341.full

® Academy of Management Review1998, Vol. 23, No. 2, 341-352.

NOTE

ORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM

JAMES W. DEAN, JR.University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

PAMELA BRANDESSouthern Connecticut State University

RAVI DHARWADKARUniversity of Cincinnati

What is the nature of the extremely negative attitudes expressed by so many employ-ees toward their organizations? To respond to this question, we introduce the conceptof organizational cynicism. We review the literature from several disciplines on thisconcept and suggest that organizational cynicism is an attitude composed of beliefs,affect, and behavioral tendencies toward an organization. Following our review andconceptualization, we derive implications of this concept and propose a researchagenda for organizational cynicism.

Cynicism is everywhere—widespread amongorganization members in the United States(Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), Europe, and Asia (Kouzes& Posner, 1993). Organizational change andquality improvement efforts particularly seem toengender cynicism (Shapiro, 1996). For example,Cunniff notes that employees are increasinglycynical about the "constant parade of initiativesthat come with the usual promise of imminentimprovement" (1993: 4). Employees in one com-pany circulated clandestine copies of theirfirm's "adaptation" of the Deming Principles,which included "Humor all employees in phonyefforts to include them in process improvementmethodologies.... Provide slogans, meaning-less exhortations [and] numerical goals . . . .Drive in fear by discouraging communicationand by instituting a policy of Continuous Lay-off."

These observations are echoed in our own ex-perience by the reaction of part-time MBA stu-dents to the topic of "teamwork" (cross-functionalcollaboration) in organizations. These students

We thank Lynne Andersson, Harold Angle, Daniel Brass,Thomas Debbink, Dennis Gioia, Katherine Klein, and AnandNarasimhan for their helpful comments on an earlier draft ofthis article. This research was supported by a grant from theUniversity of Cincinnati Faculty Summer Research Fellow-ship.

could see the benefits of teamwork in theory butperceived it, in practice, as merely a slogan usedby their organizations to appear progressive, with-out changing anj^hing about how work actuallygets done (cf., Aktouf, 1992). A young woman in thisclass was so appalled by her organization thatshe thought she must be part of "some huge ex-periment on unmotivating employees." Anotheryoung man had been invited to lunch with hiscoworkers by the management of his organization;he accepted the invitation but worried that man-agement had only made the offer "to keep us offguard." Even the popularity of the comic strip "Dil-bert," about an engineer whose organizationplumbs the depths of unscrupulousness, suggeststhat many people perceive their organizations inthese terms. In fact, much of the material for thestrip actually is sent to the cartoonist via e-mail byfrustrated employees (Greilsamer, 1995).

This article is about organization members'cynicism toward their organizations—an atti-tude that appears to be both widespread andignored by organizational research. We addressone major question: how should organizationalcynicism be conceptualized? We organize thisarticle as follows. First, we discuss the origin ofthe concept of cynicism and briefly review theliterature that has begun to appear on this topic.We then propose a conceptualization of cyni-cism in organizations and discuss a number of

341

342 Academy of Management Review April

issues related to this conceptualization. Next,we compare organizational cynicism to otherexisting organizational constructs. Finally, wepropose a research agenda for organizationalcynicism.

CONCEPTIONS OF CYNICISM

Origins of the Concept of Cynicism

Cynicism as a school of thought and a way oflife originated in ancient Greece. The term itselfmay have come from the Greek word for dog(kyon) or from Cynosarges, a town near Athenswhere the Cynics had their school. The firstCynic was Antisthenes, originally a follower ofSocrates, but he has been overshadowed in his-tory by his student Diogenes of Sinope, whobecame famous for carrying a lamp in daylightto help him find one honest man. Believing thatthe individual, and not the organization, was thenatural unit of human life. Cynics felt that evencherished institutions, such as religion and gov-ernment, were unnatural and unnecessary—worthy only of scorn (Fuller, 1931). Cynics wereopenly contemptuous of such institutions andwere known for using dramatic and obscenedisplays to draw people into conversations, inwhich they could proclaim their views (Mack,1993). Humor was the favorite weapon of theCynics, the privileged and powerful their favor-ite target.

Cynicism was, from the beginning, as much alifestyle as a philosophy (More, 1923). Cynicsbelieved that men's conventions were unnaturaland should be avoided, as much as possible, inthe name of the independence and self-suffi-ciency that characterize a good life. Rejectingsocietal standards. Cynics wore rough clothingand drank out of their hands so as not to need acup. Diogenes is even said to have lived in a tubinstead of a house. In short, the original Cynicsheld society's institutions in very low regardand expressed contempt for them in both wordsand actions.

Over the centuries the terms "cynic," "cyni-cal," and "cynicism" have taken their place inour language, with meanings that are looselyderived from the tenets of Cynicism. The OxfordEnglish Dictionary (1989) defines a cynic as "onewho shows a disposition to disbelieve in thesincerity or goodness of human motives and ac-tions, and is wont to express this by sneers and

sarcasms; a sneering fault-finder." In the nextsection we discuss how various researchershave interpreted the idea of cynicism.

Conceptualizations of Cynicism in Research

Five major conceptualizations of cynicismseem to characterize the literature thus far. Auseful review of these should compare and con-trast existing conceptualizations in order todemonstrate areas of distinction, as well as ar-eas of overlap between concepts. One methodfor comparing conceptualizations is facet de-sign (Guttman, 1954; Schwab, 1980; Shapira &Zevulun, 1979). While this technique can be usedfor hypothesis development and testing on moremature concepts, our purpose in applying thistechnique will be more "taxonomic," in order tocontrast different approaches to cynicism.

Extant conceptualizations of cynicism (see Ta-ble 1) can be compared in terms of their relatedconcepts, foci, definitions, epistemic correla-tions (the relationship between the conceptual-ization and the measurement of a construct;Northrop, 1959), overlaps with/preclusion ofother cynicism forms, internal reliability, rela-tive importance of determinants (e.g., personversus situational characteristics), and the as-sumed permanence and means of influencingthe construct (Morrow, 1983). In addition to thesecategories, we include in Table 1 yet anothermeans of comparison: theoretical predecessors.Because of space considerations, we mean thecitations included to be illustrative rather thanexhaustive.

Personality approaches. Researchers usingpersonality-based approaches to cynicism gen-erally discuss cynicism as an overall outlook onhuman nature. Studies in this tradition arebased on Cook and Medley's (1954) hostilityscale—a subset of items from the MinnesotaMultiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Gra-ham (1993) suggests that individuals who scorehigh on MMPI cynicism scales see others asselfish and uncaring, question the motives ofothers, and are guarded and untrusting in rela-tionships. Scholars undertaking current discus-sions of the hostility concept within psychologyand medicine interpret Cook and Medley's workas representing "cynical hostility," which in-cludes distrust in others but not overt expres-sions of aggression (e.g.. Barefoot, Dodge, Peter-son, Dahlstrom, & Williams, 1989; Costa,

1998 Dean, Brandes, and Dharwadkar 343

M0)

1CO

6CO4

I

I

D ra u "

U

•ss

o

JO

II

gO

Is1=1g °Oim

Sg!SB<D UC '

o

o sis; - - C g CO

w G to 0) Q) 3

•2 5 m-gîS g ra gtJ.H-S S

3

n

I-Io

O.S

::3 o era'o.2 S•S-gB 25gr:2^S a> o

8

It"31°

01

3-2

IT)

I, « (1)

"3 O f 11p

Illpill^llllgl° tj-s o P ml) $.3 &.fl

•G^2S.1âo

1)^3 to r 5 OO

•I IP" W 'TIS tt fl ^

»7- C

o

" a . ^ " m"

? 0) 3 ? In ^.•2«<.^K200 00

m

0 O'»3I* " MO O .S ,-^

^ ^ fl ra

s

++

o +

O g gm'O

BP. +

o +

Io

2 So o

II

01 01

3 3

I °6 S00

I >- >- C

++

-I- +

o X>

u •^ " O 01 ra

o .

3 « ++

tn

o

2 O

fl o Ô (3 M- 2 .2

gs-it


Zonderman, McCrae, & Williams, 1986; Green-glass & Julkunen, 1989). The Cook and Medleyhostility scale reflects more individuals' impres-sions of themselves (e.g., "I have often met peo-ple who were supposed to be expert who wereno better than I") and less their view of people ingeneral, which has been the focus of Wrights-man's (1974) Philosophies of Human NatureScale (cynicism subscale). As a result of a trait-based approach, research within this traditionassumes that little can be done to change one'sdegree of cynicism.

Societal/institutional focus. According to Kanterand Mirvis (1989), Americans' cynical outlook onlife has resulted from fluctuating fortunes in theAmerican social and political milieus in the twen-tieth century. Other contributors to cynicism in-clude exploitation of workers during the earlystages of industrialization and the failed promiseof modem organizations to improve life at work.Although Kanter and Mirvis discuss cynicism asincluding disillusionment with society, self, insti-tutions, or others, their operationalization dealswith people's impressions of others in general. Inother words, because of the nature of their opera-tionalization, there is some overlap between theirconception of cynicism and the personality ap-proach to cynicism. Kanter and Mirvis's analysisindicates that cynicism has become an inherentcharacteristic of many Americans, suggesting that43 percent of the workforce is cynical. However,their description of the evolution of cynicism as aresponse to the failed promises of society, as wellas their attention to demographic variables (e.g.,gender, race, education, and income), suggests asituational component; counter to the personalityapproach, they propose that cynicism levelscan be managed, and they offer several waysthat organizations can create work cultures tocounter it.

Occupational cynicism focus. In his studies ofurban policing, Niederhoffer (1967) noted the de-velopment of "police cynicism," which he de-scribes as "a byproduct of anomie in the socialstructure" (1967: 95) of policing stemming fromthe interaction of role ambiguities and conflict-ing pressures regarding professionalization ofpolice work. O'Connell, Holzman, and Armandi(1986) found that officers had two targets fortheir cynicism: (1) the organization (organization-al cynicism) and (2) the service of the people andof the law (work cynicism). O'Connell et al. (1986)suggest that high and low levels of work and

organizational cynicism combine to create fourdifferent adaptation styles. Although correlated,the relationship between work and organization-al cynicism was not so high as to suggest thatthey were the same construct. Work cynicismwas higher for those officers who (1) had lesscomplex work details, (2) had rotating shifts, (3)had nonpreferred details, and (4) worked in theprecinct.

Employee cynicism focus. Andersson (1996)and Andersson and Bateman (1997) suggestthree potential targets for cynicism: (1) businessorganizations in general, (2) corporate execu-tives, and (3) "other" workplace objects. Em-ployee cynics within this approach are notewor-thy for their negative feelings, such as contempt,frustration, and hopelessness toward these tar-gets. Researchers see employee cynicism as aresult of violations of psychological contractsand describe this cynicism within the realm ofattitudes. Using a scenario-based methodology,Andersson and Bateman found that employeecynicism toward a hypothetical organizationwas related to high levels of executive compen-sation, poor organizational performance, andharsh organizational layoffs. Additionally, cyn-icism toward three targets was negatively re-lated to self-reported intent to perform organiza-tional citizenship behaviors.

Organizational change focus. Reichers, Wa-nous, and Austin (1997) suggest that organiza-tional change efforts are the appropriate targetof cynicism. Specifically, they describe cynicismas an attitude consisting of the futility of changealong with negative attributions of change facil-itators. Similarly, Vance, Brooks, and Tesluksuggest that organizational cynicism is a"learned belief that fixable problems at workwill not be resolved due to factors beyond theindividual's control" (1996: 1), but unlike Reich-ers et al., they suggest that cynics believe thatthings could be better. Cynicism about organi-zational change (CAOC) has a specific target(organizational change efforts) but does not pre-clude other forms of cynicism. In fact, these au-thors suggest that negative affect (a personalityvariable) is positively related to CAOC. Whileacknowledging the impact of personality vari-ables, Reichers et al. (1997) emphasize thestrength of situational variables: being anhourly employee, perceiving less participationin decisions, and perceiving poor informationflows and follow-ups all are related to CAOC.


Furthermore, Reichers et al. offer several recom-mendations for managing cynicism, which in-clude efforts at involving people in decisionsthat affect them, enhancing the credibility ofmanagement, and keeping surprising changesto a minimum.

In summary, scholars have observed cynicismthrough various theoretical lenses and have of-fered several targets for cynicism, includingother people in general, societal institutions,one's occupation, top managers, and organiza-tional change efforts.

A NEW CONCEPTUALIZATION OFORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM

Our task now turns to conceptualizing organ-izational cynicism in a way that captures thegenerally understood meaning of this term andprovides a solid foundation for operation-alization and measurement. We will also distin-guish organizational cynicism from constructsfrequently used in organizational studies. Bothof these tasks are essential to the developmentof constructs within organizational behavior.We hope to add to existing knowledge by creat-ing a unique conceptualization that we believecaptures the essence of the construct while de-fining it in precise terms.

In order to put organizational cynicism onsolid conceptual and theoretical footing, wehave conceptualized it as an attitude, which is"a disposition to respond favorably or unfavor-ably to an object, person, institution, or event"(Ajzen, 1994: 114). Psychologists suggest thatevaluation is the core of attitudes (Eagly &Chaiken, 1993). We define organizational cyni-cism as follows:

Organizational cynicism is a negativeattitude toward one's employing or-ganization, comprising three dimen-sions: (1) a belief that the organizationlacks integrity; (2) negative affect to-ward the organization; and (3) tenden-cies to disparaging and critical be-haviors toward the organization thatare consistent with these beliefs andaffect.

Our conception of cynicism, thus, is multidimen-sional, corresponding to the three components—beliefs, affect, and behavioral tendencies—thathave long characterized attitude theory (Eagly &

Chaiken, 1993; Hilgard, 1980; Smith, 1947). Allthree components vary on an evaluative contin-uum, from positive to negative (Allport, 1935;Breckler, 1984). Thus, we do not focus on cyni-cism as a personality trait—a characteristic ofpeople who are cynical about everything—butrather as a state—an aspect of people that maychange over time and that is directed at a spe-cific target: their organization (cf.. Hart, 1997).

One assumption of our definition is that anorganization can be the object of an attitude.Ajzen's (1994) definition of attitudes, which in-cludes "institutions" as potential attitude ob-jects, makes clear that this is consistent withattitude theory. There is also a substantial pre-cedent for this assumption in the literature onorganizational commitment (Porter, Steers,Mowday, & Boulian, 1974) and on perceived or-ganizational identity (e.g., Dutton, Dukerich, &Harquail, 1994). Bateman, Sakano, and Fujita(1992) also have demonstrated that people holdattitudes about specific organizations, whereasLevinson (1965) discusses the broader tenden-cies of individuals to personify organizations.

A further assumption is that people can forman attitude about their employing organizationbased on the behavior of the people in the or-ganization. Although occasional perceptionsthat organizational practices lack integrity maybe attributed to the specific individuals in-volved, perceptions that such behavior is wide-spread and enduring in the organization aremore likely to be attributed to organizationalcharacteristics (Dutton et al., 1994). Moreover,some of the perceptions upon which cynical at-titudes are based—concerning policies, pro-cesses, or other systemic elements of the or-ganization—may be difficult to relate to specificindividuals.

Beliefs

The first dimension of organizational cyni-cism is the belief that the organization lacksintegrity. Returning to the Oxford English Dic-tionary, we find integrity defined as "soundnessof moral principle; the character of uncorruptedvirtue, especially in relation to truth and fairdealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity." Uponrelating this back to the dictionary definition ofcynicism ("a disposition to disbelieve in the sin-cerity or goodness of human motives and ac-tions"), we see that a concise statement of cyn-


ical beliefs is that people lack integrity (seeBecker, 1998, for an alternative conceptualiza-tion of integrity).

Thus, organizational cynics believe that thepractices of their organizations betray a lack ofsuch principles as fairness, honesty, and sincer-ity. These cynics may believe that, in their or-ganization, such principles are often sacrificedto expediency and that unscrupulous behavioris the norm. They may also believe that choicesof organizational direction are based on self-interest (Goldner, Ritti, & Ference, 1977) and thatpeople are inconsistent and unreliable in theirbehavior. Cynics often believe there are hiddenmotives for actions; thus, they expect to see de-ception rather than candor and are unlikely toaccept at face value the official rationale fororganizational decisions.

Affect

Attitudes are composed of affect—that is,emotional reactions to the attitude object—aswell as beliefs (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Thisimplies that cynicism is felt as well as fhoughf—experienced through emotion as well as cogni-tion. Cynicism is not a dispassionate judgmentabout the organization; it can include powerfulemotional reactions. In conceptualizing this af-fective component of cynical attitudes, we relyprimarily upon the work of Izard (1977), whoidentifies nine basic emotions, each of whichis described in both a mild and strong form:(1) interest-excitement, (2) enjoyment-joy, (3) sur-prise-startle, (4) distress-anguish, (5) anger-rage,(6) disgust-revulsion, (7) contempt-scorn, (8) fear-terror, and (9) shame-humiliation.

The affective dimension of organizationalcynicism comprises several of these emotions.Cynics may, for example, feel contempt for andanger toward their organization. They may alsoexperience distress, disgust, and even shamewhen they think about their organization. Thus,cynicism is associated with a variety of nega-tive emotions. Ironically, however, cynics mayalso experience a secret enjoyment of their su-periority to the organization, which they havejudged by their standards and found wanting.Therefore, we see organizational cynics as notonly holding certain beliefs about their organi-zations but also as experiencing a related set ofemotions.

Behavior

The final dimension of organizational cyni-cism is tendencies toward negative, and oftendisparaging, behavior. The general thrust of theliterature indicates that cynical attitudes com-prise tendencies toward certain types of behav-ior, rather than specific behaviors per se (e.g.,Ajzen, 1994). Echoing the ancient Cynics, themost obvious behavioral tendency for those withcynical attitudes is the expression of strong crit-icisms of the organization. This may take a va-riety of forms, the most direct of which is explicitstatements about the lack of honesty, sincerity,and so on, on the part of the organization. Em-ployees also may use humor, especially sarcas-tic humor, to express cynical attitudes. Express-ing interpretations of organizational events thatassume a lack of integrity on the part of theorganization may be a behavioral tendency thatcharacterizes organizational cynics as well—forexample, the employee who says that the onlyreason the company is interested in environ-mental issues is to generate good public rela-tions. Organizational cynics may tend to makepessimistic predictions about the future courseof action in the organization. For example, theymay predict that a quality initiative will beabandoned as soon as it begins to be costly.Finally, tendencies toward certain types of non-verbal behavior may be used to convey cynicalattitudes. This includes "knowing" looks androlling eyes, as well as the smirks and sneers bywhich cynics (and Cynics) have long beenknown.

In summary, we have conceptualized organi-zational cynicism as an attitude composed ofbeliefs, affect, and behavioral tendencies. Thus,we see organizational cynicism as a multidi-mensional construct: people are considered cyn-ical about their organization to the extent thatthey hold certain beliefs about the organiza-tion's (lack of) integrity, experience certain typesof affect toward the organization, and displaycertain behavioral tendencies toward the or-ganization. We can conceptualize the strength ofthe attitude of cynicism as a function of thestrength of each of the individual dimensions.However, research generally has shown thethree components of attitudes to be highly inter-correlated (e.g., Breckler, 1984). Implicit in thisdiscussion is the assumption that organization-al cynicism is a continuum: the world is not


divided into cynics and noncynics, and peoplehave widely varying degrees of cynicism.

cynicism, and (4) the distinction between organ-izational cynicism and other constructs.

ADVANTAGES OF OUR CONCEPTUALIZATIONOF ORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM

We believe our conceptualization of organiza-tional cynicism provides a number of advan-tages over existing conceptualizations. Many ofthese advantages are based on our use of thetripartite attitude framework. First, our concep-tualization makes it clear that organizationalcynicism is a state—not a trait—which impliesboth that it is based on specific organizationalexperiences and that it is likely to change some-what over time as individuals' experienceschange. By relying on an attitudes framework,we have clearly differentiated organizafionaicynicism from personality- or trait-based cyni-cism, which focuses on human nature in gen-eral. Second, it is not limited to a particular typeof work, such as police work; cynicism certainlyis observable in a wide range of occupations.Third, our conceptualization rounds out the con-struct by including affect and behavior, as wellas beliefs. Although the cognitive element oforganizational cynicism is quite important, theconstruct would be impoverished without a con-sideration of its emotional and behavioral di-mensions. Finally, by focusing on the organiza-tion as the target of cynicism, constructs such ascynicism about organizational change are sub-sumed into a broader whole, from which, per-haps, they can be derived. If employees see or-ganizations as generally insincere andduplicitous, then it makes sense that organiza-tional changes will not be expected to be seri-ously undertaken and, therefore, will be ex-pected to fail. However, unlike the societal andoccupational variants of cynicism, in which tar-gets include governments, education, religion,or occupations, our approach restricts the targetof cynicism to one's employing organization.

CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN DEFININGORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM

In attempting to conceptualize a new con-struct, we must address a number of issues inorder to explain and justify our definition. Theissues we address here include (1) the validity ofcynical beliefs, (2) the value of cynicism, (3) theappropriate level of analysis for organizational

The Validity of Cynical Beliefs

It may well have occurred to some readersthat cynics may be right—that is, correct in theirevaluations of their organization. Our definitiontakes no position on the factual basis (or lackthereof) for cynical attitudes. Whatever theirreal or imagined basis, these attitudes areequally valid to the individuals who hold them.Moreover, it would be virtually impossible todistinguish between "justified" and "unjusti-fied" organizational cynicism because so muchof what happens in organizations is open todifferent interpretations (e.g., Pfeffer, 1981;Weick, 1979). For example, one could argueabout whether an organization is being heart-less in laying people off or making a principleddecision to save as many people as possible.Determining whether cynicism is justified is ul-timately a matter of opinion, which would be avery unstable basis for theory. The better ap-proach appears to be to conceive of cynicismsimply in terms of attitudes, leaving aside thequestion of their validity.

The Value of Cynicism

Cynicism is not a particularly valued attributein our culture; referring to someone as a cynicgenerally is not intended as a compliment. Cyn-ics may be depressing to be with, their pessi-mism may undermine their relationships, andtheir skepticism about the truth of anything theyhear may cause them to miss out on attractiveopportunities. However, cynicism can be func-tional (at least up to a point) for both individualsand organizations. At the individual level, peo-ple who invariably believe in others' integrityare likely to be taken advantage of by those wholack it. For the organization, cynics may providea necessary check on the temptation to placeexpediency over principle or the temptation toassume that self-interested or underhanded be-havior will go undetected. In their particularmanner cynics may act as the voice of con-science for the organization, much as the Cynicsdid for their culture. Thus, we should see organ-izational cynicism as neither an unalloyed goodnor an unalloyed evil for organizations.


The Appropriate Level of Analysis

A third issue with which we must deal is thelevel of analysis for organizational cynicism.The level of organizational cynicism is clearlythe individual. By operationalizing organization-al cynicism as an attitude, we are targeting anindividual's cynicism as the focal construct to beexplained. This does not mean that individualsin the same subunit or even organization maynot have similarly cynical attitudes. It doesmean, however, that we will not assume simi-larity of attitudes among people at a given levelby conceptualizing our construct at any levelabove that of the individual.

Comparison of Organizational Cynicism withOther Constructs

In proposing a new construct in the generalarea of employee attitudes, we must differenti-ate it from those that already exist in order toavoid the appearance of "old wine in new bot-tles." Several constructs (organizational commit-ment, trust, job satisfaction, and alienation)appear to have potential overlaps with organi-zational cynicism (Table 2).

Organizational commitment. This constructhas held a prominent position within organiza-tional studies (e.g.. Steers, 1977). The question is,does organizational cynicism simply representa lack of commitment? When we compare eachof organizational commitment's elements tothose of organizational cynicism, we identifyseveral differences between the constructs.First, within the cognitive realm, an organiza-tionally cynical employee believes that thepractices of his or her employing organizationlack integrity, whereas commitment deals withwhether employees believe their personal val-ues and goals are similar to the organization's.Second, cynical employees may or may not en-tertain thoughts of quitting their organization,whereas the behavioral component of commit-ment includes an employee's intent to stay withthe employer. Third, within the affective do-main, an organizationally cynical employee islikely to experience such feelings as frustrationand contempt toward his or her organization,whereas a noncommitted employee is simplylikely to lack pride and attachment to the or-ganization. Our discussion suggests that, al-though the two constructs may be somewhat

negatively related, cynicism clearly is differentfrom and more extreme than a lack of commit-ment.

Trust. Trust is an old concept that scholarsrecently have shown a resurgence of interest in(e.g., Bromiley & Cummings, 1995; Hosmer, 1995;Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Recent re-views on trust suggest that a truster makes anassessment of the likelihood of another party'swillingness to take into account the interests ofthe parties concerned within a transaction. Weshould note that trust itself is the willingness tobe vulnerable to the actions of others andshould not be confused with trusting behavior oractually putting oneself at risk by the actions ofothers (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust does not includeaffect, although we may experience negative orpositive affect based on the outcomes of a trans-action.

Trust and organizational cynicism differ inseveral dimensions. First, a lack of trust may bebased on a lack of experience—that is, when aperson has not had enough experience to beconfident in trusting the other party. Cynicism,in contrast, almost certainly is based on experi-ence. Although one can easily imagine a lack oftrust from one person toward another partybased on a lack of experience to justify suchtrust, it is unlikely that someone in similar cir-cumstances would be cynical about the otherparty (e.g., proclaim his/her/its lack of values orexperience distress, shame, or so on). Second,trust requires a vulnerability to another party toperform a particular action that considers thewell-being of the truster. However, cynicismdoes not require interpersonal vulnerability as aprecondition. One certainly can be cynical with-out being vulnerable, whereas trust has nomeaning in the absence of vulnerability. Third,the definition of trust also suggests that it isoriented toward facilitating cooperation be-tween two or more parties. Our definition ofcynicism makes no such contention. Fourth, be-cause trust, in contrast to cynicism, is not com-monly conceptualized as an attitude, an affec-tive component on the part of the belief holdergenerally is not included within the definition oftrust. Organizational cynicism, unlike trust, in-volves disappointment and frustration, and per-haps even disgust and shame. There is an in-tensely emotional aspect to cynicism that islacking in trust. Finally, Wrightsman's (1974)empirical work demonstrates that cynicism and


1a

6

10

O

o

III

*4O01

IIs2

tI

i

til

11§1

1.Ill

O O

IPc E 0

Si

, 1 . 2 S0 2 "2

Îllllilllll .ll

o

I°i

01

§ ooi 0 a0) C gc o B

'ilil^D

.2 -01 D

o oD

T3

c o c..L O

.S'aiG-^ o i o o ' 3 ' ^ S 9 ' k ' " ' ' ' 5

rf^ PBH . • I ' L j .dk ^ ^ ^ ^ _dk ah 1 ^ f % j.^ ^% ^ ^g " occ

s'o § 75 «u to o ? ^ fl)

o

I

T3

^ •

O'

m3§ 2 2

III

"3 CD

^ l gB aso B gB <B.2

o 01 B

III

( i , « > ^ 2 c i O O . « f i o -ga j tu O : 3 5 o . ( B o i " n f f i . r ! B .eO.'- ' N'tSOl'ÔtD^.-nt

£ . S g § g ' 3 :

01 "^

£2.2''*' "

Cl X.2 B

si

a H off 111 t i l l

O.

c

1

01

Sd)

T3

«

01

S..SSo

oz

.rtO

0)

I

(fl .)±<

-•Mai+ +> w

+++

•e ** 01 01 01 ^2 01 tj (UTj o

a'S §i ^ d ,

0)

oc

S

Id)

•S 01

o 8

tD C

e atD k.1> aa .a

g B

8 s

1o S,

SX BO 0

sisi.2 w


trust are only weakly related, sharing 10 percentcommon variance.

Alienation. Extending Blauner's (1964) conceptu-alization of work alienation, Leiter (1985) suggeststhat alienation includes four facets: (1) powerless-ness, (2) meaninglessness, (3) social isolation, and(4) self-estrangement. Management researchers(Organ & Greene, 1981; Podsakoff, Williams, &Todor, 1986) have tied alienation to other organi-zational constructs, such as formalization, roleconflict and ambiguity, and organizational com-mitment. Work alienation is people's reactions toperceiving themselves as not a part of the socialor work environment because of the nature of theirjob. Organizational cynicism, however, while pos-sibly including some overlapping feelings, suchas frustration, tension, or anxiety, includes com-pletely different types of beliefs and behaviors.Work alienation does comprise some of the behav-ioral tendencies we suggest are part of organiza-tional cynicism. However, since alienation is moreof a reaction to one's job than the organization(Blauner, 1964; Leiter, 1985), its target is distinctfrom that of organizational cynicism.

Job satisfaction. This is yet another constructhaving much prominence in organizationalstudies. Job satisfaction has been treated as aglobal concept (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) or as ageneral orientation to a job (Smith, Kendall, &Hulin, 1969), but also as a more specific con-struct relating to aspects of jobs, such as payand supervision (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr,1981). Because of this concept's focus on the jobper se as opposed to one's employing organiza-tion, we recognize organizational cynicism asdistinct from job satisfaction.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We have attempted, in this article, to addressthe question of conceptualizing organizationalcynicism. We have answered this question bydefining organizational cynicism as a negativeattitude toward the organization, comprisingcertain types of belief, affect, and behavioraltendencies. This conceptualization sets thestage for a considerable research agenda onorganizational cynicism. One major step will beto operationalize our conception of organization-al cynicism using the tripartite structure that wehave imported from attitude theory.

A second major step will be to begin—theoretically and empirically—to grapple with

the causes of cynicism in organizations. Re-searchers potentially could employ a variety ofmodels to predict why some people are so muchmore cynical about their organizations than oth-ers. For example, organizational cynicism couldbe understood as a result of processes involvingleadership, power distribution, organizationalchange, or procedural justice.

A third step will be to determine the effects oforganizational cynicism. Outcomes of cynicismcould include such constructs as organizationalcommitment, organizational citizenship, andparticipation in team-based activities, such asemployee involvement and process improve-ment. Although we have speculated to some de-gree about cynicism's effects on the organiza-tion, empirical work will be needed to answerthis question with any confidence.

In conclusion, organizational cynicism pre-sents a new and challenging research opportu-nity, which builds on but also goes beyond ex-isting constructs and theoretical frameworks.Research on cynicism should help us to betterunderstand a phenomenon that is pervasive inmodern organizations, and perhaps to find bet-ter ways to manage or prevent it.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. 1994. Attitudes. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofpsychology (2nd ed.): 114-116. New York: Wiley.

Aktoui, O. 1992. Management and theories oi the 199O's:Toward an initial radical humanism? Academy of Man-agement Review, 17: 407-431.

Allport, G. W. 1935. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.). Hand-book of Social Psychology: 798-844. Worcester, MA:Clark University Press.

Andersson, L. 1996. Employee cynicism: An examination us-ing a contract violation framework. Human Reiafions, 49:1395-1418.

Andersson, L., & Bateman, T. S. 1997. Cynicism in the work-place: Some causes and effects. Journal of Qrganiza-tional Behavior, 18: 449-470.

Barefoot, J. C, Dodge, K. A., Peterson, B. L., Dahlstrom, W. G.,& Williams, R. B. 1989. The Cook-Medley hostility scale:Item content and ability to predict survival. Psychoso-matic Medicine, 51: 46-57.

Bateman, T. S., Sakano, T., & Fujita, M. 1992. Roger, me, andmy attitude: Film propaganda and cynicism toward cor-porate leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77:768-771.

Becker, T. E. 1998. Integrity in organizations: Beyond honestyand conscientiousness. Academy of Management Re-view, 41: 154-161.


Blauner, R. 1964. Alienation and freedom: The factory workerand his industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. 1951. An index of job satisfac-tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33: 307-311.

Breckler, S. J. 1984. Empirical validation of affect, behavior,and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 1191-1205.

Bromiley, P. B., & Cummings, L. L. 1995. Transactions costs inorganizations with trust. Research on Negotiation in Or-ganizafions, 5: 219-247.

Cook, J. D., Hepworth, H. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. 1981. Theexperience of work. New York: Academic Press.

Cook, W. W., & Medley, D. M. 1954. Proposed hostility andparasaic virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 38: 414-418.

Cpsta, P. T., Zonderman, A. B., McCrae, R. R., & Williams, R. B.1986. Cynicism and paranoid alienation in the Cook andMedley HO scale. Psychosomatic Medicine, 48: 283-285.

Cunniff, J. 1993. If only the bosses would get out of the way.MarieJing News, 27(4): 4-5.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organi-zational images and member identification. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes.Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Fuller, B. A. G. 1931. History of Greek philosophy. New York:Henry Holt.

Goldner, F. H., Ritti, R. R., & Ference, T. P. 1977. The produc-tion of cynical knowledge in organizations. AmericanSociological Review, 42: 539-551.

Graham, J. R. 1993. MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psy-chopathology (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Greenglass, E. R., & Julkunen, J. 1989. Construct validity andsex difference in Cook-Medley hostility. Personality andIndividual Differences, 10: 209-218.

Greilsamer, M. 1995. The Dilbert barometer. Across theBoard, March: 39-41.

Guttman, L. 1954. An outline of some new methodology insocial research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18: 395-404.

Hart, P. M. 1997. Personality, work-related experiences andorganizational cynicism: A longitudinal study. Paperpresented at the Society for Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO.

Hilgard, E. R. 1980. The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection,and conation. Journal of the History of the BehavioralSciences, 16: 107-117.

Hosmer, L. T. 1995. Trust: The connecting link between or-ganizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academyof Management Review, 20: 379-403.

Izard, C. E. 1977. Human emotions. New York: Plenum.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. 1965. From acts to dispositions: Theattribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 2.New York: Academic Press.

Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. 1989. The cynical Americans. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. 1993. Credibility. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Leiter, J. 1985. Work alienation in the textile industry: Reas-sessing Blauner. Wort and Occupations, 12: 479-498.

Levinson, H. 1965. Reciprocation: The relationship betweenman and organization. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 9: 370-390.

Mack, B. L. 1993. The lost gospel: The book of Q and Christianorigins. New York: Harper Collins.

Mayer, R. C, Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An inte-grative model of organizational trust. Academy of Man-agement Review, 20: 709-734.

More, P. E. 1923. Hellenistic philosophies. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Morrow, P. C. 1983. Concept redundancy in organizationalresearch: The case of work commitment. Academy ofManagement Review, 8: 486-500.

Neiderhoffer, A. 1967. Behind the shield. Garden City, NJ:Doubleday.

Northrop, F. S. C. 1959. The logic of modem physics. NewYork: Macmillan.

O'Connell, B. J., Holzman, H. H., & Armandi, B. R. 1986. Policecynicism and the modes of adaptation. Journal of PoliceScience and Administration, 14: 307-313.

Organ, D. W., & Greene, C. N. 1981. The effects of formaliza-tion on professional involvement: A compensatory pro-cess approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26:237-252.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Management as symbolic action: The creationand maintenance of organizational paradigms, fle-search in Organizational Behavior, 3: 1-52.

Podsakoff, P. M., Williams, L. J., & Todor, W. D. 1986. Effects oforganizational formalization on alienation among pro-fessionals and nonprofessionals. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 29: 820-831.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V.1974. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, andturnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 59: 465-476.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. 1997. Understand-ing and managing cynicism about organizationalchange. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1): 48-59.

Schwab, D. P. 1980. Construct validity in organizational be-havior. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), fie-search in organizational behavior, vol. 2: 3-43. Green-wich, CT: JAI Press.

Shapira, Z., & Zevulun, E. 1979. On the use of facet analysisin organizational behavior research: Some conceptualconsiderations and an example. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Performance, 23: 411-428.

Shapiro, E. C. 1996. The "glow and tingle" audit. The WallStreet Journal, January 26.


Smith, M. B. 1947. The personal setting of public opinions: Astudy of attitudes toward Russia. Public Opinion Quar-terly, 11: 507-523.

Smith, P. C, Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. 1969. The measure-ment of satisfaction in wort and retirement. Chicago:Rand McNally.

Steers, R. M. 1977. Antecedents and outcomes of organiza-tional commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly,22: 4G-5G.

Vance, R. J., Brooks, S. M., & Tesluk, P. E. 1996. Organizationalcynicism and change. Working paper, PennsylvaniaState University, University Park.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Wort and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. 1994. Organiza-tional cynicism: An initial study. Academy of Manage-ment Best Papers Proceedings: 269-273.

Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

White, S. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1976. Organizational develop-ment: A review of research content and research design.Academy of Management Review, 1: 57-73.

Wrightsman, L. S. 1974. Assumptions about human nature: Asocial-psychological analysis. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

James W. Dean, Jr., received his Ph.D. from Carnegie-Mellon University. He is anassociate professor of management at the Kenan-Flagler Business School, Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His current research interests include organizationalchange, performance improvement, and aesthetic aspects of organizations.

Pamela Brandes is an assistant professor of management at Southern ConnecticutState University. Her research interests include eniployee-organization linkages andstrategic human resource management.

Ravi Dharwadkar received his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati. He is a visitingassistant professor of management at the University of Cincinnati. His researchinterests include international management issues in emerging markets and em-ployee attitudes.

Documents

341.full