1 s2.0 S0001879113000973 Main PDF

Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) 181197
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational

cynicism: A meta-analysis
Dan S. Chiaburu a,, Ann Chunyan Peng b, In-Sue Oh c, George C. Banks d, Laura C. Lomeli e
a
Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4113, USA
b
Department of Management, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, N452 North Business Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824-1122, USA
c
Department of Human Resource Management, Fox School of Business, Temple University, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
d
Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, Longwood University, 201 High Street, Farmville, VA 23909, USA
e
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: We propose an integrative framework to investigate the extent to which employees'
Received 18 January 2013 organizational cynicism is predicted by individual differences (positive and negative affect,
Available online 4 April 2013 trait cynicism) and positive (e.g., organizational support) and negative (e.g. psychological
contract violation) aspects of the work environment. We also examine the extent to which
Keywords: organizational cynicism predicts employee attitudes and performance. We investigate these
Employee cynicism relationships based on 9186 individuals across 34 statistically independent samples from 32
Employee trust primary studies. Using both new meta-analytic effect sizes from the current study and effect
Meta-analysis
sizes from prior meta-analyses, we test whether a negative antecedent, organizational
cynicism, has a predictive advantage over a positive one, organizational trust, in predicting
employees' attitudes and behaviors. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the
nomological network of organizational cynicism and its relationship with organizational trust.
2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Studies in the 1990s have pointed out the presence of cynicism in the workplace (e.g., Kanter & Mirvis, 1989; Mirvis & Kanter,
1991; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). Employees seem to be increasingly cynical in the new millennium, especially in
corporate environments rife with mistrust, scandals, and opportunistic behaviors (Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004). Employee
cynicism has been theorized to have a number of negative consequences, including reduced levels of performance, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment, and increased levels of intention to quit (Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998).
Despite the fact that a number of studies have linked employee cynicism to various antecedents and outcomes, we lack a
comprehensive understanding of cynicism based on the integration of the cumulative findings. To some extent, this knowledge
gap may reflect insufficient attention to organizational cynicism in applied management research. For instance, Andersson (1996)
lamented that cynicism is generally viewed as negative and is therefore a sensitive topic to managers and organizations. Because
of this sensitivity, negative attitudes as well as the organizational practices that foster them have been relatively neglected in
management research (p. 1401).
To address this issue, the objectives of our current meta-analysis are to empirically test the non-redundancy between cynicism
and trust and determine whether they can differentially predict a variety of outcomes. Further, we aim to relate organizational
cynicism with a number of theoretically important predictors and outcomes. We discuss these objectives starting with the more
conventional ones establishing a connection with antecedents and outcomes. First, as with most meta-analyses, we strive to
Corresponding author at: Texas A&M University, Mays Business School, College Station, TX 77843-4113, USA.
E-mail addresses: dchiaburu@mays.tamu.edu (D.S. Chiaburu), peng@bus.msu.edu (A.C. Peng), insue.oh@temple.edu (I.-S. Oh), gcbanks@gmail.com
(G.C. Banks), lclomeli@gmail.com (L.C. Lomeli).
0001-8791/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007
182 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) 181197
connect organizational cynicism with a number of theoretically important predictors for which a sufficient number of primary
studies exist. As outlined in our Fig. 1, our predictors include individual differences (e.g., positive and negative affect), positive
features of the work environment (represented by organizational support and organizational fairness), and negative aspects of
the work setting (including psychological contract violation and psychological strain). A second objective is to establish, across
study settings, a relationship between organizational cynicism and important attitudinal and behavioral consequences. For
attitudes, we examine the extent to which organizational cynicism is related to employees' job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and intention to quit. We also examine its connections with employee job performance.
Such an investigation using meta-analysis is necessary because primary studies report inconsistent findings. For example,
while it has been reported that positive affect is negatively related to organizational cynicism (e.g., Treadway et al., 2004), others
have found positive affect to be positively associated with organizational cynicism (e.g., Hochwarter, James, Johnson, & Ferris,
2004). From another direction, despite theorizing and evidence suggesting that organizational cynicism negatively influences job
performance (e.g., Byrne & Hochwarter, 2008), researchers have also proposed that cynicism can improve performance, especially
when there is a need to challenge and change ineffective procedures (Brandes & Das, 2006). Other inconsistencies in the literature
include the relationship between employee tenure and organizational cynicism (Brandes et al., 2007; Brown & Cregan, 2008;
Naus, van Iterson, & Roe, 2007). Typically, inconsistencies and mixed findings can receive some clarification by cumulating data
across primary studies, which we begin to do in the current meta-analysis.
More important than these clarifications, responding to previous calls for the examination of competing perspectives (Leavitt,
Mitchell, & Peterson, 2010), we aim to empirically test the non-redundancy between cynicism and trust and to establish the
extent to which employee organizational cynicism and trust can differentially predict attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.
Concerning this aspect, it is particularly valuable to understand to what extent organizational cynicism and trust can differentially
predict employee outcomes. Such knowledge can further guide the choice of constructs to include in research models for optimal
predictive power. From a conceptual standpoint, organizational cynicism and trust in the organization can be seen as a pair of
opposite attitudes and anticipations employees have about the credibility of their organizations and work settings in general.
Given (a) the possibility of a conceptual overlap between the two constructs and (b) the abundant existing research on trust, it is
important to provide information about both their distinctiveness and any differential predictive pattern before more research is
directed toward organizational cynicism. If cynicism is redundant with trust, the constructs can be used as substitutes. If however
the constructs are distinct in both content and predictive patterns, additional research is needed to specify the unique
contribution of each construct. To address these issues, we investigate supplementing data on organizational cynicism from the
Theoretical Model
Demographics
Age
Education level
Gender
Work tenure
Employee Organizational Job satisfaction

Dispositions Cynicism Organizational commitment
Positive affectivity Intention to quit
Negative affectivity
Trait cynicism
ATTITUDINAL
Positive Work OUTCOMES
Experiences
Organizational
Perceived organizational support Trust Job Performance
Perceived justice
Negative Work
Experiences BEHAVIORAL
Psychological contract violation
RELATIVE OUTCOMES
Perceived organizational politics IMPORTANCE
Psychological strain
PREDICTORS
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) 181197 183
current meta-analysis with meta-analytic data connecting organizational trust with employee outcomes (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin,
2002) the extent to which a negative (cynicism) attitude presents an advantage over a positive (trust) one in predicting work
attitudes and behaviors.
2. Expected relationships
We present several definitions of organizational cynicism in the existing literature and clarify the focus of our study before
delineating the scope of our study. Reichers et al. (1997) defined organizational cynicism as a negative attitude that develops as a
result of perceived malfeasance of the agent or entity. Such a negative attitude can be directed at the organization as a whole and/
or the individuals in the organization. In what follows, we rely on the definition provided by Dean et al. (1998) who define
organizational cynicism as a negative attitude toward one's employing organization, comprising three dimensions: (1) a belief
that the organization lacks integrity; (2) negative affect toward the organization; and (3) tendencies to disparaging and critical
behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with these beliefs and affect (p. 345). In fact, this definition of
organizational cynicism was adopted later by other researchers such as Wilkerson (2002) who broadened the target of
organizational cynicism by including [organizational] procedures, processes, and management (p. 533).
2.1. Organizational cynicism and organizational trust
The central part of our model contrasts organizational cynicism and trust as a pair of negative and positive perceptions
individuals have related to their organization. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) define trust as the willingness to be
vulnerable to the actions of another party, regardless of whether one can monitor or control the other party, and is based on the
expectation that another party will perform the action for the sake of the trustor. It has been suggested that an individual's
propensity to trust others is relatively stable, such that some individuals will be more likely to trust than others. Despite this
dispositional propensity to trust, there are external factors that can influence one's level of trust. Thus, individuals' levels of trust
in the organization may be influenced by their dispositional tendency to trust others and by situational characteristics that convey
the trustworthiness of the organization (e.g., positive leadership styles and organizational justice; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Similarly,
given that organizational cynicism is generally conceptualized as a state variable, distinct from trait-based dispositions such as
negativity and trait cynicism (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005, p. 736), we propose that the extent individuals are cynical about the
organization is determined by their dispositional cynical beliefs and by organizational factors that imply its lack of integrity,
competence, and benevolence (Dean et al., 1998; Reichers et al., 1997).
While organizational trust emphasizes the presence of trustworthiness, organizational cynicism would imply lack or low
levels of it (Davis & Gardner, 2004; Mayer et al., 1995). Both trust and cynicism have cognitive aspects, however cynicism differs
in that it includes the individual's affective state and corresponding behavioral tendencies toward the organization. Overall, based
on both similarities and differences, we aim to explore to what extent trust (a positive aspect) and cynicism (a negative one) are
differentially related to work attitudes and behaviors. Although we expect organizational trust and cynicism to be negatively
related, we do not see them as completely redundant. For example, Dean et al. (1998) argued that a lack of trust is possibly due to
a lack of positive experience with the other party, whereas cynicism is almost certainly based on [negative] experience (p. 348,
bracket added). Further, because cynicism is conceptualized as including affective states and behavioral tendencies, there is a
possibility for cynicism to be more impactful for work attitudes than trust. Overall, because cynicism and trust are related yet
non-redundant, we expect them to differentially predict employee outcomes.
2.2. Individual differences as predictors of organizational cynicism
2.2.1. Positive and negative affectivity

Affectivity refers to the dispositional tendency to experience certain affective states over time, where affective states are
experiences of emotion (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). Positive affectivity (PA) is the extent to which a
person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert. High PA is characterized by a typical state of high energy and pleasure whereas low PA
is characterized by a more lethargic state (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Conversely, negative affectivity (NA) is the chronic
experience of distress and unpleasant engagement, with high NA including states of anger, guilt, and disgust whereas low NA
involves a state of calmness (Watson et al., 1988). Affect represents a precursor to work attitudes (Brief & Weiss, 2002), thus
providing a basis to investigate the relationship between PA/NA and organizational cynicism. Specifically, employees predisposed
toward positive affect will be more inclined to see and focus on positive aspects in their immediate work environment, engage in
positive interactions at work, and have a more positive outlook toward their organization (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008;
Brandes et al., 2007; Thoresen et al., 2003). Conversely, employees with high negative affectivity tend to engender and experience
more negative aspects in their work environment, and are thus more distrustful of and cynical toward their organization (Royle,
Hall, Hochwarter, Perrew, & Ferris, 2005).
2.2.2. Trait cynicism

Researchers have conceptualized trait cynicism as a general belief about human nature that other individuals are not to be
trusted (Costa, Zonderman, McCrae, & Williams, 1986). Individuals with high trait cynicism tend to believe that humans are
selfish, dishonest, and take advantage of others whenever possible (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). They are also pessimistic about what
will be gained by being honest, kind-hearted, and complying with rules (Singelis, Hubbard, Her, & An, 2003). These individuals'
negative beliefs about human nature and the world thus provide a cognitive framework to guide their observations and thinking
about their organization. Individuals with high trait cynicism may readily attribute an unmet expectation (e.g., not being
promoted, lack of pay raise) as resulting from a malicious intention or unfair procedures originating in the organization. Based on
such arguments, we predict that trait cynicism will positively relate to organizational cynicism, such that a general cynical
attitude toward others will be likely to also transfer into a cynical attitude toward the organization.
2.3. Positive workplace experiences as predictors of organizational cynicism
2.3.1. Positive organizational support and cynicism

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

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

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

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

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined psychological stress as an individual's appraisal of the environmental demands as taxing
or exceeding his or her resources to cope with the demands. This definition focuses on the interaction between the person and the
environment and suggests that stress results from individuals' appraisals of the environment and attempts to cope with issues
that arise. In this study, we focus on strain, which refers to the individual responses to stress (Beehr & Franz, 1987). A significant
amount of strain, such as being overloaded, can lead employees to feel that their social exchange with the organization is
inequitable or unfavorable; that is, they feel that they are being exploited by their organization (Banks, Whelpley, Oh, & Shin,
2012). Research has also reported a positive correlation between emotional exhaustion and organizational cynicism (e.g., Johnson
& O'Leary-Kelly, 2003). Employees with high psychological strain that arises from role ambiguity or being unable to fulfill family
responsibilities may question the efficiency and fairness of the organizational procedures. They may be irritated by the
unspecified job descriptions and perceive that the organization cares little about their family life. Based on the rationale above, we
posit that experienced psychological strain at work will result in negative attitudes toward the organization, leading to feelings of
organizational cynicism.
2.5. Organizational cynicism and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes
2.5.1. Cynicism and job satisfaction

Originally defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences
(Locke, 1976, p. 1300), job satisfaction is now conceptualized as an attitude consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components. Hulin and Judge (2003) defined job satisfaction as the evaluations of one's job, emotional responses to events that
occur on the job, and prior behavior. Research has explored a number of antecedents for job satisfaction, including job complexity,
organizational climate, and justice perceptions (Schleicher, Hansen, & Fox, 2010). We propose that individuals who have higher
levels of cynicism toward the organization will have lower levels of job satisfaction. This is because their cynical attitude toward
the organization can extend to their attitudes to their job through mechanisms such as affect infusion; the negative feeling
resulting from cynical attitudes toward the organization may dampen evaluations of their job experiences (Forgas, 1995). As we
noted earlier, cynicism may result from the perceptions such as a lack of organizational support and justice, which have
demonstrated to be strong predictors of job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009). Consistent
with this, researchers have found a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and job satisfaction (Eaton, 2000;
Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 1994).
2.5.2. Cynicism and organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to the goals of the organization
(Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). It reflects the psychological attachment an individual feels toward the organization (O'Reilly &
Chatman, 1986), and is experienced through three mindsets: affective commitment, normative commitment, and continuance
commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The commitment mindset that is most relevant to organizational cynicism is affective
commitment, which is the employee's emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization.
Individuals with high organizational cynicism are characterized by a distrustful attitude and negative affect toward the
organization. Because a certain level of trust, or a belief that the organization will have employees' interest in mind, is critical for
organizational members to establish deep emotional bond with the organization, organizational cynicism should be associated
with low levels of commitment to the organization. This proposition is consistent with research demonstrating a negative
relationship between cynicism and organizational commitment (e.g., Eaton, 2000; Tesluk, Vance, & Mathieu, 1999).
2.5.3. Cynicism and intention to quit

Turnover has severe consequences for organizations in terms of financial costs (90% to 200% of annual pay; Cascio, 2006;
Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee, 2001), which accumulate mostly due to separation costs (e.g., temporary coverage, loss of clients, loss of
seasoned mentors) and replacement costs (e.g., recruitment, selection, training; Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). As turnover
intentions have been found to be among the strongest predictors of turnover, it is critical to understand the factors that influence
an individual's intention to quit (Allen et al., 2010). Mobley (1977) proposed that the turnover process starts when people
evaluate their jobs and working conditions. A negative evaluation of their work environment can lead employees to feel
dissatisfied about their job and elicit turnover intentions. Individuals who have overly cynical attitudes toward the organization
will, in general, also espouse negative attitudes toward their job (e.g., low job satisfaction) and organization (e.g., low
organizational commitment), leading to withdrawal cognition or turnover intentions. Thus, we posit a positive relationship
between organizational cynicism and intention to quit.
2.5.4. Cynicism and job performance

From a theoretical standpoint, organizational cynicism has been proposed to negatively influence job performance. At the
same time, researchers have noted that cynical employees can be a positive force of change and thus influence work effectiveness
positively, especially in situations where employees need to play devil's advocate and challenge ineffective routines or policies
(Brandes & Das, 2006, pp. 253254). Overall, however, our prediction is consistent with most of the existing arguments, and we
expect cynicism to be a negative predictor of job performance. In particular, cynical employees, given their frustration and
disappointment with the organization, may perceive an absence of close connection between performance and reward, or lower
levels of instrumentality (Wilkerson, 2002). Such low levels of perceived instrumentality can lead to reduced effort and
performance (see Sims & Szilagyi, 1975, for a review).
2.6. Relative importance: is cynicism (bad) stronger than trust (good)?
A sizeable literature exists on asymmetric effects based on the valence or interpretation of bad versus good events, or
perceptions of them. Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001), for example, proposed that negative events have
a greater impact on an individual than positive events. They suggest that there are many good events which can help
overcome the psychological effects of bad events, however, if there were equally bad and good events, the bad events would
have had a greater psychological effect. A similar stronger effect of the negative have been suggested in both social
psychology (Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989; Taylor, 1991) and management (Labianca & Brass, 2006;
Pereira Lopes, Cunha, & Rego, 2011). In line with these propositions positing a stronger influence of the negative, we
empirically examine the relative importance of organizational cynicism (negative) compared with organizational trust
(positive). Organizational trust has been shown to increase job satisfaction and commitment and reduce employees'
intentions to quit, while having little impact on their job performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Based on the aforementioned
positioning of negative aspects as more influential, we expect organizational cynicism to influence attitudinal and behavioral
outcomes to a greater extent than organizational trust would. To be able to compare with prior meta-analytic results based
on Dirks and Ferrin (2002), we focus on four outcomes: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to quit, and
job performance.
3. Method
3.1. Literature search
We conducted an extensive literature search to identify both published and unpublished articles that examined the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational cynicism to minimize potential availability bias. The articles were identified through
multiple electronic databases and multiple methods, including electronic searches of the PsychINFO (18872010), ABI/Inform (1971
2010), Web of Science, and Google Scholar using cynicism as a keyword. We also supplemented the electronic search with a manual
search of reference lists of key articles on the topic (e.g., Dean et al., 1998). As a result of these comprehensive search efforts, we
retrieved 187 published articles and book chapters and unpublished reports.
3.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
To be included in the current meta-analysis, primary studies had to meet the following criteria. First, we included only primary
studies that empirically examined organizational cynicism in typical organizational settings. In terms of construct operationalization,
representative measures of organizational cynicism are the ones provided by Brandes, Dharwadkar, and Dean (1999), Brooks and
Vance (1991), and Tesluk et al. (1999). Because their construct domain presented insufficient overlap with our constitutive definition
of cynicism, we excluded primary studies examining burnout cynicism (also known as depersonalization; e.g., Schaufeli, Leiter,
Maslach, & Jackson, 1996), police cynicism (Regoli & Poole, 1979) and change cynicism (cynicism about organizational changes such
as new intervention programs; e.g., Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). In contrast to organizational cynicism (a
negative attitude toward the organization), burnout cynicism presents a negative attitude toward and an attempt to disengage from
one's job. Although both organizational cynicism and change cynicism target at the organization, the latter is narrower and more
specific in its domain.
Second, to be included in the current meta-analysis, primary studies had to measure one of the variables (antecedents, correlates,
and outcomes of organizational cynicism) included in Fig. 1. In particular, consistent with other related meta-analyses (Dirks &
Ferrin, 2002), job performance (e.g., overall, task, contextual/organizational citizenship behavior; OCB, or counterproductive work
behavior; CWB) had to be measured at the individual level using non-self-reported measures; among the four studies included,
three studies were based on supervisor ratings and one study was based on company records. Third, we included only primary
studies based on samples of employees in organizations to generalize our findings to general employees. Fourth, we included only
primary studies that reported sufficient data necessary to calculate an effect size (correlation coefficient). We contacted authors for
zero-order correlations if not provided in the original articles. As a result of this search, 32 primary studies (34 independent samples)
are included. In Appendix A, we provide the main codes and input values of each primary study/sample included in the
meta-analysis.
3.3. Coding procedures
The second and fourth authors were involved in coding, with each author coding a subset of the primary studies. They coded
the correlations between organizational cynicism and the proposed correlates. Information such as scale reliability, sample size,
response rate, sample characteristics (e.g., job/organizational type) and study design features (e.g., longitudinal vs.
cross-sectional design) were also coded. To verify coding accuracy, the two authors independently coded the same subset of
primary studies (23%), achieving a high inter-rater agreement rate (97%). All the remaining discrepancies were resolved
through double-checking the primary studies in question and a series of discussions with other authors. The third author not
involved in initial data coding randomly checked 50 correlations and found one common error (i.e., failing to adjust the sign of
correlations for the same dummy code for gender). All the related correlations were thoroughly re-checked for the sign of
correlations, without revealing other errors. Finally, the lead author randomly examined 20% of the primary studies and found
no other issues.
3.4. Meta-analytic procedures
Consistent with most meta-analyses in management, organizational sciences, and applied psychology, we used the
SchmidtHunter's psychometric random-effects meta-analysis method to synthesize effect size estimates across primary
studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes, 2009). Because most primary studies reported reliability
estimates, we used individual correction methods (VG6 Module; Schmidt & Le, 2004). Observed correlation coefficients
reported were corrected for measurement error in both the independent and dependent variables using local reliability
estimates available from the primary studies. Frequency-weighted mean reliabilities (coefficients alpha in all cases) are
.85 (SD = .06, k = 34). We imputed the frequency-weighted mean reliability for a small number of primary studies
that did not report reliability. In synthesizing corrected correlations across samples, we maintained statistical
independence in each meta-analysis (relationship). Each sample was used only once for each meta-analytic
relationship, such that only one data point per sample was retained. If necessary, a composite correlation or an
average correlation was used.
We examined the variability of the corrected correlations across samples by calculating 80% credibility intervals and the
standard error of (error band around) the mean true-score correlations by computing their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). If
credibility intervals are wide and include zero, this suggests possible moderating effects (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Similarly, we
also reported the percentage of the variability (%Var) in correlations across samples that were accounted for by both sampling
error and measurement error. This provides additional information to aid the interpretation of potential moderating effects; a
lower percentage indicates potential moderating effects. If the 95% CIs are wide and include zero, this suggests that the effect size
does not differ from zero or is not statistically significant.
3.5. Publication bias check
Publication bias represents a threat to the robustness of meta-analytic results and evidence-based practice (Banks, Kepes, &
McDaniel, 2012; Banks & McDaniel, 2011; Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012). Three publication bias tests were completed
to evaluate the potential presence and degree of potential publication bias: (a) Egger's test of the intercept (Egger, Smith,
Schneider, & Minder, 1997); (b) the moderate and severe a priori weight-function model technique (Vevea & Woods, 2005);
(c) the trim and fill test (Duval, 2005) supplemented with the contour-enhanced funnel plot (Palmer, Peters, Sutton, & Moreno,
2008). Analyses were conducted in distributions with at least k = 10 in order to not confound potential publication bias and
second order sampling error (Sterne, Sutton, Loannidis, et al., 2011).
4. Results
Table 1 shows meta-analytic evidence for the relationships of organizational cynicism with its hypothesized correlate
(organizational trust), antecedents, and consequences. Starting with demographic variables, even though we do not posit any specific
a priori direction for them, for completeness, we report information on their relationships with organizational cynicism. As Spector
and Brannick (2011) argue, controls should not be entered blindly in analyses under the belief that they will purify results (p. 296).
Below, we provide specific effect sizes for the relationship between respondents' age, education, gender, and work tenure and
organizational cynicism. If there are theoretical reasons to include such controls, and if effect sizes are significant, researchers may opt
for their inclusion. As our data indicates, the relationships between all demographic variables and organizational cynicism are weak
and non-significant, with the lowest effect size (true-score correlation, ^ ) exhibited by age (.02) and the highest by work tenure
(.11) (mean ^ = .00). Based on our results, researchers need strong theoretical reasons to include demographic variables as controls
in models predicting organizational cynicism.
Concerning expected effect sizes, first, Table 1 shows that the true-score correlation between organizational trust and
cynicism is strong at ^ = .63 (k = 6, N = 1063), but it does not reach unity; its 95% CI does not include one, which suggests
that it is unlikely that organizational trust and cynicism are completely redundant with each other. That is, they are related yet
distinct as stand-alone constructs.
As distal hypothesized antecedents of organizational cynicism, positive affectivity is negatively related with organizational
cynicism and negative affectivity is positively related to organizational cynicism. Negative affectivity (^ = .33, k = 12, N = 2337)
and trait cynicism ( ^ = .27, k = 6, N = 1042) have a somewhat higher true-score correlation with organizational cynicism than
does positive affectivity (^ = .23, k = 7, N = 1574).
As proximal hypothesized antecedents of organizational trust, perceived organizational support (^ = .63, k = 4, N = 957)
and organizational justice ( ^ = .55, k = 5, N = 1500) are found to have strong, negative true-score correlations with
organizational cynicism. Three different forms of organizational justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional justice)
have similar true-score correlations with organizational cynicism (^ = .50, .51, and .58 for interactional, distributive, and
Table 1
Antecedents and consequences of organizational cynicism.
Variable k N r SDr ^ SDp CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL %Var
Organizational trust cynicism 6 1063 .53 .15 .63 .15 [.82 .43] [.76 .50] 15%
Demographics cynicism
Age 16 4759 .02 .07 .02 .03 [.06 .03] [.05 .02] 78%
Work tenure 16 5050 .10 .10 .11 .09 [.00 .23] [.06 .15] 32%
Education level 5 2878 .06 .05 .06 .02 [.09 .03] [.10 .02] 78%
Gender (m > f) 14 4016 .02 .05 .03 .00 [.03 .03] [.06 .01] 100%
Employee disposition cynicism
Positive affectivity 7 1574 .21 .18 .23 .19 [.48 .01] [.38 .08] 12%
Negative affectivity 12 2337 .29 .13 .33 .13 [.16 .50] [.25 .42] 25%
Trait cynicism 6 1042 .23 .11 .27 .10 [.14 .40] [.17 .37] 41%
Positive workplace experience cynicism
Perceived organizational support 4 957 .56 .09 .63 .09 [.74 .52] [.73 .54] 26%
Perceived justice 5 1560 .47 .06 .55 .07 [.64 .47] [.62 .48] 37%
Distributive justice 2 433 .44 .05 .51 .00 [.51 .51] [.59 .43] 100%
Procedural justice 4 1200 .47 .05 .58 .03 [.62 .54] [.63 .52] 76%
Interactional justice 2 433 .43 .00 .50 .00 [.50 .50] [.58 .43] 100%
Negative workplace experience cynicism
Psychological contract violation 6 1037 .45 .19 .51 .19 [.26 .76] [.35 .67] 11%
Perceived organizational politics 3 820 .49 .11 .55 .09 [.44 .67] [.44 .67] 24%
Psychological strain 6 2150 .23 .09 .30 .07 [.20 .39] [.23 .37] 43%
Cynicism attitudinal and behavioral outcomes
Job satisfaction 10 2200 .50 .13 .58 .15 [.77 .39] [.68 .48] 14%
Organizational commitment 12 3929 .43 .13 .52 .13 [.69 .35] [.60 .44] 14%
Intention to quit 5 1392 .33 .07 .39 .03 [.36 .43] [.34 .44] 86%
Job performance (non-self-reported) 4 737 .09 .07 .10 .01 [.11 .08] [.17 .02] 97%
Note. k = number of independent samples; N = total sample size; r = sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation; SDr = sample-size-weighted
observed standard deviation of correlations; ^ = mean true-score correlation (corrected for unreliability for both variables); SD = standard deviation of
corrected correlations; CVLL and CVUL = lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 80% credibility interval; CILL and CIUL = lower and upper bounds,
respectively, of the 95% confidence interval around the mean true-score correlation; %Var = percentage of variance attributable to statistical artifacts. Job
performance is based on non-self-reported data.
procedural justice, respectively). Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found a similar pattern of results
for organizational trust; true-score
correlations between organizational trust and three forms of organizational justice ^ range from .51 to .63 assuming that the
reliability forboth
the measures is .85. [Dirks and Ferrin (2002, Table 3) reported only sample-size weighted mean observed
correlations ^ of .43, .52, and .53 for interactional, distributive, and procedural justice, respectively.] Psychological contract
violation ( ^ = .51, k = 6, N = 1037) and perceived organizational politics ( ^ = .55, k = 3, N = 820) are also strongly,
positively related to organizational cynicism. However, psychological strain (e.g., role overload, role conflict) is only moderately,
positively related to organizational cynicism (^ = .30, k = 6, N = 2150).
The bottom part of Table 1 shows that organizational cynicism has strong true-score correlations with hypothesized attitudinal
outcomes (job satisfaction at (^ = .58 [k = 10, N = 2200], organizational commitment at .52 [k = 12, N = 3929], and intent
to quit at (^ = 39 [k = 5, N = 1392]), but only a modest true-score correlation with non-self-reported job performance (^ = .10,
k = 4, N = 737).1
4.1. Relative importance of organizational trust and cynicism
One of the purposes of this study is to determine the relative importance of organizational trust and cynicism in relation to
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (see Table 2). In determining the relative importance of organizational trust and cynicism,
we decided to supplement regression analyses with relative weights analyses (Johnson, 2000) given the strong true-score
correlation between organizational trust and cynicism (^ = .63 as shown in Table 1). Similar to general dominance, relative
weight (RW) also broadly represents the average contribution of a predictor to the total R 2, net of the other predictors (Budescu,
1
Three primary studies were based on overall performance or the composite of task and contextual performance whereas one study was based only on
contextual performance. The results did not differ by performance type; note that the percent variance explained is almost 100%, suggesting that moderators are
unlikely. In addition, the true-score correlation based on self-reports of job performance is estimated at .18 (k = 9, N = 2139). We provide this value for
informational purposes only; the detailed results are available from the authors upon request.
Table 2
Relative importance of organization trust and organizational cynicism in predicting attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.
Variable Job satisfaction Organizational Intention to quit Job performance

commitment
r %RW r %RW r %RW r %RW
Organizational trust .48a .30 47 .57a .48 70 .48a .42 75 .00a .07 14
Organizational cynicism .50 .34 53 .43 .18 30 .33 .11 25 .09 .13 86
Overall R .56 .59 .49 .11
Overall R2 .31 .35 .24 .01
Note. r = Sample-size-weighted mean correlation; = standardized regression weights; %RW = percentage of relative weight; Overall R = multiple
correlation of organizational trust and organizational cynicism.
a
Values from Dirks and Ferrin (2002); Dirks and Ferrin reported only sample-size-weighted mean correlations for organizational trust, so the above regression
and relative weights analyses were conducted using sample-size-weighted mean correlations for both organizational trust (reported in Dirks & Ferrin, 2002,
Table 3) and organizational cynicism (reported in Table 1 of the current study).
1993; Johnson, 2000). Particularly, percentages of relative weights calculated by dividing individual relative weights by their sum
(total R 2) and multiplying by 100 that sum up to 100% are useful and intuitive indices of relative importance among predictors.
Organizational cynicism is slightly more important than trust in predicting job performance (%RW = 86% vs. 14%; = .13
vs. .07; Table 2); organizational trust is more important in predicting commitment (%RW = 70% vs. 30%; = .48 vs. .18) and
intent to quit (%RW = 75% vs. 25%; = .42 vs. .11). Organizational cynicism and organizational trust are equally important in
predicting job satisfaction (%RW = 47% vs. 53%; = .34 vs. .30).
4.2. Publication bias
Egger's test of the intercept suggested potential publication bias for the cynicismwork tenure and the cynicismnegative
affect relationships. The severe a priori weight-function model technique suggested potential publication bias for the cynicism
age relationship. Little to no adjustments were made with the trim and fill method. Overall, the findings largely indicated that
most of our results are robust to the threat of publication bias.
5. Discussion
The objective of this meta-analysis was to shed light on the antecedents and consequences of organizational cynicism
(Fig. 1), and examine the extent to which its prediction is similar to or different from organizational trust, a
conceptually relevant construct. Cynicism represents an employee's negative attitude toward their organization as a
whole and belief that the organization lacks integrity, whereas trust refers to a positive attitude toward the organization
and willingness to be vulnerable to the other party. Cynicism and trust constructs can be situated at the low and high
ends on one continuum, although some researchers highlighted their distinctiveness (Dean et al., 1998). We estimated
the relationship between these constructs and illustrated that cynicism and trust are strongly related, but still distinct
constructs.
As expected, results indicate that positive affectivity is negatively related to organizational cynicism, whereas negative
affectivity and trait cynicism are positively associated with this outcome. Contextual antecedents of cynicism were also explored.
Perceived organizational support and organizational justice present negative relationships with cynicism; distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice were separately examined and had similar true-score correlations with organizational
cynicism. Further, psychological contract violation and perceived organizational politics were found to be strongly related, and
psychological strain moderately related to cynicism.
Being able to determine the magnitude of effect sizes concerning both individual difference and contextual factors can
provide additional insight on this matter. Organizational cynicism is enhanced by individual negative affectivity and trait
cynicism, and diminished by positive affectivity. Maximum effect sizes for such individual characteristics are .33 (for
negative affectivity), revolving more typically around .25 (Table 1). Interestingly, the effect size increases to roughly
double when contextual factors come into play. Perceived organizational support, for example, has a negative association
with organizational cynicism, displaying an effect size of .63. Additionally, effect sizes are over .50 for other contextual
predictors, such as positive (fairness) or negative (organizational politics). A preliminary finding, then, is that contextual
aspects may matter more for organizational cynicism than individual differences do. Our evidence provides preliminary
support for the argument of Dean et al. (1998) that organizational cynicism is almost certainly based on [negative]
experience (p. 348). These findings need to be corroborated through different designs (e.g., longitudinal), as we elaborate
in the future research section, or with a relative importance test, possible when the meta-analytic correlation among the
predictors is known.
Concerning attitudes and intentions, cynicism was found to be negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, and positively related to turnover intentions. We observed larger effect sizes for job satisfaction and organizational
commitment than for turnover intentions. This finding is consistent with what has been found in other meta-analyses in which
other organizational attitudes or perceptions were involved. For example, when support is provided by the organization,
supervisor or coworkers, it influences intention to quit to a lesser extent than it impacts satisfaction and commitment
(e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Ng & Sorensen, 2008; Riggle et al., 2009). This is possibly due to the broader scope of factors that
may impact employees' intentions to leave the organization.
Lastly, organizational cynicism was found to have a modest negative relationship with job performance. Given that we used
non-self-reported measures of job performance, the estimation is rather conservative. This negative cynicismperformance
relationship also seems to be quite consistent across studies, although we should be cautious in drawing the conclusion due to the
relatively small number of primary studies analyzed (k = 4). Nevertheless, this result suggests that cynicism impairs productivity
(as shown by a small but significant negative effect size). As productivity issues are a concern of all organizations, more
scholarly and practical work on organizational cynicism is necessary. Because few primary studies have examined the
relationship between cynicism and contextual performance, such as OCBs (Organ, 1988) or CWBs (Spector & Fox, 2002), we are
not able to meta-analyze these effect sizes. The Byrne and Hochwarter (2008) study, however, found that the correlation
between cynicism and OCBs is approximately twice in magnitude compared with the one with task performance. Thus, cynicism
might be more strongly associated with contextual performance which is typically considered volitional or discretionary in
nature.
An important objective of this meta-analysis was to examine the extent to which organizational trust and cynicism exhibit
similarities and differences in relation to outcomes. As expected, we found a fairly strong negative correlation between
cynicism and trust. To further illuminate the potential differential impact of cynicism and trust on employee outcomes, we
examined their relative importance in influencing job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and job
performance. Based on Baumeister et al.'s (2001) bad is stronger than good theory, we predicted that organizational
cynicism the bad side would have a greater impact on employee outcomes than organizational trust the good
counterpart. However, the results did not show an overall greater association of cynicism with employee outcomes. Cynicism
was more important for job performance as an outcome; however, trust was more important for organizational commitment
and turnover intentions. Both organizational cynicism and trust demonstrate equal importance in their relationship with job
satisfaction.
We speculate that a certain level of trust may be required to develop high commitment. Thus, the extent that individuals lack
trust (i.e., more cynical) in the organization may matter less because even a moderate level of organizational cynicism falls short
of the minimum requirement of trust in developing commitment. The weak (zero) relationship between trust and performance
may be due to the fact that there are many more important factors (e.g., ability, job skills, experience) that determine
performance levels. Having a high level of trust in the organization alone may not improve job performance. In contrast to those
constraints of improving performance, it can be much easier for individuals to intentionally reduce their performance. Having a
negative, cynical attitude toward the organization may be sufficient to motivate individuals to withdraw effort from work,
resulting in lower levels of performance given lack of perceived instrumentality of high performance among cynical employees
(Wilkerson, 2002).
5.1. Practical implications
Our findings have practical implications. From an organizational standpoint, to decrease employee cynicism, supportive
environments, fairness, low levels of psychological contract violation, and of organizational politics can help achieve this
goal. In addition to designing such features through organizational policies or culture, they are also more likely to be
present when specific organizational interventions (e.g., leadership training, emphasizing fairness) are used. From a micro,
individual perspective, when organizations attempt to diminish the number of cynical employees in their ranks, selection
strategies can target applicants high in positive and low in negative affect. In the light of the effect sizes we obtained, this
latter strategy may be less impactful. Most likely, combining the macro (O) side through organizational policies and
interventions and the micro (I) side using personnel selection to recruit the right people, will achieve higher rates of
success.
5.2. Limitations
As any meta-analysis, our study has a number of limitations. First, we cannot determine cause and effect because we
meta-analyzed (mostly cross-sectional) field studies rather than experiments. Thus, it is worth entertaining the possibility of reverse
relationships. Cynical employees may be biased to report lower levels of support from their organizations, or more violations of their
psychological contracts. With future research in mind, it is still to be determined whether Dilbert fuels workplace cynicism or
whether cynical people seek out Dilbert (Rogelberg, cited in Jones, 1998, p. 16). Since an insufficient number of longitudinal studies
were in our dataset, future research is necessary to establish with more clarity the causality of the relationships. Lack of information
from primary studies also precluded testing more complex models, involving mediating and moderating mechanisms, or models
with a longer causal chain (e.g., cynicism to commitment to intention to quit; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).
These can be examined in future work alongside boundary conditions not examined in this study due to the shortage of primary
studies.
Finally, we used a definition of cynicism that reflects a more conventional stance in organizational sciences. Alternative definitions,
through a radical humanistic lens, present cynicism as resistance: a defensive mechanism for employees (e.g., Fleming & Spicer,
2003). Even finer conceptual distinctions can be made (e.g., between kynics and cynics; see Karfakis & Kokkinidis, 2011; Sloterdijk,
2008). Evidently, such nuanced conceptual differences are not readily discernible in existing cynicism operationalizations, and were
glossed over in this study.
The meta-analysis has specific strengths. First, we present a relatively comprehensive nomological network of organizational
cynicism. Second, we integrate organizational cynicism and organizational trust-related literatures by using relative importance
(Johnson, 2000; Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011) to determine the strength of relationships across the two seemingly opposite
predictors: organizational trust and cynicism. Lastly, this study helps clarify inconsistent findings in the literature (e.g., Hochwarter et
al., 2004; Treadway et al., 2004).
5.3. Future research
In this study, organizational cynicism was not explored as a mediator, due to the absence of data based on primary or
cumulative studies. To test mediation patterns, it is necessary to construct meta-analytic matrices connecting the
predictors, mediator, and outcomes. As more data becomes available, future research can explore organizational cynicism as
mediator, examined simultaneously with organizational trust. Additionally, the literature posits other more specific
forms of cynicism. Change-specific cynicism involves disbelief of management stated implied motives for a specific
organizational change (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005, p. 436). This form of cynicism posits negative attitudes
specifically toward change-oriented initiatives. In future studies, it may be easier to establish cause-and-effect relationships
if change-oriented cynicism is assessed. For example, employees who have been through unsuccessful change initiatives
may display subsequent increase in this context-based form of cynicism. Organizational cynicism, however, may
accumulate in a more chronic fashion and results from the on-going interaction between the individual and his/her
context (organization).
It is also possible for positive and negative work environment aspects to differentially influence organizational cynicism
depending on characteristics of the individual. Lack of support may lead to more cynicism among employees who construe their
relationships with their organization in relational rather than transactional terms. Individuals also differ in their tendency to
engage in more (or less) social exchanges (e.g., based on their weak or strong levels of employee exchange ideology;
Eisenberger, Cotterell, & Marvel, 1987). Employees with weak exchange ideologies may be less sensitive to a lack of a supportive
social climate, which may lead to a diminished influence of the organizational climate factors on cynicism. Similarly, employees
may react to equity or its absence as a function of their equity sensitivity which refers to individual differences in their
preferences of or sensitivity to output/input ratios (as classified by Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987; Scott & Colquitt, 2007).
Persons who are less sensitive to equity may respond to a lack of organizational justice less strongly, resulting in a weaker
relationship between justice and cynicism. Future research can examine these possibilities and the importance of context in
relation to individual differences.
Sources and targets of trust and cynicism can be examined, by including the extent to which these attitudes are directed
toward the other employees, the direct manager, upper management, or the organization. Dispositionally cynical (or
trustful) employees may be so toward any target, while a differential pattern may be present for employees whose trust or
cynicism has a source other than their own inclinations. From an outcome standpoint, except for Naus et al. (2007) who
related organizational cynicism to self-reports of voice, no other primary study has linked organizational cynicism to
challenging or change-oriented OCBs (e.g., voice, taking charge; Chiaburu, Lorinkova, & Van Dyne, 2013; Chiaburu, Oh, Berry,
Li, & Gardener, 2011). Yet boundary conditions may be present: employees cynical of their organization could initially
engage in challenging forms of OCB as long as they feel psychological safety or they feel that coworkers or supervisors
support them (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Future research can examine the potential positive effect of cynicism on job
performance through challenging OCB, as some innovative ideas originate from challenging, rather than maintaining, the
status quo.
Finally, it is also possible that social support (e.g., coworkers' support, supervisory support) and supportive resources
(e.g., positive job characteristics, emotional stability, and psychological capital) may interact with organizational cynicism in
determining employee outcomes. In particular, in line with the conservation of resources theory, social support and positive
resources may alleviate the negative influence of organizational cynicism on employee outcomes. That is, employees with greater
personal or job resources (e.g., more hardy and resilient or with high job control) are less vulnerable to negative attitudes or poor
performance that arise from organizational cynicism.
6. Conclusion
With around half of the workforce described as displaying cynical attitudes and behaviors (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), employee
cynicism cannot be dismissed as inconsequential. Dilbert comic strips (Feldman, 2000) and organizational artifacts and practices
that mean to capture organizational cynicism (Costello, 1998; Kersten, 2005) are also indicative of a lasting, and possibly
ascending trend. As we confirm across studies and settings, organizational cynicism is driven by both employees' dispositions and
context, with the latter exerting a stronger influence. Organizational cynicism is related to negative attitudes (such as a lack of
commitment and turnover intentions). It is also associated with decreased performance, to a greater extent than organizational
trust. We suggest that more studies investigate organizational practices that can reduce employee cynicism, or factors that
diminish its negative consequences.
Appendix A
Main codes and input values of each primary study/sample included in the meta-analysis.
Author Year Pub status n r rxx ryy Variable
Abad 2010 Unpublished 106 .20 .89 .90 Negative affect

Arabaci 2010 Published 217 .21 .92 .77 Job satisfaction
Arabaci 2010 Published 217 .36 .92 .71 Stress
Adams 2008 Unpublished 161 .02 .88 .95 Negative affect
Adams 2008 Unpublished 161 .41 .88 .95 Org. trust
Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .09 .84 1.00 Age
Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .54 .84 .88 OC
Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .13 .84 1.00 Education level
Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .05 .84 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .28 .84 .84 Intent to quit
Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .09 .84 1.00 Tenure
Bashir et al. 2011 Published 149 .26 .79 .88 POP
Bashir et al. 2011 Published 149 .23 .79 .77 PCV
Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .08 .94 1.00 Age
Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .49 .94 .88 OC
Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .04 .94 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .36 .94 .89 Intent to quit
Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .50 .94 .94 Job satisfaction
Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .10 .94 1.00 Tenure
Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .36 .81 .82 Distributive justice
Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .44 .81 .74 Interactional justice
Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .34 .81 .85 Procedural justice
Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .38 .81 .80 Overall justice
Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .03 .81 1.00 Age
Bernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .14 .81 1.00 Tenure
Brandes et al. 1999 Unpublished 129 .57 .87 .89 OC
Brandes et al. 1999 Unpublished 129 .09 .87 .92 Job performance
Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .03 .87 1.00 Age
Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .06 .87 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .13 .87 .79 Negative affect
Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .18 .87 .83 Positive affect
Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .13 .87 1.00 Tenure
Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .03 .70 1.00 Age
Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .06 .70 1.00 Education level
Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .03 .70 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .16 .70 .79 Stress
Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .21 .70 1.00 Tenure
Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .07 .86 1.00 Age
Byrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .03 .87 1.00 Age
Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .37 .86 .83 Negative affect
Byrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .30 .87 .90 Negative affect
Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .39 .86 .93 POS
Byrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .50 .87 .86 POS
Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .05 .86 1.00 Tenure
Byrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .07 .87 1.00 Tenure
Byrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .23 .86 .78 Job performance
Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .09 .89 1.00 Age
Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .25 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Appendix A (continued)
Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .62 .89 .86 PCV

Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .09 .89 1.00 Tenure
Eaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 .60 .86 .85 OC
Eaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 124 .39 .87 .72 Negative affect
Eaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 .21 .86 .86 Positive affect
Eaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 130 .61 .86 .90 Job satisfaction
Eaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 124 .72 .87 .89 Job satisfaction
Eaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 124 .21 .87 .82 Trait cynicism
Eaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 .27 .86 .80 Trait cynicism
English & Chalon 2011 Published 1104 .34 .80 .85 OC
Evans et al. 2011 Published 188 .02 .87 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Evans et al. 2011 Published 188 .44 .87 .86 Job satisfaction
Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .47 .85 .92 Distributive justice
Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .43 .85 .93 Interactional justice
Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .53 .85 .87 Procedural justice
Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .58 .85 .93 Overall justice
Fitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .11 .85 .82 Trait cynicism
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .07 .89 1.00 Age
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .06 .89 1.00 Education level
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .04 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .40 .89 .82 Negative affect
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .53 .89 .85 POP
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .11 .89 .90 Positive affect
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .47 .89 .86 Job satisfaction
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .03 .89 1.00 Tenure
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .11 .89 1.00 Tenure
Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .38 .89 .82 Trait cynicism
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .41 .94 .93 Overall justice
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .07 .94 1.00 Age
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .04 .94 1.00 Education level
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .11 .94 1.00 Gender (m > f)
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .35 .94 .86 Negative affect
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .55 .94 .92 POP
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .05 .94 .98 Job performance
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .65 .94 .87 POS
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .18 .94 .88 Positive affect
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .40 .94 .86 PCV
James 2005 Unpublished 360 .27 .94 .87 Stress
Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .50 .89 .87 OC
Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .01 .89 .75 Negative affect
Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .62 .89 .94 PCV
Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .57 .89 .89 Job satisfaction
Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .33 .89 .86 Stress
Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .10 .89 .82 Trait cynicism
Kim et al. 2009 Published 146 .02 .82 1.00 Age
Kim et al. 2009 Published 146 .39 .82 .76 OC
Kim et al. 2009 Published 146 .05 .82 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .45 .85 .81 Procedural justice
Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .25 .85 .87 Negative affect
Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .40 .85 .92 Positive affect
Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .69 .85 .91 PCV
McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .47 .83 .71 Procedural justice
McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .07 .83 1.00 Age
McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .04 .83 1.00 Education level
McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .21 .83 1.00 Tenure
McCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .05 .83 1.00 Tenure
McClough 1998 Published 97 .52 .85 .80 OC
McClough 1998 Published 97 .41 .85 .92 Intent to quit
McClough 1998 Published 97 .66 .85 .75 Job satisfaction
McClough 1998 Published 97 .32 .85 .80 Stress
McClough 1998 Published 97 .65 .85 .86 Org. trust
Mino 2002 Unpublished 410 .23 .69 .85 Oc
Mino 2002 Unpublished 410 .39 .69 .93 Org. trust
Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .05 .75 1.00 Age
Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .05 .75 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .46 .75 .90 Intent to quit
Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .40 .75 .87 Stress
Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .16 .75 1.00 Tenure
Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .02 .92 1.00 Age
(continued on next page)

Appendix A (continued)
Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .01 .92 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .20 .92 .91 PCV
Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .78 .92 .93 Org. trust
Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 .13 .89 1.00 Age
Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 .02 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 .39 .89 .88 Negative affect
Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 .37 .89 .89 Positive affect
Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 .04 .89 1.00 Tenure
Seo et al. 2011 Published 307 .25 .84 .73 OC
Seo et al. 2011 Published 307 .26 .84 .60 Intent to quit
Stanley et al. 2005 Published 58 .24 .83 .78 Trait cynicism
Stanley et al. 2005 Published 58 .66 .83 .81 Org. trust
Tesluk et al. 1999 Published 476 .62 .85 .80 OC
Tesluk et al. 1999 Published 476 .60 .85 .74 Job satisfaction
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .13 .82 1.00 Age
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .52 .82 .87 OC
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .02 .82 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .38 .82 .88 Negative affect
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .58 .82 .90 Pos
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .37 .82 .89 Positive affect
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .39 .82 .91 Job satisfaction
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .05 .82 1.00 Tenure
Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .65 .82 .87 Org. trust
Wilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 .04 .86 1.00 Gender (m > f)
Wilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 .04 .86 .76 Job performance
Wilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 .11 .86 1.00 Tenure
Note. OC = organizational commitment; PCV = psychological contract violation; POS = perceived organizational support; POP = perceived organizational
politics; S1 = Sample 1; S2 = Sample 2.
References
*Abad, K. (2010). The influence of disposition, organizational cynicism, and equity sensitivity on workplace deviance. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Walden University
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
*Adams, J. E. (2008). Development and validation of the corporate distrust scale. Bowling Green, Ohio: Graduate College of Bowling Green State University
(Unpublished thesis).
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management
Perspective, 49, 4864.
Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49, 13951418. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/001872679604901102.
*Arabaci, B. (2010). The effects of depersonalization and organizational cynicism levels on the job satisfaction of educational inspectors. African Journal of Business
Management, 4, 28022811 (Retrieved from www.academicjournals.org/AJBM)
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant
attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 4870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470.
Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012a). Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 20, 182196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00591.x.
Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidence-based I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, 4, 4044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01292.x.
Banks, G. C., Whelpley, C. E., Oh, I. -S., & Shin, K. (2012b). (How) are emotionally exhausted employees harmful? International Journal of Stress Management, 19(3),
198216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029249.
*Barnes, L. L. (2010). The effects of organizational cynicism on community colleges: Exploring concepts from positive psychology. Claremont, California: Claremont
Graduate University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
*Bashir, S., Nasir, Z. M., Saeed, S., & Ahmed, M. (2011). Breach of psychological contract, perception of politics and organizational cynicism: Evidence from
Pakistan. African Journal of Business, 5, 844888 (Retrieved from www.academicjournals.org/AJBM)
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323370. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323.
*Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is Ivory, it isn't White: Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. The Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 6, 932 (Retrieved from www.bus.lsu.edu/management/faculty/abedeian/articles)
Beehr, T. A., & Franz, T. (1987). The current debate about the meaning of job stress. In J. M. Ivancevich, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Job stress: From theory to suggestion
(pp. 518). New York: Haworth Press.
*Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Justice, cynicism, and commitment: A study of important organizational change variables. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 303326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886306296602.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Baszerma (Eds.), Research on
negotiations in organizations, Vol. 1. (pp. 4355)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism
about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.342.
*Brandes, P., Castro, S. L., James, M. S. L., Martinez, A. D., Matherly, T. A., Ferris, G. R., et al. (2007). The interactive effects of job insecurity and organizational
cynicism on work effort following a layoff. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14, 233247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071791907311967.
Brandes, P., & Das, D. (2006). Locating behavioral cynicism at work: Construct issues and performance implications. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being,
5, 233266.
*Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., & Dean, J. W. (1999). Does organizational cynicism matter? Employee and supervisor perspectives on work outcomes. Paper
presented at the 36th Annual EAM Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279307. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156.
Brooks, S., & Vance, R. (1991). Organizational cynicism: Initial investigation of a construct Unpublished manuscript.
*Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47, 667686. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/hrm.
Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
542551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.542.
*Byrne, Z., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Perceived organizational support and performance: Relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 5472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810849666.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs,
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 10821103.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. -S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardener, R. G. (2011). The Five-Factor Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 11401166.
Chiaburu, D. S., Lorinkova, N., & Van Dyne, L. (2013). Employees' social context and change-oriented citizenship: A meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and
organizational influences. Group & Organization Management (in press).
Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice in the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425.
Costa, P., Zonderman, A., McCrae, R., & Williams, R. (1986). Cynicism and paranoid alienation in the Cook and Medley Ho scale. Psychosomatic Medicine, 48, 283285.
Costello, J. (1998). If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style. Wall Street Journal, B1 (Eastern edition).
Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An attributional and leadermember exchange perspective. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 439465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.002.
Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341352.
*Delken, M. (2004). Organizational cynicism: A study among call centers. The Netherlands: University of Maastricht (Unpublished master's thesis).
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611628.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611.
Duval, S. J. (2005). The trim and fill method. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and
adjustments (pp. 127144). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
*Eaton, J. A. (2000). A social motivation approach to organizational cynicism. Toronto, Ontario: York University (Unpublished master's thesis).
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629634.
Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 743750.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500.
*English, B., & Chalon, C. (2011). Strengthening affective organizational commitment: The influence of fairness perceptions of management practices and
underlying employee cynicism. The Health Care Manager, 30, 2935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0b013e3182078ae2.
*Evans, W. R., Goodman, J. M., & Davis, W. D. (2011). The impact of perceived corporate citizenship on organizational cynicism, OCB, and employee deviance.
Human Performance, 24, 7997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.530632.
Feldman, D. C. (2000). The Dilbert syndrome: How employee cynicism about ineffective management is changing the nature of careers in organizations. American
Behavioral Scientist, 43, 12861300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027640021955865.
Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2010). Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3 (pp. 435459).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
*Fitzgerald, M. R. (2002). Organizational cynicism: Its relationship to perceived organizational injustice and explanatory style. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of
Cincinnati (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10, 157179.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 3966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39.
Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an image of justices: Looking fair on the job. The Academy of Management Executive, 11, 155158.
Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Advances in organization justice. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Harrell-Cook, G., Ferris, G. R., & Dulebohn, J. H. (1999). Political behaviors as moderators of the perceptions of organizational politicsWork outcomes
relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 10931105.
*Hochwarter, W. A., James, M., Johnson, D., & Ferris, G. R. (2004). The interactive effects of politics perceptions and trait cynicism on work outcomes. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 4457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190401000404.
Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology, 12 (pp. 255276). New Jersey: Wiley.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Sage.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: the equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12,
222234.
*James, M. S. L. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of cynicism in organization: An examination of the potential positive and negative effects on school systems.
Tallahassee, Florida: The Florida State University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 119.
*Johnson, J. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are
created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 627647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.207.
Jones, M. (1998). Dissecting Dilbert. Psychology Today, 31, 16.
Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusionment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 624662.
Kersten, E. L. (2005). The art of demotivation. Austin, TX: Despair, Inc.
*Kim, T. -Y., Bateman, T. S., Gilbreath, B., & Andersson, L. M. (2009). Top management credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive model. Human
Relations, 62, 14351458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872670934082.
Karfakis, N., & Kokkinidis, G. (2011). Rethinking cynicism: Parrhesiastic practices in contemporary workplaces. Culture and Organization, 17(4), 329345.
Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 31, 596614. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159231.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. (2010). Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13,
644667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428109345156.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory: New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R.
Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 2755). New York: Plenum Press.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 12971343).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
*Luczywek, D. R. (2007). Can personality buffer cynicism? Moderating effects of extraversion and neuroticism in response to workplace hassles. Los Angeles, California:
Alliant International University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Lynch, P. D., Eisenbeger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
467483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.467.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709734. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/258792.
*McCarthy, A. M., & Garavan, T. N. (2007). Understanding acceptance of multisource feedback for management development. Personnel Review, 36, 903917.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480710822427.
*McClough, A. (1998). Cynicism and the quality of an individual's contribution to an organizational diagnostic survey. Organization Development Journal, 16(2),
3141 (Retrieved from https://orgscience.uncc.edu)
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 6189.
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, 2052.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299326.
*Mino, C. E. (2002). Organizational trust, organizational cynicism and organizational commitment during a change initiative. Los Angeles, California: Alliant
International University (Unpublished master's thesis).
Mirvis, P. H., & Kanter, D. L. (1991). Beyond demography: A psychographic profile of the workforce. Human Resource Management, 30, 4568. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/hrm.3930300104.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2001). How to keep your best employees: Developing an effective retention policy. The Academy of Management
Executive, 15, 96108.
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,
237240.
*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, 683718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726707079198.
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis.
Group & Organization Management, 33, 243268.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on
prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492499.
Palmer, T. M., Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., & Moreno, S. G. (2008). Contour-enhanced funnel plots for meta-analysis. The Stata Journal, 8, 242254.
Pereira Lopes, M., Cunha, M. P. E., & Rego, A. (2011). Integrating positivity and negativity in management research: The case of paradoxical optimists. Management
Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 9, 97117.
*Pugh, S. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Passell, B. S. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims' trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 76, 201212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317903765913704.
Regoli, R. M., & Poole, E. D. (1979). Measurement of police cynicism: A factor scaling approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 3751.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11,
4859 (Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/stable/4165371)
Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of
research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 10271030.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Royle, M. T., Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrew, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational
citizenship behavior and political behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13, 5372.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296320.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey (MBI-GS). In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter
(Eds.), Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (pp. 1926). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Schleicher, D. J., Hansen, D., & Fox, K. E. (2010). Job attitudes and work values. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3.
(pp. 137189)Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology,
and the big five. Group & Organization Management, 32, 290325.
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Iowa City: Department of Management and Organizations, University of Iowa.
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. -S., & Hayes, T. (2009). Fixed versus random effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in
results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97128.
*Seo, Y., Park, S. E., & Kim, C. (2011). An empirical study on the effects of organizational cynicism and EVLN responses on organizational commitment and
Pro-union behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contents, 7, 3641. http://dx.doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2011.7.2.036.
Sims, H. E., & Szilagyi, A. D. (1975). Leader reward behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14,
426438.
Singelis, T. M., Hubbard, C., Her, P., & An, S. (2003). Convergent validation of the Social Axioms Survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 269282.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131142.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287305.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and
organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269292.
*Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429459.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2.
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., et al. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in
meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002.
Sloterdijk, P. (2008). Critique of cynical reason (original 1983). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilizationminimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 6785. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67.
*Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Examining employee involvement in the context of participative work environments. Group & Organization
Management, 24, 271299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601199243003.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic
review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914.
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 19.
*Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A. P., et al. (2004). Leader political skill and employee reactions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 493513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.004.
Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It's beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 19602002.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 308319.
Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428443.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (1994). Organizational cynicism: An initial study. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 269273.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and Organization
Management, 25, 132153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601100252003.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Wilkerson, J. M. (2002). Organizational cynicism and its impact on human resource management. In G. R. Ferris, M. R. Buckley, & D. B. Fedor (Eds.), Human
resources management: Perspectives, context, functions, and outcomes (pp. 532546). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
*Wilkerson, J. M., Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2008). A test of coworkers' influence on organizational cynicism, badmouthing, and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 22732292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00391.x.

1 s2.0 S0001879113000973 Main PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0001879113000973 Main PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) 181197

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational

Employee Organizational Job satisfaction

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

2.1. Organizational cynicism and organizational trust

2.2. Individual differences as predictors of organizational cynicism

2.2.1. Positive and negative affectivity

2.2.2. Trait cynicism

2.3. Positive workplace experiences as predictors of organizational cynicism

2.3.1. Positive organizational support and cynicism

2.3.2. Organizational justice and cynicism

2.4. Negative workplace experiences as predictors of organizational cynicism

2.4.1. Psychological contract violation and cynicism

2.4.2. Perceived organizational politics and cynicism

2.4.3. Psychological strain and cynicism

2.5. Organizational cynicism and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes

2.5.1. Cynicism and job satisfaction

2.5.2. Cynicism and organizational commitment

2.5.3. Cynicism and intention to quit

2.5.4. Cynicism and job performance

2.6. Relative importance: is cynicism (bad) stronger than trust (good)?

3.1. Literature search

3.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

3.3. Coding procedures

3.4. Meta-analytic procedures

3.5. Publication bias check

Variable k N r SDr ^ SDp CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL %Var

4.1. Relative importance of organizational trust and cynicism

Variable Job satisfaction Organizational Intention to quit Job performance

r %RW r %RW r %RW r %RW

4.2. Publication bias

5.1. Practical implications

5.3. Future research

Author Year Pub status n r rxx ryy Variable

Abad 2010 Unpublished 106 .20 .89 .90 Negative affect

Author Year Pub status n r rxx ryy Variable

Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .62 .89 .86 PCV

(continued on next page)

Author Year Pub status n r rxx ryy Variable

You might also like