Chiaburu Et Al. Oh (in Press JVB)

Received 18 January 2013Available online 4 April 2013

Keywords:

rganizations. Becauseelatively neglected in

Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxYJVBE-02709; No. of pages: 17; 4C:

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational BehaviorTo address this issue, the objectives of our current meta-analysis are to empirically test the non-redundancy between cynicismand trust and determine whether they can differentially predict a variety of outcomes. Further, we aim to relate organizationalcynicism with a number of theoretically important predictors and outcomes. We discuss these objectives starting with the morelamented that cynicism is generally viewed as negative and is therefore a sensitive topic to managers and oof this sensitivity, negative attitudes as well as the organizational practices that foster them have been rmanagement research (p. 1401).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 incorporate environments rife with mistrust, scandals, and opportunistic behaviors (Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004). Employeecynicism has been theorized to have a number of negative consequences, including reduced levels of performance, jobsatisfaction, 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 acomprehensive understanding of cynicism based on the integration of the cumulative findings. To some extent, this knowledgegap may reflect insufficient attention to organizational cynicism in applied management research. For instance, Andersson (1996)1. Introductionconventional ones establishing a connec

Corresponding author at: Texas A&M University, ME-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.S

(G.C. Banks), [email protected] (L.C. Lomeli).

0001-8791/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

Please cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et aJournal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http:/We propose an integrative framework to investigate the extent to which employees'organizational cynicism is predicted by individual differences (positive and negative affect,trait cynicism) and positive (e.g., organizational support) and negative (e.g. psychologicalcontract violation) aspects of the work environment. We also examine the extent to whichorganizational cynicism predicts employee attitudes and performance. We investigate theserelationships based on 9186 individuals across 34 statistically independent samples from 32primary studies. Using both new meta-analytic effect sizes from the current study and effectsizes from prior meta-analyses, we test whether a negative antecedent, organizationalcynicism, has a predictive advantage over a positive one, organizational trust, in predictingemployees' attitudes and behaviors. Our study contributes to a better understanding of thenomological network of organizational cynicism and its relationship with organizational trust.

2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Employee cynicismEmployee trustMeta-analysisArticle history:Antecedents and consequences of employee organizationalcynicism: 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, USAb Department of Management, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, N452 North Business Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824-1122, USAc Department of Human Resource Management, Fox School of Business, Temple University, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USAd Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, Longwood University, 201 High Street, Farmville, VA 23909, USAe 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

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / jvbtion with antecedents and outcomes. First, as with most meta-analyses, we strive to

ays Business School, College Station, TX 77843-4113, USA.. Chiaburu), [email protected] (A.C. Peng), [email protected] (I.-S. Oh), [email protected]

ll rights reserved.

l., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

connect organizational cynicism with a number of theoretically important predictors for which a sufficient number of primarystudies exist. As outlined in our Fig. 1, our predictors include individual differences (e.g., positive and negative affect), positivefeatures of the work environment (represented by organizational support and organizational fairness), and negative aspects ofthe work setting (including psychological contract violation and psychological strain). A second objective is to establish, acrossstudy settings, a relationship between organizational cynicism and important attitudinal and behavioral consequences. Forattitudes, we examine the extent to which organizational cynicism is related to employees' job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment, 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), othershave 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 jobperformance (e.g., Byrne & Hochwarter, 2008), researchers have also proposed that cynicism can improve performance, especiallywhen there is a need to challenge and change ineffective procedures (Brandes & Das, 2006). Other inconsistencies in the literatureinclude 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 dataacross 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 theextent 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 differentiallypredict employee outcomes. Such knowledge can further guide the choice of constructs to include in research models for optimalpredictive power. From a conceptual standpoint, organizational cynicism and trust in the organization can be seen as a pair ofopposite 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 isimportant to provide information about both their distinctiveness and any differential predictive pattern before more research isdirected toward organizational cynicism. If cynicism is redundant with trust, the constructs can be used as substitutes. If howeverthe constructs are distinct in both content and predictive patterns, additional research is needed to specify the uniquecontribution of each construct. To address these issues, we investigate supplementing data on organizational cynicism from the

Theoretical Model

2 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxPREDICTORS

Demographics

Age Education level

Gender Work tenure

Employee Dispositions

Positive affectivity Negative affectivity

Trait cynicism

Positive Work Experiences

Perceived organizational support Perceived justice

Negative Work Experiences

Psychological contract violation Perceived organizational politics

Psychological strain

Organizational Cynicism

Job satisfaction Organizational commitment

Intention to quit

ATTITUDINAL OUTCOMES

BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES

Organizational Trust

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

Job Performance

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.Please cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

3D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxcurrent 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 workattitudes and behaviors.

2. Expected relationships

We present several definitions of organizational cynicism in the existing literature and clarify the focus of our study beforedelineating the scope of our study. Reichers et al. (1997) defined organizational cynicism as a negative attitude that develops as aresult 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 defineorganizational cynicism as a negative attitude toward one's employing organization, comprising three dimensions: (1) a beliefthat the organization lacks integrity; (2) negative affect toward the organization; and (3) tendencies to disparaging and criticalbehaviors toward the organization that are consistent with these beliefs and affect (p. 345). In fact, this definition oforganizational cynicism was adopted later by other researchers such as Wilkerson (2002) who broadened the target oforganizational 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 perceptionsindividuals have related to their organization. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) define trust as the willingness to bevulnerable to the actions of another party, regardless of whether one can monitor or control the other party, and is based on theexpectation that another party will perform the action for the sake of the trustor. It has been suggested that an individual'spropensity to trust others is relatively stable, such that some individuals will be more likely to trust than others. Despite thisdispositional propensity to trust, there are external factors that can influence one's level of trust. Thus, individuals' levels of trustin the organizationmay be influenced by their dispositional tendency to trust others and by situational characteristics that conveythe 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 asnegativity and trait cynicism (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005, p. 736), we propose that the extent individuals are cynical about theorganization 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 lowlevels of it (Davis & Gardner, 2004; Mayer et al., 1995). Both trust and cynicism have cognitive aspects, however cynicism differsin that it includes the individual's affective state and corresponding behavioral tendencies toward the organization. Overall, basedon both similarities and differences, we aim to explore to what extent trust (a positive aspect) and cynicism (a negative one) aredifferentially related to work attitudes and behaviors. Although we expect organizational trust and cynicism to be negativelyrelated, we do not see them as completely redundant. For example, Dean et al. (1998) argued that a lack of trust is possibly due toa 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 apossibility for cynicism to be more impactful for work attitudes than trust. Overall, because cynicism and trust are related yetnon-redundant, we expect them to differentially predict employee outcomes.

2.2. Individual differences as predictors of organizational cynicism

2.2.1. Positive and negative affectivityAffectivity 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 aperson feels enthusiastic, active, and alert. High PA is characterized by a typical state of high energy and pleasure whereas low PAis characterized by a more lethargic state (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Conversely, negative affectivity (NA) is the chronicexperience of distress and unpleasant engagement, with high NA including states of anger, guilt, and disgust whereas low NAinvolves a state of calmness (Watson et al., 1988). Affect represents a precursor to work attitudes (Brief & Weiss, 2002), thusproviding a basis to investigate the relationship between PA/NA and organizational cynicism. Specifically, employees predisposedtoward positive affect will be more inclined to see and focus on positive aspects in their immediate work environment, engage inpositive 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 experiencemore 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 cynicismResearchers 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 areselfish, dishonest, and take advantage of others whenever possible (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). They are also pessimistic about whatPlease cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

Harrell-Cook, Ferris, and Dulebohn (1999) described the perceptions of organizational politics as involving individual subjective

4 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxevaluations of observed situations or behaviors as political. Perceptions of organizational politics also include an individual'sinterpretations of the extent to which co-workers and supervisors engage in political behaviors and create an environmentcharacterized 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 oftrustworthiness can subsequently lead employees to develop suspicious and cynical attitudes toward the organization. Thus, weposit that employees' perceptions of organizational politics will be positively related to organizational cynicism.2.4. Negative workplace experiences as predictors of organizational cynicism

2.4.1. Psychological contract violation and cynicismPsychological 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). Whenemployees feel that their contracts have been violated, they will likely believe that the organization lacks integrity. The perceivedpsychological contract violation should also produce negative affective states (e.g., anger, frustration) which can in turn fuelorganizational cynicism. Thus, we expect that feelings of contract violation may lead people to become cynical toward theirorganizations.

2.4.2. Perceived organizational politics and cynicism2.3.2. Organizational justice and cynicismOrganizational 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, freefrom 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 perceptionsenhance individuals' commitment to and trust in the organization, they should also reduce individuals' cynicism toward theorganization, 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 negativereactions to the organization. By extension, we expect that an absence (or low levels) of justice should lead employees to developa cynical, negative, attitude toward the organization. In sum, we posit that perceptions of justice will be negatively related toorganizational cynicism.2.3.1. Positive organizational support and cynicismPositive 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 thatan 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 recognizeemployee effort (Lynch, Eisenbeger, & Armeli, 1999). Employees who feel that their contributions are not valued by theorganization (i.e., low POS) are likely to develop feelings of betrayal. Thus, if employees have low POS, then they are likely to havehigher levels of cynicism toward the organization. Research has indicated that POS influences organizational cynicism, such thatemployees who perceive less support from their organization are more cynical toward it (Byrne & Hochwarter, 2008; Treadwayet al., 2004). In line with these findings, we posit a negative relationship between POS and organizational cynicism.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 thinkingabout their organization. Individuals with high trait cynicism may readily attribute an unmet expectation (e.g., not beingpromoted, lack of pay raise) as resulting from a malicious intention or unfair procedures originating in the organization. Based onsuch arguments, we predict that trait cynicism will positively relate to organizational cynicism, such that a general cynicalattitude toward others will be likely to also transfer into a cynical attitude toward the organization.

2.3. Positive workplace experiences as predictors of organizational cynicismPlease cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

5D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxx2.4.3. Psychological strain and cynicismLazarus 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 theenvironment and suggests that stress results from individuals' appraisals of the environment and attempts to cope with issuesthat arise. In this study, we focus on strain, which refers to the individual responses to stress (Beehr & Franz, 1987). A significantamount of strain, such as being overloaded, can lead employees to feel that their social exchange with the organization isinequitable 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 familyresponsibilities may question the efficiency and fairness of the organizational procedures. They may be irritated by theunspecified job descriptions and perceive that the organization cares little about their family life. Based on the rationale above, weposit that experienced psychological strain at work will result in negative attitudes toward the organization, leading to feelings oforganizational cynicism.

2.5. Organizational cynicism and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes

2.5.1. Cynicism and job satisfactionOriginally 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 behavioralcomponents. Hulin and Judge (2003) defined job satisfaction as the evaluations of one's job, emotional responses to events thatoccur 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 higherlevels of cynicism toward the organization will have lower levels of job satisfaction. This is because their cynical attitude towardthe organization can extend to their attitudes to their job through mechanisms such as affect infusion; the negative feelingresulting from cynical attitudes toward the organization may dampen evaluations of their job experiences (Forgas, 1995). As wenoted earlier, cynicism may result from the perceptions such as a lack of organizational support and justice, which havedemonstrated to be strong predictors of job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009). Consistentwith 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 commitmentOrganizational 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 continuancecommitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The commitment mindset that is most relevant to organizational cynicism is affectivecommitment, 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 theorganization. Because a certain level of trust, or a belief that the organization will have employees' interest in mind, is critical fororganizational members to establish deep emotional bond with the organization, organizational cynicism should be associatedwith low levels of commitment to the organization. This proposition is consistent with research demonstrating a negativerelationship between cynicism and organizational commitment (e.g., Eaton, 2000; Tesluk, Vance, & Mathieu, 1999).

2.5.3. Cynicism and intention to quitTurnover 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 ofseasoned mentors) and replacement costs (e.g., recruitment, selection, training; Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). As turnoverintentions have been found to be among the strongest predictors of turnover, it is critical to understand the factors that influencean individual's intention to quit (Allen et al., 2010). Mobley (1977) proposed that the turnover process starts when peopleevaluate their jobs and working conditions. A negative evaluation of their work environment can lead employees to feeldissatisfied about their job and elicit turnover intentions. Individuals who have overly cynical attitudes toward the organizationwill, in general, also espouse negative attitudes toward their job (e.g., low job satisfaction) and organization (e.g., loworganizational commitment), leading to withdrawal cognition or turnover intentions. Thus, we posit a positive relationshipbetween organizational cynicism and intention to quit.

2.5.4. Cynicism and job performanceFrom 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 effectivenesspositively, 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 weexpect cynicism to be a negative predictor of job performance. In particular, cynical employees, given their frustration anddisappointment with the organization, may perceive an absence of close connection between performance and reward, or lowerPlease cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

6 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxlevels of instrumentality (Wilkerson, 2002). Such low levels of perceived instrumentality can lead to reduced effort andperformance (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, orperceptions of them. Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001), for example, proposed that negative events havea greater impact on an individual than positive events. They suggest that there are many good events which can helpovercome the psychological effects of bad events, however, if there were equally bad and good events, the bad events wouldhave had a greater psychological effect. A similar stronger effect of the negative have been suggested in both socialpsychology (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, weempirically 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 aforementionedpositioning of negative aspects as more influential, we expect organizational cynicism to influence attitudinal and behavioraloutcomes to a greater extent than organizational trust would. To be able to compare with prior meta-analytic results basedon Dirks and Ferrin (2002), we focus on four outcomes: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to quit, andjob 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 throughmultiple electronic databases andmultiplemethods, including electronic searches of the PsychINFO (18872010), ABI/Inform (19712010),Web of Science, and Google Scholar using cynicism as a keyword.We also supplemented the electronic searchwith amanualsearch of reference lists of key articles on the topic (e.g., Dean et al., 1998). As a result of these comprehensive search efforts, weretrieved 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 primarystudies 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 andVance (1991), and Tesluk et al. (1999). Because their construct domain presented insufficient overlapwith our constitutive definitionof 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 suchas new intervention programs; e.g., Reichers et al., 1997;Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). In contrast to organizational cynicism (anegative attitude toward the organization), burnout cynicism presents a negative attitude toward and an attempt to disengage fromone's job. Although both organizational cynicism and change cynicism target at the organization, the latter is narrower and morespecific in its domain.

Second, to be included in the current meta-analysis, primary studies had tomeasure 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 workbehavior; 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 primarystudies based on samples of employees in organizations to generalize our findings to general employees. Fourth, we included onlyprimary studies that reported sufficient data necessary to calculate an effect size (correlation coefficient). We contacted authors forzero-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 themeta-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 codedthe 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 ofprimary studies (23%), achieving a high inter-rater agreement rate (97%). All the remaining discrepancies were resolvedPlease cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

7D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxthrough double-checking the primary studies in question and a series of discussions with other authors. The third author notinvolved in initial data coding randomly checked 50 correlations and found one common error (i.e., failing to adjust the sign ofcorrelations for the same dummy code for gender). All the related correlations were thoroughly re-checked for the sign ofcorrelations, without revealing other errors. Finally, the lead author randomly examined 20% of the primary studies and foundno other issues.

3.4. Meta-analytic procedures

Consistent with most meta-analyses in management, organizational sciences, and applied psychology, we used theSchmidtHunter's psychometric random-effects meta-analysis method to synthesize effect size estimates across primarystudies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes, 2009). Because most primary studies reported reliabilityestimates, we used individual correction methods (VG6 Module; Schmidt & Le, 2004). Observed correlation coefficientsreported were corrected for measurement error in both the independent and dependent variables using local reliabilityestimates 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 studiesthat did not report reliability. In synthesizing corrected correlations across samples, we maintained statisticalindependence in each meta-analysis (relationship). Each sample was used only once for each meta-analyticrelationship, such that only one data point per sample was retained. If necessary, a composite correlation or anaverage correlation was used.

We examined the variability of the corrected correlations across samples by calculating 80% credibility intervals and thestandard error of (error band around) the mean true-score correlations by computing their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Ifcredibility intervals are wide and include zero, this suggests possible moderating effects (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Similarly, wealso reported the percentage of the variability (%Var) in correlations across samples that were accounted for by both samplingerror and measurement error. This provides additional information to aid the interpretation of potential moderating effects; alower percentage indicates potential moderating effects. If the 95% CIs are wide and include zero, this suggests that the effect sizedoes 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 completedto 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 andsecond 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. Startingwith demographic variables, even thoughwe do not posit any specifica priori direction for them, for completeness, we report information on their relationships with organizational cynicism. As Spectorand 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 andorganizational cynicism. If there are theoretical reasons to include such controls, and if effect sizes are significant, researchersmay optfor their inclusion. As our data indicates, the relationships between all demographic variables and organizational cynicism are weakand 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 controlsin models predicting organizational cynicism.

Concerning expected effect sizes, first, Table 1 shows that the true-score correlation between organizational trust andcynicism is strong at ^ = .63 (k = 6, N = 1063), but it does not reach unity; its 95% CI does not include one, which suggeststhat it is unlikely that organizational trust and cynicism are completely redundant with each other. That is, they are related yetdistinct as stand-alone constructs.

As distal hypothesized antecedents of organizational cynicism, positive affectivity is negatively related with organizationalcynicism 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 thandoes 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 withorganizational 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, andPlease cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

Table 1Antecedents 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 cynicismAge 16 4759 .02 .07 .02 .03 [ .06 .03] [ .05 .02] 78%Work tenure 16 5050 .10 .10 .11 .09 [.00 .23] [.06 .15] 32%

Procedural justice 4 1200 .47 .05 .58 .03 [ .62 .54] [ .63 .52] 76%

8 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxInteractional justice 2 433 .43 .00 .50 .00 [ .50 .50] [ .58 .43] 100%Negative workplace experience cynicismPsychological 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 outcomesJob 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-weightedobserved standard deviation of correlations; ^ = mean true-score correlation (corrected for unreliability for both variables); SD = standard deviation ofcorrected 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. JobEducation 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 cynicismPositive 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 cynicismPerceived 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, respectively). Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found a similar pattern of results for organizational trust; true-scorecorrelations between organizational trust and three forms of organizational justice ^

range from .51 to .63 assuming that the

reliability for both the measures is .85. [Dirks and Ferrin (2002, Table 3) reported only sample-size weighted mean observedcorrelations ^

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 attitudinaloutcomes (job satisfaction at (^ = .58 [k = 10, N = 2200], organizational commitment at .52 [k = 12, N = 3929], and intentto quit at (^ = 39 [k = 5,N = 1392]), but only amodest true-score correlationwith 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 toattitudinal 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-scorecorrelation between organizational trust and cynicism (^ = .63 as shown in Table 1). Similar to general dominance, relativeweight (RW) also broadly represents the average contribution of a predictor to the total R2, 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 oncontextual performance. The results did not differ by performance type; note that the percent variance explained is almost 100%, suggesting that moderators areunlikely. 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 forinformational purposes only; the detailed results are available from the authors upon request.

performance is based on non-self-reported data.

Please cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

affect relationships. The severe a priori weight-function model technique suggested potential publication bias for the cynicism

(Fig. 1), and examine the extent to which its prediction is similar to or different from organizational trust, a

9D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxconceptually relevant construct. Cynicism represents an employee's negative attitude toward their organization as awhole and belief that the organization lacks integrity, whereas trust refers to a positive attitude toward the organizationand willingness to be vulnerable to the other party. Cynicism and trust constructs can be situated at the low and highends on one continuum, although some researchers highlighted their distinctiveness (Dean et al., 1998). We estimatedthe relationship between these constructs and illustrated that cynicism and trust are strongly related, but still distinctconstructs.

As expected, results indicate that positive affectivity is negatively related to organizational cynicism, whereas negativeage relationship. Little to no adjustments were made with the trim and fill method. Overall, the findings largely indicated thatmost 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 cynicism1993; Johnson, 2000). Particularly, percentages of relative weights calculated by dividing individual relative weights by their sum(total R2) 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%; = .13vs. .07; Table 2); organizational trust is more important in predicting commitment (%RW = 70% vs. 30%; = .48 vs. .18) andintent to quit (%RW = 75% vs. 25%; = .42 vs. .11). Organizational cynicism and organizational trust are equally important inpredicting 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

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

Variable Job satisfaction Organizationalcommitment

Intention to quit Job performance

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

Organizational trust .48a .30 47 .57a .48 70 .48a .42 75 .00a .07 14Organizational cynicism .50 .34 53 .43 .18 30 .33 .11 25 .09 .13 86Overall R .56 .59 .49 .11Overall R2 .31 .35 .24 .01

Note. r = Sample-size-weighted mean correlation; = standardized regression weights; %RW = percentage of relative weight; Overall R = multiplecorrelation 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 regressionand 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).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 organizationalcynicism. Further, psychological contract violation and perceived organizational politics were found to be strongly related, andpsychological strain moderately related to cynicism.

Being able to determine the magnitude of effect sizes concerning both individual difference and contextual factors canprovide additional insight on this matter. Organizational cynicism is enhanced by individual negative affectivity and traitcynicism, and diminished by positive affectivity. Maximum effect sizes for such individual characteristics are .33 (fornegative affectivity), revolving more typically around .25 (Table 1). Interestingly, the effect size increases to roughlydouble when contextual factors come into play. Perceived organizational support, for example, has a negative associationwith organizational cynicism, displaying an effect size of .63. Additionally, effect sizes are over .50 for other contextualpredictors, such as positive (fairness) or negative (organizational politics). A preliminary finding, then, is that contextualaspects may matter more for organizational cynicism than individual differences do. Our evidence provides preliminarysupport 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 elaboratein the future research section, or with a relative importance test, possible when the meta-analytic correlation among thepredictors is known.


10 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxConcerning attitudes and intentions, cynicism was found to be negatively related to job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment, and positively related to turnover intentions. We observed larger effect sizes for job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment than for turnover intentions. This finding is consistent with what has been found in other meta-analyses in whichother 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 thatmay impact employees' intentions to leave the organization.

Lastly, organizational cynicism was found to have a modest negative relationship with job performance. Given that we usednon-self-reported measures of job performance, the estimation is rather conservative. This negative cynicismperformancerelationship also seems to be quite consistent across studies, although we should be cautious in drawing the conclusion due to therelatively 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, morescholarly and practical work on organizational cynicism is necessary. Because few primary studies have examined therelationship between cynicism and contextual performance, such as OCBs (Organ, 1988) or CWBs (Spector & Fox, 2002), we arenot able to meta-analyze these effect sizes. The Byrne and Hochwarter (2008) study, however, found that the correlationbetween cynicism and OCBs is approximately twice in magnitude comparedwith the onewith task performance. Thus, cynicismmight be more strongly associated with contextual performance which is typically considered volitional or discretionary innature.

An important objective of this meta-analysis was to examine the extent to which organizational trust and cynicism exhibitsimilarities and differences in relation to outcomes. As expected, we found a fairly strong negative correlation betweencynicism and trust. To further illuminate the potential differential impact of cynicism and trust on employee outcomes, weexamined their relative importance in influencing job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and jobperformance. Based on Baumeister et al.'s (2001) bad is stronger than good theory, we predicted that organizationalcynicism the bad side would have a greater impact on employee outcomes than organizational trust the goodcounterpart. However, the results did not show an overall greater association of cynicism with employee outcomes. Cynicismwas more important for job performance as an outcome; however, trust was more important for organizational commitmentand turnover intentions. Both organizational cynicism and trust demonstrate equal importance in their relationship with jobsatisfaction.

We speculate that a certain level of trust may be required to develop high commitment. Thus, the extent that individuals lacktrust (i.e., more cynical) in the organization may matter less because even a moderate level of organizational cynicism falls shortof the minimum requirement of trust in developing commitment. The weak (zero) relationship between trust and performancemay be due to the fact that there are many more important factors (e.g., ability, job skills, experience) that determineperformance levels. Having a high level of trust in the organization alone may not improve job performance. In contrast to thoseconstraints of improving performance, it can be much easier for individuals to intentionally reduce their performance. Having anegative, 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, supportiveenvironments, fairness, low levels of psychological contract violation, and of organizational politics can help achieve thisgoal. In addition to designing such features through organizational policies or culture, they are also more likely to bepresent 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, selectionstrategies can target applicants high in positive and low in negative affect. In the light of the effect sizes we obtained, thislatter strategy may be less impactful. Most likely, combining the macro (O) side through organizational policies andinterventions and the micro (I) side using personnel selection to recruit the right people, will achieve higher rates ofsuccess.

5.2. Limitations

As any meta-analysis, our study has a number of limitations. First, we cannot determine cause and effect because wemeta-analyzed (mostly cross-sectional) field studies rather than experiments. Thus, it is worth entertaining the possibility of reverserelationships. Cynical employees may be biased to report lower levels of support from their organizations, or more violations of theirpsychological contracts. With future research in mind, it is still to be determined whether Dilbert fuels workplace cynicism orwhether cynical people seek out Dilbert (Rogelberg, cited in Jones, 1998, p. 16). Since an insufficient number of longitudinal studieswere in our dataset, future research is necessary to establish with more clarity the causality of the relationships. Lack of informationfrom primary studies also precluded testing more complex models, involving mediating and moderating mechanisms, or modelswith a longer causal chain (e.g., cynicism to commitment to intention to quit; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).Please cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

11D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxThese can be examined in future work alongside boundary conditions not examined in this study due to the shortage of primarystudies.

Finally,we used a definition of cynicism that reflects amore 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 wereglossed over in this study.

The meta-analysis has specific strengths. First, we present a relatively comprehensive nomological network of organizationalcynicism. 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 oppositepredictors: organizational trust and cynicism. Lastly, this study helps clarify inconsistent findings in the literature (e.g., Hochwarter etal., 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 orcumulative studies. To test mediation patterns, it is necessary to construct meta-analytic matrices connecting thepredictors, mediator, and outcomes. As more data becomes available, future research can explore organizational cynicism asmediator, 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 specificorganizational change (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005, p. 436). This form of cynicism posits negative attitudesspecifically toward change-oriented initiatives. In future studies, it may be easier to establish cause-and-effect relationshipsif change-oriented cynicism is assessed. For example, employees who have been through unsuccessful change initiativesmay display subsequent increase in this context-based form of cynicism. Organizational cynicism, however, mayaccumulate in a more chronic fashion and results from the on-going interaction between the individual and his/hercontext (organization).

It is also possible for positive and negative work environment aspects to differentially influence organizational cynicismdepending on characteristics of the individual. Lack of support may lead tomore cynicism among employees who construe theirrelationships with their organization in relational rather than transactional terms. Individuals also differ in their tendency toengage 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 supportivesocial climate, which may lead to a diminished influence of the organizational climate factors on cynicism. Similarly, employeesmay react to equity or its absence as a function of their equity sensitivity which refers to individual differences in theirpreferences 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 weakerrelationship between justice and cynicism. Future research can examine these possibilities and the importance of context inrelation to individual differences.

Sources and targets of trust and cynicism can be examined, by including the extent to which these attitudes are directedtoward the other employees, the direct manager, upper management, or the organization. Dispositionally cynical (ortrustful) employees may be so toward any target, while a differential pattern may be present for employees whose trust orcynicism has a source other than their own inclinations. From an outcome standpoint, except for Naus et al. (2007) whorelated organizational cynicism to self-reports of voice, no other primary study has linked organizational cynicism tochallenging 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 initiallyengage in challenging forms of OCB as long as they feel psychological safety or they feel that coworkers or supervisorssupport them (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Future research can examine the potential positive effect of cynicism on jobperformance through challenging OCB, as some innovative ideas originate from challenging, rather than maintaining, thestatus 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 indetermining employee outcomes. In particular, in line with the conservation of resources theory, social support and positiveresources may alleviate the negative influence of organizational cynicism on employee outcomes. That is, employees with greaterpersonal or job resources (e.g., more hardy and resilient or with high job control) are less vulnerable to negative attitudes or poorperformance that arise from organizational cynicism.

6. Conclusion

With around half of the workforce described as displaying cynical attitudes and behaviors (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), employeecynicism cannot be dismissed as inconsequential. Dilbert comic strips (Feldman, 2000) and organizational artifacts and practicesthat mean to capture organizational cynicism (Costello, 1998; Kersten, 2005) are also indicative of a lasting, and possiblyascending trend. As we confirm across studies and settings, organizational cynicism is driven by both employees' dispositions andPlease cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

context, with the latter exerting a stronger influence. Organizational cynicism is related to negative attitudes (such as a lack ofcommitment and turnover intentions). It is also associated with decreased performance, to a greater extent than organizationaltrust. We suggest that more studies investigate organizational practices that can reduce employee cynicism, or factors thatdiminish 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 affectArabaci 2010 Published 217 .21 .92 .77 Job satisfactionArabaci 2010 Published 217 .36 .92 .71 StressAdams 2008 Unpublished 161 .02 .88 .95 Negative affectAdams 2008 Unpublished 161 .41 .88 .95 Org. trustBarnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .09 .84 1.00 AgeBarnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .54 .84 .88 OCBarnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .13 .84 1.00 Education levelBarnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .05 .84 1.00 Gender (m > f)Barnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .28 .84 .84 Intent to quitBarnes 2010 Unpublished 473 .09 .84 1.00 TenureBashir et al. 2011 Published 149 .26 .79 .88 POPBashir et al. 2011 Published 149 .23 .79 .77 PCVBedeian 2007 Published 356 .08 .94 1.00 AgeBedeian 2007 Published 356 .49 .94 .88 OCBedeian 2007 Published 356 .04 .94 1.00 Gender (m > f)Bedeian 2007 Published 356 .36 .94 .89 Intent to quitBedeian 2007 Published 356 .50 .94 .94 Job satisfactionBedeian 2007 Published 356 .10 .94 1.00 TenureBernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .36 .81 .82 Distributive justiceBernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .44 .81 .74 Interactional justiceBernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .34 .81 .85 Procedural justiceBernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .38 .81 .80 Overall justiceBernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .03 .81 1.00 AgeBernerth et al. 2007 Published 117 .14 .81 1.00 TenureBrandes et al. 1999 Unpublished 129 .57 .87 .89 OCBrandes et al. 1999 Unpublished 129 .09 .87 .92 Job performanceBrandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .03 .87 1.00 AgeBrandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .06 .87 1.00 Gender (m > f)Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .13 .87 .79 Negative affectBrandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .18 .87 .83 Positive affect

Brown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .16 .70 .79 StressBrown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .21 .70 1.00 TenureByrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .07 .86 1.00 AgeByrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .03 .87 1.00 AgeByrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .37 .86 .83 Negative affectByrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .30 .87 .90 Negative affectByrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .39 .86 .93 POSByrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .50 .87 .86 POSByrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .05 .86 1.00 Tenure

12 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxByrne & Hochwarter (S2) 2008 Published 256 .07 .87 1.00 TenureByrne & Hochwarter (S1) 2008 Published 143 .23 .86 .78 Job performanceDelken 2004 Unpublished 39 .09 .89 1.00 AgeDelken 2004 Unpublished 39 .25 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)Brandes et al. 2007 Published 129 .13 .87 1.00 TenureBrown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .03 .70 1.00 AgeBrown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .06 .70 1.00 Education levelBrown & Cregan 2008 Published 1214 .03 .70 1.00 Gender (m > f)Please cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

(continued)


Delken 2004 Unpublished 39 .62 .89 .86 PCVDelken 2004 Unpublished 39 .09 .89 1.00 TenureEaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 .60 .86 .85 OCEaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 124 .39 .87 .72 Negative affectEaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 .21 .86 .86 Positive affectEaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 130 .61 .86 .90 Job satisfactionEaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 124 .72 .87 .89 Job satisfactionEaton (S2) 2000 Unpublished 124 .21 .87 .82 Trait cynicismEaton (S1) 2000 Unpublished 130 .27 .86 .80 Trait cynicismEnglish & Chalon 2011 Published 1104 .34 .80 .85 OCEvans et al. 2011 Published 188 .02 .87 1.00 Gender (m > f)Evans et al. 2011 Published 188 .44 .87 .86 Job satisfactionFitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .47 .85 .92 Distributive justiceFitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .43 .85 .93 Interactional justiceFitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .53 .85 .87 Procedural justiceFitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .58 .85 .93 Overall justiceFitzgerald 2002 Unpublished 316 .11 .85 .82 Trait cynicismHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .07 .89 1.00 AgeHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .06 .89 1.00 Education levelHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .04 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)Hochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .40 .89 .82 Negative affectHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .53 .89 .85 POPHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .11 .89 .90 Positive affectHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .47 .89 .86 Job satisfactionHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .03 .89 1.00 TenureHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .11 .89 1.00 TenureHochwarter et al. 2004 Published 311 .38 .89 .82 Trait cynicismJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .41 .94 .93 Overall justiceJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .07 .94 1.00 AgeJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .04 .94 1.00 Education levelJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .11 .94 1.00 Gender (m > f)James 2005 Unpublished 360 .35 .94 .86 Negative affectJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .55 .94 .92 POPJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .05 .94 .98 Job performanceJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .65 .94 .87 POSJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .18 .94 .88 Positive affectJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .40 .94 .86 PCVJames 2005 Unpublished 360 .27 .94 .87 StressJohnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .50 .89 .87 OCJohnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .01 .89 .75 Negative affectJohnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .62 .89 .94 PCVJohnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .57 .89 .89 Job satisfactionJohnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .33 .89 .86 StressJohnson & O'Leary-Kelly 2003 Published 103 .10 .89 .82 Trait cynicismKim et al. 2009 Published 146 .02 .82 1.00 AgeKim et al. 2009 Published 146 .39 .82 .76 OCKim et al. 2009 Published 146 .05 .82 1.00 Gender (m > f)Luczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .45 .85 .81 Procedural justiceLuczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .25 .85 .87 Negative affectLuczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .40 .85 .92 Positive affectLuczywek 2007 Unpublished 247 .69 .85 .91 PCVMcCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .47 .83 .71 Procedural justiceMcCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .07 .83 1.00 AgeMcCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .04 .83 1.00 Education levelMcCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .21 .83 1.00 TenureMcCarthy & Garavan 2007 Published 520 .05 .83 1.00 TenureMcClough 1998 Published 97 .52 .85 .80 OCMcClough 1998 Published 97 .41 .85 .92 Intent to quitMcClough 1998 Published 97 .66 .85 .75 Job satisfactionMcClough 1998 Published 97 .32 .85 .80 StressMcClough 1998 Published 97 .65 .85 .86 Org. trustMino 2002 Unpublished 410 .23 .69 .85 OcMino 2002 Unpublished 410 .39 .69 .93 Org. trustNaus et al. 2007 Published 159 .05 .75 1.00 AgeNaus et al. 2007 Published 159 .05 .75 1.00 Gender (m > f)Naus et al. 2007 Published 159 .46 .75 .90 Intent to quitNaus et al. 2007 Published 159 .40 .75 .87 StressNaus et al. 2007 Published 159 .16 .75 1.00 TenurePugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .02 .92 1.00 AgePugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .01 .92 1.00 Gender (m > f)

13D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxx


14 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxReferences

*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

(continued)


Pugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .20 .92 .91 PCVPugh et al. 2003 Published 139 .78 .92 .93 Org. trustRoyle et al. 2005 Published 199 .13 .89 1.00 AgeRoyle et al. 2005 Published 199 .02 .89 1.00 Gender (m > f)Royle et al. 2005 Published 199 .39 .89 .88 Negative affectRoyle et al. 2005 Published 199 .37 .89 .89 Positive affectRoyle et al. 2005 Published 199 .04 .89 1.00 TenureSeo et al. 2011 Published 307 .25 .84 .73 OCSeo et al. 2011 Published 307 .26 .84 .60 Intent to quitStanley et al. 2005 Published 58 .24 .83 .78 Trait cynicismStanley et al. 2005 Published 58 .66 .83 .81 Org. trustTesluk et al. 1999 Published 476 .62 .85 .80 OCTesluk et al. 1999 Published 476 .60 .85 .74 Job satisfactionTreadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .13 .82 1.00 AgeTreadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .52 .82 .87 OCTreadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .02 .82 1.00 Gender (m > f)Treadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .38 .82 .88 Negative affectTreadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .58 .82 .90 PosTreadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .37 .82 .89 Positive affectTreadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .39 .82 .91 Job satisfactionTreadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .05 .82 1.00 TenureTreadway et al. 2004 Published 198 .65 .82 .87 Org. trustWilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 .04 .86 1.00 Gender (m > f)Wilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 .04 .86 .76 Job performanceWilkerson et al. 2008 Published 105 .11 .86 1.00 Tenure

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


15D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxBrief, 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.Please cite this article as: Chiaburu, D.S., et al., Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: Ameta-analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007

16 D.S. Chiaburu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2013) xxxxxxMayer, 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 o

Chiaburu Et Al. Oh (in Press JVB)

Documents

Transcript of Chiaburu Et Al. Oh (in Press JVB)