DISPOSITIONAL PREDICTORS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM

Transcription

1 ASAC2008 Halifax,NovaScotia KristynA.Scott DavidZweig DepartmentofManagement UniversityofTorontoScarborough DISPOSITIONAL PREDICTORS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM Researchers have suggested that organizational cynicism is increasing among employees. Although cynicism has been examined from a situational perspective, little work has examined the dispositional roots of this attitude. In this paper we explore the dispositional variables that predict organizational cynicism and suggest that future research explore the development of cynical attitudes from both a dispositional and situational perspective. KarlMarx Cynics are made, not born. Therealitiesoforganizationallifearechanging.Individualsnolongerexpecttobeemployedby oneorganizationfortheirentireworkinglives,graduallyworkingtheirwaytothetop.thecertaintiesof downsizing,stagnantsalaries,andflatterorganizationalhierarchiesoftodaystandinsharpcontrastto the corporateladders ofthepast.however,despitetheorganizationaluncertaintiespresentforalarge numberofemployees,seniormanagementandchiefexecutivescontinuetoreapthebenefitsoftheir positions,earningmillionsinsalariesandbonuses(feldman,2000).forresearchers,theresultofthese changesisanempiricalinterestinunderstandinghowemployeesareaffected.kanterandmirvis(1989) suggest that as many as fortythree percent of all working Americans are frustrated, disillusioned, distrustful, and skeptical as a result of what they perceive to be unethical behaviour on the part of organizationalleaders,andgeneraluncertaintyinorganizations.disillusionmentanduncertaintyisoften expressed by organizational cynicism; a relatively understudied, but important organizational phenomenonthatcanaffectahostoforganizationalexperiences. Itisimportanttounderstandhowcynicismdevelopsandismanifestedinorganizationsbecause itissuggestedthatalthoughmanyemployeesarecynical,youngeremployeesmaybethemostcynical. 95

2 Infact,KanterandMirvis(1989)positthatapproximatelyhalfofthoseunder30arecynical.Giventhat many graduates will seek employment with large established organizations to capitalize on opportunities for training and development, access to mentors, and varied work experiences (e.g., Feldman, 2000), it is important to understand how cynical attitudes are manifested and how organizationalcynicismmightinfluencerelatedattitudes(e.g.,jobsatisfaction). TheopeningquotebyKarlMarxsupportsmuchoftheprevioustheorizingaboutorganizational cynicism, namely that it develops through experiences with organizations and organizational agents. Although previous cynicism research has demonstrated that negative organizational experiences are related to organizational cynicism (e.g., Johnson & O LearyKelly, 2003), the dispositional factors that maycontributetotheformationofthisnegativeorganizationalattitudetendtobelessofafocus.we needtounderstandthefactorsthatmaycontributetothedevelopmentoforganizationalcynicismalong withexploringhoworganizationalcynicismrelatestoimportantworkoutcomes.thus,theaimofthis paperistoelucidatemoreclearlythedispositionalvariablesthatmaycontributetotheformationof organizationalcynicism,andsomeoftheoutcomesassociatedwithorganizationalcynicism. To position the current paper, we first discuss the development of organizational cynicism, centering on how it is commonly defined. Next we discuss three dispositional variables that may contributetothedevelopmentofcynicalorganizationalattitudes.finallywediscussonevariablethat may be influenced by cynicism, namely job satisfaction, and position organizational cynicism as a mediatorintherelationshipbetweendispositionalvariablesandjobsatisfaction.wethenpresentan exploratorystudyinwhichweexaminetherelationshipsbetweenthesevariables. Organizational Cynicism Cynicismhasbeendefinedvariouslyasapersonalitytrait,abelief,anemotion,asbothaglobal andspecifictrait,andstudiedfromavarietyofperspectives(e.g.,personality/traitbasedapproaches, e.g.,cook&medley,1954;organizationalchange,reichers,wanous,&austin,1997;stanley,meyer,& Topolnytsky,2005;Wanous,Reichers,&Austin,2000;psychologicalcontractbreach;e.g.,Andersson, 1996).Whentheconceptofcynicismwasinitiallyappliedtowork,theoccupationalfocuswasaimed policeandsocialworkers;individualswhosejobsweredeemedtobehighinstressandlackingclarity (Andersson, 1996). However, a more recent conceptualization views organizational cynicism as an attitude characterized by (a) negative beliefs about the organization (i.e., the organization lacks integrity), (b) a negative emotional reaction, and (c) behaviour that is consistent with the aforementioned affect and cognition (e.g., concrete statements regarding lack of honesty; Dean, Brandes,&Dharwadkar,1998).Itisimportanttonotethatthenegativeattitudesaredirectedtowards the organization. Further, additional research determined that organizational cynicism and negative affectivityaredistinctconstructs(wanous,reichers,&austin,1994),and,consistentwithdeanetal 96

3 (1998),otherresearchershaveconcludedthatorganizationalcynicismisanattitudeandnotastable personalitycharacteristic(e.g.,andersson,1996;guastello,rieke,guastello,&billings,1992;wanouset al.,1994). Alongwithexploringorganizationalcynicismasanattitude,someresearchershaveinvestigated the organizational experiences that contribute to cynicism. For example, organizational cynicism may develop as a result of psychological contract breach (e.g., Andersson, 1996; Johnson & O LearyKelly, 2003),organizationalchange(Reichersetal.,1997),andorganizationalexperiences(e.g.,Pugh,Skarlicki, & Passell, 2003). For example, cynicism mediates the relationship between contract breach and organizational attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment; e.g., Johnson & O LearyKelly, 2003) and cynicism about organizational change is related to lowered organizational commitment and job satisfaction(e.g.,wanousetal.,2000). As evidenced, organizational cynicism develops through experiences with organizations and organizational agents. Thus, it is clear that situational factors influence the development of cynical attitudes. However, less clear are the dispositional characteristics that may also play a role in the development of these cynical attitudes. Past empirical and theoretical work on other organizational attitudes(e.g.,jobsatisfaction)hasdemonstratedthatdispositionalvariablessuchasnegativeaffectivity play a role in the formation of said attitudes (e.g., Judge & Larsen, 2001). Additionally, in their examination of organizational cynicism, Cole, Bruch, and Vogel (2006) used Affective Events Theory (AET;Weiss&Cropanzano,1996)toexplainthepredictiveconcurrenceofsituational(e.g.,perceived supervisorsupport)anddispositional(positiveandnegativeemotions)factors,althoughtheypositioned affectasamediatorintheirmodel.thus,althoughthereissomeevidencethatdispositionalvariables mayplayaroleintheformationoforganizationalcynicism,toourknowledge,noworkhasexamined dispositionalpredictorsalone.givenwhatisknownaboutthecontributionofdispositionalvariablesto other organizational variables (e.g., job satisfaction), it is important to examine those dispositional characteristicsthatimpacttheformationoforganizationalcynicism. DispositionalPredictorsofOrganizationalCynicism As discussed, Dean et al. (1998) outlined the affect, behaviour, and cognition that make up cynicalattitudes.assuch,wedrawontheattitudesliteraturemoregenerallytosupportourcasefora dispositional component of organizational cynicism. Although a full discussion of attitudes and their formationisbeyondthescopeofthepaper,itisimportanttodelineatesomeoftheprocessesthrough which attitudes are formed along with examples of dispositional variables that are demonstrated to influenceattitudes. 97

4 In general terms, an attitude is a tendency to evaluate an object favourably or unfavourably (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Attitudes refer to individuals evaluation of a target and may be rooted in cognitive,affective,orbehaviouralinformation(worchel,cooper,goethals,&james,2000).attitudes are typically thought of as being formed in one of two ways. Sometimes they are formed through deliberate, conscious processing and in other cases they form unconsciously, guided by preexisting beliefsandhabits,amongothers(e.g.,eagly&chaiken,1993). From a theoretical perspective, much research exists to support the notion that preexisting dispositions, knowledge, stereotypes, and beliefs play an important role in judgements and decision making(e.g.,kruglanski&stroebe,2005;wyer&albarracin,2005).assuch,whenindividualsprocess information,theytendtodosoinamannerthatisconsistentwithrecentlyacquiredorhighlyaccessible information(e.g.,wyer&albarracin,2005).forexample,individualswhoarehighinnegativeaffectivity tendtobemoresensitivetoeventsandinformationthatfitswiththeirgeneral,negativeoutlook(e.g., Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995). Accordingly, these individuals may be more likely to expect that negativeeventswilloccurwithgreaterfrequencythanpositiveevents.indeed,affect,alongwithother dispositionalvariablesandpreexistingbeliefs,hasademonstratedrelationshiptoattitudes(e.g.,clore &Schnall,2005;Kruglanski&Stroebe,2005;Thoresen,Kaplan,Barsky,&deChermont,2003). Theorizingregardingtheroleofaffectandjudgementalsoextendstoworkonorganizational behaviour.forexample,researchersfocusingonorganizationalattitudessuchasjobsatisfactionhave demonstrated relationships between affective disposition and job satisfaction (e.g., Staw, Bell, & Clausen,1986).Indeed,drawingonStaw(2004),StawandCohenCharash(2005)putforthamodelthat illustratestheimpactofdispositionalvariables,suchasaffect,onjobsatisfaction.additionally,meta analyticresultsdemonstratetherelationshipsbetweenpositiveandnegative affectandjobattitudes (e.g.,jobsatisfaction,turnoverintentions;thoresonetal.,2003).giventhedemonstratedrelationships of dispositional predictors and other organizational attitudes, we feel it important to extend this researchtothestudyoforganizationalcynicism.inthefollowingsectionsweoutlinethreedispositional variables that we believe may be important predictors of organizational cynicism, namely core self evaluation,negativeaffectivity,andgeneralcynicism. Coreselfevaluation.Andersson(1996)madeacasefortheinfluenceofseveraldispositional variables that may influence organizational cynicism. Although her arguments were centered on explainingpossiblerelationships between psychological contract breachandorganizationalcynicism, someofthelogicfortherelationshipsalsofitamorestringentdispositionalviewofthedevelopment of organizational cynicism. Specifically, Andersson suggested that selfesteem, and locus of control (among others) may operate to influence organizational cynicism. For example, individuals with low 98

5 selfesteem may be predisposed to react negatively to distressing organizational events (e.g., psychological contract violation; Andersson, 1996). Additionally, individuals with an external versus internal locus of control tend to react negatively when faced with situations in which they perceive they have little control (e.g., during times of organizational change; Ashford, 1988). Thus, it is reasonabletoconcludethatsomeofthesevariablesmayinfluencethedevelopmentoforganizational cynicismdirectly. Recent developments in the understanding of how certain core personality characteristics influence organizational attitudes led to the evolution core selfevaluation as one possible means of predicting job satisfaction (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). Comprised of selfesteem, general self efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism, core selfevaluation is defined as an appraisal of one s worthiness,effectiveness,andcapabilityasaperson (Judge,Erez,Bono,&Thoresen,2003,p.304).Ina series of studies, Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoreson (2002) demonstrated that there is considerable overlap between selfesteem, selfefficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism; results from a meta analysis suggest strong correlations between the four traits (average r =.60). Additional studies suggestedthatahigherorderfactorcanexplaintherelationshipbetweenthetraits(judgeetal.,2002). Asaresult,Judgeetal.(2003)developedameasureofcoreselfevaluationthat,aswiththeindividual measuresofeachvariable,correlatedwithjobsatisfaction,amongotherorganizationaloutcomes. As discussed, individuals tend to process information in a manner consistent with easily accessibleinformationandpreexistingbeliefs(e.g.,wyer&albarracin,2005).judge,locke,durham, andkluger(1998)notethatindividualswithnegativecoreselfevaluationsmayseektoexaminetheir environment through a similar lens in order to confirm beliefs about the self. Thus, individuals may process organizational information in a manner consistent with their (negative) selfview and, if so, interpretthemotivesoforganizationalagentsandorganizationalactionswithacynicaleye.assuch,itis likelythatindividualswhobelievethattheyarecompetent,worthyandincontroloftheiractions(i.e., haveahighcoreselfevaluation)arelesslikelytohavecynicalattitudestowardtheirorganization. Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between core selfevaluation and organizationalcynicism. Negative affectivity (NA). Individuals who are high in NA are demonstrated to be more dissatisfied,morefocusedonthenegative,andexperiencemoredistress(e.g.,watson&clark,1984). TheendresultofthisnegativeaffectivestateisthatthosehighinNAwilltendtoreactmorestronglyto negativeeventsintheworkplace(e.g.,briefetal.,1995).nahasdemonstratedrelationshipswithother organizational attitudes that are frequently studied. For example, NA is repeatedly demonstrated to 99

6 predictjobsatisfaction;individualshighinnatendtobelesssatisfiedwiththeirjobs(e.g.,briefetal., 1995;Fisher,2000).Additionally,althoughtherelationshipbetweenaffectandjobsatisfactionisoneof themoststudied,thereisalsoevidencesupportingtherelationshipbetweennaandcommitment(e.g., Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993), turnover intentions, personal accomplishment, and burnout (e.g.,thoresenetal.,2003).thus,affectisdemonstratedtobeanimportantcontributortothestudyof jobattitudes.giventhis,webelieveitimportanttoextendthisresearchtoorganizationalcynicism. ThereissomediscussionintheliteratureregardingthenatureoftherelationshipbetweenNA andorganizationalcynicism.andersson(1996)includednainhermodeloftherelationshipsbetween psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism, suggesting that NA should moderate the relationshipbetweencontractbreachandcynicismbecausethosehighinnaarelikelytoperceivethe situation (i.e., the contract breach) more negatively. Additionally, as mentioned, Cole, et al. (2006) examined organizational cynicism from the perspective of AET and found that NA mediated the relationship between perceived supervisor support and organizational cynicism. Despite this, to our knowledge,noresearchfocusessolely onexaminingnaasadispositionalpredictoroforganizational cynicism. Togetherwiththeempiricalresultsdiscussedaboveandthetheoreticalrationalesupportingthe caseforconsistencyininformationprocessing,webelievethatnamaybeanimportantpredictorof organizational cynicism. Additionally, as affect is inherent in the very definition of an attitude (e.g., Worcheletal.,2000),wehypothesizethatindividualswithageneral,negativeaffective statewill be morelikelytoexpressorganizationalcynicism. Hypothesis2:TherewillbeanegativerelationshipbetweenNAandorganizationalcynicism. General Cynicism. As mentioned, various definitions of cynicism exist, some of which are focusedgenerally(e.g.,wrightsman,1992),whileothersareaimedataspecificobject(e.g.,cynicism about organizational change; Wanous et al., 2000).General cynicism reflects attitudes about human natureingeneralandabeliefthatothersareneithertrustworthynorsincere(e.g.,wrightsman,1992). Andersson and Bateman (1997) found a positive correlation between a specific measure of cynicism (onefocusedonbusinessorganizationsandexecutives)andcynicism toward humannature(r=.57). Although their study was not focused on this relationship specifically, their findings lend empirical support for a relationship between general and organizational cynicism. Given that easily accessible information will be used to guide judgements, and that dispositional traits are likely to be easily accessible,itisplausibletohypothesizethatindividualswhoaregenerallycynicalbynaturemayalsobe morelikelytoindicatetheyarehighinorganizationalcynicismaswell. 100

7 Hypothesis3:Therewillbeapositiverelationshipbetweengeneralandorganizationalcynicism. Organizational Cynicism and Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction, conceptualized as an attitude toward one s job, has been studied from a situationalperspective(e.g.,hackman&oldham,1976)andadispositionalperspective(e.g.,judge& Larsen,2001).Moreover,jobsatisfactionhasbeenstudiedinrelationtoawiderangeofconstructs.For example, there are demonstrated relationships between job satisfaction and wellbeing (e.g., Heller, Watson,&Ilies,2004),workfamilyconflict(e.g.,Judge&Ilies,2004),andturnover(e.g.,Trevor,2001) tonamebutafew. Although organizational cynicism and job satisfaction have both been conceived as attitudes, theyarebynomeansoverlappingconstructs.asdeanetal.(1998)note,theattitudeobjectofeach constructdiffers,withonefocusingontheorganizationasawhole,theotheronanindividual sjob.put differently,wanousetal.(1994)suggestthatorganizationalcynicismisdirectedoutward,whereasjob satisfaction is selffocused. However, it is plausible that job satisfaction may be influenced by cynical attitudes.indeedthereissomeevidencethatthisisthecase.forexample,intheirexaminationofthe relationshipsbetweenpsychologicalcontractbreach,cynicism,andjobattitudes,johnsonando Leary Kelly (2003) found a negative relationship between cynicism and satisfaction. Despite the empirical findings, a theoretical explanation for the relationship has yet to be explicated. However, examining extantresearchonattitudesmayofferatentativepossibility. Attitudes researchers have long noted the need for consistency between attitudes and behaviour (e.g., cognitive dissonance theory; Festinger. 1954). When an individual exhibits behaviour contrarytoheldattitudes,he/shemaychangehis/herattitudestocorrespondwithexhibitedbehaviour andreducethediscomfortfeltwhenadiscordexistsbetweenattitudesandbehaviour.itispossiblethat a similar mechanism may operate in the relationship between organizational cynicism and job satisfaction, despite the fact that they are both attitudes. That is, individuals may find it difficult to reconciletheircynicalattitudestowardtheorganizationwithpositiveattitudestowardtheirjob;similar feelings (negative or positive) toward both attitude objects may be more easily reconciled.thus, althoughthemechanismhasyettobeelucidated,researchershavefoundsomeevidencethatsuggests individualshighinorganizationalcynicismmayexperiencelowerjobsatisfaction(e.g.,abraham,2000; Johnson&O LearyKelly,2003).Thus,thefollowinghypothesisisproposed: 101

8 Hypothesis 4: There will be a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and job satisfaction. OrganizationalCynicismasaMediator As discussed, job satisfaction has its origins in both dispositional and situational factors (e.g., Brief et al., 1995; Markus, Chernyshenko, Stark, Dalal, Bashshur, 2007). In fact, NA and core self evaluationaretwodispositionalfactorswithdemonstratedrelationshipstojobsatisfaction(e.g.,briefet al.,1995;judgeetal.,1997).giventhis,weexpecttofindtheserelationshipsinthisstudy.however,by virtueofitsfocusontheworkplace,organizationalcynicismmaybeamoreproximalpredictorofjob satisfaction. As such, it is possible that one way the effects of NA and core selfevaluation on job satisfaction are expressed, is through organizational cynicism. Thus, we propose that the aforementioned relationships between these three variables may be mediated by organizational cynicism.wenote,however,thatwedonotexpectadirectrelationshipbetweengeneralcynicismand job satisfaction. Andersson and Bateman (1997) found little effect of general cynical attitudes on behaviouralintentions,andsuggestedthattheseresultswereinlinewithotherattitudesresearchers whohaveindicatedthat,comparedtogeneralattitudes,specificattitudesaresuperiorpredictorswhen studying specific outcomes (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Given that we are interested in job satisfaction,webelieveorganizaitonalcynicismtobethebetterpredictor.thus,althoughtheremaybe an indirect effect of general cynicism on job satisfaction through organizational cynicism, we do not believethereisadirectrelationshipbetweenthetwo. Hypothesis 5a: Organizational cynicism will mediate the relationship between NA and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 5b: Organizational cynicism will mediate the relationship between core self evaluationandjobsatisfaction. This study, while exploratory, offers a preliminary examination of the relationships between core selfevaluation, NA, general cynicism and organizational cynicism. Additionally we also offer an examinationoftherelationshipsbetweenthesevariablesandjobsatisfaction,respondingtothecallto examine more closely the relationships between organizational cynicism and other organizational attitudes. Moreover, by examining potential dispositional contributors to cynicism this study aims to further our understanding of how organizational cynicism develops. A better understanding of the 102

9 developmentofcynicalattitudesmayaidinunderstandingwhatcanbedonetoreducetheimpactthat organizationalcynicismhasonboththeindividualemployeeandtheorganization. Participants and Procedure Method Participantswererecruitedfromavoluntaryonlinepanelofadults(TheStudyResponseProject: Stanton & Weiss, 2002). The panel includes adult employees in a wide range of occupations and organizations, and overcomes some of the limitations associated with sampling employees from only one or a few organizations. Participants were recruited through messages, and those who participatedwereenteredintoalotterytoreceivegiftcertificatesfromanonlineorganization.potential participantsweresentan reminderoneweekaftertheinitialrequestwassent. A total of 312 employed participants completed our survey. The response rate was 15.6%, slightly higher than the average for StudyResponse. The majority of participants were from North America(49%U.S.,13%Canada).Approximately55%werefemale,71%wereCaucasian,andawideage range was represented (e.g., 70% between 22 and 45 years of age). Level of education attained by participantsvaried,althoughnearlyhalfof(47%)hadeitherauniversitydegreeorcollegecertificate. Themajorityofparticipantshad10ormoreyearsoffulltimeworkexperience(67%).Managersmade up43%ofthesampleandparticipantsrepresentedmanyindustries(e.g.,realestate,forprofitservices, transportation, health, government) and functional areas (e.g., administration, sales, information technology,andservices). Measures Organizationalcynicism.Organizationalcynicismwasmeasuredusingfiveitemsdevelopedby Deanetal.(1998).Asampleitemis: Ibelievemycompanysaysonethinganddoesanother andall itemswereratedona5pointscale(=.92). 103

10 Job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured with the sixitem Brayfield and Rothe (1951) global satisfaction scale. A sample item is: I feel fairly satisfied with my present job and all itemswereratedona5pointscale(=.90). Generalcynicism.Cynicismwasmeasuredwith10itemstakenfromWrightsman sphilosophies ofhumannature(pnh)scale(wrightsman,1992).asampleitemis: Mostpeoplewouldtellalieifthey couldgainbyit andallitemswereratedona5pointscale(=.86). Negative affectivity (NA). NA was measured using the negative traits from the Positive and Negative Affectivity Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS asks participants to indicatehowoftentheexperience20emotions(tennegative,tenpositive;=.90). Coreselfevaluation.Coreselfevaluationwasmeasuredwiththe12itemscaledevelopedby Judgeetal.(2003).Asampleitemis: IamconfidentIgetthesuccessIdeserveinlife andallitems wereratedona5pointscale(=.83). Results Means,standarddeviations,scalereliabilities,andintercorrelationsareprovidedinTable1.We usedstructuralequationmodeling(sem)usingamos7(arbuckle,2006)toexaminethehypothesized relationshipsbetweenthevariables(seefigure1).overall,thismodelprovidedagoodfittothedata, 2 (80,N=312)=229.24,p<.001,CFI=.95,TLI=.93,NFI=.93,RMSEA=.077.Hypothesis1predicteda negative relationship between core selfevaluation and cynicism. This hypothesis was supported (standardizedcoefficient=.28,p<.01).hypothesis2,thatthereisapositiverelationshipbetweenna andorganizationalcynicismwasalsosupportedbythedata(standardizedcoefficient=.14,p<.05)as washypothesis3,whichpredictedapositiverelationshipbetweengeneralandorganizationalcynicism (standardized coefficient =.22, p <.01). Supporting Hypothesis 4, organizational cynicism was also significantlyrelatedtojobsatisfaction(standardizedcoefficient=.46,p<.01). 104

11 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations Variable Mean SD CoreSelfEvaluation (.83) 2.JobSatisfaction ** (.90) 3.OrganizationalCynicism **.43** (.92) GeneralCynicism **.08.34** (.86) 5.NegativeAffect **.25**.33**.32** (.90) Note:*p<.05;**p<.01.Coefficientalphareliabilityestimatesareinparenthesisonthemaindiagonal. 105

12 Figure1 Hypothesized Model Coreself.28** Organizational General.22**.46** Job Satisfaction Negative affectivity.14* Note:Numericalvaluesrepresentstandardizedcoefficients. *p<.05;**p<

13 ToevaluateHypotheses5aandb,wetestedamodelthatincludeddirectpathsbetweenNAand jobsatisfactionandbetweencoreselfevaluationandjobsatisfaction.thismodelwasagoodfittothe data, 2 (78, N = 312) = , p <.001, CFI =.96, TLI =.94, NFI =.94, RMSEA =.074. Chisquare differencetestsrevealedthatthepartiallymediatedmodelwasabetterfittothedatathanthefully mediated model, 2 (2) = 23.49, p <.01. In support of Hypothesis 5a, we failed to find a significant relationshipbetweennaandjobsatisfaction(standardizedcoefficient=.04,ns).however,contraryto Hypothesis 5b, we did find a positve relationship between core selfevaluation and job satisfaction (standardized coefficient =.30, p <.01). Given the near zero relationship between NA and job satisfaction,wetestedarevisedmodel(modelbuilding,kline,1998)inwhichthedirectpathfromnato jobsatisfactionwasremoved,butthedirectpathbetweencoreselfevaluationandjobsatisfactionwas retained(seefigure2).thismodelalsoprovidedagoodfittothedata, 2 (79,N=312)=206.42,p<.001, CFI =.96, TLI =.94, NFI =.94, RMSEA =.072. Chisquare difference tests comparing the hypothesiszedfullymediatedmodeltotherevisedmodelrevealedthattherevisedmediatedmodelwas abetterfittothedatathanthefullymediatedmodel, 2 (1)=23.20,p<.01. Figure2 RevisedModel Coreself.28** General.27**.22** Organizational.34** Job Satisfaction.14* Negative affectivity 107

14 Discussion The purpose of this research was to elucidate further the dispositional factors that may predict organizational cynicism and examine how the previously demonstrated relationships with job satisfaction are affected. Although this research is exploratory, it does address the call for research examining the effects of organizational cynicism on other organizational variables (Dean et al., 1998). Moreover, we also extend the literature on organizational cynicism by approaching the development of cynical attitudes froma dispositional perspective. Our findings suggest that core self-evaluation, NA, and general cynicism all predict organizational cynicism. Individuals with a positive core self-evaluation express less organizational cynicism, while individuals high in NA and general cynicism express more organizational cynicism. Additionally, we also found support for the previously demonstrated relationship between organizational cynicism and job satisfaction. People who express cynical attitudes about their organizations are also less satisfied with their jobs. We also hypothesized that organizational cynicism may account for the relationships between job satisfaction and NA and core self-evaluation. When we included a direct path from NA to job satisfaction the relationship was near zero, supporting our contention that one way in which NA works to predict job satisfaction is through organizational cynicism. However, our hypothesis that organizational cynicism would fully mediate the relationship between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction was not supported. Although the path coefficient was smaller in magnitude than the zero order correlation between the two variables, the path was still significant and the model a better fit to the data. Although novel in its propositions, this study is only a preliminary examination of the relationship between dispositional variables, organizational cynicism, and job satisfaction. Future research should focus on examining other variables that may predict organizational cynicism. Of particular interest may be the joint contribution of dispositional and situational factors. It is possible that situational factors may function as mediator variables in the relationship between dispositional variables and organizational cynicism. For example, a high LMX relationship could mitigate the negative effect of organizational cynicism on job satisfaction. Indeed, Davis and Gardner (2004) have recently proposed a model of organizational attributions that includes both LMX and organizational cynicism. Another approach to studying the relationships examined in this study involves a more detailed examination of organizational cynicism as a construct. For example, Johnson and O Leary-Kelly (2003) measured cognitive, affective, and behavioural components of organizational cynicism. As the present study focused solely on the cognitive component, incorporating the affective and behavioural components in future research might enable a more complete understanding of the dispositional variables that predict organizational cynicism. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that the factors that breed organizational cynicism will change. Therefore, organizations must ensure that the effects of cynicism on important attitudes such as job satisfaction are mitigated. Our research indicates that some employees may be pre-disposed to develop cynical attitudes toward the organization, thus there are certain individuals who may be more likely to perceive organizational actions negatively. Although some may interpret this to mean that there is nothing organizations can do to reduce the impact of organizational cynicism, we do not believe this to be the case. As long as organizations have proper policies and 108

15 procedures in place to mitigate negative organizational outcomes, or, at very least, lessen the impact of negative outcomes, we believe the effects of cynical attitudes can be managed. The theoretical and practical implications of this study must be weighed against its limitations. Although this investigation was based on a diverse sample of employed adults, the use of self-report measures could bias the ratings. Gathering perceptions such as cynicism and affect necessitate eliciting self-report descriptions of experiences. Only the respondents can tell us how they experience their work and this is necessary for predicting personal outcomes such as job satisfaction (e.g., Khan & Morrow, 1991). Spector and Jex (1998) acknowledge that objective measures can also be problematic and less accurate than selfreports in measuring intended constructs. Nonetheless, mono-method bias cannot be ruled out. However, all of the scales displayed high reliability and the measures possesses a variety of scale anchors and values (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). That being said, future studies with multiple sources and longitudinal data are needed to support and generalize our findings. This study hypothesized and found a relationship between organizational cynicism and job satisfaction, however, the relationship is still tenuous. Several studies have demonstrated a link between these two constructs (e.g., Johnson & O Leary-Kelly, 2003; Wanous et al., 2000), but it is not yet fully clear why this relationship exists. As discussed in the introduction, the mediating psychological mechanisms have yet to be clearly explicated. Interestingly, our research suggests that dispositions may be the common link between these constructs, and that organizational cynicism may actually mediate the relationship between negative affect and job satisfaction. However, it is equally possible that other situational variables also impact the relationship between the two. Thus, although the literature on organizational cynicism is still in its infancy, it is imperative that researchers begin to more clearly examine those mechanisms that link these two variables. As both organizational life and employee expectations evolve, it is imperative that researchers respond by understanding how changes in one may affect changes in the other. Unfortunately, as more and more employees perceive organizations to be acting out of self-interest and not the good of the employee, the more relevant this line of research becomes. References Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genetic Social and General PsychologyMonographs,126, Ajzen,I.andFishbein,M.(1977).Attitudebehaviorrelations:Atheoreticalanalysisandreviewof empiricalresearch.psychologicalbulletin,84, Andersson, L.M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. HumanRelations,49,

16 Andersson,L.M.,&Bateman,T.S.(1997).Cynicismintheworkplace:Somecausesandeffects.Journalof OrganizationalBehavior,18, Arbuckle,J.L.(2006).Amos7.0UsersGuide.AmosDevelopmentCorporation. Ashford,S.J.,(1988).Individualstratgiesforcopingwithstressduringorganizationaltransitions.Journal ofappliedbehavioralscience,24,1936. Brayfield,A.H.,&Rothe,H.F.(1951).Anindexofjobsatisfaction.JournalofAppliedPsychology,35, Brief,A.P.,Butcher,A.H.,&Roberson,L.(1995).Cookies,disposition,andjobattitudes:Theeffectsof positivemoodinducingeventsandnegativeaffectivityonjobsatisfactioninafieldexperiment. OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,62,5562. Clore,G.L.,&Schnall,S.(2005).Theinfluenceofaffectonattitude.InD.Albarracin,B.T.Johnson,&M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes (pp ), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Cole, M.S., Bruch, H., & Vogle, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisorsupportandpsychologicalhardinessonemployeecynicism.journaloforganizational Behavior,27, Cook,W.W.,&Medley,D.M.(1954).ProposedhostilityandpharisaicvirtuescalesfortheMMPI.Journal ofappliedpsychology,38, Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M.A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudesandjobperformance.journaloforganizationalbehavior,14,595606, Dean,J.W.,Brandes,P.,&Dharwadkar,R. (1998). OrganizationalCynicism.Academyof Management Review,23, Davis,W.D.,&Gardner,W.L.(2004).Perceptionsofpoliticsandorganizationalcynicism:Anattributional andleadermemberexchangeperspective.leadershipquarterly,15, Eagly,A.H.,&Chaiken,S.(1993).ThePsychologyofAttitudes.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. JournalofAppliedPsychology,71, Feldman,D.C.(2000).TheDilbertsyndrome.AmericanBehavioralScientist,43, Fisher, C.D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of OrganizationalBehavior,21, Fisher,C.(2003).Whydolaypeoplebelievethatsatisfactionandperformancearecorrelated?Possible sourcesofacommonsensetheory.journaloforganizationalbehavior,24,

17 Guastello,S.J.,Rieke,M.L.,Guastello,D.D.,&Billings,S.W.(1992).Astudyofcynicism,personality,and workvalues.journalofpsychology,126,3748. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,16, Heller,D.,Judge,T.A.,&Watson,D.(2002).Theconfoundingroleofpersonalityandtraitaffectivityin therelationshipbetweenjobandlifesatisfaction.journaloforganizationalbehavior,23, Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person vs. situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination.psychologicalbulletin. Johnson, J.L., & O LearyKelly, A.M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior,24, Judge,T.A.,Erez,A.,Bono,J.E.,&Thoresen,C.J.(2002).Aremeasuresofselfesteem,neuroticism,locus of control, and generalized selfefficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of PersonalityandSocialPsychology,83, Judge,T.A.,Erez,A.,Bono,J.E.,&Thoresen,C.J.(2003).TheCoreSelfEvaluationsScale:Developmentof ameasure.personnelpsychology,56, Judge,T.A.,&Ilies,R.(2004).Affect andjobsatisfaction:astudyoftherelationships atworkand at home.journalofappliedpsychology. Judge, T.A., & Larsen, R.S. (2001). Dispositional sources of job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension.organizationalbehaviorandhumandecisionprocesses,86,5562. Judge,T.A.,Locke,E.A.,&Durham,C.C.(1997).Thedispositionalcausesofjobsatisfaction:Acore evaluationsapproach.researchinorganizationalbehavior,19, Kanter,D.L.,&Mirvis,P.H.(1989).TheCynicalAmericans.LivingandWorkinginanAgeofDiscontent anddisillusion.sanfrancisco:josseybass. Khan, L.J., & Morrow, P.C. (1991). Objective and subjective underemployment relationships to job satisfaction.journalofbusinessresearch,22, Kline,R.B.(1998).Principlesandpracticesofstructuralequationmodeling.NewYork:GuilfordPress. Kruglanski,A.W.,&Stroebe,W.(2005).Theinfluenceofbeliefsandgoalsonattitudes:Issuesofstrcture, function,anddynamics.ind.albarracin,b.t.johnson,&m.p.zanna(eds.),thehandbookof Attitudes(pp ),Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceEarlbaumAssociates. Locke, E.A. (1990). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.): Handbook of IndustrialandOrganizationalPsychology(pp ).Chicago:RandMcNally. 111

18 Lynch, P.D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superiorperformancebywaryemployees.journalofappliedpsychology,8, Markus, C., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., Dalal, R.S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job satisfaction as a mediator:anassessmentofjobsatisfaction spositionwithinthenomologicalnetwork.journal ofoccupationalandorganizationalpsychology.80, Pugh,S.D.,Skarlicki,D.P.,&Passell,B.P.(2003).Afterthefall:Layoffvictims trustandcynicisminre employment.journalofoccupationalandorganizationalpsychology,76, Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P., & Austin, J.T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizationalchange.academyofmanagementexecutive,11,4859. Smith,P.C.,Kendall,L.M.,&Hulin,C.L.(1985).TheJobDescriptiveIndex(Rev.Ed.).BowlingGreenState University.(Originalworkpublished1975). Spector,P.E.&Jex,S.M.(1998).Developmentoffourselfreportmeasuresofjobstressorsandstrain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory,andphysicalsymptomsinventory.journalofoccupationalhealthpsychology,3, Stanley,D.J.,Meyer,J.P.,&Topolnytsky,L.(2005).Employeecynicismandresistancetoorganizational change.journalofbusinessandpsychology,19, Stanton,J.M.,&Weiss,E.M.(2002).OnlinePanelsforSocialScienceResearch:AnIntroductiontothe StudyResponseProject.Syracuse,NY:SyracuseUniversity,SchoolofInformationStudies,Tech. Rep.No.13001,accessedAugust16,2007at Staw,B.M.(2004).Thedispositionalapproachtojobattitudes:Anempiricalandconceptualreview.InB. Schneider&D.B.Smith(Eds.),Personalityandorganizations.LEA'sorganizationand managementseries(pp ).mahwah,nj:lawrenceerlbaumassociates. Staw,B.M.,&CohenCharash,Y.(2005).Thedispositionalapproachtojobsatisfaction:Morethana mirage,butnotyetanoasis.journaloforganizationalbehavior,26,5978. Thoresen,C.J.,Kaplan,S.A.,Barsky,A.P.,&deChermont,K.(2003).Theaffectiveunderpinningsofjob perceptionsandattitudes:ametaanalyticreviewandintegration.psychologicalbulletin,129, Trevor,C.O.(2001).Interactionsamongactualeaseofmovementdeterminantsandjobsatisfactionin thepredictionofvoluntaryturnover.academyofmanagementjournal,44, vandenbos,k.(1999).whatarewetalkingaboutwhenwetalkaboutnovoiceprocedures?onthe psychologyofthefairoutcomeeffect.journalofexperimentalsocialpsychology,35,

19 Wallace,J.C.,&Chen,G.(2005).Developmentandvalidationofaworkspecificmeasureofcognitive failure: Implications for occupational safety. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,78, Wanous,J.P.,Reichers,A.E.,&Austin,J.T.(1994).Organizationalcynicism:Aninitialstudy.Academyof ManagementBestPapersProceedings, Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Austin, J.T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change. Group & OrganizationManagement,25, Watson,D.&Clark,L.A.(1984).Negativeaffectivity:Thedispositiontoexperienceaversiveemotional states.psychologicalbulletin,96, Watson,D.,Clark,L.A.,&Tellegen,A.(1988).Developmentandvalidationofbriefmeasuresofpositive andnegativeaffect:thepanasscales.journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,54, Weiss,H.M.,&Cropanzano,R.(1996).Affectiveeventstheory:Atheoreticaldiscussionofthestructure, causesandconsequencesofaffectiveexperiencesatwork.inb.m.staw&l.l.cummings(eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol.18,pp.174).US:ElsevierScience/JAIPress. Worchel,S.,Cooper,J.,Goethals,G.R.,&Olson,J.M.(2000).Attitudes.InS.Worchel,&J.Cooper(Eds.), SocialPsychology(pp ).Belmont,CA:Wadsworth. Wyer, R.S., & Albarracin, D. (2005). Belief formation, organization, and change: Cognitive and motivationalinfluences.ind.albarracin,b.t.johnson,&m.p.zanna(eds.),thehandbookof Attitudes(pp ),Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceEarlbaumAssociates. Wrightsman, L.S. (1992). Assumptions About Human Nature: Implications for Researchers and Practitioners.NewburyPark:SagePublications. 113