cynicism. Second, we integrate organizational cynicism and organizational trust-related literatures by using relative importance (Johnson, 2000; Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011) to determine the strength of relationships across the two seemingly opposite predictors: organizational trust and cynicism. Lastly, this study helps clarify inconsistent findings in the literature (e.g., Hochwarter et al., 2004; Treadway et al., 2004). 5.3. Future research In this study, organizational cynicism was not explored as a mediator, due to the absence of data based on primary or cumulative studies. To test mediation patterns, it is necessary to construct meta-analytic matrices connecting the predictors, mediator, and outcomes. As more data becomes available, future research can explore organizational cynicism as mediator, examined simultaneously with organizational trust. Additionally, the literature posits other – more specific – forms of cynicism. Change-specific cynicism involves “disbelief of management stated implied motives for a specific organizational change” (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005, p. 436). This form of cynicism posits negative attitudes specifically toward change-oriented initiatives. In future studies, it may be easier to establish cause-and-effect relationships if change-oriented cynicism is assessed. For example, employees who have been through unsuccessful change initiatives may display subsequent increase in this context-based form of cynicism. Organizational cynicism, however, may accumulate in a more chronic fashion and results from the on-going interaction between the individual and his/her context (organization). It is also possible for positive and negative work environment aspects to differentially influence organizational cynicism depending on characteristics of the individual. Lack of support may lead to more cynicism among employees who construe their relationships with their organization in relational rather than transactional terms. Individuals also differ in their tendency to engage in more (or less) social exchanges (e.g., based on their weak or strong levels of employee exchange ideology; Eisenberger, Cotterell, & Marvel, 1987). Employees with weak exchange ideologies may be less sensitive to a lack of a supportive social climate, which may lead to a diminished influence of the organizational climate factors on cynicism. Similarly, employees may react to equity or its absence as a function of their equity sensitivity which refers to individual differences in their preferences of or sensitivity to output/input ratios (as classified by Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987; Scott & Colquitt, 2007). Persons who are less sensitive to equity may respond to a lack of organizational justice less strongly, resulting in a weaker relationship between justice and cynicism. Future research can examine these possibilities and the importance of context in relation to individual differences. Sources and targets of trust and cynicism can be examined, by including the extent to which these attitudes are directed toward the other employees, the direct manager, upper management, or the organization. Dispositionally cynical (or trustful) employees may be so toward any target, while a differential pattern may be present for employees whose trust or cynicism has a source other than their own inclinations. From an outcome standpoint, except for Naus et al. (2007) who related organizational cynicism to self-reports of voice, no other primary study has linked organizational cynicism to challenging or change-oriented OCBs (e.g., voice, taking charge; Chiaburu, Lorinkova, & Van Dyne, 2013; Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardener, 2011). Yet boundary conditions may be present: employees cynical of their organization could initially engage in challenging forms of OCB as long as they feel psychological safety or they feel that coworkers or supervisors support them (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Future research can examine the potential positive effect of cynicism on job performance through challenging OCB, as some innovative ideas originate from challenging, rather than maintaining, the status quo. Finally, it is also possible that social support (e.g., coworkers' support, supervisory support) and supportive resources (e.g., positive job characteristics, emotional stability, and psychological capital) may interact with organizational cynicism in determining employee outcomes. In particular, in line with the conservation of resources theory, social support and positive resources may alleviate the negative influence of organizational cynicism on employee outcomes. That is, employees with greater personal or job resources (e.g., more hardy and resilient or with high job control) are less vulnerable to negative attitudes or poor performance that arise from organizational cynicism. 6. Conclusion With around half of the workforce described as displaying cynical attitudes and behaviors (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), employee cynicism cannot be dismissed as inconsequential. Dilbert comic strips (Feldman, 2000) and organizational artifacts and practices that mean to capture organizational cynicism (Costello, 1998; Kersten, 2005) are also indicative of a lasting, and possibly ascending trend. As we confirm across studies and settings, organizational cynicism is driven by both employees' dispositions and

192


context, with the latter exerting a stronger influence. Organizational cynicism is related to negative attitudes (such as a lack of commitment and turnover intentions). It is also associated with decreased performance, to a greater extent than organizational trust. We suggest that more studies investigate organizational practices that can reduce employee cynicism, or factors that diminish its negative consequences.

Appendix A

Main codes and input values of each primary study/sample included in the meta-analysis. Author

Year

Pub status

n

r

rxx

ryy

Variable

Abad Arabaci Arabaci Adams Adams Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Bashir et al. Bashir et al. Bedeian Bedeian Bedeian Bedeian Bedeian Bedeian Bernerth et al. Bernerth et al. Bernerth et al. Bernerth et al. Bernerth et al. Bernerth et al. Brandes et al. Brandes et al. Brandes et al. Brandes et al. Brandes et al. Brandes et al. Brandes et al. Brown & Cregan Brown & Cregan Brown & Cregan Brown & Cregan Brown & Cregan Byrne & Hochwarter Byrne & Hochwarter Byrne & Hochwarter Byrne & Hochwarter Byrne & Hochwarter Byrne & Hochwarter Byrne & Hochwarter Byrne & Hochwarter Byrne & Hochwarter Delken Delken

2010 2010 2010 2008 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 1999 1999 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2004 2004

Unpublished Published Published Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Unpublished Unpublished Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Unpublished Unpublished

106 217 217 161 161 473 473 473 473 473 473 149 149 356 356 356 356 356 356 117 117 117 117 117 117 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 1214 1214 1214 1214 1214 143 256 143 256 143 256 143 256 143 39 39

.20 −.21 .36 −.02 −.41 −.09 −.54 −.13 −.05 .28 .09 .26 .23 .08 −.49 .04 .36 −.50 .10 −.36 −.44 −.34 −.38 .03 .14 −.57 −.09 −.03 −.06 .13 −.18 −.13 −.03 −.06 −.03 .16 .21 −.07 −.03 .37 .30 −.39 −.50 −.05 .07 −.23 .09 −.25

.89 .92 .92 .88 .88 .84 .84 .84 .84 .84 .84 .79 .79 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .81 .81 .81 .81 .81 .81 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .70 .70 .70 .70 .70 .86 .87 .86 .87 .86 .87 .86 .87 .86 .89 .89

.90 .77 .71 .95 .95 1.00 .88 1.00 1.00 .84 1.00 .88 .77 1.00 .88 1.00 .89 .94 1.00 .82 .74 .85 .80 1.00 1.00 .89 .92 1.00 1.00 .79 .83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .79 1.00 1.00 1.00 .83 .90 .93 .86 1.00 1.00 .78 1.00 1.00

Negative affect Job satisfaction Stress Negative affect Org. trust Age OC Education level Gender (m > f) Intent to quit Tenure POP PCV Age OC Gender (m > f) Intent to quit Job satisfaction Tenure Distributive justice Interactional justice Procedural justice Overall justice Age Tenure OC Job performance Age Gender (m > f) Negative affect Positive affect Tenure Age Education level Gender (m > f) Stress Tenure Age Age Negative affect Negative affect POS POS Tenure Tenure Job performance Age Gender (m > f)

(S1) (S2) (S1) (S2) (S1) (S2) (S1) (S2) (S1)


193

Appendix A (continued) Author

Year

Pub status

n

r

rxx

ryy

Variable

Delken Delken Eaton (S1) Eaton (S2) Eaton (S1) Eaton (S2) Eaton (S1) Eaton (S2) Eaton (S1) English & Chalon Evans et al. Evans et al. Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. Hochwarter et al. James James James James James James James James James James James Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly Kim et al. Kim et al. Kim et al. Luczywek Luczywek Luczywek Luczywek McCarthy & Garavan McCarthy & Garavan McCarthy & Garavan McCarthy & Garavan McCarthy & Garavan McClough McClough McClough McClough McClough Mino Mino Naus et al. Naus et al. Naus et al. Naus et al. Naus et al. Pugh et al.

2004 2004 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2011 2011 2011 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2009 2009 2009 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 2002 2002 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2003

Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Published Published Published Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Unpublished Unpublished Published Published Published Published Published Published

39 39 130 124 130 130 124 124 130 1104 188 188 316 316 316 316 316 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 103 103 103 103 103 103 146 146 146 247 247 247 247 520 520 520 520 520 97 97 97 97 97 410 410 159 159 159 159 159 139

.62 .09 −.60 .39 −.21 −.61 −.72 .21 .27 −.34 −.02 −.44 −.47 −.43 −.53 −.58 .11 −.07 −.06 .04 .40 .53 .11 −.47 .03 .11 .38 −.41 .07 .04 −.11 .35 .55 −.05 −.65 −.18 .40 .27 −.50 −.01 .62 −.57 .33 .10 −.02 −.39 .05 −.45 .25 −.40 .69 −.47 .07 −.04 .21 −.05 −.52 .41 −.66 .32 −.65 −.23 −.39 .05 .05 .46 .40 .16 −.02

.89 .89 .86 .87 .86 .86 .87 .87 .86 .80 .87 .87 .85 .85 .85 .85 .85 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .82 .82 .82 .85 .85 .85 .85 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .85 .85 .85 .85 .85 .69 .69 .75 .75 .75 .75 .75 .92

.86 1.00 .85 .72 .86 .90 .89 .82 .80 .85 1.00 .86 .92 .93 .87 .93 .82 1.00 1.00 1.00 .82 .85 .90 .86 1.00 1.00 .82 .93 1.00 1.00 1.00 .86 .92 .98 .87 .88 .86 .87 .87 .75 .94 .89 .86 .82 1.00 .76 1.00 .81 .87 .92 .91 .71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .80 .92 .75 .80 .86 .85 .93 1.00 1.00 .90 .87 1.00 1.00

PCV Tenure OC Negative affect Positive affect Job satisfaction Job satisfaction Trait cynicism Trait cynicism OC Gender (m > f) Job satisfaction Distributive justice Interactional justice Procedural justice Overall justice Trait cynicism Age Education level Gender (m > f) Negative affect POP Positive affect Job satisfaction Tenure Tenure Trait cynicism Overall justice Age Education level Gender (m > f) Negative affect POP Job performance POS Positive affect PCV Stress OC Negative affect PCV Job satisfaction Stress Trait cynicism Age OC Gender (m > f) Procedural justice Negative affect Positive affect PCV Procedural justice Age Education level Tenure Tenure OC Intent to quit Job satisfaction Stress Org. trust Oc Org. trust Age Gender (m > f) Intent to quit Stress Tenure Age (continued on next page)

194


Appendix A (continued) Author

Year

Pub status

Pugh et al. Pugh et al. Pugh et al. Royle et al. Royle et al. Royle et al. Royle et al. Royle et al. Seo et al. Seo et al. Stanley et al. Stanley et al. Tesluk et al. Tesluk et al. Treadway et al. Treadway et al. Treadway et al. Treadway et al. Treadway et al. Treadway et al. Treadway et al. Treadway et al. Treadway et al. Wilkerson et al. Wilkerson et al. Wilkerson et al.

2003 2003 2003 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2011 2011 2005 2005 1999 1999 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2008 2008 2008

Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published

n 139 139 139 199 199 199 199 199 307 307 58 58 476 476 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 105 105 105

r

rxx

ryy

Variable

−.01 .20 −.78 −.13 −.02 .39 −.37 .04 −.25 .26 .24 −.66 −.62 −.60 −.13 −.52 −.02 .38 −.58 −.37 −.39 .05 −.65 −.04 −.04 .11

.92 .92 .92 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .84 .84 .83 .83 .85 .85 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .86 .86 .86

1.00 .91 .93 1.00 1.00 .88 .89 1.00 .73 .60 .78 .81 .80 .74 1.00 .87 1.00 .88 .90 .89 .91 1.00 .87 1.00 .76 1.00

Gender (m > f) PCV Org. trust Age Gender (m > f) Negative affect Positive affect Tenure OC Intent to quit Trait cynicism Org. trust OC Job satisfaction Age OC Gender (m > f) Negative affect Pos Positive affect Job satisfaction Tenure Org. trust Gender (m > f) Job performance Tenure

Note. OC = organizational commitment; PCV = psychological contract violation; POS = perceived organizational support; POP = perceived organizational politics; S1 = Sample 1; S2 = Sample 2.

References *Abad, K. (2010). The influence of disposition, organizational cynicism, and equity sensitivity on workplace deviance. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Walden University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). *Adams, J. E. (2008). Development and validation of the corporate distrust scale. Bowling Green, Ohio: Graduate College of Bowling Green State University (Unpublished thesis). Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspective, 49, 48–64. Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49, 1395–1418. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/001872679604901102. *Arabaci, B. (2010). The effects of depersonalization and organizational cynicism levels on the job satisfaction of educational inspectors. African Journal of Business Management, 4, 2802–2811 (Retrieved from www.academicjournals.org/AJBM) Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470. Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012a). Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 182–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00591.x. Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidence-based I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 40–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01292.x. Banks, G. C., Whelpley, C. E., Oh, I. -S., & Shin, K. (2012b). (How) are emotionally exhausted employees harmful? International Journal of Stress Management, 19(3), 198–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029249. *Barnes, L. L. (2010). The effects of organizational cynicism on community colleges: Exploring concepts from positive psychology. Claremont, California: Claremont Graduate University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). *Bashir, S., Nasir, Z. M., Saeed, S., & Ahmed, M. (2011). Breach of psychological contract, perception of politics and organizational cynicism: Evidence from Pakistan. African Journal of Business, 5, 844–888 (Retrieved from www.academicjournals.org/AJBM) Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323. *Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “Ivory”, it isn't “White:” Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 9–32 (Retrieved from www.bus.lsu.edu/management/faculty/abedeian/articles) Beehr, T. A., & Franz, T. (1987). The current debate about the meaning of job stress. In J. M. Ivancevich, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Job stress: From theory to suggestion (pp. 5–18). New York: Haworth Press. *Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Justice, cynicism, and commitment: A study of important organizational change variables. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 303–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886306296602. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Baszerma (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations, Vol. 1. (pp. 43–55)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.342. *Brandes, P., Castro, S. L., James, M. S. L., Martinez, A. D., Matherly, T. A., Ferris, G. R., et al. (2007). The interactive effects of job insecurity and organizational cynicism on work effort following a layoff. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14, 233–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071791907311967. Brandes, P., & Das, D. (2006). Locating behavioral cynicism at work: Construct issues and performance implications. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, 5, 233–266. *Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., & Dean, J. W. (1999). Does organizational cynicism matter? Employee and supervisor perspectives on work outcomes. Paper presented at the 36th Annual EAM Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


195

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156. Brooks, S., & Vance, R. (1991). Organizational cynicism: Initial investigation of a construct Unpublished manuscript. *Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47, 667–686. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/hrm. Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.542. *Byrne, Z., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Perceived organizational support and performance: Relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 54–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810849666. Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. -S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardener, R. G. (2011). The Five-Factor Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–1166. Chiaburu, D. S., Lorinkova, N., & Van Dyne, L. (2013). Employees' social context and change-oriented citizenship: A meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and organizational influences. Group & Organization Management (in press). Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice in the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425. Costa, P., Zonderman, A., McCrae, R., & Williams, R. (1986). Cynicism and paranoid alienation in the Cook and Medley Ho scale. Psychosomatic Medicine, 48, 283–285. Costello, J. (1998). If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style…. Wall Street Journal, B1 (Eastern edition). Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An attributional and leader–member exchange perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 439–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.002. Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341–352. *Delken, M. (2004). Organizational cynicism: A study among call centers. The Netherlands: University of Maastricht (Unpublished master's thesis). Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611. Duval, S. J. (2005). The “trim and fill” method. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 127–144). West Sussex, UK: Wiley. *Eaton, J. A. (2000). A social motivation approach to organizational cynicism. Toronto, Ontario: York University (Unpublished master's thesis). Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 743–750. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500. *English, B., & Chalon, C. (2011). Strengthening affective organizational commitment: The influence of fairness perceptions of management practices and underlying employee cynicism. The Health Care Manager, 30, 29–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0b013e3182078ae2. *Evans, W. R., Goodman, J. M., & Davis, W. D. (2011). The impact of perceived corporate citizenship on organizational cynicism, OCB, and employee deviance. Human Performance, 24, 79–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.530632. Feldman, D. C. (2000). The Dilbert syndrome: How employee cynicism about ineffective management is changing the nature of careers in organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 1286–1300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027640021955865. Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2010). Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3 (pp. 435–459). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. *Fitzgerald, M. R. (2002). Organizational cynicism: Its relationship to perceived organizational injustice and explanatory style. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10, 157–179. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39. Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an image of justices: Looking fair on the job. The Academy of Management Executive, 11, 155–158. Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Advances in organization justice. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Harrell-Cook, G., Ferris, G. R., & Dulebohn, J. H. (1999). Political behaviors as moderators of the perceptions of organizational politics—Work outcomes relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1093–1105. *Hochwarter, W. A., James, M., Johnson, D., & Ferris, G. R. (2004). The interactive effects of politics perceptions and trait cynicism on work outcomes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 44–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190401000404. Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology, 12 (pp. 255–276). New Jersey: Wiley. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Sage. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: the equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222–234. *James, M. S. L. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of cynicism in organization: An examination of the potential positive and negative effects on school systems. Tallahassee, Florida: The Florida State University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19. *Johnson, J. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 627–647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.207. Jones, M. (1998). Dissecting Dilbert. Psychology Today, 31, 16. Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusionment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 624–662. Kersten, E. L. (2005). The art of demotivation. Austin, TX: Despair, Inc. *Kim, T. -Y., Bateman, T. S., Gilbreath, B., & Andersson, L. M. (2009). Top management credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive model. Human Relations, 62, 1435–1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872670934082. Karfakis, N., & Kokkinidis, G. (2011). Rethinking cynicism: Parrhesiastic practices in contemporary workplaces. Culture and Organization, 17(4), 329–345. Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31, 596–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159231. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. (2010). Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 644–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428109345156. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory: New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally. *Luczywek, D. R. (2007). Can personality buffer cynicism? Moderating effects of extraversion and neuroticism in response to workplace hassles. Los Angeles, California: Alliant International University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lynch, P. D., Eisenbeger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 467–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.467.

196


Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/258792. *McCarthy, A. M., & Garavan, T. N. (2007). Understanding acceptance of multisource feedback for management development. Personnel Review, 36, 903–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480710822427. *McClough, A. (1998). Cynicism and the quality of an individual's contribution to an organizational diagnostic survey. Organization Development Journal, 16(2), 31–41 (Retrieved from https://orgscience.uncc.edu) Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326. *Mino, C. E. (2002). Organizational trust, organizational cynicism and organizational commitment during a change initiative. Los Angeles, California: Alliant International University (Unpublished master's thesis). Mirvis, P. H., & Kanter, D. L. (1991). Beyond demography: A psychographic profile of the workforce. Human Resource Management, 30, 45–68. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/hrm.3930300104. Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2001). How to keep your best employees: Developing an effective retention policy. The Academy of Management Executive, 15, 96–108. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240. *Naus, F., van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. (2007). Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model of employees' responses to adverse conditions in the workplace. Human Relations, 60, 683–718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726707079198. Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 33, 243–268. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. Palmer, T. M., Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., & Moreno, S. G. (2008). Contour-enhanced funnel plots for meta-analysis. The Stata Journal, 8, 242–254. Pereira Lopes, M., Cunha, M. P. E., & Rego, A. (2011). Integrating positivity and negativity in management research: The case of paradoxical optimists. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 9, 97–117. *Pugh, S. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Passell, B. S. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims' trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 201–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317903765913704. Regoli, R. M., & Poole, E. D. (1979). Measurement of police cynicism: A factor scaling approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 37–51. Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11, 48–59 (Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/stable/4165371) Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 1027–1030. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Royle, M. T., Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship behavior and political behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13, 53–72. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320. Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey (MBI-GS). In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (pp. 19–26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Schleicher, D. J., Hansen, D., & Fox, K. E. (2010). Job attitudes and work values. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. (pp. 137–189)Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the big five. Group & Organization Management, 32, 290–325. Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Iowa City: Department of Management and Organizations, University of Iowa. Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. -S., & Hayes, T. (2009). Fixed versus random effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97–128. *Seo, Y., Park, S. E., & Kim, C. (2011). An empirical study on the effects of organizational cynicism and EVLN responses on organizational commitment and Pro-union behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contents, 7, 36–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2011.7.2.036. Sims, H. E., & Szilagyi, A. D. (1975). Leader reward behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 426–438. Singelis, T. M., Hubbard, C., Her, P., & An, S. (2003). Convergent validation of the Social Axioms Survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 269–282. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131. Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287–305. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269–292. *Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2. Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., et al. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002. Sloterdijk, P. (2008). Critique of cynical reason (original 1983). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization–minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67. *Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Examining employee involvement in the context of participative work environments. Group & Organization Management, 24, 271–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601199243003. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914. Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1–9. *Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A. P., et al. (2004). Leader political skill and employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 493–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.004. Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It's beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960–2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 308–319. Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (1994). Organizational cynicism: An initial study. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 269–273. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and Organization Management, 25, 132–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601100252003.


197

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063. Wilkerson, J. M. (2002). Organizational cynicism and its impact on human resource management. In G. R. Ferris, M. R. Buckley, & D. B. Fedor (Eds.), Human resources management: Perspectives, context, functions, and outcomes (pp. 532–546). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. *Wilkerson, J. M., Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2008). A test of coworkers' influence on organizational cynicism, badmouthing, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2273–2292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00391.x.