CYNICIAL EMPLOYEES = COMMITTED EMPLOYEES?
Edward Dennehy Nottingham Trent University & National College of Ireland Mayor Street, Dublin 1, (086-8372596)
[email protected]
TRACK: ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR COMPETITIVE PAPER
1
Abstract This article questions the assumptions in the literature regarding the relationship between employee cynicism and organisational commitment. Broadly speaking, employee cynicism is described as employee-statements and terms that suggest that his/her employer lacks integrity (Abraham, 2004; Brandes et al., 1999; Dean et al., 1998; Andersson & Bateman, 1997). A consistent theme identified in the bulk of the employee cynicism-related literature reviewed was the depiction of ‘cynical’ employees as employees who are uncommitted to their employing organisations (Abraham, 2004; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Brandes et al., 1999; Dean et al., 1998). However, despite the acknowledgement by many researchers of the multidimensional nature of organisational commitment (Van Dick, Becker & Meyer, 2006; Herrbach, 2006; Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006; Cole & Bruch, 2006; Meyer, Becker & Van Dick, 2006; Edwards, 2005; Lee et al., 2001; Meyer & Allen, 1991), no study reviewed to-date has specifically examined the relationship between employee cynicism and these different dimensions of organisational commitment. Using a ‘snowball’ sampling method, an online survey of 206 Irish employees was conducted to examine the relationship between employee cynicism and different dimensions of organisational commitment. The results suggest that the relationship between employee cynicism and organisational commitment may vary according to different dimensions of organisational commitment. Therefore, this study has important ramifications for managers who may misinterpret an employee’s employment intentions on the basis of employee actions that are interpreted by a manager as reflecting employee cynicism.
2
Introduction Many scholars claim that there has been a fundamental change in the nature of the employee-employer relationship over the past twenty years or so. Gone are the days of job security and a ‘job for life’, instead, employment outsourcing, ‘rightsizing’, mergers and acquisitions and the subsequent layoffs are the feature of today’s globalised economic environment (Brandes et al., 2008; Naus et al., 2007; Feldman, 2000; Dean et al., 1998; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Herriot & Pemberton, 1995). As a result, it is contended that the current unstable economic environment with its associated job insecurity has resulted in a breakdown of employee trust in employers and increased levels of cynicism (Brandes et al., 2008; Naus et al., 2007; Cartwright & Holmes, 2006; Abraham, 2004; Pugh et al., 2003, Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Feldman, 2000; Pate & Malone, 2000; Dean et al., 1998; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Andersson, 1996).
Not surprisingly, this development of growing cynicism has become an area of concern for many managers who view such attitudes as a disruptive influence on organisational activities where ‘cynical’ employees are sometimes described by managers as ‘negative’ people with an ‘attitude problem’ and dismissed as ‘cranks’ (Lindeirfield, 2003; Cutler, 2000). Cutler (2000) remarks on the tendency of some managers to attempt to develop a management culture which does not ‘tolerate’ cynics and ‘stamps them out’. Similarly, Fitzgerald (2000) claims that proposed management solutions to reduce or eliminate cynicism have included such things as encouraging employees to have ‘positive’ attitudes or marginalising those with cynical attitudes as ‘bad apples’ to be ignored or reprimanded. For example, Disney has identified ‘No Cynicism’ as a core value and an employee’s performance
3
appraisal and reward allocation are partially based on the degree to which they do or do not express a cynical attitude toward the organisation (Collins & Porras, 1994).As Reichers et al. (1997) state, there has been a tendency amongst management to view the expression of cynicism as the core problem as opposed to examining the veracity of employee claims.
However, despite the assertions of the ‘pervasiveness’ and ‘negative’ effects of employee cynicism in many organisations worldwide today, only a very limited number of empirical studies have been carried out on the phenomena, an issue highlighted by Brandes et al. (2008), Naus et al. (2007), Abraham (2004), Dean et al. (1998), Pugh et al. (2003) and
Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly (2003). Johnson &
O’Leary-Kelly (2003) described the literature on employee cynicism as ‘emergent’, suggesting a field in its infancy while Abraham (2004: iii) has referred to the ‘employee cynicism’ literature as “disjointed” and “ill-defined” and described the concept of employee cynicism as “elusive”. This notion of elusiveness is possibly best reflected by a sixty nine item employee cynicism scale developed by Eaton (2000: 25) who stated that “items were selected based on various aspects discussed in the literature, and included the following components: trust, alienation, powerlessness, responsibility, faith, despair, hope, expectation, hostility, integrity, disillusionment, and blame”. My specific intention here is to advance our understanding of this complex concept of employee cynicism by examining fundamental assumptions regarding its alleged consequences to employee commitment at the workplace.
4
Literature Review Oxford English Dictionary online describes a cynic as “one who shows a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, and is wont to express this by sneers and sarcasms”. In the context of cynicism at the workplace, Andersson (1996) describes employee cynicism as an attitude characterised by distrust of business organisations and executives. Similarly, Dean et al. (1998: 345) define organisational cynicism as “a negative attitude towards one’s employing organisation, comprising of three dimensions: (1) a belief that the organisation lacks integrity; (2) negative affect towards the organisation; and (3) tendencies to disparaging and critical behaviours towards the organisation that are consistent with these beliefs and affect”. Furthermore, Brandes et al. (1999) claim that cynical employees are more likely than other employees to believe that choices of organisational direction are based on self-interest. These authors contend that cynical employees often believe that there are hidden motives for managerial actions, thus are unlikely to accept the official rationale for organisational decisions at ‘face value’. Therefore, in this study, employee cynicism is defined as employee-statements, terms and/or expressions that suggest that the employer lacks integrity where integrity is understood to mean “soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, especially in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity” (Oxford English Dictionary online).
A recurring topic identified in the bulk of employee cynicism-related literature is the portrayal of ‘cynical’ employees as employees who are uncommitted to their employing organisations (Abraham, 2004, 2000; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Brandes et al. 1999; Dean et al. 1998). However some researchers have questioned
5
this assumption. For example, Fleming & Spicer (2003) describe employee cynicism as a process through which employees dis-identify with organisational cultural prescriptions, yet often enact them in their workplaces. While in a qualitative study on organisational change, O’Leary (2003: 13, 18) hints that ‘cynical’ employees may sometimes, in fact, be strongly committed to their employing organisation or job: “in particular, the cynicism stories, in which a love of newspapers is expressed alongside a deep frustration with the practices management, capture my imagination…in the cynicism narratives, employees are presented as being far more passionate about organizational life”. Not surprisingly, given the paucity of research conducted on the subject, Naus et al. (2007: 215) concluded that “more research into the consequences of cynicism is needed, for instance, are cynical employees indeed less committed to their work than non-cynical employees?”
Meyer & Allen (1991: 61) state that “organisational commitment, as a psychological state, has at least three separable components reflecting (a) a desire (affective commitment), (b) a need (continuance commitment) and (c) an obligation (normative commitment) to maintain employment in an organization”. However, despite this depiction of organisational commitment by researchers as a multi-dimensional concept (Van Dick, Becker & Meyer, 2006; Herrbach, 2006; Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006; Cole & Bruch, 2006; Meyer, Becker & Van Dick, 2006; Edwards, 2005), no study reviewed to-date has examined the relationship between employee cynicism and each of these dimensions of organisational commitment. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between employee cynicism and each of the aforementioned dimensions of organisational commitment.
6
Theory and Hypothesis Development The assertion that employees’ sense of commitment to organisations may be based on different motives intuitively makes sense to the researcher. More specifically, the concept of ‘continuous commitment’ highlights the possibility that, although an employee may wish to remain a member of an organisation, it does not necessarily follow that the employee has a strong positive affective attachment to the organisation. Watson (1994) argues that many employees make ‘side bets’ with regards to their employment with an organisation, for example, they may buy houses in the neighbourhood or send their children to the local school. Consequently, employees may see themselves as having much to lose in an economic or emotional sense with the loss of employment with an organisation, whether such sense of attachment to the organisation is accompanied with a ‘love’ of the organisation is an entirely different matter.
As a result, it is contended here that any conceptualisation of organisational commitment should incorporate different psychological bases, consequently, organisational commitment is defined in this document as an employee’s desire, sense of necessity, and/or sense of obligation, to maintain employment in an organisation. Each of these potential bases of organisational commitment, and their relationship with employee cynicism, will now be discussed.
Affective commitment. Much of the attention in the organisational commitment literature focuses on this form of organisational commitment (Van Dick, Becker & Meyer, 2006; Herrbach, 2006; Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006; Cole & Bruch, 2006; Meyer, Becker & Van Dick, 2006; Edwards, 2005). Meyer & Allen (1998: 63)
7
define affective commitment as an “emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement in the organization”. Furthermore, Meyer & Herscovitch (2001: 316) claim that “the mind-set of desire (affective commitment) develops when an individual becomes involved, recognizes the value-relevance of, and/or derives his or her identity from, association with an entity or pursuit of action”. Therefore, employees who demonstrate affective commitment are seen as holding affinity towards the organisation (Herrbach, 2006). As a result, given the general sense of employee ‘bon esprit’ associated with affective commitment and previous studies on the relationship between affective commitment and organisational cynicism, a negative statistical correlation between employee cynicism and affective commitment would be expected. Hypothesis 1: Employee cynicism will relate negatively to affective commitment.
Continuance Commitment. This less ‘popular’ form of organisational commitment has been defined as “the extent to which a person needs to stay with the organisation, due to the costs of forgoing benefits associated with an individual’s investments in the organisation” (Meyer & Allen, 1991: 64). Therefore, continuance commitment can be seen as a more economic or ‘rational’ form of attachment to an organisation where the employee-employer relationship can be seen as ‘transactional’ in nature. In contrast to affective commitment, continuance commitment is often associated with a negative employee mind-set where the employee may feel a sense of ‘being trapped’ (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002). Similarly, employee cynicism is often associated with feelings of hopelessness and frustration (Andersson, 1996). Consequently, a positive statistical correlation between employee cynicism and
8
continuous commitment scores might be anticipated, although to-date, no research reviewed has specifically looked at the relationship between employee cynicism and continuous commitment. Hypothesis 2: Employee cynicism will relate positively to continuous commitment.
Normative commitment. Finally, normative commitment is defined as “the individual’s bond with the organization due to an obligation on the part of the individual” (Bergman, 2006: 647). In this context, the concept of ‘psychological contract’ has been used to describe and explain an individual's beliefs concerning the mutual obligations that exist between the employee and the employer (Rousseau, 1989). When an employee perceives that his/her employer has failed to fulfil its obligations to him or her, a violation of his/her psychological contract may occur (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). A psychological contract violation is described as an affective and emotional experience of disappointment, frustration, anger, emanating from the employee’s interpretation that one's employer has failed to meet one or more obligations within one's psychological contract in a manner commensurate with one's contributions (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
Consequently, if an employee feels that the employer has not upheld his side of the ‘bargain’, the employee is unlikely to express high levels of normative commitment (Rousseau, 2004). Furthermore, when a violation of the employee’s psychological contract is perceived by the employee, studies have suggested that the employee may perceive the employing organisation in a cynical manner (Pate et al. 2003; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Pate & Malone, 2000; Andersson & Bateman, 1997;
9
Andersson, 1996). Therefore, a negative statistical correlation can be expected between employee cynicism and normative commitment scores in this study. Hypothesis 3: Employee cynicism will relate negatively to normative commitment.
Finally, given that employee cynicism is hypothesized to relate negatively with two of the three aforementioned bases of organisational commitment, it follows that, if one takes the three bases together as representing a more general representation of organisational
commitment,
employee
cynicism
will
relate
negatively
to
organisational cynicism. Hypothesis 4: Employee cynicism will relate negatively to organisational commitment.
Method An online survey of 206 non-self-employed employees in Ireland was conducted using a ‘snowball’ sampling method during an 18 day period in July 2007. A software product, Autoform, provided by Nottingham Trent University, which assists with the design, distribution and data collection of survey questionnaires, was used in this research. The researcher sent an introductory email and link to the online survey to 40 contacts, all employees in Ireland, who agreed to complete the survey themselves and forward the email to colleagues and friends who were potential participants.
10
The Internet as a Research Medium
The study of individuals in the workplace can raise a number of challenges for organisational researchers. Gaining access to participants can be challenging, and if access is granted, there may be limits on how much time they can spend on the study, especially if they are completing it at work (Eaton & Ward Struthers, 2002). Furthermore, there are certain issues about which organisations may be particularly sensitive, such as negative employee attitudes and behaviours, thus making it less likely that they will grant permission to survey their employees (Eaton & Ward Struthers, 2002; Watson, 1989). Therefore, finding methods to overcome such obstacles and gain access to participants is of utmost importance to the academic community. Traditionally, organisational researchers have relied on pen-and-paper methods to conduct employee surveys with mixed degrees of success (Eaton & Ward Struthers, 2002). However, increasingly, researchers are viewing the internet as a useful method for data collection (Eaton & Ward Struthers, 2002; Fitzgerald, 2002). Below are some of the potential advantages and disadvantages of the online questionnaire as a research method:
Potential advantages of online questionnaires
Global reach.
Flexibility.
Speed and Timeliness.
Convenience.
Ease of data entry and analysis.
Low administration cost.
Ease of follow-up. 11
Potential weaknesses of online questionnaires
Perception of survey email as junk mail.
Skewed attributes of internet population.
Privacy and security issues.
(Evans & Mathur, 2005; Bryman & Bell, 2003)
Online Surveys and Employee Cynicism In a study on organisational attitudes of employees, Eaton & Ward Struthers (2002) examined the attitudes of employees from various organisations using (a) a snowball sample, who completed a traditional paper and pencil survey (n = 135) and (b) a sample recruited over the internet, who completed an on-line survey (n = 220). Participants in both the non-internet and internet groups were asked to describe a negative incident involving their company, and answer a number of questions regarding how they felt about, and behaved towards, their company following the negative event. In their analysis of the data, the authors found that the internet group tended to be noticeably more cynical and to judge their organisation more harshly than the non-Internet group. Consequently, the authors suggested that participants in the internet sample may have felt that they had more anonymity and hence felt that they could be more candid in their responses.
‘Snowball’ Sampling ‘Snowball’ sampling is a technique for developing a research sample where existing study subjects recruit future subjects from among their acquaintances (Browne, 2005; Fisher, 2004; Cooper & Schindler, 1998). As previously stated, the research population for this study is the non-self-employed Irish workforce. Ordinarily,
12
snowball sampling is used in hidden populations which are difficult for researchers to access, for example, drug users (Browne, 2005; Fisher, 2004; Cooper & Schindler, 1998). However, given the sensitive nature of the subject, it is contended that an employee may be reluctant to express criticism of his/her employer if the survey is initiated through the employing organisation’s management team. In contrast, an employee may feel less inhibited to express him/herself if the survey is conducted through a third-party that has no affiliation to his/her employer.
Forty initial potential participants were identified for the purposes of the survey. It was envisaged that this initial sample group would forward the introductory email to other potential participants who would in turn forward the email to others and so on (Appendix 1). In this way it was hoped to create a ‘domino’ effect whereby social networks would provide access to participants for the survey.
Measures Employee cynicism. Based on definitions presented by Brandes et al. (1999), employee cynicism was measured using responses to statements designed to elicit whether the employee believes that his/her employer lacks fairness, honesty, and sincerity. The following six-item scale (Figure 1) was developed by the researcher and responses ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), representing highly cynical and highly un-cynical scores respectively. The value of Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.844.
13
Figure 1 - Employee cynicism scale 1. My employer is honest and truthful (R) 2. My employer's motives and intentions are ethical (R) 3. When it comes to moral issues, my employer says one thing and does another 4. Choices of organisational direction in my organisation are based on selfinterest 5. My employer treats people fairly (R) 6. My employer takes advantage of people who are vulnerable (R) = Reverse scoring
Organisational Commitment. Organisational commitment was measured using scales developed by Lee, Allen, Meyer & Rhee (2001) for use outside the U.S.A and Canada (Figure 2). However, the following two items from the continuous commitment scales, ‘I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organisation’ and ‘One of the few consequences of leaving this organisation would be the scarcity of available alternatives’, were replaced by ‘I feel that I have too few alternative employment options to consider leaving this organisation’. This change was made to add greater clarity to the intended meaning of the items. As in the case of the employee cynicism scale, responses ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), representing highly committed and highly uncommitted scores respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha scores for the Organisational Commitment Scale and its Affective Commitment, Continuous Commitment, Normative Commitment subscales (Figure 2) are 0.759, 0.759, 0.808 and 0.741 respectively. These scores are consistent with scores reported by Meyer et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis of organisational commitment studies and are deemed acceptable measures of reliability.
14
Figure 2 - Organisational Commitment Scale (Lee et al. 2001) Affective Commitment scale AC1. I really feel as if this organisation’s problems are my own AC2. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organisation (R) AC3. I do not feel emotionally attached to this organisation (R) AC4. I do not feel like part of the family at my organisation (R) AC5. This organisation has a great dealing of personal meaning for me Continuous Commitment scale CC1. I feel that I have too few alternative employment options to consider leaving this organisation CC2. For me personally, the costs of leaving this organisation would be far greater than the benefit CC3. I would not leave this organisation because of what I stand to lose CC4. If I decided to leave this organisation, too much of my life would be disrupted Normative Commitment scale NC1. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (R) NC2. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organisation now NC3. I would not feel guilt if I left this organisation now (R) NC4.If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere, I would not feel it was right to leave my organisation NC5. I would violate a trust if I quit my job with this organisation now (R) = Reverse scoring
15
Results & Analysis
Table 1 – Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (a) M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.67
0.92
1.54
0.50
1.00
-.04
.48**
.42**
.30**
-.04
1.00
-.15*
-.12*
-.12*
4.70 3.07
2.09
.48**
-.15*
1.00
.44**
0.88
.42**
-.12*
.44**
1.00
2.74
1.00
.30**
-.12*
.53**
3.44
0.89
-.15*
0.07
0.01
1. AGE 2. GENDER 3. INCOME 4. TENURE 5. STATUS
7
8
9
-.15*
.10
-.17**
.21**
.06
.07
-.14*
.08
-.01
-.04
.53**
.01
-.11
-.16*
-.08
-.18**
.33**
-.11
-.04
-.25**
.09
-.13*
.33**
1.00
0.00
-.17**
.01
-.15*
-.17**
-0.11
0.00
1.00
-.46
**
0.13
6. CYNICISM 7. A-COMMIT
**
1.00
*
-.06
*
-.34
**
-.06
.51
.71
1.00
-.01
.51
**
1.00
.75
**
0.93
.10
-.14*
-.11
-.04
-.19**
-.46
1.06
-.17**
.08
-.16*
-.25**
.01
.13
3.50
0.98
.21**
-.01
-.08
.09
-.15*
-.37
**
.51
**
-.01
3.29
0.65
.06
-.04
-.18**
-.13*
-.17**
-.34
**
.71
**
.51
10. O-COMMIT
**
**
3.42 9. N-COMMIT
-.37
**
2.92 8. C-COMMIT
10
**
.75
**
1.00
** p < 0.01 *. p < 0.05
(a) Spearman’s rho values in italics, otherwise Pearson’s r (see Appendix 2 for key to values).
The findings in Table 1 support all hypotheses, although to varying degrees. The negative statistical correlations between the employee cynicism scale and the affective commitment and normative commitment scales (-0.46 and -0.37 respectively), were relatively low when compared with similar studies where the scores recorded were between -0.5 and -0.7 (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Chrobot-Mason, 2002; Brandes et al., 1999). Furthermore, the weak positive correlation between the employee cynicism and affective commitment scales (0.13) suggests that, while Hypothesis 2 is supported by the data, no conclusive relationship between the two concepts can be made on the basis of this data alone. Finally, the relatively weak negative correlation of -0.34 between the employee cynicism and organisational commitment scales (the amalgamation of the affective, continuous and normative scales) suggests that care must be made when claiming statements as to the nature of the relationship between employee cynicism and organisational commitment.
16
Based on the statistical findings presented in this study, it appears that the relationship between employee cynicism and organisational commitment may vary according to the nature of that commitment. While this may appear unsurprising, this idea has not been mooted in any of the literature reviewed thus far. Researchers examining the relationship between employee cynicism and organisational commitment have framed organisational commitment as a ‘positive’ employee affective attachment to his/her employing organisation, while ignoring the possibility that bonds that form between employees and organisations can range from instrumental to emotional (Rousseau, 2004). These researchers thus concluded that cynical employees are likely to be less committed to their employing organisations (Abraham, 2004, 2000; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Brandes et al. 1999; Dean et al. 1998). In particular, Brandes et al.’s (1999: 20) assertion that “organisationally cynical employees may be likely to leave the organisation in the future” is not supported by the data. In fact, based on the data findings, ‘cynical’ employees may be less likely to leave their employing organisation than other employees. This, of course, has important consequences for managers who may misread an employee’s employment intentions on the basis of employee behaviour interpreted by a manager as reflecting employee cynicism. In short, managers may wrongly assume that the ‘cynical’ employee is not committed to the organisation and may wish to leave it.
Note on the levels of employee cynicism and organisational commitment While not linked to the hypotheses directly, the overall levels of self-reported employee cynicism and organisational commitment were deemed worthy of remark. As stated supra, scores of 1 and 5 represent high and low levels of employee cynicism respectively. Therefore, Dean et al.’s (1998: 341) assertion that “cynicism is
17
everywhere – widespread among organisational members in the United States, Europe and Asia” is not supported by the data as the mean score is 3.44 (Figure 1). In fact, only 25% of the respondents could be described as being ‘cynical’ employees i.e. they scored less than 3.00 for employee cynicism.
Another feature of the data was the low continuous commitment and normative commitment scores where 30% and 27% of respondents scored less than 3.00 for the respective scales. The low levels of reported continuous commitment could have been influenced by the strong Irish economy in 2007 where unemployment levels were low and jobs were plentiful, therefore possibly giving employees a sense of confidence with regards to employment mobility. Furthermore, the age profile of the sample is quite young which might suggest that many of the respondents might not have so many ‘side bets’ e.g. houses or dependent children at school, linked to their current employment situation.
The low levels of reported normative commitment amongst this relatively young sample of employees may be explained by Herriot & Pemberton’s (1995) assertion that a more flexible, transient relationship has developed between employees and employers. The authors argue that the traditional promise of employment security in return for employee loyalty and commitment is no longer tenable due to market changes, and consequently, employees may feel that they do not have a sense of obligation to remain with their employers.
18
Strengths and Limitations Firstly, a limitation of all self-reported employee data is that employee attitudes and behaviour may not represent actual employee behaviour that employees exhibit at the workplace (Yao, 2006). Therefore, in order to further assess the relationship between employee cynicism and actual employee organisational commitment, longitudinal studies should be conducted to examine actual employee organisational commitment, in particular, employee turnover. As Bryman & Bell (2003) and Naus et al., (2007) point out, a feature of cross-sectional studies is that the direction of any interpreted ‘cause and effect’ relationship based on statistical correlations can be reversed without affecting the statistical relationship between the variables. For example, in the context of organisational commitment, an employee's expressed level of organisational commitment may only be a reflection of a general attitude toward the organisation (Lum et al., 1998) but not actual turnover behaviour (Chen et al., 1998). Secondly, Eaton & Ward Struthers (2002)’s contention that internet-users are a biased sample of the population (better educated, wealthier and younger) is supported by the demographic makeup of the sample. In this sample, 88% of the respondents were under 40 years old, 50% earned over €40,000 p.a. and 41% were managers or supervisors at some level within their organisations. In this context, the use of social networks in the sampling process may have further skewed the representativeness of the sample. The impact of using social networks in the sampling process is that respondents pass on the survey to members of social networks, who share similar demographic profiles (Browne, 2005). It had been hoped at the outset that this would not be feature of the sample as it was felt that the initial contact sample was sufficiently diverse in terms of the demographic variables in question.
19
Nevertheless, the sample can be said to be representative in terms of gender with a Male/Female percentage breakdown of 46/54 respectively and, on balance, despite some concerns regarding the representativeness of the sample, the use of social networks in the sampling process was deemed to have been a success given the relative large response sample. This accomplishment can be largely attributed to the assistance of the initial sample group in participating in, and distribution of the survey.
Further Research A number of research avenues may be taken based on this study. For example, it was assumed that employees at higher levels of an organisation may view themselves as agents of the employer and may therefore be less cynical of their employers in the survey as they may identify themselves as representing the employer. However a noticeable finding in the analysis of the data was the lack of any significant statisticsal correlation between the respondents’ organisational status and employee cynicism scores (Table 1, Appendix 3). There is, perhaps, a tendencey to focus on employee cynicism as a ‘blue collar’ phenomonen (Kanter & Mirivs, 1989) and to focus on the needs of the manager to manage employee cynicism (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Brandes et al., 1999; Dean et al., 1998; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Andersson, 1996). However, what are the organisational consequences of ‘cynical’ managers? For example, what are the implications for his/her ‘subordinates’ and ‘superiors’? Do cynical managers mask their true feelings towards their employers when in communication with other organisational members?
Despite studies based on samples of managerial/professional employees (Brandes et al. 2007; Pugh et al. 2003), little is known about the phenomenon of managers
20
expressing employee cynicism. Perhaps, given the complexity of these topics, qualitative research methods such as semi-structured interviews with managers and other employees could illuminate the nature of employee cynicism in this context. Such interviews could unearth issues that could then form the basis for survey research.
Finally, the notion of ‘cynical’ employees as feeling ‘trapped’ within an organisation could be further explored. In this context, the expression of cynicism by an employee may simply be a means of ‘venting’ frustration with his/her overall employment situation rather than a specific belief that the employer is dishonest. Or perhaps ‘cynical’ employees, uncomfortable with the notion of working for an ‘unethical’ employer, justify their continued employment with their ‘dishonest’ employer on the basis that there are no other alternatives? Given the challenging nature of such themes, researchers need to reflect on how best these topics could be investigated.
Conclusion Despite its alleged prominence in organisations, a gap between the acknowledgement of the existence of employee cynicism and research committed to understanding the phenomenon has developed. In this research, I set out to both highlight and narrow this gap by examining the relationship between employee cynicism and organisational commitment. I hope that this study, and its associated findings, can be used to create awareness of the complexity surrounding the notion of employee cynicism and also to act as encouragement to advance further research and understanding of this elusive concept.
21
References
Abraham, R., 2000. Organizational cynicism: bases and consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 269-292.
Abraham. R., 2004. Organizational Cynicism: Definitions, Bases, and Consequences. Lewistown, USA: Edwin Mellen Press.
Andersson, L., 1996. Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49, 1395-1418.
Andersson, L., & Bateman, T.S., 1997. Cynicism in the workplace: some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449-470.
Bergman, M., 2006. The relationship between affective and normative commitment: review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 645-663.
Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R. & Dean. J. W., 1999. Does organizational cynicism matter? Employee and supervisor perspectives on work outcomes. Eastern Academy of Management best papers proceedings, 150-153.
Brandes, P., Castro, S. L., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., James, M.S.L., Martinez, A.D. & Matherly, T. A., 2008. The interactive effects of job insecurity and organizational cynicism on work effort following a layoff. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, February 2008.
Browne, A., 2005. Snowball Sampling: Using Social Networks to Research Nonheterosexual Women. International journal of social research methodology, 8, 47-60.
22
Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2003. Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N., 2006. The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 199-208.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S. & Farh, J. L., 2002. Loyalty to Supervisor vs. Organizational Commitment: Relationships to Employee Performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 339-356.
Chrobot-Mason D.L., 2003. Keeping the promise. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), 22-45.
Cole, M.S. & Bruch, H., 2006. Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 585-605.
Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S., 1998. Business Research Methods: International Edition. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Collins J.C. & Porras J.I., 1994. Built To Last. USA: Harper Collins.
Cutler, I., 2000. The cynical manager. Managerial Learning, 31, 295-311.
Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R., 1998. Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 341-352.
Eaton, J., 2000. Cynicism in the workplace: A social motivational perspective. Paper presented at York University's Eighth Annual In-House Convention, Toronto.
23
Eaton, J. & Ward Struthers, C., 2002. Using the Internet for Organizational Research: A Study of Cynicism in the Workplace. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 305-313.
Edwards, M.R., 2005. Organizational identification: A conceptual and operational review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 207-230.
Evans, J. & Mathur, A., 2005. The Value of Internet Surveys: The Future is Now. Internet Research, 15(2), 195-219.
Feldman, D., 2000. The Dilbert Syndrome. American Behavioural Scientist, 43(8), 1286-1300.
Fisher, C., 2004. Researching and Writing a Dissertation for Business Students. Essex: FT Prentice Hall.
Fitzgerald, M.R., 2002. Organizational Cynicism: its Relationship to Perceived Organizational Injustice and Explanatory Style. Unpublished paper, Web link: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?ucin1019069421 [Accessed 02 July 2008].
Herrbach, O., 2006. A matter of feeling? The affective tone of organizational commitment and identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 629-643.
Herriot, P. & Pemberton, C., 1995. A new deal for middle managers. People Management, 32-4.
Johnson, J. & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., 2003. The effect of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), Special Issue Aug 2003, 627-647.
24
Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P.H., 1989. The Cynical Americans. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Lee, K., Allen, N., Meyer J., & Rhee K., 2001. The Three-Component Model of Organisational Commitment: An Application to South Korea. Applied Psychology, 50(4), 596.
Lindeirfield, G., 2003, BEAT THE CYNICS. Management Today, Oct2003, 75.
Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F. & Sirola, W., 1998. Explaining Nursing Turnover Intent: Job Satisfaction, Pay Satisfaction, or Organizational Commitment? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 305-320.
Meyer, J.P. & Allen, J.N., 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-98.
Meyer, J., Becker, T.E., & Van Dick, R., 2006. Social identities and commitments at work: toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 665683.
Meyer, J. P. & Herscovitch, L., 2001. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299-326.
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.
25
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.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L., 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226-256.
O’Leary, M., 2003. From paternalism to cynicism: Narratives of a newspaper company. Human Relations, 56(6), 685-704.
Oxford English Dictionary online. Available at: http://dictionary.oed.com [Accessed 02 July 2008].
Pate, J., & Malone, C., 2000. Post-“psychological contract” violation: the durability and transferability of employee perceptions: the case of TimTec. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24 (2/3/4), 158-166.
Pate, J., Martin, G. & McGoldrick, J., 2003. The impact of psychological contract violation on employee attitudes and behaviour. Employee Relations, 25(6), 558-574.
Pugh, S. D, Skarlicki, D. P. & Passell, B. S., 2003. After the fall: layoff victims' trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 76(2), 201-212.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T., 1997. Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 48-59.
26
Robinson, S. L. & Morrison, E. W., 1995. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289-298.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M., 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259.
Rousseau D.M., 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139.
Rousseau, D.M., 2004, Psychological Contracts in the Workplace: understanding the ties that motivate, Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 120-127.
Van Dick, R., Becker, T.E. & Meyer, J., 2006. Commitment and identification: forms, foci, and future. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 545-548.
Van Knippenberg, D. & Sleebos, E., 2006. Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 571-584.
Watson, T. J., 1989. Sociology, Work and Industry, London: Routledge.
Watson, T.J., 1994. In search of Management: Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work. London: Routledge.
27
Appendices Appendix 1: Introductory Email
Dear participant, I am a doctoral postgraduate student at Nottingham Trent University, and as part of my studies, I am conducting a survey of full-time employees working in Ireland on their attitudes towards their employers. The survey is completely anonymous, you are not asked to provide your name, email address or employer's name and all replies will be treated in the strictest confidence. Furthermore, the survey is quite brief should not take more than 5 minutes of your time. I would greatly appreciate your participation in the survey, and if at all possible, could you forward this email to friends or colleagues in Ireland who might also be interested in participating in the survey (please, when forwarding this email, use personal, as opposed to professional, email addresses). Please see the attached link below to complete the survey, however, do not complete the survey if:
You work outside of Ireland
You are self-employed
You are a part-time employee
You have already completed the survey
You receive this email after 15th July 2007.
Survey Link: Research Survey
Many thanks for your participation, Ed Dennehy
[email protected]
28
Appendix 2: Descriptive Statistics GENDER 1 = Male 2 = Female AGE 1 = 10 or under1 2 = 11-20 3 = 21-30 4 = 31-40 5 = 41-50 6 = 51-60 7 = 61-70 8 = 71-80 9 = 81-90 10 = 91-100 11 = 101-110 12 = 111 or over
INCOME (Euros per annum) 1 = Under 10,000 2 = 10,001-20,000 3 = 20,001-30,000 4 = 30,001-40,000 5 = 40,001-50,000 6 = 50,001-60,000 7 = 60,001-70,000 8 = 70,001-80,000 9 = 80,001-90,000 10 = 90,001-100,000 11 = 100,001-110,000 12 = 110,001-120,000 13 = 120,001-130,000 14 = 130,001-140,000 15 = 140,001-150,000 16 = 150,001-160,000 17 = 160,001-170,000 18 = Over 170,000 ORGANISATIONAL TENURE 2 = Less than 1 year 3 = 1-5 years 4 = 6-10 years 5 = More than 10 years ORGANISATIONAL STATUS 2 = Non-management 3 = Supervisor/Junior Manager 4 = Middle Manager 5 = Senior Manager
1
No score received
29
Appendix 3 - Mean Employee Cynicism Scores and Organisational Status
EMPLOYEE CYNICISM (MEAN)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 Non-management
Supervisor/Junior Manager
Middle Manager
Senior Manager
Organisational Position
30
